HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 4710 voe
Recorded : 077/14/20050atr02 : 38:23 PM
Fee Amt : $11 . 00 Pace 1 of 2
Washlnoton Countv . AR
Bette Stamoe Circuit Clerk
ORDINANCE NO, 4710 File2005-00030660
AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED
IN REZONING PETITION RZN 05-1452 FOR APPROXIMATELY
24. 19 ACRES LOCATED AT THE END OF COUNTRY RIDGE
ROAD, NORTH OF HWY. 16 E. AND WEST OF DEERFIELD
WAY FROM R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL TO RSF-4
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, FOUR UNITS PER ACRE
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,
ARKANSAS:
Section 1 : That the zone classification of the following described property is hereby changed as
follows:
From R-A, Residential Agricultural to RSF-4, Residential Single
Family, Four Units per Acre, as shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto
and made a part hereof.
Section 2: That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, is hereby amended
to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1 above.
PASSED and APPROVED this 7`h day of June, 2005.
APPROV
; FAYETTEVILLE ; 3
x q By:
s'9:QKANSPCJ DAN COODY, Mayor
ATTEST: 'y,N�roN �
'/II IIINIIII
By: q, aJ (R
SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk
40
EXHIBIT "A"
RZN 05-1452 (TRACT A)
REZONE FROM R-A TO RSF-4, THE FOLLOWING:
A PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW'/4) OF SECTION TWENTY (20),
TOWNSHIP SIXTEEN (16) NORTH, RANGE TWENTY-NINE (29) WEST, MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS COMMENCING AT THE WEST QUARTER (W 1 /4)
CORNER OF SAID SECTION 20 AND CONTINUING THENCE S87027'31 "E 930.97
FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF SAID NORTHWEST
QUARTER (NW 1 /4), AND CONTINUING THENCE NO2040106"E 350.01 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING; SAID POINT BEING THE INTERSECTION OF THE
EXISTING FAYETTEVILLE CITY LIMITS BOUNDARY AND THE WESTERN
BOUNDARY OF A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED AS TRACTS B & C IN A
WARRANTY DEED FILED OF RECORD IN BOOK 1284, PAGES 240 AND 241 IN
THE CIRCUIT CLERK' S OFFICE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS.
THENCE NO2040'06"E 1441 .44 FEET;
THENCE N62008'56"E 246. 16 FEET;
THENCE N53032'58"E 213 . 11 FEET TO THE EAST BOUNDARY OF THE
NW1 /4 OF THE NWIA OF SAID SECTION 20;
THENCE S02032'24"W 664.64 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST BOUNDARY
OF SAID N W 1 /4 OF THE N W I /4;
THENCE S87016'57"E 448.50 FEET;
THENCE S02041 '09"W 1031 .51 FEET TO THE EXISTING FAYETTEVILLE CITY
LIMITS BOUNDARY;
THENCE ALONG SAID CITY LIMITS BOUNDARY N87038'06"W 827.08 FEET
TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 24. 191 ACRES, MORE OR LESS,
FAYETTEVILLE, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS.
Washington County, AR
I cehify this instrument was filed on
07/14/2005 02:38:23 PM
and recorded in Real Estate
File Number 2005-00030880
Bette Stamps - Circuit Cie
by
City Council Oting of June 07, 2005 710
Agenda Item Number
14L
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ebW kf Rldjale�
To: Mayor and City Council
Thru: Gary Dumas, Director of Operations
From: Jeremy C. Pate, Director of Current Planning
Date: May 20, 2005
Subject: Rezoning for Lane (RZN 05- 1452 — Tract A)
RECOMMENDATION
Planning Staff recommends approval of an ordinance rezoning approximately 24. 191
acres of property from R-A, Residential Agricultural, to RSF-4, Residential Single
Family, 4 units per acre.
BACKGROUND
The subject property contains 24. 191 -acres owned by the Lanes. It is located north of
Huntsville Road (Hwy 16 East) and west of Deerfield Way Subdivision in southeast
Fayetteville. With approval of ANX 05- 1470, this property will be zoned R-A,
Residential Agricultural. The applicant owns an additional 6.68 acres of property zoned
C- 1 , Neighborhood Commercial to the south and currently within the City limits. A
rezoning application was submitted to the Planning Division to rezone all 30.871 acres
RSF-4. The Planning Commission separated its consideration of the property proposed
to be rezoned, and made separate motions regarding the request to rezone the 24. 191 -acre
tract of property (Tract A) and the 6.68-acre tract of property (Tract B). (See applicant's
appeal of Planning Commission decision.)
The applicant intends to develop this property for a single family subdivision similar in
density and character to the surrounding subdivisions. The applicant requests a rezoning
of the subject property from R-A, Residential Agricultural, to RSF-4, Residential Single-
family — 4 units per acre, to allow the development of a residential subdivision.
DISCUSSION
This item was heard at the regular Planning Commission on May 09, 2005. The Planning
Commission voted 5-3-0 to forward this item to the City Council with a recommendation
of approval, with Commissioners Ostner, Clark, and Allen voting no.
The original rezoning request was for a rezoning from the property annexed (24. 191
acres, R-A) and that already in the city (6.68 acres, C- 1 ). Staff recommended denial of
this request, finding that the C- 1 property was appropriate in this area and met the Future
Land Use policy of the city. The Planning Commission separated the original request
into two recommendations: ( 1 ) Approval of the RSF-4 for the northern 24. 191 acres; and
City Council Ming of June 07, 2005
Agenda Item Number
(2) Denial of rezoning the existing C- 1 to RSF-4. The applicant has subsequently
appealed the vote to deny, which is also on this agenda.
BUDGETIMPACT
None.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED
IN REZONING PETITION RZN 05- 1452 FOR APPROXIMATELY
24. 19 ACRES LOCATED AT THE END OF COUNTRY RIDGE
ROAD, NORTH OF 16 EAST AND WEST OF DEERFIELD WAY
FROM R-A, RESIDENTIAL-AGRICULTURAL TO RSF-4,
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS PER ACRE.
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-Agricult61alj6\RSF-4, Residential Single/ Family - 4
Units/Acre, as shown in Exhibit "A" attached'hercto and madea part hereof.
n.
Section 2. Tifafthe official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville,
Arkansas, is hereby amended to`reflect the zoning change provided in Section I
above.
PASSED AND APPROVED this day of / 2005.
