HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 4605ORDINANCE NO, 4605
AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED
IN REZONING PETITION RZN 04-12.00AS SUBMITTED BY
CHAD WHITE ON BEHALF OF LEIGH TAYLOR PROPERTIES,
LLC FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHWAY 112/
HOWARD NICKELL RD AND EAST OF HIGHWAY 112
CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 39.86 ACRES FROM R-A,
RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL TO RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE FAMILY, FOUR UNITS PER ACRE SUBJECT TO A
BILL OF ASSURANCE
BE IT ORDAINED BY
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the zone classification of the following described property is hereby
changed as follows:
From R-A, Residential Agricultural to RSF-4, Residential Single -Family,
4 Units Per Acre as shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a
part hereof.
Section 2: That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, is hereby
amended to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1 above.
Section 3: That the subject property will be subject to a Bill of Assurance attached hereto
and made a part hereof labeled as Exhibit "B" limiting the density of said property to 2.48
dwelling units per acre.
PASSED and APPROVED this 17'hday of August, 2004.
60ti.� %/huxt'
SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk
APPROVED:
I COODY, Mayo IIII IIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIII uIIIWIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
1RKiTR1S Doc ID: 007653910004 Tvoe: REL
�^I Recorded: 09/09/2004 at 02:28:53 PM
��'.•�,\TY•Oc'•;5p IPIashlnatonlcountveQARt of a
'. Bette staves Circuit Clerk
;FAYETTEVILLE; P11e2004-00037314
EXHIBIT "A""
RZN 04-12,00
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 00°09'01"
WEST 1312.76 FEET TO A SET COTTON SPINDLE: THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF
FOREST HILLS SUBDNSION, NORTH 89059'52"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 S00°15'33" EAST 26.60 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
SAID SW '/4 OF THE NW '/4; THENCE NORTH 89°55'34" 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.
•
BILL OF ASSURANCE
FOR THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
In order to attempt to obtain approval of a request for a zoning reclassification,
the owner, developer, or buyer of this property, (hereinafter "Petitioner")
Leigh Taylor Properties, hereby voluntarily offers this
Bill of Assurance and enters into this binding agreement and contract with the
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas.
The Petitioner expressly grants to the City of Fayetteville the right to
enforce any and all of the terms of this Bill of Assurance in the Chancery/
Circuit Court of Washington County and agrees that if Petitioner or Petitioner's
heirs, assigns, or successors violate any term of this Bill of Assurance, substantial
irreparable damage justifying injunctive relief has been done to the citizens
and City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. The Petitioner acknowledges that the
Fayetteville Planning Commission and the Fayetteville City Council will
reasonable rely upon all of the terms and conditions within this Bill of
Assurance in considering whether to approve Petitioner's rezoning request.
Petitioner hereby voluntarily offers assurances that Petitioner and
Petitioner's property shall be restricted as follows IF Petitioner's rezoning is
approved by the Fayetteville City Council.
1. The
use of Petitioner's
property shall be limited to
a maximum density
of 2.48
dwelling units per
acre comprised of 99 lots.
2. Other restrictions including number and type of structures upon the
property are limited to 99 single family homes to be not less than 2,400
heated sq.ft each to include an enclosed two car garage. Exterior Walls
will be no less than 80% brick, stone or approved masonry product, with
architectural shingles. All yards will be sodded.
3. Activities that will be allowed upon petitioner's property
are limited to those permitted in the RSF-4 zoning district.
4. When the Property Owner's Association is established two property
owners from the Forest Hills Estates subdivision will be invited to serve
on the board.
5. A buffer area will be provided along the north property line 50 feet in
width. No structures shall be built within this buffer strip.
6. Petitioner specifically agrees that all such restrictions and terms shall
run with the land and bind all future owners unless and until specifically
released by Resolution of the Fayetteville City Council. This Bill of Assurance
shall be filed for record in the Washington County Circuit Clerk's Office after
Petitioner's rezoning is effective and shall be noted on any Final Plat or Large
Scale Development which includes some or all of Petitioner's property.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF and in a eement with all the terms and
conditions stated above, I, �, aT OkAx- , as the
owner, developer or buyer (Petitioner) voluntarily offer all such assurances and
sign my name below.
i t
Date
L :
4 . _.. R
NOTARY OATH
STATE OF ARKANSAS
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
�j And now on this the 174 day of August, 2004, appeared before me,
d h-,k. • and after being
placed upon his/her oath swore or affirmed that he agreed with the terms of the
above Bill of Assurance and siened his.name above.
i
�L
My Commission
C�
Washington County, AR
I certify this instrument was filed on
09/09/2004 02:28:53 PM
and recorded in Real Estate
File Numb r 2004-00037314
v Bette Stalk - Circuit Clerk
by
NAME OF FILE: Ordinance No. 4605
CROSS REFERENCE:
Item # Date Document
1
08/17/04
Ord. 4605 w/Ex. A & Bill of Assurance
2
07/02/04
memo to mayor & city council
g
draft ordinance
4
copy of Bill of Assurance
5
copy of lots -Forest Hills Estates
6
memo to Planning Commission
7
letter from fire dept.
6
letter from police dept.
g
Hwy 112 query
10
copy of accident results
11
copy of accident location
12
copy of accident location results
13
letter from R. Chad White
14
letter from Chad White
15
letter from N. Arthur Scott, PE
16
letter from Peters & Assoc. Eng. Inc. -Ernest J. Peters
17
copy of 4/26/04 Planning Commission minutes
18
copy of PDA meeting minutes
19
copy of Future Land Use
PO
copy of Close Up View
21
copy of One Mile View
P2
copy of 6/28/04 Planning Commission minutes
23
copy of map of area (2)
P4
memo to Dawn Warrick
25
lAffidavit of Publication
26
I
City Council Meeting of July 20, 2004
Agenda Item Number
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO t-J-`
To: Mayor and City Council
Thru: Tim Conklin, Community Planning and Engineering Services Director
From: Dawn T. Warrick, AICP, Zoning and Development Administrator
Date: July 2, 2004
Subject: Rezoning request for Leigh Taylor Properties (RZN 04-12.00)
RECOMMENDATION
Planning Staff recommends approval of an ordinance rezoning approximately 39.86 acres
of property from R-A, Residential Agricultural to RSF-4, Residential Single Family — 4
units per acre.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is 39.86 acres and located in north Fayetteville, north and east of
Highway 112. Surrounding properties are zoned RSF-4 and R-A. The Future Land Use
Plan identifies the southern 10 acres, north of Hwy 112, as Mixed Use and the remaining
29.86 acres as Residential. The subject property is currently vacant. Property to the
north and southwest are developed as residential subdivisions.
The applicant proposes to rezone the 39.86 acre tract in anticipation of development of
the property for a residential subdivision. The applicant proposes to zone the property of
RSF-4 and has offered a Bill of Assurance limiting the density of approximately 2.48
units per acre resulting in a maximum of 99 lots. Other restrictions include the number
and type of structures constructed on said lots, allowable uses limited to those specified
under the RSF-4 zoning district, and the Property Owner's Association will extend an
invitation for two property members of Forest Hills Estates to be members. The
applicant has submitted a traffic study conducted by Peters & Associates.
Public comment has been received regarding concerns with traffic volume and safety,
connectivity, and density.
DISCUSSION
On April 26, 2004, the Planning Commission voted 6-0-0 to table this rezoning request
and forward the accompanying annexation request to the City Council with a
recommendation for approval. On June 28, 2004, the Planning Commission forwarded
this rezoning request to the City Council with a vote of 5-4-0 with a recommendation of
approval. Commissioners Anthes, Allen, Clark, and Ostner voted against the request.
yob 5
/2�Nvtl"Ia
jh Iat�Ib�
City Council Meeting of July 20, 2004
Agenda Item Number
The accompanying annexation request was tabled by the City Council on May 18, 2004.
The applicant has asked to bring that item off the table for consideration at this time.
BUDGET IMPACT
None.
Oti. Q
ORDINANCE NO,
AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY
DESCRIBED IN REZONING PETITION RZN 04-12.00 AS
SUBMITTED BY CHAD WHITE ON BEHALF OF LEIGH
TAYLOR PROPERTIES, LLC FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
NORTH OF HIGHWAY 112/11OWARD NICKELL RD
AND EAST OF HIGHWAY 112 CONTAINING
APPROXIMATELY 39.86 ACRES FROM R-A,
RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL TO RSF-4,
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, FOUR UNITS PER
ACRE SUBJECT TO A BILL OF ASSURANCE
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,
ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the zone classification of the following described property is hereby
changed as follows:
From R-A, Residential Agricultural to RSF-4, Residential
Single -Family, 4 Units Per Acre as shown in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Section
2:
That the official
zoning map
of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, is hereby
amended to reflect
the zoning change
provided in
Section 1 above.
Section 3: That the subject property will be subject to a Bill of Assurance attached hereto
and made a part hereof labeled as Exhibit `B" limiting the density of said property to 2.48 dwelling
units per acre.
PASSED and APPROVED this 20`h day of July, 2004.
ATTEST:
By:
SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk
By:
APPROVED:
V
DAN COODY, Mayor
EXHIBIT "A"
RZN 04-12.00
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 SUBDNSION, NORTH
89059' 52"EAST 1320.33 FEET TO A FOUND PINCHED IRON PIPE; THENCE SOUTH
00015'33" EAST 1287.92 FEET TO A SET IRON PIN. THENCE CONTINUING
S00015'33" EAST 26.60 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID S W '/4 OF THE
NW '/4; THENCE NORTH 89°55'34" WEST 1322.84 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING, CONTAINING 39.86 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.
BILL OF ASSURANCE
FOR THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
In order to attempt to obtain approval of a request for a zoning reclassification,
the owner, developer, or buyer of this property, (hereinafter "Petitioner")
Leigh.Taylor Properties, hereby voluntarily offers this
Bill of Assurance and enters into this binding agreement and contract with the
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas.
The Petitioner expressly grants to the City of Fayetteville the right to
enforce any and all of the terms of this Bill of Assurance in the Chancery/
Circuit Court of Washington County and agrees that if Petitioner or Petitioner's
heirs, assigns, or successors violate any term of this Bill of Assurance, substantial
irreparable damage justifying injunctive relief has been done to the citizens
and City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. The Petitioner acknowledges that the
Fayetteville Planning Commission and the Fayetteville City Council will
reasonable rely upon all of the terms and conditions within this Bill of
Assurance in considering whether to approve Petitioner's rezoning request.
Petitioner hereby voluntarily offers assurances that Petitioner and
Petitioner's property shall be restricted as follows IF Petitioner's rezoning is
approved by the Fayetteville City Council.
1. The
use of Petitioner's
property shall be limited to a maximum
density
of 2.48
dwelling units per
acre comprised of 99 lots.
2. Other restrictions including number and type of structures upon the
property are limited to 99 single family homes to be not less than 2,400
heated sq.ft each to include an enclosed two car garage. Exterior Walls
will be no less than 80% brick, stone or approved masonry product, with
architectural shingles. All yards will be sodded.
3. Activities that will be allowed upon petitioner's property
are limited to those permitted in the RSF-4 zoning district.
4. When the Property Owner's Association is established two property
owners from the Forest Hills Estates subdivision will be invited to serve
on the board.
5. Petitioner specifically agrees.that all such restrictions and terms shall
run with the land and bind all future owners unless and until specifically
released by Resolution of the Fayetteville City Council. This Bill of Assurance
shall be filed for record in the Washington County Circuit Clerk's Office after
Petitioner's rezoning is effective and shall be noted on any Final Plat or Large
Scale Development which includes some or all of Petitioner's property.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF and in agreement with all the terms and
conditions stated above, I, C 1P�G &,f0,05Dn as the
owner, developer or buyer (Petitioner) voluntarily offer all such assurances and
sign my name below.
( Z, Z
Date
Printed Name
Address
Signature
NOTARY OATH
STATE OF ARKANSAS
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
nd now on this the Zday of June, 2004, appeared before me,
ealQ�w 1Y co► 1 and after being
placed upon his/her oath swore or affirmed that he agreed with the terms of the
above Bill of Assurance and signed his name above.
NOTARY PUBLIC
My Commission Expires:
Renee Thomas
County Of Wuhington
Notary Public - Arkansas
My Commission Exp. I1115ml1
W IDDENI . ACRES RD.
Qjzs ra�
V '. -,A N
1p� R
w W a Vi
ii
-. kUwVc,a y VI;=W i
c
N
SA
b
A
/oJ.. i
vOLOY
tior
a
r A
r oA ry's
� versa
�S f
a6�• 9S
LO
V v
� ✓wr �
4• WOOD SIDE Dr-UVE q
• 7� ` h '
LA.
NZ \V
y0OrOm IMo.�p� AAr;
d
Vim. • N
T lIJ � .
' 4---_:O: N l6
L
-h 0
a
yl N
N
_ 0 VN
f0.
a•,
A.y.SJ'
.•3q
N.n JJ
g9�
p
t
p �.
C:p� �
�•p�; �74
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
PC Meeting of June 28, 2004
125 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (479) 575-8267
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission
FROM: Suzanne Morgan, Associate Planner
THRU: Dawn Warrick, AICP, Zoning & Development Administrator
DATE: June 23, 2004
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. Planner: Suzanne Morgan
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings herein.
COMMISSION ACTION: Required YES
O Approved O Denied
Date: June 28, 2004
CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Required YES
O Approved O Denied
Date: July 20, 2004 (1st reading if recommended)
BACKGROUND:
Property description: The subject property contains approximately 39.86 acres of vacant
property located north of Highway I I2/Howard Nickell Rd and east of Highway 112. The
property includes a 29.86 acre tract requested for annexation and an additional 10 acre tract
zoned R-A, Residential Agricultural. Forest Hills Estate subdivision, platted at 1.17 units per
acre, is located to the north of this site and Lynn -Leigh Hill Estates, platted at 1.06 units per
acres, is south of Hwy 112.
This item was heard at the regular Planning Commission meeting of April 26, 2004 with an
accompanying annexation request of 29.86 acres. The Planning Commission approved the
annexation request with a vote of 6-0-0, and it has been tabled at City Council at the request of
the applicant. Discussion and public comment was heard regarding the rezoning request, and the
item was unanimously tabled. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting and has submitted a
Bill of Assurance that limits development to a maximum density of 99 lots, or approximately
Ci
•
2.48 units per acre (see attached). In addition, the applicant has submitted a traffic analysis
conducted by Peters & Associates Engineers (see attached).
Public Comment: Staff has received comments from surrounding property owners regarding
concerns with the proposed density, lot size, traffic volume/public safety, and the impact to
surrounding neighborhoods.
Proposal: The applicant's intent is to develop a single family residential subdivision.
Request: The applicant is requesting the property be rezoned from R-A, Residential
Agricultural, to RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4 dwelling units per acre, should ANX 04-
06.00 be approved.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request based on the findings
included in the staff report. Future development on this site will be regulated by the City to
ensure adequate services, infrastructure, connectivity and consistent development within the
surrounding area.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
Direction
Land Use
Zoning
North
Single-family (Forest Hills
Estates
Planning Area
South
Single-family (Lynn -Leigh Hills)
RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units/acre
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
0
E
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 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. 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.
LAND USE PLAN: General Plan 2020 designates the northern 29.86 acres of this site requested
for annexation Residential. The remaining 10 acres is designated for Multiple Use. Rezoning
this property to RSF-4 is compatible with surrounding land uses in the area.
FINDINGS OF THE STAFF
A determination of the degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent with land use
planning objectives, principles, and policies and with land use and zoning plans.
Finding: The proposed zoning for a single family residential subdivision is compatible
with the land use to the north and south. Adjacent property to the north,,
west, and a portion to the east are within the Planning Area. The land to the
north and southwest is utilized for single family residential subdivisions, with
a majority of the property to the east, west, and southeast vacant. The
Future Land Use map identifies Multi -Use as the future use of the 10 acre
tract located north of Hwy 112, a principal arterial, and currently zoned R-
A. Rezoning the property to RSF-4 will increase the density, allowing for
more intense residential use of the property and allow for development
compatible with the northern tract of land considered for annexation with
the previous item. Access and provision of adequate services must be
considered as this site is at the outskirts of the city and located on streets
which need improvement.
2. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the
rezoning is proposed.
Finding: The proposed zoning is justified in order to promote orderly and consistent
development patterns making use of existing infrastructure. A higher
density than the R-A zoning district allows for development of a subdivision
with density appropriate in this area, and would provide compatibility with
the adjoining development. In order to develop a residential subdivision on
this property in a manner that is consistent with the future land use plan, a
residential zoning district is needed.
3. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase
traffic danger and congestion.
Finding: The police department has determined the proposed density will not
substantially alter the population density to create an undesirable affect on
services. However, there is concern with the future access to development on
the property. 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. Access
shall be evaluated at the time of development.
4. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would alter the population density
and thereby undesirably increase the load on public services including schools, water, and
sewer facilities.
Finding: The proposed zoning would increase population density. The 39.86 acre
tract under an R-A, Residential Agricultural designation would allow for a
maximum of 19 dwelling units (1 per 2 acres). With the proposed RSF-4
designation, 159 dwelling units would be permitted. This increases the
possible number of residential units substantially, but is consistent with land
use and zoning within the City of Fayetteville and developing areas to the
south.
Engineering - 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 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.
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.
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
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. These two intersections have had 31
accidents in just over three years. The police department recommends that
access to this area should be placed as far from these two intersections as
possible.
If there are reasons why the proposed zoning should not be approved in view of
considerations under b (1) through (4) above, a determination as to whether the proposed
zoning is justified and/or necessitated by peculiar circumstances such as:
a. It would be impractical to use the land for any of the uses permitted
under its existing zoning classifications;
b. There are extenuating circumstances which justify the rezoning
even though there are reasons under b (1) through (4) above why
the proposed zoning is not desirable.
Finding: N/A
161.03 District R-A, Residential -Agricultural
(A) Purposes. The regulations of the agricultural
district are designed to protect agricultural land
until an orderly transition to urban development
has been accomplished; prevent wasteful scattering
of development in rural areas; obtain economy of
public funds in the providing of public
improvements and services of orderly growth;
conserve the tax base; provide opportunity for
affordable housing, increase scenic attractiveness;
and conserve open space.
(B) Uses.
(1) Permitted uses.
Unit 1
City-wide uses by right -
Unit 3
Public protection and utility facilities
Unit
Agriculture
Unit 7
Animal husbandry
Unit
Single-familydwellings
Unit
Two-famity dwellings
Unit 37
Manufactured homes
(2) Conditional uses.
Unit 2
City-wide uses by conditional use permit
Unit 4
Cultural and recreational facilities
Unit 20
Commercial recreation, large sites
Unit 24
Home occupations
Unit 36
Wireless communications facilities
C Density.
Units per acre I One-half
(D) Bulk and area regulations.
Lot width minimum
200 ft.
Lot Area Minimum:
Residential:
Nonresidential:
2 acres
2 acres
Lot area pv dwelling unit
2 acres
(E) Setback requirements.
Front
1 Side
Rear
35 ft.
1 20 ft.
35 ft.
(F) Height requirements. There shall be no
maximum height limits in the A-1 District,
provided, however, that any building which
exceeds the height of 15 feet shall be setback from
any boundary line of any residential district a
distance of 1.0 foot for each foot of height in
excess of 15 feet. Such setbacks shall be measured
from the required setback lines.
(G) Building area. None.
161.07 District RSF4, Residential Single -
Family — Four Units Per Acre
(A) Purpose. The RS174 Residential District is
designed to permit and encourage the development
of low density detached dwellings in suitable
environments, as well as to protect existing
development of these types.
