HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 4609ORDINANCE NO, 4609
AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY
DESCRIBED IN REZONING PETITION RZN 04-1103
AS SUBMITTED BY JEFFERY COLLINS FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1280 HENDRIX STREET CONTAINING
APPROXIMATELY 0.51 ACRES FROM RSF-4,
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, FOUR UNITS PER ACRE
TO RT-12, RESIDENTIAL TWO AND THREE FAMILY
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 RSF-4, Residential Single Family, Four Units Per Acre to RT-12, Residential
Two and Three Family 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.
PASSED and APPROVED this 17'" day of August, 2004.
APPROVED:
By:
ATTEST: ,��,c,�...... 'vS
=U;FAYETiEVILLE;
/�
By: �/ �= ;
SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk
(IIIII (IIIII III IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIII IIII
Doc ID: 007653940002 TVDe: REL
Recorded: 09/09/2004 at 02:29:25 PM
Fee Amt: $11.00 Pane 1 of 2
4ashlnoton Countv. AR
Bette StamDe Circuit Clerk
F14004-00037317
EXHIBIT "A"
RZN 04-1103
LOT 6, BLOCK 1, HENDRIX ADDITION TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,
ARKANSAS, AS PER PLAT OF SAID ADDITION ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CIRCUIT CLERK AND EX-OFFICIO RECORDER OF WASHINGTON COUNTY,
ARKANSAS.
Washington County, AR
I certify this instrument was filed on
09/09/2004 02:29:25 PM
and recorded in Real Estate
File Number 2004-00037317
Bette Stamps - Circ it Clerk
by
i
10
NAME OF FILE: Ordinance No. 4609
CROSS REFERENCE:
Item # Date Document
1
08/17/04
Ord.4609
2
06/29/04
memo to mayor & city council
3
draft ordinance
4
memo to Planning Commission
5
copy of email from Planning
6
copy of email from Snicker Barr
7
copy of email from T.L. Phelan
8
Fyv Fire Dept. Service Delivery Impact
9
letter from police dept.
10
copy of Land Use Executive Summary
11
copy of 1/1/02 Planning Commission minutes
12
copy of 4/2/02 City Council minutes
13
copy of 2/10/03 Planning Commission minutes
14
copy of Close Up View
15
copy of One Mile View
16
copy of Future Land Use
17
copy of 2/19/02 City Council minutes
18
copy of 3/5/02 City Council minutes
19
copy of 3/19/02 City Council minutes
20
memo to Dawn Warrick
21
Affidavit of Publication
22
23
24
25
• City Council Meng of ' I200
�iO4
Agenda Item Number
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
To: Mayor Coody and City Council
Thru: Tim Conklin, Community Planning and Engineering Services Director
i
From: Dawn T. Warrick, AICP, Zoning and Development Administrator
Date: June 29, 2004
Subject: Rezoning request for Collins (RZN 04-1103)
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends approval of an ordinance rezoning
approximately 0.51 acres of property from RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4 DU/Acre
to RT-12, Residential Two & Three Family, 12 DU/Acre, based on the findings included
in the attached staff report.
Property description: The subject 0.51-acre tract of land is located at 1280 Hendrix
Street, west of Garland Ave., north of Mt. Comfort Road. The Future Land Use Plan
identifies this property for Residential Use. Surrounding properties are zoned RSF-4 and
are developed as single family residential homes. Two triplexes currently occupy the site,
and are considered nonconforming uses in the RSF-4 zoning district. The structures were
permitted in 2001 under an erroneous zoning classification. Subsequent to construction of
these units, the error was found, corrected and the zoning map returned to its correct
designation. The structures may exist in situ, until such time as they are destroyed and/or
removed from the property.
Proposal: The applicant proposes to rezone the 0.51-acre tract in anticipation of future
sale of the property for use as two and three family dwellings.
DISCUSSION
On June 28, 2004, against the recommendation of staff, the Planning Commission voted
7-2-0 to forward this item to the City Council with a recommendation for approval of the
rezoning, with Commissioners Ostner and Allen voting against.
BUDGET IMPACT
None.
3
Qzo
Fs/i-710�
Lf/ O1
AZNOI/-
t
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED
IN REZONING PETITION RZN 04-1103 AS SUBMITTED BY
JEFFERY COLLINS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1280
HENDRIX STREET CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.51
ACRES FROM RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FA
UNITS PER ACRE TO RT-I2, RESIDENTIAL TWO
FAMILY. i
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the zone :classification
property is hereby changed as follows:,
Y. FOUR
OF THE CITY OF
of the following described
From RSF-4, Residential Single Family,jour Units Per Acre to RT-129
Residential Two and Three Family 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 retlect,the zoning change provided in
Section1above.
PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 2004.
APPROVED:
By:
DAN COODY, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
Sondra Smith, City Clerk
EXHIBIT "A"
RZN 04-1103
LOT 6, BLOCK 1, HENDRIX ADDITION TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,
ARKANSAS, AS PER PLAT OF SAID ADDITION ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CIRCUIT CLERK AND EX-OFFICIO RECORDER OF WASHINGTON COUNTY,
ARKANSAS.
0
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: Jeremy Pate, Associate Planner
THRU: Dawn Warrick, AICP, Zoning & Development Administrator
DATE: June 21, 2004
RZN 04-1103: Rezoning (COLLINS, 404): Submitted by JEFFERY, T. COLLINS for property
located at 1280 HENDRIX STREET. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4
UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.51 acres. The request is to rezone the subject
property from RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre, to RT-12, Residential Two and
Three-family. Planner: JEREMY PATE
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the requested rezoning based on the findings included as part
of this report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: R quired YES
0 Approved. O Denied
Date: June 28, 2004 -Iw" 61%k%slu.lfetd6 4-1,
ITY COUNCIL ACTION: Required YES
O Approved O Denied
ate:.July 20, 2004 (1st reading.if recommended)
Comments:
BACKGROUND:
Property description: The subject property is located at the northeast comer of Hendrix St and
Addington Avenue, west of Garland Ave. Currently a 6-unit multifamily development (two
triplexes) exists on site, constructed in 2001. These units were permitted under an erroneous
zoning classification in 2001, which was corrected soon thereafter. Surrounding properties are
zoned RSF-4 and are developed as single family residential homes along Addington Avenue,
K. 18eports12004PC Reports106-28-04WZN 04-1103 (COLLINS).d"
Maxwell Drive and Hendrix Street.
The existing use of the property for three-family dwellings (Use Unit 10) is not allowed by right
nor by conditional use in the RSF-4 zoning district and is, therefore, considered a nonconforming
use on this property. Nonconforming uses are considered incompatible with permitted uses in
their respective zoning district. Nonconforming uses may not be enlarged, increased, or moved
on the property. If a nonconforming use ceases for more than 120 days, any subsequent use of the
land shall conform to zoning district regulations. If a structure is destroyed to an extent of more
than 50% of its replacement cost at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in
conformity with the provisions of the zoning district in which it is located.
Public Comment: Numerous comments have been received at the Planning Division, many of
which are included in the staff report. The surrounding neighborhood residents who have
submitted comments resoundingly oppose the rezoning and express desire for the property to be
permanently zoned RSF-4. (A request for rezoning property may be submitted by its respective
property owner at any time, subject to the regulations set forth by the Unified Development
Code)
History: In April 2002, a highly contested rezoning was approved by the City Council for
property located at the corner of Hendrix St. and Garland Ave. (Brock Thompson), several lots
east of the subject property. The Thompson property, as is the case with the subject property, for
many years appeared on the City's zoning map as R-1.5 (RT-12). It was discovered with
extensive research that a drafting error had occurred in the process of converting the official City
zoning map from a hand drawn graphic to a digitized document, a process that began in 1995.
The error was discovered when a project proposal was reviewed for the Thompson property.
Staff researched this area of the map and determined the property was actually zoned R-1 (RSF-
4) on the City's 1970 official zoning map and that no ordinance approved by the City Council
had occurred since that time rezoning the property from its original zoning district. The applicant
subsequently requested the rezoning to RT-12. Extensive public comment was received at that
time, much of which referred to the subject property's development as triplexes. Minutes from
the Planning Commission and deciding City Council meeting are included.
A similar rezoning request was heard by the Planning Commission in February of 2003,
involving property on Deane St. (RZN 03-8.00 (McKinney). This particular rezoning request
from R-1 to R-1.5 was denied (see attached minutes).
Since the 2002 finding, the entire City of Fayetteville Zoning map has undergone extensive
review and research, and a new, official zoning map was adopted in July, 2003.
Proposal: The applicant proposes a rezoning of the subject property to facilitate future
reconstruction of multifamily units on the subject property, should they be destroyed or removed.
Request: The request is to rezone the subject property from RSF-4, Single Family Residential, 4
units per acre to RT-12, Residential Two and Three Family, 12 Units per acre.
K. IRepores11004WC Repores106-18-00 7.N 04-1103 (COLLINS).do
1]
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
DirectionMSin
Land Use
Zoning
Northle
familyhome
RSF-4,
Res.
Single
Family,
4
DU/acre
Southle
familyhome
RSF-4,
Res.
Single
Family,
4
DU/acre
Eastle
famil
home
RSF-4,
Res.
Sin
le
Famil
, 4
DU/acre
Westle
family
home
RSF-4,
Res.
Single
Family,
4
DU/acre
110 VIA6YI "I 'lTt"I X
Streets: The property fronts onto and is accessed from Hendrix Street, which is an
unimproved Local Street.
Water: The property has access to a 6" water main along Hendrix Street. This main
should be sufficient for development of this property. The property is currently
developed with 6,units.
Sewer: The site has access to a 6" sewer main along Hendrix Street. The developers
engineer will need to provide calculations to show that there is adequate capacity
in this sewer main. Upgrades to the sewer main may be required with future
development.
Fire: The subject property is located 0.633 miles from Fire Station #2. Fire response
time is approximately 3-4 minutes. Projected service calls for the subject property,
at maximum build -out, is 5 calls per year.
Police: It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that this annexation will
not substantially alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the
load on police services.
K:Vleporu1100APC Repora106-18-04V0V 04-1103 (COLLINS).do
LAND USE PLAN: The Future Land Use Plan designates this site for Residential use. Rezoning
this property to RT-12 is consistent with the land use plan for a residential use, however it is not
compatible with the surrounding density and single family dwelling land use in the surrounding
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 rezoning is not consistent with land use planning objectives
and policies to a degree that provides compatibility with adjacent properties
in the same district. Surrounding properties are residential in nature, not
unlike the existing land use on the subject site. However, the surrounding
properties represent a cohesive single family land use, as opposed to the
multi -family land use erroneously allowed in 2001 on the property. A
rezoning to RT-12 would constitute a "spot zone," creating a separate and
distinct zoning district "island" amidst the surrounding RSF-4 zoning
district, a condition against which the City of Fayetteville's policies advise.
Staff finds the proposed RT-12 zoning is not compatible with adjacent zoning
and development already in place.
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 not justified or needed in order to retain the use of
the property as it was permitted in 2001. The existing use is considered
nonconforming, so that it may not be reconstructed or enlarged, however it
may remain as a nonconforming use until such time as the units are
destroyed or removed.
3. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase
traffic danger and congestion.
Finding: A rezoning to RT-12 would allow a maximum of 6 units on the 0.51 acre site
(12 units/acre), the number of units currently existing on -site. Rezoning the
property, therefore, would not result in an increase of traffic accessing onto
Hendrix Street. Maintaining the current RSF-4 zoning designation, however,
would ensure reduction of trips generated if the property were ever
redeveloped under a single family zoning district.
Police — It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police department that an appreciable
increase and traffic danger and congestion will not be created by this
rezoning request.
K: W"rts12004PC Reportrl06-28-04WN 04-1103 (COLLINS).do
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 not substantially alter the population density in
the area. Public service providers have responded accordingly:
Police — This rezoning will not substantially alter the population density thereby
undesirably increasing the load on police services.
Fire— Response time to the subject property (actual drive time) is approximately 3-
4 minutes (approx. 0.633 miles) from station #2. Projected service calls for
the subject property, at maximum build -out, is 5 calls per year.
Engineering - The property fronts onto and is accessed from Hendrix Street, which is an
unimproved Local Street.
The property has access to a 6" water main along Hendrix Street. This main
should be sufficient for development of this property. The property is
currently developed with 6 units.
The site has access to a 6" sewer main along Hendrix Street. The developers
engineer will need to provide calculations to show that there is adequate
capacity in this sewer main. Upgrades to the sewer main may be required
with future development.
5. 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
K. WeporU11004WC Repor[r106-18-04IRM 04-1103 (COLLINS).do
161.07 District Rsf4, Residential Single -Family — Four Units Per Acre
(A) Purpose. The RSF4 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
Ci
-wide uses by
right
Unit 8
Single-family
dwelling
(2) Conditional uses.
Unit 2
Ci wide uses by conditional use permit
Unit 3
Public protection and utility 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
dwellings
Units per acre
1 4 or less
7 or less
(D) Bulk and area regulations.
Single-family
dwellings
I Two-family
I dwellings
Lot minimum width
70 ft.
80 ft.
Lot area minimum
8,000 sq. ft.
12,000 sq. R.
Land area per
dwellin unit
8,000 sq. ft.
6,000 sq. ft.
(E) Setback requirements.
Front
Side
Rear
25 ft.
8 ft.
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.
K. IReporrs120041PC Reports106-18-04IRZN 04-1103 (COLLINS).dm
161.09 District RT-12, Residential Two And Three Family
(A) Purpose. The RT-12 Residential District is designed to permit and encourage the development of detached and
attached dwellings in suitable environments, to provide a development potential between low density and medium
density with less impact than medium density development, to encourage the development of areas with existing
public facilities and to encourage the development of a greater variety of housing values.
(B) Uses.
(1) Permitted uses.
Unit /
Ci -wide uses b right
UnitB
Sin I family dwellings
Unit 9
1 Two-family dwellings
Unit 10
1 Three-family dwellings
(2) Conditional uses.
Unit 2
City-wide uses by conditional use permit
Unit 3
Public protection and utility facilities
Unit 4
Cultural and recreational facilities
Unit 24
Home occu ations
Unit 36
Wireless communications facilities
(C) Density.
11 Units per acre 1 12 or less
(D) Bulk and area regulations.
Single-family
Two-family
Three-family
Lot width
minimum
60 ft.
70 ft.
90 R
Lot area
minimum
6,000 sq. ft.
7,260 sq. ft.
10,890 sq. ft.
Land area
per dwelling
unit
6,000 sq. ft.
3,630 sq. ft.
3,630 sq. ft.
(E) Setback requirements.
Front
Side
Rear
25 ft.
1 8 ft.
20 ft.
(F) Height regulations.
Buildin2 height maximum 30 ft.
(G) Building area. The area occupied by all buildings shall not exceed 50% of the total lot area.
K:IRepornI2004PC Reporrs106-28-04VtZN 04-1103 (COLLiNS).doc
We are requesting that the property at 1280 Hendrix Street (Street
addresses: 1526, 1528, 1530, 1534, 1536, and 1538 Addington) be rezoned
from single family R 1 to R 1.5.
Currently two structures are located at the property. These are townhouse style
apartments with each building representing 3 apartment units for a total of 6 units
at the site. These apartments have been occupied since late 2001 and early
2002.
Current Ownership and pending/proposed property sales -
The property is owned by Cheesehead LLC, an Arkansas company. The
members of Cheesehead LLC are Jeffery Collins, Fayetteville, Paul Goss, Bella
Vista, and Neil Gulsvig, Mosinee, Wisconsin. The property was purchased
shortly after it was constructed by Marc Crandall, Crandall Homes, Inc. The
purchase occurred in late 2001.
The property is currently under contract for sale to Ben and Sylvia Schlegel. The
broker for the sale is Ramsay Ball of Lane Real Estate in Bentonville, AR.
Reason for requesting rezoning -
The current zoning does not allow the property to be rebuilt if it was to be
destroyed. This implies a loss of value and is impeding the sale of the property.
The property was erroneously zoned R 1.5 at the time we purchased it. This
zoning directly influenced the sale price of the property. At some point after we
had purchased the property, the error was discovered by Fayetteville City
Planning and was corrected. We were not informed and probably would not
know that the zoning had been in error had we not entered into a sale and
through the due diligence process, the error was discovered.
How will the property relate to surrounding properties in terms of land use,
traffic, appearance, and signage?
The property has been operated as multi -family housing for several years a. It is
currently "part" of the neighborhood. While other structures on adjacent
properties are single-family houses, the townhouse style units seem to represent
a mild departure from the current feel of the neighborhood. Most of the existing
homes are small and probably built in the 1950's and 1960's. The land use
therefore is essentially unchanged, with the primary difference being density.
The landscaping includes old trees, which have been preserved on the site.
Additionally, no signage is present.
Availability of water and sewer -
The water line is a 6 inch line and the sewer line is also 6 inches at the site.
•
The degree to which the proposed rezoning is consistent with land use planning
objectives, principles, and policies and with land use and zoning plans -
I believe that the rezoning would minimally alter the current land use plan for the area.
