No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 4645ORDINANCE NO, 4645 AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN REZONING PETITION RZN 04-1243 AS SUBMITTED BY RONALD DEAN MEDLEY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3507 W. 6T" STREET CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 1.03 ACRES FROM R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL TO C-I, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the zone classification of the following described property is hereby changed as follows: From R-A, Residential Agricultural to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial 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 ztzdll ouoo�t 6co =U• c ;FAYETTEVILLE: ATTEST: I'9s ygRKANS.QceJ� By: SO M TH, City Clerk By: APPROVED: I IIIIIII IIIIII III IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII Ilu IIII Doc ID: 008123550002 Tvoe: REL Recorded: 02/01/2005 at 02:06:05 PM Fee Amt: $11.00 Pace 1 of 2 Washlnoton Countv. AR Bette Stamos Circuit Clerk F11e2005-00004785 • EXHIBIT "A" RZN 04-1243 A PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW %4) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW %4) AND A PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW '/4) OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW %4) OF SECTION NINETEEN (19) IN TOWNSHIP SIXTEEN (16) NORTH, RANGE THIRTY (30) WEST, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, TO -WIT: BEGINNING AT AN IRON PIPE 15.174 CHAINS SOUTH AND 11.116 CHAINS EAST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE FRACTIONAL SOUTHWEST QUARTER (FRL. SW '/4) OF THE FRACTIONAL NORTHWEST QUARTER (FRL. NW %4) OF SECTION 19, AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 175.3 FEET; THENCE EAST 138 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY OF U.S. HIGHWAY #62 FOR A PLACE OF BEGINNING OF LAND CONVEYED; THENCE SOUTH 21 *30'EAST 377 FEET TO WHERE LEHMAN'S SOUTH LINE INTERSECTS EAST BANK OF CREEK; THENCE NORTH 60°EAST WITH LEHMAN'S SOUTH LINE 158 FEET TO LEHMAN'S SOUTHEAST CORNER; THENCE NORTH 29° WITH LEHMAN'S EAST LINE 347 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF RIGHT OF WAY OF HIGHWAY #62; THENCE WITH RIGHT OF WAY SOUTHWEST 115 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. LESS AND EXCEPT A PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: STARTING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 19; THENCE SOUTH 02001' WEST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SECTION 19 A DISTANCE OF 111.0 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EXISTING SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY 62; THENCE NORTH 75047' EAST ALONG SAID EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 907.9 FEET TO A POINT FOR THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUE NORTH 75°47' EAST ALONG SAID EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 115.0 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 25026' EAST A DISTANCE OF 15.83 FEET TO A POINT ON THE PROPOSED SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID U.S. HIGHWAY; THENCE SOUTH 54°30' WEST ALONG SAID PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 4.29 FEET TO A PONT; THENCE SOUTH 75°47' WEST ALONG SAID PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 112.7 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 18°35' WEST A DISTANCE OF 15.0 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING AND CONTAINING 0.04 ACRE, MORE OR LESS. Washington County, AR I certify this instrument was filed on 02/di/2005 02:06:05 pM and recorded in Real Estate File'Number 2005-00004785 Bette Stamps - Circuit C erk by r /z1 710� City Council Meeting of November 16, 2004 Z& r� j Agenda Item Number ;QV(0 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MP dl�y To: Mayor and City Council Thru: Tim Conklin, Community Planning and Engineering Services Director From: Dawn T. Warrick, AICP, Zoning and Development Administrator OV Date: October 26, 2004 Subject: Rezoning for Medley (RZN 04-1243) RECOMMENDATION Planning Staff recommends approval of an ordinance rezoning approximately 1.03 acres of property from R-A, Residential Agricultural, to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. BACKGROUND The subject property contains a I -acre tract with a single family home located upon it. Most of the property consists of a vacant field, located behind the existing home. The entirety of the property is located within the 100-year floodplain, approximately 0.13 miles west of the Lowe's C-PZD on 61h Street (Hwy 62). The property is bordered to the west by both vacant and occupied commercial buildings and an automobile salvage yard (an existing nonconforming use in a C-2 district). A portion of this property remains zoned R-A; the majority is C-2 property, and has been zoned as such since before 1970. Property to the south is occupied by a Church (an existing nonconforming use in an R-A district). To the east is vacant property (a strip of R-A and C-2). Several large tracts of land to the west were zoned from R-A to C-2, RMF-24, R-O and RSF-4 in 1987 (see attached), a portion of which was subsequently rezoned in recent years to C-PZD for the Lowe's development. To the north the subject property is bound by Hwy 62 and a Tire & Auto shop, along with other commercial developments, all of which have existed as C-2 pre-1970. The applicant's request was to rezone the subject property from R-A, Residential Agricultural to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The applicant proposes a rezoning of the subject property to facilitate the future sale and potential development of the property at an appreciated value, based on recommendations from the applicant's Realtor. Staff recommended denial of the proposed rezoning to C-2, finding that the proposed rezoning is not consistent with future land use planning objectives, principles, and policies for Mixed Use Areas. CQ oei- or Ims;f rtadii y /1/146lef 6 City Council Meeting of November 16, 2004 Agenda Item Number On October 25, 2004, the Planning Commission voted 7-1-0 to forward this item to the City Council with a recommendation for rezoning the property C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, with Commissioner Ostner voting no. BUDGET IMPACT None. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN REZONING PETITION RZN 04-1243 AS SUBMITTED BY RONALD DEAN MEDLEY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3507 W. 6T" STREET CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 1.03 ACRES FROM R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL TO C-13 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL. /i\� BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: <� Section 1: That the zone property is hereby changed,: From R-A, Residential Agriculturak shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto OF THE CITY OF of a part hereof. described as Section 2. That tlie-official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, is herebyanlended to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1 above. Zrday PASSED ANDAPP' ROVED this 12004, DAN COODY, Mayor ATTEST: By: Sondra Smith, City�Clerk • 0 EXHIBIT "A" RZN 04-1243 A PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW '/4) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW %<) AND A PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW '/4) OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER 1. (SW ''/a) OF SECTION NINETEEN (19) IN TOWNSHIP SIXTEEN (16) NORTH, RANGE THIRTY (30) WEST, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, TO -WIT: BEGINNING AT AN IRON PIPE 15.174 CHAINS SOUTH AND NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE FRACTIONAL SOUTHWES THE FRACTIONAL NORTHWEST QUARTER (FRL. NSW 'A) Oi T T THENCE SOUTH 175.3 FEET; THENCE EAST 138 FEEOGA OF THE RIGHT OF WAY OF U.S. HIGHWAY #62<F�OR A PLA, CONVEYED; THENCE SOUTH 21 °30' EAST 37;7-FEETJO WH INTERSECTS EAST BANK OF CREEK; THENCE\NORTH SOUTH LINE 158 FEET TO LEHMAN'S SOUTHEAST CORNE LEHMAN'S EAST LINE 347 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE'OF':R #62; THENCE WITH RIGHT OF WAY�SOUTHWEST 11'S BEGINNING. LESS AND EXCEPT A_P``ART'OF THE SOUS NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION\l9 `TOWNSHIP 16 WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, MORE PARTICULARI STARTING AT NORTHWEST i WEST LINE OF SOUTHERLYR EXISTING RIGHT OF, SOUTH�25°26' EAST SOUTHERLY RIGHT WEST ALONG SAID I POINT; THENCE SOU DISTANCE OFAI 12.71 15.0 FEET TO THE PO 11.146 CHAINS EAST OF THE t QUARTER (FRL. SW '/<) OF SECTION 19; AND RUNNING POINT ON THE\SOUTH LINE :E OF BEGINNING OF LAND ;RE LEHMAN'S SOUTH LINE 60°EAST WITHLEHMAN'S Z; THENCE NORTH 290 WITH IGHTOF WAY OF HIGHWAY 'FEET TO THE POINT OF 'HWEST QUARTER OF THE 1, RANGE 30 WEST, RIBED AS FOLLO W S: THWEST CORNER\OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE OF SECTION 19; THENCE SOUTH 02001' WEST ALONG THE 19 A'DISTANCE OF 1 11.0 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EXISTING NA`kINE OF-U-.S..HIGHWAY 62; THENCE NORTH 75°47' EAST RIGHT OF WAYLINE A DISTANCE OF 907.9 FEET TO A POINT NNING; THENCE CONTINUE NORTH 75°47' EAST ALONG SAID 4Y LINFA_DISTANCE OF 115.0 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE DISTANCE/OF 15.83 FEET TO A POINT ON THE PROPOSED WAY LINE OF SAID U.S. HIGHWAY; THENCE SOUTH 54°30' POSED RIGHT OF WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 4.29 FEET TO A 7504T WEST ALONG SAID PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY LINE A T TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 18°35' WEST A DISTANCE OF OF BEGINNING AND CONTAINING 0.04 ACRE, MORE OR LESS. )6 Taye evi 1e ARKANSAS THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE PC Meeting of October 25, 2004 125 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 575-8267 TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Jeremy Pate, Senior Planner Matt Casey, Staff Engineer THRU: Dawn Warrick, A.I.C.P., Zoning & Development Administrator DATE: October 18, 2004 RZN 04-1243: Rezoning (MEDLEY, 557/596): Submitted by RONALD DEAN MEDLEY for property located at 3507 W 06TH STREET.. The property is zoned R-A, RESIDENTIAL - AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 1.03 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Planner: JEREMY PATE RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the requested rezoning, based on the findings included as part of this report. Required October 25, 2004 O Approved O Denied COUNCIL ACTION: Required YES O Approved O Denied November 16,:2004•(1" reading.if recommended) Comments: BACKGROUND: Property description: The subject property contains a 1-acre tract with a single family home located upon it. Most of the property consists of a vacant field, located behind the existing home. The entirety of the property is located within the 100-year floodplain, approximately 0.13 miles K. V2eporn12004PC Reportr110-25-04ViZN 04-1143 (AEDLE17.doc west of the Lowe's C-PZD on 6 h Street (Hwy 62). The property is bordered to the west by both vacant and occupied commercial buildings and an automobile salvage yard (an existing nonconforming use in a C-2 district). A portion of this property remains zoned R-A; the majority is C-2 property, and has been zoned as such since before 1970. Property to the south is occupied by a Church (an existing nonconforming use in an R-A district). To the east is vacant property (a strip of R-A and C-2). Several large tracts of land to the west were zoned from R-A to C-2, RMF-24, R-O and RSF-4 in 1987 (see attached), a portion of which was subsequently rezoned in recent years to C-PZD for the Lowe's development. To the north the subject property is bound by Hwy 62 and a Tire & Auto shop, along with other commercial developments, all of which have existed as C-2 pre-1970. Proposal. The applicant proposes a rezoning of the subject property to facilitate the future sale and potential development of the property at an appreciated value, based on recommendations from the applicant's Realtor (see applicant letter). Request. The request is to rezone the subject property from R-A, Residential Agricultural to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING Direction Land Use Zoning North H&R Tire & Auto, commercial C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial South Church of God International. R-A, Residential Agricultural East Vacant R-A, C-2 West Vacant commercial bldgs, Auto Salvage yard R-A, C-2 INFRASTRUCTURE: Streets: Currently the site has access to 60' Street. At the time of development, this street will need to be brought up to current standards along the property frontage. These improvements will include right-of-way dedication, pavement, curb and gutter,, storm drainage and sidewalks. Water: The site currently does have access to public water. The nearest water main is a 12" main to the north along Highway 62 (6t' Street). Water service will need to be extended within the property at the time of development. Sewer: The site currently does not have access to sanitary sewer. An off -site sewer main extension will be required to serve this development. The nearest sewer main is a 6" main to the west along Highway 62 (6's Street). A capacity analysis of the 6" sewer downstream of the site shall be conducted prior to development. K. IReportsl2004PC Reportsil0-25-04WZN 04-1243 (M@DLEY).doc !0 • Fire: Police: The subject property is located 1.4 miles from Fire Station #6. Fire response time is approximately 2-3 minutes. It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that this rezoning will not substantially alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on police services. LAND USE PLAN: The Future Land Use Plan designates this site for Mixed Use. Rezoning this property to C-2 is not consistent with the land use plan. FINDINGS OF THE STAFF 1. 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 future land use planning objectives, principles, and policies for Mixed Use Areas. The Future Land Use plan identifies this area to "allow mixing of uses and integration of design through the planning process." Additionally, Ch. 9.14 states: "in the past, strip development in the areas along heavily traveled (generally state) highways has been the common pattern. If Fayetteville is to retain its identity as a unique place, strip development should be discouraged...." The existing zoning and land use decisions for nearby properties were made under at least three different General Plans, and reflect a wide variety of General Plan policy in the City. Several surrounding properties have for the most part existed in situ for over 30 years, and consist of many nonconforming uses that were established prior to the adoption of more current zoning regulations in 1970. Property to the east is the most recently zoned in the immediate vicinity (1987), under a different General Plan. And yet another policy decision to rezone the Lowe's site to C-PZD (2002) further to the east combined land use and development plans together. Staff finds continuing a C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial zoning district along the frontage of Hwy 62 in this location does not comport to the Future Land Use plan guiding policies and strategies for implementation established today. A more comprehensive request, planning for intended uses, as opposed to speculative zoning, is more appropriate for this area of the city. 