(B) Uses.
1 Permitted uses.
Unit 1 1 City-wide uses by right
Unit 8 1 Sin le-famil dwellin
(2) Conditional uses.
Unit 2
City-wide uses b conditional use Permit
Unit 3
Public protection and ufili
facilities
Unit 4
Cultural and recreational facilities
Unit 9
Two-family dwellings
Unit 24
Home occupations
Unit
36
Wireless communications facilities
(C) Density.
Single-family
dwellings
Two-family
dwellin s
Units per acre
4 or less
7 or less
(D) Bulk and area regulations.
Single-family
dwellings
Two-family
dwellin s
Lot minimum width
70 ft.
80 ft.
Lot area minimum
8,000 sq. ft.
12,000 sq. ft.
Land area per
dwelling unit
8,000 sq. ft.
6,000 sq. ft.
(E) Setback requirements.
Front
Side
1 Rear
25 ft.
8 ft.
1 20 ft.
(F) Height. None.
(G) Building area. On any lot the area occupied
by all buildings shall not exceed
40% of the total area of such lot.
Apr 21 04 10:30a
P•2
Danny Farrar
•
FAVETTEVILLE
FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE
OF
From: Fire Prevention Bureau
To: Planning Division
Date 4 20 04
(50.1_) 444-3447
•
REZONING ANNEXATION XX
REZONING# 04-12.06 OWNER Leigh Pavlor Prop
ANNEXATON# 04-06.00 OWNER Leigh Taylor Prop
LOCATION OF
PROPERTY 2470 Hwy, 112
NEAREST FIRE STATION AND
LOCATION Station #2, 708 N. Garland
RESPONSE TIME FROM FIRE STATION # 2 TO
LOCATION OF
PROPERTY_�MpS.L�...SECONDS.
TRAVEL MILES FROM FIRE STATION # 2 TO LOCATION OF
PROPERTY 3.6 miles
COMMENTS ON FIRE DEPT.
ACCESS/ROAD WAYS
EXISTING FIRE HYDRANTS? IF SO
LOCATION Hwy, 112 at pBane Solomon
WATER SUPPLY WITH HYDRANTS
NEEDED?_. Yes
ADDITIONAL
COMMENTS.
MAIN OFFICE
115 SOUTH CHURCH ST.
(501) 444-3448 / (501) 444-3449
FAX (501) 575-8272
SU T N
N.W MAIL
e57 271
FAX 1) 575-8 2
FAME .1 WEVI LLE
THE CRY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
April 19, 2004
Dawn Warrick
Zoning and Development Director
City of Fayetteville
113 W. Mountain
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
Dear Director Warrick,
iiCEIVED
APR 2 0 2004
PLANNING DIV,
POLWE 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 04-12.00
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,
K ieutenant W111Tam rown
Fayetteville Police Department
FAYETTEVILLE POUCE DEPARTMENT
P.O. BOX 1988
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72702-1988
(DEUVERIES) POUCE 100-A WEST ROCK STREET 72701
JAIL 140-A WEST ROCK STREET 72701
PHONE: 501-5873555 FAX:501-5873522
HO vN'a [�Q
MHO 4]Ym mA.
K5
q r/7
�1 N o w
`<
rvK Cam'
Y cY an
nw
g A2A O
n
°n
nn
nnH
1
q o
uuN n
. o0000000000o n �
00000000000o r Y
' wNNYY 000 000 0
000000 000o n �
0 0
m .gym rY.�uaw uomou n a
wow
Z oW.oiY mwYYmwwm a
O o
O o00000000000
00000000000o q0
mo
Y000a oo YY000 p
¢I Nbd mNYpONJV1 O
m muYYouYwYNNY on
' aww �oNomaom n
0
O w
W n
S
H
b
ry
E£Ezz£Ezzz
K K K K K K K K K K K K M
n
z°z °z zzzzozzzzz
HMH HmH mmmmm HmH m HmH HWH HmH
M WMMMMWMMMMM
MMMMmMMMmmmW
b .
M
E££ E
mmmxwmSWW% wn
4x02200000 nn
zzzzzzzzzz
A999 M
rrrrrrrrrr
rrrrrrrrrr
SS 00 pwn
xE rOn
p m
N 6
• O w n
zz non
p
on p
r� n
W
HV
rogN
r0
pUw
3
M
y
M
NNm
.
`C
qro�
N N
a
qro
N N
A
oa
On
�
qn
a
�
O
n
a
m
H
IAD
O
t(yNy] (qj O3�
A 3
O
P
O
yy O
rNH
• • • q o
N N N U N N N N N N N N n
. o00000 0000 n �
0000000000 00
v pw NNNUNNUY G 1p
O 0000 0000000 00o m �
M 0 P N b Y N N N W W O Y O N n P
x V1 J P O Y J N N W V VI W W N J W Y O N S
O O
N N U N U N U N N N N N N N N O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O
000000 00o qb
00
rt1 O W W N N N U N N N Y V Y V V O O O n 6
o 000Y o0000 0000 rm
m
M ri•in mrWe viaw�N.. `%emmvoiaum n�
9
O m
rt
}1 M
s
H
0
• b
ry
z x x xz x
a w2m 0
M MMMMHMMMMMMx 3 n
NMNMUa (1NNNNVIMMNM
0000r000000000000c0[00�
00000+3]OSSSSS�SSp100H
OOOOOb000000 00 00
xzxzxHZzzzzz ZZ xz
a
z
zx
z
n
no
M
MO
z
M
M
mm
n
w
O
w M
O
m
O
0
s
s�
s
s
z
z <
z
z
M
x " Ot
o WYn
rOn
m
H
m
n
m
O
n
n n
e
o
non
3
m
m
n
O
n
H
H
• March 17, 2004 •
Planning Department
City of Fayetteville
113 West Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Attw Dawn Warrwick
Dear Ms. Warwick:
Efra1 :.V 1 I . 1 .I 11' , Y:1
fur,
• 1\:H I I IL' I :Y r:1 1 1.' M 1 11
W/1 1 IM 1 1 1 I :1 1 1 llll 11 \ 1 Y:� • 1 '! - Y. 11 ill 1 illl
1 IrI 11 r1 1 1 \Iw 1 1 1' 11'1\ 1 1' 411111
• JJZ I11 1 1southwest
• 111 11 :Ir IJ 1 •♦ 1 11 1 1. 11- fl
the immediate• 1' boundary 1 this ' acresLiszoned 1 :N is some
agriculturalI 1' south 1 the property but them4oritYof the local area
resiaential:
1zoning changenecessary1 develop .1property 1 1'
11project1 distance from 11' 1 1 "J curve 1
ffighway1 1 1 1have adequatecapacityfor theadditional1:AF
property has city water on the south and west sides. The nearest sanitary sewer is located
over amile to !-south or approximately • mile tothe cast 111ccapaottY1 1-system
on this side 1 town has •e:1 discussed 11 cleared 1' thecityfor new growth.
existinguse1 theproperty 1 11 not11' best usefor theproperty based 1
currentof •I 1the area:111 should be developed I 11- best value to
owners.the
Sincerely,
fz CtL
IL Chad White
City of Fayttacville
Planning Departmenc
ATTN: Ms. Dawn Warrick
117 WcuMountaia.
FayetterMe AR 72701
�.=
Mai Ms, Warrick :
VMMWgMsl
..
. a .
-i
•
It It
.Siaccrt1y,
P at . 'r
.*
I736 STONEWALL CROSSING • SPRINGDALE. A& - 72764
PHONE; 471•716•1773 4 FAXf 47D-641I4644 -
06-23-'04 11:36 FROM-Geomatic Consultants 4792481462 T-863 P02/04 U-713
PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC.
June 23, 2004
City of Fayetteville
Planning Department
125 West Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Attn: Ms. Suzanne Morgan
RE: Leigh Taylor Properties
Dear Ms. Morgan:
Please recall that this project was tabled at the Planning Commission with one of
the concerns from the commissioners being the density compared with the
density of the Forest Hills Estates subdivision to the north. We have researched
the plat of that subdivision and determined that the density of the first 300 feet
(up to Forestview Road) is approximately 1.6 Lots per acre and for the next325
feet (up to Dogwood Lane) the density is approximately 1.8 lots per acre. Our
layout will propose approximately 2.25 units per acre in the northerly boundary
of our subdivision and approximately 2.5 overall. This would help to establish
compatibility from a zoning standpoint between the two subdivisions.
Sincerely,
N. Arthur Scott, PE
President
06-23-'04 11:36 FROM-Geomatic Consultants 4792481462 T-863 P03/04 U-713
PETERS & ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS, INC.
June 23, 2004
Mr. Art Scott P.E.
Project Design Consultants, Inc.
130 N. Main Street
Cave Springs, AR 72718
Bus: (479) 248-1161
Bus Fax: (479) 248-1462
E-mail: nascott@projectdesign-nwa.com
Re: P1021
PDCI - Highway 112 Subdivision
Fayetteville, Arkansas
Dear Mr. Scott:
As you requested, Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. has conducted traffic analysis relating to
a proposed residential development (Subdivision) located on the northeast quadrant where
Howard Nickell Road intersects Highway 112 from the west in Fayetteville, Arkansas. The
following are key findings:
• Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD) 2002 annual average
daily (ADT) traffic counts for Highway 112 were researched and depicfa two-way
volume of approximately 4,300 vehicles per day just east of the site and 3,600 vehicles
per day just north of the site.
Highway 112 is currently a two-lane highway. The current volumes are well below the
capacity of this type of two-lane roadway.
The site is proposed to consist of 99 single family dwelling units. The Trip Generation,
an Informational Report, 2003, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers
(ITE) and The Trip Generation Software (Version 5 by Microtrans), were utilized in
calculating the magnitude of traffic volumes expected to be generated by the proposed
residential land use of this development. These are reliable sources for this information
and are universally used in the traffic engineering profession. These calculations
indicate that approximately 947 vehicle trips (combined in and out) per average
weekday are projected to be generated by the proposed residential land use on this site.
