No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 46041 1� I O F'eFo ORDINANCE NO, 4604 AN ORDINANCE CONFIRMING THE ANNEXATION, THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS, OF CERTAINc� C//, PROPERTY OWNED BY LEIGH TAYLOR PROPERTIES, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2470 HWY. 112 ,` CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 29.86 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�SY0OF;7G,p By: =U'FAYETTEVILLE; SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk ; I IIIIIII IIIIII III IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII Doe ID: IIIII IIIII Illu II� IIIII IIIII IIIII IIII IIII Recorded: 09/09/20040atr02B2BR42 Pry Fee Amt: $11.00 Pace 1 of 2 Mashlnoton County. AR Bette Stamps Circuit Clerk F11e2004-00037313 c c zoo '/ 3 4604 0 EXHIBIT "A" ANX 04-06,00 THE SW '/4 OF THE NW '/4 OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 17 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST, DESCRIBED AS BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID 40 ACRE TRACT, SAID POINT OF BEGINNING BEING A SET COTTON SPINDLE; THENCE NORTH 00009'01" WEST 1312.76 FEET TO A SET COTTON SPINDLE: THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF FOREST HILLS SUBDIVISION, NORTH 89059152" EAST 1320.33 FEET TO A FOUND PINCHED IRON PIPE; THENCE SOUTH 00°15'33" EAST 1287.92 FEET TO A SET IRON PIN; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 00°15'33" EAST 26.60 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SW '/4 OF THE NW ''/4; THENCE NORTH 89055'34" WEST 1322.84 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 39.855 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS. SAID TRACT SUBJECT TO THE RIGHT OF WAY OF ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY NO. 112 ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE WEST SIDE THEREOF. IN ACCORDANCE WITH A SURVEY BY DOUGLAS HEMINGWAY DATED NOVEMBER 4, 2003. LESS AND EXCEPT THE SOUTH 3307 OF SAID PROPERTY. THE ACREAGE INCLUDED IN THE PROEPRTY TO BE ANNEXED IS 29.86 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. 0 0 Washington County, AR I certify this instrument was filed on 09109/2004 02:28:42 PM and recorded in Real Estate .File Number 200437313 Bette Stamps - Circ Clerk by RECEIVED SEP 13 204 Cl�rr CiFRK'S OFFICE IN THE COUNTY COURT OF WASHINGTON WHIP, ARKANSAS #09 FEB 17 Pm 2 00 In re: KAREN COMBS PRITCHARD ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY CONTIGUOUS CO. do PROBATE C ROooiL- 3 TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAWASHaNGTp I� PETITION FOR THE ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS Comes now the Petitioner, Cleve Branson, owner of certain real property located in Washington County, Arkansas, and petitions the Court as follows: 1. That the Petitioner, Cleve Branson, is the sole owner of certain real property located in Washington County, Arkansas, described as follows: The SW '/< of the NW '/< of Section 28, Township 17 North, Range 30 West, described as beginning at the Southwest comer of said 40 acre tract, said Point of Beginning being a set cotton spindle; thence North 00°09'01" West 1312.76 feet to a set cotton spindle; thence along the South line of Forest Hills Subdivision, North 89°59'52" East 1320.33 feet to a found pinched iron pipe; thence South 00°15'33" East 1287.92 feet to a set iron pin; thence continuing South 00°15'33" East 26.60 feet to the Southeast comer of said SW '/< of the NW '/<; thence North 89°53'34" West 1322.84 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 39.855 acres, more or less, Washington County, Arkansas. Said tract subject to the right- of-way of Arkansas State Highway No. 112 on the South side of the West side thereof. In accordance with a survey by Douglas Hemingway dated November 4, 2003. Less and Except the South 330' of said property. The acreage included in the property to be annexed is 29.86 acres more or less. 2. That all of said property is contiguous to and adjoins the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. 3. That Petitioner respectfully requests that said property be annexed to, added to, and included within the boundaries of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. 4. That Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court set a date certain for a hearing of the Petition. WHEREFORE premises considered, the Petitioner prays that this Court set a date certain for its hearing of this Petition; that the Court grant its Petition for Annexation to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas; and for all other reasonable and proper relief to which this Court deems it entitled. 4 l 8661.1:224275:01820 Respectfully submitted, Curtis E. Hogue HALL, ESTILL, HARDWICK. GABLE, GOLDEN & NELSON, P.C. One East Center Street, Suite 315 Fayetteville, AR 72701-5388 Telephone (479) 973-5200 Facsimile (479) 973-0520 ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER, CLEVE BRANSON 2 LJ NNN '�N<-' I J FOREST)�rEW RD l L "r c - - — — IL NN 1 ' �•1 If ' I a p •� r t // ANNEXATInN r j.; ' HOWARD NICKELL RD. li fl �i -1 _lu .1 ii !I zl Ll.r (,� ii(,13 �j CITY LIMITS—� HWY. i72 r`y I� 1 1. -J In1 — -A A MrarT MAP t Hawkins -Weir Engineers, Inc. PROPOSED. ANNAWTON cngnee s su rve}�rs cis na IS PART OF THE SW/4f NW14, SEC., 28, 'T-17-N, R-3O-W 110 SOUTH. 71h SI : VAN HURL+, ARKANSAS 72950 FOR: CHAD W 417E & CLEF BRANSON PH. 479 4/4-122/ fAX 479 474-8531 .4 r ol V IN THE COUNTY COURT OF WASHINGTON ffLWY, ARKANSAS 'o` FEB 17 PM 2 22 In re: KAREN COMBS PRITCHARD ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY CONTIGUOUSC0. & PROBATE CIF ? _3 TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAMSH:INCTO CM A ORDER FOR HEARING Now on this / % 4ay of February, 2004, is presented the Petition of Cleve Branson for annexation of certain lands more particularly described therein to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, and this Court does hereby set the Petition for hearing on the day of 2004 at Z Op-Z.m., in the office of the County Judge, 280 N. College, Fayetteville, Arkansas; and notice of said hearing shall be given as provided by law. ONO B JE Y HUNTON, COUNTY JUDGE 418661.1:224275:01820 VA -�?� c IN THE COUNTY COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, j\iS4 In re: L+ W w ry r— rn ZD CD ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY CONTIGUOUS M 3 TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS ? r-- rCasd-Ro. 2004-3 rn y ORDER OF ANNEXATION CID cs Now on this 19th day of March, 2004, the Petition for Annexation of Property contiguous to the City of Fayetteville, filed by Cleve Branson, comes on for hearing and the same is submitted to the Court upon said Petition, proof of publication of notice, testimony before the Court, and other evidence presented, from all of which the Court finds: 1. That the Petition for Annexation of Property Contiguous to the City of Fayetteville was duly filed in the office of the County Clerk of Washington County, Arkansas, and that an Order was made fixing the time and place for a hearing on said Petition at this date and time in the County Court of Washington County, Arkansas. 2. That legal notice of the hearing was given as required by law and such notice of the hearing was published once a week for three consecutive weeks in the Arkansas Democrat- Gazette/Norwest Arkansas Times, a newspaper published in Washington County, Arkansas. Proof of publication has been made and filed with the Clerk of this Court. 3. That the Petitioner is the owner of the property to be annexed. 4. That the owner of the proposed annexed area shall derive substantial benefit from the annexation. 5. That the area to be annexed is part of the growth area of Fayetteville, Arkansas and the extension of the corporate.boundaries is a realization of the natural growth of the City of Fayetteville. 6. That the lands to be annexed are contiguous to and adjoin the City of Fayetteville. Wa - c 1 r7 7. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, shall, according to Arkansas Code Annotated § 14-40-605 accept the annexation by ordinance. 8. That the legal description of the lands to be annexed is that property situated in Washington County, Arkansas, to wit: The S W '/< of the NW '/ of Section 28, Township 17 North, Range 30 West, described as beginning at the Southwest corner of said 40 acre tract, said Point of Beginning being a set cotton spindle; thence North 00°09 '01" West 1312.76 feet to a set cotton spindle; thence along the South line of Forest Hills Subdivision, North 89°59'52" East 1320.33 feet to a found pinched iron pipe; thence South 00015133" East 1287.92 feet to a set iron pin; thence continuing South 00°15'33" East 26.60 feet to the Southeast corner of said SW % of the NW '/; thence North 89°53'34" West 1322.84 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 39.855 acres, more or less, Washington County, Arkansas. Said tract subject to the right-of-way of Arkansas State Highway No. 112 on the South side of the West side thereof. In accordance with a survey by Douglas Hemingway dated November 4, 2003. Less and Except the South 330' of said property. The acreage included in the property to be annexed is 29.86 acres more or less. 9. That the lands to be annexed have been accurately described and an accurate map thereof made and filed with this Court and the prayer of the Petitioner is right and proper. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that the above -described lands be and hereby are, annexed to and hereby made a part of the City of Fayetteville, Washington County, Arkansas. ENTERED NUNC PRO TUNC this � dayoof March, 2004. 418670.1:224275:01820 ON RA E JERRY HUNTON, COUNTY JUDGE 2 w(3�-aIOF r� u Sandra L. Hochetetter Chairman (501)682-1455 Daryl E. Bassett Commissioner (501)882.1453 Randy Bynum Commissioner (501)682-1451 September 14, 2004 ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TAX DIVISION 1000 Center Street P.O. Box 8021 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203-8021 Phone (501) 682-1231 Fox (501) 682-6043 E-mail: taxftsc.state.ar.us Ms. Shirley Brown Washington County Deputy Clerk 280 North College Avenue, Suite 300 Fayetteville, AR 72701 Re: Annexations Dear Ms. Brown, 0 Sarah M, Bradshaw Director (501)682.1231 � O N T 073 Co rn O r m� w This is to acknowledge receipt of annexation(s) Case No. CC-2003-27: CC-2003-29, CC-2003-30, CC-2004-2, CC-2004-3, CC-2004-5, CC-2004-14 and CC-2004-15. The information has been forwarded to the appropriate utilities. Sincerely; Kathy Hu es Executive Secretary ]. A unQs)AIRA•0N/N:5t•I5/7.7.:St M7n n7. � ,gfNOW) W084 State of Arkansas a �•'�` }gin Secretary of State Onsincss & commercial senIces 682-3408�'-ED Elections 02.307 Bulldinit C Grounds 6P35 'rkNANM9 ff %(.1 [Q PM 2 6otnmunlcadons R Education 6034057 o 9lale cayiwl ruect 682-5173 ' Charlie Daniels business O/Oce 6528037 IC;•1' ((' ;nlonnatlml Technology flPD3e I Secretary of State c'11;' C.': ,,; C ��. & fH03ATE CLERK September 16, 2004 }i`i,': The Honorable Karen Combs Pritchard Washington County Clcrk 290 North College Ave. Fayetteville, AR. 72701 Dcar Ms. Pritchard: The Following Information has been recorded and filed in the Office of the Secretary of State: Date: 09/16/2004 County: Washington City: Fayetteville Annexation: Ordinance No. - 4604 Co. Order No CC-2004-3 Plat X Election Island Incorporation: Ordinance No. Co. Order No. Plat Election Census Information Ist Class City 'Lnd Class City Incorporated Town 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 