HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 4850 I � I ^
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Doc ID : 009893740006 Tvoe : REL
Recorded : 04/25/2006 at 10 : 39 : 39 AM
Fee Amt : $23 . 00 Paoe 1 of 6
Washlnoton Countv . AR
Bette Stamps Circuit Clerk
File 2006-00016556
ORDINANCE NO, 4850
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED
ZONING DISTRICT TITLED R-PZD 06-1883, ABSHIER HEIGHTS,
LOCATED SOUTH OF EVELYN HILLS SHOPPING CENTER ON
ABSHIER AND HILLCREST, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY
4. 11 ACRES; AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE; AND ADOPTING THE ASSOCIATED
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
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 C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, to R-PZD 06- 1883 as
shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Section 2: That the change in zoning classification is based upon the approved master
development plan, development standards, and conditions of approval as submitted, determined
appropriate and approved by the City Council.
Section 3 : That this ordinance shall take effect and be in full force at such time as all of the
requirements of the master development plan have been met.
Section 4: That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, is hereby
amended to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1 above.
Section 5 : That the Master Development Plan is approved subject to the list of compromises
agreed to by the neighbors, developer and architect shown on Exhibit `B" presented to and accepted
by the City Council. The Master Development Plan is also subject to the Revised Site Plan attached
as Exhibit "C".
Page 2
Ord. 4850
`�RK/TRff��O,,
- . , . . . ,fqs
PASSED and APPROVED this 4 h day of April, 2006. =u a �=
; FAYETTEVILLE ;
APPROVE ATTEST:
xy, :�kANSP�J� '
By: By:
D COODY, Mayor SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk
r
EXHIBIT "A"
R-PZD 06-1883
TRACT A:
PART OF THE NW '/a OF THE NW '/a OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 30
WEST, CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS : COMMENCING AT THE SE CORNER OF
THE NW '/a OF THE NW ''/a, SAID POINT BEING A FOUND 1 " PIPE; THENCE N87° 12'10"W
352.90 FEET; THENCE NO2°59'53 "E 25 .00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE
NO2058'47"E 635 .03 FEET TO A CHISLED "X"; THENCE S87°00'06"E 149.72 FEET TO A
FOUND IRON PIN IN THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF HILLCREST AVENUE; THENCE
ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY S02057'25"W 634.95 FEET TO A FOUND PK NAIL IN THE
APPROXIMATE CENTER LINE OF WOODCREST DRIVE NOW VACATED BY THE CITY
OF FAYETTEVILLE BY ORDINANCE #1205; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE
N87002'.16"W 149.97 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 2. 187 ACRES,
MORE OR LESS, AND SUBJECT TO ANY AND ALL EASEMENTS OF RECORD OR FACT.
TRACT B:
PART OF THE SW '/a OF THE NW '/a OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 30
WEST, CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NE CORNER OF
SAID SW '/4 OF THE NW 1/4; THENCE N87° 12' 10"W 203 .60 FEET; THENCE S02°58'05"W
30. 14 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, SAID POINT BEING A FOUND IRON PIN IN
THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY OF HILLCREST AVENUE; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT OF
WAY S02058' I2"W 313.56 FEET TO A FOUND IRON PIN IN THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY
LINE OF ABSHIER DRIVE; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE N86°36'30"W
537.42 FEET TO A FOUND IRON PIN; THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY
N63001 '26"E 620.21 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 1 .935 ACRES
MORE OR LESS, AND SUBJECT TO ANY AND ALL EASEMENTS OF RECORD OR FACT.
EXHIBIT `B"
R-PZD 06-1883
WE AS NEIGHBORS, THE AFOREMENTIONED DEVELOPER AND ARCHITECT,
HAVE RESPECTFULLY AGREED UPON THE FOLLOWING COMPROMISES:
1 . Modifications to architectural design of development to complete and complement
existing neighborhood homes. Examples include planter boxes with stone facades; the agreed upon
stone facade on the back of the development (on the side of the town homes facing Hillcrest and
Abshier) the architect will modify rear elevations of development to include partial stone facades on
the back of the development (on the side of the town homes facing Hillcrest and Abshier) for
approval of abovementioned neighborhood representatives; house numbers re-styled and moved to
the lower portion of the front of the house near planter boxes; changes in paint palette in the natural
earth tones; enlarged window shapes and styles in the latest drawings presented to the neighborhood
— all to create a more natural, "softer" feel in line with the traditional character of the existing
neighborhood.
2. Reduction in the number of units to 24.
3 . Speed bumps to be built/installed on Hillcrest, Abshier, Lakeridge and Oakwood by
Developer and City with 50/50 cost share with up to four speed tables.
4. A permanent, WRITTEN plan for maintaining the park and greenspace throughout the
development included in the homeowner's association agreements and/or covenants for those who
purchase the town homes. The association agreements or covenants must be worked out in
consultation with the above-mentioned neighborhood representatives throughout the process and
approval. Additionally, new neighbors in the development must be aware that Lade Lucille and
surrounding property is a private entity and is not available for their use for swimming, fishing,
picnicking, etc. (only accessible by property owners in Lake Lucille/Clay Yoe subdivision).
5. Additional trees and shrubs are to be planted along Hillcrest and Abshier to fill in gaps
and ensure that the tree buffer is maintained and expanded. Trees and shrubs are needed to fill in
both high and low gaps and present an attractive, natural appearance to neighbors in the development
and across Hillcrest and Abshier.
6. Core and soil sample testing will be conducted due to grade and incline, instability of land
because of natural springs and previous construction difficulty in area with USA Drug.
7. We respectfully request that City Planning division allow that no bridges or steps leading
form the town homes to Abshier or Hillcrest will be constructed. This would only encourage street
parking and exacerbate traffic problems. The only steps in the development that are agreeable to the
neighbors are those from the pocket park/viewing area to the parking area for the E. Fay Jones' home
as designated on plans.
, M.
8. Trees and/or shrubbery will be planted at the back of the development to screen the
development's residents from the shopping center. These also should include plantings to fill in high
and low gaps and present an attractive, natural appearance consistent with a high quality
development.
9. No parking signs to be installed along Hillcrest & Abshier on the development side, with
no parking allowed on either side of these two streets.
10. Landscape design, and any newly planted trees and shrubbery will, as closely as possible,
be in accordance with E. Fay Jones' written/drawn design plans for the property from the
U. of A. Mullens Library, Special Collections (neighbors have this document) (i.e. species of trees,
placement, etc.).
11 . Above-mentioned neighborhood representatives will see sample/rendering of mailbox
design and of the sign for the development and provide input for approval, prior to installation.
12. Construction will be limited to daylight hours only.
13 . We respectfully request that if this development, PZD 06- 1883, Abshier Heights, is not
executed, that the City require that this property revert back to RSF-4 (R- 1 ), not its current zoning of
record, C-2.
14. All agreed upon compromises will be put in writing and officially recorded as
amendments to PZD 06- 1883 and presented at the meeting of the Fayetteville City Council, Tuesday,
April 4, 2006. All compromises throughout this document are legally binding on the developer and
must be carried out.
Washington County, AR
I certify this instrument was filed on
04/25/2008 10:39:39 AM
and recorded in Real Estate
File Number 2008-00018558
F
Bette Stai ps - Circuit Clerk
,b
a 1, . -1 , l . , .
Ii UNRSWITN90TOTALBEOROUMS •-.► �� � _PAMLLEREVISED
lit PARKING SPACES: ]6 GARAGESPACES
39 �EWAPAPAUEY SPACES
79 LSPAfE7
4825 PAPo(ING SPACES PERUMT SITE PLAN
F I'
EXHIBIT
c
1
BUILDING REMOVED i
. : TO PROVIDE GREEN 7
SPACE BETWEEN
f ' UNITS
I
' ENHANCED 7 F
VEGETATION co
E BEHIND SHOPLu
-
PING CENTER V
a of Y•
t
7 , S F I WALK BRIDGES
R.. !Y z REMOVED
i t +`r VISITOR 7
PARKING i J� -'i-
� . . ' ` ADJACENT
TO PARK
\I RETENTION
POND MOVED TO
PRESERVE TREE
BUFFER
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
REPLACES BUIDLING
e ��! i• � � , ' =i �' CLOSEST TO JONES
f + RESIDENCE
` - 4
7 t
t 72 2 7 t
PROPOSED VIEWING
AREA FOR JONES
e RESIDENCE
'� INTERNAL WALKS
SITE PLAN WITH BEDROOM COUNT +. 0 50 100 P50
A.516.W1Y lfN.Li5. Im1
o
City of Fayetteville y/ X
Staff Review Form 5�
City Council Agenda Items g-en 106- = ,
or t� f�
Contracts 140sk (kt( 1 I4.t�l1�
7-Mar-06
City Council Meeting Date
Jeremy Pate Planning Operations
Submitted By Division Department
Action Required:
R-PZD 06- 1883 : (Abshier Heights, 407): Submitted by 1-12 Engineering for property located south of Evelyn Hills Shopping
Center on Abshier and Hillcrest. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 4. 11
acres. The request is for a Residential Planned Zoning District with 30 multi-family dwelling units.
$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
06
D/epa^rt�merh Director Date Original Contract Date: n/a
Original Contract Number: n/a
CY,
CityAtt6mey
Received in CityClerk's Off e
ENTERED
-I�
Finance and Internal Service Director Date 11
Received in Mayor's Office
EN
2. / lOG
Mayor Date
Comments:
A
- - - - 4WY opt fir r adtol5
City Council Meeting of March 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 Plannin
Date: February 14, 2006
Subject: Residential Planned Zoning District for Abshier Heights (R-PZD 06- 1883)
RECOMMENDATION
Planning Staff recommends approval of an ordinance creating a Residential Planned
Zoning District (R-PZD) for Abshier Heights, based on the Master Development Plan,
development standards and statement of commitments submitted. This action will
establish a unique zoning district for a single-use project on approximately 4. 1 1 acres
located at Abshier Drive and Hillcrest Avenue. The 8-building proposal includes 30
residential units, consisting of 22 multi-family units and 8 two-family units. The 8 two-
family units will be located in the northern 4 buildings along Hillcrest and the 22 multi-
family units will be located in the remaining 4 buildings, three facing greenspace off of
Abshier and one on Hillcrest. The overall density is 7.3 units per acre.
BACKGROUND
The property consists of a total of 4. 11 acres occupying land with frontage on Abshier
Drive and Hillcrest Avenue. Both parcels are undeveloped and are zoned C-2,
Thoroughfare Commercial. It is surrounded by single-family homes on the southeast and
the Evelyn Hills Shopping Center to the North/west.
The applicant is attempting to create a transition between the commercial shopping center
to the north/west and the single-family neighborhood to the south/east. The Planned
Zoning District contains one ( 1 ) Planning Area, The Planning Area has its own specific
density (maximum number of dwellings units allowed), and established bulk and area
criteria, setbacks, height, etc. The information is provided both in a booklet form, which
describes the intent of the Planning Area along with a drawing of the overall Planning
Area boundaries and by way of the larger plat, which gives more engineered information.
The applicant requests approval of both the zoning, given the proposed Master
Development Plan, statement of commitments, and development standards and approval
of the large scale development which would allow the immediate review of construction
plans. Proposed setbacks are not close to the street; rather they allow for the
development of the flat parts of the site, while preserving the slope and trees along the
street.
City Council Meeting of March 7, 2006
Agenda Item Number
ti
DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission voted 6-3-0 in favor of this request on February 13, 2006, with
Commissioners Myers, Allen and Clark voting no. Those who voted against the motion
discussed their concerns regarding the proposal, including density, traffic, water pressure,
and architectural compatibility. Recommended conditions were approved by the
Planning Commission and are reflected in the attached staff report.
BUDGET IMPACT
None.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A RESIDENTIAL
PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT TITLED R-PZD 06- 1883,
ABSHIER HEIGHTS, LOCATED SOUTH OF EVELYN
HILLS SHOPPING CENTER ON ABSHIER AND
HILLCREST, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 4. 11
ACRES; AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE; AND ADOPTING THE
ASSOCIATED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
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 C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, to R-PZD 06- 1883 as
shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Section 2: That the change in zoning classification is based upon the approved
master development plan, development standards, and conditions of approval as submitted,
determined appropriate and approved by the City Council.
Section 3: That this ordinance shall take effect and be in full force at such time as
all of the requirements of the master development plan have been met.
Section 4 : 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 March, 2006.
APPROVED:
By.
DAN COODY, Mayor
By:
SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk
EXHIBIT "A"
R-PZD 06-1883
TRACT A:
PART OF THE NW '/< OF THE NW '/4 OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 16
NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST, CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, WASHINGTON
COUNTY, ARKANSAS , BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SE CORNER OF THE NW '/ OF THE NW
''/< , SAID POINT BEING A FOUND 1 " PIPE; THENCE N87°12'10"W 352.90
FEET; THENCE NO2°59'53"E 25.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING ;
THENCE NO2058'47"E 635.03 FEET TO A CHISLED "X"; THENCE S87°00'06"E
149. 72 FEET TO A FOUND IRON PIN IN THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF
HILLCREST AVENUE; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY S02°57'2511W
634. 95 FEET TO A FOUND PK NAIL IN THE APPROXIMATE CENTER LINE
OF WOODCREST DRIVE NOW VACATED BY THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
BY ORDINANCE #1205; THENCE .ALONG SAID CENTERLINE N87002'1 6"W
149.97 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 2. 187 ACRES,
MORE OR LESS, AND SUBJECT TO ANY AND ALL EASEMENTS OF
RECORD OR FACT.
TRACT B :
PART OF THE SW '/ OF THE NW 'Y4 OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 16
NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST, CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, WASHINGTON
COUNTY, ARKANSAS , BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NE CORNER OF SAID SW 'Y4 OF THE
NW 1 /4; THENCE N87012'10"W 203.60 FEET; THENCE S02058'05"W 30. 14
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, SAID POINT BEING A FOUND IRON
PIN IN THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY OF HILLCREST AVENUE; THENCE
ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY S02058'12"W 313.56 FEET TO A FOUND IRON
PIN IN THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF ABSHIER DRIVE; THENCE
ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE N86036'30"W 537.42 FEET TO A FOUND
IRON PIN; THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY N63001 '26"E 620.21
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING , CONTAINING 1 .935 ACRES MORE OR
LESS, AND SUBJECT TO ANY AND ALL EASEMENTS OF RECORD OR
FACT.
i
Taye PC Meeting of February 13 , 2006
ARKANSAS
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE , ARKANSAS 125 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE Telephone: (479) 575-8267
TO: Planning Commission
FROM : Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner
Brent O'Neal, Staff Engineer
THRU: Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning
DATE: Febwary$2996 Updated February 14, 2006 for City Council
R-PZD 06-1883: Planned Zoning District (ABSHIER HEIGHTS, 407): Submitted by H2
ENGINEERING for property located at S OF EVELYN HILLS SHOPPING CENTER ON
ABSHIER AND HILLCREST. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE
COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 4. 11 acres. The request is for a Residential
Planned Zoning District with 30 multi-family dwelling units.