Of this total, approximately 74 vehicle trips are estimated during the adjacent street
weekday AM peak hour and approximately 100 vehicle trips are estimated during the
adjacent street weekday PM peak hour are projected to be generated by the proposed
residential land use on this site.
RECEIVED
06-23
'04 11:34�FRoti-
5012250602
TO-,
6eomatic
P01/022
Consultants
06-23-'04 11:36 FRM-Geomatic Consultants 4792481462 T-863 PO4/04 U-713
Mr. M Scoa P.E.
1= 23, 2004
PW2
Proposed access to the subdivision is proposed from two new streets. One of the
streets (referred to in this report as South Street) is proposed to intersect Highway 112
approximately 1,000 feet east of the location of the Highway 112 bend where Howard
Nickell Road intersects Highway 112 from the west. The other street (referred to in this
report as West Street) is proposed to intersect Highway 112 approximately 720 feet
north of the location of the Highway 112 bend where Howard Nickell Road intersects
Highway 112 from the west. The majority of site -generated traffic volumes destined to
and from the north (Bentonville, Highway 412, etc.) are expected to utilize the new West
Street and the majority of site -generated traffic volumes destined to and from the east
(Fayetteville, 1-540, etc) are expected to utilize the new West Street.
• Sight distances for both of the proposed new streets at Highway 112 each have greater
than 500 feet of sight -distance in either direction.
Traffic accident history from 2000 to 2002 was researched as a part of this study, it was
found that each year reported traffic accidents decreased (16 reported accidents in
2000, 7 reported accidents in 2001 and 4 reported accidents in 2002). Additionally, no
fatalities were involved in any of these reported accidents.
If there are any questions concerning this additional information, please let me know.
Sincerely,
PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC.
Ernest J. Peters, P.E.
President
RECEIVED 06-23-'04 11:34 FROM- 5012250602 TO- Geomatic Consultants P02/02
Planning Commission • •
April
26, 2004
Page
50
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
Page 5/
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 I 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. I 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 corner where Hwy. 112 makes that
90' corner 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 ''A 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 %: 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 • •
April 26, 2004
Page 52
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 corner 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
Page 53
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
1/3, 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
Page 54
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 I 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. I 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 • •
April 26, 2004
Page 55
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.
112 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 '/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, 1007x40', is
that
correct?
Scott: This is still in the preliminary stages.
Planning Commission •
April26, 2004
Page 56
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 I 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 Solorhon, 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 • •
Apri126, 2004
Page 57
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 coming 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 %2 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 comer. Thank you.
Planning Commission • •
April 26, 2004
Page 58
Ostner: Do we have anymore comments from the public? Seeing none, I 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 Ith 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. I 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. A 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
Planning Commission • •
April26, 2004
Page 59
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. I 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
Page 60
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. I 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.
Planning Commission • •
April26, 2004
Page 61
Thomas: The motion carries 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 I could vote to allow that size of development at that place. I
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 • •
April 26, 2004
Page 62
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 • •
April 26, 2004
Page 63
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
I
ithdraw 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 I 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 • •
April 26, 2004
Page 64
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: I 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.
Break
May 20, 04
A SHORT SYNOPSES:
Meeting of Lea Taylor Properties at Ozark Electric Community Room, and 36 neighbors
6PM, May 17. Excellent Bar BQ with trimmings furnished. Meeting lasted 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 106 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 10ft 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 "fail, Developer Cleve said: "our
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 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 pnd
accurate � 9�ra�-�. 1!I 1 • n 1 ' IL `k-�r 4�crz
I
E
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 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.
"04-12.00 LEIGH TAYLOR PROPERTIES
Future Land Use
Overview
e
Legend
Boundary
Subject Property
EM RZN04-12.00
"N� Planning area
Master Street Plan
0 oo0 o Overlay District
�y� �
V*' Freeway/Expressway
Streets
a00000
L 1 City Llmits
'�O Principal Arterial
\_. Existing
_ _
� Outside City
� Miner arterial
�✓
0 % i Collector
Oeric
Planned
0*� Historic Collector
0 175 350
700 1,050 1,400
Feet
RZloseUp ew LEIGH TAYLOR PROPERTIES
Close Up View �p
ell
.', �ijA `<t\ 1p? 9j q✓Jjv�,� �e2' W.
_ - . 1 s ., . ri . E rw., ,. .. %, ..1 . t1� x c P1
�rj
F
el
L ❑
t
ell
e
J
.:
fe'e,l
t
{ _
y
IN `IN
,
,�,
;jeer,ell
Fee
Overview
16.4
I�
'}�`,v, b •, o .'NAF fitill
n of
Nee L
F,f ti e
5
T
Y
Y
_Li ��T--tN��i ✓ _ f ,Fit
rr litY '
�s �t �o :i , � �, y
No lee,
Ia;
n tp
lee
,
'ram i}thr'F R«/N 'tf {.1
3 'SUBJECT 14
H.
JJ
�., t y lei
a ..
re
Ip ell
3
Val
RSFd i �'\' 4 R-A
®C 0
_._----� R-A
Legend
8000q
YDktAct
taaaa pty,Opy ArtuW
—
FLOODWAY
m 000XO
Muter street Man
av= III
—
IIIUYEAR
Mohr street Plan
C0fed0r
—
500 YEAR
® FmewaylEapessway eeee lishrk Od
u- I
LIMIT OF STI
L _1 ertytmev
- - -
Ba mPtaRe
° C4
MM
RZN04-12.00
0 175 350
700
1,050
1,400
Feet
RZN04-12.00
One Mile View
rr
If
1p
• ems*. J -f.
s
x:
41 4 ,a ,.t• ���.
T i
A a.
If
If
A!f
R..
f w F
1 `G~� Zrr .." V S ail
A.
A M
RS 1z RI
Overview
LEIGH TAYLOR PROPERTIES
+
t
F
RA
41
RW4 �S�irxy 1 <i t
Legend
Subject Property Boundary Master Street Plan
R7N04-12.00 `—��. Planning Area '034 FreewayJE+Grossw'dy
�000Streets e000000 Overlay District
y Mvpr Alidlat
L _ _1 City Limits ��. caeaam
��/ll`P1nnee ;1z±' Outside City 000, Hlstaliccolegor
0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Miles
M
Planning Commission
June 28, 2004
Page 6
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 a Rezoning for Leigh Taylor Properties.
Can we have the staff report please?
Morgan: The subject property contains approximately 39.82 acres of vacant
property. It is located north of Hwy. 112 and Howard Nickell Road and
east of Hwy. 112. The property includes a 29.86 acre tract requested for
annexation and an additional 10 acre tract zoned R-A, Residential
Agricultural. This item was heard at the regular Planning Commission
meeting of April 26, 2004 with an accompanying annexation request for
the 29.86 acres. The Planning Commission did approve this request and it
has been tabled at this time at the City Council level. The applicant has
held neighborhood meetings and has submitted a Bill of Assurance that
limits development on this property to a maximum density of 99 lots or
approximately 2.48 units per acre. The applicant has also submitted a
traffic analysis conducted by Peters & Associates Engineers and the
engineer is present. The applicant's intent is to develop a single family
residential subdivision with the zoning of RSF-4. The General Plan 2020
does designate the northern 29.86 acres for residential and the remaining
10 acres is designated for mixed use. Staff is recommending approval for
this rezoning request based on findings within the staff report.
Ostner: Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourselves and give us
your presentation.
Branson: My son in law is Chad White, I'm Cleve Branson. We welcome the
opportunity to address the Planning Commission and the Washington
County residents and the City of Fayetteville residents. We are pleased to
report that since our last meeting with the local concerned citizens about a
month ago that we had an open dialogue and a lot of conversation and we
both expressed our concerns. We did have some differences. We tried to
address those on both sides of the fence. On many of the issues we were
able to work some items out but I would be remiss without saying that we
did end up with a few differences. Not everybody is entirely on the same
page as Chad and I would expect. The main issues being traffic and
density and we have brought some specialists tonight to hopefully show
that there shouldn't be quite as much concern as initially thought at our
last meeting two months ago here. One of the main issues I think was
drainage and certainly to those Fayetteville citizens to the south that is an
issue. Art and the Planning Department certainly will address that if we
are so approved with appropriate catch basins. Secondly, as far as the
Planning Commission • •
June 28, 2004
Page 7
density goes the RSF-4 allows up to 160 homes in that 40 acre subdivision
and we have included in our Bill of Assurance, which all of you have a
copy of and hopefully the local residents have that also. We want to
assure them that we will not build over 99 homes if so approved by the
Planning Commission. We think the size of the lots that we are proposing
is comparable to the neighborhood. Certainly some of the lots to the north
and south are larger but the majority of that reason is because they are on
septic systems and not city sewer like we are going to bring to that
particular subdivision. Chad has some issues that he wants to talk about
like square footage.
White: In the Bill of Assurance also, we have stated that there would be a 2,400
sq.ft. minimum size on this particular subdivision. In looking at the
homes in the Forest Hills subdivision to the north through the county
records is about 400 sq.ft. larger than the average in that particular
subdivision. We are actually staying in consistence with what is to our
south. In the Lee subdivision those are a little larger in average with what
we are trying to do. These are a little larger than what is to our north in
the Forest Hills subdivision. We are staying consistent in that size and
also in lot sizes and that sort of thing. I know that the subdivision to our
north has around 75% of the lots as you will see on the plat that you have
there of the Forest Hills subdivision, about 75% of those lots are % acre
and under. We are staying real consistent with the size of lots as well with
what we are proposing. Some of the citizens there had mentioned a buffer
zone between our northern border and their southern border and also
connectivity was an issue to their subdivision. They would not like that
much traffic going into their subdivision. Of course we will ask that the
city take that into consideration not to have connectivity or some other
alternative. We are doing all that we can to help them out in that area.