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. The applicant's stated intent is to rezone the property based on a Realtor's recommendation for K.Vtepores120041PCRepor[s110-25-041RZN04-1143 (MEULE19.doc appreciation of land value and immediate resale following. No development plans are proposed. The property is located entirely within the 100-year floodplain as regulated by FEMA; future development of any kind, regardless of timing, will have certain restrictions imposed upon it both by the city and FEMA based on its location in the floodplain. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion. Finding: The size of the subject property will limit a great increase in traffic danger and congestion, due to the size of development generated by 1.03 acres. However, traffic volumes in this area are high, and increasing. Planning of any future development on this site must address safe access and cross access concerns. Hwy 62, a Principal Arterial, exists directly to the north. At the time of development, improvement to this street will be required. 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. 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, based on the C-2 zoning requested. Public service providers have responded accordingly: Police — It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police department that this rezoning request 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 2-3 minutes (approx. 1.4 miles) from station #6 Engineering - Currently the site has access to 6 ° Street. At the time of development, this street will need to be brought up to current standards along the property frontage. These improvements will include right-of-way dedication, pavement, curb and gutter, storm drainage and sidewalks. The site currently does have access to public water. The nearest water main is a 12" main to the north along Highway 62 (6t" Street). Water service will need to be extended within the property at the time of development. K. IReponsUMPC ReportO10-15-04WZN04-1143 (AEDLEY).doc 1• 1 • The site currently does not have access to sanitary sewer. An off -site sewer main extension will be required to serve this development. The nearest sewer main is a 6" main to the west along Highway 62 (60' Street). A capacity analysis of the 6" sewer downstream of the site shall be conducted prior to 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: Staff is recommending denial of the subject request, and finds there are no peculiar or extenuating circumstances which justify the rezoning. K:IReporcv12004PC Reporal10-25-04VZZN 04-1243 (AIEDLEI).doc • 161.03 District R-A, Residential -Agricultural (A) Purposes. The regulations of the agricultural district are designed to protect agricultural land until an orderly transition to urban development has been accomplished; prevent wasteful scattering of development in rural areas; obtain economy of public funds in the providing of public improvements and services of orderly growth; conserve the tax base; provide opportunity for affordable housing, increase scenic attractiveness; and conserve open space. (B) Uses. (1) Permitted uses. Unit 1 City -Wide uses by right Unit 3 Public protection and utility facilities Unit Agriculture Unit 7 Animal husbandry Unit Single-family dwellings Unit 9 Two-family dwellings Unit 37 Manufactured homes (2) Conditional uses. Unit 2 City-wide uses by conditional use pernnit Unit 4 Cultural and recreafional facilities Unit 20 Commercial recreation, large sites Unit 24 Home occupations Unit 36 Wireless communications facilities (C) Density. Units per acre I One-half (D) Bulk and area regulations. Lot width minimum 200 ft. Lot Area Minimum: Residential: 2 acres Nonresidential: 2 acres Lot area per dwelling unit 2 acres (E) Setback requirements. 11 Front I Side Rear 11 35 ft. 1 20 ft. lil 35 ft. (F) Height requirements. There shall be no maximum height limits in the A-1 District, provided, however, that any building which K:IReports120041PC Reporrs110-15-04IRZN 04-1243 (AEDLEI).doc exceeds the height of 15 feet shall be setback from any boundary line of any residential district a distance of 1.0 foot for each foot of height in excess of 15 feet. Such setbacks shall be measured from the required setback lines. (G) Building area. None 161.17 District C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial (A) Purpose. The Thoroughfare Commercial District is designed especially to encourage the functional grouping of these commercial enterprises catering primarily to highway travelers. (B) Uses. (1) Permitted uses. Unit 1 City-wide uses by right Unit 4 Cultural and recreational facilities Unit 12 Offices, studios and related services Unit 13 Eafing places Unit 14 Hotel, motel, and amusement facilities Unit 15 Neighborhood shopping oods Unit 16 Shopping oods Unit 17 Trades and services Unit 18 Gasoline service stations 8. drive-in restaurants Unit 19 Commercial recreation, small sites Unit 20 1 Commercial recreation, large sites Unit 33 1 Adult live entertainment club or bar Unit 34 1 Liquor store (2) Conditional uses. Unit 2 City-wide uses by conditional use pernnit Unit 3 Public protection and utility facilities Unit 21 Warehousinq and wholesale Unit 28 Center for collecting recyclable materials Unit 32 Sexually oriented business Unit 35 Outdoor music establishments Unit 36 Wireless communications facilities (C) Density. None. (D) Bulk and area regulations. None. (E) Setback regulations. Front 50 ft. Side None Side, when conti uous to a residential district 1 15 ft. 11 Rear1 20 ft. 1• 40 (F) Height regulations. In District C-2 any building which exceeds the height of 20 feet shall be set back from any boundary line of any residential district a distance of one foot for each foot of height in excess of 20 feet. No building shall exceed six stories or 75 feet in height. (G) Building area. On any lot, the area occupied by all buildings shall not exceed 60% of the total area of such lot. K. IReports110041PC Reports110-15-04WZN 04-1143 (MEDLEY).doc 1� • 161.03 District R-A, Residential -Agricultural (A) Purposes. The regulations of the agricultural district are designed to protect agricultural land until an orderly transition to urban development has been accomplished; prevent wasteful scattering of development in rural areas; obtain economy of public funds in the providing of public improvements and services of orderly growth; conserve the tax base; provide opportunity for affordable housing, increase scenic attractiveness; and conserve open space. (B) Uses. (1) Permitteduses. Unit 1 City-wide uses by right Unit 3 Public proteclJon and utility facilities Unit 6 Agriculture Unit 7 Animal husbandry Unit 8 Single-family dwellings Unit 9 Two-family dwellings Unit 37 Manufactured homes (2) Conditional uses. Unit 2 City-wide uses by conditional use permit Unit 4 Cultural and recreational facilities Unit 20 Commercial recreation, large sites Unit 24 Home occupations Unit 36 Wireless communications facilities (C) Density. 