Property Owner: SMITH 2-WAY RADIO
Planner: JESSE FULCHER
Findings:
Property Description: This site is located north of Abshier Drive and west of Hillcrest Avenue,
directly behind the Evelyn Hills Shopping Center.
Surroundin Land Use/Zoning:
Direction Land Use Zoning
North Evelyn Hills ShODPing Center C-2
South Single Family Neighborhood RSF-4
East Single Family Neighborhood RSF-4
West Evelyn Hills Shopping Center C-2
Background: Research conducted by staff indicates in 1960 when the Evelyn Hills Shopping
Center was rezoned, that a 150' strip was left zoned residential to serve as a buffer strip. In 1962
the City Council approved rezoning of the western 130' of the 150' tract, partly because the
owners offered to place a restrictive covenant on the property that limited development on the
20' residual strip along Hillcrest Ave. It should be. noted that all structures and land disturbances
associated with the proposed structures is further than 20' from Hillcrest Avenue (approximately
45 ' from the curb). Street improvements to Hillcrest will require construction in this area.
However, later in 1962 the rezoning was rescinded after an election was called by referendum.
Any covenants that were in place with the rezoning were most likely invalidated when the
rezoning was rescinded.
KARepora120061PC Reports102-I3-061R-PZD 064883 (Abshier Heights) DOC
r
It appears that in 1967 a second request was made to rezone the property to C-2. The request
was denied, but was later appealed to the Board of Directors, who then approved the requested
rezoning to C-2.
In 1991 a rezoning was requested to rezone the property from C-2 to R -l.5 to allow for the
construction of duplexes, which was withdrawn. Pertinent information on the zoning history of
this property has been included.
Subdivision Committee Comments: The Subdivision Committee voted 2-1-0 to forward the
item to the Planning Commission. A consensus was not reached on the findings. Numerous
adjacent property owners attended the meeting with several concerns regarding the proposed
project. These concerns included traffic, density, compatibility, trash, aesthetics, drainage and
the E. Fay Jones property which is near the site. Included in the staff report are letters from
adjacent property owners.
Planning Commission Comments: The Planning Commission voted 6-3-0 to forward the item
to the City Council. There was considerable public comment regarding traffic, density, water
pressure, architectural compatibility and the E. Fay Jones property. Some of the Planning
Commissioners shared some of the same concerns as the neighbors. In addition, the Planning
Commissioners had added concerns and questions for staff to address prior to City Council,
including Fire Department access, parallel parking on Hillcrest Avenue, water pressure,
pedestrian bridges, trash service and building materials.
Proposal: The applicant requests a rezoning, Master Development Plan and Large Scale
Development approval for a multi -family development on the property. The 8 -building proposal
includes 30 residential units, consisting of 22 multi -family units and 8 two-family units. The 8
two-family units will be located in the northern 4 buildings along Hillcrest and the 22 multi-
family units will be located in the remaining 4 buildings, three facing greenspace off of Abshier
and one on Hillcrest. The overall density is 7.3 units per acre.
The applicant is attempting to create a transition between the commercial shopping center to the
north/west and the single-family neighborhood to the southeast. The Planned Zoning District
contains one (1) Planning Area. The Planning Area has its own specific density (maximum
number of dwellings units allowed), and established bulk and area criteria, setbacks, height, etc.
The information is provided both in a booklet form, which describes the intent of the Planning
Area along with a drawing of the overall Planning Area boundaries and by way of the larger plat,
which gives more engineered information. The applicant requests approval of both the zoning,
given the proposed Master Development Plan, statement of'commitments, and development
standards and approval of the large scale development which would allow the immediate review
of construction plans. Proposed setbacks are not close to the street; rather they allow for the
development of the flat parts of the site, while preserving the slopee-and trees along the street.
Process: The purpose of the subject request is for a rezoning and development approval.
Approval of the Residential Planned Zoning District would effectively rezone the property based
on the engineered plans and information provided.
K:IReporfs120061PC Reporns102-13-061R-PZD 06-1883 (Abshier Heights/.DOC
The following bulk and area regulations are proposed by the applicant:
(A) Proposed Uses.
Permitted uses
Use Unit I
City-wide uses by right
Use Unit 2
City-wide uses by conditional use permit
Use Unit 9
Two-family dwellings
Use Unit 26
C,
Multi -family dwellings
uonuwonat uses
Unit 2 City-wide uses by conditional use permit
Unit 24 Home Occupations
(B) Density.
(C) Bulk and area regulations.
Lot mmtmum width N/A - Condo units and duplexes
Lot area minimum N/A
Land area per dwelling unit 5,000 sq. ft.
(E) Setback requirements.
Front Building Setbacks: 25'.
Rear Building Setback: 15'
Side Building Setback: 8'
(F) Height. 35' maximum height
(G) Building area. 16.8% of site.
Water: Public water is adjacent to the site. A study of the water system shall be conducted by
the developer as directed by the Engineering Division. Substantial improvements to the water
system may be required which includes other off -site improvements. Water service will need to
be extended within the property at the time of development connecting within the proposed
development.
Sewer: Sanitary sewer is currently available to the site. There is a 6" sewer line that runs along
Hillcrest Avenue and a 6" sewer line along Abshier Drive, west of the site. A study of the
downstream system shall be conducted by the developer. Substantial improvements to the sewer
system may be required which includes other off -site improvements. Sewer service will need to
be extended within the property at the time of development connecting within the proposed
development.
A: (Repons120061PC Reports102-13.061k-Ph) 06-1883 (Abshier Heights).DOC
Adjacent Master Street Plan Streets:
East: Hillcrest Ave. (Local Street)
South: Abshier Road (Local Street)
Traffic: Access to the site is provided by way of two private drives from surrounding streets,
which will supplement two existing access drives into the Evelyn Hills Shopping Center. The
two existing access drives are located behind the shopping center, both of which are accessed
from Hillcrest Ave. A private drive will be allowed access from Abshier Dr. and will traverse
through the southern, tract and intersect with the existing drive into the shopping center. A
second private drive will traverse north across the northern tract and connect the two existing
access drives. A traffic study was not recommended for the proposed development. However,
further evaluation will be conducted by staff at the time of construction plan submittal for any
required improvements.
Street Improvements: Staff recommends the following improvements:
• Improve Abshier Drive to include a 14' wide street section from centerline with curb,
gutter, storm drains and 6 -foot sidewalk. Street improvements shall extend to College
Avenue.
.. Improve Hillerest Avenue to include a 14' wide street section from centerline with
curb, gutter, storm drains and a 6 -foot sidewalk.
*Staff recommends that the location of the sidewalks on both Abshier Drive and Hillerest Avenue
be determined by the Sidewalk Coordinator and Urban Forester at the time of development so
that existing canopy along the right-of-way can be preserved.
Tree Preservation: The two sections of property have very different topographies. The triangle
shaped, southern tract is very sloped from Abshier Drive down to the proposed building
locations, while the building location is very flat. Most of the tract is covered in small .saplings
and underbrush, with some larger significant trees. This tract contains the trees that will be
removed in order to construct a detention pond. The rectangle shaped, northern tract has only a
slight slope from Hillcrest Avenue to the proposed building locations. Many mature trees exist
on this tract, but are within an existing easement. However, these trees should not be affected by
this development.
The applicants have designed the layout of the driveways and buildings so that they are located
on the flat portions of the property, while staying away from the outer boundaries of the
property. After removal of the tree canopy for the detention pond, the canopy will fall to 17.0%
canopy coverage, from 17.9% existing canopy coverage.
Parks: On November 7, 2005 the Parks Recreation Advisory Board recommended accepting
money in lieu in the amount of $13,086 for 22 multi -family homes and 8 single-family homes.
These amounts may need to be adjusted if the two-family homes are left on the same lot and not
utilized as single-family attached homes.
Public Comment: Staff has received several comments, letters and a -mails from adjacent
property owners. Any additional written comments from adjacent property owners will be
included in the Planning Commission packet.
K:1Reports11006tPC Repons101-13-06R-PZD 06-1883 (Abshier neightsj.DOC
Recommendation: Staff recommends forwarding a recommendation of approval of the
Residential Planned Zoning District for Abshier Heights (R-PZD 06-1883)
to the City Council, with the following conditions:
Conditions to Approval:
• 1. Planning Commission determination of street improvements, to include the following:
a. Installation of a 14' wide street from centerline of Abshier Dr., including 14'
pavement, curb, gutter, storm drains, and a 6' sidewalk. Street improvements shall
extend off -site to include the intersection of Abshier Drive and College Avenue.
b. Installation of a 14' wide street from centerline of Hillcrest Ave., including 14'
pavement, curb, gutter, storm drains, and a 6' sidewalk.
c. Right-of-way to meet Master Street Plan requirements shall be dedicated prior to
building permit.
d. Egress from the proposed drive onto Abshier Drive shall be signed/marked to allow a
right out only.
*Staff recommends that the location of the sidewalks be determined by the Sidewalk
Coordinator and Urban Forester at the time of development so that existing canopy
along the right-of-way can be preserved.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSED STREET
IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING THE LOCATION OF SIDEWALKS TO BE
DETERMINED BY 111E SIDEWALK COORDINATOR AND THE URBAN FORESTER.
2. All setbacks, protective easements, density, designated uses and other zoning criteria are
binding with the approval of the R-PZD. Submitted covenants are likewise binding to the
project.
3. Structures shall be constructed as presented in the PZD, meeting the architectural design
standards established herein.
4. Parks fees in the amount of $13,086 for 8 single-family units and 22 multi -family units
shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits, or as constructed to meet the parkland
dedication fee -in -lieu requirements.
If street lights do not exist, they shall be installed with a maximum separation of 300 feet
along Abshier Drive and Hillcrest Avenue.
6. The applicant shall submit 15 sets of the plats, project booklets, and elevations along with
any other correspondence and information the applicant would request the City Council
to review. Please submit half-size drawings for City Council review.
Coordination with the.Solid Waste Division for centralized trash pick-up. THE SOLID
WASTE DIVISION HAS REQUESTED THAT TWO DUMPSTER PADS BE LOCATED
ON THE SITE. IF PLANNING STAFF FINDS THAT THERE IS NOT SUFFICIENT
K: IReportst20061PC Reports l02-13-06 (R-PZD 06-1883 (Abshier Heights).DOC
ROOM FOR LOCATING A DUMPSTER PAD, OR THAT REQUIRING DUMPSTERS
WOULD RESULT IN THE REMOVAL OF EXISTING TREE CANOPY, THE SOLID
WASTE DIVISION WILL ALLOW INDIVIDUAL CARTS.
8. The applicant shall be granted one (1) year from the date of Planning Commission
approval to receive all permits necessary for development with a one (1) year extension
available.
9. All development shall meet applicable building codes and other ordinances of the City of
Fayetteville.
10. Prior to City Council consideration, the applicant shall modify the project booklet and
Site Plans to reflect any recommended revisions from the Planning Commission.
11. No portion of any structure (i.e., porches, overhangs, etc.) shall encroach into building
setbacks.
12. Access easement agreements for the driveways located -off -site, shall be provided on the
easement plat and filed of record prior to building permit.
13. Manufacturer's cut -sheets shall be required for any outdoor lighting, prior to building
permit.
14. Trees are required to
be planted every 30 linear feet along
the right-of-way, where
existing
canopy is not
currently located. Trees should also be
planted every 12 parking
spaces.
Include these revisions
prior to City Council.
15. If after construction, open areas exist along the right-of-way, trees shall be planted within
the open areas, to provide a continuous buffer along the right-of-way between the PZD
and the existing neighborhood.
16. Two bicycle racks are required and shall be shown on the site plan and legend with
revisions prior to City Council.
Standard Conditions of Approval:
17. The Master Development Plan, Statement of Commitments and Architectural Standards
submitted by the applicant shall be considered binding and tied to the zoning of the
property. Conditions of approval as noted herein and other requirements placed upon
the project with review of the Master Development Plan — Planned Zoning District by
the City Council shall also be binding.
18. Prior to building permit, a cost estimate for all required public improvements are
required to be submitted to Planning Staff for review. Once approval is gained, a
guarantee is to be issued (bond/letter of credit/cash) for 150% of the cost of the
K:IReporis120061PC Reports l02-13-06(R-PZD 06-1883 (Abshier h eights).DOC
4 1.
materials and installation of the plants. This guarantee will be held until the
improvements are installed and inspected, at the time of Certificate of Occupancy.
19. Signs shall be permitted in accordance with Chapter 174 of the Fayetteville Unified
Development Code, and shall be subject to signage requirements for residential multi-
family development. This shall be reflected in the booklets and on the plats.
20. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to
the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR
Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications).
21. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable)
for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private),
sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat
review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are
subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's
current requirements.
22. All overhead electric lines 12kv and under shall be relocated underground. All
proposed utilities shall be located underground.
23. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required:
a. Grading and drainage permits
b. An on -site inspection by the Landscape Administrator of all tree
protection measures prior to any land disturbance.
b. Separate easement plat for this project that shall include the tree
preservation area.
c. Project Disk with all final revisions
d. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety
with the City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by Section 158.01
"Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements" to guarantee all
incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve
the site and protect public safety must be completed, not just guaranteed,
prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
Planning Commission Action:
Meeting Date: February 13, 2006
Comments:
Required YES
Forward ❑ Denied
Motion: Vaught
Second: Graves
❑ Tabled
Vote: 6-3-0 Commissioners Clark, Myers and
Allen voted no.
K. -I Reporis120061 PC Repons102-13-061 R -P71) 06-1883 (Abshier Heights).DOC
The "CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL" listed in the report above are accepted in total without
exception by the entity requesting approval of this development item.
Signature Date
CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Requited YES
City Council Action:
Motion:
Second:
Vote:
Meeting Date:
Comments:
March 7, 2006
❑ Approved ❑ Denied ❑ Tabled
Findings associated with MDP R-PZD 06-1883
Sec. 166.06. Planned Zoning Districts (PZD).
(E) Approval or Rejection Criteria for Planned Zoning Districts
The following criteria shall be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council in the
review of a planned zoning district application based on the proposed master development plan:
(1) Whether the application is in compliance with the requirements of the UDC and the
General Plan 2020;
FINDING: Staff finds the application to be in compliance with the Master Development
Plan Planned Zoning District criteria established by the City Council. In review of the
General Plan 2020, the application provides for a single -purpose development while
minimizing disruption of the existing natural features, including tree canopy and
topography. The General Plan 2020 designates this area as Regional Commercial;
however, it is more appropriate to provide a residential transition between a commercial
shopping center and an adjoining single-family neighborhood, than permitting the
expansion of the regional shopping center, or other similar uses that would not be
compatible with the adjacent single-family homes.
(2) Whether the application is in compliance with all applicable statutory provisions;
FINDING: The application has been reviewed and found to be compliant with applicable
statutory provisions.