Our hands are tied due to what the city wants in that area. At this time I
would like to ask Art Scott, the engineer on the project, to speak on the
possible layout of the subdivision as far as drainage and buffer zone and
that sort of thing.
Scott: Hello. My name is Art Scott. I would like to talk about a couple of the
issues that came up in the neighborhood meeting. In talking with some of
the neighbors on the south border of the subdivision to our north they all
had a concern with I have no neighbors now and now I'm going to have
three neighbors on my direct lot. What we tried to do is make the larger
lots and some tree preservation area and greenspace area on that north
side. Probably the western half of the north side is going to be all tree
preservation area so the trees will be left in place there. On the east side
the developers have agreed to add additional setback buffer area, no build
area if you will, to buffer putting any out buildings or any homes next to
the property lines next to the neighbors to the north. That subdivision at
our north has five lots along that border. We propose eight so you can see
Planning Commission •
June 28, 2004
Page 8
it is not a huge difference because of that tree preservation and greenspace
area. One thing that Chad touched on was connectivity to the north. That
was a big issue with everybody that we talked to in the neighborhood.
They actually didn't want connectivity. We agreed with our two very
good access points on Hwy. 112 that we didn't need to connect to the
north. We are going to propose to connect to the east where there are no
homes along that border right now. If staff approves we will go with no
connectivity to the north. We could put a stub out street with some type of
barricade, maybe a break away emergency access for that subdivision
since it only has one access for the 40 acres. I would think that might be
something that would be useful in case of emergency at that other entrance
of their subdivision. We would agree to do something like that. The one
thing I want to talk about on density and traffic, before 1 turn it over to
Ernie Peters our Traffic Engineer, is that the ten acres on the south that is
already in the city is presently zoned R-A but is planned on the 2020 Plan
to be mixed use. That includes anything from small convenience store up
to a 40,000 sq.ft. grocery store or 350 apartment units could be into that
mixed use type plan. That would be considerably more traffic than we are
generating with a subdivision of this size. At this time I would like to turn
it over to Ernie Peters our Traffic Engineer.
Peters: Mr. Chairman, my name is Ernie Peters. I'm with Peters & Associates
Engineers. We have done a traffic analysis related to this development.
This development consists of 99 lots. It is a residential development,
which is the lowest trip generating land use that is typically found in urban
settings. We found as part of our analysis, which we have summarized in
a letter dated June 23rd, which I believe you have in your packet, the list of
our findings. Presently Hwy. 112 in this vicinity carries anywhere in the
neighborhood of 4,300 vehicles per day as a two way volume. That is in
the area just east of the curve or the intersection of Howard Nickell. North
of that location around the curve the volume drops to about 3,600 vehicles
per day, that is a two way volume. Hwy. 112 is currently just a two lane
roadway in this area. The volumes that I cited are well below the capacity
of a two lane roadway of this type. Capacity is simply not an issue. Hwy.
112 being just a two lane roadway, could easily carry 10,000 vehicles per
day. The site is estimated to generate approximately 950 vehicle trips per
day. This is based on standard trip generation values by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers. These are broken out to be about 74 vehicle
trips, either leaving or entering the subdivision during the a.m. peak hour
and approximately 100 during the p.m. peak hour. The two access points
or street intersections proposed as part of this development are configured
at appropriate locations. They are well back away from the curve of the
road. There are some horizontal/vertical curve situations there where sight
distance is not good at all locations along the boundary of Hwy. 112. At
the two locations where the street intersections are proposed the sight
distance is in excess of 500' and 450' is the minimum that would be
Planning Commission
June 28, 2004
Page 9
necessary to have safe intersection sight distance for this location. Traffic
accident history has been examined for the accidents of record for the
years 2000 through 2002. Accident numbers have decreased during that
time period ranging from 16 accidents during the year 2000 and down to
only four accidents in this vicinity in 2002. There have been no fatalities
but there have been some injury accidents in the vicinity. Art mentioned
that 10 acres of this 40 acre tract is currently on the 2020 Plan as mixed
use development. That could accommodate a variety of uses but just to
put the trip generation of this residential development into proper
perspective, that ten acres under a mix of office and retail type uses could
easily generate 5,000 vehicles per day compared to the less than 1,000 that
we would expect this residential type use to generate. If there are any
questions I would be glad to try to answer them. Thank you for your
attention and consideration.
Ostner: Thank you Mr.
Peters.
At this point
we will take public comment. Would
anyone like to
speak to
this issue?
Futrall: Hello, I'm Charlie Futrall, I live at 3804 Woodside Drive. I am in the
development directly to the north and I border on the northern border of
the Taylor property as it approaches. I am in the northeast corner. When
we were here last time, I say we as a group. There are a number of
neighbors here now not just from our neighborhood but also from the
houses to the south there. Most of us had not had any knowledge other
than seeing the red sign out front and then coming up and getting some
initial idea of this plat that had 108 houses on 108 lots and we were quite
shocked not knowing what was going in. The last time we were here you
asked for the developers to meet with us which they did. I give them great
credit because they came around and put an introduction and come to this
meeting in every mailbox and sure enough, they had a number of people
there. Part of what is going on here is education on our part as a
neighborhood. We are not developers or builders, we have lived here a
long time. I have lived there nine years. We have some people in the
audience that have lived there for 20 and possibly even 30 years in this
neighborhood. It is a long, established neighborhood. It is a mixed
neighborhood. We have small children, preschoolers and high school
kids. We have people in retirement and we have people who work for the
city and work for the government and work for the university and a
number of corporations around. It is a wonderful area that we live in and
we all love it. As we try to learn what was going on here, I am speaking
for myself and can tell you kind of what has gone on with us as a
neighborhood and other individuals can have their own say and own
opinions about what has gone on here. Essentially, the developers that
have come up I think are honest and have an intention of building a quality
development. I say that from meeting them. They showed us some
examples. They mentioned Stonewood over off Hwy. 265, Candlewood
Planning Commission • •
June 28, 2004
Page !0
which is a little more upscale but has some smaller homes in it that we
could go and drive by and look at. I'm sure you all are familiar with these
developments, they are beautiful. Their intents as I've heard this evening
have changed some. They are really trying to accommodate the
neighborhood. What we have done as individuals, I know I have and I
know many people in the neighborhood have come around. We wanted
one acre lots back there. It doesn't compute economically. It doesn't fit
with bringing the sewer in and doing the things that you need to do. We
are faced, like everybody else in this town, with the growth that is going
on. We are right on the edge of the annexation issue and so on and so in
trying to understand what is happening here we have done a real turn
around. We have recognized that we have good developers here. I think
their comment about wanting to provide the Bill of Assurance to make it
100% residential we are very much in favor of. We don't want the traffic
that the gentleman eluded to. I didn't have a study of what that meant in
terms of actual numbers but I think it is significant and it is a real point.
As we look at this I can say it this way, I like the developers. 1 think these
guys are sincere and I think they are going to build quality homes. I think
it shows in the size of the homes. You can not build a 2,400 sq.ft. home in
Fayetteville today and do it cheaply as far as real dollars. They are going
to build nice, quality homes which will enhance our neighborhood in
terms of dollar value, which is one of our big concerns when we first
looked at the density, as it should be. Here are concerns as we might
express them today saying that we recognize there is quality coming into
our neighborhood and we appreciate that. The density is still a concern. I
think that Mr. Branson stated it and I think that our neighborhood would
still state that. At 99 homes he is still at the high end of what his
expectations were when he walked in here. That has not changed. If you
take 108 homes originally and take 10% off that is about what a builder is
looking for. A R-2 would put 80 homes in there on 40 acres. That is a
density that most of the people in our neighborhood would be thrilled to
see and be happy with at this point, as opposed to when we first walked in
here and not understanding the whole process and really trying to take a
look at it. 1 know that is a turn around for many people in our
neighborhood. Maybe there is a compromise between that 80 and the 99
homes that he is asking for. I think that what I would ask you to do,
because the ultimate decision is going to be with you, is to look at this and
where that compromise is and make sure it is here in writing on this
amended Bill of Assurance. 99 homes is still 200 cars. Despite what the
gentleman said as an engineer, I don't know how many of you have driven
out and looked at this stretch of road. All of you have driven it at one time
or another. It is narrow. It is narrow and it is short, quick turns and in
spite of his discussion, right on the edge of this property at the 90' we
have had a fatality there, maybe two fatalities since I've lived there in nine
years. There was a runner hit down in front of the movie theater on this
same Hwy. 112. Why were they hit? Bad shoulders, not enough room
Planning Commission • •
June 28, 2004
Page 11
and because of drivers swerving, pay attention to cell phones and all the
reasons why wrecks happen. We cannot stop growth in our area. We can
only ask you to consider that you are moving out into a more rural area.