What is being requested is not a drastic divergence from the current zoning (i.e. from
residential to commercial).
Whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time of request -
Without rezoning the property a significant loss will occur to the current owners. This
loss would be caused by either our or the buyers inability to rebuild the structure. This
would, again, cause a significant reduction in the value of the property due to the
erroneous zoning at the time the construction was permitted and a certificate of
occupancy was issued.
Whether the proposed zoning will create or appreciably increase traffic danger and
congestion.
I assume that this was a consideration at the time of construction and given the project
was permitted; it would seem safe to assume that the answer to this question is that
construction was not deemed to significantly increase congestion or danger from
increased traffic.
Whether the proposed zoning will alter the population density and thereby
undesirably increase the load on public services including schools, water, and sewer
facilities.
The rezoning of this parcel will not alter existing population density given the structure
currently exists and is occupied. Therefore, I would assume the impact from rezoning on
services to be negligible as well.
Why would it be impractical to use the land for any of the uses permitted under its
existing zoning?
I would say that single family housing is a practical use of the land had multi -family not
been permitted and built on the parcel. I would also argue that the existing structures are
also an acceptable use. It is not whether the existing zoning is practical or not, just that
investments were made in the property given information provided by the city which
turns out to be incorrect. We are not seeking to build a different structure or modify the
existing structures on the property; we are simply asking to be allowed to maintain the
value of the property.
From: Planning .
To: Pate, Jeremy; Warrick, Dawn
Date: 6/17/04 11:21AM
Subject: Fwd: RZN 04-1103: Rezoning (COLLINS, 404)
>>> "Joyce Richards" <joycerichards@hotmail.com> 06/15/04 12:38PM >>>
We have received your letter today dated June 10, 2004, regarding the
proposed rezoning adjacent to our property at 1231 South Maxwell.
When these buildings were constructed, the zoning at that time was one of
the "mistakes" on the city zoning map. It was then corrected after the map
was studied and redrawn.
We would ask you to deny this rezoning because it seems that you would be
reverting to a mistake which after much study and time on your part, you
chose to correct.
As residents who drive on Hendrix often and who have a long-standing
relationship within the area (we bought our home on Stephens in 1974 and the
Maxwell house in 1996), we feel the current structures on Hendrix are more
than "a mild departure from the current feel of the neighborhood", and ask
you to not grant this rezoning.
Richard and Joyce Richards
1673 North Stephens
Fayetteville AR 72703
MSN 9 Dial -up Internet Access fights spam and pop -ups — now 3 months FREE!
hftp:/rloin.msn-click-url.com/q-o/onm00200361ave/directfOl/
LJeremy Pate - Re -zoning on Hendrix Page 1
From: Snicker Barr <snickerbarinar@yahoo.com>
To: <Iljordan7@hotmail.com>, <SLucasWard4@aol.com>
Date: 6/21/04 9:17AM
Subject: Re -zoning on Hendrix
I am writing to you to express my concerns about the
contining re -zoning problems caused by the mistake in
the map conversion in our neighborhood.
I understand that the tri-plexes built at the corner
of Hendrix and Addington have been sold and the new
owners are asking for re -zoning to be permanent.
I would like to ask that you uphold your previous
promises not to make an "island" in the middle of our
neighborhood and keep this conditional zoning to apply
to this structure only. If they should suffer loss of
the building; it should revert back to the original
zoning and fix the problem (mistake). When we went
through this the last time, we were promised that no
more re -zoning would occur in this neighborhood.
Please make this a permanent ruling and attachment to
this property so that all future transactions can be
aware of it and not make our neighborhood go through
this time and time again. Mr. Crandall should have
been honest in his real estate transactions, but
barring that, should this not have been revealed in a
title search? The new owners should have known about
this when they purchased the property.
Thank you for your time
Janet Bowlin
CC: <plan n ing @ci. fayettevil le. ar. us>
- AGAINST -
• ' 9
From: "T. L. Phelan" <tlphelan@arkansasusa.com>
To: <planning@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 6/20/04 8:37PM
Subject: AGAINST — rezoning request at Hendrix and Addington
Where does the line get drawn by the city council or planning commission
between re -visiting our neighborhood with a mistake they made in the first
place or keeping the zoning correct?! Since the current owners are not the
original owners, then the situation that the current owners find themselves
in would be "caveat emptor....... the zoning should NOT be reverted to the
mistake simply to alleviate a problem that MIGHT happen in the future. If
and when a loss happened due to disaster, then the owners could even be
different from who they are now. If a loss happened because of a sales
transaction and property values associated with the zoning, then I repeat —
"caveat emptor". And, IF it happens in the future that they experience a
loss because of the zoning, then I state, again, that they need to consider
suing the city and/or the real estate agency — but keep the zoning
correct — the way it should have been in the first place!
And I will take this opportunity to remind one and all that the white haired
60-something fellow named Earnest (is it) who holds a position having .
something to do with development for the city (and who sits on the city
council), rebuked us at the conclusion of the first round of this mess by
trying to put the blame off on us, the residents of the neighborhood, for
not having caught the city's mistake. He ignores the fact that the city
staff is getting paid to do their job correctly — operative word here is
"correctly" — and he was/is attempting to not be accountable to us, the
citizens — the ones that he, the planning commission, and the city, is
suppose to serve ..... and serve correctly.
— T. L. Phelan
1171 N. Maxwell Dr.
Fayetteville, AR 72703
USA
Uphelan@arkansasusa.com
<—Original Message —
<From: T. L. Phelan [mailto:tlphelan@arkansasusa.comj
<Sent Sunday, June 20, 2004 2:10 PM
<To: 'Lynn Fisher'; 'Joyce Richards'; 'cbh02@uark.edu';
<'clgray@uark.edu'; 'darleenterry@yahoo.com'; 'dfredric@uark.edu';
<'djjamie@cox-intemet.com'; 'hiscouple@netzero.net';
<'Jarlovmic@aol.com'; 'jbowlin@engr.uark.edu';
<'KDPHILLIPS@cox-intemet.com'; 'kevnbro@earthlink.net';
<'Iwmiller@ars.state.ar.us'; 'Ixt02@uark.edu';
<'mloots@fayettevillelibrary.org'; 'vwhuens@aol.com';
<'zmoon@cox-internet.com'
<Subject: RE: rezoning request at Hendrix and Addington
<that's the way it reads to me ..... where does the line get
<drawn by the city council between re -visiting our
<neighborhood with a mistake they made in the first place. I
<say if the owner of that property experiences a loss because
<of it, let them sue the city, but keep the zoning correct —
<the way it should have been in the first place!
<And I will take this opportunity to remind one and all that
<the white haired 60-something fellow named Earnest (is it)
<who holds a position having to do with development for the
<city, rebuked us at the conclusion of the first round of this
<mess by trying to put the blame off on us, the residents of
<the neighborhood, for not having caught the city's mistake.
<He ignores the fact that the city staff is getting paid to do
. <their job right, and he wasrs attempting to not be
<accountable to us, the citizens — the ones that he is
<suppose to serve ..... and serve correctly. Remind your
<councilperson of this!
<— T. L. Phelan
< 1171 N. Maxwell Dr.
< Fayetteville, AR 72703
< USA
< tlphelan@arkansasusa.com
< <—Original Message—
• <From: Lynn Fisher [mailto:lfisher@uark.edu]
< <Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 5:16 PM
< <To: Joyce Richards; cbh02@uark.edu; clgray@uark.edu;
< <darieenterry@yahoo.com; dfredric@uark.edu; dj amie@cox-intemet.com;
< <hisoouple@netzero.net; Jariovmic@aol.com; jbowlin@engr.uark.edu;
< <KDPHILLIPS@cox-internet.com; kevnbro@earthlink.net;
< <Iwmiller@ars.state.ar.us; bd02@uark.edu;
< <mloots@fayettevillelibrary.org; tlphelan@arkansasusa.com;
< <vwhuens@aol.com; zmoon@cox-internet.com
< <Subject: Re: rezoning request at Hendrix and Addington
< <Am I interpreting this correctly?
< <It sounds to me as though the owners, who were able to build
< <the triplexes
< <because of a zoning mistake (which is now corrected,
<right?), want to
< <revisit the issue and make the original mistake permanent.
< <Since the 1950s,
< <the street has been zoned for single family residential
< <units. Is this once
< <again an issue, because the property may not sell for as much
< <as the owner
< <is asking?
< <Lynn Fisher
< <On 15/6/04 8:30 AM, "Joyce Richards"
< «joycerichards@hotmail.com> wrote:
< <> There is a rezoning request for the property at Hendrix and
< <Addington where
< <> the triplexes are located. The property is currently up for sale.
< <> According to the papers filed with the city Planning
< <Division, the reason
< <> for this request is "to allow the property to be rebuilt if
< <it was to be
< <> destroyed. This implies a loss of value and is impeding
< <the sale of the
< <> property. The property was erroneously zoned R 1.5 at
<the time we
< <> purchased it. This zoning directly influenced the sale
<price of the
< <> property. At some point after we had purchased the
< <property, the error was
< <> discovered by Fayetteville City Planning and was corrected.
< < We were not
< <> informed and probably would not know that the zoning had
< <been in error had
< <> we not entered into a sale and through the due diligence
< <process, the error
< <> was discovered."
<o
< <> I have my own feelings and concerns on this matter. If you
< <have feelings
< <> and concerns, it might be in your best interest to contact
< <the Planning
< <> Division and our councilmen to express them.
< <> SLucasWard4@aol.com Iljordan7@hotmail.com
< <> I plan to visit the planning offices again and express my
< <opinion. This
< <> matter will be voted on by the Planning Commission on June
< <28 at 5:30, and I
< <> plan to be there.
< <> Getting married? Find great tips, tools and the latest
< <trends at MSN Life
< <> Events. http:/Aifeevents.msn.com/Category.aspx?cid=married
<o
«
CC: <Iljordan7@hotmail.com>, <SLucasWard4@aol.com>, "Joyce Richards (E-mail)"
<joycerichard s@hotma il. com>
•
;Il
AT
71
;0
D
�1
A
Dx
N
N
N
N
N
Z
N
N
Z
N
Z
ZZZZ
XZZXZ
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
-�0000
J
y
O
n
m
w
w
fD
ID
ID
ID2xm
G>o
z
m
a)
Ffi,
°<
�
<
w
O
Friv
J
J
—
J
O
O
CIL
4
0
3
C
G
N
O
J
y
T
T
T
-n
c
c
c
c
TC TT-n
C
TC
C i
N ID (n (n
In
N
(A N
N 1
�T W N-+
TAT
T '
(/�
N
Cn
N 1
O N W O
O
W
A N
N
N
N 0
CD
y fill N
N
w
0 4
3
A 3
3
c c
Cc a
�
1�I1 N N N
N
N� N
q
y
4J1 O4 w
CO
4J
A -
4l1
W
4
N01IDA
N
tT 3.
3
N?
u 3
N U
333.E
3
3 =
C J F
J
3 C
3
C C
G
C
J
C c
y N N y
N
y
N
y 4
y
O) O) Vt
N A
N
1L
w
w
0) 1L
N
N
O) 0) N
W
�p
`G `G -
G
W
4N0
0
91 N
y
N
N
W
W
N
A
O.O
N d
Dl
N lD
ID
U�1
Z
X
o
A
3
0
Ol
W
n
o,
<-
p
m
D
m
�
ro
o
�
.1
D
f
D
O
D
�
1
�
u
1
n
�
,
y O
J
E
'
T W
�
y �
� •
C
i
O
^
c
_
O b
� r
'o v
vo
7
m
L
b •
c
D y
p
m 3
6
1
o
2
w
-
n
O m o
m
C
3 0
0
c' r
O
3 °i
u
•
•
c m
m
o'
r
•
O c •
m 3 y
n
T
v
C m •
% Z
m_
—
0
O
m
p
O c m
4+
mm
o'3v
O
6 »
m
O c
2
m
m
1
FAM' E WEVI LLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
June 18, 2004
Dawn Warrick
Zoning and Development Director
City of Fayetteville
113 W. Mountain
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
Dear Director Warrick,
This document is in response to the request for a determination of whether the proposed
RZN 04-1103: Rezoning (Collins, pp 404) submitted by Jeffery Collins for property
located at 1280 Hendrix St. would substantially alter the population density and thereby
undesirably increase the load on public services or create and appreciable increase in
traffic danger and traffic congestion.
It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that this annexation will not
substantially alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on
police services or create and appreciable increase in traffic danger and congestion in the
area.
Sincerely,
leutenant Wi N14 Brown
Fayetteville Police Department
WETTEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT
D. BOX 1988
IYETrEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72702-1988
POLICE DEPARTMENT
(DELIVERIES) POLICE 100-A WEST ROCK STREET 72701
JAIL: 140-A WEST ROCK STREET 72701
. PHONE: 501-587-3555 FAX: 501-587-3522
LAND USE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ANNEXATIONS — Petition by owner — absolute discretion
Does the City Council want this land within our city limits?
REZONING — Substantial discretion afforded City Council
1. 20/20 Plan objectives
2. Public opposition that is logical and reasonable
3. Traffic
4. Safety and Fire protection
5. Good civic design and efficiency
6. Adequacy of public facilities (sewage, water)
7. Noise
8. Litter
9. Decrease in value of adjoining land
10. Appropriate and best use of land
11. Compatibility with adjacent zones (spot zoning)
Large Scale Development/Preliminary Plats — Little or no discretion
May be denied only pursuant to U.D.C. § 166.05 (C)(7)(d) if:
1. development plan not submitted in accordance with requirements
of UDC
2. development would violate city, state or federal law
3. developer refused to dedicate appropriate infrastructure
4. development would create or compound a dangerous traffic
condition
5. water unavailable; sewer unavailable and septic tank not feasible
6. developer refuses to comply with on and off site development
requirements
Planned Zoning Districts — substantial discretion for zoning issues
Density, good civic design and other zoning considerations are proper
considerations for PZD requests.
Planning Commission
January 14, 2002
Page 12
RZN 02-1.00 Rezoning (Schmitt, pp 404) was submitted by Robert Schmitt for property located at
1140 Hendrix and 110 Garland. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains
approximately 1.36 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential.
Estes: The next item on the agenda is item number three, this is a rezoning request submitted by
Mr. Robert Schmitt for property located at 1140 Hendrix and 110 Garland. The property
is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 1.36 acres. The
request is to rezone to R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential. Staff recommends approval
of the requested rezoning based on the findings that are included as a part of your report.
Is the applicant or the applicant's representative present?
Osborne: Yes Sir, we appreciate the opportunity to appear and we are very happy with the staff
recommendation and we stand on it. I am Rick Osborne representing Bobby Schmitt.
Estes: Thank you Mr. Osborne.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Estes: Is there any member ofthe audience who would like to provide public comment on this
rezoning request 02-1.007
Davidson: Yes Sir. My name is Sharon Davidson; I live on Rodgers Drive in Fayetteville. Actually,
I would like to start with, I have heard the unfortunate news that Commissioner Estes' term
is about to expire on us and I consider that a big loss to us in Fayetteville. I have watched
him handle these meetings and people and projects and he has done it extremely well in my
opinion. I am a little concerned that we won't have his great expertise in the years ahead
dealing with the very reason why I'm standing up here right now, Mr. Schmitt.
Inappropriate R-2 zoning is one ofhis issues. We have issues allover the place with Mr.
Schmitt and actually I haven't had enough time to research this newest one myself. I notice
again he is wanting a favor from us while he is costing us exorbitant amounts of money to
accommodate him. His newest thing we can get to, I didn't hear much about it here. We
don't usually hear much about it because they don't want to tell us much about it. Let's
know that you can go to each one ofhis existing projects and find problems everywhere,
complaints everywhere. I am only aware of four projects that this man is involved in. I
guess this makes the fifth and there could be some hidden ones and I'm just coming familiar
with it. The first majorproblem was on Markham Hill with this gentleman. He chose to
inserta house in an area on a lot which he knew well was not zoned. Excuse me ifsome
of my terminology is incorrect here. He knew what he was doing when he put this house
in. We have situations from contractors that the house is already taking in water in the
Planning Commission
January 14, 2002
.Page 13
basement. We have those types of issues with his projects. I believe that this is the
gentleman who had students sign papers stating they were domestic servants for other
students so that he could make money in an area that was not supposed to be treated that
way. I think that was the first I heard ofhim. Now we are coming up to Olive Street. He
has got this hill, it is sort of like a pock mark situation.
Estes: Ms. Davidson, this is a request for rezoning property.
Davidson: Ok, bring me back in line but the whole.point is it is a request for something. We are
having issues with Mr. Schmitt no on the hill. I'm asking you is if we have to address this
issue.
Estes: Ms Davidson, do this for me, stay,focused on the agenda item that is before us. It is a
request to rezone property located at 1140 Hendrix and 110 Garland, Please focus on
that issue and ifyou have any comments that you feel would edify us or educate us in that
regard please provide them.
Davidson: That is what I thought I was doing and that is ourproblem with this situation Sir. These are
relative to this situation and the fact that our city is at capacity or almost capacity for our
sewage system. The fact that there are a lot of inappropriate projects going in and the fact
that this man has a track record for inappropriate projects leads me to say that I don't trust
this project. I would like to know a whole lot more about his plans for this project and I
would also like to see some good faith from this man in any ofhis actions or intentions with
the city. Here is a suggestion Mr. Schmitt. You want a favor here, every project wants
a favor, every project also circumvents our rules with deliberate actions. Youwouldlike
this zoned up. We are fortunate that we have gotten, and I thank you for that as well, the
R-1.5 zoning to try and have a little stop gap while we deal with our major issue in
Fayetteville as Commissioners now need to know is inappropriate R-2 zoning. This is very
indicative ofhow our city can be degraded within a few years as far as our neighborhoods.
Here is the deal, if he, wants to show good faith in what he is doing in our area, how about
voluntary downgrading, downzoning that piece of property on Fletcher Mr. Schmitt?
You've shown such ill will to every neighborhood you have inserted yourself in, how about
that 1.5?
Estes: Mrs. Davidson...
Davidson: You can downzone right? Can I not request that be considered that he do that?
Estes: Mrs. Davidson, please keep your comments brief, keep them to the point, keep them
Planning Commission
January 14, 2002
Page 14
focused on the agenda item.
Davidson: It is all on the point, it is a very big point and it is the point. I say please do this manno
favors, please research what he is saying he wants to do. You well know Sir, he says he
wants to do one thing and he ends up doing another. This is where we need to start
addressing it. I ask you to please address the issue with the problem ofthis man and his
developments. Do not grant him any favors, variances or waivers. Please do not grant this
request for rezoning. Good day.
Estes:. Thank you Mrs. Davidson. Is there anyone else who would like to provide public
comment on this issue? If so, please keep your comments brief, to the point and relevant
to the agenda item being considered so that everyone has a chance to speak and we may
continue with the meeting. Please tell us who you are, where you live and provide us with
the benefits of your comments.
Sawyer: My name is Valerie Sawyer, I live at 1224 W. Hendrix. I represent myself, my son and.
a couple of other property owners on my street. I have three concerns. One is that I do
realize that in Fayetteville there is always going to be a housing shortage. We keep
growing, we have got a college. I realize that we need more apartments but I still have
some concerns. One is traffic. There is already a lot oftraffic on Garland. It needs to be
wider but there is just noway to make it wider. Secondly, the apartments that are already
in that neighborhood bring in a lot of crime and there was an article in the paper recently
about the crime in those neighborhoods but my biggest problem is drainage. The ditches
that come from both directions down Garland go down at the back ofthis property down
a ditch that is parallel and between Hendrix and Maxwell. The ditch goes and eventually
ceases to be a ditch and it is just a big flood area that is behind my property. I also
represent the owners of my property. They were hoping that they would be back in town
in time to be at this meeting but they couldn't be here. After it rains, the yard to the side
of my house is a swamp. I signed a lease because I wanted my son to have a yard to play
in but after it rains for several days we can't play in that yard. I don't mind because the
birds like it and I like the birds but there is a pond behind my house for days after it rains
and if they pave that... some apartments were built, two trialexeswere built down my
street and they just paved the whole thing because drainage is so bad in that area that once
they realized that they were just going to have mud for people to park in they j ust paved
this entire lot front to back and took out a lot of trees. I just hope that someone, some of
you could come look at that property site after the next rain because my son and I walk
across it sometimes. taking a shortcut to a friend's house and after it rains it is really
swampy over there. I hope that someone will come look at it and walk on it after a rain
and look at the ditch that suddenly ceases to be a ditch and becomes a pond before you
Planning Commission
January 14, 2002
Page 15
allow this type of project to happen. If you could figure out a way to make it drain in a
responsible way then I wouldn't be quite so against it though I would prefer that my
neighborhood stay a neighborhood and not turn into apartments. That is all I have, thank
you.
Estes: Thank you Ms. Sawyer.
Richards: My name is Joyce Richards and I did forward to Ms. Strain a copy of my comments. I
will read them, I don't know if you got them.
Conklin: They are on page 3.6.
Richards: Ok. My family and I have lived at 1673 N. Stevens for many years, since 1974 when we
bought that property at 1231 S. Maxwell which backs up to the two triplexes which were
put in last fall. My son and his family live there and my concerns are number one, a lot of
traffic already goes up and down Hendrix. In part because that street is used as a cutoff
to get to Mount Comfort because of the bottleneck that is there at Oak Plaza ifyou have
ever gone through there in the morning, the afternoon, anytime of day, it is bad. Many
people walk up and down Hendrix or they ride their bicycles up and down there. There
are no sidewalks on that street ifyou are going to put more traffic through there it is going
to be a greater danger. Number two, Garland already has complexes up and down
between Oak Plaza and Agri Park, Magnolia Place, Garland Gardens just to name a few
and they are also not very far away from College Park over there on Mount Comfort.
Multiple dwellings would increase that traffic problem that is already there. I know that
Garland is scheduled to be widened but that doesn't help us right now. It doesn't mean
that it will help us ifyou put more apartment buildings up and down that street. Number
three, the apartment complexes on Garland are in or near that high crime area which was
in the Gazette. I put December 1 Oth but it is really December 9th. I think ifyou put more
people in that area that you are only going to increase the possibility of more crime. The
more people in an area the greater the crime rate. I just don't think we need to expand
that problem anymore to the west or I would ask you not to. Number four, there were .
two triplexes that were built down there. I guess my question to you is ifwe start rezoning
here does that mean that that is going to become an apartment strip all the way down
Hendrix? If it is going to go all the way down, will it come down my street, turn the comer
a domino effect? Does this start a precedent that means that we aren't going to be able
to come back to you to say please no more of this? She talked about the drainage but
there is also a problem with the sewer and water system because I know that there have
been water breaks up and down Garland because we have gone and watched them with
my grandsons where they come and fix it. I don't know ifthose even actually hookup to
Planning Commission
January 14, 2002
Page 16
there but I would assume that they would have some effect on it. I just ask you please
don't do this.
Estes: Thank you Mrs. Richards. Is there any other memberofthe audience who would like to
provide public comment on this rezoning request?
Lane: Good evening, my name is Jarod Lane. I live at 1227 S. Maxwell. I am just going to ask
you guys to please not pass this. I like to have my house I bought six years ago, I have
two small children and I like to have that Norman Rockwell effect. I like my yard, I like
to be able to go up and down my street, I like to sleep at night. If we do this and we start
passing this and building these, Ms. McBroom owns a lot ofproperty in the back ofmy
house, she is probably going to be able to build some more back there. All the college
kids like to stay up late and we have already got College Park up there and it makes a lot
of noise so please don't pass this. Thank you.
Estes: Thank you Jarod, is there anyone else in the audience that would like to provide public
comment on this requested rezoning?
Richards, A.: My name is Allison Richards, I live at 1231 S. Maxwell. I guess I would like to start out
briefly with waking up one morning to chainsaws and bulldozers on Hendrix bulldozing the
lot and putting in two triplexes in what has normally been a single family dwelling residence: .
I have two small children; we ride bikes, we run. There aren't any sidewalks in that
neighborhood. The crime rate is high, we watch police cars go up and down the streets
and I would just like to ask you not to rezone, make more apartments in a residential
neighborhood.
Estes: Thank you Ms. Richards, is there anyone else that wishes to provide public comment on
this requested rezoning? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the applicant's representative,
Mr. Osborne for any comments.
Osborne: Thank you Mr. Estes. The two triplexes to which they refer are Marc Crandall's project.
It is west of this. It is three or four lots down Maxwell Street. This property is on
Garland. The young lady had some good points, the first one or the second one I guess
it was. Traffic is a problem in that area, I think we all know it. We are contributing land
to widen Garland. I don't know what else we can do besides that. We have committed
to that. We, ofcourse, will have a drainage plan which the city will have an opportunity
to approve. Crime, I think they are talking about College Park. We are talking about one
triplex, three or four blocks from College Park. I admit, College Park is noisy and there
is probably crime over there. There is probably less crime on this site with this triplex than
E
L
Planning Commission
January 14, 2002.
Page 17
there would have been before: This was a mechanic's garage used as a C=1
nonconforming use in an R-1 zone. Mr. Schmitt, I think you know this, Mr. Schmitt
bought this having been advised by the city that it was R-1.5. Thus, he bought it having his
plans for the triplex. We thought we were kind ofdownzoning when we bought it. We
were going to put a triplex there from day one. As I said, it was a mechanic's garage and
I think these people would prefer a triplex to a mechanic's garage in that place. That is
about all I've got to say. If you have any questions I will be glad to try and answer them.
Estes: Thank you Mr. Osborne.
Richards: Can I respond to that?
Estes: No Ma'am, the floor is closed for public comment, thank you. Mr. Conklin, could you
provide us with some background? We have our packet and have our material and have
read and studied it but that is exclusive to us and of course hasn't been distributed to those
people that are concerned about this rezoning request. Would you give us some
background explaining to us why this item is on our agenda tonight and why it is before us?
Conklin: Sure. This item is on your agenda due to a series of events that have occurred over the
past several years. Back in 1995 our zoning map was changed from a hand drawn map
that was colored in with crayons to a digital zoning map. At the time that the map was
digitized or put into a digital format this area was shown as R-1.5. The applicant this
evening that is before you, looked at our zoning map that is on our website and on our wall
in our office that was redone into a digital format and it did show R-1.5. He applied for
what is called a property line adj ustment. At that time I asked my staff to go back and do
a zoning history of this particular piece of property to identify the ordinance that rezoned.
it to R-1.5. At that time it was discovered that there were no ordinances that we could
find in our offices or the City Clerk's office that showed that property to be rezoned. We
asked the applicant to meet with us and we discussed the situation and advised him that
a rezoning request would have to be applied for and brought forward to the Planning
Commission and the City Council. That is where we are at today. I do not know when
exactly that drafting error occurred on our zoning map. I think it has been there for many
years. However, it has now been changed. It shows as R-I and on the internet it has
been corrected as well. We took a couple of other steps a couple of years ago, we
transferred all ofthe official mapping down to our geographic information coordinator who
keeps up our zoning map. It is no longer done within the Planning Division. There are
some safeguards that have been implemented. This is one of the situations where we had
no idea that there was an error in the map until I had my staff go back and research this
particular piece ofproperty and they could not find that. That is the main reason why we
Planning Commission
January 14, 2002
Page 18
are here tonight. It is true that the applicant did come to our office and did look at a map
that showed R-1.5 on this piece of property.
Estes: Mr.Conklin, did a drafting error occur during the process ofconverting the official city
zoning map from a hand drawn graphic to a digital document and is that the reason that this
item is before us this evening is to correct that error?
Conklin: That is correct. To the best ofmy knowledge that is the only logical reason that I can think
ofwhy it was shown that way. The person that digitalized our map misread a hand drawn
map and put R-1.5 on the map inthat area. I have looked back and I have not been able
io find any other ordinances or documentation with regard to that. Once we did discover
that, it was our duty to make sure that the applicant was aware that that piece ofproperty
was not zoned R-1.5, as was shown on the map and that the only way that property could
be rezoned is to go through this process through Planning Commission and City Council.
That is where we are at today.
Estes: My memory is the same as Mr. Osbome's. Ever since I can remember for the last forty
years there has been a mechanic's garage on that property, would.that be a C-2 use?
Conklin: Yes, C-2.
Estes: ' Would R-1.5 be adownzoning from C-2? Commissioners, are there any other questions?
Mart: Mr. Chair, I guess I have a question for Tim. Tim, I apologize that I don't have my land
use map with me tonight. Could you maybe at least, in looking at the property maps on
3.7 and 3.8, on our land use plan it refers in our back ground information that it is
consistent with the land use plan and allows us a transition from commercial to residential
or from R-2?
Conklin: We do have R-2 zoning immediately to the east. Our land use plan does show this as
residential land use.
Marr: It says a mix of housing types within the area and we will provide a transition from R-2
zoning across Garland. How far back on our land use plan does the R-1.5 go?
Conklin: We do not show individual zoning districts on our land use plan. .
Mart: You just show it as residential.
Conklin: We show as residential with the policy being, we encourage mixed use type developments
where appropriate and allow flexibility for developers and individuals to live in communities
that have an opportunity for mixed residential housing types.
Planning Commission
January 14, 2002
Page 19
Man: Is there atypical transition geographic area that is done in planning that says R-2 is this
much, R-1, R-1.5. How do you transition to that? Is it blocks, is it multiple blocks,.is it
sections? I am just trying to get a feel. One of the concerns I heard was in this area now
becoming with this rezoning would we see this whole area develop into a multiunit as
opposed to single family unit zoning?
Conklin: Typically, in newer developments you will see a transition between commercial and then
you may have a block ofmultifamily that can step down to some townhouses and some
single family. I have seen that. In these areas you typically find a mixed use type of
residential housing types in some of these areas. I think you have to look at it on a case
by case basis and make your recommendation based on whether or not the findings can
be met and the bylaws.
Marr: One other question. On the determination ofwhether it would alter population density and
in my mind that is an increase in traffic, etc. I drive through this area quite a bit and I
certainly understand the comments about the increased traffic and the increase in potential
danger. As a result of that, it says slightly. When does it become moderately or more
because we are going from a five unit capacity, if I read this correctly, to twelve units per
acre or sixteen in this case. That seems more than slightly to me. I guess maybe in terms
ofwe already have j ust three streets up a back log ofpeople trying to turn onto Sycamore
and Deane and Garland at rush hour time periods. What I don't want to do is create
another situation because of our zoning a hundred yards down.
Conklin: Garland Avenue is on our Master Street Plan as a principal arterial street. In the future it
is planned to be widened to that standard. The standard is designed to carry large volumes
of traffic, anywhere from 16,000 to 18,000 vehicles per day. When we look at traffic we
are looking at what the streets are, our Master Street Plan classifications and what these
streets are designed for. In the future what they are designed to handle. That is what we
are looking at in this location.
Allen: Looking at the map on page 3.7, is basically all of the property that is visible on this map
. east of Garland R-2 and west of Garland R-1?
Conklin: Yes, that is pretty much true. College Park Apartments is zoned R-2. All to the east and
north on Garland is zoned R-2.
Man: Where is the triplex, the current ones? Not the one proposed with this zoning on this
particular drawing we are looking at.
Planning Commission
January 14, 2002
Page 20
Conklin: If you look at Addington Avenue it goes north it would be onthat lot, those two triplexes
right there.
Marr: Ok, thank you.
Hoffman: I have a question for our City Attorney. In reading the background, it looks like the
applicant purchased the property.with the understanding from our map at the time that it
was R-1.5 and I think that has been established. If for some reason the zoning were not
to pass at this level or the Council level, would the city be responsible, could they be sued
for this or would that be something that the title company should've picked up on and it
would go to the title company?
Williams: : I wouldn't want to advise an applicant whether or not he should sue the city.
Hoffman: I'm not after that, I'm just curious.
Williams: Obviously, the city does have it's statutory immunity for negligent actions that we would
attempt to assert in any sort of suit if that happened. I am not telling you that that would
bean absolute bar to any potential liability that we would have. The applicant also might
look toward a title company or something like that that might have missed this. The title
company would be saying that they relied on the official map that was put on the website
and that we had. You are just making a recommendation to the City Council. City.
Council has to make the final decision and they will be the ones deciding the liability
question also if it has to come up there. They certainly rely a lot upon your
recommendations. I think they usually follow what the Planning Commission does here so
it is very important to them. I think that a lot of the motivation probably from our Planning
.staff was the fact that we did make a mistake and we acknowledge that mistake. It was
inadvertent, we did not want to make it, but it was made and it did put all of these parties
in an awkward and difficult position and I think that is why they encouraged them if they
wanted to go forward that they did have to come before the Planning Commission and the
City Council in order to rectify this problem. Even though we did make a mistake we have
to rely upon the actual ordinance and the ordinance said this is R-1.
Hoffman: Thank you. I absolutely agree that it puts everybody in a difficult situation. I have one
more continent about the former use of the property having been for a mechanic's garage.
In my mind that use is, although commercial in nature, not so much of an impact on the
neighborhood as an additional sixteen units might be because its hours ofoperation are
only during the daytime. I have heard a lot ofconcem expressed about nighttime activity
and a lot of activity happening after hours. The last question I have is for the applicant I
y
Planning Commission
January 14, 2002
Page 21
guess. I have heard the word triplex with regard to your proposal for this and I know that
we don't have a site plan or anything other than the rezoning in front of us but did you plan
on developing to the full sixteen units? Ifyou don't mind talking about that ifyou could tell
us how many units you are actually going to propose on this. I'm just asking, let me
reiterate.
Osborne: We don't mind. We are just asking for eight additional units and there is a house that we
intend to leave there which will make a total of nine units.
Hoffman: Thank you very much, that is all I had.