APPROVED:
By:
DAN COODY, Mayor
ATTESTV\
By:
Sondra Smith, City/Clerk
EXHIBIT "A"
RZN 05-1452 (TRACT Al
REZONE FROM R-A TO RSF-4, THE FOLLOWING:
A PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW'/<) OF SECTION TWENTY (20),
TOWNSHIP SIXTEEN ( 16) NORTH, RANGE TWENTY-NINE (29) WEST, MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS COMMENCING AT THE WEST QUARTER (W 1 /4)
CORNER OF SAID SECTION 20 AND CONTINUING THENCE 587027'31 "E 930.97
FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF/SAID NORTHWEST
QUARTER (NW 1 /4), AND CONTINUING THENCE NO2040'06 fE 350.01 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING; SAID POINT BEING THE/INTERSECTION OF THE
EXISTING FAYETTEVILLE CITY LIMITS BOUNDARY `AND,THE WESTERN
BOUNDARY OF A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED;AS TRACTS B & C IN A
WARRANTY DEED FILED OF RECORD IN BOOKA 284; PAGES 240 AND 241 IN THE
CIRCUIT CLERK' S OFFICE OF WASHINGTON COUTNY, ARKANSAS.\
THENCE NO2040'06"E 1441 .44 FEET. �
THENCE N62008'56"E 246. 16 FEET;
THENCE N53032'58"E 213 . 11 FEET TO THE.EAST BOUNDARY OF THE
NW 1A OF THE NW1 /4 OF =SAID SECTION 20;\\THENCE S02032'24"W 664.64 FEET TO A POINT ON\THE EAST BOUNDARY
OF SAID NWIA OF THE
THENCE S87016'57"E 448.50 FEET; ^
THENCE S0204 1 '09"W 1031 .51 FEET TO THEEXISTING FAYETTEVILLE CITY
LIMITS BOUNDARY; / `\
THENCE ALONG SAID,CITY LIMITS BOUNDARY N87038'06"W 827.08 FEET
TO THE POINT-OF�BEGINNING, CONTAINING 24. 191 ACRES, MORE 'OR LESS, .
FAYETTEVILLE, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS.
PC Meeting of May 09, 2005
1 ARKANSAS
O 125 W. Mountain St.
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS Fayetteville, AR 72701
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE Telephone: (479) 575-8267
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission
FROM: Suzanne Morgan, Associate Planner
THRU : Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning
DATE: May 4, 2005
RZN 05-1452: (LANE, 571): Submitted by MEL MILHOLLAND for property located at THE
END OF COUNTRY RIDGE, N OF 16E AND W OF DEERFIELD WAY. The property is
zoned R-A, Residential Agricultural and C- 1 , Neighborhood Commercial, and contains
approximately 30.872 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential
Single Family, 4 units per acre.
Property Owner: FORREST & MODYNE LANE Planner: SUZANNE MORGAN
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the requested rezoning based on the findings herein.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required YES ?. -6 *1Vrov-' �k
QRZN Tau R(vI.191Pc Approved O Denied ( +^ bD2 No ' +
Date: May 09, 2005 —
`ALN o$ '�c.��(rr•Icen� �`CENIED /ad�b.��c�1„v�•. f,,,��rpsd„u2-
CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Required YES
O Approved O Denied
Date: June 07, 2005 (1st readine if recommended)
BACKGROUND:
Property description: The subject property contains 30.872-acres owned by the Lanes. It is
located north of Huntsville Road (Hwy 16 East) and west of Deerfield Way Subdivision in
southeast Fayetteville. The West Fork of the White River is the northern boundary of the subject
property, and a tributary of this river traverses the property to the east. At this time, the property
is currently used for pasture with one single family home located on the property. With approval
of the proceeding ANX 05- 1451 , the northern 24. 191 acres will be zoned R-A, Residential
Agricultural, and the 6.68 acres currently within the city is zoned C- 1 , Neighborhood
Commercial.
Proposal: The developer intends to develop this property for single family use at a maximum
density of units per acre. The request is to rezone the property RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4
units per acre.
1 K:Weporul20051PCReporul05-09-05WZN05-1452 (Lano.do
0
Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the rezoning request to rezone the entire subject
property RSF-4. The proposed zoning adjacent to Huntsville Road is not compatible with the
General Plan 2020. The current C- 1 zoning allows for the development of neighborhood
commercial to serve the current and future residents of this area.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
Direction Land Use Zoning
North West Fork of the White River; Planning Area
pasture
South Vacant/Pasture C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial
East Residential Single Family RSF-4, Res. Single Family — 4 units/acre
Vacant/Pasture Planning Area
West One Single Family Home; pasture Planning Area
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Streets: Currently the site has access to East Huntsville Road. Road improvements per
AHTD, City of Fayetteville, and dedication per the master street plan are required.
Surrounding Master Street Plan Streets:
South: Huntsville Rd (Principal Arterial)
East: Malty Wagnon (Collector), Country Ridge and Deerfield Way (Local)
Water: Public water is adjacent to the site. There is an 8" main along East Huntsville
Road. Water service will need to be extended within the property at the time of
development. Additional connections may be required to complete a looped
system.
Sewer: The site is near sanitary sewer mains. A short off-site sewer main extension may
be required to serve this development. A capacity analysis of the sewer lines
and/or lift stations downstream of the site shall be conducted prior to
development.
Fire: The subject property is located 4.3 miles from the Fire Station #5 . Normal driving
time to the site is approximately 9 minutes, with an estimated response time of 9.5
minutes for 28 projected calls at full build out. This does not take into account the
decreased response time for the future Fire Station at the Tyson complex on
Huntsville Road.
Police: It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that this rezoning will
substantially alter the population density and will possibly create an undesirable
increase on police services. This rezoning will increase our response time to calls
for service because this property is on the very outer fringes of our current service
K.tRepora000510C Repora105-09-05WN 05-1151 (Lane).doc
9 •
area. The potential of creating 120 new homes will increase the traffic on an
already congested arterial street, (Huntsville Road).
LAND USE PLAN: The General Plan 2020 Future Land Use Plan designates this site as
Residential and Neighborhood Commercial.
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 majority of property adjacent to the subject property is located within
the Planning Area and consists of large tracts of land developed for single
family and agricultural uses. Deerfield Place is the only property in the
surrounding area which has been subdivided for single family use. This
property is zoned RSF-4 and R-O and developed at approximately 3.13 units
per acre.
The subject property contains approximately 30.872 acres. The southern
6.68 acres adjacent to Huntsville Road has been zoned C-1, Neighborhood
Commercial, for several years. In 2001 , the General Plan was updated to
designate this area Neighborhood Commercial. This change reflected a
previous land: use decision to allow development of commercial uses
compatible with residential use. Future development of a majority of the
subject property at 4 units per acre would be compatible with the
development within the City. However, rezoning the southern 6.68 acres '
from C-1 to RSF-4 is not consistent with the General Plan, a policy adopted.
five years ago, under which we currently operate.
2. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the
rezoning is proposed.
Finding: The proposed rezoning of the southern 6.68 acres is not justified or needed at
this time. The General Plan 2020 identifies Neighborhood Commercial Areas
as: "commercial areas [which will] meet the shopping needs of adjacent
residents" and areas to "provide commercial uses that are accessible for the
convenience of individuals living in residential districts." The nearest
community commercial area adjacent to this property is located at the
intersection of Crossover Rd. and Huntsville Road. Retaining the current C-
1 zoning in this area will allow the development of commercial uses which
will be compatible with and serve the existing residential developments.
Should the annexation request for the 24. 191 acres north of the existing city
limits be approved, the property is zoned R-A by default. The applicant is
K.Weporu120051PC Reports105-09-05LUN 05-1452 (Lane).doc
0 0
requesting the consideration of rezoning this property to RSF-4 should the
annexation request be approved. Staff finds that this zoning is compatible
with the General Plan 2020 and surrounding developments within the City.
3 . A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase
traffic danger and congestion.
Finding: The additional density will create an increase in the amount of traffic
currently utilizing Huntsville Road and intersecting streets. The West Fork
of the White River to the north of this and surrounding properties may
prevent a northern street connection. No north-south street connection is
identified on the Master Street Plan between Mally Wagnon Road and Starr
Drive, an unconstructed street. Staff recommends connectivity between
future development of this property and surrounding properties to allow for
many alternative routes of travel to Huntsville Road.
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 will increase population density from that zoning
currently in place. The 24.191 acre tract under an R-A zoning designation
would allow for a maximum 12 single family residential dwelling units. With t
the proposed RSF-4 designation for the entire 30.872 acres, a maximum of .
123 single family dwelling units would be permitted.
Increased load on public services were taken into consideration and
recommendations from Engineering, Police Department, and Fire
Department are included in this report.
Police Comments: It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that
this rezoning will substantially alter the population density and will possibly
create an undesirable increase on police services. This rezoning will increase
our response time to calls for service because this property is on the very
outer fringes of our current service area. The potential of creating 120 new
homes will increase the traffic on an already congested arterial street,
(Huntsville Road).
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;
K.'IReporu11005PC Repons105-09-05WN 05-1452 (Lane).doc
0 0
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.WeporLWOOAPC ReporIA05-09-05PZN 05-1452 aanq).do
I
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?
Animal husbandry
Unit
Single-family dwellings
Unit 9
Two-family dwellings
Unit 37
Manufactured homes
(2) Conditional uses.
Unit 2
Ci -wide uses by conditional use permit
Unit 4
Cultural and recreational facilities
Unit 20
Commercial recreation, large sites
Unit 24
Home occupations 3
Unit 36
Wireless communications facilities
C Denst
Units per acre 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
2acres
(E) Setback requirements.
Front
Side
Rear
35 ft.
20 ft.
35 ft.
(F) Height requirements. There shall be no
maximum height limits in the A-1 District,
provided, however, that any building which
exceeds the height of 15 feet shall be setback from
any boundary line of any residential district a
distance of 1.0 foot for each foot of height in
excess of 15 feet. Such setbacks shall be measured
from the required setback lines.
(G) Building area. None.
K: IReporul2005NC Reporat05-09-05VlZN 05-1452 (Lane).doc
161.07 District Rsf-4, Residential Single -
Family — Four Units Per Acre
(A) Purpose. The RSF-4 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
Sin
le-famil dwelling
(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 9
Two-family dwellings
Unit 24
Home occupations
Unit 36
Wireless communications facilities
(C) _ Density.
Single-family
dwellings
Two-family
dwellin s
Units per acre
1 4 or less
7 or less
(D) Bulk and area regulations.
Single-family
dwellings
Two-family
dwellin s
Lot minimum width
70 ft.
80 ft.
Lot area minimum
8,000 s . ft.
12,000 s . ft.
Land area per
dwellin unit
8,000 sq. ft.
6,000 sq. ft.
(E) Setback requirements.
Front 1
Side
Rear
25 ft. 1
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.
161.16 District C-1, Neighborhood
Commercial
(A) Purpose. The Neighborhood Commercial
District is designed primarily to provide
convenience goods and personal services for
persons living in the surrounding residential areas.
(B) Uses.
(1) Permitted uses.
Unit 1
City-wide uses by right
Unit 12
Offices, studios and
related services
Unit 13
Eating laces
Unit 15
Neighborhood shopping
Unit 18
Gasoline service
restaurants
stations and drive-in
Unit 25
Professional offices
(2) Conditional uses.
Unit 2
City-wide uses by conditional use permit
Unit 3
Public protection and utility facilities
Unit 4
Cultural and recreational facilifies
Unit 34
Liquor stores
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
10 ft.
Rear 1
20 ft.
(F) Height regulations. There shall be no
maximum height limits in C-1 District, provided,
however, that any building which exceeds the
height of 10 feet shall be setback from any
boundary line of any residential district a distance
of one foot for each foot of height in excess of 10
feet.
(G) Building area. On any lot the area occupied
by all buildings shall not exceed 40% of the total
area of such lot.
K: IReporu170051PC Reporis105-09-05VZZA' 05-1452 (Lano.doc
�NNN
NNNN�7
p Z Z Z Z N z
0 0 0 0 Z
t Cn (n (n (n o o
u 3
y A A A A +p
,y co Cn A A A a
s C Pl O CD O t0 OD (Jl +
L{ W O d w m y
d N N N (JD C,
CIL V9 O.
O t,
(n V m d
� A
OD
CID
y w co
o p
� W
IM
QN1 A O A n .Z
N O V W CO 3
W A V O m 7
y n y
' V cn
N A O A A y =or O ID
p
3 3 3 3. 3 3 E; 3 E
(D (D (D (D - = m '_' N
CID (D
J N m
z 3
333333.'$
J J J>> 9 m m N
m
m m m m m m md
md
O
O M O H W
W V V Mcn H S J
O O
_' _' 3' _• 3 9 O Z
J J » m C
N N N N» -C» mDim N
N N N fA (D (D c. w m 6
6 w mw N
W
c 3 m n 7 O
d O N
O A OD O0D O .� O c O m O O
m m M W O ri 0» 3» Q a A
o m 3 0� v
n 3 o m 0 m
m 0 c m o= m
3 v
6 x•m m (D
m
0. 3 w Z On
»3
C)Cncn0 -4 CD m m n
April 18, 2005
Jeremy Pate
Zoning and Development Director
City of Fayetteville
113 W. Mountain
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
Dear Director Pate,
This document is in response tothe request for etermination of whether the proposed
Annexation ANX 05-1451 (LA 571): su fitted by MEL HOLLAND for property
located at THE END OF COUNTR E ROAD, N OF HWY 16E, W OF
DEERFIELD WAY. This property i he Planning Area and contains approximately
24.19. The request is to annex th ubject operty into the City of Fayetteville.
It is the opinion of the Fay eville Police Depart ent that this annexation will not
substantially alter the ulation density and there b undesirably increase the load on
police services or ate and appreciable increase in tra c danger and congestion in the
area.