You do not have a road structure there. You are dealing with a state
highway, it is not going to get corrected by the City of Fayetteville
whatever you do. There is a real difference between 160 cars and 200 cars
is my comment to this about density. I also think the comment about
being in line with the neighborhood, our neighborhood at the minimum is
acre lots. I'm on a square acre, both of my neighbors are on two. The
next neighbor is on three. Yes, they are on septic. Yes they are not going
to get cut down to % acre lots. Across the street the neighborhood above it
is .65, .70 size lots. That is seven beautiful houses right there. The next
thing is talking about not having a road into our neighborhood. I think
that I can say with 99.9% our neighborhood does not want a road cut
through connecting Woodside Drive. There are several reasons. We like
the privacy that it gives us in terms of not having neighborhood traffic as it
is. I think on an important level our subdivision was developed back in
the late I970's. Our road system, we pull over and let the other person
pass. In doing that we haven't taken out the flowering tree or the pine
trees or something else that is hanging over that road a little bit. Our roads
are not designed for two way traffic and not opening up a subdivision like
this into our subdivision. What you are going to be doing if you did that is
creating real bottlenecks and constant traffic on roads that are not designed
for two way traffic of that nature. It works well for 26 or 30 homes but it
doesn't work well if you open this up to a subdivision which they will
definitely use it both ways at all times of the day. We also discussed a
buffer zone. I couldn't hear at the back of the room what they were
discussing in terms of the northern boundary there which borders our
neighborhood. We would like to see a 50' preservation area of trees to
buffer the two neighborhoods. It would be appropriate and it gives a nice
separation to what is going on there. That is something that we would like
to see if at all possible. Again, this is something that you would dictate. I
do not see it in the Bill of Assurance here. I did get a copy of it so I could
look this over before the meeting. I want to go back to this Bill of
Assurance. I understand that you all are faced with R-2 or R-4. If you just
gave a blanket without this you would be giving them cart blanche
obviously, to fulfill whatever they wanted. You would be giving them
legal right. This is your only limitation if you do not put it to an R-2. I
ask you to think about it carefully as you are doing this and make sure that
any decisions that you make regarding this has that in it, that it is
conditioned upon the builder being able to give a Bill of Assurance to the
Planning Commission. 1 think that in essence the neighborhood has had a
lot of discussion. We had after their meeting another neighborhood
meeting. It was small town politics in motion I suppose. We met under
the old oak tree behind Bill Forbes house and brought our lawn chairs and
had plenty talk about. We are concerned about the safety issue here and I
Planning Commission • •
June 28, 2004
Page !2
think you should be too. We are very willing to compromise and accept
the idea that we are going to have neighbors next door to us and I do want
to say that I think that these developers will do a good job and build a
quality neighborhood. If we could have some consideration with this
buffer zone, if we could have some consideration for any safety
considerations that your planners might give you in relation to dealing
with the state highway. If you could consider less density, not going below
80 but less density than what has been requested we would appreciate it.
Thank you.
Ostner: Thank you.
Forbes: I'm Bill Forbes, I live directly to the neighborhood to the north. When we
were here on the 17`h of May and the vote appeared to be going the wrong
way Mr. Vaught and the lady said we would like you to come back with a
different plan and you guys get together and have a meeting and talk it
over. They bought us barbeque and we were 15 minutes into that
barbeque before we finally figured out there was no different plan, it was
still 108 houses. We were unanimous in this cut through. We don't want
it coming to us. Fin one of the few people in my neighborhood who met
Mr. Ingalls who developed this neighborhood. I met him because we have
a covenant out there and they moved a double wide in on us. Mr. Ingall
told me if you will look at your little plat there between the southern
border and the end of that driveway is 10' that belongs to our
neighborhood. It does not but up against that south property line. The
property values we are still all afraid of will go down. I'm sorry l don't
know the developer's last name but Cleve, he said our property values will
rise with theirs all at the same time. End of quote. I really hope so. As
far as our small lot houses, we have 36 houses and I would wager none of
them are on % acre lot and most of them are on 1, 2, 3 and 7 acres. The
developer is willing to sign a Bill of Assurance. They brought that up. l
had never even heard the term. He said that would be presented to the
Commission. I have not seen it. When he started telling us houses built
2,300 to 2,600 sq.ft., that was nice. $100 per square foot, then he said
three car garages. I said three car garages? He said three car garages.
None of our houses have a three car garage. We don't even have three car
carports. Custom homes, no cookie cutters, a lot of brick are all their
words. He even brought up masonry walls around the perimeter and that
sounds good. The cut through we really don't want. A lot of us took
notes and I have a copy of those notes that we took. I would like to see
how those notes compare with the Bill of Assurance. I will give you each
a copy of these and I'm through.
Ostner: Are there others that would like to speak to this issue? May I first ask that
if there are other comments that you agree with let's just say I agree and
try not to belabor the issues.
Planning Commission • •
Jame 28, 2004
Page 13
Myers: I'm Bill Myers. 1 will restrict myself to the safety issue. I am not a traffic
engineer but 1 am a registered professional engineer. I was taught and I
try to teach my students that if you can possibly design 99% safety into a
project don't ever design 98% in. Something is liable to happen and when
it happens you will bear not only the moral responsibility but you as an
engineer will bear the legal responsibility for what happens. What 1 am
concerned about is the traffic that is on the road now, the shape of the road
because of the curve and Howard Nickell and Deane Solomon coming in
at the corner and the significant dips by Chris Hollow Road. We have
already committed for all of the traffic that is going to be added as a result
of the Clear Creek development. There is more traffic that is going to be
added to it with this. 1 am continuously reminded that the decision makers
have to make their decisions based on a lot of things but I hope you will
not do anything that compromises the safety. I'm just a little country
engineer, but I want to discourage you from adding anymore traffic to that
road than is absolutely necessary. I also would be happy with 80 houses. I
would vote for it. The traffic is a significant thing and there are going to
be people injured if we add much more to it. Thank you.
Ostner: Are there other members of the public who would like to speak?
Borden: Hello, my name is Jim Borden. My wife and I have lived out 112 since
1978 or 1979. We used to drive Hwy. 112 when a not a whole lot of
traffic was on there. Peggy, my wife, worked at Mary Maestris and we
drove back and forth. Hwy. 112 is a really windy road with a lot of dips
and 90' turns. It is really dangerous, not just in that one area. I had the
opportunity of taking video of just one afternoon. I can bring that to you
guys if you want to see what happens out there everyday. We also have
some aerial video of that area. The main thing about that is we have been
out there a long time and 1 have seen a lot of people go off the road a lot of
different times. Some of those people died. That is going to continue to
happen. I believe that just by watching the people at those curves taking
that little risk. One of these days they are not going to make that little
jump out there. It is happening more and more because we have now I
think four or five other homes going in just southwest of there by
Holcomb Elementary. You have Salem Estates and Salem something else
and then there is Salem Hills out there too. All of those people want to
come out that way, especially if they are going to Springdale or north.
You can see it all the time. It has grown and grown and grown. It is
extremely dangerous out there. I know these guys had a traffic engineer
come out but unless you are out there everyday it is something that you
would really have a big concern about if you guys lived out there. I know
these guys are probably going to try the best they can. I think as a
neighborhood we would really like to see the R-2. That is the compromise
that we thought was going to happen, not R-4 and then the compromise
Planning Commission • •
June 28, 2004
Page 14
would be R-4. If they get R-4 the assurance should be a lot less than the
99 homes, closer to the 80. I think they could still come out pretty good
financially. That's all I have to say.
McWhorter: I'm Rick McWhorter. I'm at 3791 Midside. My property is directly to the
north of what was originally going to be three lots that went across the
back of my property. I'm a runner and I am a biker. I moved there in
1994. You will never catch me running or biking on Hwy. 112 it is so
dangerous. It is not the capacity that is really the issue. An engineer can
show you the capacity, show you the number of vehicles that go across
there. What they cannot show is the dangerous curves and the location of
the sight lines that are really difficult. We agree with the R-2. We could
live with the R-2. When I heard the developer say something about a
buffer zone to the north of their property, I didn't hear anything as to what
kind of a distance they are looking at. I would hope that would be a strong
consideration. There is some property there that the association at
Woodside and Forest View does have along the property line. We would
hope that would be a strong consideration. The cul-de-sac I think the
developer was a little misleading in what he said when they were saying
about an emergency break through. At our meeting at Ozark Electric there
was absolute when you say 99.9% it was probably 100% that we do not
want a road cut through our subdivision. We don't want any traffic to go
through there whatsoever. If you put a break away emergency thing that
will just encourage traffic to go through. Please consider that as a safety
issue for us. We like our neighborhood and I will also mention the other
thing that was brought up that has not been addressed is again, we are
looking at development out our way. What kind of an impact is this going
to have on the Fayetteville Public Schools? Our neighborhood is in the
Fayetteville Public School district and what kind of impact is it going to
be on an elementary school? You already know the developments that
you have approved and you already know the figures. It will have an
impact that is going to be long term, long reaching. I would hope that
would be a part of your consideration. The developers are going to build a
nice place. We have met with them. Our concern is how many nice places
are going to go in. Please consider an R-2 for us.
Ostner: Thank you. Are there other members of the public who would like to
speak? I am going to close it to the public and bring it back to the
Commission for discussion.
Allen: There certainly to me seem to be many traffic problems in that location
that really couldn't be identified very well in the traffic study. 1 wondered
if I could speak to the developer for a moment please. I wondered if you
might be willing to be open to a compromise with the neighborhood in
terms of a density maybe 89?
Planning Commission
June 28, 2004
Page 15
White: On the Bill of Assurance, of course we started at 160 to 108 and now we
have come down to 99 lots. Of course we know at this point once we get
to the Planning Commission and start working on plats once you get into
roads and drainage and that sort of thing you are going to start losing lots.
99 was just a starting point, a good round number if you will, 2.5 units per
acre. That is something that we would be open to discussing. The reason
we have come to RSF-4 is because there is no 2.5 zoning. To answer your
question, that would be something we would be interested in talking
about, sure.
Branson: 1 think there was a question about a buffer zone. Art will address that.
Scott: What I said was that the eastern half of the north boundary has the
specimen trees that the city likes to see saved. That made an appropriate,
logical tree preservation area. On the eastern half there are no real
specimen trees that were found on the tree survey that related to the city's
requirements. We could leave those tree specimens that are in there in
place and leave a 50' buffer zone there and leave all of those trees there.
They are smaller trees is what it is. They are newer growth. The older
growth is on the west side.
Vaught: Staff and Engineering, could you speak to that comer of Hwy. 112 at the
corner of the property and what we can and can't do? I know we can't put
conditions on a project at this level. We will do it when they come
forward with a development proposal but what can we do with a state
highway and what are some ideas we can have for the safety concerns in
this area when we get to that point?
Casey: Since that is a state highway we cannot make the developer improve it.