K:IReporm12006V'C Reponsl02-13-061R-PZD 06-1883 (Abshier I-/eights).DOC
(3) Whether the general impact of the rezoning would adversely impact the provision of
public facilities and services;
FINDING: The impact of the rezoning and subsequent development would require the
provision of public facilities, at the cost of the developer. As indicated in the submittal and
the staff report, certain measures are to be taken to ensure adequate infrastructure
improvements are made by the developer to ensure the level of service does not decline due
to the proposed development. If required, improvements shall be made to the water and
sewer system, as well as improvements to Abshier Dr. and Hillcrest Ave. Fire and police
have responded accordingly.
(4) Whether the rezoning is compatible with the surrounding land uses;
FINDING: The rezoning request, combined with the Master Development Plan, creates a
single purpose residential use. Staff finds the proposed use to be appropriate in this
transitional area. Additionally, the proposed development utilizes the natural features of
the site, including topography and tree canopy, to minimize the visual changes to
surrounding properties. As noted in the General Plan 2020 and as practiced in many areas
of the City, transitions in land use between high intensity commercial uses and low
intensity single-family uses are often times medium density multi -family residential uses,
which is proposed with this project, at 7.3 dwelling units per acre.
(5) Whether the subject land is suitable for the intended use and is compatible with the
natural environment;
FINDING: The subject property is a remnant tract that was not developed when Evelyn
Hills Shopping Center was constructed. Areas near the corner of Abshier Drive and
Hillcrest Avenue have significant slope, but should incur minimal grading during
development. The sites where building pads and parking is located is very flat and
conducive to the proposed development. Most of the existing tree canopy is located along
both street frontages and should be preserved during construction. Approximately 17% of
the existing 17.9% tree canopy will be preserved with the development of this site. This
will require 6 mitigation trees, in addition to trees along the right-of-way and in the
parking areas.
(6) Whether the intended land use would create traffic congestion or burden the existing
road network;
FINDING: It is expected that the addition of 30 residential dwelling units will increase the
amount of traffic on Abshier Drive and Hillcrest Avenue. However, two (2) access points
with options for the direction of travel are available. The developer will be expected to
make significant improvements to Abshier Drive and Hillcrest Avenue in order to provide
adequate traffic safety. These improvements include a 14' wide street section from
centerline with curb, gutter, and storm drains along the projects frontage on Abshier Drive
and Hillcrest Avenue. A 6 -foot sidewalk is required to be installed along the property's
K:IReporu120061PC ReponslOL 13-061R-P7D 06-1883 (Abshier h eights).DOC
frontage, however the location .of the sidewalk will be evaluated by the Sidewalk
Coordinator and Urban Forester to ensure that existing tree canopy is preserved.
Improvements need to extend beyond the frontage of the subject property to the
intersection of College Avenue and Abshier Drive, to allow for safe and adequate access to
the property.
(7) Whether the planned development provides for unified development control under a
unified plan;
FINDING: A plan and project booklet has been submitted, recognizing the zoning and
development criteria required of a Master Development Plan submittal. Typical
architectural elevations, materials and design standards are called out, in order to describe
the appearance of the project once constructed.
(8) Whether any other recognized zoning consideration would be violated in this PZD.
FINDING: Staff finds that in review of the requested rezoning, the Master Development
Plan proposed does not violate recognized zoning considerations, as found below.
(J) Development standards, conditions and review guidelines
(1) Generally. The Planning Commission shall consider a proposed PZD in light of the
purpose and intent as set forth in Chapter 161 Zoning Regulations, and the development
standards and review guidelines set forth herein. Primary emphasis shall be placed upon
achieving compatibility between the proposed development and surrounding areas so as
to preserve and enhance the neighborhood. Proper planning shall involve a consideration
of tree preservation, water conservation, preservation of natural site amenities, and the
protection of watercourses from erosion and siltation. The Planning Commission shall
determine that specific development features, including project density, building
locations, common usable open space, the vehicular circulation system, parking areas,
screening and landscaping, and perimeter treatment shall be combined in such a way as to
further the health, safety, amenity and welfare of the community. To these ends, all
applications filed pursuant to this ordinance shall be reviewed in accordance with the
same general review guidelines as those utilized for zoning and subdivision applications.
FINDING: The proposed Planned Zoning District has been reviewed in light of all
applicable development and zoning ordinances. At this time, the Master Development Plan
sets out the basic guidelines, development and zoning criteria, commitments offered by the
applicant and those recommended by staff, and design standards to ensure the proposal
will achieve a high level of compatibility with adjacent properties. While a residential use
is a significant change from the existing C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial zoning, staff finds
that the proposal herein does incorporate an acceptable level of compatibility, and
development features further the health, safety, amenity and welfare of the community.
The density and maximum dwelling units have been addressed for the planning area; a
greater percentage of open space will be retained in comparison to the requirements under
the C-2 zoning district. Traffic movement is achieved via public and private streets, with
K: IReports\20061PC Reports 102-13-061 R-PZD 06-1883 (A/is/tier Heighrsf-DOC
access onto North Street and College Avenue. The proposed development will work with
the natural features and topography of the property and place an emphasis on tree
preservation, allowing for a project that enhances the neighborhood.
(2) Screening and landscaping. In order to enhance the integrity and attractiveness of the
development, and when deemed necessary to protect adjacent properties, the Planning
Commission shall require landscaping and screening as part of a PZD. The screening and
landscaping shall be provided as set forth in §166.09 Buffer Strips and Screening. As part
of the development plan, a detailed screening and landscaping plan shall be submitted to
the Planning Commission. Landscape plans shall show the general location, type and
quality (size and age) of plant, material. Screening plans shall include typical details of
fences, berms and plant material to be used.
FINDING: Screening is not required at this time; with development of the site, all
applicable development criteria will be applied for appropriate landscaping, screening and
buffering of parking areas and objectionable uses. The developer shall be required to plant
addition trees every 30 linear feet along the right-of-way where existing trees do not fulfill
this requirement.
(3) Traffic circulation. The following traffic circulation guidelines shall apply:
(a) The adequacy of both the internal and external street systems shall be reviewed in
light of the projected future traffic volumes:
(b) The traffic circulation system shall be comprised of a hierarchal scheme of local
collector and arterial streets, each designed to accommodate its proper function and in
appropriate relationship with one another.
(c) Design of the internal street circulation system must be sensitive to such
considerations as safety, convenience, separation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic,
general attractiveness, access to dwelling units and the proper relationship of different
land uses.
(d) Internal collector streets shall be coordinated with the existing external street system,
providing for the efficient flow of traffic into and out of the planned zoning
development.
(e) Internal local streets shall be designed to discourage through traffic within the
planned zoning development and to adjacent areas.
(f) Design provisions for ingress and egress for any site along with service drives and
interior circulation shall be that required by Chapter 166 Development of this code.
FINDING: A traffic
study was not required
with this proposed development.
Ingress and
egress to the project
will be
provided from
Abshier Drive, Hillcrest Avenue
and through
K:IReports120061PC Reporis102-13-061R-PZD 06-1883 (Abshier Heights):DOC
existing access points through the Evelyn Hills Shopping Center.
(4) Parking standards. The off-street parking and loading standards found in Chapter 172
Parking and Loading shall apply to the specific gross usable or leasable floor areas of the
respective use areas.
FINDING: The applicants have proposed additional parking to allow for guests to park
within the development. All parking areas shall conform to City of Fayetteville standard
specifications, unless approved otherwise by the Planning Commission.
(5) Perimeter treatment. Notwithstanding any other provisions of a planned zoning district,
all uses of land or structures shall meet the open space, buffer or green strip provisions of
this chapter of this code.
FINDING: The development will retain approximately 94% of the existing tree canopy on
the property, for a total of 17.0% of the site area. Additional trees will be planted along the
right-of-way, which should provide for a significant natural buffer from the existing
neighborhood. Open spaces are indicated to be preserved along the rights -of -way.
(6) Sidewalks. As required by § 166.03.
FINDING: Sidewalks will be evaluated by the Sidewalk Coordinator and Urban Forester
at the time of development to ensure that existing tree canopy is preserved.
(7) Street Lights. As required by § 166.03.
FINDING: Street lights will be required at the time of development.
(8) Water. As required by § 166.03.
FINDING: Public water will be provided to the project site, pursuant to city code. A study
of the water system shall be conducted by the developer as directed by the Engineering
Division. Substantial improvements to the water system may be required which includes
other off -site improvements.
(9) Sewer. As required by § 166.03
FINDING: Public sewer will be provided to the project site, pursuant to city code. A study
of the downstream system shall be conducted by the developer. Substantial improvements
to the sewer system may be required which includes other off -site improvements.
(10) Streets and Drainage. Streets within a residential PZD may be either public or
private.
(a) Public Streets. Public streets shall be constructed according to the adopted standards
of the City.
K. Wepons120061PC Reports 02-13-061R-PZD 06-1883 (Abshier Heights).DOC
(b) Private Streets. Private streets within .a residential PZD shall be permitted subject to
the following conditions:
(i) Private streets shall be permitted for only a loop street, or street ending with a cul-
de-sac. Any street connecting one or more public streets shall be constructed to
existing City standards and shall be dedicated as a public street.
(ii) Private streets shall be designed and constructed to the same standards as public
streets with the exceptions of width and cul-de-sacs as noted below.
(iii)All grading and drainage within a Planned Zoning District including site drainage
and drainage for private streets shall comply with the City's Grading (Physical
Alteration of Land) and Drainage (Storm water management) Ordinances. Open
drainage systems may be approved by the City Engineer.
(iv) Maximum density served by a cul-de-sac shall be 40 units. Maximum density
served by a loop street shall be 80 units.
(v) The plat of the planned development shall designate each private street as a
"private street."
(vi) Maintenance of private streets shall be the responsibility of the developer or of a
neighborhood property owners association (POA) and shall not be the
responsibility of the City. The method for maintenance and a maintenance fund
shall be established by the PZD covenants. The covenants shall expressly provide
that the City is a third party beneficiary to the covenants and shall have the right
to enforce the street maintenance requirements of the covenants irrespective of the
vote of the other parties to the covenants.
(vii) The covenants shall provide that in the event the private streets are not maintained
as required by the covenants, the City shall have the right (but shall not be
required) to maintain said streets and to charge the cost thereof to the property
owners within the PZD on a pro rata basis according to assessed valuation for ad
valorem tax purposes and shall have a lien on the real property within the PZD for
such cost. The protective covenants shall grant the City the right to use all private
streets for purposes of providing fire and police protection, sanitation service and
any other of the municipal functions. The protective covenants shall provide that
such covenants shall not be amended and shall not terminate without approval of
the City Council.
(viii) The width of private streets may vary according to the density served: The
following standard shall be used:
K:IReports12006tPC ReportsI02-13-061R-PZD 06-1883 (Abshier Heights).DOC
Paving Width
(No On -Street Parkinal
Dwelling
One -Way
Two -Way
Units
1-20
14'
22'
21+
14'
24'
*Note: If on -street parking is desired, 6 feet must be added to each side where parking is
intended.
(ix) All of the traffic laws prescribed by Title VII shall apply to traffic on private
streets within a PZD.
(x) There shall be no minimum building setback requirement from a private street.
(xi) The developer shall erect at the entrance of each private street a rectangular sign,
not exceeding 24 inches by 12 inches, designating the street a "private street"
which shall be clearly visible to motor vehicular traffic.
FINDING: All public and private streets/drives shall conform to city standards, which
have been indicated in the submitted statement of commitments. Public and Private streets
shall not be gated, unless permitted by express approval from the City Council.
(11) Construction of nonresidential facilities. Prior to issuance of more than eight
building permits for any residential PZD, all approved nonresidential facilities shall be
constructed. In the event the developer proposed to develop the PZD in phases, and the
nonresidential facilities are not proposed in the initial phase, the developer shall enter into
a contract with the City to guarantee completion of the nonresidential facilities.
FINDING: N/A
(12) Tree preservation. All PZD developments shall comply with the requirements for
tree preservation as set forth in Chapter 167 Tree Preservation and Protection. The
location of trees shall be considered when planning the common open space, location of
buildings, underground services, walks, paved areas, playgrounds, parking areas, and
finished grade levels.
FINDING: Staff recommends approval of the Tree Preservation Plan. Six (2) inch caliper
trees will be required for mitigation.
(13) Commercial design standards. All PZD developments that contain office or
K: IReporls120061PC Reports 102-l3-061 R-PZD 06-1883 (Abshier Heights).DOC
I
commercial structures shall comply with the commercial design standards as set forth in
§ 166.14 Site Development Standards and Construction and Appearance Design Standards
for Commercial Structures.
FINDING: The applicant has proposed design standards for residential structures.
(14) View protection. The Planning Commission shall have the right to establish
special height and/or positioning restrictions where scenic views are involved and shall
have the right to insure the perpetuation of those views through protective covenant
restrictions.
FINDING: Staff finds no specific scenic views to be protected on the subject property.
However, the buildings have been located, so that in most areas the rooftops and backs of
the buildings will not be clearly visible from the residential neighborhood; rather the
natural buffer and proposed buildings will screen the commercial area to the west.
(E) Revocation.
(1) Causes for revocation as enforcement action. The Planning Commission may
recommend to the City Council that any PZD approval be revoked and all building or
occupancy permits be voided under the following circumstances:
(a) Building permit. If no building permit has been issued within the time allowed.
(b) Phased development schedule. If the applicant does not adhere to the phased
development schedule as stated in the approved development plan.
(C) Open space and recreational facilities. If the construction and provision of all
common open spaces and public and recreational facilities which are shown on the
final plan are proceeding at a substantially slower rate than other project components.
Planning staff shall report the status of each ongoing PZD at the first regular meeting
of each quarter, so that_the Planning Commission is able to compare the actual
development accomplished with the approved development schedule. If the Planning
Commission finds that the rate of construction of dwelling units or other commercial
or industrial structures is substantially greater than the rate at which common open
spaces and public recreational facilities have been constructed and provided, then the
Planning Commission may initiate revocation action or cease to approve any
additional final plans if preceding phases have not been finalized. The city may also
issue a stop work order, or discontinue issuance of building or occupancy permits, or
revoke those previously issued.
(2) Procedures. Prior to a recommendation of revocation, notice by certified mail shall be
sent to the landowner or authorized agent giving notice of the alleged default, setting a
time to appear before the Planning Commission to show cause why steps should not be
made to totally or partially revoke the PZD. The Planning Commission recommendation
K:IReports120061PC Reports102-13-061R-PZD 06-1883 (Abshier Heiehtv).DOC
shall be forwarded to the City Council for disposition as in original approvals. In the
event a PZD is revoked, the City. Council shall take the appropriate action in the city
clerk's office and the public zoning record duly noted.
(3) Effect. In the event of revocation, any completed portions of the development or those
portions for which building permits have been issued shall be treated to be a whole and
effective development. After causes for revocation or enforcement have been corrected,
the City Council shall expunge such record as established above and shall authorize
continued issuance of building permits. .
(F) Covenants, trusts and homeowner associations.
(1) Legal entities. The developer shall create such legal entities as appropriate to undertake
and be responsible for the ownership, operation, construction, and maintenance of private
roads, parking areas, common usable open space, community facilities, recreation areas,
building, lighting, security measure and similar common elements in a development. The
city encourages the creation of homeowner associations, funded community trusts or
other nonprofit organizations implemented by agreements, private improvement district,
contracts and covenants. All legal instruments setting forth a plan or manner of
permanent care and maintenance of such open space, recreation areas and communally -
owned facilities shall be approved by the City Attorney as to legal form and effect, and
by the Planning Commission as to the suitability for the proposed use of the open areas.
The aforementioned legal instruments shall be provided to the Planning Commission
together with the filing of the final plan, except that the Guarantee shall be filed with the
preliminary plan or at least in a preliminary form.
(2) Common areas. If the common open space is deeded to a homeowner association, the
developer shall file with the plat a declaration of covenants and restrictions in the
Guarantee that will govern the association with the application for final plan approval.
The provisions shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following:
(a) The homeowner's association must be legally established before building permits are
granted.
(b) Membership and fees must be mandatory for each home buyer and successive buyer
(C) The open space restrictions must be permanent, rather than for a period of years.
(d) The association must be responsible for the maintenance of recreational and other
common facilities covered by the agreement and for all liability insurance, local taxes
and other public assessments.
(e) Homeowners must pay their pro rata share of the initial cost; the maintenance
assessment levied by the association must be stipulated as a potential lien on the
property.
K:IReporu12006V°C Reporrs102-t3-061R-PZD 06-1883 (Abshier Heighes).DOC
FINDING: The applicant shall comply with the above requirements, as part of the
Planned Zoning District ordinance.
Sec. 161.25 Planned Zoning District
(A) Purpose. The intent of the Planned Zoning District is to permit and encourage
comprehensively planned developments whose purpose is redevelopment, economic
development, cultural enrichment or to provide a single -purpose or mixed -use planned
development and to permit the combination of development and zoning review into a
simultaneous process. The rezoning of property to the PZD may be deemed appropriate if the
development proposed for the district can accomplish one or more of the following goals.
(1) Flexibility. Providing for flexibility in the distribution of land uses, in the density
of development and in other matters typically regulated in zoning districts.
(2) Compatibility. Providing for compatibility with the surrounding land uses.
(3) Harmony. Providing for an orderly and creative arrangement of land uses that are
harmonious and beneficial to the community.
(4) Variety. Providing for a variety of housing types, employment opportunities or
commercial or industrial services, or any combination thereof, to achieve variety
and integration of economic and redevelopment opportunities.
(5) No negative impact. Does not have a negative effect upon the future development
of the area;
(6) Coordination. Permit coordination and planning of the land surrounding the PZD
and cooperation between the city and private developers in the urbanization of
new lands and in the renewal of existing deteriorating areas.
(7) Open space. Provision of more usable and suitably located open space, recreation
areas and other common facilities that would not otherwise be required under
conventional land development regulations.
(8) Natural features. Maximum enhancement and minimal disruption of existing
natural features and amenities.
(9) General Plan. Comprehensive and innovative planning and design of mixed use
yet harmonious developments consistent with the guiding policies of the General
Plan.
(10) Special Features. Better utilization of sites characterized by special features of
geographic location, topography, size or shape.
FINDING: The proposed Master Development Plan incorporates many of the above
K:IReports120061PC Reportsl02-13-061R-PZD 06-1883 (Abshier Heights).DOC
criteria, as indicated by the transition from commercial to condominium to single family
detached; the minimal disruption of existing natural features and amenities; utilization of
the site special features, such as geographic location, topography, size and shape; creating a
community atmosphere near two arterial streets, while providing necessary infrastructure
improvements to alleviate any potential impact; and providing a variety of housing types
within the same area, allowing for a socio-economic diversity while promoting a
community atmosphere in which one can work, live and play.
(B) Rezoning. Property may be rezoned to the Planned Zoning District by the City Council
in accordance with the requirements of this chapter and Chapter 166, Development. Each
rezoning parcel shall be described as a separate district, with distinct boundaries and specific
design and development standards. Each district shall be assigned a project number or label,
along with the designation "PZD". The rezoning shall include the adoption of a specific master
development plan and development standards.
FINDING: The subject described real property is proposed to be rezoned to R-PZD 06-
1883, with one (1) unique Planning Area. The development standards, statement of
commitments and Master Development Plan approved shall be adopted with the rezoning.
(C) R — PZD, Residential Planned Zoning District.
(1) Purpose and intent. The R-PZD is intended to accommodate mixed -use or clustered
residential developments and to accommodate single -use residential developments that
are determined to be more appropriate for a PZD application than a general residential
rezone. The legislative purposes, intent, and application of this district include, but are
not limited to, the following:
(a) To encourage a variety and flexibility in land development and land use for
predominately residential areas, consistent with the city's General Plan and the
orderly development of the city.
(b) To provide a framework within which an effective relationship of different land uses
and activities within a single development, or when considered with abutting parcels
of land, can be planned on a total basis.
(c) To provide a harmonious relationship with the surrounding development, minimizing
such influences as land use incompatibilities, heavy traffic and congestion, and
excessive demands on planned and existing public facilities.
(d) To provide a means of developing areas with special physical features to enhance
natural beauty and other attributes.
(e) To encourage the efficient use of those public facilities required in connection with
new residential development.
FINDING: The proposal is single -use residential development, which is more
KiReports12006IPC Repons102-/3-061R-PZD 06-1883 (Abshier Heights).DOC
appropriate for a PZD application than a general residential rezone. The requested R-PZD
provides an effective transition between two different land uses and activities on abutting
parcels. Improvements to infrastructure will be required in order to provide adequate
traffic safety. By clustering more densely, the natural features of the site and existing tree
canopy can be preserved.
(2) Permitted Uses. All permitted uses identified within §162 Use Units of the Unified
Development Code shall be allowed as permissible uses, unless otherwise specified,
subject to City Council approval of the Planned Zoning District request.
(3) Conditional Uses. All conditional uses allowed within (Residential, Commercial,
Industrial) zoning Districts established in the Unified Development Code shall be
allowed with Planning Commission approval, unless otherwise specified, subject to the
code governing Conditional Use requests.
FINDING: See Zoning Criteria Chart within the project booklet provided by the
applicant for the uses permitted by right and by conditional use in each Planning Area as
proposed by the applicant. This project booklet, if approved, will remain on file in the
Planning Division for comparison to future development on the property. Uses proposed
have been evaluated and found to be reasonably compatible in adjacency to other uses.
(4) Condition. In no instance shall the residential use area be less than fifty-one percent
(51 %) of the gross floor area within the development.
FINDING: The proposed PZD proposed is entirely residential in use.
*Required Findings for Rezoning Request.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request from C-2,
Thoroughfare Commercial, to MDP R-PZD 06-1883, with the adoption of the associated
Master Development Plan.
LAND USE PLAN: The General Plan 2020 Future Land Use Plan designates this site as a
Residential Area. Rezoning this property to R-PZD 05-1636, with the associated Master
Development Plan, varies this future land use to a mixed use, though the principal use on the
property will remain residential. The proposed plan, commitments, design standards and other
conditions placed upon the project result in a compatible development with surrounding land
uses in the general vicinity, meeting many of the goals of the General Plan 2020 for new
development.
FINDINGS OF THE STAFF
A determination of the degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent with land use
planning objectives, principles, and policies and with land use and zoning plans.
Finding: The proposed rezoning is to a great degree consistent with many of the
K:I ReporlsI20061 PC Repores(0Z-13-06(R-PZD 06-1883 (Abshier Heighis).DOC
principles and policies in place. The policies encouraged by the General Plan
2020 call for mixtures of uses, housing sizes and types, pedestrian -friendly
neighborhoods, siting new development adjacent to arterials, schools and
other public services, and expanding the public trails and parks system. This
project meets many of these goals, and creates an internal transition between
land uses.
2. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the
rezoning is proposed.
Finding: The proposed zoning is needed in order to develop anything other than those
uses allowed within the C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial zoning district. The
C-2 zoning district does allow for attached and detached residential dwellings
as accessory uses. The density limitations are governed by Chapter 161.13
(C), RMF-24, Residential Multi -Family, 24 Units per Acre.
A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase
traffic danger and congestion.
Finding: The proposed zoning will certainly result in an increase in vehicle trips, due
to the change in use from vacant property to 30 dwelling units. It is
necessary that street improvements occur as a result, to be installed with
development of the project. With the improvements other users of Abshier
Drive and Hillcrest Avenue will likely benefit as well, due to the fact that at
this time there is no curb, gutter, storm drains, or sidewalks. It is the opinion
of the Fayetteville Police Department that this Planned Zoning District will
not substantially alter the population density and thereby undesirably
increase the load on police services or create an appreciable increase in
traffic danger and congestion in the area. Fire Station #1 at 303 W. Center
expects a response time of 5.5 minutes with an anticipated 7 calls for service
per year once the development is completed and maximum build -out has
occurred.
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: Based on findings from public service providers, as outlined below, an
undesirable increase in load on public services would not be created.
Engineering: Public water is adjacent to the site. A study of the water system shall
be conducted by the developer as directed by the Engineering
Division. Substantial improvements to the water system may be
required which includes other off -site improvements. Water service
will need to be extended within the property at the time of
K:1Reportsl20061PC Reportsl02-13-061R-P7_D 06-1883 (Abshier Heights)-DOC
development connecting within the proposed development.
Sanitary sewer is currently available to the site. There is a 6" sewer
line that runs along Hillcrest Avenue and a 6" sewer line along
Abshier Drive, west of the site. A study of the downstream system
shall be conducted by the developer. Substantial improvements to the
sewer system may be required which includes other off -site
improvements. Sewer service will need to be extended within the
property at the time of development connecting within the proposed
development.
Police: It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that this
rezoning will not substantially alter the population density and
thereby undesirably increase the load on police services or create an
appreciable increase in traffic danger and congestion in the area.
Fire: The subject property is located approximately 1.7 miles from the Fire
Station No. 1. Response time to the property is 5.5 minutes.
5. If there are reasons why the proposed zoning should not be approved in view of
considerations under b (1) through (4) above, a determination as to whether the
proposed zoning is justified and/or necessitated by peculiar circumstances such
as:
a. It would be impractical to use the land for any of the uses
. permitted under its existing zoning classifications;
b. There are extenuating circumstances which justify the
rezoning even though there are reasons under b (1) through
(4) above why the proposed zoning is not desirable.
Finding: N/A
K:IRelvas12006LrC Reports102-13-0618-PZD 06-1883 (Abshier Heighrs).DOC
PC Meeting of February 13, 2006
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
TREE PRESERVATION and PROTECTION REPORT
To: Fayetteville Planning Commission
From: Sarah K. Patterson, Urban Forester
Date: February 8, 2006.
113W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (479) 444-3470
ITEM #: R-PZD o6-1883: Planned Zoning District (Abshier Heights)
Requirements Submitted:
Initial Review with the Landscape Administrator
T
Site Analysis Map Submitted
T
Site Analysis Written Report Submitted
T
Complete Tree Preservation Plan Submitted
Canopy Measurements:
v-
Area �� � '�
-�Total.Srte �"F�9
L .T+
acres
.11
square feet
179,032
.per '�i�i 'c]s..'� •n
EXistln , Tree, Cano `
..]/
tom:
, , ,_
acres
square feet
32.085
percent of site area
1
�r.a_ �,
t F§u x . _
;Eitistin Tree.Gano 4
:.Presercced�
acres
square feet
30.355
percent of total site area
17%
;Percent Mnimuin'Cann "; a uireil
17.9/o
FINDINGS:
The desirability of preserving a tree or group of trees by reason of age, location, size or
species.
• This site currently has about 17.9% canopy cover. The area is very
sloped and covered mostly with brushy vegetation. Several
significant trees exist most being oak and pine.
Whether the design incorporates the required tree preservation priorities
• This design takes into consideration the tree preservation priorities
and only reduces the canopy slightly
The extent to which the area would be subject to environmental degradation due to
removal of the tree or group of trees.
• Little tree canopy would be removed with this development. The
removal of the brushy vegetation on the site will create some
environmental degradation due to the slope of the land.
The impact of the reduction in tree cover on adjacent properties, the surrounding
neighborhood and the property on which the tree or group of trees is located.
• The property is adjacent to the back of a large shopping center and
two public roads. Properties across these streets should be minimally
affected by the removal of tree canopy.
Whether alternative construction methods have been proposed to reduce the impact of
development on existing trees.
• N/A
Whether the size or shape of the lot reduces the flexibility of the design.
• The size, shape, and topography of this lot greatly affects the design.
The general health and condition of the tree or group of trees, or the presence of any
disease, injury or hazard.
• The trees were inventoried by a certified arborist whom found most to
be in poor to fair condition.
The placement of the tree or group of trees in relation to utilities, structures, and use of
the property.
• Several utility easements exist on this property. The proposed
utilities will utilize the parking area and avoid most trees.
The need to remove the tree or group of trees for the purpose of installing, repairing,
replacing, or maintaining essential public utilities.
• The trees proposed for removal are found within the detention area
and in a proposed drive. Additional canopy could be affected by the
replacement or maintenance along Hillcrest Ave but these utilities
already exist.
Whether roads and utilities are designed in relation to the existing topography, and
routed, where possible, to avoid damage to existing canopy.
• The roads and utilities are designed as best possible for this space.
Construction requirements for On -Site and Off -Site Alternatives.
• N/A
The effects of proposed On -Site Mitigation or Off -Site Alternatives.
• Mitigation will be required to replace 1,730 square feet of removed
canopy.
The effect other chapters of the UDC, and departmental regulations have on the
development design.
• This project is proposed as a Residential Planned Zoning District.
The extent to which development of the site and the enforcement of this chapter are
impacted by state and federal regulations:
• N/A
The impact a substantial modification or rejection of the application would have on the
Applicant:
• Staff is recommending approval of the submitted Tree Preservation
Plan with the following conditions.
Conditions:
i. Six (2) inch caliper trees will be required for mitigation. These trees
will need to be planted and bonded in the amount of $i,5oo before
signature of Final Plat. This bond is for a 3 -year maintenance and
monitoring period. At the end of these 3 years the Urban Forester
will inspect these trees for health. If 90% are healthy the bond is
returned in full.
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
113 W. Mountain St.
'Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: 479-444-3469
TO: Jesse Fulcher, Associate Planner
FROM: Alison Jumper, Park Planner
DATE: January 31, 2006
SUBJECT: Parks & Recreation Subdivision Committee Comments
Meeting Date: February 2, 2006
Item: PZD 06-1883 Abshire Heights
Park District: NE
Zoned: PZD
Billing Name & Address: D & P Chance Properties
Land Dedication Requirement
Money
in Lieu
Single Family
@ .024 acre per unit =
acres 8 @
$555
per unit
= $_4,440
Multi Family
@ .017 acre per unit =
acres 22@
$393
per unit
= $ 8,646
Mobile Home
_____@.024 acre per unit =
acres @
$555
per unit
= $
Lot Split
@
$555
per unit
=
$
COMMENTS:
PRAB voted to accept money in lieu of land for the park land dedication requirements of
this development on November 7, 2005 due to its proximity to Gregory Park.
Fees are assessed in the amount of $13,086 for 22 multi -family homes and 8 single
family homes.
Fees are due before signing final plat.
PZD06--2
From: Travis Dotson
To: Fulcher, Jesse
Date: 2/1/06 4:58PM
Subject: Subdivision Committee Meeting for Thursday, February 2, 2006
Jesse,
Abshier Heights will be required to have a centralized location for a trash dumpster to service trash needs
for this multi - unit dwelling.
Thanks
Travis Dotson
FAYE I- SEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
January 17, 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
Planned Zoning District R-PZD 06-1883 (Abshier Heights, 407) submitted by H2
Engineering, INC for property located S of Evelyn Hills Shopping Center on Abshier and
Hillcrest would substantially alter the population density and thereby undesirably
increase the load on public services or create an appreciable increase in traffic danger and
traffic congestion.
It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that this Planned Zoning District
will not substantially alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the
load on police services or create and appreciable increase in traffic danger and congestion
in the area.
Sincerely
wt
Captain Wiliam Brown
Fayetteville Police Department
FAYETTEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMEt�r1ri (DELIVERIES) POLICE: 100-A WEST ROCK STREET 72701
too-hTKoCK-STittScrs
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS f 870 t PHONE: 479-587-3555 FAX: 479-587-3522
Fayetteville Fire
Department
To: Suzanne Morgan, Andrew Garner, Jeremy Pate, and Jesse Fulcher
Thru: Chief Tony Johnson
From: Captain Dale Riggins
Date: January 17, 2006
Re: January 17, 2006 Re -zoning Review — Fire Department Comments
estside Village
These 21.91 acres is ecovered by Engine 7
It is 0.1 mile from the station with an ex,P
is right across the street from the stati6n).
The Fire Department ant
once the development is
Measured Hydrant Flow
The service impact of t i
dos, 439)
5 Rupple Road.
response time of 1 minute (Development
(50 EMS — 33 Fire/Other) calls for service per year
and maximum build -out has occurred.
is 1590 gallons/minute.
lent will typically take eighteen months after the
development is start9.d and the units begin to be occupied, to occur.
There should be n adverse effects on our\all volume or response time to this
development.
MDP R-PZD 0 1881 (Skyv' w Heights, 291)
These 12.85 acres is vered by ngine 4 at 3385 N Plainview.
It is 1.4 miles from the tation ith an expected response time of minutes.
The Fire Department ant ip es 5 (3 EMS — 2 Fire/Other) calls for service per year once
the development is completed and maximum build -out has occurred.
Measured Hydrant Flow/'hi. th`s area is 1361 gallons/minute.
The service impact of tJAs deve1�pment will typically take eighteen months after the
development is starte , and the units begin to be occupied, to occur.
There should be no/dvcrse effects%n our call volume or response time to this
development.
R-PZD 06-1883 (Abshier Heights, 407)
These 4.11 acres is covered by Engine 1 and Ladder I at 303 W Center.
It is 1.7 miles from the station with an expected response time of 5.5 minutes.
The Fire Department anticipates 7 (4 EMS — 3 Fire/Other) calls for service per year once
the development is completed and maximum build -out has occurred.
Our only concern is the hydrant at Hillcrest and Oakwood which flows less than 400
gallon/minute. The other hydrants surrounding this development have adequate flows.
The service impact of this development will typically take eighteen months after the
development is started, and the units begin to be occupied, to occur.
There should be no adverse effects on our call volume or response time to this
development.
ANX 06-1895 (Broyles, 245)
RZN 06-1896 (Broyles, 245)
These 2.8 a res is covered by Engine 7 at 835 Ruppjp4oad.
It is 2.9 milom the station with an expected r ponse time of 8.25 minutes. This
response time rs\\
90% of the time,
moderate risk as:
(Fayetteville Fire Dep'e
to. cover this northwest
winding Rupple Road 1
major cross streets.
The Fire Department ai
the development is c9r1
Measured F.
The service
our goal of having
our goal of
pent within
unit on the scene within 6 minutes,
3ssembli all responding units to the scene of a
10 mpthes, 90% of the time.. It'has been proposed
epl ment Study 2003) to build a fire station (Station 9)
ity. The long response time is due to the narrow and
edington Dr and Mt Comfort Rd plus having to cross 2
6ipates 32 EMS — I Fire/Other) calls for service per year once
leted and maximum build -out has occurred.
in this area is'$05 gallons/minute.
Oct of this development *ill typically take eighteen months after the
started, and the units beginobe occupied, to occur.
RZN 06-189DkSl
These 1.91 acres is
It is 1.2 miles from ft
The Fire Department
the development is cc
Measured Hydrant F]
The service impact o
development is st
adverse
by Enginy2 at 700 N Garland.
ran expected response time of 3.75 minutes.
(3 EMS — 2 Fire/Other) calls for service per year once
and maximum build -out has occurred.
v/n this area is 1565 gallons/minute.
its development will typically take eighteen months after the
and the units begin to be occupied, to occur. There should be no
our call volume ≥≥\response time to this development.
If you have any questions or need additional information don't hesitate to call me at x365
Dale Riggins
Abshier Heights
1.7 Mile Response
5.5 Minute Response Time
Blue Line indicates 6 minute Response Time
WESTSIDE VILL E CONDOS (R-PZD 06-1884)
Public water is adjacent to e site. There is a I ' waterline that runs along Rupple Road. A study of the
water system shall be condu ed by the dev per. Substantial improvements to the water system may be
required which includes other f -site i rovements. Water service will need to be extended within the
property at the time of developm t nnecting within the proposed development.
Sanitary sewer is not adjacent the s't�. There is an 8" sewer line near the property. A study of the
downstream system shall b conducted b the developer. Sewer service will need to be extended within the
property at the time of elopment connec 'rig within the proposed development.
The site currently as frontage on Rupple Road.
Standard improvements and requirements for drainage will be required for the development
SKYVIEW HEIIFHTS (MDP R-PZD 06-1881)
Public water is not a 'cent to the site. A stj4 of the water system shall be conducted by the developer as
directed by the Engine��ing Division. Su,buiantial improvements to the water system may be required which
includes other off -site i rovements. ater service will need to be extended within the property at the time
of development connectinkwithin,jkca proposed development.
Sanitary sewer is currently a Table to the site. There is an 8" sewer line that enters the property from the
west. A study of the dow Cream system shall be conducted by the developer. Sewer service will need to be
extended within the pr erty at the time of development connecting within the proposed development
The site will hav access to College venue by a private street. Further evaluation will be conducted by staff
at the time of_p�nstruct.ion plan submittal for any required improvements.
Runoff from most of the site flows overland to the west. Standard improvements and requirements for
drainage will be required for the development.
ABSHIER HEIGHTS (R-PZD 06-1883)
Public water is adjacent to the site. A study of the water system shall be conducted by the developer as
directed by the Engineering Division. Substantial improvements to the water system may be required which
includes other off -site improvements. Water service will need to be extended within the property at the time
of development connecting within the proposed development.
Sanitary sewer is currently available to the site. There is a 6" sewer line that runs along Hillcrest Avenue,
and a 6" sewer line along Abshire Drive, west of the site. A study of the downstream system shall be
conducted by the developer. Substantial improvements to the sewer system may be required which includes
other off -site improvements. Sewer service will need to be extended within the property at the time of
development connecting within the proposed development
The site will have access to Hillcrest and Abshire. Further evaluation will be conducted by staff at the time
of construction plan submittal for any required improvements.
Runoff from most of the site flows overland to the west. Standard improvements and requirements for
drainage will be required for the development.
BROYLES (RZN X6-1896 and ANX 06-1859)
December 13, 2005
Sarah Patterson
Landscape Coordinator
City of Fayetteville
113 West Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Re: ABSHIER HEIGHTS
TREE PRESERVATION ANALYSIS
Dear Sarah,
We are submitting a preliminary plat for a PZD called Abshier Heights. This project is
located in Fayetteville, just behind Evelyn Hills shopping center in the northwest corner
of Abshier Drive and Hillcrest Avenue. We will be proposing four duplex units, and 22
town homes for a total of 30 units.
This site is broken up into two pieces of land; one triangular piece to the South, and one
rectangular piece to the North. The triangular piece to the south is mainly covered in
small saplings, cedars and brush. There are some larger significant trees located on this
parcel. This parcel also contains the trees we will have to remove in order to construct a
detention pond. These are tree numbers 67-78. Tree number 69 will also be removed;
however, it is already dead.
Most of the trees for this project are located on the North rectangular piece are along
Hillcrest Avenue. These trees are run along an existing easement line; however, none of
these trees should be affected by this development. The majority of the trees in this area
are pine, oak, and cedar. There are also other species of trees located on the property that
can be found in the tree table on the Tree Preservation Plan.
The layout of the driveways and building units were placed so that we could utilize the
flat portion of property we had, while staying away from the trees on the outer
boundaries. The existing canopy is 17.9% covered. After removal of the trees for the
detention pond, we will have 17.0% canopy cover. We will make up for this in
mitigation trees native to the area which include pine trees and oak trees. This
development should not entail a significant change to the existing trees in this area. We
hope to preserve the beauty of the existing canopy on this site to the best of our ability.
Please feel free to call if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely, q,
RECEIVED
Michelle Montes, E.I.
H2 Engineering, Inc. DEC 15 2005
CITY OF FAYE17EVILLE
PLANNING DIVISION
Planning Commission Meeting — February 13, 2006
Introduction —
Rob Wicks, University of Arkansas Communication Professor.
-Briefly highlight strong neighborhood opposition
-Ask neighbors opposed to rise
-Briefly note agreed upon speakers for brevity
• 1:00 to 2:00 minutes
Legal Issues —
Rebecca Haas, Attorney.
-Legal issues and threats as a consequence of zoning, tree ordinance, planning,
zoning, etc.
• 2:00 to 3:00 minutes
Architectural Issues —
Kim Sexton, UA Architecture Professor.
Issues of forcing dumpsters and dwellings to co -exist and the misleadingideas of the
space conveyed by the architectural renderings distributed by Cooper architects.
• 2:00 to 3:00 minutes.
Engineering Issues —
Shay Hopper, Woodland Jr. High Journalism Teacher.
Summary of research conducted by Emeritus Professor of Civil Engineering,
Robert Alguire and other sources.
Water pressure and sewerage issues, drainage, topography, issues from the Alguire
report, addendum and other points.
5:00 to 7:00 minutes
Historical Issues —
Gus Jones, Resident since 1956, Green space agreement, architectural and historical
significance.
• 3:00 minutes or time as needed.
Conclusion —
Jan Wicks, UA Journalism Professor — summary report.
• 1:00 to 2:00 minutes
Total anticipated presentation time is 14 to 20 minutes
Finally, we ask that all appropriate documents be entered into the record.
309 Abshier Road
Fayetteville, AR 72703
1 February 2006
Office of City Planning
The City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
113 West Mountain
Fayetteville, Arkansas, 72701
City of Fayetteville Planning and Zoning Committees:
My husband and I live across the street•from the newly planned development by
Cooper Architects at the comer of Hillcrest and Abshier. We have resided at this
address for nearly four years. We have three concerns regarding the proposed project:
1). traffic in the area, 2). density of the proposed development, 3). neighborhood
continuity or aesthetics.
Abshier Road is currently very nan-ow, barely allowing two cars to pass one another.
The traffic on Abshier is relatively heavy for such a narrow street, being used not only by
those living in the neighborhood, but also those avoiding the North Street and College
Avenue intersection. Many drivers exceed the speed limit, thus endangering those who
are walking their dogs or exercising. Additionally, near the intersection of Abshier Road
and College Avenue, those exiting the Rick's Bakery Parking lot at odd viewing angles
compound the traffic problem. The limited widening of Abshier Road on the south side
of the development will lessen the problem only marginally. However, with thirty
proposed units in the development, projecting two cars per residences (or three
vehicles, if units are rented), there will be an increase of 60 to 90 vehicles. Thinking
that the units will be inhabited by professional people traveling to and from their
residence two times a day will increase the traffic on Abshier and Hillcrest by 120 to
180 trips daily. If new residents park on the street, Hillcrest would not allow
comfortable passage oftwo cars, and Abshier would not allow passage of two cars at
all. This development is only two miles from the University of Arkansas; It is reasonable
to think that students will also inhabit the units. Should this occur, the traffic would
increase even more. The related concerns of street widening, parking, and traffic Issues
need to be resolved further prior to starting construction approval of the development
plan.
The second concern is directed at neighborhood density. One of the appealing
qualities of this neighborhood is its relative closeness to commercial areas and
University of Arkansas while still maintaining a single-family dwelling atmosphere.
Frequently, commercial areas such as Evelyn Hills Shopping Center have a buffer zone
between themselves and single detached housing. The proposed development could
offer such a transition area if the proposed units were all two-story town houses or
condominiums. The comparatively quiet nature of the existing neighborhood suggests
that two -level units would be more in keeping with the surroundings (all one or one -
and -a -half stories) and would modestly lessen the apparent traffic concerns.
The third area of concern is continuity of the neighborhood design and aesthetic. Many
of the homes bordering on the proposed development are ranch style or mid-century
contemporary. Also included in our neighborhood is the home of Fay Jones. A
Miller. Page 1
nationally celebrated architect, the proposed facades do not integrate themselves into
the character already established by Mr. Jones' and the surrounding homes. Diversity
keeps a neighborhood interesting when applied with sensitivity. However, the
proportion and balance of the proposed buildings, the design of the exaggerated
fenestration, and the bunker -like appearance of the buildings are offensive
interruptions. The proposed development could and should, become an area of visual
interest and emphasis for the neighborhood by investing more attention to the design
of the exterior of the buildings.
We are pleased to see this area of the neighborhood being developed as a residential
buffer to a more commercial area. While we would prefer a city park dedicated to one
of Its more famous citizens, Fay Jones, this end -use also fits into our neighborhood.
However, resolution of traffic, density, and design factors needs to occur before
approving the project.
Respectfully,
Nancy G. Miller
31AU
William J. Mille
Miller: Page 2
Shay & David Hopper
1224 N. Hillcrest
Planning Commission Comments 243-06 (updated 2-13-06)
R-PZD 06-1883: Planned.Zoning District (ABSHIER HEIGHTS, 407)
Commissioners — Thank you for taking the time to listen to our concerns. Certainly, my neighbors
and I are not development or planning experts, but we have all made attempts to research this
situation thoroughly in hopes of presenting a clear and valid view of our concerns.
In as concise a manner as possible, I will address 11 specific issues that the neighborhood has
researched and discussed and then briefly review 4-5 specific points which Robert T. Alguire, UA
Professor emeritus of Civil Engineering; PhD, Univ. of Oklahoma, 1235 N. Hillcrest, asked be brought
to your attention, as he could not be here this evening.
1. Water Pressure — or extreme lack thereof. On pages 2, 6 & 7 (of original H2/ D & P Chance proposal),
the developer states: "A6 inch sanitary sewer line as well as an 8" water line are located to the east along
Hillcrest Avenue. A 6" waterline tees off the existing 8" water line and turns down the access road in to
Evelyn Hills. We will tie our waterline into the 6" waterline and loop it to the north, tying in to the 8"
waterline along Hillcrest Avenue." (pg. 2) ... "a 6 inch water line is located [on] site which we propose to
connect to, as well as an 8" to loop the systenL" (pg. 7)
For years, water pressure in the neighborhood has been notoriously poor. Many of the residents have
had City water department experts review their individual water situations (as have we) and report that
nothing can be done unless the entire grid, one of the older grids in the city, can be re-built/re-configured.
Obviously, a "connection" of this nature, with 30 new families taxing the already poor water flow, would be
a disaster. Will diminished water pressure bean issue if there is a fire?
2. Neighborhood -continuity - the architecture/style of the proposed units do not complete the neighborhood
and they are multi -family as opposed to single family, detached traditional (from my understanding,
neighborhood continuity is an issue in the City Plan 2025). This development is not a true or appropriate
extension of our neighborhood This is a "trashcan vs. trash dumpster" situation - it is not a good fit - urban
vs. historic/traditional.
3. The proposed development density is not compatible with our neighborhood. We do support
appropriate infill development, as opposed to sprawl, but the neighbors' hope for a design that supports
neighborhood continuity, and the architect's renderings of this project presented to the neighborhood do not
9. During the 2-2-06 City of Fayetteville Subdivision Cmte meeting, a Commissioner ) suggested that
the architecture firm continue to meet with/communicate with neighbors as this process moved forward.
We, as neighbors, have not been invited or afforded any additional opportunities to communicate with
developers or architects since the initial 1-26-06 meeting held at Cooper Architecture firm.
10. Market saturation — as most citizens are aware, the Fayetteville market currently appears to have a
"glut" of condos on the market. Many of these empty condos are in the high -end price rage as is being
"proposed" for this development. We are concerned about guaranteed market value of these condos, as we
are concerned about the properties sitting empty and being subject to vandalism or other hazardous scenarios
such as fire and miscellaneous crime.
11. Historical relevance — Certainly the issue of the E. Fay Jones home has been, and will be addressed by
my neighbors, and as an Arkansas History teacher, I certainly support and reaffirm those comments. On an
additional historical note, there was a proposal similar in nature to the current proposal that was denied for
many of the same issues we have discussed this evening. We have copies of those minutes available.
12. Due to the steep slope and grade of the land, will a retaining wall (s) need to be developed? Will it
be a repeat of the King's Drive situation — costly to the City?
13. Review of Alguire Comments
Thank you for your time and attention. We very much appreciate your consideration.
Robert T. and Mary S. Alguire
1235 N. Hillcrest Ave.
Fayetteville, AR 72703
(479) 521-1728
TO: PLANNING COMMISION
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE
REF: R-PZD 06-1883: Planned Zoning District (ABSHIER HEIGHTS, 407)
• First and foremost, we would like to express our strong opposition to this proposed
Residential Planned Zoning District. It would forever change the low density R-1 nature
of our neighborhood. This change would violate the basic rule of zoning that requires a
transition from industrial, commercial and high density residential to a neighborhood
such as ours. When this shopping center was first planned and developed, the only
possible use of this land was a green space. The strips of land are too narrow to allow for
any kind of transition to take place. Thirty Residential "condos" in such a tight area,
without any green space or any of the amenities usually associated with units of this
nature, i.e. swimming pool or recreation facilities or PA requirements, can not be
considered an adequate transition.
There are many other reasons that this property should not be used for anything but
geenspace and I will try to explain as many as I can.
The area in general is not suited for development. It is surrounded by extremely
steep slopes due to the step excavation that was done to build the Mall. Slopes of
this nature are generally not stable in this area to any kind of load bearing
construction or utilization. This will greatly be compounded by the presence of
springs in the area. The low muddy area that was created by the four wheelers
who love to drive through it, contained water during the whole of this last long
dry period. This means there is a water table which is fed by these springs close to
the surface in the area where they want to locate the three story units. The
combination of this soil and saturated water conditions under the traffic and
overburden created by the three storyunits, will lead to settling of the units
causing cracking and misalignments in doors and windows. There will also be an
overall settling of the whole area. This water so close to the surface will also
cause excess moisture to be immediately under the units floors, These conditions
do not reflect good building practices associated with these so called "High
Quality Condos".
2. An inspection of Abshier Road will show the longitudinal cracking, especially
near the side where the steep slopes drop down into this property, that there is
already some slope instability associated with this property. This condition has
come about due to the current traffic that will only greatly increase with the
doubling of the density of our neighborhood. This slope will have to be stabilized
with retaining walls if traffic increases. It will also require wider streets and
sidewalks, because there is no place to walk on Abshier except in the street.
3. Traffic is another one of the concerns of our neighborhood. There is already far
too much traffic on Abshier St. and Hillcrest Ave. due to the mall and the
congestion at College Ave. and North St. intersection. A great number of people
use these streets to bypass this intersection and to shortcut into the back of the
mall. The addition of these units will greatly aggravate this situation. The roads in
this area are not constructed to handle any more traffic. Nobody in our area park
in the street because of the danger associated with the steep grades, narrow
streets, excessive speeds and amount of traffic.
4. Another problem associated with the increase in traffic is the steepness of the
grades on Hillcrest Ave. and especially the access this developer wants to provide
to the narrow and extremely steep access road into the back of the mall. This road
is in such poor condition that it will have to be rebuilt to a substandard design
because of the extreme grade and the unsafe geometries of entering the narrow
travel way between the mall buildings. The connection of the condo access
roadways to a road that is this steep is against all design standards for geometries
and safety. There will be serious sight distance problems associated with these
intersections. Slope transition and stopping capabilities are also seriously
degraded on this type of incline. If it is raining, snowing or icing then this will
become extremely dangerous. When we have winter weather, these conditions on
Hillcrest Ave. will be seriously degraded. Vehicles without snow tires and four
wheel drive generally cannot make it up the hill. Even four wheel drive vehicles
have slid off the road into the property under question when going downhill on ice
covered roads. The access road going into the mall is the steepest section of this
proposal and if a vehicle going down this slope loses control of his vehicle, the
mall building will be in the direct path.
5. The neighborhood is also concerned that the increased traffic will cause the need
for putting in curbs and sidewalks as well as widening the road. It would also
probably require that a stronger pavement design be put in to handle the increased
traffic. This will create some major problems with access driveways, street
drainage including into yards, trees, retaining walls and the Fay Jones monument.
There would also be a need for a structural retaining wall, with barrier curb and
sidewalks, to be built adjacent to Abshier St. and Hillcrest Ave. and the proposed
property in order to protect the road, pedestrians and traffic. We feel that any cost
incurred by any of these requirements and solutions should be the developers sole
responsibilities.
6.. Another MAJOR engineering problem is water supply. For years the residents
have complained to the city about extremely low water pressure and flow. The
city has come out to the residences to investigate the problem. They have told the
people that there is nothing that they can do about it, and we have to live with the
problem since we live at the top'of hill at the upper end of the supply line. If this
is correct, than adding thirty residences to the lower end of this supply line will be
disastrous to the residences of this neighborhood: This would mean that the city
willinginly entered into an arrangement with a developer that deprived the current
residences of an adequate water supply as well as fire protection; this would be a
liability I do not think the city should even contemplate.
The other areas of concern are quite adequately addressed by the letter from Rob
and Jan Wicks. I see no need to repeat them here, other than to say that we whole
heartedly agree. I would also like to say that we also are highly skeptical of the
developers claims that these are high quality and luxury condos.
Robert T Alguire
Mary S. Alguire
Robert T. and Mary S. Alguire
1235 N. Hillcrest Ave.
Fayetteville, AR 72703
(479) 521-1728
ADDENDUM TO PARAGRAPH 4:
The Grade on Hillcrest Ave. is nearly level from North St. to Oakwood St, and then changes to
10% from there to below Abshier St., where it increases to 12 %. This is a fairly steep condition
for a residential street. Most vehicles can handle this grade with moderate downshifting in fair
road conditions. The problem with safety becomes pronounced in inclement weather, especially
in freezing conditions. The critical point in grades under these conditions occurs when a vehicle
cannot hold a stopped position. As one approaches this condition, a vehicle will experience a loss
in braking ability and an increase in stopping distance. This condition can be as little as 5% on
glazed ice to around 10 to 20% on snow packed roads.
This will explain my primary concern about the planned access roads of the condos with the back
entrance into the Mall area. This is an extremely steep grade of around 20+ %. This does not
look complicated on the planned view shown on their drawings, but in the geometrics of
accomplishing this safely, it is not possible. They are trying to join a level road to one that has a
very steep grade. This is normally done by providing a level area in the grade at the intersection.
This is not possible here because there is no room in the grade for it. That means that each condo
road will have to be rotated about its center line to match the grade of the mall access road. This
is where the safety issues become acute.
Cars exiting the condo areas will have to stop at the intersection before entering the road. If ice is
on the road, they will begin sliding down the hill sideways out of control. If a car tries to enter
the condo areas going down this grade, the driver cannot retain control of the vehicle and make
the turn. If two vehicles are trying this at the same time, there will be a collision. The drop-off on
the North side of this road caused by the retaining walls can add significant danger to this
condition. In any of these conditions braking will be minimal, if it even exists.
To: Mr. Jesse Fulcher
From: Dr. Robert and Dr. Jan Wicks, N. 1314 Hillcrest Avenue
Mrs. Gus Jones, N. 1330 Hillcrest Avenue
Dr. Linda Coon and Mr. Eric Coon, 1336 N. Hillcrest
Mr. Boyd and Ms. Trisha Logan, 1426 N. Hillcrest
Dr. Robert Alguire and Ms. Mary Alguire, 1235 N. Hillcrest Avenue
Mr. Jeff Jackson, 1414 N. Hillcrest Avenue
(Additional names will be added upon signature)
Date: January 31, 2006
Re.: Abshier Heights
We object to the Ab'shier Heights project for the following reasons:
The Fayetteville Planning Commission has confronted requests on this land parcel
in the past. The most recent occasion was July 22, 1991, when the Commission voted 7-
0-1 to deny conditional use for the purpose of constructing duplexes. We believe that the
Commission made the correct decision in 1991 and should deny a rezoning request once
again. We will now summarize both the old and new reasons we believe this request
should be denied.
The late Mr. Fay Jones and Mrs. Gus Jones told me on numerous occasions that
the original plans for rezoning the area that is now occupied by Evelyn Hills was
granted on the condition that the area abutting Abshier Drive and Hillcrest
Avenue will remain buffer or green space in perpetuity. Gus Jones reiterated this
recently (within the past three weeks).
2. The minutes from the June 1991 Planning Commission Meeting contain the
following regarding a plan to build duplexes on the property in 1991 (ham://nw-
ar.com/minutes/1991 /fpc062491.html).
"E. Fay Jones, 1330 Hillcrest, stated construction of the duplexes would change
the environment of the neighborhood which had always been single-family
homes. He also mentioned an increase in traffic. He requested the. conditional use
be denied." As an internationally renowned and honored architect, his perspective
is valuable in this matter.
3. The proposed project would abut the Jones home which was listed on the National
Register of Historic Places on April 28, 2000. As the first Fay Jones residential
design to be constructed in 1956, the Jones home is a national and local treasure.
The home features a tall lighted entry sculpture designed by Fay Jones. Additional
development and traffic would compromise the integrity of this historic landmark.
4. The minutes from the June 1991 Planning Commission meeting contain the
following regarding a plan to build duplexes on the property in 1991 (http://nw-
ar.com/minutes/1991/fpc062491.html). "Mr. Dick Oliver, 1440 Hillcrest,
appeared before the Commission and stated that, when he purchased his property
in 1972, the realtor had told him the subject property was to be used as
greenspace, providing a buffer between the residential area and the shopping
center. He explained the company that purchased the shopping center had not
purchased the subject tract of land because it was greenspace. He also pointed out
that any construction would have to destroy some of the trees. He stated the noise
from the shopping center was a problem, even with the trees. He further stated
there would be no view for any building constructed on the subject property. He
mentioned additional traffic, impassibility when ice was on the roadway, and
noise as some of his concerns should duplexes be constructed. He suggested the
Planning Commission should make the area a permanent greenspace."
5. Dr. Oliver told me in a conversation that the property is currently zoned as it is
because residents convinced planners in 1991 that residential development runs
counter to the original objectives of the property.
6. The proposed plan is not consistent with Fayetteville development. The density is
too great to provide comfortable housing. Thus, the property will quickly become
littered with excessive cars and eyesores that will change the nature of the
neighborhood.
The proposed project is also unsightly and will do little to enhance the quality of
life in the neighborhood. Cooper Architects and H2 Engineering report that the
units will be sold for approximately $200 a square foot. This means the average
unit (1,750 square feet) would be sold for $350,000. Neighbors are skeptical that
buyers would be willing to pay this much for a property that offers no amenities
such as a swimming pool, clubhouse, exercise facility or even any green space.
Furthermore, the front of the units will face the rear end of the aging Evelyn Hills
Shopping Center and the garbage dumpsters that are used by merchants. The back
of the units on the southern side that constitute more than half of the development
will likely face a concrete retaining wall according to project planners. With a
frontal view of an aging shopping mall and garbage dumpsters and a rear view of
a concrete retaining wall, we are not convinced that these will be "upscale
condominiums" as described by project planners on January 26, 2006.
The development as planned does not provide a reasonable transition between C-2
and R -I properties. Under R-1 zoning, the property can accommodate up to eight
lots. We believe that this should be the maximum allowed if rezoning should
occur. This means, up to eight single homes.
8. Water pressure at present is inadequate to serve the current homeowners. All
shower fixtures in the Wicks home have been replaced and the plumbing checked.
City engineers have examined the problem and have reported that nothing can be
done to improve the situation. An additional 30 units will produce major problems
that will require the city to install additional water capacity.
In addition, the city might be unable to adequately respond to or protect the
neighborhood from a fire. This is especially troubling given that the historic Fay
Jones Home is immediately behind the, proposed project.
9. The southwest corner of the proposed development is perpetually wet due to
underground caves and springs. During the recent drought, the pools remained.
This suggests that development would only aggravate the problem or contribute to
current drainage problems in the area.
10. It appears likely that many large trees on Abshier Drive will have to be removed
in violation of the Fayetteville tree ordinance to accommodate widening of the
street. Widening Hillcrest Avenue and Abshier Drive threatens the aesthetic
integrity of the Jones residence and sculpture that is on the National Register.
11. The Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance Requirements and Procedures
state that ordinance requirements apply to "All developments involving the
disturbance of existing soil around trees including... All residential construction
with 3 units or more""(from the City of Fayetteville Landscape Manual p. 28).
Tree preservation high priorities include canopied slopes, and significant trees,
while mid -level priorities include use buffers (p. 29). The statement of purpose
and list of objectives and principles (p. 25) include:
• To preserve existing tree canopy.
• To moderate the harmful effects of sun, wind and temperature changes.
• To reduce stormwater runoff and the potential damage it may create.
• To stabilize soil and prevent erosion.
• To screen incompatible land uses.
• To protect and enhance property values.