11 Units 22r acre I One-half (D) Bulk and area regulations. Lot width minimum 200 ft. Lot Area Minimum: Residential: 2 acres Nonresidential: 2 acres Lot area per dwelling unit 2 acres (E) Setback requirements. Front 1 Side Rear 35 ft. 1 20 ft. 35 ft. (F) Height requirements. There shall be no maximum height limits in the A-1 District, provided, however, that any building which K:IReports120041PC Reports110-25-04VtZN 04-1143 (A EDLEY).doc exceeds the height of 15 feet shall be setback from any boundary line of any residential district a distance of 1.0 foot for each foot of height in excess of 15 feet. Such setbacks shall be measured from the required setback lines. (G) Building area. None 161.17 District C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial (A) Purpose. The Thoroughfare Commercial District is designed especially to encourage the functional grouping of these commercial enterprises catering primarily to highway travelers. (B) Uses. (1) Permitted uses. Unit 1 City-wide uses by right Unit 4 Cultural and recreational facilities Unit 12 Offices, studios and related services Unit 13 Eating laces Unit 14 Hotel, motel, and amusement facilities Unit 15 Neighborhood shopping oods Unit 16 Shopping oods Unit 17 Trades and services - Unit 18 Gasoline service stations & drive-in restaurants Unit 19 Commercial recreation, small sites Unit 20 Commercial recreation, large sites Unit 33 Adult live entertainment club or bar Unit 34 Liquor store (2) Conditional uses. Unit 2 City-wide uses by conditional use permit Unit 3 Public protection and utility facilities Unit 21 Warehousing and wholesale Unit 28 Center for collecting recyclable materials Unit 32 Sexually oriented business : Unit 35 Outdoor music establishments Unit 36 Wireless communications facilities (C) Density. None. (D) Bulk and area regulations. None. (E) Setback regulations. Front 50 ft. Side None Side, when contiguous to a residential district 15 ft. Rear 20 ft. )0 ;41 (F) Height regulations. In District C-2 any building which exceeds the height of 20 feet shall be set back from any boundary line of any residential district a distance of one foot for each foot of height in excess of 20 feet. No building shall exceed six stories or 75 feet in height. (G) Building area. On any lot, the area occupied by all buildings shall not exceed 60% of the total area of such lot. K:IReports12004NC ReportA10-15-041RZN 04-1243 (AEDLEY).doc FAY ET 1fEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS October 18, 2004 Dawn Warrick Zoning and Development Director City of Fayetteville 113 W. Mountain Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Dear Director Warrick, 1• POLICE DEPARTMENT RECEIVED 1 9 2004 PLANNING DIV, This document is in response to the request for a determination of whether the proposed RZN 04-01243 Medley, 557/596 for property located at 3507 W. 6`h Street would substantially alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on public services or create an appreciable increase in traffic danger and traffic congestion. It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that this Planned Zoning District 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. Sce�� Lieutenant William Brown Fayetteville Police Department FAYETTEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT (DELIVERIES) POLICE: 100-A WEST ROCK STREET 72701 P.O. BOX 19M JAIL: 140-A WEST ROCK STREET 72701 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72702-1988 PHONE: 479-587-3555 FAX: 479-587-3522 IV CW N D N x. N 3 C. Ol O CD j n 0 ? .C.. CD 3 N O N CD Cl Z c X (D m fD O D���oQQ 000 My Z d X (D (D D0 z.mm 3 CD m City of Fayetteville, Arkansas - Rezoning September 16, 2004 I, Ronald Dean Medley, own the property at 3507 W. 6"' street, Fayetteville, Arkansas, 72704. I intend to sell the property to help pay the expenses incurred by my mother, Vera Medley, who is residing in an Assisted Care Facility in Springdale, Arkansas. Also to care for the needs of me and my brother, Gary Medley. This property was deeded to me by my father just a year prior to his passing in death. His instructions were forme to use this inheritance to provide for the needs of the immediate family members. The reasons for rezoning is to benefit as fully as possible by the sale of the property at 3507 W. 6"' street. I was advised by a real estate agent to rezone this property as commercial. All adjoining property has already been rezoned commercial. It would seem appropriate to follow suit and thereby be allowed to gain the full potential that this property would allow. It relates to surrounding property by joining with them in being zoned as commercial. In this way - there will be no danger in this one acre of land being used as a residence in which the owner could have difficulty entering or leaving said property. It poses no threat to the already existing traffic regulations and flow that has been allowed to have occurred by the rezoning of the adjoining property on all sides. Please see attachment as to the availability of water and sewer lines. Thank you for your consideration. Ronald Dean Medley City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Rezoning September 16, 2004 In regards to the property at 3507 W. Oh Street: We are filing for C-2 Commercial. All the adjoining property on all sides of this acre have already been zoned for Commercial. It stands to reason to have this rezoned in like manner in order for the property to be appreciated for its fidl value. This is in accord with a recommendation from Gary Boyle, Realtor. This property is to be sold, effective immediately after the determination for rezoning. How the "then" owner decides to use this property will have to be in accordance with the laws and regulations of the City of Fayetteville and said owner will have to approach the City Counsel with his future plans. This is not for me to know in advance. I am merely requesting the rezoning to aid in the sale of property that has been surrounded by land that the planning division has already allowed to be rezoned as Commercial. Therefore... in not wanting to be discriminated against ... I feel safe in requesting for said property to be zoned the same as all adjacent property. The increase in traffic and congestion has already been altered by the rezoning of property all around the acre located at 3507 W. a Street. No one can deny that a five lane highway that services a Wal-Mart and a newly built Lowes is capable to handling any additional traffic imposed by the rezoning of this one acre. I doubt that any commercial use of land that is merely one acre in size will alter any public services such as schools, water or sewer facilities. Under the existing classification of this property (Residential -Agricultural) it is impractical to suggest either a family or a farm is to be instituted sandwiched between commercial property and on a five lane highway used for the main use of restaurants, car lots, motels, banks, bars and clubs, Wal-Mart, Lowes, tire shop and garage, carpet store, etc. It would be dangerous for this property to remain zoned for a family to use as a residence as the existing traffic would be a danger to small children and it is not practical for farming as moving farm equipment would cause a traffic hazard. For the safety of citizens and to prevent congestion from faun machinery - it is in the best interests of the City to grant the property at 3507 W. 6'h