We can make recommendations and have him coordinate with the
Highway Department to see if they can get approvals for that but we do
not have authority to pose those improvements on that highway. We can
work with their traffic engineer to come up with some safe designs and
present those to the Highway Department but it is not a city highway
where we can make those improvements.
Scott: In that area there is a home there that will be removed. There are also a lot
of trees in that area that will be taken out. If you go west bound on Hwy.
112 the problem that would cause a lot of accidents out there is you can't
tell at some times of the year the trees are grown over all the signs. Right
now the signs are all covered up. You can't really tell visibly that that
road goes to the right and turns north. Since 2000 they put in a lot of signs
and you can see the drastic drop. It is down less than 25% of what it was
in 2000 because of those signs. They really help north bound and south
bound. As you approach that curve when we are done we will have a
radius out on the inside of that curve that is much larger and much more
Planning Commission • •
June 28, 2004
Page 16
clear than is existing today. That house right there that is there will be
gone and that will be a visibility corridor through there. That is our
intention to help alleviate some of that visibility problem.
Ostner: Do you know the radius of that curve right now approximately?
Scott: We haven't actually analyzed the radius of the curve. I could tell you
what it is in a few minutes.
Ostner: I was just going to ask what the design speed of that road is. I know the
speed limit is maybe 40 miles per hour.
Scott: I think there is a suggested speed of 25 miles per hour. When you drive it
you can tell that is the design speed. That is a comfortable speed. 35 is
very uncomfortable and that is how you can really tell the design speed.
As you approach it from the east moving westbound there are so many
trees in front of the signs that some of those you can't even see the 25 mile
per hour suggested speed in some locations. What I didn't want to do was
increase the radius of that curve which would increase the speed. I felt
like the fact that it is a 25 mile per hour and most people that drive it
everyday know it is a 25 mile per hour curve. They will tend to stay at
that speed. I felt like if we increase the radius with the intersection of
Deane Solomon Road it will cause a problem with that. That right there is
an appropriate sight distance and it is safe. That yard on the west side of
the intersection is mowed well. It is very safe at 25 miles per hour. I
didn't want to do something to increase it to 45 and reduce that time frame
that drivers have coming off of Deane Solomon.
Ostner: Commissioners, there has been discussion of a compromise of 89 lots if
anyone would care to discuss that.
Vaught: I would like to ask the City Attorney how you would do that. Obviously,
there is a Bill of Assurance and we can't ask for that. The developer has
to offer that. Can you amend that after they present it or would they have
to submit a new Bill of Assurance?
Williams: The applicant would have to amend that and they need to amend that
without pressure. Obviously, what the Planning Commission can do when
they make a recommendation, they could recommend a slightly different
zoning. It is just a recommendation going to the City Council. If you
recommended an RSF-2 that would actually only have 79 units the way I
look at it because it is not quite 40 acres. I don't think it would be proper
for you to request them to make a change in a Bill of Assurance. They
may decide to make such a change to get in between the two numbers and
submit that to the City Council if they so chose. We really can't get into a
Planning Commission • •
June 28, 2004
Page 17
negotiation with them about what number are you going to put in your Bill
of Assurance.
Vaught: Staff, it is my understanding when we are calculating density, for say in
RSF-2, if it was rounded 80 acres when we calculate maximum allowable
density we back out dedications, is that correct?
Warrick: It would depend on whether or not that was an actual parkland dedication
that was deeded to the city and then the remaining property would be
calculated for density.
Vaught: Roadway dedications and all of that is included?
Warrick: No, that is all part of the gross property that is determined for density
calculations.
Vaught: My concern is if we say let's drop them all the way to an RSF-2, we are
really not limiting them to 80, we are limiting them to 70 or 75 which is a
drastic change. That is why I'm cautious to do that.
Ostner: It is a perfect example of a PZD but that is not where we are tonight.
Anthes: Staff, looking at the Future Land Use map and a finding on page 3.3
referring to the land use map identifying multi -use as the future use of this
10 acre tract along Hwy. 112 and it being a principal arterial. I would like
staff to comment on what is happening in the general area and why our
2020 Plan has called for multi -use in that location.
Warrick: There is a portion of property basically the ten acres along the south
boundary continuing to the east that lies along the north side of Hwy. 112
that is designated on the General Plan future land use map to be mixed
use. The majority of the property surrounding that is designated on that
future land use plan to be residential. I wasn't a party to the 1995
decisions that enacted that or adopted that particular future land use
designation for this particular area. That was a decision that went through
approximately 26 public hearings, Planning Commission and City Council
meetings. I don't know that I can tell you the exact reason. We are
talking about a principal arterial which intersects another principal arterial
and mixed use is a designation that gives the Planning Commission some
latitude with regard to zoning decisions. It allows you to consider a
variety of different applications and to choose the most appropriate ones.
Obviously, a Residential Office is a specifically mixed use zoning district.
A variety of different uses on different pieces of property throughout this
area also creates a mixed use application on the zoning map. It is certainly
within the Planning Commission's discretion and the Council's discretion
to determine where residential is appropriate in a mixed use area, where
Planning Commission • •
June 28, 2004
Page 18
residential office or office type uses are appropriate and where some more
intensive type uses might be appropriate. Based on the surroundings,
based on the configuration of the property, based on traffic and safety
issues those are all decisions that can go into determining the best, most
appropriate use for a piece of property that is designated mixed on the
future land use map. It does leave quite a bit of discretion but it also
allows for more than just residential should it be deemed appropriate by
both the Planning Commission and City Council.
Anthes: Thank you. We are looking at lot at our zoning map and at our future land
use map these days and normally we see big areas of residential as it leads
away from the city. The fact that during the development of this plan a
very specific mixed use zone was placed along Hwy. 1 12 has me question
why with all of that public hearing. We are not seeing that in a lot of
places and so I'm looking for the rational for that to see if we are missing
something that other people felt were really important. The other question
I have is for Mr. Peters. I understand what you are saying about the
capacity of that roadway. I know that Garland Avenue heading south of I-
540 carries like 16,000 cars per day with a similar profile. What I would
like for you to do is speak to the geometry of that road and those curves
and the sight lines and tell me how that fits into your calculations of
capacity on that road.
Peters: They really don't go into the determination of the capacity. Capacity
really is not an issue in an open roadway section. Where capacity
becomes an issue is at intersections. There aren't any major intersections
in the vicinity of this development. Capacity, in my traffic engineering
perspective, is a moot point. I think probably what might be more realistic
to look at is what would be an appropriate service volume. That is
addressed in the city's regulations in terms of the volume that you could
typically expect on a roadway by it's classification. As you have
recognized, Hwy. 112 is a principal arterial street, although it is not built
to that standard. If it were built to that standard and someday perhaps it
will be. We did check with the Highway Department and they have no
current plans for improvements to this section of Hwy. 112. Should it be
built to what you would expect principal arterial standards to be it would
be likely a four or five lane arterial street. That category of street at that
number of lanes could carry as a service volume, in the neighborhood of
25,000 vehicles per day. As a two lane roadway in an open section where
there are not major intersections it can accommodate much more than
what is on it right now. It's capacity in terms of it's classification really
isn't an issue I don't think. The 3,000 to 4,000 vehicles per day that are
there now is not a high volume on a two lane roadway. To address the
geometry, the horizontal curve, the major curve there at Howard Nickell is
posted by the Highway Department at an advisory speed of 25 miles per
hour. That is a safe speed for that curve. They have determined that. I
Planning Commission • •
June 28, 2004
Page 19
have driven it myself. Many of you probably have driven it too. You can
safely negotiate that curve at 25 miles per hour. Sight distance can
become an issue. Sight distance relates not only to curvature in the
roadway, horizontal curvature but also the vertical geometry and any hills
that might exist. We have examined both with respect to the points of
intersection of the proposed streets to serve this subdivision. Both of
those streets are at a point in terms of the vertical geometry with the dips
and the hills, if you will, at such a point where there is adequate sight
distance greater than 500' in both directions at each of those two
intersection locations. As Mr. Scott has pointed out, the clearing in the
curve without decreasing the curvature of the roadway but just clearing it
out, I believe it will become safer in that you will be able, particularly for
westbound movement approaching Howard Nickell, you will be able to
see cars coming from the north on Hwy. 112 and I think that that clearing
will make it even safer than what it is now. I think whatever has happened
in the last three years the statistics indicate that the number of traffic
accidents has actually gone down. In the most recent year that the
Highway Department has summarized it is at 25% what it was three years
ago. Another point that is a little off of your topic that I would like to
make, and I think it was Mr. Morgan that spoke who has taken video in
the area. Presently the volumes that we are seeing out there are likely
higher than the volumes that I reported from the Highway Department
because with the construction that is going on on I-540 right now I believe
a lot of people are detouring and taking that as kind of a bypass. The
volumes that we are presently seeing out there are probably greater than
what it typically handles. Probably greater than what it will be when it
goes back to normal and this subdivision is fully developed and the extra
950 cars a day are there.
Anthes: You mentioned that you didn't believe there was really an intersection
issue here. The corner of Hwy. 112 and Howard Nickell Road appears to
be a pretty significant intersection to me. Can you talk about that?
Peters: In that localized area you probably would consider it to be that. I think the
volume on Howard Nickell is probably much less than it is on Hwy. 112.
The difference in volume between a point east of that intersection and
north of that intersection, the difference is about 700 vehicles on a daily
basis. We didn't do volume counts on Howard Nickell. That is just not in
traffic engineer's language that is not a major intersection.
Anthes: My final comments I want to make to the developers and that is I'm really
looking to the 2020 Plan and what the goals of that are. I want to talk to
you about a few things that I've heard neighbors mention and you mention
in terms of how you considered the design of this property and this
subdivision. We do have a policy of connectivity that I believe that we are
going to be talking about more when you come to PPL. Mostly I want to
Planning Commission • •
June 28, 2004
Page 20
talk about the fact that because our General Plan 2020 looks at Hwy. 112
as an arterial with mixed use along it, to me that says something about
what kind of presence we want to have along Hwy. 112. What I'm going
to be looking for and want to talk to you about is another policy that we
have that discourages perimeter walls and that also talks about a presence
on that road, i.e. buildings and homes facing the street rather than
backyards facing the street. I just want to get that in there at the beginning
and put that on the record.