In reference to RZN 05-1451 (LANE, 571): submitted by MEL HOLLAND for property
located at THE END OF COUNTRY RIDGE ROAD, N OF HWY 16E, W OF
DEERFIELD WAY. This property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately
30.87 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential Single
Family, 4 units per acres.
It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that this rezoning will substantially
alter the population density and will possibly create an undesirable increase on police
services. This rezoning will increase our response time to calls for service because this
property is on the very outer fringes of our current service area. The potential of creating
120 new homes will increase the traffic on an already congested arterial street, (Huntsville
Road).
Individually, each of these annexations and rezoning do not necessarily substantially alter
the population density, nor do they create and appreciable increase in traffic danger and
congestion. The sum total presented over the years, however, has had a substantial impact
on the demand for police services and has caused an appreciable increase in traffic
congestion. Without the addition of police patrol personnel, these areas may see a lack of
traffic enforcement or may experience situations where officers are delayed in answering
many calls for service because of call volume exceeds the number of officers available to
respond in a timely manner.
Sincerely,
Captain William Brown
Fayetteville Police Department
*EXHIBIT
F an_wrs
HUNTSVIIIE Rp,
11ci
�
I ci
z
M*tiWAY V L
a wa
du
Wm
S'
oz
DMA—MR�
a0.
STREET
0
N0. 16 EAST
FAX=4a an wM
OWNER, DATE,
FORREST E. LANE (HUSBAND)
u 11 OWNER,
L MODYNE LANE (WIFE)
REZONING VICINITY MAP
REZONING DESCPoPTION: (REZONE ALL LANDS TO RSF-4)
REZONE FROM R -A TO RSS-4-,THE FOLLOWING;
A PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NWJ) OF SECTION TWENTY (20), TOWNSHIP
SIXTEEN (16) NORTH, RANGE TWENTY-NINE (29) WEST, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED
AS COMMENCING AT THE WEST QUARTER (WJ) CORNER OF SAID SECTION 20 AND
CONTINUING THENCE S8T27'31'E 930.97 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERN
BOUNDARY OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER (NWJ), AND CONTINUING THENCE N0740'O6*E
350.01 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; SAID POINT BEING THE INTERSECTION OF
THE. EXISTING FAYETTEVILLE CITY LIMITS BOUNDARY AND THE WESTERN BOUNDARY OF A
PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED AS TRACTS B & C IN A WARRANTY DEED FILED OF
RECORD. IN. BOOK 1284, PAGES 240 AND 241 IN THE CIRCUIT CLERK'S OFFICE OF
WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS.
THENCE NO740'06'E 1441.44 FEET;
THENCE N6708'56"E 246.16 FEET;
THENCE N53'32'58OE 213.11 FEET TO THE EAST BOUNDARY OF THE NWJ OF
THE NWJ OF SAID SECTION 20,
THENCE SO732'24'W 664.64 FEET TO A POINTONTHE EAST BOUNDARY OF
SAID NWJ OF THE NWJ;
THENCE S8T16'57'E 448.50 FEET;
THENCE S0741'09V 1031.51 FEET TO THE EXISTING FAYETTEVILLE CITY LIMITS
BOUNDARY;
THENCE ALONG SAID CITY LIMITS BOUNDARY NBT38'O6'1V 827.08 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 24.191 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, FAYETTEVILLE,
WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS.
AND REZONE EXISTING CITY PROPERTY TO RSF-4, AS FOLLOWS;
A PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NWJ) OF SECTION TWENTY (20), TOWNSHIP
SIXTEEN (16) NORTH,. RANGE TWENTY—NINE (29) WEST, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED
AS COMMENCING AT THE WEST QUARTER (WJ) CORNER OF SAID SECTION 20 AND
CONTINUING THENCE SfiT2Y31'E 930.97 FEET TO A POINT ON. THE SOUTHERN
BOUNDARY OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER (NQ,
THENCE N0740'06"E 350.01 FEET;
THENCE 58T '
38 O6 E 627.08 FEEF; EXHIBIT "A" THENCE S074I'WW 353.76 FEET;
THENCE N8T22'31'W 826.96 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING PROPERTY TO BE REZONED
6.681 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, FAYETTEVILLE, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS. ASS t�ITTF.D BY 'E APPLICF
TOTAL REZONING TO RSF-4 BEING 30.872 ACRES MORE OR LESS. ,/// //��//
DATEc
E-745
LA tA�
PZ,f4o`55- 14
APR 0 8 2005
SeCO(VJ SLAbMI-144 t
Parch close
RIAJOs-lysa
!S(Abt";1)ed o s
A
l%i[fao[lan%nnd ani pan y
Giey"Wenrry Suaveyin$
Melvin L. Milholland, PE, PLS
Thomas M. Jefcoat, RLA, REM, CPESC
April 21, 2005
FAYETTEVILLE
125 West Mountain
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
ATTN: Suzanne Morgan, Planning Division
RE: Lane Property - Zoning Request
Dear Suzanne:
REGISTRATIONS:
PE: AR, MO
PLS: AR
RLA: AR
Project No. E-745
The following information is provided to address request for Staff support of the presented
Zoning Request, and to properly address Item 5 and 6 of the Zoning Application.
5a Current ownership
information
and any
proposed or pending property sales.
The current owner is Forrest
and Modyne
Lane, as
stated in the
application.
NLC, Inc., Mr. Clint McDonald, hold option to purchase the property for future
development as a residential subdivision as per the requested Zoning indicates.
5.b. Reason (need) for requesting the zoning change.
The proposed, pending Owner desires to develop the property as single family residential
at the proposed RSF-4 Zoning requested. Owner and Developer recognize the demand
for and lack of single family homes in this area.
5.c. Statement of how the property will relate to surrounding properties in terms of
land use, traffic, appearance, and signage.
The property is bound on the east by single family homes, similar in concept as will be
proposed for development on the Lane property. There also exist somewhat similar
residential developments south of the Lane property. There exist a drainage ravine to the
west that is not conducive to normal development practices. To the north is rural
residential farm lands. Development of the site as proposed by the requested zoning is
compatible with the surround properties and land use. A portion of the property is
currently zoned Commercial (C-1), by the City's annexation of a corridor frontage along
Hwy. 16. The designation commercial with an existing RSF-4 residential development
(Doer Field Place) to its east and a physical terrain feature separation to the west creates a
pocket (spot) of commercial development which does not fit with the consistent intent of
the City's Land Use Plan.
205 West Center Street; Fa7emille, Arkansas 72701; Phone: (479) 443-4724; Fax: (479) 443-4707; E-mail: MC0engr(@swbell.net
�r •
/f
„`i&CQ � anipany REGISTRATIONS:
C.ngi"ering &Sa Cyiny PE: AR, MO
Melvin L. Milholland, PE, PLS PLS: AR
Thomas M. Jefcoat, RI A, REM, CPESC RLA. AR
Traffic as always is a concern to current users of the existing roadway system, as well as
to the prospective purchaser of a new home and to the developer marketing the sale of the
new home. And, all new development increases traffic flow. The proposed development
will have access and connectivity provided from the south, Hwy. 16; from the east, Deer
Field Place, and to the north for future development(s). The impact of generated traffic
will be only to Hwy. 16.
The project appearance will be one of constructed moderate homes of mid income families
just as currently found in the surrounding area and current the trend for similar
development throughout Fayetteville. Single family homes will blend with the existing
sunroundings-
The proposed Owner/Developer, NLC, Inc. intends to provide a monument style
Identification sign and attractive landscaping at the proposed subdivision entrance. Also,
anticipated is appealing screening along frontage of Hwy. 16 in the form of backyard
fencing and landscape plantings.
S.d. Avar7abdity of water and sewer (state size of lines). This information is
available from the City Engineering Division.
Both water and sanitary sewer service are available and easily accessed for expansion and
serving the proposed subdivision.
6.a. The degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent with the land use
planning objectives, principals, and policies and with land use and zoning plans.
The proposed development is in keeping, totally with the City Land Use Planning.
6.b. Whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time of the
request.
Both the prospective Owner/Developer, NLC, Inc.; the current land owners, the Lanes; as
well as MCO believe that the requested zoning is justified and needed at this time due to
the demand for moderate housing in this area.
6.c. Whether the proposed zoning will create or appreciably increase traffic danger
and congestion.
While the proposed development may increase traffic flow onto Hwy. 16, no undue
danger or congestion at this location should be expected.
6.d. Whether the proposed zoning will alter the population density and thereby
undesirably increase the load on public services including schools, water and sewer
facilities.
205 Wert Center Street; Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701; Phone: (479) 443-0724; Fax: (479) 443-4707; E-mail: 11C0engrCo0swbelk.net
a 0
/�/�//ilo& � nd ampany REGISTRATIONS:
PE: AR, MO r rinv &S�Qy�
Melvin L. Milholland, PE, PLS PLS: AR
RLA' AR
Thomas M. )efcoat, RLA, REM, CPESC
Public facilities provided by the City to serve anticipated growth in this direction from
Fayetteville are very adequate in serving the demands of this proposed development and
other future similar developments.
6.e. Why it would be impractical to use the land for any of the uses permitted under
its existing zoning classification.
Currently, RSF-4 is acceptable, normal, and feasible development. Any zoning less would
not be economically feasible.
NL.C, Inc., Mr. McDonald, trust that Planning Staff, the Planning Commission, and members of
the City Council find this proposed project acceptable in its intent, scope, and ability in serving the
needs of the community.
MCO is available, as well as is Mr. McDonald, to discuss this project additionally with Staff if
there are issues that may need resolving to gain staff support of the requested Annexation and
Zoning.
Your continued assistance and cooperation in the progress of Fayetteville's growth, and this
project are appreciated.
Sincerely,
cc: Mr. Clint McDonald
20S West Center Street; Fayetteville, Arkansas 71701; Phone: (479) 443-4724; Fax: (479) 443-4707; E-mail: MC0engrPswbell.net
Planning Commission • •
May 9, 2005
Page 58
Ostner: On the issue of the projected fire station that we have been reading about,
our current station is on Hwy. 265 maybe half way between Hwy. 16 and
Hwy. 245 and that is not but 'A mile or maybe % mile further than the new
station, which is important but I don't think it is like the proposed fire
station is being built next door.
Milholland: On a previous project the same discussion came up on the fire station and
the Fire Chief was here at that time, and it was determined about what Mr.
Williams said, a year and a half or two years. On a subdivision like this
the build out of houses would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 %z
to 3 years before all of them were built. Even if we got the ok tonight and
had to come back with a Preliminary Plat, we are looking at another
several months. We are looking at bidding it at the very earliest in the Fall
and a year of construction so you are looking at a year and a half before
the first lot is ready to be built on and then it takes time to build those
houses. The time frame to build out this subdivision will be after the
revamping of the fire station.
Williams: The Tyson plant is also being considered as a new location for a police
station. Nothing has been confirmed. The difference with police as
opposed to fire is that police are on patrol throughout the city and so even
though they are going to be moving closer to the site it doesn't effect
much because police cars are on patrol through the city.
MOTION:
Clark: I will move that we approve ANX 05-1451.
Allen: Second.
Ostner: Is there further discussion? Could you call the roll?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of
ANX 05-1451 to the City Council was approved by a vote of 8-0-0.
Thomas: The motion carries.
Ostner: The tandem item is RZN 05-1452. We have already heard the staff report.
We have already heard the applicant. Would anyone from the public like
to speak to RZN 05-1452? Seeing none, I will close it to public comment
and bring it back to the Commission.
Vaught: Staff, with the Master Street Plan in this area, how much right of way
dedication is required?
Planning Commission
May 9, 2005
Page 59
Pate: It is a principal arterial so it would be 55' from centerline for Hwy. 16.
Vaught: So we would be left with a strip of C-1 800' long and 250' wide basically?
Pate: No, there is already existing right of way out there. It is not necessarily
the entire 55' of that property. Most properties along Hwy. 16 are about
80' wide in right of way so it would probably be an additional 15'.
Vaught: I'm not an experienced builder or architect, is that adequate to produce C-
1 properties on a lot of that size? I don't know if Commissioner Lack
wants to address that or staff.
Pate: 1 would say so. We see properties all the time that are less than an acre
develop for commercial use. This is about 5 % acres for development on a
principal arterial. I would assume with that depth that there would be
adequate space.
Ostner: We rezoned a home on Hwy. 71 across from the jail C-2 a couple of
weeks ago.
Vaught: That was an existing structure and you would be building something here.
Lack: I would
concur with Mr.
Pate that that does
seem to be a
reasonable depth.
Beyond
that, you might
start seeing out lots
or something
of that nature.
Ostner: On that note, I would like to look at the map. Mr. Milholland mentioned
that this property faces RSF-4 across the street and mentioned that that
might not be the best commercial situation. The C-1 property to the east
also faces residential zoning across the street. I believe commercial
zoning can mix perfectly across the street with residential uses. We call
that mixed use. I don't think that is a reason to turn the C-1 part into
residential simply by when it faces a major arterial.
Vaught: Staff, on the next item, not that we can consider that, but it is next door
and we are recommending to approve that one all RSF-4. Why wouldn't
we want this commercial to extend further down with the major road
frontage?
Pate: The Future Land Use Plan shows that piece of property as commercial.
We are trying to get away from a strip commercial type of development as
you have seen on 6`h Street in recent actions by the City Council and
Planning Commission. That is in our Land Use Plan to attempt to get
away from those and establish these nodes of development. On the Future
Land Use Plan you can see nodes at these intersections. The reason we
are recommending approval on the property to the west is it shows as
residential on our Future Land Use Plan. We would recommend also for
Planning Commission
May 9, 2005
Page 60
approval on the Lane rezoning were the C-1 property not located within it.
It is under the jurisdiction of this body to recommend at least that portion
of property to the City Council for rezoning if they choose to vote in that
manner. We would support RSF-4 zoning north of the C-1. You can
consult with the applicant to see if they would like to go forward with that
as well. - I think that is an option we have utilized in the past for the
Planning Commission to make a recommendation.
Williams: I wouldn't be comfortable in cutting their property without their
permission and separating a parcel out even though right now it is zoned
two different ways. That would have to be something I think the applicant
would have to agree to. You can recommend a different rezoning for the
entire parcel but I don't think we can cut parcels up without the
permission of the applicant.
Vaught: We see stuff all the time, this was a blueberry farm in the past zoned C-1
that we changed the zoning on. The difference on this is the Future Land
Use Plan which was just done five years ago, they specified this as
Neighborhood Commercial. Most of the time they will overlay it with
residential if they think it should change to residential at the time that they
did the plan. That is where I have trouble with it a little bit in wanting to
change it to RSF-4. I don't know if it is an ideal location. I was curious
about the lot size. I would like to see an intersection just for access and
people leaving the site. It is a unique situation I think for sure. They did
on the 2020 Plan specify this as Community Commercial for a reason.
Clark: I will move that we deny RZN 05-1452 for reasons stated.
Myres: I will second.
Ostner: Is there further discussion?
Milholland: I guess we submitted one application for all of it to be rezoned to RSF-4.
If the body here is going to deny the whole thirty acres where does my
client stand as far as bringing it back in? We would like if nothing else,
just the part behind the C-1 that Jeremy was talking about. We don't want
all of it denied if we are going to have to wait a year to come back.
Williams: Your options obviously, you have many options. One is to appeal and go
to the City Council and they make the final decision. If you wanted to
change your zoning so it is not the identical request as has been denied by
the Planning Commission then you could certainly do that and not have to
wait a year for that.
Milholland: Can we do it tonight?
Planning Commission •
May 9, 2005
Page 61
Williams: Yes, I will go along with what Jeremy said as long as that is what you all
are offering and that is what you want to do. I didn't feel like we had the
right to separate the parcel for you. I would think that if that is your choice
and the City Planner is going to agree to that then I will go ahead and say
that you can do that.
Milholland: I don't know how everybody is going to vote. If I could read your mind I
would know what to do. If we could request the Commission vote on the
area that is being annexed in separate from the C -I at least give us some
feeling about how you feel about it and probably the Commission too.
Ostner: In essence you are asking for...
Milholland: Two votes.
Ostner: On the rezoning it is the same request but the area has changed. You are
still requesting RSF-4 but you are only requesting the area north of the C-
1.
Milholland: The existing city limits which is 24.192 acres. If it is possible I would
request also after that to vote on the 6.68 acres that is in the city limits.
Ostner: I think that would be a new item. Mr. Williams? We have not had a staff
report on any of that so I would not be comfortable scrutinizing changing
that piece from C-1 to anything else but I would have to hear from staff.
Milholland: We would like to walk away going to City Council with something. I
think we know what everybody feels and I am sure that staff feels that
what they have made a recommendation on is what they feel because of
the 2020 Plan.
Williams: I am going to defer to Jeremy Pate, our City Planner on whether or not,
there has been a staff report that covered the entire 30 acres even though it
covered it together. I will leave it up to him whether or not he feels like it
would be appropriate to allow for a separate vote, one for each parcel. I
don't feel like it is legally not allowed from my point of view but I am
going to leave the final decision up to Mr. Pate because he is the
interpreter of the zoning code.
Graves: Is the request that we vote up or down on the part that we just annexed and
then vote up or down RSF-4 on the part that is C-1?
Milholland: Yes.
Pate: In the
interest of time,
that is exactly what I
was
looking for when I said
maybe
we could split
the property into two
and
look at those separately.
Planning Commission • •
May 9, 2005
Page 62
What I would like not to happen is for Mr. Milholland and his client to go
back through our 40 day process plus three weeks to get to City Council
and we are going to make the same staff report. I think we have discussed
the relevant issues tonight. We do have in our possession legal
descriptions for the annexation and a legal description for the C-1 property
and therefore, we could pass both of those recommendations forward to
the City Council. Should they be voted for or should the applicant feel
within relative ease. Staff recommends RSF-4 on the portion north of the
C-1 and recommend denial for the rezoning to RSF-4 on the portion
currently zoned C-1. We would recommend that you vote either in favor
or against those tonight and forward this onto the City Council for
finalization.
Clark: First, I am going to withdraw my motion. I understand that staff is
recommending not rezoning this because of the C-1 property. What is the
rational of the Police Department to be opposed to this rezoning? I am
assuming it has nothing to do with the C-1 status. I am assuming it has to
do with the proximity of how far out the land is.
Pate: I would assume so. The letter you have in your packet is what we
received. Just to correct you, we have had in the last few months a couple
of those police reports that stated in the negative on those rezonings,
specifically out east and one application out in west Fayetteville that they
had concerns with the population density. You are correct though, most
often it is the case that they have typically the same recommendation.
There is that paragraph at the end now that the Police Department does
include. Honestly, I hate to speak for the Police Department. It is our job
to compile these reports, based on our Planning Policies, our Future Land
Use Plan and the City Council's direction with those policy documents to
make that recommendation. It is not in my opinion, and we've seen it in
the past, the Council is not always going to agree with the Commission or
the staff, the Planning Commission is not always going to agree with staff,
but those are policy documents that we are attempting to forward to you
with recommendations based on those. We feel that it is appropriate that
the property is zoned RSF-4 if it is annexed into the City with City
Council's vote.
Allen: Was that a factor in your decision making process about what to
recommend to us?
Pate: It always is. The City Council has required us to form a Zoning Review
Team. The Police Department, the Fire Department are both part of those.
That is why you have those reports. Whereas, a year and a half or two
years ago you did not have those reports. The City Council found it
prudent to include those and those representatives are present for City
Council meetings. They have not been required to be in the Planning
Planning Commission • •
May 9, 2005
Page 63
Commission forum by the City Council but they are there to answer
questions by the City Council in making those land use kind of decisions.
Allen: I would just
hate
for us
to make a decision based on the probability of the
building of a
fire
station
or police station.
Pate: I entirely agree. That is not the basis of our recommendation. That is just
another factor to throw in there. That may never happen and we are not
banking this recommendation on that fire station by any means. That is a
very good point.
Graves: I didn't read the letter from the Police Department to be a denial or a
recommendation that this not be rezoned as requested. I read it as they are
concerned about the number of calls it might generate. I don't think they
said we should deny it. There was some negative language in there but it
wasn't a recommendation for denial. I would note that our experience on
the Annexation Task Force last year with the Police Department on these
issues is that they are concerned about piece by piece things coming in and
it makes them difficult for them to plan for man power and things of that
nature. That is sort of how they are looking at it as how this body has
expressed several times that they wish they could look at it. The Police
Department wishes that they had it the same way, that there was a lot of
annexed property out there and they could sort of plan accordingly. They
are dealing with the reality of the. situation that we have right now which is
things come in piece by piece and we have to do it with all kinds of things
that present issues, sidewalks, the width of streets that are going out to
these neighborhoods, those present challenges in development and we try
to do it piece by piece. As a piece comes in then we try to get
improvements to the roads in that area and we try to get sidewalks in that
area. I would say that the same thing is going to happen with the Police.
They are already traveling out this far. There are going to be a number of
extra calls that are generated by a neighborhood of this size but they are
already patrolling out that far and beyond it. The concern is just that until
you rezone it and build it, the police man power is not going to have a
reason to catch up. I guess the only way that that happens is as the city
grows. I am sure that the police force was much smaller 50 years ago in
Fayetteville than it is now. As you grow the city they are constantly trying
to keep up. I'm sure that there is concern about that but that is the only
way that it happens just like it is the only way that street improvements
and sidewalk improvements and things of that nature happen.
Lack: In trying to assess some logic in the change of direction here, I looked
ahead as I know that we have a very similar condition coming up and with
specific relevance to the Police Department's recommendation, that the
Police Department also had a very similar verbiage for the next rezoning
and that was not sufficient to deny a recommendation for approval on that
Planning Commission • •
May 9, 2005
Page 64
so I would apply that logic to this. That there must have been other things
that caused staff to make that recommendation.
Ostner: Yes. I believe since staff has altered it's recommendation with the change
in parcels of land that goes along with your opinion.
Vaught: Staff, in making a motion, how do we do that, Lot A and Lot B?
Williams: I would just say "A" and "B" with the original number that you have
there.
Vaught: For the reasons stated by a number of Commissioners and staff I do find
that RSF-4 is a suitable zoning district in this area for the northern tract
which we will call "A", the annexed portion. That being said, I will make
a motion for approval of RZN 05-1452(A) for the north session of this
request to RSF-4.
Trumbo: I will second.
Ostner: We have a motion to recommend to forward the northern Tract "A" that
has just been annexed from R -A to RSF-4.
Trumbo: I will second.
Ostner: Is there further discussion? Would you call the roll please?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to recommend approval of
RZN 05-1452(A) to the City Council was approved by a vote of 6-0-3
with Commissioners Clark, Ostner and Allen voting no.
Thomas: The motion carries.
Vaught: That being said, on the second tract I will make a motion to deny the RSF-
4 rezoning for. the C-1 session based on Staffs findings and
recommendations. I think it is something that at our level I feel
comfortable denying, the City Council has the right to find differently if
they view this to be something to change. In the policy set forward, they
specifically call this out in the 2020 Plan as C-1 and it is a good way to
break up the monotony. I know we face the same issues further up
Huntsville Road trying to change some R -O and RSF-4 so it is not a
constant band of commercial. I will make the motion to deny RZN 05-
1452(B).
Ostner: I will second your motion. Is there further discussion? The motion is to
deny the rezoning from C-1 to RSF-4 on the southern tract "B" of this
piece of property.
Planning Commission •
May 9, 2005
Page 65
Myres: We have recommended to deny and if I agree with that I need to vote yes?
Ostner: That is right.
Lane: I am Forest Lane. 1 own the property in question. The piece of property
you are describing here as Section "B" has been in my possession as C-1
from the time that I purchased it 18 years ago. That has never been
utilized as C-1 property and I believe that it should be adjusted because
there is no other C-1 property on that same side of the highway. I believe
that it should be adjusted to RSF-4 as was the first portion.
Ostner: We do have a motion to deny this rezoning request. Is there further
discussion? Could you call the roll?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to deny RZN 05-1452(B) was
approved by a vote of 8-0-0.
• City of Fayetteville •
Staff Review Form
City Council Agenda Items
or
Contracts
7 -Jun -05
City Council Meeting Date
Jeremy Pate Planning Operations
Submitted By Division Department
Action Required:
RZN 05-1452 (Lane -Tract A): A rezoning request for Lane, submitted by Mel Milholland for property located at the end of
Country Ridge, north of 16E and west of Deerfield Way. The property is zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural, and
contains approximately 24.191 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential Single Family - 4
units per acre.
Cost of this reauest
n/a
Account Number
n/a
Project Number
n/a
Category/Project Budget
n/a
Funds Used to Date
n/a
$
Remaining Balance
n/a
Program Category / Project Name
n/a
Program / Project Category Name
n/a
Fund Name
Budgeted Item Budget Adjustment Attached
Previous Ordinance or Resolution # n/a
Departmenf Director J Date Original Contract Date: n/a
Original Contract Number: n/a
LS -of
City Attorney
_ ! Received in City Clerk's Office
Fine and Internal Service Director Date
Received in Mayor's Office
O
O
cr
(D
CD C 0 O [�
CD
`° � � � • ►�
BCD O�
CD
o CD N O
CD
O t
� o Z
Z
E
U
CD
M
CD
z Y
r •
w 1S`
I• 1
•
. -
i
0
0
hx:
i
•20V
, ftlm
'`
�.
u
+.�
��
.'
,.
..
�
''».�
.: �.
�_
f
..,
< i�
ti
�,
`s
�,
�� 4. .�� We
-. c. ) '�ri►` � • •lam" '� � �`� � 1
T
t f
May 19, 2005
Mayor Dan Coody
City Council Members
City of Fayetteville
113 West Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Dear Mayor Coody and Council Members,
On May 9, 2005 the Fayetteville Planning Commission denied an application to rezone a portion of our property at 5450
Huntsville Road to RSF-4. We feel strongly that this denial should be reversed and would like to use this letter as an
opportunity to present our case for reversal.
[1] As the property owners, we feel that we should have our rights and desires for our land respected and fulfilled;
[21 The C-1 Zoning claimed by the city staff can not be proven by documents of record in the City Clerk's office
nor the City Planning staffs office, nor the County records;
[3] We do not know what the present zoning of this 6 acres actually is. We do know that this 6 acre tract was
annexed in Ordinance #1458 in 1965, but was NOT zoned. We discovered Ordinance #1493 in 1966 which
zoned the whole annexation of #1458 "by zones as shown on the 1966 zoning map", but NO properties and the
respective zones were specified in this ordinance. Regarding the map, the ordinance simply specified that it
was on file in the City Clerk's office, but after an extensive search (which is still ongoing) no copy of the 1966
map has been found to date, thus we are not aware of any city ordinance which details the C-1 zoning.
[4] We feel the highest and best use of this land is for residential houses, RSF-4, in accord with our adjoining
neighbors to the north, south, east and west;
[5] We feel that requiring C-1 on this small site would constitute "SPOT ZONING" which is not healthy for the
surrounding neighborhoods, and which has not been recommended in the past in Fayetteville;
[6] We are concerned that restricting this small tract to C-1 instead of a more desirable
RSF-4 zoning may prevent us from achieving our lifelong plan to retire on funds derived from the sale of
this and other land parcels, at a time when this issue is very important to us;
[7] It is evident that other commercial businesses along Arkansas Highway 16 East from Baldwin to inside of
Fayetteville have struggled, closed, tried again and do not have the support to remain solvent, and that one
more commercial area accessible by one lane traffic will continue the trend;
[8] Our age will not permit adequate time for this tract to sell as a Commercial Development, thereby preventing
my wife and I from receiving the financial benefits that RSF-4 zoning could deliver in our lifetime;
[9] Residential developments in this location have proven to be beneficial to the city of Fayetteville and the local
neighborhoods, whereas Commercial developments in the area have proven to have very weak support and
little benefit to the City and Neighborhood;
For these reasons we, Forrest E. Lane and L. Modyne Lane, respectfully request that the Fayetteville City Council rezone
this tract of land to RSF-4 in accord with neighboring lands.
Respectfully submitted,
��:%L�SS U1�-Forrest E. Lane
L. Modyne Lane
•
17J
From: Clarice Pearman
To: Pate, Jeremy
Date: 6/14/05 11:35AM
Subject: RZN 05-1442
Jeremy
Attached is a copy of the ordinance passed by City Council June 7, 2005 regarding the above rezoning.
From: Clarice Pearman
To: Goddard, John; Jorgensen, Todd; Randall, Clyde
Date: 6/14/05 11:38AM
Subject: Fwd: RZN 05-1442
>>> Clarice Pearman 06/14/05 11:35AM >>>
Jeremy
Attached is a copy of the ordinance passed by City Council June 7, 2005 regarding the above rezoning.
1 l ��'�.I'�-P qa
e Democrat
Wort&vveft Arksuuasl most Wider Read Newspaper"
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
I, Erin Emis. do solemnly swear that I am the Legal Clerk of the Arkansas
Democrat-Gazette/Northwest Arkansas Times newspaper, printed and
published in Lowell, Arkansas, and that from my own personal knowledge
and reference to the files of said publication, that advertisement of:
inserted in the regular editions on
** Publication Charge: $ /Y - on
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
day of .c e 12005.
Notary Public " Sharlene D. Williams
Notary Public
My Commission Expires: State of Arkansas
— —My Commission Expires
October 18, 2014
** Please do not pay from Affidavit.,
An invoice will be sent.
RECEIVED
JUN 2 2 2985
:.T' OF FAYETTEVILLE
7iT' CLERK'S OFFICE
P.O. BOX 1607 • 212 N. EAST AVENUE • FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72701 • 479-571-6470
•
AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY rage ev:
AN ORDINANCE
IN REZONING PETING THA RZN 05-1452
FOR APPROXIMATELY 24.19 ACRES LOCATED AT
THE END OF COUNTRY RIDGE ROAD, NORTH OF
HWY. 16 E. AND WEST OF DEERRELD WAY FROM ARKAN
R -A RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL TO RSF-4 RESI-
DENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, FOUR UNITS PER ACRE
on R ORDWHED BY THE CRY COUNCIL OF THE CRY OF FAYBTTBYILLHI MIGNBRBI
Sector 1: That the zone classification of the following described property Is hereby charged as follows:
Fran R -A, Residential Agricultural to RSF-4, Reslderll Single Femily, Four Units Per Al ae shown h
EAnibit'A' attached hereto and made a pad hereof.
Section 2: That the oMGal zoning map of the City of FayetteVJle, Arkansas. Is hereby amended to reflect
the zoning change proNdod In Sealer 1 above.
end APPNOYBD this 7th day of June, 2005.
IDRA BYRN, CRY Call
EXHIBIT'A'
RZN 051452 (TRACT A)
REZONE FROM R -A TO RSE4, T)IE FOLLOWING:
A PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF SECTION TWENTY (20). TOWNSHIP SIXTEEN
ING AT THE WEST QUARTER (W 1E TWENTY 14) CORNER O29) WEST OFRSAI SD ECWON 20 AND CONTINUINGLARLY DESCRIBED UI�M�
SBIMT31'E 930.9] FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF SAID NORTHWEST
QUARTER Ni AND CONTINUING THENCE NO2040.06-E 350.01 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING; SAID POINT BEING THE INTERSECTION OF THE EXISTING FAYETTEVILLE CITY UMITS
BOUNDARY AND THE WESTERN BOUNDARY OF A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED AS TRACTS B A
C IN A WARRANTY DEED FLED'OF RECORD IN BOOK 1264, PAGES 240 AND 241 IN THE CIRCUIT
1441.44 FEET; THENCE 1462 '56'E 246.16 FEET; THENCE N53"32'58'E
EAST BOUNDARY OF THE NW1/4 OF THE NWt/4 OF SAID SECTION 20;
w an Cl= fTn 4 MUuT(1N THE FACT Rink INTIAFIV GF SAID NW1/4 DF THE
FAYETTEVILLE CITY LIMITS BOUNDARY; THENCE ALONG SAID (JIIY UIVIIS nuuNUnn.
N87OW-06-W 82].06 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 24:191 ACRES, MORE OR
LESS, FAYETTEVILLE, WASHINGTON COUNTY„ARKANSAS.
EXHIBIT -A'
Ftl 05-1452 (TRACT A)
REZONE FROM R -A TO RSF.-4, THE FOLLOWING:
A PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER Ni OF SECTION TWENTY (20). TOWNSHIP SDREEN
(16) NORTH, RANGE TWENTY-NINE (29) WEST, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS COMMEND
ING AT THE WEST QUARTER (Wt/4) CORNER OF SAID SECTION 20 AND CONTINUING THENCE
SBF 7'31'E 930.9] FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY _OF SAID NORTHWEST
(NiUARTER (NAND CONTINUING THENCE N02°40'06E 350.04 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING; SAID POINT BEING THE INTERSECTION OF THE EXISTING FAYETTEVILLE CRY UMRS
BOUNDARY AND THE WESTERN BOUNDARY OF A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED PS TR4CT5 8 8
C IN A WARRANTY DEED FILED OF RECORD IN BOOK 1284, PAGES 240 AND 241 IN:THE CIRCUIT
CLERK'S OFFICE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS.
THENCE N02'40'06F 1441.44 FEET; THENCE N62°08'56'E 2413.16 FEET; THENCE N53°32'58'E
213.11 FEET TO THE EAST BOUNDARY OF THE NWI/4 OF THE NW114 OF SAID SECTION 20;
ALONG SAID CITY
I0, CONTAINING 24.'
WASHINGTON
0