682-3431. Sincerely, anna Godley Election Services Representative Room 256 State Capitol • LitOe Rock. Arkansas 72201-1094 501-682-1010 • fax 501-682-3510 e-mail- SOS@aristotle.net • www.SoS.arkancas.tgov d OE096L9189'aN/ZZ 9l'1S/SZ 9i tOOZ OZ ddS(NOW) W08j NAME OF FILE: Ordinance No. 4604 CROSS REFERENCE: Item # Date Document 1 08/17/04 Ord.4604 w/Ex. A 2 04/30/04 memo to mayor & city council 3 draft ordinance 4 copy of Petition for the Annexation 5 copy of Order for Annexation 6 copy of Order for Hearing 7 memo to Planning Commission 8 letter from fire dept. 9 letter from police dept. 10 copy of One Mile View 11 copy of Close Up View 12 1copy 4/26/04 Planning Commission minutes 13 Staff Review Form 14 letter from Chad White -Leigh Taylor Properties 15 copy of POA mtg minutes 16 copy of 1998-2002 Police Reported Crashes 17 copy of Injury Severity Levels 18 memo to Dawn Warrick 19 Affidavit of Publication 20 filed marked copy of Petition 21 exhibit map 22 filed marked copy of Order for Hearing P3 filed marked copy of Order for Annexation 24 letter from Sec. of State 25 Ifaxed letter from Public Service Commission 26 Ifaxed letter from Sec. of State orA * gl/rrloi� City Council Ming of May 18, 2004 t4 (p bq Agenda Item Number 01 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO Let 14y 4l� rt�ps s To: Mayor and City Council Thru: Tim Conklin, Community Planning and Engineering Services Director From: Dawn T. Warrick, AICP, Zoning and Development Administrator Date: April 30, 2004 Subject: Annexation for Leigh Taylor Properties (ANX 04-06.00) RECOMMENDATION Planning Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation for Leigh Taylor Properties. This action will incorporate a 29.86 acre tract of land contiguous with the city limits to the south into the City of Fayetteville. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. BACKGROUND The subject property is 29.86 acres and located in north Fayetteville, north and east of Highway 112. The subject property is a part of a larger 40 acre tract under common ownership. The southern 10 acres is already within the City of Fayetteville and zoned R- A, Residential Agricultural. The property is adjacent to Forest Hills Estates within the Planning Area to the north. To the east is a portion of one intervening property from the Planning Area boundary. This tract of land is within an area proposed to be annexed by the City of Johnson and will.be voted on by the citizens of Johnson and affected property owners on May 11, 2004. Staff believes the applicant submitted a petition for annexation to the County prior to the Johnson's call for election. The applicant submitted an accompanying rezoning request for the entire 40 acre tract. That request was tabled by the Planning Commission to allow for further consideration and discussion regarding public concerns of traffic volume and safety, density, and possible development plans. Proposal: The applicant requests annexation into the City of Fayetteville. DISCUSSION On April 26, 2004, the Planning Commission voted 6-0-0 to forward this item to the City Council with a recommendation for approval. The accompanying rezoning request was tabled. BUDGETIMPACT None. q°� g/3 /off Aii6r��` 7/z01o4 pleinn; c5� -�o ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE CONFIRMING THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS, OF CERTAIN PROPERTY OWNED BY LEIGH TAYLOR PROPERTIES, LLC FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2470 HWY. 112 CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 29.86 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. APPROVED: Dan Coody, Mayor ATTEST: Sondra Smith, City Clerk EXHIBIT "A" t ANX 04-06.00 THE SW '/4 OF THE NW '/4 OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 17 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST, DESCRIBED AS BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID 40 ACRE TRACT, SAID POINT OF BEGINNING BEING A SET COTTON SPINDLE; THENCE NORTH 00009'01" WEST 1312.76 FEET TO A SET COTTON SPINDLE: THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF FOREST HILLS SUBDIVISION, NORTH 89059152" EAST 1320.33 FEET TO A FOUND PINCHED IRON PIPE; THENCE SOUTH 00°15'33" EAST 1287.92 FEET TO A SET IRON PIN; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 00°15'33" EAST 26.60 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SW '/4 OF THE NW '/4; THENCE NORTH 89055'34" WEST 1322.84 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 39.855 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS. SAID TRACT SUBJECT TO THE RIGHT OF WAY OF ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY NO. 112 ON THE SOUTH. SIDE OF THE WEST SIDE THEREOF. IN ACCORDANCE WITH A SURVEY BY DOUGLAS HEMINGWAY DATED NOVEMBER 4, 2003. LESS AND EXCEPT THE SOUTH 330' OF SAID PROPERTY. THE ACREAGE INCLUDED IN THE PROPERTY TO BE ANNEXED IS 29.86 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. IN THE COUNTY COURT OF. WASHINGTON ggLut 'Y, ARKANSAS '04 FEB 17 PIS 2 00 In re: 1-1RE1 COMBS P RITCHARC ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY CONTIGUOUS CO, h PROBATE C R1Q0u*.3 TO THE CITY OFFAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAWASH1NGTOF sj, �{�-- PETITION FOR THE ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY CONTIGUOUS TO THE. CITY OF FAVETTEVILLE. ARKAA NSAS Comes now the Petitioner, Cleve Branson, owner of certain real property located in Washington County, Arkansas, and petitions the Court as follows: 1. That the Petitioner, Cleve Branson, is the sole owner of certain real property located in Washington County, Arkansas, described as follows: The SW '/. of the NW '/. of Section 28, Township 17 North, Range 30 West, described as beginning at the Southwest comer of said 40 acre tract, said Point of Beginning being a set cotton spindle; thence North 00`09'01" West 1312.76 fed to a set cotton spindle; thence along the South line of Forest Hills Subdivision, North 89059'52" East 1320.33.feet to a found pinched iron pipe; thence South 00015733" East 1287.92 feet to a set iron pin; thence continuing South 00° 15'33" East 26.60 feet to the Southeast comer of said SW '/. of the NW '/.; thence North 89°53'34" West 1322,84 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 39.855 acres, more or less, Washington County, Arkansas. Said tract subject to the right- of-way of Arkansas State Highway No. 112 on the South side of the West side thereof. In accordance with a survey by Douglas Hemingway dated November 4, 2003. Less and Except the South 330' of said property. The acreage included in the property to be annexed is 29.86 acres more or less. 2. That all of said property is contiguous to and adjoins the City of Fayetteville, H d HOZ H HVOW H8310 OOVM WO83 3. That Petitioner respectfully requests that said property be annexed to, added to, and included within the boundaries of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. 4. That Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court set a date certain for a hearing of the Petition. WHEREFORE premises considered, the Petitioner prays that this Court set a date certain for its hearing of this Petition; that the Court grant its Petition for Annexation to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas; and for all other reasonable and proper relief to which this Court 41&MI.1224275:01820 Respectfully submitted, Curtis E. Hogue HALL, ESTILL, HARDWICK. CABLE, GOLDEN & NELSON, P.C. One East Center Street, Suite 315 Fayetteville, AR 72701-5388 Telephone (479) 973-5200 Facsimile (479) 973-0520 ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER, CLEVE BRANSON 2 5I d IV0NW900N/£Z:II'18/8Z:II VOOZ H 800H) NUID 00vM w081 IN THE COUNTY COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS � o In re: ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY CONTIGUOUS o ro r. TO THE CITY OF FAYETTE VILLE, ARKANSAS Co a' tton� Wase:io. 2M4-3 C rn. v � ORDER OF ANNEXATION `.> C' co m c, Now on this 19th day of March, 2004, the Petition for Annexation opPity contiguous to .the City of Fayetteville, filed by Cleve Branson, comes on for hearing and the same is submitted to the Court upon said Petition, proof of publication of notice; testimony before the Court, and other evidence presented, from all of which the Court finds: 1. That the Petition for Annexation of Property Contiguous to the City of Fayetteville was duly filed in the office of the County Clerk of Washington County, Arkansas; and that an Order was made fixing the time and place for a hearing on said Petition at this date and time in the County Court of Washington County, Arkansas. 2. That legal notice of the hearing was given as required by law and such notice of the hearing was published once a week for three consecutive weeks in the Arkansas Democrat- Gazette/Norwest Arkansas Times, a newspaper published in Washington County, Arkansas. Proof of publication has been made and filed with the Clerk of this Court. 3. That the Petitioner is the owner of the property to be annexed. 4. That the owner of the proposed annexed area shall derive substantial benefit from the annexation. 5. That the area to be annexed is part of the growth area of Fayetteville, Arkansas and the extension of the corporate boundaries is a realization of the natural growth of the City of Fayetteville. 6. That the lands to be annexed are contiguous to and adjoin the City of Fayetteville, iiAq"4 t/ > • IN THE COUNTY COURT OF WASHINGTON Mif'Y,.ARKANSAS FEB 17 PM 2 22 In re: KAREN-COMBS RRITCHARp ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY CONTIGUOUSCO. &, PROBATE Cl F �r -3 TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAMAS'y:1;NgT0,� e A ORDER FOR HEARING Now on this /'/ lay of February, 2004, is presented the Petition of Cleve Branson for annexation of certain lands _more .particularly described therein to the .City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, and this Court does. hereby set the Petition for hearing on the day of. 2004 at / -Z.m., in the office of the County Judge, 280 N. College, Fayetteville, Arkansas; and notice of said hearing shall be given as provided bylaw. 418661.1?2427501820 VA-s�9 Ago Cleve Hranson December 19, 2003 If WET Job No. 03277A LEGAL DESCRIPTION NO. 3 PROPERTY TO BE ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE The SW '/A of the NW '/. of Section 28, Township 17 North, Range 30 West, described as beginning at the Southwest comer of said 40 acre tract, said Point of Beginning being a set cotton spindle; thence North 00'09'01"West 1312.76 feet to a set cotton spindle: thence along the South line of Forest hills Subdivision, North 89"59'52" Fast 1320.33 feet to a found pinched iron pipe; thence South 00015133" East 1287.92 feet to a set iron pin; thence continuing. South 00"15'33" East 26.60 feet to the Southeast comer of said SW '/4 of the NW ''/.; thence North 89"55134" West 1322,64 feet to the Point or Beginning, containing 39.855 acres, more or less, Washington County, Arkansas. Said tract subject to the right-of-way of Arkansas State Highway No. 112 on the South side of the West side thereof. In accordance with a survey by Douglas Hemingway dated November 4, 2003. Less and Except the South 330' of said property_ The acreage included in the property to be annexed is 29.86 acres more or less. \03177MLEGAL DESCIUMONSAd It FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS PC Meeting of April 26, 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: April 20, 2004 ANX 04-06.00: Annexation (Leigh Taylor Properties, pp 169) was submitted by R. Chad White on behalf of Leigh Taylor Properties, LLC for property located at 2470 Hwy. 112. The property is currently in the Planning Area and contains approximately 29.86 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): YES BACKGROUND: Property description: The subject property contains approximately 29.86 acres of vacant property located north of Highway I I2/Howard Nickell Rd and east of Highway 112. The property is adjacent to the city limits along its southern boundary where it abuts property owned by the applicant. Hills Estate subdivision is located to the north of this site and Lynn -Leigh Hill Estates is south of Hwy 112. Proposal: The applicant proposes the annexation of property into the City of Fayetteville. A rezoning request for this property in conjunction with the property to the south has been submitted for this property. Request: The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. K:VtEP0RM0041PC REPOR7B104-26-04WNX 04-06.00 LEIGH MYLOR PROPERTIFS.DOC 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 29.86 acres, plus anadditional 10 acres to the south, to RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4 Units per Acre. The rezoning request, RZN 04-12.00, 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, thereby allowing for a uniform and consistent standard of development. 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, it allows for 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 limit boundary. 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 are typically required to develop within City specifications for street construction. However, other requirements such as parks, detention, grading and drainage, zoning/land use, tree preservation, etc. are not within the City's ability to control. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the proposed annexation. The subject property is adjacent to the City of Fayetteville and will create an appropriate city boundary. Future changes or additional development on this site will be regulated by the city allowing for more uniform and consistent development pattern. K. IREPORTS11004PC REPORTS104-16-04WNX 04-06.00 LAUGH TAYLOR PROPERTIESDOC P SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING Direction Land Use Zoning North Single-family (Forest Hills Estates Planning Area South Vacant R-A, Residential Agricultural East Single-family Planning Area West Single-family Planning Area INFRASTRUCTURE: Streets: Highway 112, a state highway, is located to the south and west of this property. Improvements to infrastructure will be assessed at the time of development. Surrounding Master Street Plan Streets: North: Forest View Rd (local street) South: Highway 112 & Howard Nickell Rd (principal arterial) East: Cris Hollow Rd. (local street) West: Highway 112 (principal arterial) Water: The property currently has access to a 6" water line along Highway 112. An extension of the water main will be required to provide water supply within any development on this property. Sewer: Sewer will need to be extended to serve this site. The nearest sewer main is located to the east at Van Asche Drive. The developers engineer will need to provide calculations to show that there is adequate capacity in the Highway 112 lift station. Upgrades to this station and/or force main may be required. Fire: The subject property is located 3.6 miles from the Fire Station #2. Normal driving time is 5 min. 56 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. The access to this development is a concern. The intersections of Hwy 112 and Howard Nickle Road as well as Hwy 112 and Deane Solomon are dangerous. There is a hillcrest, which makes pulling out from Deane Solomon hazardous. The curve at the intersection with Howard Nickle has been a factor in many accidents. These two intersections have had 31 accidents in just over three years. The police department recommends the access to this area should be placed as far from these two intersections as possible. Access into future development shall be reviewed for safety at the time a development proposal is submitted to the city. kIREPORT812004WC REPORM04-26-04WNX 04-06.00 LEIGH TAYLOR PROPERTLESDOC LAND USE PLAN: General Plan 2020 designates this site as Residential. FINDINGS: 11.6 ANNEXATION GUIDING POLICIES 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 extend an existing peninsula to the north. The extension will; however create an appropriate boundary due to the area and configuration of the parcel. No island will be created by annexing the subject property. 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 south for approximately 1290 feet. 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. 11.6.d Boundaries for annexed areas should follow natural corridors. Finding: Proposed boundaries follow property lines. 11.6.e Timing of services within annexation areas should be considered. Finding: Current conditions result in a response time of just less than 6 minute for fire protection from the Fire Station #2. Any development in this area would necessitate installation of hydrants to provide for fire protection. Sewer will need to be extended to serve this site. The nearest sewer main is located to the east at Van Asche Drive. In addition, calculations shall be provided to show that there is adequate capacity in the Highway 112 lift station. Upgrades to this station and/or force main may be required. Sewer will need to be extended with development. K IREPOR7SV004WC REPORTS104-26-04NNX 04-06.00 LHGH TAYLOR PROPERTFUL)OC ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS 11.6. f Annex environmentally sensitive areas that could be impacted by development and utilize appropriate development regulations to protect those areas. Finding: N/A EMERGENCY AND PUBLIC SERVICES 11.6.g Public services must be able to be provided efficiently in newly annexed areas. Finding: The police department reports that current levels of service would not be compromised and that coverage in this area can be provided. Location of access to the property to ensure the safety of the public shall be considered at the time of development. Sewer will need to be extended to serve this site. The nearest sewer main is located to the east at Van Asche Drive, 11.61 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 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 terns 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. K-VIEPORTM004WC REPOR71104-26-04WNX04-06.00 LEIOH TAYLOR PROPERT7ESDOC Finding: The proposed annexation is not part of a phased annexation initiated by the City. This tract of land is within an area proposed to be annexed by the City of Johnson and will be voted on by the citizens of Johnson and affected property owners on May 11, 2004, INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS 11.6.m Promote long-range planning with adjacent jurisdictions. Finding: Annexation of this property will adjoin Fayetteville city limits with Johnson city limits at the northeastern most corner of the subject property. 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 RSF4, Residential single family, 4 units/acre. This zoning designation is compatible with 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 Departmentto 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 been submitted to the Planning Division; however, no application for development has been received. At the time the applicant desires to development the property, the applicant will be required to submit project plans for review and approval by the Planning Commission. K: WEPORT5120041PC REPOR75104-26-04WNX 04-06. 00 LEIGH TAYLOR PROPERTIES DOC 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. 11.6.w Encourage larger annexations to create acceptable boundaries. Finding: This annexation includes 29.86 acres owned by Leigh Taylor Properties, Inc. and represented by Art Scott of Project Design. The combined requests create a reasonable boundary avoiding the creation of unusual boundary lines. 11.6.t Conduct a fiscal impact assessments on large annexations. Finding: N/A KU?EPORT W0041PC REPOR7MO4-26-04W NX 04-06.00 LFIGH TAYLOR PROPERT7ESDOC From Fayetteville General Plan 2020 — 2002 Revision 11.6 Annexation Guiding Policies Boundaries 11.6.a Annex existing islands and peninsulas and do not annex areas that would create an island or peninsula. 11.6.b Proposed annexation area must be adjacent, or contiguous, to city limits. 11.6.c Areas should either include or exclude entire subdivisions or neighborhoods, not divide. 11.6.d Boundaries for annexed areas should follow natural corridors. 11.6.e Timing of services within annexation areas should be considered. Environmentally Sensitive Areas 11.6. f Annex environmentally sensitive areas that could be impacted by development and utilize appropriate development regulations to protect those areas. Emergency and Public Services 11.6.g Public services must be able to be provided efficiently in newly annexed areas. 11.61 . Annexed areas should receive the same level of service of areas already in the city limits. 11.6.i The ability to provide public services should be evaluated in terms of equipment, training of personnel, number of units and response time. Infrastructure and Utilities l 1.6.j Areas currently served by utilities and other public services should be annexed. 11.61 Proposed annexation areas should not require the upgrading of utilities to meet the demands of development unless there is a threat to public safety. 11.6.1 Phased annexation should be initiated by the City within active annexation areas based on planned service extensions or availability of services. Intergovernmental Relations 11.6.m Promote long-range planning with adjacent jurisdictions. 11.6.n Establish agreements to address regional concerns, such as water, storrnwater 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. 11.6.r Residents should be fully informed of annexation activities. 11.6.w Encourage larger annexations to create acceptable boundaries. l 1.6.t Conduct a fiscal impact assessments on large annexations. K IREPOR78120041PC REPOR7MO4-26-04WNX 04-06.00 LFJGH TAYLOR PROPERTIES.DOC Rpr21 04 10:30a Oanny0rrar (50.11) *-3447 p.2 1 FAYETTEVILLE .FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE From: Fite prevention Bureau To: Planning Division REZONING XX ANNEXATION XX REZONING # .04-12.66 OWNER Leigh Taylor Prop ANNEXATONNE_ 04-06.00_ LOCATION OF OWNER Leigh Tavler prop PROPERTY 2470 Hwy, 112 NEAREST FIRE STATION AND LOCATION Station #2, : 708 N. and. RESPONSE TIME FROM FIRE STATION # 2 TO LOCATION OF PROPERTY _�, SANDS. TRAVEL MILES FROM FIRE STATION # 2 TO LOCATION OF PROPERTY. miles COMMENTS ON REON EDFI�PT, ACCESS/ROAD WAYS EXISTING FIRE HYDRANIW IF SO LOCATION Hwy, 112 at Deane Solomon WATER SUPPLY WITH HYDRANTS NEEDED?