Allen: I was going to comment that as a long term resident of Fayetteville that
has been on Hwy. 112 many times, I feel that as this stands the density of
this project is not safe. To me that is our primary concern is to make sure
that our citizens are safe. As this stands I will not be able to vote for this
project. I feel like you have come a long way but in my view it is not
there yet, it is not safe yet.
Ostner: I would have to agree with Commissioner Allen. I would like for this to be
somewhere near RSF-2 which is about 78 lots or the compromise of 89
lots which we cannot ask for request of you. That's where I stand.
Vaught: My opinion is a little bit different since this is a rezoning to a designation.
We will be able to revisit many of these issues at the time of a LSD, and
we won't get to that Large Scale Development unless we rezone it to what
we think is proper.
Ostner. It is actually a Preliminary Plat.
Vaught: Ok. Well, I'm more inclined to take those issues up and a lot of the safety
issues have to do with possible improvements, curb cuts, the stuff about
buffer zones and connectivity to the north are issues we'll address at that
level. I'm more inclined if we think somewhere, I know RSF-4 is not
appropriate with their Bill of Assurance they dropped it somewhere
between the two. I am more inclined to approve this with the Bill of
Assurance with the understanding that we would love to see it come back
with fewer units and there is going to be extensive work and things that
need to be done. For the safety issues, possible offsite improvements
working with the state. Connectivity issues, buffer issues and all of those
issues that will go through a Preliminary Plat. We are not giving them a
right to go build right now. If we think this is an appropriate type density
if the roads were ideal, that is what we are looking at. All of these other
considerations if we think it could be safe for that density with some
improvements is what I'm looking at. I'm more inclined to vote for it and
see what happens at Preliminary Plat and see if they come back with less
units. Those are all different options we have at that level.
Planning Commission • •
June 28, 2004
Page 21
Ostner: Just to be clear, we are considering granting them the right to build 99 lots.
Whether we like the configuration or not at the time of Preliminary Plat is
yet to be seen. If this passes tonight this becomes law so to speak and they
do have the right.
MOTION:
Shackelford: One thing I would like to add to that, this doesn't become law. A rezoning
is a recommendation to the City Council. Whatever we do tonight has to
be ratified by City Council. I'm more inclined in following along the lines
of Commissioner Vaught thinking that we go ahead and recommend this
rezoning with the RSF-4 with the Bill of Assurance as it stands for 99 lots.
Obviously, the developers have heard this conversation. They have
mentioned that they are open to negotiation. Although we can't require
negotiation with the surrounding neighborhoods it might be in their best
interest to consider reducing that and rewriting their Bill of Assurance
between now and the time that they meet with City Council where this can
be heard again. There is a little bit of difference there. What we do tonight
doesn't have any finality, it is simply a recommendation to City Council.
Two things that have been said tonight that 1 want to make comment on
and just some personal opinion. The growth on Hwy. 112 is I'm afraid is
inevitable. If you look at what is happening with Clear Creek to the north
of this property that is going to facilitate growth all up and down this
corridor. If you look at the growth in Northwest Arkansas, alternative
corridors to I-540 are going to develop, those being Hwy. 265 and Hwy.
112. We run into this situation. We talk a lot about density. That is
something that we are going to have to come to terms with as our city
grows towards the old boundaries. I think that it is unrealistic to think that
new development in the outlying areas is there was no infrastructure in
place and everybody was based on septic. As that infrastructure is put in I
think that it is unrealistic to think that the density is going to stay the same
as they become non -outlying areas. That is a struggle that we continue to
have. My personal opinion the difference between 80 verses 89 verses 99
houses in this area isn't that great of a difference if you talk about the
difference of 8, 9, 10 or 20 houses. I think the development in a five mile
radius to the north, south and west of this property, any one development
can have that much difference. This is a large area, a very growth oriented
area and a lot of new development going on in a five mile radius of this.
I'm not as hung up on the difference of 89 verses 80 verses 99 because I
think if you will look in a five mile radius the addition or subtraction of 10
houses is going to be somewhat immaterial. I understand all of the
concerns. Trust me, there are a lot of concerns out there. This is simply a
recommendation for rezoning. I would encourage us to move forward
with the RSF-4 with the Bill of Assurance as it is stated today. Obviously,
the applicants have heard everything that has been said here and it might
be in their best interest to reconsider reducing that number. We can't
Planning Commission • •
June 28, 2004
Page 22
require them to do that. The issues that we are talking about will be
addressed at Preliminary Plat, those being connectivity. That is going to
be a huge one to address. Buffer zone to the north of this property line is
going to be something that we have to address and obviously, the ingress
and egress in regards to safety on the corner of this. Those are all things
that there will be lots more opportunity for us to have input on and make
sure that we get this right for the community. Based on staff findings,
based on the 2020 Plan I think this is in line with the development that we
anticipated in 1995 for this part of town. I'm going to go ahead and make
a motion that we recommend approval of RZN 04-12.00 with the Bill of
Assurance as it is presented today to the City Council for approval.
Trumbo: Second.
Ostner: 1 have a motion and a second, is there further discussion by the
Commission?
Clark: Just to refresh my memory, Hwy. 112 is State and there is absolutely
nothing that we can do to this developer to mandate any improvements to
Hwy. H 2, is that true?
Warrick: As Matt said, the Planning Commission can make a recommendation for
improvements. Any improvements that the city recommended for Hwy.
112 would have to be further coordinated and approved by the State
Highway Department.
Ostner: Is there further discussion? Renee?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of
RZN 04-12.00 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 5-4-0 with
Commissioners Anthes, Allen, Clark and Ostner voting no.
Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of five to four.
STAFF RE* FORM - NON -FINANCIAL OBATION
AGENDA REQUEST
For the Fayetteville City Council Meeting of:
FROM:
Dawn Warrick
►i1%"41-
Planning
Division
ACTION REQUIRED: Ordinance approval.
SUMMARY EXPLANATION:
K11
CP&E
Department
RZN 04-12.00: (Leigh Taylor Properties, pp 169) was submitted by Chad White on behalf of Leigh Taylor
Properties, LLC for property located north of Highway 112/Howard Nickell Road and east of Highway 112
containing approximately 39.86 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property from R-A, Residential
Agricultural, to RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre subject to a Bill of Assurance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Department Director
Finance & Internal Services Dir.
Approval.
Received in Mayor's Office -1 {}
D to DategLIA
Date (�
Cross Reference:
Date
Previous Ord/Res#:
Date Orig. Contract Date:
9-7-v
Date
7 D
Date
Orig. Contract Number:
New Item:
Yes
two
AA)x
N
IN z
Ir LIY
♦' ir9:.r - '+ / -Al100 rl�l`
\ L .rwrneam BS2 1 b \\ S%\\ \ a\ \� •`\ 177j
lacer-cr-r�r y3 94\
ttrarwmw 1 tr / I \ ury a• \ \ v \ 1 \ \ I
III �157
ppp
ix
\
j ` •, J•1 I I
I I I
\1 1 3zb� e \ I '� § B b_ 7'b 76 i �Y 73 74 I C 16 4
41
1 u,-
1� ; all
pII\r
IIq 77
STAX
k
rw
\
,21
I1
1
f7
40;0�
MiIMAGEIRMI i
/
R Z
71-
�, N
PRO°03'D Y'
FAYETTEALLE •
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: Clarice Buffalohead-Pearman by
City Clerk Division
Date: August 23, 2004
Re: Ordinance No. 4605
Attached is a copy of the above ordinance passed by the City Council, August 17, 2004, approving
rezoning petition RZN 04-12.00 located north of Highway 112/Howard Nickell Road containing 39.86
acres.
This ordinance will be recorded in the city clerk's office and microfilmed. If anything else is needed please
let the clerk's office know.
Attachment(s)
cc: John Goddard, IT
Scott Caldwell, IT
Clyde Randall, IT
Ed Connell, Engineering
• • ARKANSAS
FVITION
Arkansas Democrat AW05azette
AFFIDAVIT OF 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:
#V&6 was inserted in the regular editions on
PO#
"* Publication Charge: $ �o .
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
a4 day of Q uq , 2004.
4404, 9W
Notary Public
My Commission Expires: 07/a5-/1013
Please do
not
pay
from Affidavit.
An invoice
will
be
sent.
Otfiicial Seal
SEAN-MICHAEL ARGO
Notary Public -Arkansas
WASHINGTO COUNTY
My Commission Expires 07-25-2013
212 NORTH EAST AVENUE • P.O. BOX 1607 • FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72702 • (501) 442-1700
J AS
TAY-
9 R ORONNHD IOA BILLOFASSLRgkry �F-A, RESIGENpAL SINGLE FAMIL
By TNN CRT COUNCIL OF TNB CITY pp PA
ction 1: That the zone aassfacetlon It the t000vArg THR WMrMLLH, �IV6
CWX
1.
mftl RAA RaCoad hereto ano to a SF 4r AI 1 Srglaf. prepeftQ thereby al VW az Follows:
tkn 2: That the olAtlel Pert .
et ° as shown h
ap
zaYrO Ghee n!a+Ieetl N secul al 1 t��, of Feyeh"e, Arkanaes, Ls hereby emarpeo to reaeot
Ion
hereof "bow subject
aa���LB ytlne mWit �a a NN of A.Sawance attealetl I
BHO •nd APPNOTHO MIS 1 Ttn oey a PoP8hry to 2.45 10 arlo aaoe a
rovEG: Aa,a„ac aooa. �ft
•q•
1/4 OF iuc ...... avuo IGR
mn..__.
be Nawgt) h