Street to be rezoned as Commercial. Respectfully, Ronald Dean Medley RZN04-1243 Close Up View C-2 Overview lI MEDLEY C-2 > RSF-4 i; 45 B G2 G2 \ - / 1ry6, R O 12 R-0 SUBJECT PROPERTY RSF-4 Legend g0000 m00080vftw OiShiG ® g Pal AnrJlal — Fl00DWRY Nlazw Street Plan o suw Mvial — IWYEa Master Sew Plan W , Cdb — S YE Q Freewan'Ewressway e e •• lesmelc Cd We — - — LUST OF STUDY - - - Base a Profile GNI RZN04-1243 O Fayetteville Cuticle City 0 75 150 300 450 500 Feet L7 RZN04-1243 MEDLEY One Mile mew R# j R RSFJ I "oV -iL ° ( R# I i +° I ' . j q x - y \ I DLN?MORES � [Gs xa rt i r2'Li f ( DINSM R , RSFJ R R# 1 RPID .0 \Q °LGS Pt 1 / _ S 4 � RSFJ 1� cz d I 44,a, S u I e: RA u0,4 IiY .n.,. •�-, r: R# R9F4ti�1RSFdLL �� �.. F. r'L1Tu _ RSF RSFJ I11: cz - I °'� nl.F-xaL RSFi R# -c2 # SUBJECT PROPERTY IF, y CZ0.T-12 aJ# R p\ xa Z IIII ID I R# R .j Ol cx ' RA r r RSFJ I R �1 -T1 PAi¢a r I s ii L _ W4 O yw RSFJ i R# I O `+ F ro, .jyi9? II� I o iR-A g '', z 1 M hOKEHW5E TW WIN, ZI I I FtEC. t RO i m 1. ERno�F Iif_-1 - 401, •i - �- RA Overview Legend Boundary Subject Property i�� Planning Area RZN04.1243 �Oooa Overtay District Outside City 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Miles © . . . .C-2 - - C 2 -iyp J 4� .•- RSF4 :.. C-2 N `2 - SUBJECT PROPERTY - • • .. • . - � � I y� C 2. . _ -+ f A 4 Y'n - . . . . . . • �� Resrdendal t 1 1 s1.�.].; k ... Overview Legend Subject Property Master Street Plan Boundary r---- _ -• RM04-1243 Freeway/Expressway Planning Area A ' p000 o tl Principal Arterial Streets o Oveday District I**.# Minor Arterial a Existing 0 Outside City r ---•-• `i Planned ��.. Collector Historic Collector 0 75 150 300 450 600 PlannineCommission •. • October 25, 2004 Page 21 RZN 04-1243: Rezoning (MEDLEY, 557/596): Submitted by RONALD DEAN MEDLEY for property located at 3507 W 6TH STREET. The property is zoned R-A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 1.03 acres. The request is to rezone the subject -property to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Ostner: Our next item is a rezoning, RZN 04-1243, rezoning for Medley Warrick: The subject property is located at 3507 W. 6's Street. It contains approximately 1.03 acres. The property is currently zoned R-A, Residential Agricultural. The development on the site currently is a single family home. Most of the property behind the home consists of a vacant field. The entirety of the property is located within the 100 year flood plain. This site is just west of, it's not adjacent to, but it's slightly west of the property that contains Lowe's, and that was zoned C-PZD for the Lowe's Development and the associated outbuildings and other lots that were a part of that Preliminary Plat project. The property is bordered to the west by vacant as well as occupied commercial structures as well as an automobile salvage yard. That is an existing non -conforming use within the C-2 district. A portion of the property is zoned R-A, that's the adjacent property, with the majority being C-2. Many of the surrounding properties contain existing nonconformities. Through the years we tried to do a little bit of history to understand how the various zonings have been applied to properties surrounding this. We believe that many of the developments or many of the structures preexisted our 1970 zoning ordinances. There was a large rezoning request. Several different districts requested for property located adjacent to this in 1987; however, that property really hasn't developed under the zoning districts that were applied at that point in time. The applicant does propose to rezone the subject property to C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial in order to facilitate future sale and potential development of the property. The site currently has access to 6` street. It does have access to public water, however, it does not have access to sanitary sewer, that would have to be extended to provide for any future development on the site. Fire response time is between two and three minutes, and the report from the Police Department states that the requested rezoning would not substantially alter population density, therefore would not undesirably increase the load on public services. The land use plan, or future land use plan, does designate this site as mixed use. Staff feels that rezoning the property to a C-2 designation would not be consistent with the City's adopted future land use plan. I think that the finding that staff feels is the most relevant with regard to our recommendation is the first finding, which you're required to make, and that is a determination of the degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent with land use planning objectives, principals, and policies and with land use and zoning plans. And within that finding, staff believes that the future land use plan identifies this area as mixed use to allow the mixing of uses and integration of design through the planning Planning Commission • • October 25, 2004 Page 22 process. Additionally, that same chapter, 9.14 states, "In the past, strip development in the areas along heavily traveled, generally state highways, has been the common pattern. If Fayetteville is to retain its identity as a unique place, strip development should be discouraged." For that reason and for the reason of compatibility and being able to ensure that we have the best understanding of how this property would develop, staff is not in favor of the requested rezoning to C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial. Ostner: Thank you. Is the applicant present? If you could introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Medley: Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Dean Medley. And I'd like to explain why I'd like to rezone this property. My mother is in an assisted care living facility. It costs $350.00 above her medical expenses to take care of her. Now you're interested in why the Planning Commission says I can't rezone this property. I need to get as much out of this property as I can to take care of her care. That's one of the biggest reasons that I'm rezoning this property. Now I don't know if that fits in with the Planning Commission's plans or anything else, but I understand that there are limitations and you worry about the use of this property. Well when I sell this property, I talked to a realtor, and he said that I can stipulate what kind of a person buys that. That the Planning Commission will only accept this and the Planning Commission will only accept that. I'd like to know from the Planning Commission, if they're going to turn this down, I want to know what they will accept in there. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Medley. At this point, I'll open it up to the public for any comments concerning this RZN 04-1243. Seeing none, I'll close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. Trumbo: Question for Dawn, what would you be in favor of rezoning this to? Warrick: I thought you'd ask that question. Obviously we think that the C-2 zoning is too intense a designation and it is a zoning district that would basically encourage the type of strip development that the Council and the City, the citizens have identified as undesirable. We do have an R-O zoning district, which is Residential Office, it is specifically a mixed use district, which would allow for professional offices as well as single family or duplex developments. That would very likely be a more appropriate designation. In a perfect world, we'd love to look at this piece of property with the adjacent properties and have some sort of comprehensive understanding of what collectively we could do on that grouping of properties. That's not what we're looking at and I know that Mr. Medley doesn't have the ability to bring forward his property as well as his neighbors and everything along the lines for us to review. I think the Residential Office district, if we were going to make a recommendation Planning Commission • • October 25, 2004 Page 23 for the City Council, would be an appropriate starting point. They certainly are going to be the ones making the policy decision to determine if it fits with their vision of this part of the City. C-2 would be as I mentioned, a very intense district, and it's not something that is easy to deal with when you're looking at a property that's wholly within the 100- year flood plain. A development of professional offices or residences would likely be easier to regulate in an R-O district with the situation of flood plain on the site. I guess what I'm saying in a very long winded way is R-O would probably be an appropriate district. Trumbo: Thank you. Medley: You know the R-O might be acceptable with me. I'm not trying to create problems for the City at all. No problems at all. If they'll just hear me out. If we're talking about an R-O, I'd like to have a variance where if someone like, would the Planning Commission be opposed to something like McDonald's or would they opposed to something like Wendy's or maybe, I have a friend that's got a restaurant, would you be opposed to something like that? If they're talking R-O, could you have R-O with a variance? Thank you. Warrick: The Residential Office district would allow for a sit down restaurant, not a drive -through, only by Conditional Use approval by the Planning Commission. The R-O district does not allow for Use Unit 18, which is restaurants that allow for drive -through, so many of the fast food chains that were mentioned would not be something that we could approve even under a conditional use condition, however, if it was a more eat -in restaurant without the drive through facility, that's something that the Planning Commission could consider, but it would have to come to you as a Conditional Use and you'd have to be able to consider, I believe one of the primary things that you're going to have to be looking at, or that we will be collectively looking at in the future, is access. The access to this site will be very important and what we're trying to regulate is 6"' Street not becoming College Avenue, which is what everyone points to and says, we're not really willing to do that again because we feel that there are too many problems inherent in that type of development. So access management is probably one of the key points that we'll have to look at for any type of development on the property, but as far as land use, you can't grant a variance on zoning, but you can look at Conditional Uses that are specified as the types of specific uses that you can request under any particular zoning district. An R-O would allow for an eating place that does not have a drive -through. Ostner: Thank you. Planning Commission • • October 25, 2004 Page 24 Vaught: Question for staff. Just because I don't have it in front of me. A C-1, what's the difference between an R-O and a C-1? . Warrick: C-1 allows much more shopping, retail type activities, it would also allow for drive -through restaurants I believe. Vaught: What I'm debating is it's an acre site, so no matter what, it's going to be fairly limited on what goes on there. You know, I do think that C-2 for such a small site might be a little intense, but I'm debating between the difference of C-1 and R-O. As far as being appropriate, granted, I mean, it's an acre in the middle of a C-2 island. Warrick: I would just want to add that the C-1 zoning district is designated .neighborhood commercial. It is primarily to provide convenience goods, personal service type items, and as I mentioned it does allow for neighborhood shopping, which is most of your retail type establishments. Gas stations and drive -through restaurants are also included in that grouping. Shackelford: I'm kind of going down the same road as Commissioner Vaught. I've said many times tonight, I'm in agreement with City staff and their findings, I'm not so sure that I wholeheartedly agree with these tonight. As you drive out to this property, it's very much, in my opinion, a commercial field on the site. You look at some of the adjoining properties, it's almost an industrial field with the salvage yard and some other properties that are very close in proximity to this property. You look at the map on 10.17, there's C-2 directly across the street from this property to the north, there's C-2, back to the east, you know I'm not so sure that this corridor isn't a significantly different corridor than it was when the land use plan was put together with the improvements of the Lowe's and the other things out there and the traffic counts that we're seeing. I understand the design and the desire for mixed use, I'm just thinking that this property's going to struggle developing as a mixed use piece of property. And on top of that, you throw into the mix that it's entirety is within the 100 year flood plain, which I think is going to further limit the desire, or even the ability, to develop this as an R-O zoning, with a residential house, duplex, or some sort of nice professional office. I don't know that those types of uses, from many different stand points are going to flow very well in a flood plain area. This is one that I've struggled with, I've looked at, and I understand where the staff is coming from on the specific findings of fact, although I understand that they're following the land use plan that was put in place, my common sense is that this is a commercial piece of property. And it makes sense to consider it with that zoning, so that's my comments at this point. Ostner: Thank you. Planning Commission • • October 25, 2004 Page 25 Vaught: I have one further question for staff. C-I to C-2, what does it now allow, C-1 versus the C-2? Warrick: The C-2 district, beyond the uses permitted in C-1, opens up commercial recreation land use, adult live entertainments, liquor stores, trades and services. Trades and services is a pretty wide open land use or use unit, and it basically includes, automobile sales and service, truck sales, used car lots, boats and accessories, and a wide variety of service type uses. So those are the uses that in addition to those permitted in C-1 would expand the ability for development in C-2. Ostner: I'd just like to throw in my opinion here. When we were on tour, I quizzed you pretty thoroughly about this because I didn't quite understand your standpoint either. Because I would agree with Commissioner Shackelford, there is a commercial field. It's apparent that there aren't going to be homes built on this spot. But what Ms. Warrick explained to me, is it's almost an issue of scale. And as she referred to, this gentleman does not have the ability to get with all of his neighbors and get a 20 acre PZD together, just to get his project rezoned. But with a larger development, there would be, instead of 12 curb cuts, 1. And that makes a big difference between creating a College Avenue or creating something more organized. Still commercial, it's still all developed, with