Estes: Are there any other questions or comments?
Bunch: Yes Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions. One for staff. On the widening
scheduled for Garland, is that portion of Garland State Highway 112 and is that tied up in
state problems or will it be on the city capital improvement program and if so when?
Conklin: It is on the transportation improvement plan for the state highway. I don't have the exact
date, I think it may be ten years out.
Bunch: It will go to a four lane at some point in time and that portion ofGarland is State Highway?
Conklin: Yes, it is State Highway. That is subject to change every three years as they do the
transportation improvement program. For example, Garland Avenue wasn't even
discussed prior to a few years ago with regard to between Maple and North Street but
that can change over time.
Bunch:. One other question. The term lot line adjustment has been interjected into the mix. This
is 1.36 acres is that going to become two lots or what has transpired? That was an
administrative decision on the lot line adjustment?
Conklin: Those are administrative decisions. It is basically moving the existing lots lines around. As
long as it met the R-1 zoning we approved it based on R-1 zoning.
Bunch:. What is the current status? Is it one lot, two lots, three lots?
Conklin: I'm not sure, it did not increase the number of lots. It moves the lot lines around.
Osbome: It is two.
•
Planning Commission
January 14, 2002
Page 22
Bunch: It would be one lot for the existing structure and then a second lot for the proposed
structures?
Osborne: Yes.
Estes: Are there any other questions or comments? The existing structure is a mechanic's garage
and that is a C-2 permitted use. Some of the other things...
Shackelford: There is also a house.
Osborne: We are leaving the house and tearing down the garage.
Estes: Right. The garage is on the comer of Garland and Hendrix and that is a C-2 use. Other
C-2 uses that are permitted by right are adult live entertainment, clubs or bars. If it was
my property I would much rather something other than a C-2 and would much prefer 1.5.
As I look at the Commercial Thoroughfare of Garland it would seem tome that from a
planning perspective the appropriate use would be C-1. Again, I would much prefer it if
I was a property owner.
Richards: Wouldn't the school keep the live entertainment out?
Estes: The school could keep it from becoming a bar but it could not keep it from becoming a live
adult entertainment facility. That is a permitted use as a matter ofright in a C-2 zoning
district.
Hoffman: It can't be within a thousand feet of the school.
Estes: I think it is to serve alcohol.
Hoffman: I don't know but I don't think we are talking about a strip bar though.
Estes: Well, just to reveal to you a little bit ofmy thought process, I'm going to vote in favorof
the rezoning request and the reason is because I consider it a downzoning. I consider it
much less intrusive and offensive than other possible zoning and the permitted uses that fall
within that zoning. Are there any comments?
Motion:
Ward: My thoughts on that particular piece of property is that everything along Hwy.112 and
Planning Commission
January 14, 2002
Page 23
Garland Avenue probably should be zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. Pretty much
everything that is left along there has already become everything from convenience stores
to restaurants to rental properties all up and down Hwy. 112 now. It is not a highly
desirable area for a single family home anymore. The traffic has become too dense out
there along Garland Avenue. In some ways, the first 300 feet to the west there should be
zoned commercial, C-1. This R-1.5 is a very moderate density residential which I think
is a much easier thing to live with if I had residential back in there on Hendrix or any of
those other streets back there. I am going to go ahead and make a motion that we
forward RZN 02-1 for this 1.36 acres.
Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward to recommend approval of RZN 02-1 is there
a second?
Shackelford: ' I'll second.
Estes: We have a second by Commissioner Shackelford. Is there any other discussion?
Hoffman: I can't vote for the rezoning in the absence ofa Bill of Assurance limiting the number of
units to the proposed 8. I feel that 16 is too dense for the residential traffic along Hendrix
Street. I am in agreement with what Commissioners Ward and Shackelford say about the
traffic on Garland. However, I do believe that this will negatively impact the single family
character and use to the single family neighborhood to the west. If there were something
like that...
Osborne: We would make that offer, eight units plus the house that is already there.
Hoffman: For the total of nine?
Osborne: Yes.
Hoffman: I want to make it clear that I'm not asking for that, you are offering it.
Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward and a second by Commissioner Shackelford
to approve...
Ward: I'll make a motion to amend my motion.
Estes: We have an amendment by Commissioner Ward which incorporates the Bill of Assurance
now offered by the applicant, does the second concur?
Planning Commission
January 14, 2002
Page 24
Shackelford: Sure.
Bunch: On this lot line adjustment, a question for the applicant. Does the 1.36 acres include both
the proposed duplexes and the existing house that will remain? There has been a lot line
adjustment and we don't have that before us so we don't know how many acres the
existing house sits upon and whether or not this project would come through as a large
scale development. That is one of the questions that would also have an effect with the
neighborhood's concerns if we could see this prof ect again. If it comes through as a large
scale development there would be a little moreover site on it. Could the applicant please
tell me what the breakdown is on the size and whether you anticipate bringing this through
as a large scale?
Conklin: These were existing lots when we looked at the lot. line adjustment. Because they are
existing and individually they are less than an acre we cannot require them to go through
large scale development.
Bunch: Now what we have presented to us is a 1.36.
Conklin: It is more than one tract.
Bunch: Just for the record, that is two tracts and would not have to go through the large scale
development process.
Conklin: We've looked at it and yes, the ordinance reads that anything over an acre is required to
go through large scald development.
Bunch: Thank you.
Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Ward and a second by Commissioner Shackelford
to recommend approval of this rezoning request subject to a Bill of Assurance that the
project will not exceed nine units. Is there any other discussion? Renee, would you call
the roll please?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward RZN 02-1.00 was approved by a
vote of 5-4-0 with Commissioners Mart, Hoover, Allen and Bunch voting against it.
Estes: The motion
passes by a vote
of five to
four.
That is a
recommendation only to the
Fayetteville
City Council for
approval
of the
rezoning
request.
City Council Minutes
April 2, 2002 '
Page 2
RESOLUTION54-02 AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY
ERK
PAGERS: A resolution increasing the City's annual pager/cell p e allotment by $2,810.16. The
increase will allow the Fire Department to save approximatqK $60,000 in the 2002 CIP Budget
scheduled for an upgrade to the High Band Paging Syste
RESOLUTION 55.02 AS RECORDED IN THE OF CE OF THE CITY CLERK.
PROPERTY' SALE: AIED
pro ' the sale of City owned property in the Fayetteville
Industrial Park identifieof P el R containing approximately.7.75 acres for $20,000
per acre or an amount n5,000 and approval of a budget adjustment.
RESOLUTION56-01 AIN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
SAGE HOUSE: Aresog a lease agreement between the City of Fayetteville and Sage
House.
RESOLUTT0,�(57-02 AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
a Santos moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Alderman Jordan seconded. Upon I
the motion carried unanimously,
j OLD BUSINESS
_RZN 02-1.00: An ordinance approving rezoning request RZN 02-1.00 for property located at 1140
_ 4 Hendrix and 1110 Hendrix. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains
approximately 1.36 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential. The
ordinance was tabled on the third reading at the March 5, 2002 meeting.
Alderman Davis moved to remove the item from the table. Alderman Santos seconded, Upon
roll call the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. James Parish, an area resident, stated he had lived in this neighborhood for thirty years. The area
had been R-1. He asked why the neighborhood should pay for their mistake. The neighborhood was
totally against this. This was a good neighborhood. People were starting to bring the area back up.
Ms. Joyce Richards, an area resident, stated as president of the neighborhood association, she would
be the only one speaking against the rezoning. The association had meet and taken a vote. The
majority of the residents in attendance said "no" to the rezoning. There were five votes fora
conditional "yes", however the conditions were not stated at that time. There were nineteen votes '
"no". The council had received their petition with approximately 116 names from residences in the
City Council Minutes
April 2, 2002
Page 3
area The others, were to the southwest of: them, but they were affect by the traffic. They were
against this rezoning. She. asked them to help them maintain the character of their neighborhood.
They already had transition zones. Hendrixwas on the city's schedule to be repaved in 2003. Their
neighborhood did not need more traffic. The law could not be changed by a clerk making a mistake
on a computer. They were not breaking the faith with the ones who would get the benefit of the
mistake. They were breaking faith with the voters who, for years thought this was R-1. They needed
to protect this neighborhood.
Ms: Terry Faylyn, an area resident, stated she had been on Maxwell since 1985. Mr. Thompson had
presented, a bidder with a petition. The petition1.,did not have addresses written on them. She had
looked at some of the signers. Some of them were across town and out in the county. She believed
that the significance of opinion_ regarding the rezoning should be weighted in favor of those that
actually live the neighborhood association area since they would be the ones most affected. She did
not believe the city should favor one developer over a neighborhood when the fault lies with the city.
Mayor Coody had reportedly told a class that they were going to make it right. She believed that the
residents of theneighborhood association all purchased their property in good faith and that the
neighborhood should stay R-1.
Ms. •Valerie Sawyer, an area resident, stated she was a renter.. She was concerned by what trees
would get left. There were some really nice trees that she would like to see saved. There should be
I ` some kind of compromise. Her son wanted to come to the meeting tonight because his favorite tree
was a big red bud. He wanted to see the trees saved more than he cared what got built there. She
realized Fayetteville was,going to need more housing. She was more or less in favor of the rezoning,
but there should be some conditions.
Mr. Scott Roberts, an. area resident, stated he had lived here for three years. He thought Mr.
Thompson had bent.over backward in terms of the presentation that he had put together as well as
what he was ,trying to do with the land he was developing., This person was investing in a
community that was a.greatplace to live and a'great place to invest in. He was -also looking to
purchase some property in the area. If they voted against this thing, the word of the city would be no
good. He wanted to be able to trust the city and the system., If something had been done wrong, then
they should do the right thing.
Ms. Mona York, an area resident, stated Mr. Thompson's project was in her back yard. She did not
have any problems with it. She supported it.
Mr. Brock Thompson, applicant, stated he had provided books last week which provided a lot of
information. He was at Harps last week and he did go door to door. He tried to get out to the,
community in terms of getting people to understand exactly the situation that happened with his
project. He did not represent that he got all those signatures at Harps. They were going to see some
conflicting houses that were covered. He spoke with Ms. Brown last night. She had lived on the
property for seventeen years. She did not plan on moving anywhere. She understood about the
City Council Minutes
April 2, 2002
Page 4
expansion on Garland. She signed the petition. Her indication was that they were bringing
something new to their property. She was in favor. The owner across the street was in favor of this.
He brought one neighbor tonight who was in favor of this.
Mr. Osburn stated some residents were concerned about traffic. There was no reason for the traffic
from this development to go to the west. % They were going to go east, north or south.
Ms. Sharon Davidson, an area resident, stated they needed to realized property owners have been
getting ran over by single individuals who come in and buy property for development. As a
community they were drained on all of their services, yet they were being run over by people who
came in, not to be part of our community, but to profit. They were going to approve this because
they were afraid of a law suit from a single individual who was trying to manipulate their whole
community. They should be worried about law suit from collective groups, such as neighborhoods.
Ms. Carla Grey, an area resident, stated they had been presented with two conflicting maps. So that
they did not get the wrong idea, they were both correct. The original petition, when it went around,
she signed it. When the sign first went up in the comer lot, they did all think that it was apartments.
After the triplexes were built on Hendrix, the idea of apartments on that comer was freighting
because it looked like their neighborhood was being sliced up like a pie. A lot of information had
come out since the fast petition was circulated Mr. Thompson had purchased the property thinking
that it was zoned R-1.5. He did not buy residential lots trying to rezone them. She 'did not
understand until after the last city council meeting that, the triplex behind her was R4 with improper
use. One of the biggest fears that the neighborhood had collectively was triplex in the middle of the
street, triplexes on the corner. How could anyone say no to triplexes in between. After she found
out that the triplexes in the middle of the street were R-1 with improper use, they can not be used as
leverage to rezone, anything else on that block. She felt that her neighborhood was protected.
Garland was scheduled to be a five -lane highway at some point. There were two houses there now
that had been on the market for a very long time because no one wants to live where a large highway
is going to be put. She did not believe single family homes would ever have a chance of being owner
occupied. More and more neighbors have dropped out on the opposition to this rezoning. She was
one of them. The right thing for this lot was R-1.5.
Alderman Davis asked how many years had it been that the city had showed this on the city map as
being R4.5.
Mr. Conklin stated the map had been converted in 1995.
Alderman Davis stated so for the past seven years it had been showed incorrectly. How long ago
was the prior triplex built on Hendrix.
Mr. Conklin stated it was last summer.
• *city Council Minutes
' April 2, 2002
Page 5
Alderman Davis asked if he had not brought this to their attention, would they be here tonight. The
property would still be shown as R-1.5.
Mr. Conklin stated that was correct. That was what happened to the last one. He wanted to .make
sure that there was an actual ordinance for this one. They could not find one. After they could not
find one, twenty-four hours later the map was changed on the website and their office. He then .
advised Mr. Thompson : And recommended that he go through the rezoning process.
Alderman Davis stated it was his understanding that someone on the city staff wrote a letter
confirming that this was a.R-1.5 to a financial institution.
Mr. Conklin stated a letter had been written.
Alderman Davis stated neighborhood associations needed to come to city hall from time to time to
check their zoning.
J.
Mr. Conklin, stated he did not want this to, ever happen again. He had been through the map once.
He was in the process of looking at thirty-two years of ordinances. He would be bring forward a
map. He wanted to., make sure.They now have better technology. This area zoning classification.
was done by arrows. It was very difficult to see that from the 1970 zoning map which had been hand
done with crayon.
Alderman Davis stated it had been seven years. The city has written him and given their word that it
was zoned R-1.5. as neighbors needed to check from time to time to make sure that the city had the
zoning on the map as they believe is correct. He did not see how they could back and tell him tough
luck. If they did that, how could the citizens ever trust them on anything again.
Alderman Jordan stated they talked about the word of the city to Mr. Thompson, but what about the
word of the city to the individuals that lived inside -the city limits: The neighbors bought their
property in good faith, believing that this was R-1 zoning. They expected to finish their lives out in
that neighborhood. That neighborhood has come forth and stated they wanted the city to stand by
them and protect their neighborhood and quality of life.
AldermanTheil stated the organized association had made a statement, but the people closer to
where this was going to be built were for it. In her mind they weighed heavier than the others.
Those were the neighbors next to the property. she was trying to weigh which set of neighbors to
listen too.
Alderman Santos stated Garland Avenue has been a state highway for years. People should have
known that more dense development was going to occur on a state highway. Three of the last city
I plans that he has worked with have been expecting more dense development along Garland Avenue.
That was why the highway deparhnent.was planning on widening it. Almost fifty percent of the
City Council Minutes
April 2, 2002 '
Page 6
traffic from the University came from Garland The University was trying to expand by fiftypercent.
Without even the mistake being made the proper thing to do is to rezone the property for more dense
development. Which is what they see more and more of along Garland. The project Mr. Thompson
has brought them was more compatible and serves has a better buffer to this neighborhood than the
kind.ofdense apartments across the street. They had to expect that development. They had to
respect their plans. A lot of people other than the people in this neighborhood contributed to making
the plans. There were a lot of goals that they setforth in those plans that they want more dense
development in the center of the city, within walking distance of schools and shopping centers.
There was a transit line already here. That will make the transit line more efficient to have higher
derisity. Thig'was good for all of Fayetteville.
Z5-2.
yorC . oody asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed by a vote of
Jordan and Young voting nay, Mayor Coody voting yea.
DRMME 4384 AS RECORDED INTIYE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
-5,00: An ordinance approving rezoning request RZN 02-5.00 for property located west of
I-540 an outh of Point West Phase I and east of Pine Valley Phase I. The property is zoned I-1,
Heavy Co ercial / Light Industrial and R-2, Medium Density Residential and, contains
approximately 1 . 4 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1.5, Moderate Density.Residential. The '
ordinance was left o e first reading at the March 5, 2002 meeting.
Mr. Williams stated the app ' t had sent a memo withdrawing the request. The applicant would
have to reapply and start from s eh if he wanted to have the item reconsidered
REMOVED FROMAGENDA:
CDBG: A presentation regarding the 2002 Cax;munity Development Block Grant.
Mr. Hugh Earnest, stated presented a overview of it program. This program. gave them the
opportunities for the city to provide additional money fo using. They, can utilize the funding for
further cost of bonds for the provision of new home construc . They maybe be able to pay money in
advance'to issue bonds to get a large one time sum of mone and get far more aggressive. in
construction of affordable housing in the city. They can also subsi transportation needs. They
need to improve their outreach relative to development of area plan. ey need to involve more
people in the community to make sure that they were meeting the needs o e neighborhood.
They had several projects that they had not been moving money on. Sage House, 53,635. Project
for Victims of Family Violence $460,335, and Yvonne Richardson Center $104, This money
was just sitting there. What the federal regulators have told them was that they n ed to more
aggressively move this money within a defined time frame or in affect the city will be p ed by '
reduced allocations in the future: They understood the issue they are facing and he belie the .
Planning Commission • •
February 10, 2003
Page 34
RZN 03-8.00: Rezoning (McKinney, pp 365) was submitted by Nathan McKinney for property
located at 1631 Deane Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains
approximately 1.9 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential.
Estes: The next item on the agenda is RZN 03-8.00 submitted by Nathan McKinney for
property located at 1631 Deane Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density
Residential and contains approximately 1.9 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1.5,
Moderate Density Residential. Staff recommends denial of the requested rezoning
based on the findings that are included asa part of your packet. Is the applicant
present? If you have a presentation would you please come forward and provide us
with the benefit of your presentation?
McKinney: My name is Nathan McKinney and I have no formal presentation for you in addition
to what you obviously have received in your packet. There is a little story and
extenuating circumstances behind this request and I would be happy to repeat that if it
would be a benefit to this Commission.
Estes: Thank you Mr. McKinney. Is there any member of the audience who would like to
provide comment on RZN 03-8.00? If so, would you please come forward, say your
name, and provide us with the benefit of your comments.
Richards: My name is Joyce Richards and I have property that is probably a block and a half
down the fence line from Mr. McKinney's property. As I understand it, this is a
rezoning request for which no specific development plan has been submitted and who
knows what changes may occur before the development actually takes place. It
seems that the most prudent course of action would be to wait and see a concrete
proposal, not to offer a blank check for an unknown with no specifics and no
assurances. I would ask you to follow the advice of your Planning office and deny
this request and perhaps sometime in the _future you will have an opportunity to
consider whether a rezoning should take place at that time and whether that rezoning
would uphold the neighborhoods that surround it because things do have a way of
changing.
Estes: Thank you Joyce.
Bryant: City Staff and Planning Commissioners, my name is Rebecca Bryant. I am an
adjacent property owner. I believe you have quite a detailed note from me about my
opinions and thoughts about this request. I am just here to show you that I care, that I
do have financial interests at stake and I would hope that you take my concerns about
the quality of life into consideration as well for the neighborhood as a whole and as a
fabric. Since this would be a request for a spot rezoning and Lewis Street has been
the traditional boundary between high density and low density residential in the area.
Thank you.
Planning Commission • •
February 10, 2003
Page 35
Estes: Thank you Rebecca. Is there anyone else who would like to provide us with the
benefit of your comments regarding this requested rezoning? Seeing none, I will
bring it back to the Commission for discussions, comments, questions of Mr.
McKinney and motions.
Ward: Tim, will you give
us a
little rundown
of how this came about? I read the materials a
couple
of days ago
but I
would like to
be refreshed.
Conklin: Sure. Back around 1995 the city took a 1970 zoning map and digitized that map in
order to put it onto a computer and to view it on a computer. At that time there was a
mistake made in a region of that map that involved multiple properties and it was
shown as R-1.5 instead of the R-1. This mistake was discovered just over a year ago
when staff researched to find the ordinance that changed a particular piece of property
to the R-1.5. It was at that time that we discovered that that was incorrectly shown on
the map. The map was changed. Mr. McKinney stopped by the office and noticed
that it was changed and we are here today with a situation where what was shown on
the map for several years actually was incorrect and there was no ordinance. It was a
drafting error. Staff is attempting to make sure the map is 100% correct and we will
be bringing forward a map fairly soon to the City Council.
Estes: Does that answer your question?
Ward: Yes. I guess this has happened more than once where people have looked at a map of
the city and looked at the zoning and bought the property with the idea that it was
zoned something different than what it really was, how have we handled those in the
past?
Conklin: The only one I am aware of is a property on Garland and Hendrix that was a
nonconforming use of the property for many years. City staff did recommend that
rezoning. We ended up with a very detailed Bill of Assurance with regard to what
can be built on the property and how it is going to look. That is the only one that I
can recall.
Ward: If we table this tonight and ask for the applicant to come in with some kind of a
Planned Zoning District that we kind of get the full blown project looked at it would
be something that I definitely would consider, especially since the applicant definitely
bought the property with the idea that it was zoned something and now it has changed
in the middle of the stream. What is your thought on that?
Conklin: That is what staff was recommending. Staff was trying to avoid the process that we
went through previously where we ended up with 75% brick and porches and
different things on the structure by the time it was all said and done. However, I
don't think the applicant, Mr. McKinney has any immediate plans to develop the
property. He has stated that to staff.
Planning Commission • •
February 10, 2003
Page 36
Estes: Is there any further discussion?
McKinney: Mr. Chairman, may I make one further statement?
Estes: No Mr. McKinney, it is closed to you and closed to public comment and is now
before the Commission. When we look at any item that comes before us my thinking
is that we need clear and convincing evidence to support findings of fact in opposition
to staffs recommendation and I do not find it here. What I do see is what is
sometimes called spot zoning or speculative zoning. If the property is rezoned to R-
1.5 Mr. McKinney, this comment is not directed towards you at all, if it is rezoned
you are free to sell the property to someone else and they may do whatever they.
please with it within that zoning designation. That is one reason that we have the
Planned Zoning District provision now so that as these matters come before us on a
rezoning we can see specifically what is being done and most importantly is that your
neighbors can see what is happening. Right now we have a request for what I would
characterize as speculative zoning or spot zoning and I do not see any clear and
convincing evidence to support a finding of fact in opposition to staff's
recommendation and I would not support the rezoning. Let me do this. Let me call
three times for a motion. Is there a motion?
Shackelford: I would like to ask a question of our City Attorney. Situations like this have always
troubled me. I think the argument could be made that property value is affected by
zoning of said property. This applicant basically purchased this property after
reviewing the zoning and relying on an admitted error or omission of a city employee
of the specific zoning. In your opinion does the applicant have any legal recourse
against the city for any error or omission of specific zoning that may have been
relayed to him by a city employee?
Williams: I think not. This is the same situation that happened on Garland on that property, I
think my opinion at that point was that the city is protected by sobrum immunity for
mistakes like this. It would make even admitted mistakes where the map was not
done properly. That is not the final decision. In fact, as you remember in the Garland
case, eventually that property was rezoned. It had a very extensive Bill of. Assurance
attached to it, as the City Planner told us. From a legal point of view I don't think we
are in very serious trouble here. It is certainly something that was a very unfortunate
mistake and it is up to you all to decide what you want to do at this point.
Shackelford: It is an unfortunate mistake and that is why I would like to see some sort of
compromise reached to where the applicant and the neighbors could come to some
sort of agreement over the future development of this property. It has been
mentioned here a couple of times that it is a spot rezoning. Tim, if there was a
development on this property that would need a R-1.5 zoning would you support
rezoning it for a specific development?
Planning Commission • •
February 10, 2003
Page 37
Conklin: We have two methods that we can look at with regard to potentially changing the land
use. The first method, R-1 allows for a Conditional Use for a duplex. This lot is
fairly large, the possibilities would be there to add additional units. The second one is
our Planned Zoning District, which allows development review and zoning to go
through the same process and deal with issues of compatibility and how to mitigate
any adverse impacts to adjoining neighbors. It depends on the project and what is
being proposed. I really can't answer your question at this time. We set that up
almost as a performance based type zoning where we can look at how to mitigate
adverse impacts with regard to zoning and land use.
Shackelford: With that being said, I guess what I am trying to do is just to state that my preference
would be that we worked towards some sort of compromise on this situation. This is
an unfortunate incident. This incident did occur due to an error made by a city
employee and in that situation I would like to see city staff and this board work with
the applicant in any way possible to find some sort of compromise and solution to
this.
Bunch: A question of procedure. If this is categorically denied at this level is it a year before
it can come up again since this is a rezoning request?
Conklin: Yes if they reapply for the same zoning request they can't come back for a year. If
they apply for something different they can petition the Commission. It also can be
appealed to City Council.
Bunch: If it fails for lack of a motion what would be the situation then? Would that come
under the same one year restriction or would it just be like a tabling?
Williams: I feel that before you have no action on this that really you should ask the applicant
because he does have the right to appeal an adverse decision to the City Council but if
you make no decision then you have put him in limbo so I think it would only be fair
to ask Mr. McKinney if he wants to move forward, if he would rather have it tabled.
He is the applicant here and I think we need to get his input on what his plans are.
Even .if you vote .eight zero against this here he might want to take. it up to. the City, • ,
Council on appeal. On the other hand, maybe he would like more time. I think we
need to get an input from him Mr. Chairman.
Bunch: I would like to question the applicant. Now that you have had the opportunity to hear
the discussion, what is the nature of your request at this time?
McKinney: I would be thrilled to see compromises but at this point, as I have indicated earlier, I
have no plans or designs to develop the property in the next several years. I have
made several decisions regarding the property based on the fact that it was zoned R-
1.5 according to the city staff and the map, which I inquired of them on several
occasions. Not just one, but on several. I want to be a good neighbor and I want the
neighbors to ultimately be very proud of any future development but I would develop
Planning Commission • •
February 10, 2003
Page 38
the property. I just don't know. There has been a diminished value between the time
that I bought the property and for five years hence when it was zoned R-1.5 according
to God and everybody and today. The other thing that is quite bothersome is not only
did I not trust that map but I inquired of the city staff and was told repeatedly that is
the zoning and then when I discovered the change, I discovered the change. There
was no word and no letter whatsoever that the zoning map had been changed and I
just ask for everybody on this Commission to be cognizant and mindful of that but I
certainly would seek any compromise that could be proposed and that is the kind of
approach I would take to this.
Estes: Commissioner Bunch, is that responsive to your questions?
Bunch: Somewhat. Also, Mr. McKinney, you had wished earlier to make another comment
after discussion was closed. I just wanted to give you an opportunity to give you the
chance to make that comment.
McKinney: That was it. The map was wrong and I didn't trust it so I asked the City Planner at
that time to clarify that for me and I was told in very short and terse language that the
map was right and not to question it and then I discovered that the map had been
changed. No one informed me that it had been changed. In effect, diminishing the
value of my property, at least in my mind. In all due respect, could it have been
monkied up anymore? I don't know how. That is as troublesome as anything.
Bunch: Mr. McKinney, do you feel that if you were to bring this back through in the future
since you have no plans at this time, utilizing the new tool that we have available, the
Planned Zoning District, do you think that that might restore some of the value of this
property and give you an opportunity to develop it a little more fully than an R-1
zoning?
McKinney:
Bunch:
Estes:
It certainly could and there is no total loss of course but I am not sure that I am going
to be the one that carries anything through here. I may choose to sell the property at
some future date. Your planning staff told me that right there are a certain number of
units in,R-1:5 and a considerably restricted number of units allowed in R-I and,that is
just a diminished value, it just is. I respect the position you are in. I ask that you, as
Commissioner Shackelford has suggested, offer some alternatives. I would certainly
be willing to consider them.
That concludes my questions.
Thank you Mr. McKinney.
Ward: I don't think that we will ever make this thing fair for what Mr. McKinney has had
happen here. I am very sympathetic to his case because I have seen this happen more
than once. I think all I can offer is as a Commission we can say we will be
sympathetic if you bring a project to us showing exactly what it is going to be, how
Planning Commission • •
February 10, 2003
Page 39
many units, etc. Without that at this point I don't think any of us are willing to, I
don't know what we could compromise anyway. It is zoned R-1, we do have the
Planned Zoning Districts now. We would be very sympathetic for you if you brought
some project to us and let us look at it and take it from there. I think that would
restore any value that you possibly could have in your mind that is lost. My feeling is
I would like to just table this and go on down the road.
Estes: Mr. McKinney, let me just say this. The specific item that you brought to us is a
rezoning request. As your Planning Commission you have asked us to act on that
request. We can not sit here and negotiate a compromise with you regarding any
aspect of the future use of this property. You have asked us to act on the rezoning
request. You can pull it, we can table it, if there is a motion we can vote it up or
down. If we vote it up then you have got the relief that you came here for. If we vote
it down you can appeal it. As your chair I want to be sure that you understand your
options at this point. I have said I would call for a motion three times and I have
called for a motion once and there was no motion and I will call twice again and if
there is no motion it will fail for lack of a motion.
McKinney: Mr. Chairman, I submitted this request on the advice of Kit and I still don't
understand what will happen if it is tabled.
Estes: Typically when an item is tabled it is tabled for a time certain and then it is brought
back to us. The issue I see with tabling it is that you have told us that you have no
.immediate plans for the. property. You have also told us that you may sell the
property.
McKinney: And I may not. That is exactly right and I think that is my point. I feel like I have
suffered a diminished value in the property regardless of the ultimate use today. In
the future some of that may be restored but the advice that the City Attorney gave me
is that memories are short and it is best to go ahead and proceed now while everybody
understands the situation and I think that was good advice. While the words that you
all are using are very reassuring, how many of you all are going to be around? I may
not.be either.
Estes: Let me go ahead and call for a motion twice more. Is there a motion? Is there a
motion?
Shackelford: I am also confused on the difference of an item dying from a lack of motion as
compared to a denial.
Estes: If there is not a motion then the requested rezoning will fail for lack of a motion. The
applicant could bring this identical request back but this applicant must wait one year
before doing so. If this applicant wanted to bring back a different request regarding
this specific piece of property the applicant could do that tomorrow but the applicant
Planning Commission • •
February 10, 2003
Page 40
will be precluded from bringing this identical request back within one year if it fails
for lack of a motion.
Williams: Can I ask our City Planner, is it your understanding Tim if there is no motion and so
it fails for a lack of motion would Mr. McKinney then have a right to appeal to the
City Council even though there has been no actual action taken by the Planning
Commission?
Conklin: I would assume that that means it fails, as our chair has stated in the record and that
he has a right to appeal to City Council. That would be my interpretation.
Williams: Thank you.
Estes: RZN 03-8.00 fails for lack of a motion.
RZN04-1103
Close up View
COLLINS
I
- 1
- ----.
ly I i
IW I I
I
I _---2SF=4—
I
I I I
R7SF=4 —
1 i •_—i----7 T FLL DR
I I j
`0 I
Q--.�._._._...}.
RSF•4- i----
III _��■lilt�t.�r
I
B
n
R�F-24
RSF-0
� ® 1
® � \
i ILI i
F]
I I
I j
I � I
I j I
I I I I
I I
® I
——tnnTea's4----� —._._
J--- ------
o w•4T�,
Overview Legend
_- 80000 O�laY IXsbitl ®Phalaal ArbrW—FLOOMAY
m0008
._ Master Street Mhier Aenlal IN YEAR
Innet PMn GNxlOr — 500 YEAR
® F WIE�ay 0000 Wsbtk GMenOr LIMITOFMDY
L — 1 Oty LIMB — — - eaaelJM PmMa
wnMe clry RM RZN04-1103
0 75 150 300 450 600
Feet
i
Ir7�1
®_mit
RZN04-1103
Future Land Use
COLLINS
_.............................. ...
........o::...... .............................. ......::
Legend Boundary
_ Subject Property
o Planning Area Master Street Plan
RZN044103 0 t � Freeway/Expressway
000000Overlay District
—I City Limits Principal Arterial
Streets L _ _ /'\t Minor Arterial
Exisgng a4', Outside City
— Planned 0 %. 0ee. Historic
Collector
Collector
0 75 150 300 450 600
Feet
Planning Commission • •
June 28, 2004
Page 101
RZN 04-1103: Rezoning (COLLINS, 404): Submitted by JEFFERY T. COLLINS for
property located at 1280 HENDRIX STREET. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE
FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.51 acres. The request is to
rezone the subject property from RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre, to
RT-12, Residential Two and Three-family.
Ostner: Our next item is RZN 04-1103 for Collins.
Pate: Thank you Mr. Chair. This property is located at 1280 Hendrix Street,
which is west of Garland Avenue. The property is currently zoned RSF-4
and contains approximately .051 acres. Currently there is a six unit multi-
family development consisting of two triplexes which exist on the site
constructed in 2001. Surrounding properties are zoned RSF-4 and are
developed as single family residential homes along Addington Avenue to
the west is Hendrix Street and Maxwell Drive to the north. The existing
use of the property for a three family dwelling is not a use that is allowed
by right, nor by Conditional Use in the RSF-4 zoning district. Therefore,
it is considered a non -conforming use on this property. The applicant is
requesting a rezoning from the RSF-4 zoning district to RT-12,
Residential Two and Three family. Staff has received numerous
comments, most of which are included in your staff report as emails or
letters to the Planning Division. Additionally, there have been several
phone messages taken. All of those comments have been in opposition to
this rezoning request. To the findings of staff, the future land use plan
designates this site for residential use. The proposed rezoning staff finds
is not consistent with land use plan objectives and policies to a degree that
provides compatibility with adjacent properties in the same district. These
are findings of fact that staff is required to make, as is the Planning
Commission in it's recommendation to the City Council. Surrounding
properties are residential in nature not unlike the existing land use on the
subject site. However, the surrounding properties do represent a cohesive
single family land use as opposed to the multi -family land use currently on
the property. A rezoning to RT-12 would constitute a spot zone creating a
separate and distinct zoning district island amidst the surrounding RSF-4
zoning district, a condition against which the City of Fayetteville's
policies advise. An additional finding of fact, the proposed zoning is not
justified nor needed in order to retain the use of the property as it was
permitted in 2001. The existing use is considered non -conforming so that
it may not be reconstructed or enlarged, however, it may remain as a non-
conforming use until such time as the units are destroyed or removed.
With these findings staff recommends denial of the requested rezoning to
RT-12.
Ostner: Thank you Mr. Pate. Is the applicant present? Could you introduce
yourself and tell us about your request?
Planning Commission • •
June 28, 2004
Page 102
Collins: My name is Jeff Collins. I'm here representing both myself and my
partners who are owners of the property in question. The story behind this
property is a relatively interesting one. When it was constructed the city
maps were erroneously drawn such that the zoning was shown to be R-1.5
at the time, which allowed for the development of this particular
configuration. It was constructed and purchased in December, 2001 by
myself and it was subsequently made part of a limited partnership with
several other properties. It has been operated since December, 2001 as a
set of townhouse style multi -family units. At some point unbeknownst to
either myself or the other owners of the property the underlying zoning
was changed by the city. Apparently, the maps were found to be in error
and they were not showing that the zoning shouldn't have been R-1.5 but
rather R-1, which has subsequently become the RSF-4. The city, after
finding the error, did not notify either myself or any of the property
owners to the best of my knowledge. Certainly I was never notified as the
managing member of the partnership. It wasn't until we attempted to sale
all of the buildings that were within the partnership that we were notified
by the appraiser for the buyers that the underlying zoning was not
compatible with the existing use. Interestingly, the appraiser for this
particular property is the exact same appraiser that I used and therefore,
constitutes the extent of our due diligence on the property when we first
purchased it. There are a couple of things that I would like to point out
which I find relatively interesting. That is to the question a determination
of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time that
the rezoning is proposed. Staff says it is not justified in order to retain
use. From my perspective, a fundamental right of a property owner is the
right of resale. The underlying zoning is an impairment to the sale of the
property. In fact, we have closed on two of the three buildings within this
sale but we are unable to close on this particular building because of the
underlying zoning issue, which of course, is why I'm here today. In
addition, under five, if there are reasons why the proposed zoning could
not be approved, are there any extenuating circumstances that justify the
zoning. I think that while this situation is particularly unfortunate and
certainly as I drive the neighborhood and as I revisit the discussion by the
Planning Commission regarding the corner on Hendrix and Garland,
which many of you probably recall, where a gentleman had purchased the
property expressly because he understood the property to be zoned R-1.5
with the intention of building multi -family on that corner and then found
out after the fact but before starting construction that the zoning was not
appropriate for that use. I am certainly sympathetic to the idea that this is
perhaps a difficult situation. Whether or not it is a request for a spot
zoning I think is for you all to decide. I would point out that three parcels
away is the property on the corner of Hendrix and Garland which is multi-
family and within a stone's throw of this particular property there is a very
large multi -family development on Mt. Comfort Road which is literally a
block to a block and a half from this particular property. In addition, as I
Planning Commission •
June 28, 2004
Page 103
go back through and read the testimony from the request for rezoning for
that comer lot one of the things that strikes me is the discussion of
transitional properties. This isn't to say that somehow our property is
perhaps a buffer between a commercial zone and a residential zone but
that in the course of that conversation Tim Conklin discusses particularly
that the least divergent use would be townhouse style multi -family. That
is exactly what has been developed on this particular property. Due to an
unfortunate set of circumstances to which I have very little control I'm
here in front of you asking for a rezoning of this particular property so that
we can consummate the sale of the units that are there now to potential
buyers. Thank you very much.
Ostner: Thank you Mr. Collins. Is there anyone from the public who would like to
speak?
Broom: My name is Mildred Broom. I have lived on Hendrix Street for 50 plus
years. It has been single family all that time. I would really like to keep it
single family. Thank you.
Ostner: Thank you.
Richards: I'm Joyce Richards. We own property to the north of the triplexes. At the
time that they were built we received a letter saying they were going to be
built. I called the planning office and they said yes, this is how it is zoned.
I said to myself but Hendrix is a street of houses. They said no, triplexes
can go up. Then, about two years ago the comer property on Garland and
Hendrix came up. I and other people in the neighborhood said the same
thing again. This is not a street of triplexes. This is a street of houses.
The city said there has been a mistake in the zoning map and so the
triplexes were built. At that time the city told us we are sorry, no more
triplexes and in good faith we believed them. Now here we are again.
During the last two years the city took that map and went over it, probably
as a result of these two mistakes, corrected the mistakes. They spent much
time, many hours, probably lots of taxpayer dollars correcting all of those
mistakes. Now we have the new corrected zoning map. Now you are
being asked to revert to the mistake that was there to begin with. I say no,
don't do that please. Hendrix is zoned for houses. We would like to keep
it that way. We've already got two mistakes on it. Don't go back. We in
the neighborhood who drive down that street everyday lots of times, more
than once a day, see those mistakes every time we go down there. I say
let's not change the map again. Leave it like it is. It is correct now.
Gray: Hi, I'm Carla Gray. My property does share a border with Mr. Collins'
property. Like he said, the property does have an interesting story. I don't
have answers but I do have some questions. There was a progress. His
property was built and then the triplexes on the comer came up and they
Planning Commission • •
June 28, 2004
Page 104
were separate issues. Marc Crandall was the developer and in January,
2002 when the conversations began on the property on Hendrix and
Garland the corner triplex is Brock Thompson. It was a long, sad story
and it was a mistake. During that time I did talk to Dan Coody about what
was going on. As kind of an olive branch, because it was a mistake and
these things happen, he did say that he had contacted Marc Crandall and
asked for a privacy fence around the triplexes on Hendrix. It was a
mistake. It was a good will gesture for the developer to do. That was
2002 so I guess I'm a little confused as to why the Mayor would call Marc
Crandall if this gentleman owned the property at that time. That confuses
me. The other thing that confuses me is that Marc Crandall has Campus
Properties.com and in April and May, 2002 it was listed as one of Campus
Properties.com's offerings. I feel like maybe there are more questions that
need to be asked. It appears that Marc Crandall, who was aware of this at
the time when Dan Coody called him and said we've got a problem, that
maybe there were more business dealings. Maybe there are some
partnerships here that we are not aware of. The dates don't add up. Does
that make sense? The property in the statement I read, if it was sold in
December, 2001 what was Marc Crandall, the original developer, who was
according to a conversation the Mayor said he had with him, why was he
still involved if he no longer owned it? I am against rezoning. It was a
mistake. Conditional Use works for me but I'm not for a spot rezoning of
this neighborhood. Thank you.
Ostner: Is there further public comment?
Ball: I'm Ramsey Ball. I represent Cheesehead in this transaction. I wanted to
go through a couple of things.
Ostner: I'm sorry Sir, are you part of the application or are you a resident?
Ball: I'm a resident and part of the application.
Ball: I wanted to address a couple of issues. When you make a map change on
a rezoning, that is a de facto rezoning, I think in this city. If you are doing
due diligence on a property and you want to find out what the zoning of
the property is you go to the city and you look at the map. If the map
shows the property is zoned for multi -family then the assumption that it is
zoned for multi -family. It is not an issue that comes up in title work. You
don't go to a title company to try to find out if a property is zoned multi-
family or single-family. You go to the city. If the city changes the map
then they have affectively rezoned the property. An issue of fairness
would be whether the property owner is notified. If a property owner
wants to go rezone their own property the city requires them to post a
notice, to contact the neighbors, to do legal notices. In this case this
property was rezoned but the property owner was not notified. There was
Planning Commission • •
June 28, 2004
Page 105
no notice posted on the property. It would appear to be a process that
would be unfair going back the other way. There appears to be an issue
about whether to continue the use of the property. If it is grandfathered in
why do we need to have it rezoned. If the property is damaged to a certain
degree then the owner can be required to not use the property the way it is
now. If the property was damaged and you have six town homes on a
property the city could require him to come in and remove those damaged
six town homes and replace them with a single house. I think anyone here
would realize that that would be a loss in value on the property. Another
issue is land use. Jeff spoke briefly to this but the land use for this area is
residential. It shows on the land use plan as residential. Are town homes
appropriate for residential land use? The answer of course, is yes. Town
homes are a part of residential land use. Are town homes a good transition
from multi -family to single family and the answer, I think, is yes. These
town homes provide a good transition from a higher use to single family.
Fayetteville is a city with a mix of multi -family and single family. I think
everyone here realizes that Fayetteville is full of single family dwellings
that are next to multi -family dwellings. It is what makes Fayetteville
grow. I live on a street that is a complete mix of multi -family and single
family dwellings. That is why I love being in Fayetteville. It boils down
to are these town homes an acceptable use for this property. I think the
answer for that is yes. They are very acceptable. They are there right
now. Are they an acceptable use to continue? Is it a fair resolution of this
situation to rezone this property to allow their continued use? I think it is
the only resolution. Thank you for your time.
Ostner: Is there anyone else from the public who would like to speak to this issue?
I am going to close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission.
Graves: I have a question for the City Attorney as to what he believes might be the
legal affect of reliance upon a map that was in error and what kind of
problems it may cause to not rezone it as requested.
Williams: As you are aware, we have faced this issue already a couple of different
times on a couple of mistakes that were made very similar to this and not
discovered until later. Even if the city was negligent in mislabeling the
map originally the city is protected by sovereign immunity for mistakes
like that. It is very unlikely that the city would be liable itself for the
mistake that was obviously made. The city did not rezone this property. It
was not zoned by the mistake on the map. That was just an error. As you
are probably aware, zoning decisions are made by the City Council
passing an ordinance. There was no ordinance that said that this property
was R-1.5. It was never zoned R-1.5. There was a mistake when an
employee for some reason misread the old map when he was transferring
it to the new map and put the wrong color in or put the wrong notation in
and it was not caught for a long time. The city obviously made a mistake
Planning Commission • •
June 28, 2004
Page 106
here like it did in the other case. From just the purely legal point of view
and not saying whether or not there is justification like the City Council
found in one particular case and didn't in another. From a purely legal
point of view I don't think the city is liable in this particular case because
of our sovereign immunity even though we did make a mistake.
Shackelford: Kit,
this cannot exist under
a Conditional Use so
this may not even play
into
it but what about undue
hardship? Would that
come into play at all in
this
case? The inability to sale the property?
Williams: Certainly that kind of concept can be apparent when you consider this
rezoning request. That is one of the many factors that you can consider is
the hardship on the applicant. I think that probably was considered in both
of the other cases that came before. The one that was turned down was
vacant land with no definite plans prepared by the applicant. In fact,
several members of the Planning Commission said if you came through
with a Planned Zoning District or with a Bill of Assurance that said this is
what will be on there then we would look at it much more carefully. Since
he just wanted it rezoned to R-1.5 at that point the Planning Commission
wasn't willing to rezone it to that. This is a slightly different situation
since there are already houses there. There are insurance problems I
understand as well as sale problems so this is a little bit different situation
than if it is just vacant land.
Shackelford: I would agree with that. I think this is a very unique situation. I don't
think that there are very many people who would support this rezoning
request if there weren't already existing structures on it. Unfortunately,
this is one of the more intriguing things we have to talk about tonight and
it is late in the night. I think that we have to give this some consideration.
I understand that the city is protected by sovereign immunity and I
understand that this is not a good situation regardless of the direction we
go because if we turn this down guess what, tomorrow those triplexes are
still in the middle of the neighborhood and we haven't changed a thing. I
would ask that we give this the consideration that it is due. Sovereign
immunity obviously, is a point that keeps us out of legal trouble but it
doesn't really keep us from doing the right thing. In the business world
when you have an employee that makes a mistake sometimes you have to
step up and help that person and help that entity take responsibility for that
mistake and try to do the right thing by the customer. I think that we at
least owe this an opportunity with that same context and that same
conversation in this situation. Thanks.
Graves: Is there, other than just going to the map, is there another place? If I'm
going to just look at the deed or the land records for that property that I
would be able to in some way reasonably easily be able to determine what
the actual zoning is for that property?
Planning Commission • •
June 28, 2004
Page 107
Williams: When you say reasonably easily I would probably say no at the time that
this was done. What happened and the way that it was finally resolved is
Tim Conklin spent many, many hours going through all of the old zoning
ordinances to ensure that there were no other mistakes other than the one
that first appeared. That is when he found the couple of other mistakes by
going back through the ordinances, which is feasible but is certainly not
easily done. Most persons surely would not want to go through that. Now
it would not have to be done. The City Council has adopted the zoning
map officially and now when changes are made we can change it all
digitally so the map now is correct. It took a lot of work by the Planning
staff and it is now correct. We apologize for the fact that sometime in the
late 90's or maybe 2000 or so, that there was a mistake that was made.
Now it is your burden and City Council's burden to decide what you are
going to do because this mistake was made and some triplexes were built
where triplexes should not have been allowed to be built and so the
neighbors are concerned and yet you have an owner who says I can't get
insurance, I can't sale. You really have two rights out there. There are no
wrongs and it is your duty to balance them and decide where you want to
go.
Ostner: Thank you Mr. Williams. There is a similar situation on my street. There
is a multi -family apartment building in an R-O zone which does not allow
this density yet time marches on. He has filed for small insurance claims,
made repairs and he is allowed to fix his property. I'm sure if it burned to
the ground there would be a big problem on how to replace it and what to
do. His rights are upheld. It is a non -conforming use that doesn't conform
to the zone. That's my problem. I'm trying to separate the history from
what I see is the salient issue. They have a non -conforming use. I think
they want to further a non -conforming use. It is inappropriate for the
neighborhood. They've got their project. It is up and running and they
would like to sale it. I believe they want to sale it with a bonus. The
bonus being hey, now we've got the zone. Right now there is no bonus.
They have to sale it without the guarantee in hand that if it burns to the
ground they could rebuild the triplexes. I am not in favor of this because I
believe it is inappropriate for the neighborhood. Time can march on with
this non -conforming use as they do all over town.
Collins: The idea that we can just sort of move forward and sell it and somewhere
we are getting a bonus out of the rezoning, in fact, we will not be able to
sale the property without the rezoning. The sale is contingent on being
able to rezone the property. If you don't rezone the property you cannot
sale the property. The reason is that the value of the property is in it's use.
If it is not allowed to be used as it is currently being used the value is not
there. If you have been to that neighborhood, I know I have spoken with
several of you who have driven that neighborhood. You know what is
Planning Commission • •
June 28, 2004
Page 108
there. If it burns to the ground what we are capable of rebuilding in no
way, in no way, compensates us for the net present value of all of the rents
that we intend to accumulate over the lifetime of those units. Single
family houses will not compensate for the current value which is
contingent upon it being able to be used as it has been used. The idea of
somehow without the rezoning we just march on into time and the whole
world is groovy is not accurate. If you don't rezone it you take away one
of my fundamental property rights, the right to sale the property. I cannot
sale it without the rezoning.
Ostner: I guess
I'm not
understanding
how
things can't be
sold without the
rezoning.
They are sold everyday
with
non -conforming
uses.
Collins: You are right. We can resale the property. The difference is the value
from resale will not be the same as the value with the rezoning. The
current situation, the current transaction is dependent upon the rezoning.
If it doesn't go through then what you've basically done, when I
purchased the property, part of the value, part of the reason I paid X
dollars for that property was because my understanding was the zoning
was R-1.5. I would not have paid what I paid had the zoning been
different. I had my people, my representatives, my agents go to the city,
the only place where you can find out what anything is zoned and said
what is it zoned? R-1.5. Are you sure? Yeah I'm sure, look at the big
map with the colors, it is R-1.5. We said thank you very much, we turned
around, walked out and I handed over a check. At some point,
unbeknownst to me, no one calls, no letters, no nothing, the underlying
zoning has changed. The value, my dollars went out of my pocket to
someone else. No one calls, no one writes. No one tells me that this is an
issue until I go to sale the property. Now you are telling me that we took
money from you. I'm sorry, because some clerk in some point in the
1980's used the wrong color pen. We appreciate where you are at but you
should bare the price of this, this is your responsibility. I'm not exactly
sure how I follow that logic. The city can say this is a non -conforming
use, it doesn't fit with our master plan and it is too dense. You know what
it is too dense by? We have %x acre, we have six units right now. If we
tore those six units down how many units can we build? Two. You are
talking about four additional units. When you ask the fire department and
the police department if this is a burden, traffic, water, is this a burden?
No, no, it's been operating. You permitted the darn thing. It has been
operating. The burden is psychological. If you choose to rezone the
burden is psychological on my fellow neighbors. If you don't rezone it the
burden is financial and it is on me. I respectfully disagree with what you
just said. In the end you are asking to take money from me and I didn't
participate in the mistake.
Planning Commission • •
June 28, 2004
Page 109
Vaught: I can definitely understand the applicant's frustration. Where I have a
hard time is the fact that we permitted these facilities to be built, the city
did. In a way that is us saying hey, this is what it is. I know in the other
case it did come up at the time of construction and it really should've here.
I will take a different approach at it. I don't know if RT-12 is too dense
for this area. When I step back and look at the overall picture of this
neighborhood, the one mile view, within % mile you've got RMF-24.
You've got all over the place, even abutting Hendrix and Mt. Comfort.
You've got heavy C-1 and C-2, your close proximity to the University
which is surrounded by RMF-40. You've got RMF-40 on the other side of
Garland as well as RMF-24 and RT-12 close to this property. It is close to
a school, it is close to shopping, it is close to the University. It seems like
if we were looking at a map now like we were on the west side and said
what should this be it might be a little more dense than what it is now. On
that side, I don't know if I have a problem with RT-12 and the fact that it
is surrounded by RSF-4 is a little problematic. As it reads on all of this
I'm not sure that a heavier zone would be non -conforming. I would be
inclined to vote for this request.
Graves: I would concur with what Commissioner Shackelford and Commissioner
Vaught have said, particularly in light of what our City Attorney has also
said. While I have sympathy for the concerns of the surrounding residents
of the area this certainly isn't out of line with what is already there.
However it got there, it is that way now. The RT-12 on Garland and the
RMF-24, which is about 1/10 a mile away on Hendrix. Maybe I'm wrong
but I would presume that no one on this commission went and thumbed
through all of the ordinances of the city before they bought their current
residence. That seems to me not to be a reasonable expectation. It
wouldn't be a reasonable presumption to assume whatever was told to Mr.
Collins' seller was passed along to him in some fashion. This seems to be
a situation where there is a hardship and it would be appropriate to rezone
as requested.
Shackelford: I will try to be brief but in my opinion there is a hardship. With my
current position being involved in financing commercial properties on a
daily basis, I would like to clarify a little bit what the problem is. Without
the proper zoning you have two major issues. First of all, if somebody
came to me wanting to use this property as collateral for a loan, if they
don't have the proper zoning there is no way I can guarantee that the value
of that property will convey over time. What it might appraise for now
would have to be discounted back to what is available in that area which
might mean a 75% or greater discount in appraised value so as a collateral
value I'm going to have to back that out, which obviously, is a very
significant impact to the land owner. The second problem is, our City
Attorney touched on it briefly, would be insurance purposes. There is no
way that an insurance company is going to underwrite this to the value
Planning Commission • •
June 28, 2004
Page I10
that is currently on this location because if it burned down quite simply
they couldn't rebuild it. There is no way that a bank is going to loan
money on a piece of property that could depreciate up to 75% in value and
could not have hazard insurance coverage equal to or equivalent to the
current value. That is the uniqueness that the applicant is eluding to as far
as the sale is dependent upon the rezoning. There are some very valid
points to that being on the other side of that table there is no way that I am
going to loan current market value on this property without that rezoning
because there is no guarantee that that value is going to convey over time.
Without the rezoning I understand this applicant's comments about the
inability to sale the property based on my daily experience in this market.
Myers: I live two blocks away from this property and have struggled with this
issue since it was presented to us last week. It is an inappropriate use for
the neighborhood. However, I think it would be punitive of us to penalize
the current owner for a mistake that really no one can take responsibility
for. It is a mistake that happened. The property is there. I think he
bought it in good faith. I think the concern of myself and my fellow
neighbors is to in the future that our nice little single family neighborhood
stays that way. Again, the reality is that building is there already and us
refusing to change the zoning is not going to remove the building. Let's
assume that we have one of our 25 year tornadoes and it takes the entire
neighborhood out, that's an extreme possibility I think. Since he bought
the property in good faith putting him in a position where if the property
were destroyed that he could not rebuild to it's current standard I think is
punitive and I think we really ought to grant his request.
Clark: Since we are talking about punitive and promises and faults, I'm looking
through the requests that came before with the comer on Hendrix and
Garland. How many times did that come through?
Warrick: This particular site has not. There are two other sites within this general
area that were both subject to the same mistake on the zoning map that
have both come to the Planning Commission and Council requesting
rezonings. One of them at the comer of Hendrix and Garland was
rezoned. The other request on Deane Street was not rezoned.
Clark: It seems like some promises were made to neighbors at that point that this
would stay single family and this wouldn't happen again. I'm concerned
about that. Yet at the same time I'm trying to balance the punitive nature
to the current property owner.
Myers: What it comes right down to is the building is there.
Clark: Absolutely.
Planning Commission • •
June 28, 2004
Page III
Vaught: On Deane Street there was no building.
MOTION:
Trumbo: To me it is this, the city made a mistake. I believe regardless, the
gentleman bought the property understanding that it was zoned this way.
He invested his hard earned money into this. To not change the zoning to
me would create undue hardship and for those reasons, and for those
reasons only, I am going to go ahead and make a motion to approve RZN
04-1103.
Shackelford: I will second and would like to add that this obviously, again, is a
recommendation to City Council. It is their call on final zoning issues. I
wish them luck as they weigh through this as we have.
Ostner: The comment I would like to make is I was given a land use executive
summary by our City Attorney. Under rezoning the substantial discretion
is afforded by the City Council. I'm assuming by Planning Commission
also when we make decisions on rezonings. There are eleven items there.
Many of which I believe this project touches on. The 2020 Plan objectives
clearly demonstrate the importance of neighborhoods and the legitimacy
of neighborhoods and how they should be protected. Even Ms. Myers
agrees that this is not a good part of this neighborhood. Public opposition
that is logical and reasonable. We have a strong neighborhood who has
voiced it's opposition which I agree with. Decrease in value of adjoining
land. A single family home next to this has been decreased in value
easily. Not by the zoning but by it being built in my mind.
Myers: We can't do anything about that.
Ostner: We can't do anything about a lot of things tonight. I'm talking about the
decisions we are able to make. The compatibility with adjacent zones
(spot zoning) and I believe this is a clear example of spot zoning. I'm
empathetic that you've been dealt a sour hand but you do have your
project built that could be sold in a non -conforming way. I will be voting
against the rezoning for those reasons.
Andres: I think we can all agree that this is a difficult situation in a slew of difficult
situations this evening and it is late. I do want to make some comments. I
used to own and live in a home down the street from where Commissioner
Myers lives now. I'm very sympathetic to in tact neighborhoods in
general around the University and in other places. However, I've
probably flip flopped my feeling on this one every hour since agenda on
Thursday and thought about it really hard. What I've come up with is that
I can't look at this in terms of value or loss of value, 1 have to look at it in
terms of land use. I stand on this property and I know that three houses
Planning Commission • •
June 28, 2004
Page 112
down there is a multi -family RT-12 development. I know that Garland
Avenue is slated by the Highway Department to be four lanes. I've seen
the drawings and that is pretty soon. I know that there is a Harps and
other shopping and restaurants within two blocks of this property. I can
stand on the corner of Hendrix and look over and see College Park and see
new construction going up over there. When I think about the car trips
and people and the ability to walk to commercial services and what is
already happening in this kind of fringe area I think that these couple of
streets between Mt. Comfort and Hendrix are a medley. They are one of
those medolies that is unique and not really part of the in tact sub
neighborhood that is back behind on Maxwell Drive. For that reason and
because of a lot of discussion this evening, I believe I will vote to support
this rezoning.
Ostner: Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Is there further discussion?
Renee?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of
RZN 04-1103 was approved by a vote of 7-2-0 with Commissioners Allen
and Ostner voting no.
Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of seven to zero.
STAFF RE* FORM - NON -FINANCIAL OBLIOTION
x AGENDA REQUEST
For the Fayetteville City Council Meeting of:
FROM:
Dawn Warrick Planning
Name Division
ACTION REQUIRED: Ordinance approval.
SUMMARY EXPLANATION:
July 20, 2004
CP&E
Department
RZN 04-1103: (Collins, pp 404) was submitted by Jeffery Collins for property located at 1280 Hendrix Street.
The request is to rezone the subject property from RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre to RT-12,
Residential Two and Three Family.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial.
Department Director
Finance & Internal Services Dir.
_-�Received in Mayor's Office '1- 1-Qt4
e Date
Date
Date
Cross Reference:
Previous Ord/Res#:
Date Orig. Contract Date:
Date
7 0
Date
Orig. Contract Number:
New Item:
Yes No
�C ,a) N"J
PETITION AGINST REZONING ON HENDRIX STREET
We, the undersigned, oppose the rezoning of the Addington/Hendrix
"J
property from RSF-4 residential single family, to RT-12, residential two and
three family. We ask that the council consider zoning mistakes made by the
city on this street in the past and reject any further spot rezoning.
NAME DATE ADDRESS
2•�.J1.�. D� ✓/LfOiG1 /� .'� �lo�r�i�> ��'
3.
E
8
9
1
77v3q'g
.moo,
k. 7a7o
7a3
77.-rn3
12.
13.
14.
15.
M.
17.
18.
PETITION AGINST REZONING ON HENDRIX STREET
We, the undersigned, oppose the rezoning of the Addington/Hendrix
property from RSF-4 residential single family, to RT-12, residential two and
three family. We ask that the council consider zoning mistakes made by the
city on this street in the past and reject any further spot rezoning.
NAME DATE ADDRESS
2. r,
3. Sp-2-0
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
1,7.
18. _.
Ll
PETITION AGINST REZONING ON HENDRIX STREET
We, the undersigned, oppose the rezoning of the Addington/Hendrix
property from RSF-4 residential single family, to RT-12, residential two and
three family. We ask that the council'consider zoning mistakes made by the
city on this street in the past and reject any further spot rezoning.
NAME DATE ADDRESS
!)9 w . A.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
v7•
,.8.
9.
10.
11'
12.
13'
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
F
63.3
) " . N
1 ?"�a, �y
5;z?03
r %27�3
Qf. 7Z7�
-6 f< /I 7e Al
17.m6 IV, lnaxc ell ; 47o3
,+LvJ rf '7 2 90 3
�4a.lz«' i a-7 bc�
/3uG yj tea? 747
� °3
PETITION AGINST REZONING ON HENDRIX STREET
We, the undersigned, oppose the rezoning of the Addington/Hendrix
property from RSF-4 residential single family, to RT-12, residential two and
three family. We ask that the council consider zoning mistakes. made by the
city on this street in the past and reject any further spot rezoning.
NAME DATE ADDRESS
1. _ / 3 Ucunq
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
ill:
�/.`l•� � 1 - ' /r -
All
Ir` _ 7
9. � v 9LI 1'7 . Adclrnv�t�n
to. z ��C 'v �nc,/A -
It.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
• _•
PETITION AGINST REZONING ON HENDRIX STREET
We, the undersigned, oppose the rezoning of the Addington/Hendrix
property from RSF-4 residential single family, to RT-12, residential two and
three family. We ask that the council consider zoning mistakes made by the
city on this street in the'past and -reject any.further spot rezoning.
NAME DATE ADDRESS
8.
9./
10.
11
12.
13. _Qa
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
11531 1 04 1-7 1)
5.
1A S,
71'&1W '7131)a,004. 11W7 rq • MAXwrfI
'wyI Dr_
Or
k /P� AI 0 1103
CAS-C�t.r ivj�
• City Council Minutes
February 19, 2002
Page 2
with their new cable installation. They had completed approximately thirty percent of the city. It
appeared to him that Cox was reluctant to discuss an important franchise. They have some points to
make. They have been at this for some time. The city had a technical committee putting together our
version of what an institutional network needs to be for the city. The Council had several options. They
could table it, pass it, or remove it from the table with the threat that they could bring it back before them
at any time. It was his opinion that if they were going to have any movement on this issue that they
would be better served by having the staff and others to use this to negotiate on the franchise. On
February 4, he had stated that they had indications from their attorney in Washington that they were
considering some give on a reduced life -line tier. Ina later e-mail that he had received from Mr. Grogan
has shown some change in Cox=s position. They were firm in their communications. There appeared to
be not much give at all. The only card the city held was the length of the franchise. He recommended
that they table the item.
Alderman Zurcher stated Cox=s customer service was lacking., They did not care what the subscriber
thought about this rate increase. The only way the city could hold them accountable for a fair rate was to
do this audit. The lowest tier that they were proposing was only a $1.50 less than it was to get the next
tier. They did not want the consumer to get the lowest tier. They were keeping citizen from getting a
more affordable tier. They needed to offer a lower life -line tier.
isAlderman Young stated he had observed these negotiations for years. One of the things that he had
observed was the lack of resolve on the part of the city. He thought they were faced with the same
problem today. He proposed that they passed both of the things. It would take a while to get the data
together. If they came to an agreement then they could pass a resolution rescinding this resolution.
Alderman Santos stated he had received an e-mail with rates around the country. It seemed to him that
other people were getting abetter deal than they were giving them. From what he could gather it seemed
that if the satellite companies were able to compete with Cox.
Alderman
Davis stated
he had received more calls with people concerned
about losing
MSNBC, than
about the
rate structure.
Mr. Earnest stated it had to do with analog and digital. MSNBC was still carried as an analog. Once
they could get MSNBC in digital format it would added to the upper tier.
Alderman Zurcher moved to approve the resolution. Alderman Thiel seconded. Upon roll call the
motion carried by a vote of 6-2-0. Trumbo and Davis voting nay.
RESOLUTION 26-02 AS RECORDED /N THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
RZN 02-1.00: An ordinance approving RZN 02-1.00 as submitted by Robert Schmitt for property
located at 1 140 Hendrix and 1110 Hendrix. The property is zoned R-I, Low Density Residential, and
contains approximately 1.36 acres. The request is rezone to R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential. The
ordinance was left on the first reading at the February 5, 2002, meeting.
is
City Council Minutes •
February 19, 2002
Page 3
Alderman Young moved to suspend the rules and move to the second reading. Alderman Davis
seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion carried 6-2-0. Jordan and Zurcher voting nay.
Mr. Williams read the ordinance.
Alderman Jordan stated
he had received a petition
from the people in the area.
They were concerned
about traffic congestion,
drainage and crime rate.
Ms. Sharon Davidson, an area resident, stated they needed to fix the problem with the map and fix the
zoning issues. She questioned if they really needed these apartments.
Ms. Emma Sue Hanna, an area resident, stated traffic and crime in this area was the neighborhood=s first
concern. There were a number of apartments in this area that were vacant. She asked them to consider
that this was one of the last remaining neighborhoods. People were coming in and renovating the
neighborhood. It was coming back to life. This was their home and they would like to keep it the way it
was. She suggested they build a couple homes.
Mr. Jerry Lang, an area resident, asked the aldermen if they would like to have a duplex built behind his
house. It would be ten years before they widened Garland.
Ms. Joyce Richards, an area resident, presented a petition. People in the neighborhood cared. She asked •
that they not rezone the property. People had lived in this neighborhood for twenty, thirty, fifty years.
They have years invested in this area. They were looking for a return in their investmentjust like Broc
Thompson.
Janet Bolin, an area resident, stated she had lived here since she was fourteen. She had seen a lot of
changes to the neighborhood. She asked them to preserve the integrity of the older neighborhoods.
Quality of life in their neighborhood has decreased. Their street has been paved once since 1966. She
sited problems with traffic and water and sewer.
Alice Richards, an area resident, stated a mistake in zoning had allowed two triplexes to be put up in her
back yard. She felt that was an invasion into their neighborhood. She asked the council not to rezone the
property.
Mr. David Davidson, an area resident, stated people in this area did not want to see the zoning change or
the additional apartments. There are concerns about drainage and traffic.
Mr. Steve Frankenburger, an area resident, stated this was a simple issue of neighborhood preservation
and property rights. The property belonged to the individual, but it should be a give that the zoning
belonged to all of them in the neighborhood. Zoning was a contract between neighbors.
Alderman Thiel asked number of units proposed for the site.
Mr. Conklin stated they have offered a Bill of Assurance for a maximum of nine units. There was one
single family home on the property. They would add two units to the single family home, then add two
40
• City Council Minutes
February 19, 2002
Page 4
additional triplexes.
Alderman Trumbo stated the purchasers had taken out a loan contingent upon the zoning that the city had
showed them. What was their exposure legally?
Mr. Williams stated he did not believe they were legally liable, but only ajudge and jury could decide
that. He thought their sovereign immunity would protect them. His advise to the Planning Commission
was that from a legal point of view they were not liable. Even if negligence could be shown when they
were transferring from a paper map to a digital map. The error had been done by mistake. He thought
they would be protected by the tort immunity statute. The reason that statute was drafted to protect the
city from these types of suits from damages. He did not believe they would be liable for damages.
Mr. Earnest stated a representative of the city had given them a letter stating the property was R-1.5.
That was a direct result of a request from the bank.
Alderman Thiel
stated
regardless
of what the Planning office did, would the council rezone this, if this
was not the case.
She
would not
consider rezoning this after hearing from the neighbors.
Alderman Jordan stated the people in the area wanted to preserve their neighborhood. He would not
• want those triplexes in his neighborhood. He knew mistakes had been made, but to rezone this would be
another mistakes.
Alderman Young asked how long it was going to take to present a revised map to the council.
Mr. Conklin explained he had discovered the mistake. He did not want this to happen again. It will take
approximately two weeks to print out their zoning map on clear plastic and overlay that on their 1970
map, which was colored in crayon. Their GIS department would have to make any adjustments to the
map. He hoped they could bring something forward to the city council in a month to a month and a half.
He would proposed that they adopt an official map with signatures. The map could change every two
weeks. He believed they needed an official map.
In response to questions, Mr. Conklin stated they were going to identify discrepancies and make the
necessary adjustments. They were not going to change any zonings that have not been approved by the
City Council. It was difficult to take a 1970's map and put it into a digital format.
Alderman Santos stated the property could not return to the commercial use because the grandfather
clause no longer applied because it had been vacant for more than six months.
Mr. Earnest stated Garland Avenue was a principle street. It made planning sense to talk about using
higher density against principle arterials or collectors. It becomes logical that those cars would not go
back into neighborhood, but would go out towards the collector. When they talked about smart growth
and higher density in existing neighborhoods, this is a case in point. They were going to be facing this
issue over and over, if they were concerned about sprawl. This area of the state was going to grow. This
area was going to under increased pressure for housing.
0
City Council Minutes 40
February 19, 2002
Page 5
Alderman Trumbo asked if he was advocating the rezoning.
Mr. Earnest stated it made since from a planning perspective. There was one house on the property now.
The rest of it was vacant. Quality development on this property could just as easily be a positive benefit
to the neighborhood if it was done properly.
Alderman Trumbo stated that was from a planners perspective. From a neighbor standpoint, that did not
make any sense.
Alderman Reynolds stated a mistake had been made and they had put triplexes in the neighborhood.
These people loved their neighborhood just like everyone else. They wanted to keep their neighborhood
as it was at this time.
Alderman Trumbo asked Mr. Osborn if this property was not rezoned would his client still develop the
property?
Mr. Osborn stated he could not answer the question.
Alderman Davis asked Mr. Osborn to meet with the neighbors.
THE ORDINANCE WAS LEFT ON THE SECOND READING. •
RZN 02-2.00: An ordinance approving rezoning request RZN 02-2.00 as submitted by Craig Hull of
Nickle-Hill Group on behalf of Andy Bethel] for property located at the northeast corner of Joyce Blvd.
and Crossover Road. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately
1.94 acres. The request is to rezone to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The ordinance was left on the
first reading at the February 5, 2002, meeting.
Alderman Trumbo moved to suspend the rules and move to the second reading. Alderman Jordan
seconded. Upon roll call the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Williams read the ordinance.
-Ms. Hull stated the Planning Commission had approved their request and they had filed a Bill of
Assurance.
Alderman Davis stated there was a bill of assurance on the property which would limit the use of the
property.
Alderman Trumbo moved to suspend the rules and move to the third and final reading. Alderman
Jordan seconded. The motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Williams read the ordinance.
Mayor Coody asked shall the ordinance pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed unanimously.
is
• Minutes of the City Council
March 5, 2002
Page 4
OLD BUSINESS
RZN 02-1.00: An ordinance approving RZN 02-1.00 as submitted by Robert Schmitt for property
located at 1140 Hendrix and 1110 Hendrix. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and
contains approximately 1.36 acres. The request is rezone to R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential. The
ordinance was left on the first reading at the February 5, 2002, meeting and left on the second reading at
the February 19, 2002 meeting.
Alderman Jordan moved to table the ordinance. Alderman Davis seconded. Upon roll call the
motion carried unanimously.
THE ORDINANCE WAS TABLED ON THE SECOND READING UNTIL THE MARCH 19, 2002
MEETING.
CIVIL SERVICE: An ordinance adding two additional members to the Fayetteville Civil Service
Commission. This ordinance was left on the first reading at the February 19, 2002 meeting.
• Alderman Trumbo moved to suspend the rules and move to the second reading. Alderman
Jordan seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Williams read the ordinance for the second time.
Alderman Thiel stated she thought a larger commission would better reflect the increase size and
diversity of the city.
Mr. Dominic Swanfield, F.O.P., stated if it was a problem, then they were fine with that. They had
originally brought it up in hopes of adding a little more balance to the commission. The current
system was fine. They would like to have two more added.
Alderman Davis stated there were problems with a number ofcommittees having enough to create a
quorum. He questioned if it would be harder to get a quorum by increasing the number of members.
Alderman Thiel stated if they increased they membership by two, then they would only need one
more member for a quorum. They would increase their odds of getting a quorum.
Mr. Williams reminded the Council that in the absence of Alderman Zurcher, it did not change the
number of votes required to pass an ordinance. The number of votes required to pass an ordinance
or resolution remains five, a majority of the number of whole persons elected to position.
I
• City Council Minutes
March 19, 2002
Page 2
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES: A resolution amending the Rules of Order and Procedure -
Mayor / City Council, pertaining to the selection process for members of citizen committees.
RESOLUTION 48-02 AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
BID O1-55: A resolution awarding the Item No. 1,2,3,4,5,7,9 and 10 in the amount of $991,835 to
Ron Blackwell Ford and Item No. 8 and I I in the amount of $105,622.80 to Landers Ford and
approval of a budget adjustment.
RESOL UTION d9-02 AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
Alderman Santos moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Alderman Reynolds seconded.
Upon roll call the motion carried unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS
RZN 02-1.00: An ordinance approving request RZN 02-1.00 for property located at 1 140 Hendrix
and 11 10 Hendrix. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately
1.36 acres. The request is rezone to R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential. The ordinance was tabled
on the second reading at the March 5, 2002 meeting.
• Alderman Davis moved to take the item off the table. Alderman Santos seconded. Upon roll
call the motion carried unanimously.
Alderman Santos moved to suspend the rules and move to the third and final reading.
Alderman Davis seconded. Upon roll call the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Williams read the ordinance.
Mr. Brock Thompson, property owner, stated they had spent about six month evaluating where they
wanted to do this project. He had family in Fayetteville, Arkansas. They had looked at the zoning.
They had received a letter from the city stating this property was R-1.5 which would work for his
project. He had held a neighborhood meeting in which twenty to twenty-five neighbors came along
with several aldermen. At least fifty percent of the neighbors had changed their minds and were in
favor of the project. With all the expansion going on in Fayetteville, it was only a matter of time
before this property developed. He was not a professional builder or contractor. He was adding a
lot of extras because he was trying to heighten the professionalism of the tenants that he wanted.
Seventy-five percent of each unit would be brick. He was asking for a total of nine units. They
were going to be nice. They were going to go above and beyond in the landscaping and the interiors.
He presented a picture of the proposed project with landscaping.
Ms. Hanna stated the neighborhood association was requesting the property be left as R-1. They had
met with Mr. Thompson at that meeting they had agreed unanimously that they would request the
council to leave the property at R-I. She read a letter from Ms. Richards objecting the rezoning.
She expressed concern about the increase in traffic. She had lived on Stevens for thirty years. There
were a lot of others who had lived there twenty-five and thirty years. They were a permanent
• neighborhood.
r]
City Council Minutes
March 19, 2002
Page 3
Ms. Jeanie Sanderland, an area resident, stated she was concerned about the possible of triplexes.
She was also concerned about the traffic and the destruction of trees on the property. She would like
to see the property stay at its current zoning.
Mr. Palmer Alice, an area resident, stated he had lived there for approximately six years. This last
year two triplexes had gone up. His concern with this project was that it would open the door for
more properties to be developed. If there were the case, then he would ask them not to rezone this
property. However, he understood that this was a mistake and that Mr. Thompson had purchased
property understanding that the zoning was R-1.5. If that was the case, then he was entitled to build
what he wanted to build. He did not have a problem with him and he liked what Mr. Thompson was
proposing. He thought it would improve the neighborhood.
Mr. Conklin stated most of the rezoning activity that they had seen in that area had been on property
that had been vacant or used for non-residential purposes in the past. They have not seen too much
activity. The likelihood was not very high, when they had lots already developed with single-family
homes. Garland Avenue was classified as a principle arterial. In the future, it was planned to be a
four lane road and State highway. Typically, they did see a transition of different types of residential
uses. Also, within their comprehensive plan it did talk about a mixture of residential type uses.
Mr. John David Lindsey, Lindsey and Associates, they had the property listed for sale. Their
information had been that this property was R-1.5. Mr. Thompson had bought the property under •
that assumption. There was a second ingress and egress to this subdivision on the Mt. Comfort
Road. He thought that would help with traffic, but this property being right on the corner of
Garland, the R-1.5 zoning would be a perfect fit. This project will not affect the property values in
that neighborhood.
Ms. Carla Grey, an area resident, stated this had been a mistake, but there were a lot of strong
feelings over this issue. The neighborhood association was against spot rezoning, but they were
divided on whether or not they believe that it should be left R-1 or if they should go R-1.5 as part of
a larger plan. She asked what they could do about the existing triplex that was also a mistake.
Mr. Conklin stated what has occurred was that back in 1995 they took a 197Ws map and digitized it.
During that process, R-1.5 had been entered into that area. With regard to the previous triplexes
being build, the error had not been discovered. This mistake had not been discovered until now.
What they were doing now was going back and reviewing the rezoning. They were going to go back
and look at thirty-two years worth of ordinances. From there they were going to bring back a zoning
map for adoption. They have not address the issue of the triplexes in the R-1 zoning district. They
were there, they were permitted, they were built and occupied. He did not have the answers on how
to justify the past mistakes.
Alderman Jordan stated the neighbors were concerned about how this area was going to be rezoned.
Mr. Conklin stated in their General Plan, that the council adopted in 1995 it stated they would look
at industrial, Heavy Industrial area, identify them and determine whether or not those need to remain
I-1. The first neighborhood that they had looked at was west of the square. It has transitioned from
two active rail lines to one active rail lines. The process was to work with the neighborhood 40
• City Council Minutes
March 19, 2002
Page 4
associations to identify. Fie was concerned with them saying they were going to rezone the entire
city. There were many areas that were not zoned industrial that were currently zoned. It was not his
intention to rezone the entire city. They were working with neighborhoods. This was going to come
from the neighborhoods to them. It was not going to be them telling the industrial neighborhoods
what to do. It was a pilot process, they have not done this in thirty-two years. They will improve on
the process and they will continue the process. Fie may need more help in the future too. This was
going to take more and more staff time.
Ms. Mona York, an area resident, stated her property adjoined this property on the east side. She
had originally signed the petition, since then she has seen what was proposed. She did not object to
this at all. She did not see how this was going to harm her. She thought it might make the area a
little more beautiful. She did not have any problem getting out onto Garland.
Ms. Sawyer, an area resident, stated she supported the development. The area was going to develop
anyway. She hoped that it would be an improvement to the neighborhood.
Ms. Ada Washington, an area resident, stated she would love to see something come in as pretty as
this in their neighborhood. She had lived there twenty years and she had not see anything positive
happen there. She was definitely for the development. The last ten years had been terrible. This
seemed positive to him.
is being
Scott Roberts, an area resident, stated Mr. Thompson had purchased the property based on it
being R-1.5, information that had been given out by the city. He wanted to be able to trust the
system. He wanted to be able to make investments in the future himself. He wanted to be able to
rely on the information given to him. .
Mr. Greg Henry, an area resident, stated he was relying on the city's records of zoning to invest in
property. He did not believe they should be able to change what has been committed to Mr.
Thompson. He was in favor of this project.
Ms. Terry Faylyn, an area resident, stated she has lived here for sixteen years. The city had made a
mistake and she felt for Mr. Thompson, but she wanted to remind the council that the other people in
the neighborhood also purchased their property with the understanding that neighborhood was
zoned R-1.
Ms. Bolin, an area resident, stated that the other property owners had purchased their property with
the assurance that it was R-l. When Mayor Coody ran for office, he had stated that he would
support neighborhood associations and he would listen to them. This association was opposed to
this. No every one in the neighborhood was at the meeting, but those that vote decide for the rest of
them. They were opposed to this. They would like to keep this neighborhood a post-war expansion
neighborhood with affordable housing.
Mr. Osburn stated a vote on this rezoning was not setting a precedent on any other rezoning. He felt
if the same mistake had not happen on the triplexes, they would not be facing so much opposition.
R-1.5 made perfect since as a transition from Garland to the neighborhood.
• Mr. Thompson stated he had made every effort to talk to as many people as possible. He has
City Council Minutes
March 19, 2002
Page 5
proposed a Bill of Assurance on some of things that he has committed to. He had previously
committed to a Bill of Assurance saying nine units. He was now committing to other things that
they talked about at the neighborhood meeting that he could make work for the bank. Which was all
the extras, single level, with landscaping, trees, privacy fence, and security system.
Mayor Coody asked if that included using the design that he was presenting tonight?
Mr. Thompson replied he was trying to elevate the amount of professionalism that he was going to
attract into that area. These will rent from a thousand to eleven hundred per month.
He had spent $160,000 on this property that for the past eight years been zoned R-1.5. If he reduced
the number of units he would not be able to spend as much money on materials. He would not be
able to do brick and put in as many sixteen foot trees as he wanted or the security system.
Mr. Williams stated it would require five affirmative votes for this to pass. He noted there were two
members missing.
Mr. Thompson stated he would be in favor of waiting two more weeks.
Alderman Davis moved to table the item for two more weeks. Alderman Santos seconded.
Alderman Young stated he would like to see from both sides of the homeowners. It appeared to him
that the neighborhood was split. He would like to hear from every one. •
Upon roll call the motion carried unanimously.
ORDINANCE WAS TABLED ON THE THIRD READING.
CIVIL SERVICE: An ordinance adding two additional members to the Fayetteville Civil Service
Commission. The ordinance was tabled on the third reading at the March 5, 2002 meeting.
Alderman Santos moved to take the item off the table. Alderman Jordan seconded. The
motion carried unanimously.
Alderman Thiel stated she thought adding two commissioners would better reflect their increase size
and the diversity of our city. Commissioners had six -year terms and they had five commissioners.
They had seven applicants for the one open position. People were willing and qualified and had the
time.
Alderman Davis stated he was opposed to it because trying to get that many people together would
be more difficult. He had spoken to three of the commissioners. They had all told him that there
was no reason to add any more members. It was hard enough now to get meeting times arranged.
There were times when they had to meet for three or four consecutive days, all day. They had very
good applicants, but there were a few who were surprised when they told them they would need two
or three days. He had not heard from the police force.
Alderman Thiel stated she had spoken with Tad Scott, FOP, and stated he was in favor of this. They
were still supporting this. •
FAYETTEIPILLE •
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-Pearman4
City Clerk Division
Date: August 23, 2004
Re: Ordinance No.4609
Attached is a copy of the above ordinance passed by the City Council, August 17, 2004, approving the
rezoning petition RZN 04-1103 located at 1280 Hendrix Street containing .51 acre owned by Jeffery
Collins.
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
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
do solemnly swear that I am
LeAalCler"ft-f—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:
D was inserted in the regular editions on
PO# OAP
'" Publication Charge: $ 9t to
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
ade day of 4L9 , 2004.
a —
Notary Public
My Commission Expires: o7411oi?
" Please do not pay from Affidavit.
An invoice will be sent.
Official Seal
SEAN-MICHAEL ARGO
Notary Public -Arkansas
WASHINGTON COUNTY
My Commission Expires 07.25-2013
--
ORDINANCE NO. THAT
ITYC. ev leI
AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY
DESCRIBED IN REZONING PETITION R2N 04-1103 AS
SUBMITTED BY JEFFERY COLUNS FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1280 HENDRIX STREET CONTAINING ARXANSAS I
APPROXIMATELY 0.51 ACRES FROM RSF-4, RESIDEN-
TIAL SINGLE FAMILY, FOUR UNrrS PER ACRE TO RT-12. RESIDENTIAL TWO AND THREE FAMILY
Be R ORDAINED BY THE CRY COUNCIL OF THE CRY OF FAYBTTEYILLB. ARKANBAB:'.
Sectlon 1: Thal the tone dasslfieaeon of the folowirg oescnbetl Property is hereby d,arigea ee Idbwsi.
From RSF-4, Reaeentiel Shgle Femiy, Four Ur Per Acre to RT-12, Re denial Two ano Thiee Fwri y
as sho n in EMiU -A- atledlaf hereto anti made a Part hereof. I
SBCtlon 2: That the officW za *V map of ffXa City of Fayettevife, Arkansas, is hereby Wended W mfleG
the zoning dwge puvic eo in Secusn 1 above.
PASSED APPROVED 1h's 1 ]1h day ofAugust, 2W4.
APPROVED.
DAN COODr, Mayor
ATTEST:
By
SONDIiA SMRNr CRTT Clam '
RZN 04-1103
LOT 8. BLOCK 1, HENDRU(ADDITION TO THE CRY OF FAYETI COLLE, ARKANSAS, AS PER PLAT OF
SAID ADDITION ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CIRCUIT CLERK AND EX-OMCIO RECORDER OF
WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS. i
212 NORTH EAST AVENUE • P.O. BOX 1607 • FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72702 • (501) 442-1700