_. Yea ADDITIONAL MAW OFFICE 115 SOUTH CHURCH ST. (501) 4443448 / (501) 4443449 FAX (501) 575-8272 SU T N N.W MALL e( 57 271 FAX WI) 57543 2 FAME .IEVILLE 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, kEIVED APR 2 0 2004 PLANNING DIV, POLICE DEPARTMENT This document is in response to the request for a determination of whether the proposed ANX 04-06.00 Annexation (Leigh Taylor Properties, pp 169) and RZN 0442.00 Rezoning (Leigh Taylor Properties, pp 169) submitted by Chad White on behalf of Leigh Taylor Properties„ LLC for property located at 2470 Hwy. 112 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. The access to this development is a concern. The intersections of Hwy 112 and Howard Nickle Road as well as Hwy 112 and Deane Solomon are dangerous. There is a hillcrest, which makes pulling out from Deane Solomon hazardous. The curve at the intersection with Howard Nickle has been a factor in many accidents. In fact, these two intersections have had 31 accidents in just over three years. The access to this area should be places as far from these two intersections as possible. Sincerely, Lieutenant WilliamVrown Fayetteville Police Department ETTEVILLE POUGE DEPARTMENT (QEERIES) POLICE 100-A WEST ROCK STREET 72701 ETT TrEVILLILL W- JAIL' 140-A WEST ROCK STREET 72701 E, ARKANSAS T2702-1988 PHONE S01-5873555 FAX.501-587-3522 Ah (il ANX04-06.00 LEIGH TAYLOR PROPERTIES Close Up View . } ,1 S �p' a ...............................................................................::............. . ...........:.::..:..:....:::::: ....::::.:..................... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: iuiiiiif iiiiiiiiiiEii2iiiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii2iiiiiiiiiiEii • .... :...... it ..®.ERTY ........................................................................... ............................................................................................. .............................................................................................. It it E r s� 9 -1. 0 175 350 700 1.050 1.400 Feet E Planning Commission April26, 2004 ANX 04-06.00: Annexation (Leigh Taylor Properties, pp 169) was submitted by R. . Chad White on behalf of Leigh Taylor Properties, LLC for property located at 2470 Hwy. 112. The property is currently in the Planning Area and contains approximately 29.86 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. RZN 04-12.00: Rezoning (Leigh Taylor Properties, pp 169) was submitted by R. Chad White on behalf of Leigh Taylor Properties, LLC. The property is currently zoned R-A, Residential Agricultural, and contains approximately 39.86 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 another annexation, it is ANX 04-06.00 for Leigh Taylor Properties. If we could have the staff report please. Morgan: This request was submitted by Chad White on behalf of Leigh Taylor Properties for property located at 2470 Hwy. 112. The request is to annex approximately 29.86 acres into the City of Fayetteville. If you look on page 10.12 that identifies the approximately 30 acre tract that is requested to be annexed into the city. The accompanying rezoning for Leigh Taylor Properties is a request to rezone this 30 acre tract as well as the 10 acre tract of land just north of Hwy. 112 to RSF-4. The annexation is 30 acres and the rezoning is for approximately 40 acres. Fire and Police have reviewed this item. It is approximately 5 minutes 56 seconds from Fire Station 2 and Police have reported that this annexation will not substantially alter the population density. However, they did comment that access to this site would be of concern due to the intersection of Hwy. 112 and Howard Nickle as well as Hwy. 112 and Deane Solomon. Access into future development will be reviewed for safety at the time of development when there is a development proposal submitted to the city. Improvements to street systems will be reviewed also at the time of development and staff finds that this is an appropriate location for annexation into the city. As I mentioned earlier, they are requesting a rezoning of this 30 acre tract as well as the additional 10 acres to the south. Staff finds that this proposed zoning for single family residential is compatible with the land use to the north and the south. There are two subdivisions in either direction. Property to the south within the city limits is zoned RSF-4 at this time as well as R-A. Staff finds that the zoning is consistent with the future land use map and existing development within this area. Public comment has been received regarding this proposal with regard to density, lot size and traffic volume. However, staff finds that in accordance with findings from other divisions such as Engineering, Fire and Police, staff is recommending approval of ANX 04-06.00 and RZN 04-12.00. Ostner: Thank you. Is the applicant here? Planning Commission April26, 2004 Hogue: Good evening, my name is Curtis Hogue. I'm an attorney in Fayetteville here on behalf of the applicant. I actually represented the applicant through the annexation process of the county. In reading the recommendation from staff and in looking at the findings made and the recommendations made and there was reference made to extenuating circumstances on this particular annexation. I'm not sure in particular what those are although 1 think that there are a number that apply here. In particular, as noted by the staff recommendation of this parcel 10 acres are within the city. We are asking to annex the entire parcel to bring it all into the city and then allow the total rezoning. 1 know that there are a couple of specific issues that were addressed in this. With me is Art Scott who is handling the engineering on behalf of the applicant and I'm sure can address some of those particular issues that were brought up in the report. Scott: I think there were a number of pretty good concerns. First of all, if it was my property next door I would want to know what the density was too. The RSF-4 does allow for four units per acre. This developer is intending to build an upscale sized sort of premium lot in that zoning. It is a minimum of 80', which the zoning allows for 70' and then the normal depths are 130' to 140', which is another 30' or 40' larger in the rear than would be allowed by the typical zoning. The entire 40 acres would end up with their intention is around 108 to 110 units which is 2/3 of the maximum density. There will be a 2,400 minimum square foot home. The access and the proximity to that comer where Hwy. 112 makes that 90' comer would be a concern. We have on the south side very good visibility in both directions from where we intend to apply only one access point on the south and we only intend to have one access point on the west side on Hwy. 112 also with a stub out for connectivity to the north and to the east and both of those have Y< mile along Hwy. 112 with very good visibility in both directions for access. Also, one other concern was drainage and that is always a concern when the development of 40 acres takes place. We will have to abide by all the city codes and detain any water before it leaves the site and keep it to a pre -development level so that shouldn't be a concern for the future and for the downstream properties. I will answer any questions you might have. Ostner: At this point I will move it to the public comment period. Are there people who would like to comment on this item? Futral: My name is Charlie Futral and I have property adjoining this property. I'm on the north side. I sit on one acre of land. I'm in the Forest Hills subdivision which is to the north here. I've lived here for nine years. We have a very established neighborhood. The houses surrounding this property are very established. My neighbors directly to the north of me sit on 1 %2 to 2 acres. My neighbors directly to the west of me who adjoin this have approximately 2 acres. His neighbor who adjoins this property Planning Commission April26, 2004 has approximately 3 %2 to 4 acres I believe. Throughout our neighborhood we are not equal to what they are designing here. You are talking about 80' lots here, we sit on one acre plots. Yes there are some properties in there that are less than one acre but not many. Most of them have multiple acres, up to 8 acres within our particular subdivision. Across the street to the west you have approved zoning for 2 acre lots. We had 4 acres and then you all came back with 2 acre lots. That is nowhere near this kind of density and there is nothing in our neighborhood that has this kind of density going on. The density is one of the primary concerns that we have as it relates to this property. We have several concerns that relate to density. One is property values as it relates to us and it relates to the whole neighborhood, not just our particular subdivision but in each direction from us. As we look at this we don't see that this is enhancing our property values out in the area where we are at. The concerns that relate to the density is the safety issue. What he just addressed on this curve, this is a curve where we have had two fatalities in the last nine years that I've lived here. There have been two fatalities, that is adjoining this property that is immediately on the southwest comer of this property. That doesn't include, I don't know the number of wrecks that have occurred along this stretch of road. It is a dangerous piece of road. It is a dangerous piece of road because it is narrow, because it doesn't have good visibility and because of the speed and the direction that cars come into. Mainly it is a narrow piece of road. It is a state highway that the City of Fayetteville is not going to come in and rebuild and neither is the developer. With all good intentions, everyone is trying to manage growth as it goes out into the community and one of the things that was talked about here this evening was the appropriateness of what is RSF-4. My concern and what I would like to suggest is that this be a RSF-1, one house per acre as the density issue. It raises the property values on the thing, it doesn't inculcate 250 or more cars into this dangerous situation of where fatalities are already occurring, they are on the record. We had a runner just down the street on Hwy. 112 as you come around the curve to the drive in theater along that stretch, we had a runner who was hit and killed a few years ago. You may remember that. There is the third fatality in less than 9 years. As we look at this the density is a real issue. One of the things that was mentioned here as we were listening closely to what was being said is that RSF-4 on a flat plain makes sense that you can see where you are going. It spreads it out. This is a rolling hill country that you are coming into. Another one of the big issues and concerns on this is that when you look at this plat, this is obviously not approved. It is the one that you all have probably all seen and had across your desk as you look at this approach. Ostner: No. Futral: May I bring it up? Planning Commission April26, 2004 Ostner: Sure. Futral: For what it is worth, you need to see what is about to go in here. This is the plat that they have presented as an informal plat. Here is the dangerous curve, here is our subdivision. These are all one acre lots and more coming through here and if you watch this these are tree lines. These are all just trees but what you are seeing here, this area and this whole 1/3 of the property is a low area. These are trees in water. Their idea is that they are going to put a ditch as lots back up to each other and they are going to carry the water through here. This water is coming off of all this slope, all of this basin back over here which includes the development from Clear Creek. Clear Creek now is flowing water through our neighborhood which is an issue for me and for other neighbors there. It goes immediately into this neighborhood here at the north end of this and they think that they are going to handle it down here with an engineered detention pond. I don't think so. Especially after what we just saw this week as it goes through here. This is also a boggy area down through here. Now we are going to put density into a boggy area, not a flat area and not a nice dry area. We are going to go in and we are going to completely cut the trees and we are going to reshape this land to insert this kind of density. In a neighborhood where you have one acre lots, modest in many cases, not so modest in other cases. We have homes out in our area that would approach close to a million dollars and we have land that have been platted across the street that are 2 acre lots, 4 acre lots, that are not scheduled to carry this size of a home on it. What is going to happen to that gentlemen's property values as he goes along? I think density is the culprit here and it is the concern that we all have. Some of the reasons and things that are attached to it are safety on the roads. This is a very real. issue out there. We already have proof of it with the fatalities that have occurred and the wrecks that occur. We also have land that is a rolling hill country. In this particular location and what I'm showing you here with these tree lines where the water flows, these are dry creek beds. Think of it like a bowl and what you are doing is our neighborhood is sloping into that bowl, the west is coming into that bowl and the east is flowing around and into that bowl. Their property, roughly 1/37 25% to 30% of it is the bottom of the bowl as the water flows through it. One other thing, I would like to ask that the number of people that are here that are concerned about this raise their hands so that we have some sense of the neighborhood that has come to see you this evening. There are many neighbors here and some of which have lived here for 30 years, some of which have been here for 2 years and many of us that have been here for several years. Ron has been here since 1962 on this property so we are really very established and appreciate your concern and consideration with this. Planning Commission April26, 2004 Approximately 25 people raised hands McWhorter: My name is Rick McWhorter, I have property that is adjacent to the north side of this property right across the street from Charlie Futral. I don't know if you are aware but to go along with the density issue we received a report that came across from the Educator. It is a news letter from the Fayetteville Public Schools. One of the things that came out was a map showing large areas of development. In this blue area is exactly the property that we are looking at, or at least it is within that. if you were to count up and this map is not very good to be able to identify the actual number of homes, but if you were to count up the number of homes that are in these developed areas that are already either approved or in the process then we are looking at anywhere from around 600 new homes to around roughly 1,200 give or take. The school system figures one child per three lots is what their formula is. This would add a tremendous overflow to the school system, in particular the elementary school district that this serves. Holcomb Elementary School District is already in the .process of having to build six new kindergarten classrooms to service a school system that is almost at full capacity already without even considering this development. When you start adding onto this you are adding a problem that is not just traffic, not just safety, not just drainage, but we are adding an issue that deals with public education here within the City of Fayetteville. As you are aware with the vision 2010 that is posted right behind you. You look at point 11, Quality and you start adding more and more student possibility in this area to an overflowing school then that is even creating more of a problem. I would like for you to consider that because I think Charlie was very eloquent in what he said. My other concern is the road through or at least the way we have seen the layout of the road through that would tie into Woodside Drive. The concern is the traffic flow through there and the service vehicles that would go through there and those kinds of concerns that we do not have at this point in time that I would hope you would consider keeping us from having that. We appreciate your time and we appreciate your concern. I think Charlie was very good at pointing out that drainage and density are major issues. Thank you. Myers: I'm William Myers, I also live just, to the north of the area. I'm certainly not going to go into as much detail but 1 would like to reinforce what Charlie has said. Particularly our concern is the population density and the traffic safety. For whatever it means I was bom in Fayetteville in 1934 so I remember when the first traffic lights were put in in Fayetteville and you can't imagine the fuss that caused. 1 did some mental arithmetic and depending on however many children you expect people to have that is going to be a population density out there between 6,000 and 8,000 per square mile. I don't know what to compare that to but you guys can do that. The other thing I would express my concern about is the traffic. I Planning Commission April26, 2004 drive from my home out there to the University of Arkansas every morning and have done so for the past 18 years. The traffic is getting worse and worse and worse. If you look at the small development immediately to the south across Hwy. 112 from this corner the fencing company has a pretty good business of repairing the fence there where cars go a little bit too fast, miss the curve and go through the fence. Hwy. I ] 2 which used to be an unpaved road that I hiked on as a boy scout, has become a very dangerous place to drive on. I hope you will not make it more dangerous. Thank you very much. Ostner: Thank you Sir. Clark: Good evening, my name is John Clark. I do think Charlie covered most bases. I would just simply add that RSF-4 is too dense for this area. I really can't add much more than what has already been said except to say that even though the visibility is good on those entrances, it is a dangerous venture to pull out on Hwy. 112 under the best circumstances. We would ask the Commission to do the right thing and consider a less dense rezoning there. The annexation, I think most of us welcome the annexation. Thank you. Forbes: I am Bill Forbes. I live right across the street from John Clark. We have a 3" water main, what is going to happen to our water pressure from . Fayetteville? Casey: If this property is to be annexed and rezoned and if we see a development proposal on this property at that time we will look at the public infrastructure, water and sewer, and make sure tat there is adequate capacity to serve the development. If the capacity does not exist it will be up to the developer to provide the capacity for the area. Forbes: We are already developed. Casey: The developer of this property would have to. supply the infrastructure to make sure there was adequate capacity to serve their property and also make sure there is no negative impact on the existing customers. Forbes: Thank you. We have 26 houses on over 40 acres. As Charlie said just very few of them are on one acre or 1/4 acre plots. Whoever was here before, we also have deer, quail, dove, they will be gone forever. The water detention, it appears on the plat like it is one lot, 100'x40', is that correct? Scott: This is still in the preliminary stages. Planning Commission April26, 2004 Ostner. Excuse me Sir, you need to address us and we will ask him and that will keep things moving. Forbes: If it fills up where does the water go? 26 of those lots that they have platted there are right on Hwy. 112. Instead of getting a fence knocked out you are going to have a home knocked out. Today I walked down there and they were surveying on the flat area while we were cutting yards and everybody doing fine, they were stuck in the mud down there with the surveyors. They were stuck in the mud down there Thursday before the big rains came. They are walking around out there in the flattest part with long boots on and doing a pretty good job. We have been a good friend to Fayetteville. We live about 400' out of the city limits. We have paid you guys for our fire insurance and the price got dearer and dearer. We have called you two times in 30 years. As far as calling the police I don't think we ever have and we sure don't need this right next to us. Thank you. Kemp: Hello, my name is Jeff Kemp, I'm involved with the development near this subject property so I'm somewhat familiar with it and the area. I just once again, want to reinforce the problem that I think this density will pose as far as traffic. Not only do you have the 90° turn on Hwy. 112 on the southwest corner of the property. You also have Cris Hollow Road on the east side just as you top a hill Cris Hollow pulls out and I know from experience it is kind of a take your chances and pull out on. I just can't imagine the density of RSF-4 traffic in that area. Ostner: If I could I would like to remind everyone to keep your comments short and if someone has already said what you are going to say just agree with them. Wheeler: My name is Joan Wheeler, my late husband bought 40 acres south of this property in about 1968 and the back of my house faces Hwy. 112. It is my fence that they come through on a regular basis. The traffic is so bad out there 1 can't even imagine how dangerous it would be with that many houses added to that area. I hope that you won't consider the RSF-4. Butcher: I'm Betty Butcher and this is my husband Perry. We live south, we are a neighbor of Joan's and we live south on Deane Solomon three houses down. People have come up and talked about the traffic. Most of the neighbors here are going north around the curve up to their homes there. I have to stop and turn south on Deane Solomon, which is approximately where they would put the opening of that subdivision. I cannot even explain to you how dangerous that is. You cannot see when you are looking at the Howard Nickle Road you cannot see what is coming, it is a blind spot and it is just right there. To have people coming out and turning left towards town on there with the amount of traffic going over there would just be suicide. It is a terrible idea. Thank you. Planning Commission April26, 2004 Ostner: Are there any other comments? Riser: Hello, my name is Randall Riser and I'm a neighbor of everyone here that you have heard from already and I concur with everything that they have said. It is true beyond what you can even imagine if you haven't ever lived out there. One other thing that I would like to bring up is that the development that they are trying to put in here does not even fit the landscape of this area. This is a development you would see in downtown Dallas or some place like that. This should be planned better for the City of Fayetteville in my opinion. Thank you very much. Ostner: Is there anyone else? Futral: I know you all are really tired. I'm Anna Futral. In line with what he just said, there is not a TOPO map reflected with this plat and I think that the lay of the land is an issue. Ostner: Thank you. Are there any other comments from the public? Baird: I'm Laurie Baird and our property would be the one directly north to where this development is proposed. We have got five kids and we come out of that neighborhood and just coining here this evening I had to sit there forever trying to get out of the neighborhood and turning left. I have a true concern with all my kids going to the school there with all those houses how are we even going to get in and out of the neighborhood safely? I know I don't let my kids go on Hwy. 112 at all but just the cars and the traffic, I've assisted in some of those accidents. My husband has directed traffic as I've held bodies until the EMS unit can get there. I am really concerned about the density of all these houses that are going to be in there. Our square footage is about 4,000 sq.ft. in our home and we have an acre and a half and it isn't adding up right to having four houses per acre right next door to us with that much traffic too. I would like for you to consider that. Thank you. Moore: I'm Benny Moore, we live at the northwest comer across the road from this development. We just got through building a new home and hopefully the development will compare with our house and look similar to it is what we were hoping. The north of us.all of the homes are larger homes. I think Tyson has a minimum of 3,200 sq.ft. The 2 '/z acre blocks south of us have 3,200 sq.ft. minimum. Hopefully we won't get into this compacted settlement there. As far as safety, we have lived there about 20 years on the property and there have been deaths in that area and lots of wrecks. It is not a safe corner. Thank you. Planning Commission . April26, 2004 Ostner: Do we have anymore comments from the public? Seeing none, 1 will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. Once again, we are discussing them together and we will vote on them separately. Vaught: I think we need to discuss them separately in one respect with the fact that the annexation, I know this property is also being looked at by Johnson to be annexed. To me that adds a little bit more priority if we want control of what happens on this acreage we need to look at the annexation more seriously. If Johnson annexes it in, I don't know how the timing works. I know that they have a vote coming up but apparently I think Dawn was telling us since we had ours filed first it would take precedence, is that correct? Morgan: We believe that is correct at this time. Their vote will be I believe May I I1h to vote on the area and whether it will be annexed into Johnson. Vaught: This is where I would like Kit to be here to answer questions about if we postpone this. If we turn this down then obviously they will be able to annex it in and then they will have control over what happens here. 1 think they are somewhat two separate. We could pass one and table the other or pass one and not pass the other. I think that is something to keep in mind as we talk about it but just for everyone to understand. Anthes: I have a question for follow up on what Commissioner Vaught is talking about. One of the things that we look at is development pressure and we don't really have development pressure here so much as we have annexation pressure. We have got a situation where we've got another municipality that is looking at this piece of property which if it was annexed by that municipality, would subdivide this particular owners property into two parcels. That is troublesome I'm sure for them and for us in terms of how to look at how this owner would develop this property if it was in two different municipalities. That is one thing that I'm looking at. I would like to comment that it is interesting, the neighbors, there are a lot of them here and a lot of them have spoken about density but I only believe that one even mentioned the annexation at all. Obviously, the density is the thing that is the largest concern to those neighbors. I guess as far as the circumstances about that split, can staff tell us about what this would mean if this 40 acres ended up in two different municipalities and development came forward? Pate: Essentially if that were to occur and the Johnson city limit moves south along the Fayetteville city limit our Planning boundary line also would move to where that line is. If a subdivision did occur on that piece of property, the portion in the City of Fayetteville would be reviewed by the City of Fayetteville and the portion in the City of Johnson would be I Planning Commission April26, 2004 reviewed by the City of Johnson. Technically they would have no jurisdiction over our city municipal boundary and vice versa as well. It is a concern of staff and we believe that this petition was filed and released by the county prior to the election being called. I understand timing is definitely an issue with the applicant on this piece of property. As far as development regulations I believe we do have some subdivisions that have been phased, developed with one portion in Springdale and one portion in Fayetteville. It has been the subject of a lot of problems with regard to infrastructure improvements. Street standards are not the same with different cities. Additionally, the overall infrastructure with regard to water and sewer I would refer to our Engineering Division with regard to what types of infrastructure, public improvements if he has any knowledge of what Johnson does and how that would loop the system. Casey: The water situation I would have to do some research on to see how the water service area boundary would change with the city limits change or if it would change at all. We would certainly have the ability to serve with water if that were allowed by the contract between the two cities. Sewer, on the other hand, would only be allowed for the small portion to the south of the site that is already in the City of Fayetteville. We cannot provide sewer service outside the city limits of Fayetteville unless it is specifically approved by the City Council. Pate: Additionally, with regard to other findings we have made tonight, the confusion with regard to who responds to what calls comes up. I believe a citizen mentioned that they pay the City of Fayetteville Fire Department to serve their residents. That is how that works in areas outside the city limits but there is always some confusion with regard to emergency response calls about who actually works that call. Anthes: While we are on the issue of water, our staff report does indicate that the property has an access to a 6" water line across Hwy. 112, is that indeed true based on an earlier comment? Casey: I believe that to be the case. I don't have that on the maps here in front of me but I am the one who wrote that so I believe I consulted the maps before writing that so I would say yes, that is true. Allen: If we annex this area it would come in as R-A. I would welcome these people into the City of Fayetteville in terms of an annexation but I do not see the RSF-4 as being compatible with the area and wouldn't be able to support that. 1 do think a good planner takes a long step backwards and looks at the whole picture and I don't think that's good planning. Ostner: I would like to agree. We welcome this area to adjoin our city but I don't think RSF-4 is appropriate. I believe RSF-1 might be. I understand that Planning Commission April26, 2004 there is another area of RSF-4 nearby but this piece of land the context that it is in, is clearly less dense than RSF-4 on top of the safety issue. It is a very dangerous intersection and with the difference between RSF-4 and RSF-1 I believe is night and day. Hogue: Can I make one comment? It is on the issue of annexation. I think if I understand the discussion, that there may not be a strong opposition on the annexation. You all asked some legitimate questions of staff about where are we if we are splitting this up and what is going on with the City of Johnson. When I spoke initially about extenuating circumstances, that is one of our concerns. In trying to sort out if this scenario what happens with Johnson. The only way that I can determine, and I don't know all of the answers because there is a whole lot going on up in that area with other municipalities, the only way that I was able to determine that we could solve a lot of those problems is if Fayetteville would allow the annexation and then we don't worry about all of those other problems that you asked questions about. Just simply addressing the annexation, there are some time constraints and that is certainly something that we would like to accomplish. From the concerned neighbors I didn't hear any direct objections to the annexation. I know there are other issues, a lot of greater issues, but that is certainly an issue to us tonight. Anthes: The other thing I'm struggling about with the potential for that split is the issue of Hwy. 112 and that it borders two side of this property. If the property was split controlling access onto and off of Hwy. 112 in a manner that we could find to be acceptably safe would be very complicated. Ostner: I would like to add at this point that the R-A zoning, which is automatic with coming into the city with an annexation does allow housing. It allows everything, it is simply two acre lots. MOTION: Clark: The whole issue of annexation and infrastructure issues concern me but the fact that if we don't annex this, this would be split between municipalities supercedes that concern. 1 would like to move that we approve ANX 04-06.00. Allen: Second. Ostner: I have a motion by Ms. Clark and a second by Ms. Allen. Is there any other discussion on the Annexation? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of ANX 04-06.00 by the City Council was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. I Planning Commission April26, 2004 Thomas: The motion carves six to zero. Ostner: The tandem issue is RZN 04-12.00. We have already had some discussion. Trumbo: As the citizens in that neighborhood have clearly stated, that is a very dangerous stretch of highway. Common sense to me says to add another 108 possible homes compounds the problem out there. I don't see how in good faith 1 could vote to allow that size of development at that place. 1 understand for the city to build affordable housing we have to have denser zonings but I don't believe it is appropriate right here considering how dangerous that highway is. I will not vote for this zoning. Ostner: Thank you. Can we have that map that we tried to get together just showing us some general location? Anthes: We don't have the City Attorney here so can someone tell us if the best way is to move for approval and vote it down or to table? I remember Mr. Williams telling us about the different strategies for that before I don't remember specifically what they were. Ostner: I don't either. Allen: I think we call for a motion and it fails for lack of one if I recall correctly if no one so moves. Hogue: At that point would it then be tabled? Ostner: I believe we are bound to vote on this issue. We can vote to table, we can vote to pass. Pate: You can make a motion to table and table to a date certain or otherwise vote it up or down. Vaught: If the applicant withdraws they start over is what I believe he said. If we vote to table it can come back as soon as the next meeting. What I would like to.see is if the applicant has met with the neighbors. Have you met with the neighbors discussing these issues? Scott: We have not. Vaught: One thing that we typically like to see is that you meet with the neighbors and discuss these issues and see if you can come to a resolution and bring back something more amicable between everybody. Planning Commission April26, 2004 Hogue: That is with the zoning issue tabled? Vaught: Yes. Hogue: We will do that. MOTION: Vaught: I will make a motion to table RZN 04-12.00. Trumbo: Second. Ostner: We have a motion by Commissioner Vaught and a second by Commissioner Trumbo, is there any other discussion? Anthes: I don't know that I'm not completely comfortable with leaving it as an R- A zoning. We could go ahead and vote tonight to deny the rezoning request and then we would still have an R-A zoning. Ostner: There is currently a motion on the floor that needs to be voted on up or down. Do we have any further discussion? Vaught: Since it is currently R-A, I think we should give the developer an opportunity to go speak with the neighboring land owners to see if they can come to some sort of a resolution without stopping the process. It could be a real quick discussion at the next meeting if it comes back and everyone still doesn't like it or we think it is not the right zoning. That would be my comment. Ostner: Let's not forget that we did not annex it, we have simply forwarded it.to the City Council. They have still got a long road before they are annexed. Is there any further discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table RZN 04-12.00 failed by a vote of 2-4 with Commissioners Clark, Allen, Anthes and Ostner voting no. Thomas: The motion fails two to four. Ostner: Are there more motions or discussion on this issue? We are still considering the rezoning of this item. The tabling motion failed so we are going to revisit it or do something. Pate: Mr. Chair, based on the Planning Commission bylaws the way they are stated any Conditional Use or Rezoning request requires a five affirmative vote to carry. It is the applicant's prerogative to be able to table that Planning Commission April26, 2004 motion in order to come back to you with something that could potentially pass. Because we do not have a full Commission there are potentially three commissioners that could vote for this project. Therefore, it is appropriate to table this item if the applicant wishes to do that. Scott: We do wish to do that. Clark: Can I make one comment? Tabling it is certainly your prerogative and probably a wise course of action. I have a very extensive list of concerns that the neighbors have voiced that when you bring this back I sincerely hope that you have talked with them and can address some of them because I happen to agree with them. Scott: We'll do our best. Allen: I would agree with Commissioner Clark. Anthes: Kit is not here so Jeremy, does this mean if the applicant still wishes to table we still then need to have a vote on our level to do that or they withdraw it? Pate: That is a little unclear to me reading the bylaws whether it requires a vote to be tabled or not. Obviously, a vote has failed for that motion. Clark:. That motion was to table at our request, not their request. Pate: There can be another motion on the floor to table this item I believe. MOTION: Ostner: With Mr. Pate's advise, he is not a lawyer, I would be willing to vote for a tabling on this issue. I am going to make a motion that we table it. Clark: Based on Jeremy's suggestion and interpretation of the rules 1 guess I will second it. Ostner: Do we have any further discussion? Marr: Mr. Chair, I think your requirement is that a person who voted against tabling needs to motion to reconsider. You vote on that and then you can vote to table. Otherwise, your action won't be legal. MOTION: Anthes: I move to consider RZN 04-12.00. Planning Commission April26, 2004 Clark: Second. Ostner: We have a motion and a second, is there any further discussion? Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to reconsider RZN 04-12.00 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries six to zero. MOTION: Anthes: I move to table RZN 04-12.00. Ostner: 1 thought we just did. Anthes: No, we moved to reconsider. Vaught: I will second. Ostner: We have a motion and a second. Renee? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table RZN 04-12.00 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries six to zero. STAFF REVIEW FORM - NON -FINANCIAL OBLATION AGENDA REQUEST For the Fayetteville City Council Meeting of: FROM: Dawn Warrick Planning Division ACTION REQUIRED: Ordinance approval. SUMMARY EXPLANATION: IF:0z1I1L'l CP&E Department ANX 04-06.00: Annexation (Leigh Taylor Properties, pp 169) was submitted by R. Chad White on behalf of Leigh Taylor Properties, LLC for property located at 2470 Hwy. 112. The property is currently in the Planning Area and contains approximately 29.86 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval. Department Director ad Finance & Internal Services Dir. p Received in Mayor's Office U-$o, c+y Dat Date LO b X4 Date Date Cross Reference: Previous Ord/Res#: Date Orig. Contract Date: Date s' v Date Orig. Contract Number: New Item: Yes No May 28, 2004 Fayetteville City Clerk Fayetteville City Planner Sir or Madaam, This letter is being written to officially withdraw the Annexation and Rezoning request for the property of Leigh Taylor Properties LLC. The mentioned parcel is a 40-acre tract of land located on highway 112, approximately one mile north of I-540. Again, it is the request of the land owners, Leigh Taylor Properties LLC., that this property NOT be annexed at this time. Thanks for your consideration in this matter. Chad White Leigh Taylor Properties LLC. RECEIVED MAY 2 8 2004 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 4738 STONEWALL CROSSING SPRINGOALE, AR 72764 479-841-4844 479-756-9775 05-28-04 A08:43 IN b6/04AI � Tbled �61ddlnli4ly ��, 078i 9'3& Ira May 20, 04 A SHORT SYNOPSIS: Meeting of Lea Taylor Properties at Ozark Electric Community Room, and 36 neighbors 6PM, May 17. Excellent liar BQ with trimmings furnished. Meeting tasted 1 hour +. We were disappointed Taylor Properties came to the meeting with the same proposal that was put before the Planning Commission Apr 26.... And no other. Neighbors still have concerns: The density of the planned 108 houses, surrounding property on all 4 sides is much less. We were unanimous against a cut through to our neighborhood. Developer agreed to request a variance from the requirement. There is no easement to Woodside Dr, there is IOft of private property north of the Taylor property line. We want to preserve the safety and integrity of our neighborhood. We would be more comfortable with a cul-de-sac, and not a dead end road adjacent to our properly line. Developer (Cleve) brought up a plan to put masonry wags on perimeter of their property. We agreed, that would be nice. Property Values: We are all afraid our values will fag, Developer Cleve said: 'bur property values will all rise on the some fide(?)" Water Pressure: Fayetteville water comes to Forest Hills/Wooded Hollow in a 3 inch line close to 30 years old. After development - will we have the same pressure? We appreciate the Taylor Properties telling us their plans. A number of us compiled our notes of the meeting, the following people agree the attached notes are fair nd (� accurate 41u Developer is willing to sign a Bill of Assurance that would be presented to the city committing to the following: 0 2300 - 2600 s.f. minimum homes (at over $100 per square foot these homes will be around $300,000 homes) o Will not exceed more than 2.7 homes per acre o Fayetteville does not have an RSF-3 Zoning so they sought the RSF-4, although they do not intend to build 4 homes per acre o Basic restrictive covenants including no parking on street, pitch of roof, 75% stone/brick construction, etc.. 0 3 car garages o custom homes and plans - no cookie cutter development Additionally: • Discussed potentially donating a portion of their land to the city/state for construction of turn lanes off of Highway 112 for both entrances. • Discussed a masonry wall surrounding the property. • Discussed moving the entrances/exits further from the comer and adding additional signage at the comer to alert drivers of the 45 degree turn: • The cut through to our neighborhood was discussed - and the developer prefers not to cut through. It's a city requirement, but they'll be glad to seek a variance from the requirement with our support. • A tree survey was completed this week. The development will be placing a % of trees in a conservation or buffer easement. • Because of the cost of the infrastructure that must be built inchuiing streets and sewer, Developer cannot afford to sell 1 acre lots and will only break even at 2 houses on 1 acre lots. • Developer believes that the city will strike 10 lots off the top as soon as,a site plan is turned in for consideration as a matter of practice. • Run off must be captured and released at the rate it is currently being generated and released on the site. They will build detention area to meet needs identified in studies to be completed once rezoning complete. • Sewer and lift station cost is $400,000 and required for density greater than 1 home per acre. Concerned about whether the ground will perc if septic only. • Developer wants to make us happy - but they must be able to potentially make a profit in order for them to commit to the project. May 20, 04 A SHORT SYNOPSIS: Meeting of Lea Taylor Properties at Ozark Electric Community Room, and 36 neighbors 6PM, May 17. Excellent Bar BQ with trimmings fumished. Meeting lasted 1 hour +. We were disappointed Taylor Properties came to the meeting with the some proposal that was put before the Planning Commission Apr 26.... And no other. Neighbors still have concerns: The density of the planned 108 houses, surrounding property on all 4 sides is much less. We were unanimous against a cut through to our neighborhood. Developer agreed to request a variance from the requirement. There is no easement to Woodside Dr, there is 10tt of private property north of the Taylor property line. We want to preserve the safety and integrity of our neighborhood. We would be more comfortable with a cul-de-sac, and not a dead end road adjacent to our property line. Developer (Cleve) brought up a plan to put masonry walls on perimeter of their property. We agreed, that would be nice. Property Values: We are all afraid our values will fall, Developer Cleve said: 'bur property values will all rise on the same tide(?)" Water Pressure: Fayetteville water comes to Forest Hills/Wooded Hollow in a 3 inch line close to 30 years old. After development - will we have the some pressure? We appreciate the Taylor Properties telling us their plans. A number of us compiled our notes of the meeting, the following people agree the attached notes are fair nd M accurate : � ��'oVI ' IC V Developer is willing to sign a Bill of Assurance that would be presented to the city committing to the following: o 2300 - 2600 s.f. minimum homes (at over $100 per square foot these homes will be around $300,000 homes) o Will not exceed more than 2.7 homes per acre o Fayetteville does not have an RSF-3 Zoning so they sought the RSF-4, although they do not intend to build 4 homes per acre o Basic restrictive covenants including no parking on street, pitch of roof, 75% stone/brick construction, etc.. 0 3 car garages o custom homes and plans - no cookie cutter development Additionally: • Discussed potentially donating a portion of their land to the city/state for construction of turn lanes off of Highway 112 for both entrances. • Discussed a masonry wall surrounding the property. • Discussed moving the entrances/exits further from the comer and adding additional signage at the comer to alert drivers of the 45 degree turn. • The cut through to our neighborhood was discussed - and the developer prefers not to cut through. It's a city requirement, but they ll be glad to seek a variance from the requirement with our support. • A tree survey was completed this week. The development will be placing a % of trees in a conservation or buffer easement. • Because of the cost of the infrastructure that must be built including streets and sewer, Developer cannot afford to sell 1 acre lots and will only break even at 2 houses on 1 acre lots. • Developer believes that the city will strike 10 lots off the top as soon as,a site plan is turned in for consideration as a matter of practice. • Run off must be captured and released at the rate it is currently being generated and released on the site. They will build detention area to meet needs identified in studies to be completed once rezoning complete. • Sewer and lift station cost is $400,000 and required for density greater than 1 home per acre. Concerned about whether the ground will perc if septic only. • Developer wants to make us happy - but they must be able to potentially make a profit in order for them to commit to the project. E J B e 9 N Yj' OOW0A N0WO? 0WWNN N0CWNn N0"N NWW ON WNN (Na N NCn WN N ON CNn NN 0N N" OO O O O O CD O CD O O O O O O O OO O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO [q0000000000000 O N0 W V V A W(Q W OW W 0 W V O W O A O W W O O V A S OWA0)W(n 0)jn Cn CD O V 0) N O a) OAW V V W�'. O O O O(O\nO-`��OO> O>O 41, N W N "NNW N N>N O CD0�N N;0 m O O O O O N A 0 A O W O! N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N (pl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ! j V W O W O (O A O V N O V V A A Off A 000 is A Gt00 >>A(n Oin 6 tJ i. M0 V V W NN000 V W O(00 W OCn W N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O CD CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W V V m 0000000 CA CA (n (n O!!O O O A A A A A A A A V 0 0 0 0 V A W V O O O O mg cn z ocxcxxcooccvvccvcom xzozoozmxzzmzzmzxm W >Z>>Z�!lZZZZT.T.D.'ClX W Z z!lzzZZZZZZl� w m O x x O a� 0 0 m m O O m O O< z z z z z z z -+ O z z O z � .P. ci m mm z z +� rr- � r x D D v v CnCnN W CnOCnNCn(nACn W (nmcn cn W (n A, 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O (D O O N> O O O W O O! O! 0 0 0 0> 079 W 0 x D 0 0 (n x 0 D m A x x D (n A 2 (n z z m Z z O z [[nn o z ffnn m m m Z Z m m Z G)G)DOOmODmG�DDDDQDD rr0rrtnr0(nrA�OXr�;70r- - mmZmm-UmZgmZZZ00 ommoZ<- 2 2 a: m m0 x x ' �� rn-m� m mm m:om "U m m 00 000 0 O O, t � g � m � m � xx xCx 0 x x O O z z zzzzzzzzzzz<zzzzzzz �t N N N N N N N" N 000 O O OOOOyZ 00000000 OsCi.. W W O N N N A O -tail Cn A W CO W W W V a N W A O N N W (O ifD1 O N? W O V V V W a)al W Oeeel, CA OOO W N W0 M N C31 n CCnn WN>(0 N NNN W CA) C i C\t 4J W 0(\O W mO'N N N N N N N N N N O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (O ! N V N V 0 W W_ ee-, A W N Cn O N W Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C° > W W W W W W W W C. W OO) a)0) Ut N! a) 0) A A A O O N ' W co W 1 a z c�oxxccv�x` m x00zT�➢xG) DZZ D �x D> Z MMXXOOm<m O c Z_ Z_ Z Z N m o 0 0 o m o m z O po v Cn CAN A0A Cn Cn (n O O O O O co Co O O O O O N O N O O O (n(n(n(n(nDA{i1(nD ' D G mmm*mmmrX mm mmm °m z vm x=xr"x x � � m � � r' mmm. m m n 9 �cn(omco cn xxx0x x O z zzzzzZzzz}y , N N N N N N N ok O O O O O O O ,, 00 000 O OrC Cn ".N. NO) NN O' 0 W W � Cn V �Q A A A (n W W N (^ W (O W W (n V V N{{{��� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 to A j (n (\ N ! W O Zz N,p (\(O (00 W W co VI N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AP W V O V O! co leek 64 c0 W m co O W A �. N N N N N N N O OOOOOO�J 1 W W Wp� W W W W (On A W W O O0D O O O O T -n z rj) Cl) xxxooxm 000mxcm D D D z0 A 000cn m(� Z Z Z Cl) ' —I �CM IN o� 0 m m m r r r , vvo :K O A w Cn CA O CA O Nl0000 ��• wommoom mm DT GG (n N 0 r r 0mmmm mmZommo OO xx , nn m 6 m m m , u 0-4 2 x —� O OZ z zzzzzzz t N N N N N N N" N 000 O O OOOOyZ 00000000 OsCi.. W W O N N N A O -tail Cn A W CO W W W V a N W A O N N W (O ifD1 O N? W O V V V W a)al W Oeeel, CA OOO W N W0 M N C31 n CCnn WN>(0 N NNN W CA) C i C\t 4J W 0(\O W mO'N N N N N N N N N N O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (O ! N V N V 0 W W_ ee-, A W N Cn O N W Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C° > W W W W W W W W C. W OO) a)0) Ut N! a) 0) A A A O O N ' W co W 1 a z c�oxxccv�x` m x00zT�➢xG) DZZ D �x D> Z MMXXOOm<m O c Z_ Z_ Z Z N m o 0 0 o m o m z O po v Cn CAN A0A Cn Cn (n O O O O O co Co O O O O O N O N O O O (n(n(n(n(nDA{i1(nD ' D G mmm*mmmrX mm mmm °m z vm x=xr"x x � � m � � r' mmm. m m n 9 �cn(omco cn xxx0x x O z zzzzzZzzz}y , N N N N N N N ok O O O O O O O ,, 00 000 O OrC Cn ".N. NO) NN O' 0 W W � Cn V �Q A A A (n W W N (^ W (O W W (n V V N{{{��� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 to A j (n (\ N ! W O Zz N,p (\(O (00 W W co VI N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AP W V O V O! co leek 64 c0 W m co O W A �. N N N N N N N O OOOOOO�J 1 W W Wp� W W W W (On A W W O O0D O O O O T -n z rj) Cl) xxxooxm 000mxcm D D D z0 A 000cn m(� Z Z Z Cl) ' —I �CM IN o� 0 m m m r r r , vvo :K O A w Cn CA O CA O Nl0000 ��• wommoom mm DT GG (n N 0 r r 0mmmm mmZommo OO xx , nn m 6 m m m , u 0-4 2 x —� O OZ z zzzzzzz t N N N N N N N ok O O O O O O O ,, 00 000 O OrC Cn ".N. NO) NN O' 0 W W � Cn V �Q A A A (n W W N (^ W (O W W (n V V N{{{��� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 to A j (n (\ N ! W O Zz N,p (\(O (00 W W co VI N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AP W V O V O! co leek 64 c0 W m co O W A �. N N N N N N N O OOOOOO�J 1 W W Wp� W W W W (On A W W O O0D O O O O T -n z rj) Cl) xxxooxm 000mxcm D D D z0 A 000cn m(� Z Z Z Cl) ' —I �CM IN o� 0 m m m r r r , vvo :K O A w Cn CA O CA O Nl0000 ��• wommoom mm DT GG (n N 0 r r 0mmmm mmZommo OO xx , nn m 6 m m m , u 0-4 2 x —� O OZ z zzzzzzz t N N N co co W U U J J U_ U_ S S Z Z Z Z Z> Z> wwwOwOOpw0w z , 5:: = - dddddd O O O O O O O O O O N(n L9N € (O Ml07 N ti of H ZJJ Q' rn m w 0 0 0 J oO 0 W U U Y Q Z Z Z r F- co� O OU(A UD OO of N } w M LU � Z O } LLI:) 000w�0 m S Z 0 S S S U S U Z g LL + O [` O _ (D N (D (D V V d' w 7 0� M U( to� 000rn M (M M M, M M, M M M M O O O O O O O O O O £00if MMMM�0O OO rn CM GO f` M 4 00 N _N mrnrnrnrnrnrnrnoSrn rn rn rn 0) rn rn 0) rn rn 0)M 0) 0)m 0) rn rn rn 6N'� D D N V , 1�N 000 t� rD(D( 000000 N� 31 r- �rvvvcowvO °^{£ COCOCO Mr�Un(D�rnvo M (OD M m (^0 M AGO N t .9 rn (A M O M M N co M O O rn0)0)rnrnrnrn0)rnrn MOMMMOMMMM rnrnrnrnmmrnrnrnm ?'£UN NN O O 5 UU ww J J _UU_ S S Z > > w w w Z Z N � � O O O V M (M a. F ' p > 3 Q QO J Z 0 gQ ' S2 � (CO)( �i w Z LL fi LL � LL � N � O It O M M M O O O v ? rn (n N V f N jaE N M00)� ro rnrnrn (0 N o N o O 0) O 4Y � P° M V rD rn rn IT C14 (0 �00 0) 0) CI &JURY SEVERITY LEVELS 0 ,, ,,Fatal Injury (code 1) — y injury that directly results in the death of a living person within 30 days of a motor vehicle crash. Incapacitating Injury (code 2) — Any injury, other than a fatal injury, which prevents the injured person from walking, driving or normally continuing the activities the person was capable of performing before the injury occurred. Inclusions: Severe lacerations Broken or distorted limbs Skull or chest injuries Abdominal injuries Unconsciousness at or when taken from the scene Unable to leave the scene without assistance - And others Exclusions: Momentary unconsciousness And others Non -Incapacitating Injury (code 3) — Any injury other than a fatal injury or an incapacitating injury, which is evident to observers at the scene. Inclusions: Lump on head • - Abrasions - Bruises Minor lacerations And others Exclusions: Limping (the injury cannot be seen) And others Possible Injury (code 4) — Any injury reported or claimed which is not a fatal injury, incapacitating injury or non -incapacitating evident injury. Inclusions: Momentary unconsciousness - Claim of injuries not evident, complaint of pain - Limping, nausea, hysteria And others Property Damage Only (PDO) — or.— Non -Injury (code 5) — No personal injury. Inclusions: Harm to wild animals, or birds, which have monetary value And others Exclusions: • Mechanical failure during normal operation, such as tire blowout, broken fan belt or axle FAYETTEALLE 0 THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS City Clerk Division 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 575-8323 DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE To: Dawn Warrick Planning Division From: ClariceBufTalohead-Pearman City Clerk Division Date: August 23, 2004 Re: Ordinance No. 4604 Attached is a copy of the above ordinance passed by the City Council, August 17, 2004, confirming the annexation of property located at 2470 Highway 112 containing 29.86 acres -and owned by Leigh Taylor Properties LLC. This ordinance will be recorded in the city clerk's office and microfilmed. If anything else is needed please let the clerk's office know. Attachment(s) cc: John Goddard, IT Scott Caldwell, IT Clyde Randall, IT Ed Connell, Engineering NORTHWUWST ARKANSAS WITION A .' . Demolcm V05aze& M PUBLICATION I, , do solemnly swear that I am Le al 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: Y D was inserted in the regular editions on PO#3�1p ** Publication Charge: $ lag, Subscribed and sworn to before me this a4 day of Al , 2004. 0 Notary Public My Commission Expires: 071elaO13 ** Please do not pay from Affidavit. An invoice will be sent. OtficiaLSala' SEAN-MICHAEL ARGO Notary Public -Arkansas WASHINGTON COUNTY My Commission Expires 0" t5-2013 212 NORTH EAST AVENUE • P.O. BOX 1607 • FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72702 • (501) 442-1700 UNUIN UIGN • ORDINANCE CONFIRMING ILLEAKA THE ANNEXATION TO THEf OF " /^J�VP P 1 P )PERIY LOCATED AT 26 0 HWY, 1 2SAS. OF EITIAIN CONrNNNG µ I c Y OWNED BY LEIGH TAYLOR PROPERTIES, -LC FOR / ' OXIMATELY 29.86 ACRES, ANXANSAS R ORDAINED BY TIN CRY COUNCIL OF TNN CRY OF FAYHTRYILLE, ARRANEA& tore 1. That ee City Cox" hereby cpYimn the eneratlon to the City of FsyetteMe. Arlatnaaa, OI property desvmec h EXNbit 4A' attached hBreto and made a part hereal. ton 2. The aftial map of the City of FoyaneAle. Nkan a Is hereby emerged to reflect the Berge Marl in Section 1 above. E> HIBF W ANX 04-06.00 )F THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 17 NORTH, RANGE W WEST, IG AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID 40 ACRE TRACT SAID POIN A SET COTTON SPINDLE; THENCE NORTH 00-09'01' WEST 1312.70 FEI 1ST CORNER OF SAID SW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4; THENCE NORTH TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 39.855 ACRES. MORE ACCORDANCE WITH A SURVEY BY DOUGIAS HEMINGWAY DATED NOVEMBER 4, 2003. ACREAGE INCLUDED IN THE PROPERTY TO BE ANNE;IED IS 29.86 ACRES, MORE OR IEBB. Charlie Daniels Secretary of State September 16, 2004 The Honorable Karen Combs Pritchard Washington County Clerk 280 North College Ave. Fayetteville, AR. 72701 Dear Ms. Pritchard: State of Arkansas Secretary of State Business & Commercial Services 682-3409 Elections 682-5070 Building & Grounds 682-3532 Communications & Education 683-0057 State Capitol Police 682-5173 Business Office 682-8032 Information Technology 682-3411 The Following Information has been recorded and filed in the Office of the Secretary of State: Date: 09/ 16/2004 Annexation: Incorporation: Census Information 1 st Class City 2nd Class City Incorporated Town County: Washington City: Fayetteville Ordinance No. - 4604 Co. Order No CC-2004-3 Plat - X Election - Island - Ordinance No. Co. Order No. - Plat Election 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, AaLlf4ann, Godley Election Services Representative RECEIVED SEP 2 0 2004 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE CITY CLERICS OFFICE Room 256 State Capitol • Little Rock, Arkansas 72201.1094 501.682-1010 9 Fax 501-682-3510 e-mail: sos@aristotle.net • www.sos.arkansas.gov