a commercial field, but it happens in a different pattern. I'm inclined to vote with staff, that this zoning, with this scale, with this barely 1.03 acres, is not, does not go with our plans to try to stop strip development. So, that's what I have to say. Vaught: My two cents, my gut is I understand that, and I wholeheartedly believe it, but we're dealing with an acre in the middle of all this C-2. More than likely, if we wanted to really control the development in this area, it being a C-2 and being able to combine some of the areas around it for a possibly a larger development would make more sense to me than having a little island that's forced to develop by itself. Ideally, if this would come back as a PZD or something where we could see an overall plan for the area but we don't have that luxury in this case. So we're looking at a one acre tract in the middle of a large ocean of commercials. Granted, some of it's undeveloped, and we would love to see it come through as a whole. So I'm more inclined to make it a zoning that could be combined with some areas around it, and be incorporated, because more than likely, this one acre will be, need to be, due to its terrain and location, so that's where I'm tom. I don't know if I feel R-O is necessarily the proper zoning for this single piece of property. I just don't know if I believe R-O for this tiny one acre tract is going to accomplish our desires for the overall area, but I also understand you've got to start somewhere. It's one of those that it's Planning Commission • • October 25, 2004 Page 26 difficult, but I'm more inclined to rezone it for some sort of commercial use than leave it as an R-O, or to make it an R-O. Ostner: Those are good points, I would want to continue that dialogue because I agree. I'm not relishing the fact that he's somewhat suffering at the expense of the overall plan. But once this one acre is rezoned, with that zoning goes development rights. And the buyer does not have to coordinate with anyone. And that's where -small parcels are given their development rights just like College Avenue. So that I completely understand. Vaught: And that's why I'm leaning towards CA to further limit some of those service and trade type of developments I think that come along with those development rights. Even though it is surrounded by C-2, and it's next door to several service trades. Ostner: I guess I'm really talking more curb cuts than anything else. Vaught: No matter what we zone it, this one piece of property would get a curb cut. Ostner: Not necessarily, not at all. Vaught: Not unless it's combined with others. If this is rezoned anything, then they come through for development and they have to have access. Ostner: Unless they're coordinating with a large development. Vaught: Unless they're coordinating, but an R-O coordinating with a C-2 is what would be an interesting coordination. Clark: Maybe this is inappropriate, but tonight we are just deciding whether a C- 2 is appropriate for this piece of land, correct? It seems, and I'm concerned by the same thing that both of you have discussed. I think that C-2 is way too intense, I'm going to agree with staff on that. There are options. R-O might not work, C-1 seems like a very workable thing. Regardless, I think that that can be worked out between Mr. Medley and the staff. So I'm just going to blaze ahead and move that we reject RZN 04-1243 as a C-2. It can come back. Warrick: Before you vote, I'd just like to add that it is within your purview, the Planning Commission can approve, modify or disapprove a rezoning that is before you. So you do have the ability to consider either R-O or C-1 or whatever other district you feel might be appropriate for this particular site as a recommendation to the City Council. It's my opinion that it would be appropriate for you to do that so that Mr. Medley doesn't have to start this process again in order to get a recommendation. Planning Commission . • October 25, 2004 Page 27 Clark: Okay, that's a new rule; I didn't know we could do that Warrick: You do have that ability. Ostner: We do it all the time. Commissioner Shackelford's good at it. Would you like to amend your motion? Clark: C-I okay with you. Why not, we'll take a time out. Medley: First of all, I'd like to thank all of you. You're considerate, and I'm willing to work with you all. If we could amend it to C-1, that's fine, like I say, I'm willing to work with you. MOTION: Clark: C-1's okay, then I will amend my motion, to move we approve RZN 04- 1243 as a C-1 zoning. Myres: I'll second. Ostner: I have a motion for approval for a C-I zoning on Item 04-1243. Motion was from Commissioner Clark, a second from Commissioner Myres. I'm going to vote against this. I believe C-I is too intense for this piece of property. Is there further discussion? Call the roll please. Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of RZN 04-1243 to the City Council with a recommendation for C-1 zoning was approved by a vote of 7-1-0 with Commissioner Ostner voting no. STAFF RAW FORM - NON -FINANCIAL OBLATION x AGENDA REQUEST For the Fayetteville City Council Meeting of: FROM: Dawn T. Warrick Name Planning Division ACTION REQUIRED: Ordinance approval. SUMMARY EXPLANATION: November 16.2004 CP&E Department RZN 04-1243: Rezoning (Medley, pp 557/596): Submitted by Ronald Dean Medley for property located at 3507 W 6th Street. The property is zoned R-A, Residential Agricultural and contains approximately 1.03 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval. �.J Date Received in Mayor's Office Cross Reference: Department Director Date Finance & Internal Services Dir. Previous Ord/Res#: Date Orig. Contract Date: b Date Date Orig. Contract Number: New Item: Date Yes No ev leTayeARKANSAS DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE To: Tim Conklin Planning Division From: Clarice Buffalohead-Pearman City Clerk Division Date: December 14, 2004 Re: Ord. No. 4645 E City Clerk Division 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 575-8323 Fax: (479) 718-7695 c ity_c Jerk@ci.fayettevi I le.ar. us The City Council passed the above ordinance, December 7, 2004, approving rezoning petition, RZN 04-1243 located at 3507 W. 6'h Street. I have attached a copy of the ordinance recognizing that decision. This ordinance will be recorded in the city clerk's office and microfilm. If anything else is needed please let the clerk's office know. Thanks. /cbp attachments cc: John Goddard, IT Scott Caldwell, IT Clyde Randall, IT Ed Connell, Engineering ORDINANCE NO.4 6 4 5 AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN REZONING PETITION RZN 04-1243 AS SUBMITTED BY RONALD DEAN MEDLEY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3507 W. 6T" STREET CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 1.03 ACRES FROM R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL TO C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section is That the zone classification of the following described property is hereby changed as follows: From R-A, Residential Agricultural to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial 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 16`h day of November, 2004. APPROVED: 'FAYETfEV1LLE; By: ATTEST: By: SON SMITH, City Clerk EXHIBIT "A" RZN 04-1243 A PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW %) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW'/4) AND A PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW '/4) OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW '/4) OF SECTION NINETEEN (19) IN TOWNSHIP SIXTEEN (16) NORTH, RANGE THIRTY (30) WEST, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, TO -WIT: BEGINNING AT AN IRON PIPE 15.174 CHAINS SOUTH AND 11.116 CHAINS EAST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE FRACTIONAL SOUTHWEST QUARTER (FRL. SW '/4) OF THE FRACTIONAL NORTHWEST QUARTER (FRL. NW %4) OF SECTION 19, AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 175.3 FEET; THENCE EAST 138 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY OF U.S. HIGHWAY #62 FOR A PLACE OF BEGINNING OF LAND CONVEYED; THENCE SOUTH 21 °30' EAST 377 FEET TO WHERE LEHMAN'S SOUTH LINE INTERSECTS EAST BANK OF CREEK; THENCE NORTH 60°EAST WITH LEHMAN'S SOUTH LINE 158 FEET TO LEHMAN'S SOUTHEAST CORNER; THENCE NORTH 29° WITH LEHMAN'S EAST LINE 347 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF RIGHT OF WAY OF HIGHWAY #62; THENCE WITH RIGHT OF WAY SOUTHWEST 115 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. LESS AND EXCEPT A PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: STARTING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 19; THENCE SOUTH 02'01' WEST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SECTION 19 A DISTANCE OF 111.0 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EXISTING SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY 62; THENCE NORTH 75°47' EAST ALONG SAID EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 907.9 FEET TO A POINT FOR THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUE NORTH 75°47' EAST ALONG SAID EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 115.0 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 25026' EAST A DISTANCE OF 15.83 FEET TO A POINT ON THE PROPOSED SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID U.S. HIGHWAY; THENCE SOUTH 54°30' WEST ALONG SAID PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 4.29 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 75°47' WEST ALONG SAID PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 112.7 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 18°35' WEST A DISTANCE OF 15.0 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING AND CONTAINING 0.04 ACRE, MORE OR LESS. • Taye evere ARKANSA-S DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE To: Tim Conklin Planning Division From: Clarice Buffalohead-Pearman City Clerk Division Date: December 14, 2004 Re: Ord. No. 4645 City Clerk Division 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 575-8323 Fax: (479) 718-7695 city_c Jerk&i.fayetteville.an us The City Council passed the above ordinance, December 7, 2004, approving rezoning petition, RZN 04-1243 located at 3507 W. 6`h Street. I have attached a copy of the ordinance recognizing that decision. This ordinance will be recorded in the city clerk's office and microfilm. If anything else is needed please let the clerk's office know. Thanks. /cbp attachments cc: John Goddard, IT Scott Caldwell, IT Clyde Randall, IT Ed Connell, Engineering S (0azefte AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION I, T. , do solemnly swear that I am Legal Clerk of the Arjnsas' Democrat-Gazette/Northwest Arkansas Times n wspaper, printed and published in Lowell, Arkansas, and that from my own personal knowledge and reference to the files of said publication, that advertisement of: N6_l1Cin �4 triJ %`J was inserted in the regular editions on PO# Off- M(3 ' ** Publication Charge: $ 1 %� Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 2004. Notary Public Sharlene D. Williams My Commission; Expires: Nota Public State of Arkansas My Commission Expires ** Please do not pay from Affidavit. October 18, 2014 An invoice will be sent. RECEIVED DEC 2 2 2004 CRY OF FAYE1TEyILLE CRY CLERM3 OFFICE 212 NORTH EAST AVENUE • P.O. BOX 1607 • FAYETfEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72702 • (501) 442-1700 e i 9j ORDINANCE NO. 40" AN ORDINANCE RANG PE THAT PROPERTYTayeVDESCRIBED E REZONING D DEAN ED 04-124RAS SUBMITTED BY RONALD DEAN MEDLEY FORIOPERTY LOCATED AT 3507 W. 6TH STREET CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 1.03 ACRES FROM ILA RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL TO C-1, NEIGH. QORHOOD COMMERCIAL N R ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CRY OF PAYETTEVILLE, ARRANSABt 6' $wUcn 1: That the m oamficecer%of as Wlowlrg dwonntIetf proPerlY Is 11Neoy cranged as falcw : LR-A,eW ReenLr al Agrfmd to C-1. Neighborhood Coevnadel as slg n Exilce 4A' atm&ed end matle a Part hereof. Section 2: That Idle oRai9lZonaO map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkenmt� is hereby amended to reflect tee za *g dange provided an Section 1 above. PASSED W APPROVED th6 16N day of November, 2004, /APPROVED: DAN COODY, Marx !. SONORA BMRN, City Clw% EXHIBIT 'A' RZN 04-1243 S A PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW 1/4) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 1/4) AND A PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW 1/4) OF SEC - ,TON NINETEEN (19) IN TOWNSHIP SUCTEEN 116) NORTH, RANGE THIRTY (30) WEST, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, Town BEGINNING AT AN IRON PIPE 15.174 CHAINS SOUTH AND 11.116 CHAINS EAST OF THE NORTH- WEST CORNER OF THE FRACTIONAL SOUTHWEST QUARTER (FRL SW 1/4) OF THE FRACTIONAL ADRTHWEST QUARTER (FRL. NW 1/4) OF SECTION 19, AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 175.3 FEET THENCE EAST 136 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY OF U.S. FYIGHWAY #62 FOR A PLACE OF BEGINNING OF LAND CONVEYED: THENCE SOUTH 21130' EAST 377 FEET TO WHERE LEHMAN'S SOUTH UNE INTERSECTS EAST BANK OF CREEK; THENCE KORTH 60-EAST WITH UEHMAN'S SOUTH UNE 156 FEET TO UEHMAN'S SOUTHEAST CORNER: THENCE NORTH 291 WITH LEHMAN'S FAST UNE 347 FEET TO THE SOUTH UNE OF RIGHT OF WAY OF HIGHWAY #62; THENCE WITH RIGHT OF WAY SOUTHWEST 115 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGIN. THING. LESS AND EXCEPT A PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHNESTOUAR. TER OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST. WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: STARTING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST OUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 19; THENCE SOUTH 02.01' WEST ALONG THE WEST UNE OF SECTION 19 A DISTANCE OF 111.0 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EXISTING SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY UNE OF U.S. HIGHWAY 62: THENCE NORTH 75147' EAST ALONG SAD EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY UNE A DIS- TANCE OF 907.9 FEET TO A POINT FOR THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUE NORTH 7514T EAST ALONG SAID EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY UNE A DISTANCE OF 115.0 FEET TO A POINT, THENCE SOUTH 25126' FAST A DISTANCE OF 1533 FEET TO A POINT ON THE PROPOSED I SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY UNE OF SAID U.S. HIGHWAY; THENCE SOUTH 54°30' WEST ALONG SAID PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY UNE A DISTANCE OF 4.29 FEET TO A POINT, THENCE SOUTH 7,5.47' WEST ALONG SAID PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 112.7 FEET TO A POINT; T'��NNCCEE NORTH 16'35' WEST A DISTANCE OF 15.0 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING I SAND COIiSVMNG 0.04 ACRE, MORE OR LESS. 1 RECEIVED DEC 22 2W CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE