HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 4833 Doc ID : 009767780003 TVDe : REL
Recorded : 03/ 17/2006 at 03 : 17 : 18 Ph
Fee Amt : $14 . 00 Pace 1 of 3
Washlnoton Countv . AR
Bette Stamos Circuit Clerk
F11e2006-00010925
ORDINANCE NO. 4833
0
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING THAT PROPE T c ;:0 ' 11
DESCRIBED IN ANNEXATION PETITION ANX 06- 151;;x;.., Z; (--
(CC2005-40), FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF WEIR ; = ; M
ROAD AND EAST OF SALEM ROAD AND HOWA < s 0
NICKELL ROAD, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 34..4P9_; ` 1
ACRES N)
CJl
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,
ARKANSAS:
Section 1 : That the City Council hereby confirms the annexation to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas,
of that property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Section 2: That the official map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, is hereby amended to reflect the
change provided in Section 1 above.
Section 3 : That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas is hereby amended to
assign the zoning designation of R-A, Residential Agricultural to the subject property.
Section 4: That the above-described property is hereby assigned to Ward No. Four. •• TR �s
PASSED and APPROVED this 21St day of February, 2006. ELLE '
; FAYETTEV : :
APPROVED: ATTEST: C
oe �RKNSP�J?
A .
ee �y'�G TO'N'G,,`•.
By: By: xttk)
DAN COODY, Mayor SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk
EXHIBIT "A"
ANX 06-1853
A PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SEI/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SEI /4) OF
SECTION THIRTY (30), TOWNSHIP SEVENTEEN ( 17) NORTH, RANGE THIRTY (30) WEST,
WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS :
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID 40 ACRE TRACT, SAID POINT BEING AN
EXISTING STONE MONUMENT; THENCE S00° 16' 33"E 653 .55 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF
SAID 40 ACRE TRACT TO AN EXISTING IRON; THENCE N89°50' 16"E 972.02 FEET TO A SET 1 /2"
IRON REBAR FOR THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 579.93 FEET TO A SET 1 /2"
IRON REBAR; THENCE EAST 302. 17 FEET TO AN EXISTING IRON REBAR ON THE WEST RIGHT-
OF-WAY LINE OF WEST SALEM ROAD, SAID POINT BEING ON A 149.95 FEET RADIUS CURVE
CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND RIGHT-
OF-WAY LINE 24.78 FEET, THE CHORD FOR WHICH BEING SO4038 '0471W 24.75 FEET, TO AN
EXISTING IRON REBAR AT THE POINT OF TANGENCY OF SAID CURVE; THENCE S00°05 ' 59"E
ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE 554.40 FEET TO AN EXISTING IRON; THENCE LEAVING SAID
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, WEST S89050' 16"W 301 . 14 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING,
CONTAINING 4.00 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS. THE ABOVE
DESCRIBED 4.00 ACRE TRACT BEING SUBJECT TO A TWENTY (20) FOOT WIDE UTILITY
EASEMENT IN FAVOR OR ARKANSAS WESTERN GAS CO. ALONG THE EAST BOUNDARY AND
ANY OTHER EASEMENTS AND/OR RIGHTS-OF-WAY WHETHER OR NOT OF RECORD.
A PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1 /4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SEI /4) OF
SECTION THIRTY (30), TOWNSHIP.SEVENTEEN (17) NORTH, RANGE THIRTY (30) WEST,
WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS :
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID 40 ACRE TRACT, SAID POINT BEING AN
EXISTING STONE MONUMENT; THENCE N89°54'26"E 1311 .28 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF
SAID 40 ACRE TRACT TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WEST SALEM ROAD,
SAID POINT BEING ON A 149.95 FEET RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST AND
FROM WHICH AN EXISTING REFERENCE IRON BEARS S89054726"W 40.06 FEET; THENCE
SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE 81 .50 FEET, THE CHORD FOR
WHICH BEING S24056721 "W 80.50 FEET, TO AN EXISTING IRON REBAR; THENCE LEAVING SAID
CURVE AND RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, WEST 302. 17 FEET TO A SET %2" IRON REBAR; THENCE
SOUTH 579.93 FEET TO A SET '/2" IRON REBAR; THENCE S89°50' 16"W 972.02 FEET TO AN
EXISTING IRON ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID 40 ACRE TRACT; THENCE N00016' 33"W 653 .55 FEET
TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 15. 12 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, WASHINGTON
COUNTY, ARKANSAS. THE ABOVE DESCRIBED 15 . 12 ACRE TRACT BEING SUBJECT TO A
THIRTY (30) FOOT WIDE ACCESS EASEMENT ALONG THE ENTIRE NORTH BOUNDARY, A
TWENTY (20) FOOT WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT IN FAVOR OR ARKANSAS WESTERN GAS CO.
ALONG THE NORTH AND EAST BOUNDARY, AND ANY OTHER EASEMENTS AND/OR RIGHTS-
OF-WAY WHETHER OR NOT OF RECORD.
THE SOUTH HALF (S1 /2) OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SWI /4) OF THE SOUTH WEST
QUARTER (SWI /4) OF SECTION TWENTY-NINE (29), TOWNSHIP SEVENTEEN ( 17) NORTH, RANGE
THIRTY (30) WEST, CONTAINING 19.99 ACRES, MORE OR LESS WASHINGTON COUNTY,
ARKANSAS, ALSO BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS : BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER
2
OF SAID 20 ACRE TRACT, SAID POINT BEING IN SALEM ROAD AND FROM WHICH A %" IRON
REBAR REFERENCE IRON SET ON THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SAID ROAD BEARS
N89049'03"W 47.89 FEET; THENCE N89049'03"W 1317.83 FEET TO THE SOUTH WEST CORNER OF
SAID 20 ACRE TRACT, SAID POINT BEING IN COUNTY ROAD #894 AND FROM WHICH A 1 /2"
IRON REBAR REFERENCE IRON SET ON THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SAID COUNTY ROAD
BEARS S89049'03"E 31 .88 FEET; THENCE N00017'49"E 659.59 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER
20 ACRE TRACT AND FROM WHICH AN EXISTING REFERENCE IRON ON THE EAST RIGHT-OF-
WAY OF SAID COUNTY ROAD BEARS S89053103"E 27.91 FEET; THENCE S89°53 '03"E 1320.09 FEET
TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID 20 ACRE TRACT, SAID POINT BEING IN SALEM ROAD
AND FROM WHICH A 1/2" IRON REBAR REFERENCE IRON SET ON THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF
SAID ROAD BEARS N89053 '03"W 50.49 FEET; THENCE S00029' 33"W 661 . 13 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING. THE ABOVE DESCRIBED 19.99ACRE TRACT BEING SUBJECT TO THE RIGHT-OF-
WAY OF SALEM ROAD ALONG THE ENTIRE EAST BOUNDARY AND COUNTY ROAD #894 ALONG
THE ENTIRE WEST BOUNDARY.
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:
DEDICATED RIGHT-OF-WAY DESCRIPTION
A PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SEI/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SEI /4) OF
SECTION THIRTY (30), TOWNSHIP SEVENTEEN ( 17) NORTH, RANGE THIRTY (30) WEST, BEING
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER
OF SAID 40 ACRE TRACT; THENCE S00° 10'47"E 1315. 16 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
SAID 40 ACRE TRACT; THEN S89°50'20"W 45.44 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID 40 ACRE
TRACT TO THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WEST SALEM ROAD; THEN N00°05 '59"W 1217.60
FEET ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE TO AN EXISTING IRON REBAR AT THE BEGINNING OF
A TANGENT 149.95 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST; THEN
NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND RIGHT-OF-WAY 106.28 FEET, THE CHORD FOR
WHICH BEING N20012918"E 104.07 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID 40 ACRE
TRACT; THEN N89°54'26"E 7.52 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
Washington County, AR
I certify this instrument was filed on
03/17/2008 03: 17:18 PM
and recorded in Real Estate
File Number 200e-000109
Bette Stamps - Circui C
by
D �
City of Fayetteville
Staff Review Form A33
City Council Agenda Items ,4iVVbb" 15y0
orK/Q�r��3
Contracts U
7-Feb-06
City Council Meeting Date
Jeremy Pate Planning Operations
Submitted By Division Department
Action Required:
ANX 06- 1853 (Nock/Broyles, 206/205): Submitted by Nock Broyles Land Development, LLC for property located north of
Weir Road and east of Salem Road and Howard Nickell Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains
approximately 39. 1 I acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville.
$0.00 n/a n/a
Cost of this request Category/Project Budget Program Category / Project Name
n/a n/a n/a
Account Number Funds Used to Date Program / Project Category Name
n/a n/a n/a
$
Project Number Remaining Balance Fund Name
Budgeted Item Budget Adjustment Attached
Previous Ordinance or Resolution # n/a
&q 6'
Department Director Date Original Contract Date: n/a
Original Contract Number: n/a
City Attorr
Received in City lsftreb
Finance an Internal Service Director Date
Received in Mayor's Office od
Mayor/ Date —
Comments:
City Council Meeting of February 7, 2006
Agenda Item Number
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
To: Mayor and City Council
Thru: Gary Dumas, Director of Operations
From: Jeremy C. Pate, Director of Current Planning
Date: January 18, 2006
Subject: Annexation for Nock/Broyles (ANX 06- 1853)
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the subject annexation request
submitted by Nock Broyles Land Development, LLC for approximately 39. 11 acres of
property located east and west of Salem Road. This action will incorporate the 39. 11 -
acres of land within the City of Fayetteville. Planning Staff originally recommended
denial of the requested annexation, finding that the proposal did not meet several of the
annexation guiding policies established by the City Council.
BACKGROUND
The property is located within the Planning. Area and currently undeveloped. One of the
tracts of land is adjacent to the city limits at the southeast corner of the property with the
second tract adjoining the first at its northwest corner. Surrounding properties include
Raven Subdivision and Benton Development Subdivision (currently under construction)
and Crystal Springs Subdivision to the southeast.
The applicant requests annexation of the property into the City of Fayetteville. The
applicant intends to develop the property for residential use within the City of
Fayetteville and has requested a rezoning to RSF-4.
DISCUSSION
This item was heard at the regular Planning Commission on January 9, 2006. The
Planning Commission voted 6- 1 -0 to recommend approval of this annexation request to
the City Council, with Commissioner Ostner voting no.
The Planning Commission discussed the overall trend of growth in the city and County.
Although this property may not be contiguous to the city limits, it has the potential for
development whether or not it is incorporated within the city. A majority of the Planning
Commission voted to annex the property and recommended a zoning district of RSF-2.
Planning Staff had recommended denial of the incorporation of this property into the City
of Fayetteville finding that annexation of the property will create what are in essence two
City Council Meeting of February 7, 2006
Agenda Item Number
undesirable peninsulas of city property within the Planning Area and does not meet the
objective of the City's Annexation Policy. Staff recommended that the applicant further
investigate the possibility of incorporating surrounding land if adjacent owners to the
south would also seek annexation of their properties. Staff does find that incorporation of
this area in general is important; however, it should involve a comprehensive planning
approach that does not create potential issues with infrastructure improvements and
public service response.
BUDGETIMPACT
None.
ORDINANCE NO,
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED
IN ANNEXATION PETITION ANX 06- 1853, FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED NORTH OF WEIR ROAD AND EAST OF SALEM ROAD
AND HOWARD NICKELL ROAD, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY
39. 11 ACRES
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1 : That the City Council hereby confirms the annexation to the City of
Fayetteville, Arkansas, of that property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a
part hereof.
Section 2: That the official map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, is hereby
amended to reflect the change provided in Section 1 above.
Section 3 : That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas is
hereby amended to assign the zoning designation of R-A, Residential Agricultural to the
subject property.
Section 4: That the above-described property is hereby assigned to Ward No. Four.
PASSED and APPROVED this Th day of January, 2006.
APPROVED:
DAFT
By:
DAN COODY, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk
EXHIBIT "A"
ANX 06-1853
A PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SEI /4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER
(SEI /4) OF SECTION THIRTY (30), TOWNSHIP SEVENTEEN ( 17) NORTH, RANGE
THIRTY (30) WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID 40 ACRE TRACT, SAID POINT,,BEING AN
EXISTING STONE MONUMENT; THENCE S00° 16'33"E 653 .55 E> tALONG THE
WEST LINE OF SAID 40 ACRE TRACT TO AN EXISTING •- N; THENCE Nz�
N89050' 16"E 972.02 FEET TO A SET 1 /2" IRON REBA OR Ta ' TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 579.93 FEET TO AS T 2" IRO ' BAR; THENCE
EAST 302. 17 FEET TO AN EXISTING IRON REBA s I . E WES GHT—OF—WAY
LINE OF WEST SALEM ROAD, SAID POINT BEING ON A 149.95 FE DIUS
CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST; T CE SOUTHWESTERL LONG
SAID CURVE AND RIGHT—OF—WAY LINE 24.7 ET, CHORD FO WHICH
BEING SO4 _38 '04"W 24.75 FEET, TO AN EXIST r a REBAR AT THE POINT OF
TANGENCY OF SAID CURVE; THENCE S00'05359" . ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY
LINE 554.40 FEET TO AN EXISTINGIR�ONTHENCE - AV G SAID RIGHT-OF-
WAY LINE, WEST. S89°50' 16"W 301 1-k O THE PO OF BEGINNING;,
CONTAINING 4.00 ACRES, MORE ORSSW ING ON COUNTY, ARKANSAS. :
THE ABOVE DESCRIBED 4A • CRE T T BE BJECT TO A TWENTY (20) >
FOOT WIDE UTILITY EASE E IN FR OR SAS WESTERN GAS CO.
ALONG THE EAST BOUNDARYND ANY OTHER EASEMENTS AND/OR RIGHTS-
OF-WAY WHETHEg.O NOT OF RECORD.
- - .
APART OFrTEIE'_SOU HEA C<3UARTER (SE 1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER
(SEI/4) 0 CTIO T IRTY (30 TO WNSHIRSEVENTEEN (17) NORTH, RANGE
THIRTWFf(30) WEST, WASHINGCOUNTY ARKANSAS, BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF�SAID 40 ACRE TRACT, SAID POINT BEING AN EXISTING STONE
MONUMENT;�THENCEfN89°54 '26"E 1311 .28 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF
SAID 40 ACRE T.". 0 A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WEST
SALEM ROAD, SANIDPOINT BEING ON A 149.95 FEET RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE
TO THE SOUTHEAST AND FROM WHICH AN EXISTING REFERENCE IRON BEARS
S89054'26"W 40.06 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE 81 .50 FEET, THE CHORD FOR WHICH BEING S24056121 "W
80.50 FEET, TO AN EXISTING IRON REBAR; THENCE LEAVING SAID CURVE AND
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, WEST 302. 17 FEET TO A SET %" IRON REBAR; THENCE
SOUTH 579.93 FEET TO A SET ''/2" IRON REBAR; THENCE S89°50'16"W 972.02
FEET TO AN EXISTING IRON ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID 40 ACRE TRACT;
THENCE N00016'33"W 653 .55 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING
15 . 12 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS. THE ABOVE
DESCRIBED 15 . 12 ACRE TRACT BEING SUBJECT TO A THIRTY (30) FOOT WIDE
ACCESS EASEMENT ALONG THE ENTIRE NORTH BOUNDARY, A TWENTY (20)
FOOT WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT IN FAVOR OR ARKANSAS WESTERN GAS CO.
ALONG THE NORTH AND EAST BOUNDARY, AND ANY OTHER EASEMENTS
AND/OR RIGHTS-OF-WAY WHETHER OR NOT OF RECORD.
THE SOUTH HALF (S1 /2) OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SWI/4) OF THE SOUTH
WEST QUARTER (SWI /4) OF SECTION TWENTY-NINE (29), TOWNSHIP
SEVENTEEN ( 17) NORTH, RANGE THIRTY (30) WEST, CONTAINING 19.99 ACRES,
MORE OR LESS WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, ALSO BEING DESCRIBED
AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER O SAID 20 ACRE
TRACT, SAID POINT BEING IN SALEM ROAD AND FROM I @ ''/y" IRON.
REBAR REFERENCE IRON SET ON THE WEST RIGHT-O ' 7OF-8AID4R)DklBt'T f ,N 'rur ,vr!
BEARS N89049'03"W 47.89 FEET; THENCE N89°49'03" 3 FEET TO THE
SOUTH WEST CORNER OF SAID 20 ACRE TRACT, A POINT : ING IN COUNTY
ROAD #894 AND FROM WHICH A 1 /2" IRON REB .,ERENC ' ON SET ON
THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SAID COUNTYR,OAD BEARS S89° 9 3"E,31 .88
FEET; THENCE N00° 17'49"E 659.59 FEET TO TaIYE NO HWEST CO i, : R 20 ACRE
TRACT AND FROM WHICH AN EXISTING FWTWN i ON ON TI EAST
RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SAID COUNTY ROAD BEARq`8 °53 03"E 27.91 FEET;
THENCE S89053103"E 1320.09 FEET O THE NORTHFt ST CORNER OF SAID 20
ACRE TRACT, SAID POINT BEING IN . rAI EM ROAD�D F OM WHICH A 1 /2"
IRON REBAR REFERENCE IRON SENO IIE WEST RIC -OF-WAY-OF SAID
ROAD BEARS N89053503"W 50.49 FEETkTH�s C� S00°2 r33"W 661513FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING. T BOVE D CRTBED 1 ACRE TRACT;BEING
SUBJECT TO THE RIGH, - ' AY OF S EM RO ALONG THE- ENTIRE EAST
BOUNDARY AND CC TY RO D #894 AMONG THE ENTIRE WEST BOUNDARY.
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOW
DEDICATED�I2LC jffl-OF-WA ESCRIPTION
A PARTjOI THE SO p66EAST + rAt1�TER (SEI/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER
(SEl/�4,),OFF SECTION TI=II TY (30� , TOWNSHIP SEVENTEEN ( 17) NORTH, RANGE
THIRTYN 30fWEST, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED, 4S FOLLOWS:
BEGINNIG AT THE NOHEAST CORNER OF SAID 40 ACRE TRACT; THENCE
S00010 '4TIE 1315. 16 FEE, TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID 40 ACRE
TRACT; THEN 589520"W 45.44 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID 40
ACRE TRACT TO) HE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WEST SALEM ROAD;
THEN N00005 '59"W 1217.60 FEET ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE TO AN
EXISTING IRON REBAR AT THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 149.95 FOOT
RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST; THEN NORTHEASTERLY
ALONG SAID CURVE AND RIGHT-OF-WAY 106.28 FEET, THE CHORD FOR WHICH
BEING N20012' 18"E 104.07 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID 40
ACRE TRACT; THEN N89054'26"E 7.52 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
•
yePC Meeting of January 06, 2006
ARKANSAS
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 125 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE Telephone: (479) 575-8267
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission
FROM: Suzanne Morgan, Current Planner
THRU: Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning
DATE: December 27, 2005 Updated January 16, 2006
ANX 06-1853 : (NOCK/BROYLES SALEM RD., 205/206): Submitted by CRITICAL PATH
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT for property located at N & E OF WEIR RD AND HOWARD
NICKELL RD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 39. 11 acres. The
request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville.
Planner: SUZANNE MORGAN
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the requested annexation finding that it would create an
undesirable peninsula of City property and an unusual city boundary.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: 'Required YES
✓ Approved ' O Denied
Date: January 06, 2005 Motion to Approve: Clark
Second: Myres
Vote: 6-1-0 with Commissioner Oster voting no.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Required YES
O Approved O Denied
Date: _ Februam07 2006 Wt reading if recommended)
BACKGROUND:
Property Description: The subject property contains two parcels consisting of a total 39. 11 acres.
The request has been submitted by Nock Broyles Land Development, LLC. The property is located
within the Planning Area and currently undeveloped. One of the tracts of land is adjacent to the city
limits at the southeast corner of the property with the second tract adjoining the first at its northwest
corner. Surrounding properties include Raven Subdivision and Benton Development Subdivision
(currently under construction) and Crystal Springs Subdivision to the southeast.
KtReporv120061PC Reporo101-09-06UNX06-1853 fNodoBroyles Salem Rd).doc
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning
Direction from Site Land Use Zoning
North Rural residential / a icultural Plannin Area
South Rural residential / a ricultural Planning Area
East Rural residential / a ricultural Planning Area
West Rural residential / agricultural
Planning Area
Proposal: The applicant proposes annexation of 39. 11 acres into the City of Fayetteville.
Public Comment: Staff has received no written public comment concerning the requested
annexation.
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Streets: The site has access to Weir, Howard Nickel, and Salem Road. Improvements will be
required to surrounding streets which includes off-site improvements. An evaluation
will be made by staff at the time of preliminary plat or large scale development.
Nearby Master Street Plan Streets
Direction Street Name Master Street Plan Classification
South Weir Rd. Collector Street
East/West Salem Rd. Princi al Arterial
East Salem Rd.' Collector Street
Water: Public water is near to the site. Substantial improvements to the water system will
be required which includes off-site improvements. An evaluation will be made by
staff at the time of preliminary plat or large scale development.
Sewer: Sanitary sewer is not near to the site. Substantial improvements to the sewer system
will be required which includes off-site improvements. This development will be
within the sewer assessment area. An evaluation will be made by staff at the time of
preliminary plat or large scale development. A study of the downstream system shall
be conducted by the developer.
Drainage: Runoff from most of the site flows overland to the south. Standard improvements
and requirements for drainage will be required for the development.
Fire:
These 39. 11 acres are covered by Engine 7 at 835 N Rupple.
It is 3.4 miles from the station with an anticipated response time of 8.75 minutes.
This long response time is due to Rupple Road being narrow and curvy. Engine 2, on
N Garland, has approximately the same response time. This response time is above
our goal of having the first unit on the scene within 6 minutes, 90% of the time, and
our goal of assembling all responding units to the scene of a moderate risk assignment
within 10 minutes, 90% of the time. It has been proposed (Fayetteville Fire
K:IReportt120061PC Reporb101-09-06NNX06-1853 (Nook-Broyles Salem Rd).doc
Department: Deployment Study 2003) to build a fire station (Station 9) to cover this
northwest part of the city.
The Fire Department anticipates 35 (21 EMS — 14 Fire/Other) calls for service per
year once the development is completed and maximum build -out has occurred. The
service impact of this type development will typically take eighteen months after the
development is started, and the units begin to be occupied, to occur.
Measured hydrant flow in this area is 805 gallons/minute.
There should be no adverse effects on our call volume to this development.
Police: It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that this annexation will not
substantially alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on
police services.
LAND USE PLAN: General Plan 2020 identifies the portion of this property within the Planning
Area as Residential.
FINDINGS:
11.6 ANNEXATION GUIDING POLICIES
BOUNDARIES
11.6.a Annex existing islands and peninsulas and do not annex areas that would create an
island or peninsula.
Finding: Annexation of the.property will create what is in essence two undesirable
peninsulas of city property within the Planning Area. Staff finds that the
incorporation of property which would result in the creation of peninsulas does
not meet the objective of the City's Annexation Policy and suggests the
applicant further evaluate the situation to determine if adjacent owners to the
south would also seek annexation of their properties. Staff has previously met
with the petitioners and informed them of this recommendation and city policy
regarding the discouragement of annexations which would create peninsulas.
Staff does find that incorporation of this area in general is important; however,
it should involve a comprehensive planning approach.
11.6.b Proposed annexation area must be adjacent, or contiguous, to city limits.
Finding: One of the approximately 20 acre tracts is adjacent to the city limits only at the
southeastern corner of the property. The second 20 acre tract of property
adjoins the first at the formers' southeastern -most corner. The proposed
annexation is not consistent with the intent of this guiding policy, for it creates
pockets of city property fully surrounded by a separate jurisdiction,
Washington County.
11.6.c Areas should either include or exclude entire subdivisions or neighborhoods, not
divide.
K: IRepons12006NC Reportsl0l-09-06NN,Y06-1853 (Nodc-Broyles Salem Rd).doc
Finding: This area does not consist of defined subdivisions or neighborhoods. It is
currently rural agricultural. However, future development plans may include
the development of subdivisions which are not contiguous to any property
similarly developed.
11.6.d Boundaries for annexed areas should follow natural corridors.
Finding: Proposed boundaries follow property lines of the existing parcels, not natural
corridors.
11.6.e Timing of services within annexation areas should be considered.
Finding: Current conditions result in a response time of 8.75 minutes for fire
protection from Fire Station #2 and #7. Water would need to be provided to
the development; current hydrant flow measures 805 gallons/minute. An
extension of the water main will be required to provide water supply and fire
protection within any development on this property.
Sanitary sewer and public water are not near to the site. Substantial
improvements to the sewer and water system will be required which includes
off -site improvements. This development will be within the server assessment
area.
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
11.6. f Annex environmentally sensitive areas that could be impacted by development and
utilize appropriate development regulations to protect those areas.
Finding: The property consists of cleared pasture land with some scattered single family
residences and accessory structures. No information has been presented to
designate the subject property environmentally sensitive. Incorporation of this
property would allow for the requirement of parks, open space and. tree
preservation.
EMERGENCY AND PUBLIC SERVICES
11.6.g Public services must be able to be provided efficiently in newly annexed areas.
Finding: Water and sewer lines are not accessible without extending public facilities
through adjacent properties within the Planning Area. The police department
reports that current levels of service would not be compromised and that
coverage in this area can be provided. Fire service may also be provided to the
site. In order to provide safe and efficient emergency response streets within the
Planning Area will need to be substantially improved.
K:IReporrs110061IC Reports10l-09-06WNX06-4853 (Nod* -Broyles Salem Rd).doc
11.6.h Annexed areas should receive the same level of service of areas already in the city
limits.
Finding: Fire and police service will be required to be provided to this area with the same
level of response and service as other properties in this area, if annexed in the
City of Fayetteville. This area currently lies nearby areas already being served
by the city; however, to extend services to the subject property, city vehicles will
be required to transit through the County.
11.6.i The ability to provide public services should be evaluated in terms of equipment,
training of personnel, number of units and response time.
Finding: These factors were taken into consideration in the responses and
recommendations included in this report.
INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES
11.6.j Areas currently served by utilities and other public services should be annexed.
Finding: Water, sewer, fire and police protection are currently provided to developed
areas to the southeast of the subject property.
11.6.k Proposed annexation areas should not require the upgrading of utilities to meet the
demands of development unless there is a threat to public safety.
Finding: Annexation and future development of this property will resuittinsandnoaeased : -r cmmenc
demand on the existing infrastructure systems. Improvements to sewer and
street systems and installation of fire hydrants would be made necessary by the
annexation should development occur on the subject property. Annexation of
the subject property would require the extension of utilities within the Planning
avrt.n tui.. Area as the property is not adjacent to the city limits except at oneipaint • - •.• , w:.ecet
11.6.1 Phased annexation should be initiated by the City within active annexation areas
based on planned service extensions or availability of services.
Finding: The proposed annexation is not part of a phased annexation initiated by the
City.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
11.6.m Promote long-range planning with adjacent jurisdictions.
Finding: N/A
K:IReportsl2006tPC ReportsI0I-09-06WNX 06-1853 (Nod -Broyles Salem Rd).doc
11.6.n Establish agreements to address regional concerns, such as water, stormwater and sewer.
Finding: N/A
ADMINISTRATION OF ANNEXATIONS
11.6.o Designate zoning districts for the property during the annexation process.
Finding: Annexations are automatically zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural. The
property owners request annexation and rezoning of this property to RSF-4,
Residential single family - 4 units/acre.
11.6.p An annexation study should be completed on all annexation proposals.
Finding: Planning staff has asked the Engineering Division, Fire Department and Police
Department to study this annexation request to determine if facilities and
services are available to serve this property.
11.6.q Development proposals require a separate review from the annexation proposals.
Finding: Development of this property has not been proposed at this time. At the time
the applicant desires to develop the property, the applicant will be required to
submit project plans for review and approval by the Planning Commission.
11.6.r Residents should be fully informed of annexation activities.
Inereasen Findings .- •'•Adjoining neighbors -have been notified of4hevannexatian1requesbuAtlegalSe siren IMncr
and display have both been submitted with a local newspaper prior to the
Planning Commission meeting for which this item is scheduled.
11.6.w Encourage larger annexations to create acceptable boundaries.
1NNt.
Finding: Although
the amount of
property requested to
be annexed is large, it=would
create an
unacceptable
boundary and create
potential complications for
emergency services and extension of city infrastructure. Obtaining support
from adjacent property owners to the south in order to provide annexation of a
larger parcel of land that would extend south to the current city limits would
better conform to the annexation policy adopted by the City Council.
Annexation of property that would create an oddly configured peninsula of city
property that is not consistent with the Annexation Policy.
11.6.t Conduct a fiscal impact assessments on large annexations.
Finding: No fiscal impact assessment was conducted for this annexation of 39.98 acres.
K:IReports120061PC Reporrs101-09-06WIVX 06-/853 (Nod -Broyles Salem Rd).doc
From Fayetteville General Plan 2020 — 2002 Revision
11.6 Annexation Guiding Policies
Boundaries
1 1.6.a Annex existing islands and peninsulas and do not annex areas that would create an island or
peninsula.
1.6.b Proposed annexation area must be adjacent, or contiguous, to city limits.
11.6.c Areas should either include or exclude entire subdivisions or neighborhoods, not divide.
11.6.d Boundaries for annexed areas should follow natural corridors.
11.6.e Timing of services within annexation areas should be considered.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
11.6. f Annex environmentally sensitive areas that could be impacted by development and utilize
appropriate development regulations to protect those areas.
Emergency and Public Services
11.6.g Public services must be able to be provided efficiently in newly annexed areas.
11.6.h Annexed areas should receive the same level of service of areas already in the city limits.
11.6.1 The ability to provide public services should be evaluated in terms of equipment, training of
personnel, number of units acid response time.
Infrastructure and Utilities
I1.6.j Areas currently served by utilities and other public services should be annexed.
11.6.k Proposed annexation areas should not require the upgrading of utilities to meet the demands
of development unless there is a threat to public safety.
11.6.1 Phased annexation should be initiated by the City within active annexation areas based on
planned service extensions or availability of services.
Intergovernmental Relations
I 1.6.m Promote long-range planning with adjacent jurisdictions.
I I.6.n Establish agreements to address regional concerns, such as water, stormwater and "sewer..:
Administration of Annexations
1 I.6.o Designate zoning districts for the property during the annexation process.
1 l.6.p An annexation study should be completed on all annexation proposals.
11.6.q Development proposals require a separate review from the annexation proposals.
I 1.6.r Residents should be fully informed of annexation activities.
11.6.w Encourage larger annexations to create acceptable boundaries.
11.6.t Conduct a fiscal impact assessments on large annexations.
K: IRepor[st20061PC Reporls101-09-06WNX 06-1853 (Node -Broyles Salem Rd).doc
Iil
To: Suzanne Morgan, Andrew Garner, Jeremy Pate, and Jesse Fulcher
Thru: Chief Tony Johnson
From: Captain Dale Riggins
Date: January 5, 2006
Re: January 3, 2006 Re -zoning Review - Fire Department Comments
ANX06-1853 (Nock/Broyles Salem Rd, 205/206)
RZN06-1854 (Nock/Broyles Salem Rd, 205/206)
These 39.11 acres are covered by Engine 7 at 835 N Rupple.
It is 3.4 miles from the station with an anticipated response time of 8.75 minutes. This
long response time is due to Rupple Road being narrow and curvy. Engine 2, on N
Garland, has approximately the same response time. This response time is above our
goal of having the first unit on the scene within 6 minutes, 90% of the time, and our goal
of assembling all responding units to the scene of a moderate risk assignment within 10
minutes, 90% of the time. It has been proposed (Fayetteville Fire Department:
Deployment Study 2003) to build a fire station (Station 9) to cover this northwest part of
the city.
The Fire Department anticipates 35 (21 EMS — 14 Fire/Other) calls for service per year
once the development is completed and maximum build -out has occurred. The service
impact of this type development will typically take eighteen months after the
development is started, and the units begin to be occupied, to occur.
Measured hydrant flow in this area is 805 gallons/minute.
There should be no adverse effects on our call volume to this development.
If you have any questions or need additional information don't hesitate to call me at x365
male &qq�ss
Fayetteville Fire Department
Nock/Broyles Salem Road
ANX06-1853
RZN06-1854
3.4 Miles from Station 7
9 Minute Response Time
(Blue line indicates 6 minute response time zone)
(Red Line indicates 10 minute response time zone)
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
January 3, 2006
Jeremy Pate
Zoning and Development Director
City of Fayetteville
113 W. Mountain
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
Dear Director Pate,
POLICE DEPARTMENT
This document is in response to the request for a determination of whether the proposed
Annexation and Rezoning ANX & RZN 06-1853 (Nock/Broyles Salem Rd., 205/206)
submitted by Critical Path Construction Management for property located at N & E of
Weir Rd and Howard Nickell Road would substantially alter.the population density and
thereby undesirably increase the load on public services or create an appreciable increase
in traffic danger and traffic congestion.
It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that this annexation and rezoning
will not substantially alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the
load on police services or create and appreciable increase in traffic danger and congestion
in the area.
Sincere�2'r^t/����
Captain William Brown
Fayetteville Police Department
IN THE COUNTY COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY; ARKANSAS
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF CERTAIN _
REAL PROPERTY FOR ANNEXATION TO THE �.. r
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS ^c, te'
CD HJ G :7
-fin 'v
a o .0
NO. CCa0OSyam ca
A r
ayv' m
eit 3 0
m
PETITION TO ANNEX TERRITORY TO !\ _+
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE WASHINGTON COUNTY ARKAN S .ti
The Petitioner, Nock -Broyles Land Development, LLC, an. Arkansas limited liability
company, hereby submits its Petition to annex certain real property into the City of Fayetteville,
Washington, County, Arkansas, pursuant to A.C.A. Section 14-40-601, et. Seq. as follows:
That Petitioner owns the real property described on the Plat Map, Exhibit "A",
attached hereto and made a part hereof (the "Real Property"), and said Real Property
is situated in Washington County, Arkansas, and is contiguous with the City of
Fayetteville, Arkansas, and is within the City of Fayetteville, School District.
2. The Petitioner names James Atwood, Attorney at Law, P.A. as the person authorized
to act on its behalf with respect to this Petition.
3. The Petitioner desires that the Real Property become part of the City of Fayetteville,
Arkansas, and petitions the County Judge for annexation of the Real Property into the
City of Fayetteville.
4- A true and correct presentation of the Real Property and how it is contiguous to the
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas is shown on the Plat Map, Exhibit "A", attached hereto.
5. The Petitioner herein desires that the Real Property become part of the City of
Fayetteville, Washington County, Arkansas, and Petitioner states that it will do any
and all legal acts necessary to accomplish the objective set forth herein.
Page I of 2
• T)
THEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully prays that this Court set a hearing, and after
notice of such hearing, that the County Judge sign an Order annexing the above described
Real Property into the City of Fayetteville, Washington County,. Arkansas, and to order such
other relief as is appropriate under applicable law. _
Respectfully executed this?? day of 2005.
Hank Broyles, Mang Member of
Broyles CommefI'al Funding, LLC, which
is the Member of Nock -Broyles Land
Development, LLC authorized to execute
this petition
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, a No Public, on this the Z7day ofMy Commission Expires:
JAMES ATWOOD
NOTARY PUBUC-ARKANSAS
WASHINGTON COUNTY
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 08-31-15
Page 2 o12 2
IN THE COUNTY COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF CERTAIN
i_. J � Vl
PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, z z
WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS - I
NO. CC____fC/?yr m
G a
m t v
cwrnrrn A lrtCr�n.r tin wpm T.�. --------------- m
The Petitioner, Nock -Broyles Land Development, LLC, an Arkansas limited liability
company, hereby amends its petition to annex certain property into the City of Fayetteville,
Washington, County, Arkansas, pursuant to A.C.A. Section 14-40-601, et. Seq. as follows:
That Petitioner on the 29* day of September, 2005 filed a petition to annex certain
lands into the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, under A.C.A. Section 14-40-601, et.
Seq., and Petitioner filed an amendment to the Petition amending the legal
description of the lands on October 13, 2005 (the "First Amendment").
2. That Petitioner hereby amends its original petition to annex and the First Amendment
and in so doing amends the legal description of the lands to be annexed so that the
legal description shall be in the form as provided in Exhibit A to this amendment.
3. Other than as to the amended legal description set forth in Exhibit A, the -Petitioner.
hereby incorporates and reaffirms all aspects of its original petition and the First
Amendment.
Page I of 2
Respectfully executed this /'fday of UC'I≥iJ UEI'C ,2005.
Hank Broyles, M nagi Member of
Broyles Commercial riding, LLC, which
is the Member of Nock -Broyles Land
Development, LLC authorized to execute
this petition
SUB CRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, a Notary Public, on this the i gday of
O Anl& , 2005.
My Commission Expires:
OFFICIAL SEAL
JAMES ATWOOD
NOTARY PUBLIC -ARKANSAS
WASHINGTON COUNTY
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 08-31-15
Page 2 of 2
C.
E41b:f A'
A PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER
(SEI%4) OF SECTION THIRTY (30), TOWNSHIP SEVENTEEN (17) NORTH, RANGE
THIRTY (30) WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF SAID 40 ACRE TRACT, SAID POINT BEING AN EXISTING STONE
MONUMENT; THENCE S00° 16'33"E 653.55 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID 40
ACRE TRACT TO AN EXISTING IRON; THENCE N89°50' l6"E 972.02 FEET TO A SET '/,"
IRON REBAR FOR THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 579.93 FEET TO
A SET v," IRON REBAR; THENCE EAST 302.17 FEET. TO AN EXISTING IRON REBAR
ON THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WEST SALEM ROAD, SAID POINT BEING ON
A 149.95 FEET RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST: THENCE
SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE 24.78 FEET, THE
CHORD FOR WHICH BEING SO4°38'04"W 24.75 FEET, TO AN EXISTING IRON REBAR
AT THE POINT OF TANGENCY OF SAID CURVE; THENCE S00°05'59"E ALONG SAID
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE 554.40 FEET TO AN EXISTING IRON; THENCE LEAVING SAID
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, WEST S89°50' 16"W 301.14 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING,
CONTAINING 4.00 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS.
THE ABOVE DESCRIBED 4.00 ACRE TRACT BEING SUBJECT TO A TWENTY (20)
FOOT WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT IN FAVOR OR ARKANSAS WESTERN GAS CO.
ALONG THE EAST BOUNDARY AND ANY OTHER EASEMENTS AND/OR RIGHTS -OF -
WAY WHETHER OR NOT OF RECORD.
A PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SEI/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER
(SE 1/4) OF SECTION THIRTY (30), TOWNSHIP SEVENTEEN (17) NORTH; RANGE
THIRTY (30) WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF SAID 40 ACRE TRACT, SAID POINT BEING AN EXISTING STONE
MONUMENT; THENCE N89°5426"E 1311.28 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID
40 ACRE TRACT TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WEST SALEM
ROAD, SAID POINT BEING ON A 149.95 FEET RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE TO THE
SOUTHEAST AND FROM. WHICH AN EXISTING REFERENCE IRON BEARS
589°54'26"W 40.06 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE 81.50 FEET, THE CHORD FOR WHICH BEING S24°56'2I "W 80.50
FEET, TO AN EXISTING IRON REBAR; THENCE LEAVING SAID CURVE AND RIGHT-
OF-WAY LINE, WEST 302.17 FEETTO A SET''/" IRON REBAR; THENCE SOUTH 579.93
FEET TO A SET /2' IRON REBAR; THENCE S89°50' 16"W 972.02 FEET TO AN EXISTING
IRON ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID 40 ACRE TRACT; THENCE N00° 16'33"W 653.55
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 15.12 ACRES, MORE OR LESS,
WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS. THE ABOVE DESCRIBED 15.12 ACRE TRACT
BEING SUBJECT TO A THIRTY (30) FOOT WIDE ACCESS EASEMENT ALONG THE
ENTIRE NORTH BOUNDARY, A TWENTY (20) FOOT WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT IN
FAVOR OR ARKANSAS WESTERN GAS CO. ALONG THE NORTH AND EAST
BOUNDARY, AND ANY OTHER EASEMENTS AND/OR RIGHTS -OF -WAY WHETHER
OR NOT OF RECORD.
I' FIE SOUTH HALF (S1/2) OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SWI/4) OF THE SOUTHWEST
)UkRTER (SW 1/4) OF SECTION TWENTY -MINE (29), TOWNSHIP SEVENTEEN (17) NORTI I,
RANGE THIRTY (30) WEST, CONTAINING 19.99 ACRES, MORE OR LESS WASHINGTON
:.OUNTY, ARKANSAS, ALSO BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID 20 ACRE TRACT, SAID POINT BEING IN SALEM ROAD
AND FROM WHICH A '/2" IRON REBAR REFERENCE IRON SET ON THE WEST RIGHT-OF-
WAY OF SAID ROAD BEARS N89°49'03"W 47.89 FEET; THENCE N89°49'03"W 1317.83. FEET
TO THE SOUTH WEST CORNER OF SAID 20 ACRE TRACT, SAID POINT BEING IN COUNTY
ROAD'tt894 AND FROM WHICH AW' IRON REBAR REFERENCE IRON SET ON THE EAST
RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SAID COUNTY ROAD BEARS S89°49'03"E 31.88 FEET; THENCE
N00°17'49"E 659.59 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER 20 ACRE TRACT AND FROM
WHICH AN EXISTING REFERENCE IRON ON THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SAID COUNTY
ROAD BEARS S89°53'03"E 27.91 FEET; THENCE S89°53'03"E 1320.09 FEET TO THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID 20 ACRE TRACT, SAID POINT BEING IN SALEM ROAD
AND FROM WHICH A''/2" IRON REBAR REFERENCE IRON SET ON THE WEST RIGHT-OF-
WAY OF SAID ROAD BEARS N89°53'03"W 50.49 FEET; THENCE SOO°29'33"W 661.13 FEED
TO THE. POINT OF BEGINNING. THE ABOVE DESCRIBED 19.99ACRE TRACT BEING
SUBJECT TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SALEM ROAD ALONG THE ENTIRE EAST
BOUNDARY AND COUNTY ROAD #894 ALONG THE ENTIRE WEST BOUNDARY.
Subject to the following:
DEDICATED RIGHT-OF-WAY DESCRIPTION
A PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER
(SEI /4) OF SECTION THIRTY (30), TOWNSHIP SEVENTEEN (1 7) NORTH, RANGE
THIRTY (30) WEST, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID 40 ACRE TRACT; THENCE
S00°10'47"E 1 31 5.16 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID 40 ACRE
TRACT; THENCE S89°50'20"W 45.44 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID 40
ACRE TRACT TO THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WEST SALEM ROAD; THENCE
N00°05'59'W 121 7.60 FEET ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE TO AN EXISTING
IRON REBAR AT THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 149.95 FOOT RADIUS CURVE
CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE
AND RIGHT-OF-WAY 106.28 FEET, THE CHORD FOR WHICH BEING N20°1 2' 18"E
104.07 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID 40 ACRE TRACT;
THENCE N89°54'26"E 7.52 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
ST i^"' EXHIBIT "A''
N _1gSy PROPERTY TO BE REZONED
AS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT
Pare dose �
7�y App nrs Signature
WASHINGTON COUNTY,
NO.^ CC
9 m o
C"
O '1
o cri r
tn
ORDER SETTING HEARING DATE o n a
n 7 3
o z
9c O
On this 29"' day of September, 2005, upon Petition to annex certain propertyArf The C of
Fayetteville, Washington County, Arkansas, pursuant to A.C.A. Section l4 -400t: Whe Geurt
finds as follows:
1. That Jerry Hunton, Washington County Judge, has consented and approved the
Petition, and pursuant to A.C.A. Secti'o 14-40-601 -th Court hereby sets a hearing
date on the Petition for the c ,day of , 2005, at
• /O.OD .m. at the Washington County Co house. And Petitioner is
directed to cause a notice of hearing to be published in a newspaper of general
• circulation in Washington County, Arkansas as is required by law.
IT IS SO ORDERED
RR H TO , County Judge
^� N
IN THE COUNTY COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY e'
m
C
IN THE MATTER OF: - c
�a
ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN LANDS TO THE cs o o w F
r
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
m 3
NO. CC2005-40 CD. —
rn
C
.4.
ORDER OF ANNEXATION
Now on this 2nd day of November, 2005, this cause comes on to be heard, the Petitioner, Nock -
Broyles Land Development, LLC, an Arkansas limited liability company, who is represented by
James E Atwood, Attorney at Law, P.A., after announcing the hearing of the cause and there being
no protests or objections, whereupon, the matter is submitted to the Court upon the Petition filed
herein, and the oral and documentary evidence having been adduced, the Court being well and
sufficiently advised finds:
The Petition in this cause was filed on the 29`' day of September, 2005 at which time
this Court fixed the 2nd day of November. 2005, at 10:00a.m., as the date and time of
hearing for said cause, and that a full notice of this hearing was given as required by
law and the proof of publication of said notice is now on file with the County Clerk
of this Court and the Court has jurisdiction of this cause.
2. The Court is satisfied that the allegations of the Petition are sustained by the proof,
that the limits of the territory to be annexed have been properly filed; that the
property owners have freehold interests in the property hereinafter described in the
Petition and constitute the real owners of the area affected.
3. The land proposed to be annexed to the City of Fayetteville, Washington County,
Page 1 of2
Arkansas, in this cause is described on "Exhibit A" attached hereto.
4. The area is not unusually large and it is contiguous and adjacent to and adjoins the
present corporate limits of the City of Fayetteville, and it is adapted for urban
purposes and this territory should be annexed to and made a part of the City of
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
IT IS THEREFORE, CONSIDERED, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the aforesaid
real estate situated in Washington County, Arkansas, is hereby annexed to and made a part of the
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, in accordance with Acct. No. 1 of the Acts of the Legislature of 1875
of the State of Arkansas, and all Acts amendatory thereto, particularly including Act 142 of the Acts
of Arkansas for the year 1953, as codified in Ark. Code Ann. § 14-40-601, et seq., and this Order shall
be duly recorded by the County Clerk of Washington C ty.
IT IS SO ORDERED this day of , 2005.
ile Jerry Hunton
County Judge
Page 2of2
a I
I
I
1
1 6g i
4
i •
D
:00
/
cv0O _o cm
I
I
1
1
91 nae.e
O .1
=1 Q u.
VI g
�� ,�\�• .6 as
Critical -Path Design
21 W. MOUNTAIN,
STE 121
Fayetteville, AR
727O1
«Z
1 0
A PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SEI/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER
(SEI/4) OF SECTION THIRTY (30), TOWNSHIP SEVENTEEN (17) NORTH, RANGE
THIRTY (30) WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF SAID 40 ACRE TRACT, SAID POINT BEING AN EXISTING STONE
MONUMENT; THENCE S00°1633"E 653.55 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID 40
ACRE TRACT TO AN EXISTING IRON; THENCE N89°50' 16"E 972.02 FEET TO A SET '/:"
IRON REBAR FOR THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 579.93 FEET TO
A SET'''A" IRON REBAR; THENCE EAST 302.17 FEET TO AN EXISTING IRON REBAR
ON THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WEST SALEM ROAD, SAID POINT BEING ON
A 149.95 FEET RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST; THENCE
SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE 24.78 FEET, THE
CHORD FOR WHICH BEING S04°38'04"W 24.75 FEET, TO AN EXISTING IRON REBAR
AT THE POINT OF TANGENCY OF SAID CURVE; THENCE S00°05'59"E ALONG SAID
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE 554.40 FEET TO AN EXISTING IRON; THENCE LEAVING SAID
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, WEST S89°50' I6"W 301.14 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING,
CONTAINING 4.00 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS.
THE ABOVE DESCRIBED 4.00 ACRE TRACT BEING SUBJECT TO A TWENTY (20)
FOOT WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT M FAVOR OR ARKANSAS WESTERN GAS CO.
ALONG THE EAST BOUNDARY AND ANY OTHER EASEMENTS AND/OR RIGHTS -OF -
WAY WHETHER OR NOT OF RECORD.
A PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER
(SEI/4) OF SECTION THIRTY (30), TOWNSHIP SEVENTEEN (17) NORTH, RANGE
THIRTY (30) WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF SAID 40 ACRE TRACT, SAID POINT BEING AN EXISTING STONE
MONUMENT; THENCE N89°54'26"E 1311.28 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID
40 ACRE TRACT TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WEST SALEM
ROAD, SAID POINT BEING ON A 149.95 FEET RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE TO THE
SOUTHEAST AND FROM WHICH AN EXISTING REFERENCE IRON BEARS
S89°54'26"W 40.06 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE 81.50 FEET, THE CHORD FOR WHICH BEING 524°56'21"W 80.50
FEET, TO AN EXISTING IRON REBAR; THENCE LEAVING SAID CURVE AND RIGHT-
OF-WAY LINE, WEST 302.17 FEET TO A SET V" IRON REBAR; THENCE SOUTH 579.93
FEET TO A SET 'G" IRON REBAR; THENCE S89°50'16"W 972.02 FEET TO AN EXISTING
IRON ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID 40 ACRE TRACT; THENCE N00° 16'33"W 653.55
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 15.12 ACRES, MORE OR LESS,
WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS. THE ABOVE DESCRIBED 15.12 ACRE TRACT
BEING SUBJECT TO A THIRTY (30) FOOT WIDE ACCESS EASEMENT ALONG THE
ENTIRE NORTH BOUNDARY, A TWENTY (20) FOOT WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT IN
FAVOR OR ARKANSAS WESTERN GAS CO. ALONG THE NORTH AND EAST
BOUNDARY, AND ANY OTHER EASEMENTS AND/OR RIGHTS -OF -WAY WHETHER
OR NOT OF RECORD.
Fl -BE SOUTH HALF (S1/2) OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW 1/4) OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER (SW I/4) OF SECTION TWENTY-NINE (29), TOWNSHIP SEVENTEEN (17) NORTH,
RANGE THIRTY (30) WEST, CONTAINING 19.99 ACRES, MORE OR LESS WASHINGTON
COUNTY, ARKANSAS, ALSO BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID 20 ACRE TRACT, SAID POINT BEING IN SALEM ROAD
AND FROM WHICH A'/2" IRON REBAR REFERENCE IRON SET ON THE WEST RIGHT-OF-
WAY OF SAID ROAD BEARS N89°49'03"W 47.89 FEET; THENCE N89°49'03"W 1317.83 FEET
TO THE SOUTH WEST CORNER OF SAID 20 ACRE TRACT, SAID POINT BEING IN COUNTY
ROAD #894 AND FROM WHICH A '/2" IRON REBAR REFERENCE IRON SET ON THE EAST
RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SAID COUNTY ROAD BEARS S89°49'03"E 31.88 FEET; THENCE
N00° 17'49"E 659.59 FEET TO TITS NORTHWEST CORNER 20 ACRE TRACT AND FROM
WHICH AN EXISTING REFERENCE IRON ON THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SAID COUNTY
ROAD BEARS S89°53'03"E 27.91 FEET; THENCE S89°53'03"E 1320.09 FEET TO THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID 20 ACRE TRACT, SAID POINT BEING IN SALEM ROAD
AND FROM WHICH A /2" IRON REBAR REFERENCE IRON SET ON THE WEST RIGHT-OF-
WAY OF SAID ROAD BEARS N89°53'03"W 50.49 FEET; THENCE S00°29'33"W 661.13 FEET
TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE ABOVE DESCRIBED 19.99ACRE TRACT BEING
SUBJECT TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SALEM ROAD ALONG THE ENTIRE EAST
BOUNDARY AND COUNTY ROAD #894 ALONG THE ENTIRE WEST BOUNDARY.
Subject to the following:
DEDICATED RIGHT-OF-WAY DESCRIPTION
A PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER
(SEI/4) OF SECTION THIRTY (30), TOWNSHIP SEVENTEEN (1 7) NORTH, RANGE
THIRTY (30) WEST, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID 40 ACRE TRACT; THENCE
S00°10'47"E 131 5.16 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID 40 ACRE
TRACT; THENCE S89°50'20"W 45.44 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID 40
ACRE TRACT TO THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WEST SALEM ROAD; THENCE
N00°05'59"W 121 7.60 FEET ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE TO AN EXISTING
IRON REBAR AT THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 149.95 FOOT RADIUS CURVE
CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE
AND RIGHT-OF-WAY 106.28 FEET, THE CHORD FOR WHICH BEING N20°12'I8"E
104.07 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID 40 ACRE TRACT;
THENCE N89°54'26"E 7.52 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
A
NNX06-1853 NOCK/BROYLES
Close Up View
,
Ii
.n' '1 ,' HOWARD NICK [:,
y N
W --------------
pt . NILLrRD.�Y➢;
CEDAR RIDGE W e
1
V
O2 r, ..
® • SALEM RD v •
SUBJECT PROPERTY
I
7WEIRRD�WEI��
rc WEIR RD
Q _ s
p m
• 2 D
&L
RSF4
Off -
0 ''''--.���' RSF-0
.•--- E RSF-4 ®
urtayLnL.-- B m �'
�•� W•: w.
RSFa •� I iri I '
ROUSE Rp--�I � � GRWSER0 IL
a I IN p
u. l• 'w, n t .i. t J �,. -
s. or �:- -, Legend
1f • . -' 0000
y._ -- n0000 Overlay U'sinct _____ LIMIT
— LIMIT STUDY
.. •.34: •.,�i. --�. _ _ BaseLirre Rolle
f.r
OFayetteville
�""'f� i22a vnt\ f hi as!•rc
® vegorGDO.
rOo ant �. C
'"l 0 250 500 1x000 1,500 2.000
tti-: c ,.s k'T' iY'..%i'yv >,, r;'•tY-'≥! FBeI
ANX03 853 NOCK/BROYLES SALEM RD.
Future Land Use
`... Planning Area
9OOO%
Streets o Overlay 0istricl
` \ , Existing Outside City
•
--- ` IePlanned
• Legend
0 200 400 800 1,200 1,60O
Feet
ANX06-1853 NOCK/BROYLES SALEM RD.
One Mile View
V-
r.
T1TTTc
Lt4:jL_9
L R _
SUBJECT PROPERTY
g]
1ILEIHi I n ..
O 1.
RSF-4
RW4
P-1
T3
Overview
RSFJ
Legend Boundary
Subject Property
ir�i Planning Area
ANXO6-1853 g000rd
OOoo000 overlay District
Outside City
Legend
0 0.120.25 0.5 0.75 1
i RA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES FOR
ANX 06-1853
RZN 06-1854
Planning Commission
January 9, 2006
Page 17
ANX 06-1853: (NOCK/BROYLES SALEM ROAD, 205/206): Submitted by
CRITICAL PATH CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT for property located at N & E
OF WEIR RD. AND HOWARD NICKELL ROAD. The property is in the Planning
Area and contains approximately 39.11 acres. The request is to annex the subject
property into the City of Fayetteville.
Morgan: The subject property contains several parcels totaling approximately 39
acres. The request is for annexation and rezoning to RSF-4. It has been
submitted by Nock Broyles Land Development LLC. The property is
located within the Planning Area and is currently undeveloped, except for
a few single family residences. One of the tracts, if you look on your
maps on page 18-20, you can see that this approximately 40 acres consists
of two larger rectangular 20 -acre tracts. The one to the southeast is
adjacent to city property at the very southeast corner, and the second
rectangular tract is adjacent to the first on the very northwest corner. It is
legally adjacent to the City; therefore the applicant did request de -
annexation from the County and has submitted an application to be
reviewed by the City for annexation. With review of our annexation
guiding policies, Staff finds the annexation of this property will create
what is in essence two undesirable peninsulas of City property within the
Planning Area. Most often any annexation will be some sort of peninsula.
This in essence creates two large 20 acre tracts that are surrounded by the
Planning Area on all sides. To develop these properties would require the
extension of City services outside of our City limits and the Planning
Area, as well as significant improvements to infrastructure, the streets
surrounding this area. We find that annexation of this property would
create an undesirable boundary and feel that if perhaps adjacent properties
to the south were approached, and all requested annexation, that
incorporation of this area in general is important and should be
approached in a comprehensive plan. To go over other Staff comments:
the Fire Department comments that response time is approximately 8.75
minutes to this property; the Police find that annexation of this property
would not create a substantial alteration in the population density. I would
like to review the rezoning request. The applicant has requested rezoning
to RSF-4. Staff finds that although this zoning district is comparable to
the adjacent properties in the City that are developing, since these areas
are surrounded by the Planning Areas on all sides, it would be in essence
very incompatible with the surrounding very rural development in the
area; therefore, Staff is recommending denial of both the annexation and
rezoning at this time.
Ostner: Thank you Ms. Morgan. Is the applicant present? If you would introduce
yourself and give us your presentation.
Planning Commission
January 9. 2006
Page /8
Broyles: My name is Hank Broyles. I am one of the owners of this property.
know that the City does not want to create peninsulas or islands when it
annexes, and that is a good guideline to follow when possible. In this
case, we think that this property is an omelet. If you want an omelet, you
have to break a few eggs, or in this case break a guideline. Half of this
property is on Rupple Road on the east side; the other half is on the west
of Rupple Road. We are approximately three blocks from Holcomb
Elementary School. It is six blocks from Holt Middle School and three
blocks west of the new property that the City Public Schools has
purchased. This is very prime property. It is ready for development and it
is going to be developed immediately. It can be County property with a
drip system or it can be a City property with a sewer system. If it annexed
into the City, the impact fees would be $216,000. The Parks and
Mitigation would be another $67,000 and the City would have control
over what is going to be planned and built on Rupple Road. This street is
projected to a major thoroughfare for the City and it would be, in my
opinion, best that what's built and developed on this would be under the
control of the Planning Commission and not the County. In closing, John
Nock and I have met with several different groups within the City,
including the Mayor, Gary Dumas, and members of the City Council. We
have gotten support indicated from everybody that this property should be
in the City. I know that the Planning Department is reflecting the City
policies that you have right now, but sometimes you have to go around
those guidelines. That is what your decision is, if you decide that is what
the City wants to do. We ask that you approve this property for
annexation and rezoning. Are there any questions?
Ostner: We will get back to you. At this point I will call for public comment for
these two items. We are discussing the annexation and rezoning at the
same time. If you could please introduce yourself.
Mayes: I am Andrew Mayes. I just want to clarify that this in fact is indeed the
property that I think it is. I received a notice as an adjacent property
owner and there is a sign posted at the lot next to me, but the directions do
not appear clear, at least the way I read them. It says it is north and east of
Weir Road and Howard Nickell Road. How does that position, can
someone illustrate that for me? (Illustrated). I guess even though I
received notice and there is a sign posted, there are two developments by
the same company within blocks of each other. So I'll come back and see
you when it comes up.
Ostner: Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak to these issues? Seeing
none, I am going to close the public comment section. We are talking
about the annexation and rezoning of Nock/Broyle Salem Road. I am
bringing it back to the Commission for discussion.
Planning Commission
Janua,y 9, 2006
Page 19
Myres: I need to ask for some clarification from Staff. I, too, was out in my car in
West Fayetteville over the weekend looking for some of these places and
the closest came to identifying these particular properties was driving
north on Salem and south on Salem and north again on Salem and turned
left on to that diagonal Weir Road section. The sign for this is to the south
of that section of Weir Road.
Pate: That is
what this citizen was
just
commenting as well. I believe there is
another
application in process
for
that area as well.
Myres: Okay, but it had the same number: it was 06-1853.
Pate: Correct. You can arrive at this property in about six ways. From Howard
Nickell Road coming from the north, from Salem Road from the north.
There is also a gravel road, or maybe paved now, Salem from the
intersection of Salem and West Salem. You can also enter it from the
south from Salem near Crystal Springs and Rockhaven Subdivision where
the school is, as well as that diagonal area where Weir Road traverses
through the property as well. So there are a number of ways to get to this
property.
Myres: So, the sign was apparently off of this particular section
Pate: The same applicant does own property and there are projects in process on
that property as well. I made a note to check that out as far as the number.
Allen: I have a question for the applicant, please. I wanted to know if there were
efforts made to talk with the adjoining property owners to bring all of this
in in one parcel, if those other owners were interested in being a part of the
City ?
Broyles: We had gone through trying to ascertain who was and was not interested
and it was somewhere around half of the people were interested in it and
the other half were not. Visiting with the City, I spoke with Tim Conklin
and that whole area is included in a package that is going to be presented
to the City for annexation. I think that is about 20,000 acres. I don't
know how long it is going take to get a package that size approved, but
between our property and the City, there are a few other properties. We
own some that are being annexed now that brings it up closer, but there
would still be three houses between the new City line and this property.
On the west side of Rupple Road there is probably almost a mile before
you get to it, because sinks way in all along to Clabber Creek Village
Phase II. There is another gentlemen who owns about 60 acres
immediately north of that property which comes up to Weir Road and then
you have John David Lindsey's property and then this one, the Western
portion of our property that sits on the west side of Rupple Road. We
Planning Commission
January 9, 2006
Page 20
have gone through and talked to a lot of people that would like to get into
the City, but they would like Fire and Police. But there are one or two that
wouldn't give me more than thirty or forty seconds. They figured we were
out to try and buy their property for some reason and didn't want to talk
about City annexation.
Nock: If I could add one thing to this. When we started this process back last
summer, we started meetings with the City, at that point in time, if you
will recall, there was a fairly loud discussion going on about the
improvements to infrastructure and to streets and one of the main topics of
conversation was the Rupple Road extension that would go all the way to
the north. At that point in time, we assumed that conversation would stay
on track and the sewer plant wouldn't become the main focus of what's on
the agenda and had that happened, we probably wouldn't be here. You
probably would have been asking us would we allow the property to be
annexed, because this is going to bordered along that main road that is
going to be put in, assuming it actually does get put in. We are probably
six months premature from where ultimately the City will want all of that
along Rupple Road. So our piece of land will sit inside of where that
major improvement will be made, assuming that it will get approved from
the voters.
Graves: I have a question from the applicant and you may just answered it for me.
It is for Mr. Broyles. It was my recollection that you came through
recently with property just south of the eastern most tract of this
application.
Broyles: Correct.
Graves: We are realigning Weir Road and making it straighter. I take it from what
your comments were a minute ago, I couldn't remember who all owned
those tracts. I take it that you don't own all of that property there that is
shown in the County on our map.
Broyles: Correct. Benton Development brought in and got annexed on the south
side of Weir Road and then we bought that from them. We bought the 2.8
acres right next to it to fill that hole in where Gypsum is being extended.
So we are on the south side. But on the north side there are four
residences between Salem Road and West Salem Road. On the north side
of Weir there are four houses and we spoke to three; one was willing, one
didn't know, and the one on the very corner said she was not interested in
annexation.
Clark: I can't believe I am
going to be in the position
of saying
this, because I've
always been one on
the Commission who didn't
want to
create peninsulas,
but in this instance,
I'm going to borrow from
some of the rhetoric of my
Planning Commission
January 9, 2006
Page 21
fellow commissioners and say a guideline is just a guideline. It's just a
suggestion. So, this time, and only because this weekend as I was
wandering around that area, there are some beautiful homes going up in
that western side that are all in the County. You are absolutely correct —
this is going to develop and it is already developing. Because of that, I am
going to support annexation of these two parcels, simply because if it is in
the City, we can dictate how it develops. That does not mean I am going
to support the rezoning request, however. I will support it coming in that I
think that we have to be careful as it develops for a variety of reasons,
some Mr. Nock just mentioned, that the west side wastewater treatment
plant. Infrastructure in general on the west side of town, on all sides of
town, is an issue right now. I'm not prepared to vote for this type of high
density, until we have some of these problems resolved. And we will
resolve them. And it will develop, and if it is in the City, we'll develop
along our guidelines and ordinances. So, I will make the motion that we
approve annexation 06-1853. 1 recommend approval.
Ostner: Thank you. I have a motion to forward with the positive on the
annexation proposal.
Myres: Second.
Ostner: Is there further discussion?
Allen: Fireman hat again. I continue to hope that we will be able to have the Fire
Chief come to visit with us about these discrepancies - 8.7 minutes and it
is gone. I just wanted to throw out that I hope we can have a little more
clarity on that.
Ostner: I believe I am going to go ahead and vote with the Staff recommendation.
There are really good arguments that this should be annexed to the City. I
would hope that the annexation project that Mr. Broyles referred to would
be fast tracked. There are lots of areas of town that are developing at
County standards with septic that I would like in the City; however, the
piece meal approach is very problematic. This property, I'm not even sure
the City of Fayetteville emergency responders would be able to access it
from their own... I guess there is a piece of land, I'm not sure how big it is,
but when first responders have to cross jurisdictions, things get really
funny. People can call for fires, and the responders say, you are not in our
area, because we have to drive through a different area to get there. Those
things can be sorted out, but with a larger annexation request, that would
not be a problem. That is fairly minor, I believe that those things can be
worked out, but there are more and more problems like that. I would like
to see this as part of the City; however, I am going to vote against it.
Planning Commission
January 9, 2006
Page 22
Allen: 1'd like to see this as part of the City, too. I wonder if maybe it is about
six months premature and so I'd like to hear a little more thought from the
motioner and the seconder as to their reasons why. I think it is appropriate
to bring it in now.
Clark: Sure. 1 don't think there is anything stopping this development company
from walking up and starting this development under County standards.
You can almost see the elementary school out there from the corner of this
property — it is that close to City limits and a growing area in the City.
have strong reservations about some of the County developments with the
septic systems they use. It is such a beautiful area out there, I would
rather it be under the City. I'm not an alarmist when it comes to
annexation; I'm an alarmist when it comes to rezoning of that annexation.
He can sit for six more months and not develop until we have some of
these problems worked out. I don't think we have the infrastructure right
now to support a massive 40 -acre development in the west part of town
with questions that are looming over wastewater treatment, over
infrastructure, etc. It doesn't mean it can't sit there. You are not going to
have any calls to the emergency services because it's just "raw" land.
You're not going to have any pressure on the infrastructure if it just sits
there without developing. But there is nothing that precludes these
gentlemen from walking out of here tomorrow and starting construction
under County standards and we will have no control of that whatsoever.
truly did wander around out there a good chunk of Sunday afternoon,
seeing large, beautiful homes out there. I think that trend is just going to
continue. Might as well bring it in and as far as I am concerned, let it sit
there until we can zone it properly and have the infrastructure to support it.
Myres: That was my thinking as well. 1 hate to be a copy cat.
Trumbo: Question for Staff. I remember at one agenda meeting a few months ago,
there was talk of a temporary solution possibly a lift station being built out
west until the new wastewater treatment plant was ready. Is that still
ongoing?
Pate: It is and I believe that the Water and Sewer Committee was updated or
going to updated this week from the RJN Report. I am not sure exactly
what the status of that is. The Water and Sewer Committee then would
forward its recommendation to the full City Council about what temporary
fix, if any, there was. On all large scale developments and preliminary
plats within these two basins, the Owl Creek Basin and the Hamestring
Creek Basin, there are conditions of approval being placed on those
projects, essentially stating that you have to comply with whatever the
City Council deems appropriate for a temporary fix if necessary. If it is
not necessary, obviously that would never be assessed. That is the
approach we have currently. It's an approach that the City has taken
Planning Commission
January 9, 2006
Page 23
before when there were capacity concerns before we had updated studies
to understand exactly what our capacity limits were.
Trumbo: So that is still part of the plan — a possible temporary lift station.
Pate: Yes.
Trumbo: Are we at capacity now?
Pate: No, sir.
Trumbo: Are we close?
Pate: That is a relative term. Are
we closer than
five years ago?
Yes. But we do
have capacity. The Health
Department is
still approving
plans, it is my
understanding, and we have
to have the data there to back it
up.
Trumbo: Well, I have a different opinion. I am not in favor of annexing and not
rezoning just for the fact that the property owner has rights as well, I
believe. And to annex them so he can wait on us and his property just sits
there. If he's ready to develop and it's legal within the County guidelines
to do so, I believe he has the right to do that and I will not vote for an
annexation if we are not going to rezone it, unless the applicant wants to
do that. I will like to ask Mr. Broyles or Mr. Nock if you are not going to
get the rezoning, do you want the property annexed?
Nock: Ultimately whatever is approved on the PZD on this total development,
you are going to see it anyway. Whether it is a PZD or just a zoning, we
would rather have the zoning in place and know what we are going to do,
but from experience you know anything that we are involved in, whether
from the beginning or from the end, it is to do something that is a superior
product, that has something that we are all going to be proud of, both the
citizens and the developers. So whether we have a major say in that or a
minor say, the idea would be that you would see it — the first step is
annexation. We can't do the zoning unless we have the annexation.
Would we rather have them both? Absolutely. Would we start in this
step, and I can appreciate the comments made so far, and that would
probably put us on the path to do that.
Broyles: As far as rezoning, it would all come back through Planning Commission
in the form of a PZD, so you'd be able to quantify what comes out. The
rezoning to single family residential 4, we have never been able to develop
a piece a property with more that three on it. By the time you put the City
standards on it, that's just what it comes out. The maximum would
probably would be in there 3 or 2.8 per acre which is conducive to the
south side of it which has been as high as 5 or 6 density down south of
Planning Commission
January 9, 2006
Page 24
that. We have already met with the City and offered to donate two acres
to the Fire Department if they would put a fire station in on the property
up there, too, which might help alleviate some of that zone. We said we
would donate it to them. We are concerned about that as well. We
figured by the time we got it approved and got the lots and put some stuff
in out there, it will be over a year from now.
Allen: I appreciate that.
Nock: I hope that answers your question, but if we need to go in a step by step
process, we understand. We believe more that likely six months from
now, this will be annexed any way, but we don't want to wait that six
months. We can be doing our engineering, we can do our planning, work
with our partners, and all the people involved in the process of how it is
ultimately going to come about, but we have to start here to know that it is
going to be judged by the guidelines of the City and not the County. Not
that we have anything against the County, but there are adjoining
developments for those that went out there. There is one that is directly to
the north that is a septic, not a step system, but truly a septic
neighborhood. And again, I'm not saying that is bad or good, it is just that
it is one thing right next door. Then we have just literally to the south of
us, the next neighborhood down, is City systems. The choice is really
what we can do, what we should; and we are asking what we should do,
not what we can do.
Trumbo: I would agree with Commissioner Clark and a lot of things she said. I'd
like to see this developed to City standards for the same reasons that she
would and it sounds like the developers are okay with not getting the
rezoning if that's the decision of the Commission. I will be voting for the
annexation.
Broyles: We have to have zoning; (inaudible)
Ostner: I think we are fully understanding that if the annexation passes and the
rezoning request fails, the applicant is fully prepared to stick with the RA
zoning that is attached to an annexation and request a PZD in the future.
Clark: At that point when you come through with a PZD as I'm understanding it,
we can get some of these substantive answers. The RA zoning will not
impede this development at all. I'm looking forward to seeing something
come through because it's a beautiful piece of property.
Lack: One of the main things that I see in the peninsula is City services. I see to
the southeast of this property a small tract that was just recently approved
— a preliminary plat — so I would assume that water and sewer is available
at that location. 1 would like to ask engineering, is that where you would
Planning Commission
January 9, 2006
Page 25
see City services hit this property so basically, if this were annexed and
went forward for development, City services could be brought across that
corner where it does meet City property and continue across it and not
have to cross County property?
O'Neal: Well, if this map is correct, City sewer is just to the south within the
Crystal Springs Subdivision. They would have to require easements and I
don't know if it would be possible to cross into their property to serve it
without crossing the County, not without having a detailed plan. Water is
adjacent to the site; I believe there is a water line that runs down Salem
Road and there may be some smaller lines that crisscross down these
County roads as well; however, if I remember right, the one in Salem
Road may be an 8", but as memory serves, it is a 6. And everywhere else
it is either a 4" or a 2" which is not adequate for fire protection. There
will have to be substantial upgrades not only to sewer, but to water to
service this development.
Lack: But within City property, likely?
O'Neal: I guess sewer is the big question. Since we have water in the County that
we serve many residences outside the City limits, it is really not that big of
an issue, but City sewer outside the City limits has only been approved in
one condition.
Lack: I don't think we have ever seen or that I have ever seen a submittal that
more directly was in violation of the one recommendation or one
guideline, than this property that attaches just at the one corner, but on the
other hand, there are other guidelines that this property fulfills in an equal
manner. I think the proximity to the schools that are built in the
neighborhood and the completion of this section of Rupple Road and the
connections between Salem Road and Rupple Road that the City will
benefit from this development, can bring me around to an acceptance of
this annexation. I will support that.
Graves: I tend to think that this particular proposal violates almost every guideline
that we have on annexations. I have come to the same conclusion as Mr.
Lack that because I do think that it from a long-range standpoint which is
one of our guidelines (that we are supposed to look at long-range
planning), this area is developing, it's primarily developing at RSF-4 and
even higher as the applicant indicated earlier. We approved something at
a slightly higher density than that just a few minutes ago just to the south
of this piece of property. So we can't look at these in a vacuum and I'm
the one who has used that rhetoric as my fellow Commissioner Clark
commented a minute ago, that they are just guidelines and I think that
when you look at the unique situation and where this particular piece of
property is located and what is going on right around it and what's going
Planning Commission
Jamuaty 9, 2006
Page 26
to continue to go on in that area, it should come into the City. It may be a
little early, as the Chair has indicated it probably is, but we don't always
have perfect timing on these things. I was also with the same inclination
as Commissioner Trumbo that if we are just going to annex it and leave it
agricultural, I wasn't really sure that that is an appropriate zoning given
what's going on around this piece of property. With the comments made
by the applicant and what they intend to do sometime in the future and
bring it back as a PZD, I don't have as much of a problem with that. I will
vote in favor of the annexation and probably will vote in favor of the
rezoning request. I don't have as much of a problem approving one and
disapproving the other given the discussion that has occurred.
Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Graves.
Pate: I just want to clarify a couple of things about the street standards.
Everyone please keep in mind that Fayetteville, that even though this is
within the County and could be developed in the County tomorrow,
Fayetteville City street standards are in effect including drainage, right-of-
way dedication, sidewalks, street lights, and everything associated with the
City development standards, so there would not be any additional higher
quality development for the street standards, per se, due to our current
development ordinances. Please keep that in mind when you are thinking
about annexations in general and this one in particular.
Ostner: Also on that note, if this were being brought forward tonight as a
preliminary plat in the County, we would give cursory review to the
septic, as we did with Cherry Hill, if they chose a step system. There is a
motion and a second. Is there further discussion. Will you call the roll
please. This is on the annexation request.
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call, the motion to approve ANX 06-1853 was
approved by a vote 6-1-0 with Commissioner Ostner voting no.
Ostner: Our tandem item is the rezoning request of the same piece of property,
RZN 06-1853. We have heard a staff report and we have heard from the
applicant. Would the applicant like to share anything.
Nock: I just wanted to say one more time that we would do this PZD. We
certainly have more than the two of us involved in this, in fact, my role is
a fairly minor role in this. We somewhat run some risks here. I am an
investment banker by profession and I always look at risk and sometimes
you see it after you sit down. The challenges are that if we go with just an
RA, you recognizing that we are now annexing to the City, you may not
Planning Commission
January 9, 2006
Page 27
have just one of our hands behind our back, but two.... That we could do
nothing for some period of time, assuming a PZD could not get done. I'm
a big believer in the PZD process. I can't think of a project, we in fact had
R-2 zoned, RMF-24 zoned acreage that we came back and brought as PZD
because we believe that it is the best option, not always the easiest option,
for development. So, with that in mind, even though we assume that we
will be using the PZD process, we certainly are not going to say that we
wouldn't appreciate your affirmative vote for the zoning. This will
certainly go to the Council level and we will state the same thing then.
We certainly are not saying that we don't care about the zoning, but that is
my only concern is the risk factor and it is also a risk for the rest of the
community, because you could be in a situation where it just sits there and
languishes. With the horizon line that I see today, I still request that if
your vote was when you came tonight to vote for that, both the annexation
and the rezoning, we would appreciate that. Upon the other hand, if you
feel inclined to do otherwise because of some of the things we mentioned
here, they certainly understand as well.
Ostner: At this point I will reopen the public comment for this zoning request for
the same piece of property, RZN 06-1854.
Hunnicutt: I'm Clyde Hunnicutt. I believe I am an adjoining property owner of this
plot. I live on the comer of Howard Nickell and West Salem, 3225 West
Salem. I have not been contacted by any of these folks and are we part of
this annexation or is this backing up to my property?
Ostner: I'm not sure where your property is, but I don't believe you are included
in this annexation, if fact, I am certain that this property is completely
owned by these gentlemen and their associates.
Hunnicutt: We got the notice that says that it is north and east of the intersection of
Weir Road and Howard Nickell. I'm assuming they are talking about
Howard Nickell that went through the new subdivision and comes around
and joins what used to be County Rd. 894. County 894 makes a circle
around there.
Ostner: Is there a map that you could show him?
Hunnicutt: So it is not the property directly south of me, it is the property directly
west of me.
Broyles: Right across the street from you.
Ostner: Is there any further public comment on this item?
Planning Commission
January 9, 2006
Page 28
Mayes: Andy Mayes again. I'm back... I've got myself oriented now. This
property is indeed in my neighborhood, it is not the property that had the
sign for this hearing, thus the confusion. But I would like to point out that
the properties to the north and west of this area, there is kind of a
transition line there, where we are going from a higher density RSF-4 into
the rural County development where most of these lots are two, three or
four acres. I'd like for you to consider that as you think about this
particular rezoning; or give us a little more time to consider how this will
be rezoned if at all. So some of these other neighbors, who I have spoken
to, would be able to give input. It is kind of a short time frame from when
we saw the initial sign and the confusion with locations. We really
haven't had time to get together and formulate a position.
Ostner: Thank you Mr. Mayes. On that note, this is the first stop. The City
Council is actually making the final decision. We are merely offering a
recommendation, so I would encourage you to go to that meeting where
the actual decision will be made, beyond this decision. Is there further
public comment? I am closing the public comment section and bringing it
back to the Commission for discussion.
Pate: I would like to mention that Staff would not recommend retaining this as
residential agricultural land. It does not do a whole lot for land use
decisions when you zone property and just leave it agricultural typically,
especially these larger tracts. We would recommend at least some sort of
residential single family zoning designation. If you are not comfortable
with 4 units per acre, there are several to choose from: RSF .5, RSF 1,
RSF 2, and then RSF 4 of course which is the applicant's request. Each of
those reference the density — units per acre allowed on that particular piece
of property and each one would allow a single family development.
Ostner: That
is residential single family '/2 unit per acre, I
unit
per
acre,
and 2
units
per acre, are the three choices that are less dense
than
the
RSF
4?
Pate: Correct.
Clark: I would be perfectly happy with any of those other designations below
RSF 4. 1 think it is a transitional area. RSF 2 1 would find totally fine.
think RSF 4 is way too dense for where we are located and the other
houses that surround it at a distance, because they are all on a lot of
property. But I won't support 4.
Allen: I would agree. I had written down the RSF 2 as Jeremy was speaking. It
seemed an appropriate transition. A lot of those houses appear to be on an
acre or more.
Clark: I will make a motion that we approve rezoning RZN 06-1854 at RSF 2.
Planning Commission
January 9, 2006
Page 29
Myres: Second
Ostner: Is there any discussion? I will be voting against this item. This is closer
to appropriate if the property is to be annexed by the Council, I believe
this RSF 2 might be closer to appropriate; however, I do think there is a
better way for this property to come into the City. I think it should come
in with more property around it to avoid a piece meal approach to City
services, not just emergency, but sewer. Sewer potentially could cross
County land, maybe condemnation. There are strange things that could
happen, if we ask someone to allow a sewer across their land, and then not
in the City. Any further discussion?
Trumbo: Question for Staff. If this is
rezoned to
RSF 2,
the applicant would have
the opportunity to come back
to us with a
PZD at
a later time?
Pate: Yes, that is correct.
Graves: I will support the motion as well. As I stated earlier, agricultural is not
appropriate for this area. RSF 2 seems appropriate in light of what's being
brought in right now. It is right in the middle, it's bordered on the south
and on the north, these two tracts of property, by things that are fairly
sparsely densely populated out there.
Ostner: Would you call the roll, please.
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call, the motion to approve RZN 06-1854 was
approved by a vote 6-1-0 with Commissioner Ostner voting no.
From: Clarice Pearman
To: Pate, Jeremy
Date: 2/27/06 10:54AM
Subject: Ords. 4832, 4833, 4834, 4836 & 4837
Jeremy,
Attached are the above ordinances passed by City Council, February 21, 2006.
CC: Bell, Peggy; Deaton, Vicki; GIS
NORTHWEST ARKANSAS EDITION
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:
(d.► (fl ) u g33 was inserted in the regular editions on
C o2DC[n
PO#
** Publication Charge: $ 911. QT:J
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
- day of 2006.
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
MAR 0920%
CITY OF FAYETrEVILLE
CRY CIERK'S OFFICE
212 NORTH EAST AVENUE • P.O. BOX 1607 • FAYETTEVII I E, ARKANSAS 72702 • (501) 442-1700
-o-.pMVG fV. WA
AN ORDINANCE EDINNEANNEXING THAT PROPERTY
o6. e ev le
DESCRIBED IN ANNEXATION PETITION ANX ETT
1853 (C OF WEIR PROPERTY LOCATED Y
NORTH OF WEIR ROAD AND EAST OF SALEM
ROAD AND HOWARD NICKELL ROAD. CONTAIN-
ING APPROXIMATELY 39.11 ACRES ARKANSAS
.,
SE IT ORDAINED BY THE cryr COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVItLE,
ARKANSAS,
Section 1: That the City Council hereby confirm the annexation to the City a, Fayette iHs. AMansas,
of that property described in Exhibit'Aattached hereto and made a part hereof.
Section 2: That the official map of. the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, is hereby.anded to re}lect
the change provided in Section 1 above. m
Section 3: That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas is hereby amended to
assign the zoning designation of A -A, Residential Agricultural to the subject property.
Section 4: Thai the above -described property is hereby assigned to Ward No. Four.
PASSED and APPROVED this 21st day of February, 2006.
APPROVED: ATTEST: -
By: By
DAN GOODY, Mayor SONDRA SMITH, City Clark
• EXHIBIT'A'
ANX 06 -1853
OF
EX'SiiNG
PO;I vfl
NI:: ! PFI
ON A
IWtNIT(N)I-UUT WI DE UTIUTY EASEMENT IN FAVOR
OR ARKANSAS WESTERN GAS CO ALONG THE EAST BOUNDARY AND ANY OTHER EASE-
M
ENTS AND/OR RIGHTS -OF -WAY WHETHER OR NOT OF RECORD.
A PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SEi/4) OF SEC-
TION COUNTYTHIRTy (ARKANSAS. BEING MORE PANTEEN RTICULARLY DESCRIBED7) NORTH RANGE RTY AS FOLL)OWEST,
BEGINNING
A
AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID 40 ACRE TRACT. SAID POINT BEING AN EXISTING
STONE MONUMENT; THENCE N89°54'26 -E 1311.28 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID 40
ACRE TRACT TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT-0FWAY LINE OF WEST SALEM ROAD, SAID
POINT BEING ON A 149.95 FEET RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST ANn rnnM lwiru Au eJ¢+,ur ...-._�_..__ _____ __
..�..,..� i nc Fn nnc NUHI H I$UUNDARY, A TWENTY (20) FOOT WIDE UTIL-
VT IN FAVOR OR ARKANSAS WESTERN GAS CO. ALONG THE NORTH AND EAST
AND ANY OTHER EASEMENTS AND/OR RIGHTS -OF -WAY WHETHER OR NOT OF
1ALF (S1/2) OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW1/4) OF THE SOLIT14 WFCT ni jab.
Oh a.wLgrctl µ.
. M ROAD VE DESCRIBED CRE TRACT BEING.SUB)ECT TO
RIGHT-OF-WAY -WAY OF SALEM ROAD ALONG THE ENTIRE EAST BOUNDARY AND COUNTY q 0994 ALONG THE ENTIRE WEST BOUNDARY. -'ti :' ,
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
OF
..r ,,.., L HC ,U NN txrJI INU IRON REBAR AT THE BEGINNING OF A TA)
RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST; THEN NORTHEASTERI
E' AND RIGHT-OFWAY 106.28 FEET, THE CHORD 'FOR' WHICH BEIN
'SET, TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID 40 ACRE TRACT: THE
TTO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.