The greenspace behind Evelyn Hills was originally conceived to screen the
neighborhood from the shopping center. This screen was to protect and enhance
property values of these residences, a purpose still accepted as important by the
City of Fayetteville in its tree ordinance. Thus an important criterion for denying a
similar development in 1991 on the property is still recognized and followed in at
least one City ordinance.
The trees in the greenspace protect the neighborhood from strong winds that blow
in off the plains. The area is a hill abutting lower ground to the West. Thus the
existing trees moderate the harmful effects of wind and sun thereby protecting and
enhancing property values, all priorities still accepted by the City in its ordinance.
These protective trees also help to protect the historic Fay Jones residence from
weather damage.
The trees in the greenspace help to reduce runoff and prevent erosion in an area
that is quite steep. Preventing this development will meet all these tree
preservation priorities, as well as preserve existing tree canopy. Finally, it will
3
"preserve and enhance the natural beauty of Fayetteville," especially one of its
most important historical residences and surrounding neighborhood.
12. The access road off Hillcrest Drive is too steep to conform to city standards.
13. Ice problems often make both Abshier Drive and Hillcrest Ave impassible in the
winter. Additional traffic will produce more accidents in a neighborhood that has
no sidewalks leading to potential injuries of pedestrians and drivers.
For all of these reasons, we request that the Fayetteville Planning Commission to
deny the rezoning request.
Sources:
http://nw-ar.com/minutes/1991/fpc072291 html
http://nw-ar.com/minutes/I 991/fpc062491 html
Discussions with Fay and Gus Jones
Discussions with Dick Oliver
a
ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS NOTIFICATION
OF UPCOMING PUBLIC HEARING
Today's Date: January 23, 2006 Project Name: Abshire Heights
APPLICANT / REPRESENTATIVE CONTACT INFO:
H2 Engineering, Inc.
479-582-4234
Subdivision Committee Meeting*:
Planning Commission Meeting':
Thursday, February 2, 2006. 8:30am
Fayetteville City Administration Building
113 W. Mountain Street, Room 219
Monday, February 13,2006 5:30pm
Fayetteville City Administration Building
113 W. Mountain Street, Room 219
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposed residential planned zoning district (PZD) project
located along Abshier Drive & Hillcrest Avenue just east of Evelyn Hills Shopping Center.
Adjoining Property Address and Parcel Number(s): 765-14127-000 & 765-05203-001
• Please call the City of Fayetteville Planning ice at 575-8263 to verify this meeting's date and time.
ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS COMMENTS
(Return Comments to City of Fayetteville Planning Division in Stamped Enclosed Envelope)
Project Naine: Abshire Heights
I have been notified of the above meetings for the described project.
I do not object to the project described above.
object to the project described above because: _
L,�
Nam of Property Owner (printed)
Signat P o ert Owner
JAN 302006
dcc.
V rv.Q..�
3 Objections to the Proposed Plan for Abshier heights
• In a neighborhood already plagued by low water pressure, the plan to add 30, multi -
housing units is very problematic and threatens the welfare of the entire district.
The plan to widen Hillcrest (a 'back road' when compared to its neighboring and
burgeoning North Street) is knotty. First and foremost, it would damage the
architectural integrity of a house currently listed on the National Park Service's
National Register of Historic Residences —the Fay Jones residence on Hillcrest.
Secondly, all the houses on Hillcrest and Abshier would be negatively transformed by
this proposed road -widening. It strikes us as odd indeed that Hillcrest (a 'back road')
would be widened before North (a bustling avenue).
Finally, the developer in the plan as circulated has not done a traffic study. It is the
case that the planners envision `little or no impact' on traffic in the neighborhood.
Their traffic forecasting —based on no empirical data —cannot be correct. 30, multi-
unit homes (each with potentially 1.5 cars) would metamorphose a quiet
neighborhood —one with some traffic prompted by Evelyn Hills Shopping Center —
into a new `North Street'. There is no reason to justify such a radical transformation
of the i rban landscape in the vicinity of Hillcrest and Abshier.
a
Eric N. Coon
L .
.
Lyn .'Coon
Residents of:
1336 N. Hillcrest
Fayetteville, AR 72703
ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS NOTIFICATION
OF UPCOMING PUBLIC HEARING
Today's Date: January 23, 2006 Project Name: Abshire Heights
APPLICANT / REPRESENTATIVE CONTACT INFO:
H2 Engineering, Inc.
479-582-4234
Subdivision Committee Meeting':
Planning Commission Meetingk:
Thursday, February 2, 2006 8:30am
Fayetteville City Administration Building
113 W. Mountain Street, Room 219
Monday, February 13,2006 5:30pm
Fayetteville City Administration Building
113W. Mountain Street, Room 219
e
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposed residential planned zoning district (PZD) project
located along Abshier Drive & Hillcrest Avenue just east of Evelyn Hills Shopping Center.
Adjoining Property Address and Parcel Number(s): 765-14127-000 & 765-05203-001
* Please call the City of Fayetteville Planning Office at 575-8263 to verify Ibis meeting's dale and lime.
ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS COMMENTS
(Return Comments to City of Fayetteville Planning Division in Stamped n
EC:)
Project Name: Abshire Heights
JAN3^ 'A
_____I have been notified of the above meetings for the described proj t.
CITY OF PA:
I do not object to the project described above. '-=- J
I do object to the project described above because:
,nccc L1 / Rd l 6'1 6nZ.7 .*,JyIro/aby y -rre,r 5 . /w / /
7-,aM / Ira Nf//1vN fi1�11vcGw 4y and L. tw •l .tiiy ,f/ sfis p ]a �(lW/ O✓_
Name of Property Owner (printed)
Signature of Property Owner
i__ ijJ mr��f� \1
Y:
S.w
RPZD06-1883
One Mile View
R -A
I
Overview
•
RSF-4
41
P-1
ABSHIER HEIGHTS
RSF-4
P-1
SUBJECT PROPERTY
162
A
Boundary
O!` Planning Area
cP000
o Overlay District
000000
'ci Outside City
P-1
RSF-4
Legend
00126.25 0.5 0.75 1
lies
P-1
1
RPZD06-1883
Future Land Use
Overview
ABSHIER HEIGHTS
Legend
Subject Property
Boundary
RPZD06-1883
�X: Planning Atea
0000%
Streets 0 o Overlay District
000000
'i 6cisdng I1%l I1%Outside City
Planned
Legend
0 75 150 300 450 600
Feet
Sondra Smith - Re: Fwd: Appeal of R-PZD 06-1883: Planned Zoning District (ABSHIER HEIGHTS, 407) Page iii
From: Jeremy Pate
To: Smith, Sondra
Date: 2/21/06 8:04AM
Subject: Re: Fwd: Appeal of R-PZD 06-1883: Planned Zoning District (ABSHIER HEIGHTS, 407)
Sondra,
A couple of things on this item:
1) A PZD can't be appealed to the City Council by a neighborhood; and
2) There is no appeal, since the Planning Commission forwarded it to the City Council with a
recommendation for approval. With that recommendation, it automatically goes to the City Council. Were
it denied, the owner of record or a City Council member could appeal that decision. All of the backup
information should be on the agenda with our agenda request submittal.
Please let me know if you need anything more!
Thanks,
Jeremy
>>> Sondra Smith 02/17/06 1:43 PM >>>
Jeremy I have received the attached appeal. It looks like you have submitted an Agenda Item for the
March 7, 2006 City Council meeting regarding Abshier Heights. Do we need to leave it on the agenda and
place the appeal before it or do we need to leave the PZD off the agenda. I will also need any backup
regarding the appeal. Thanks!
Sondra Smith
City Clerk
City of Fayetteville
113 West Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72701
(479) 575-8323
(479) 718-7695 (Fax)
ssmith@ci.favetteville.ar.us
Sondra Smith -Appeal of R-PZD 06-1883: Planned Zoning District (ABSHIER HEIGHTS, 407) Page 1 }
From: rwicks <rwicks@uark.edu>
To: <ssmith@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 2/17106 12:15PM
Subject: Appeal of R-PZD 06-1883: Planned Zoning District (ABSHIER HEIGHTS, 407)
Dear Ms. Smith,
As per our conversation of this morning, residents of the Hillcrest Avenue and
Abshier Road are planning to appeal a decision made Monday, February 13, 2006
by the Fayetteville Planning Commission to approve R-PZD 06-1883: Planned
Zoning District (ABSHIER HEIGHTS, 407). As we discussed, this item has been
forwarded to you.
Our appeal will be based on a number of issues ranging from infrastructure,
restrictive covenants, historic preservation, safety and neighborhood
compatibility to name a few. The documents we deliver next week will include a
detailed engineering report prepared by an emeritus professor of civil
engineering along with a report on the legal aspects of this parcel as they
pertain to restrictive covenants. We are also preparing a report on the
historic preservation aspects of this parcel. Also, as one of our neighbors
helping to develop these materials apparently was hospitalized earlier this
week, and another is out of town, we need additional time to handle the
appeal. However, we assure you the full appeal will be submitted next week.
With so many issues to confront, residents of our community believe that it
would be in the best interest of the City Council to consider the appeal on
March 7, 2006 and move the agenda item regarding R-PZD 06-1883: Planned Zoning
District (ABSHIER HEIGHTS, 407) to the following city council meeting on March
21.2006
Respectfully submitted on February 17, 2006.
By Robert H. Wicks and Jan L. Wicks on behalf of themselves and residents of
Hillcrest Avenue and Abshier Road.
lffmfffeffffefeffeffefefff
Rob Wicks
Associate Professor
Department of Communication
Kimpel Hall 417
University of Arkansas
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Office: 479-575-5958
FAX: 479-575-6734
ffffffflf f flf f*Y i f *MF *Yi fh*M
CC: boydlogan <boydlogan@gmail.com>, decovision <decovision@msn.com>, dgay
<dgay@uark.edu>, dhopster <dhopster@hotmail.com>, <i_markum@yahoo.com>,
<jcbchivas@arkansas.net>, jjackson <jjackson@nwacc.edu>, jwicks <jwicks@uark.edu>,
<ksexton@uark.edu>, Ilcoon <Ilcoon@uark.edu>, ngmiller <ngmille@uark.edu>,
<rebeccahaas@sbcglobal.net>, rta <rta@engr.uark.edu>, rwicks <rwicks@uark.edu>, shayhopper
<shayhopper@hotmail.com>, shopper <shopper@fayar.net>
RECEIVED
FEB 17 2006
CITY OF FRYE ETTEVILLE
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Dear Ms. Smith,
As per our conversation of this morning, residents of the Hillcrest Avenue and Abshier
Road are planning to appeal a decision made Monday, February 13, 2006 by the
Fayetteville Planning Commission to approve R-PZD 06-1883: Planned Zoning District
(ABSHIER HEIGHTS, 407). As we discussed, this item has been forwarded to you.
Our appeal will be based on a number of issues ranging from infrastructure, restrictive
covenants, historic preservation, safety and neighborhood compatibility to name a few.
The documents we deliver next week will include a detailed engineering report prepared
by an emeritus professor of civil engineering along with a report on the legal aspects of
this parcel as they pertain to restrictive covenants. We are also preparing a report on the
historic preservation aspects of this parcel. Also, as one of our neighbors helping to
develop these materials apparently was hospitalized earlier this week, and another is out
of town, we need additional time to handle the appeal. However, we assure you the full
appeal will be submitted next week.
With so many issues to confront; residents of our community believe that it would be in
the best interest of the City Council to consider the appeal on March 7, 2006 and move
the agenda item regarding R-PZD 06-1883: Planned Zoning District (ABSHIER
HEIGHTS, 407) to the following city council meeting on March 21, 2006.
Respectfully submitted on February 17, 2006.
By Robert H. Wicks and Jan L. Wicks on behalf of themselves and residents of Hillcrest
Avenue and Abshier Road.
30IjI0 SINH310 A110
311IA3113A Vj do AIIO
DBBZ L 1 833
a3/U332EJ
RECEIVED
FEB 1 7 2006
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Sondra Smith - Appeal of R-PZD 06-1883: Planned Zoning District (ABSHIER HEIGHTS, 407) Page 1
From: rwicks <rwicks@uark.edu>
To: ssmith <ssmith@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 2/17/06 4:03PM
Subject: Appeal of R-PZD 06-1883: Planned Zoning District (ABSHIER HEIGHTS, 407)
Attachment enclosed:
Dear Ms. Smith,
As per our conversation of this morning, residents of the Hillcrest Avenue and
Abshier Road are planning to appeal a decision made Monday, February 13, 2006
by the Fayetteville Planning Commission to approve R-PZD 06-1883: Planned
Zoning District (ABSHIER HEIGHTS, 407). As we discussed, this item has been
forwarded, to you.
Our appeal will be based on a number of issues ranging from infrastructure,
restrictive covenants, historic preservation, safety and neighborhood
compatibility to name a few. The documents we deliver next week will include a
detailed engineering report prepared by an emeritus professor of civil
engineering along with a report on the legal aspects of this parcel as they
pertain to restrictive covenants. We are also preparing a report on the
historic preservation aspects of this parcel. Also, as one of our neighbors
helping to develop these materials apparently was hospitalized earlier this
week, and another is out of town, we need additional time to handle the,
appeal. However, we assure you the full appeal will be submitted next week.
With so many issues to confront, residents of our community believe that it
would be in the best interest of the City Council to consider the appeal on
March 7, 2006 and move the agenda item regarding R-PZD 06-1883: Planned Zoning
District (ABSHIER HEIGHTS, 407) to the following city council meeting on March
21, 2006
Respectfully submitted on February 17, 2006.
By Robert H. Wicks and Jan L. Wicks on behalf of themselves and residents of
Hillcrest Avenue and Abshier Road.
....111...»..».«.S.»».»
Rob Wicks
Associate Professor
Department of Communication
Kimpel Hall 417
University of Arkansas
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Office: 479-575-5958
FAX: 479-575-6734
Rob Wicks
Associate Professor
Department of Communication
Kimpel Hall 417
University of Arkansas
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Sondra Smith - Appeal of RPZD 0B-1883: Planned Zoning District (ABSHIER HEIGHTS, 407) Page 2
Office: 479-575-5958
FAX: 479-575-6734
CC: <rwicks@uark.edu>
To: Mayor Dan Coody
Mr. Robert Reynolds
Ms. Brenda Thiel
Mr. Kyle B. Cook
Mr. Don Man
Mr. Robert K. Rhoads
Mr. Bobby Ferrell
Ms. Shirley Lucas
Mr. Lioneld Jordan
Copy Ms. Sondra Smith
From: Mr. Robert and Mrs. Jan Wicks, 1314 N. Hillcrest Avenue
Mrs. Gus Jones, 1330 N. Hillcrest Avenue
Ms. Linda Coon and Mr. Eric Coon, 1336 N. Hillcrest Avenue
Mr. Boyd and Ms. Trisha Logan, 1426 N. Hillcrest Avenue
Mr. Robert Alguire and Ms. Mary Alguire, 1235 N. Hillcrest Avenue
Mr. William and M. Nancy Miller, 309 E. Abshier Drive
Mr. David and Ms. Shay Hopper, 1224 N. Hillcrest Avenue
Mr. Jeffrey Jackson, 1414 N. Hillcrest Avenue
Ms. Rebecca Hass, 1440 N. Hillcrest Avenue
Mr. Jed and Ms. Irene Markum, 1236 N. Hillcrest Avenue
Mr. David Beauchamp and Mrs. Jimmie Barham Beauchamp, 1516 N. Hillcrest Avenue
Date: February 27, 2006
RE: R-PZD 06-1883: Planned Zoning District (ABSHIER HEIGHTS, 407)
General Statement
The neighborhood and abutting property owners express strong and unified opposition to
the proposed Planning Zoning District in Abshier Heights.
The proposed PZD will more than double the density of dwellings on two public
residential streets with limited access: Hillcrest Avenue and Abshier Road. It compresses 30
units into a very small crescent shaped area of land that overlooks the roof and dumpsters of
Evelyn Hills. It presents significant safety concerns because Abshier empties onto 71-B at a hilly
location with a limited line of sight. Hillcrest empties onto North Street at a blind stop sign that
motorists often ignore. North is often the first street to be closed during inclement weather.
Vehicles regularly are stuck or slide off the road in this neighborhood and around the shopping
center. These dangerous intersections are only exacerbated by the additional traffic during all
times of the day and night from the proposed PZD. It violates restrictive covenants, adds stress to
infrastructure including water pressure and other public facilities and services. The proposed
PZD will endanger and significantly degrade the environment and aesthetics of the historic E.
Fay Jones residence, the only one of its kind in the world. Thus we ask that the development be
denied and the parcels of land in question retain their current zoning status.
RECEIVED
FEB27 7 200E
CITY OF FAYE1TEVILLE
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Planning Commission Member Candy Clark, who lived in this neighborhood for about
five years, voted against approving the PZD because of how dangerous Hillcrest and Abshier
streets are, the lack of honoring the covenant, the lack of compatibility with the neighborhood,
the excessive density of the PZD, lack of honoring the covenants, etc. Clark noted the lack of a
sufficient transition between the shopping center and existing residences, remarking "You can
stand on the front porches and spit on Evelyn Hills.. .as long as you can stand in a house and see
the commercial, I'm not sure that is real transitional." (A complete copy of her comments can be
found in the minutes of the February 2, 2006 Subdivision Subcommittee meeting. Excerpts are
included at the end of this appeal.)
(Copies of items referenced in this document including the Restrictive Covenants
regarding the property from 1962; the Planning Commission Meeting minutes of June 24, 1991;
the Planning Commission Meeting minutes of July 22, 1991; and the Bill of Assurance from
1991 are attached to this document.)
Rationales
Our objections include but are not limited to the following rationales listed herein. We have
based these objections on the Unified Development Code (UDC).
Rationale 1: Creating and Compounding Dangerous Traffic Conditions
Section 7-d (CDD 166:18-19): A development may be denied or refused because of a
dangerous traffic condition, "in which the risk of accidents involving motor vehicles is
significant due to factors such as, but not limited to, high traffic volume, topography, or the
nature of the traffic pattern."
Page CD 166:26: Traffic Circulation (including but not limited to):
(a) The adequacy of both the internal and external street systems shall be reviewed in light of
projected future traffic volumes.
(b) The traffic circulation system shall be comprised of a hierarchical scheme of local collector
and arterial streets, each designed to accommodate its proper function and in appropriate
relationship with one another.
Access to the neighborhood is limited and unsafe even without the addition of a
minimum of 60 vehicles. The proposed PZD will only add to an existing traffic pattern that is
already dangerous due to volume, topography and nature. The only neighborhood public ingress
and egress are Hillcrest Avenue and Abshier Road. Both are already dangerous intersections with
limited sight lines on or near steep slopes. Abshier empties onto 71-B, the most dangerous road
in Fayetteville, at a heavily -traveled hilly location between Rick's Bakery and the Evelyn Hills
Shopping Center light. Abshier Road is often impassible and always slick during periods of
heavy rain, snow and ice. The steep grade at the western end of Abshier Road can lead motorists
to slide onto 71 B making this one of the most dangerous intersections in Fayetteville. Even
during clear weather, the intersection remains dangerous because traffic coming from the south
on 71B comes over a hill at high speeds that is very close to the intersection. The posted speed is
40 miles per hour, but many (if not most) motorists exceed this speed. The location between
heavy traffic in and out of Evelyn Hills, and more importantly to and from Rick's Bakery at that
comer, compounds the problem.
In addition motorists use Hillcrest Avenue and Abshier Road to circumvent the traffic
light at the comer of North Street and 71 B. The addition of 30 units with a minimum of 60 more
vehicles in a small area accessed through limited and dangerous intersections will produce an
even more dangerous traffic situation. These problems will be further exacerbated by residents or
visitors to the proposed development who may park on Hillcrest or Abshier.
Leaving the neighborhood by way of Hillcrest Avenue onto North Street is equally
dangerous. Motorists driving east on North Street from Mission Boulevard climb a steep hill that
ends at Hillcrest Avenue before continuing downhill to 71B. This is a "blind" stop sign where
motorists on Hillcrest cannot see down the hill toward Mission. Motorists coming up Mission
cannot see Hillcrest until they are virtually at the intersection. Motorists routinely ignore the stop
sign on North Street at Hillcrest Avenue. Motorists on Hillcrest turning either east or west onto
North Street are often forced to accelerate to avoid the westbound traffic on North Street.
Furthermore, motorists traveling east on North Street and turning north on Hillcrest Avenue must
yield to motorists from North Street and Hillcrest Avenue. This intersection presents a confusing
dilemma for motorists. The combination of a stop sign on North Street that is often ignored and
confusion among motorists as to who has the right of way poses a significant danger. Again, this
dangerous condition worsens during inclement weather. North Street is one of the locations in
the city closed first during inclement weather. One must expect that access is unavailable at this
ingress/egress at times.
The developers are counting Evelyn Hills as an ingress/egress for the development. One
must question whether there is sufficient ingress/egress in the area in the first place if the
developers must use a shopping center for this purpose. One must also question whether it is
appropriate to use private roads as primary ingress/egress.
The proposed primary ingress/egress through private property is a narrow and extremely
steep road into the back of the shopping center. There will be serious sight distance problems
here as well because motorists are looking down into the shopping center a short distance to a
curve that goes under the arch there. Motorists looking up to Hillcrest have a short sight distance
as well. Again, these problems are exacerbated during slick or impassable conditions due to rain,
snow and/or ice.
In addition, this primary entrance and exit to the proposed PZD is onto a private, narrow
road under an arch between the two halves of the shopping center. Between the two halves is a
pedestrian crosswalk with a stop sign that is largely ignored. The private access roads also have
significant truck traffic making deliveries to and from businesses in Evelyn Hills. Delivery trucks
often come barreling up and down Hillcrest and Abshier. Trucks get stuck on the access roads
during inclement weather, as happened during the snowstorm in February 2006. One must
therefore expect that access will be unavailable at times.
There are serious questions of access for emergency and fire vehicles even without the
proposed development. The increased traffic in this small area used frequently by trucks of all
sizes and types will only exacerbate the dangerous traffic conditions including steep grades,
limited access at already dangerous intersections, and impassability during inclement weather,
heavy truck traffic, etc. The additional traffic from the proposed PZD only compounds the
existing serious traffic and safety concerns.
tl
Rationale 2: Historical Precedents Dictate Turning Down Duplexes and Similar
Developments Abutting Evelyn Hills and the Neighborhood
Historical precedents since the construction of Evelyn Hills turned down developments
for the same reasons raised now. The property has not changed, "improved" or overcome any of
the reasons for which development was denied in 1991. The difference now is that the reasons
have only worsened over time.
The Fayetteville Planning Commission voted 7-0-1 on July 22, 1991 to deny a
conditional use for constructing duplexes. Mr. Dick Oliver appeared before the Commission in
June 1991 and stated that the property was to be used as a green space to provide a buffer
between the residential neighborhood and Evelyn Hills. He explained the company that
purchased the shopping center had not purchased the subject tract of land because it was green
space. He stated the noise from the shopping center was a problem, there would be no view for
any building constructed there, and the impassability and danger due to the slopes was contrary
to development. Residents convinced planers in 1991 that development runs counter to the
original objectives of the property.
At the June 1991 meeting, E. Fay Jones, 1330 Hillcrest, stated construction of the
duplexes would change the environment of the neighborhood which had always been single-
family homes. He requested the conditional use e denied. As an internationally renowned and
honored architect, his perspective is valuable. Mr. and Mrs. Jones have noted repeatedly that the
original plans for rezoning the area for Evelyn Hills was granted on the condition that the area
abutting Abshier Drive and Hillcrest Avenue will remain buffer or green space in perpetuity. The
neighborhood submitted copies of covenants to the Planning Commission in support.
The abutting property owners and neighborhood object strongly to and are unified in
opposition to this development for the same reasons a similar development was turned down in
1991. It is incompatible with the neighborhood and hampers the health, safety, amenity and
welfare of the community.
Rationale 3: Issues of Public Services and Facilities and Site Unsuitability for the Large -
Scale Project Proposed
From Section 166.05 Large Scale Development (LSD) CD 166-18:
Section 7-b: "The developer may be required to install off -site improvements, where the need for
such improvements is created in whole or in part by the proposed large scale development or
preliminary plat. For purposes of this section, any off -site improvements shall mean all or any
part of, a street, surface drainage system, water system, or sanitary sewer system, which is to be
installed on property located outside the proposed large scale development or preliminary plat."
Section 7-c: "Any required off -site improvements shall be installed according to city standards.
The developer shall be required to bear that portion of the cost of off -site improvements which
bears a rational nexus to the needs created by the large scale development or preliminary plat."
166.06 Planned Zoning District (PZD) Section E - Approval or Rejection Criteria for Planned
Zoning Districts, including but not limited to: "(2) Whether the general impact of the rezoning
would adversely impact the provision of public facilities and services."
ll
166.06 Planned Zoning District (PZD) E - Approval or Rejection Criteria (CD 166:21)
"Whether the subject land is suitable for the intended use and is compatible with the natural
environment."
166.14 Commercial Design and Development Standards (A) Purposes
(including but not limited to)
(2) To address environmental concerns which include, but are not limited to, soil erosion,
vegetation preservation, and drainage.
(6) To preserve property values of surrounding property.
166.14 Commercial Design and Development Standards (A) Purposes
(2) To address environmental concerns which include, but are not limited to, soil erosion,
vegetation preservation, and drainage.
The Planning Commission erred in approving this development because it has not even
been adequately considered whether the general impact of the rezoning would adversely impact
the provision of public facilities and services to the neighborhood. The neighborhood and
abutting property owners are very concerned about the effect on water and sewer pressure,
capacity and/or infrastructure from the proposed development. For example, the Fayetteville Fire
Department expressed concern that the fire hydrant at Hillcrest Avenue and Oakwood Drive
flows at less than 400 gallons per minute. The developers indicated they would tie into the
existing 6" sanitary sewer line in two places. The developers note a 6" waterline tees off of the
existing 8" water line and turns down the access road into Evelyn Hills. They state they will tie
their waterline into the 6" waterline and loop it to the north, tying into the 8" waterline along
Hillcrest Avenue.
City water department employees and experts have stated to various neighborhood
residents that nothing can be done to improve existing pressure without rebuilding the grid,
which is one of the oldest in the city. During the Planning Commission meeting one of its
members noted that there was no guarantee the residents would have sufficient water pressure
after the development was complete. There are no explicit requirements in the PZD about the
type and nature of water pressure, sewer pressure, etc., guaranteed to neighborhood residents if
the development were completed. The effect of such problems on the neighborhood was not fully
considered. This development will degrade the neighborhood as people will not buy property
where they cannot get adequate water pressure, public facilities and/or services. And it would
mean the city has willingly entered into an arrangement with a developer that deprived the
existing residences of an adequate water supply and other public facilities and services.
In addition there has been discussion of retaining walls or other aspects of the
development relating to the topography and steep slopes in the area. The area is surrounded by
extremely steep slopes due to the step excavation done to build Evelyn Hills. Slopes of this
nature are generally unstable and problematic for load bearing construction or utilization. This is
compounded by the presence of springs in the area. The area contained water during the whole
dry period over the last year suggesting a water table close to the surface in the area of heaviest
proposed density. The combination of the soil and saturated water conditions under the traffic
and overburden created by these units will lead to settling, causing cracks and misalignments in
doors and windows.
The presence of springs and soil moisture was documented by previous construction in
the area. The Jones Residence on 1330 Hillcrest Avenue was redesigned during construction due
to the discovery of a spring on its site. The Jones papers indicate springs were found when
Evelyn Hills was constructed. Apparently there have been problems with soil moisture recently
in the USA Drug construction at Evelyn Hills as well.
Abshier Road already has longitudinal cracking, especially near the side where the steep
slopes drop down onto the property, showing there is already some slope instability. Retaining
walls will be needed to stabilize the area. Widening Abshier as proposed, 14 feet from center in,
would require a retaining wall that could reach about 30 feet tall at certain parts of the streets.
This is similar to and in close proximity of the Kings Drive area that is collapsing. Given the
existing instability, it appears the city could have a reoccurrence of the crumbling and
infrastructure problems found on nearby Kings Drive.
Rationale 4: Covenants and Bills of Assurance Regarding the Property
150.07 Conflicts (CD 150:3): "UDC/private agreements: The UDC is not intended to abrogate
any private agreements, deed restrictions, covenants, easements, or other private agreements on
the use of land."
166 Section 7-d (CDD 166:18-19): "The Subdivision Committee or Planning Commission may
refuse to approve a large scale development or preliminary plat for any of the following reasons"
(with reasons i through vi).
i. The preliminary plat or development plan is not submitted in accordance with the requirements
of this chapter.
ii. The proposed development would violate a city ordinance, a state statute, or a federal statute.
166.06 Planned Zoning District (PZD) Section E - Approval or Rejection Criteria for Planned
Zoning Districts, including but not limited to: "(2) Whether the application is in compliance with
all applicable statutory provisions"
166.06 Planned Zoning District (PZD) E - Approval or Rejection Criteria (CD 166:21)
"Whether any other recognized zoning consideration would be violated in this PZD."
Copies of covenants and Bills of Assurances were provided to the Planning Commission
at the February 13 meeting. They also were discussed at the preceding Subcommittee Meeting of
the Planning Commission. The developer's preliminary plat or development plan given to
neighborhood residents claimed, "There are no covenants, trust or Homeowner Associations
associated with this project." (Found on page 7 of the Abshier Heights Master Development Plan
provided to abutting property owners.)
Rationale 5: The rezoning to allow the proposed development is inconsistent with and does
not follow the General Plan 2020 Future Land Use Plan.
The Planning Commission Staff Report to the City Council states "The General Plan
2020 Future Land Use Plan designates this site as a Residential Area. Rezoning this property to
R-PZD 05-1636, with the associated Master Development Plan, varies this future land use to a
mixed use, though the principal use on the property will remain residential."
At the initial Subcommittee Meeting members of the neighborhood noted that
approximately seven single-family houses would be the appropriate infill for this site if
developed. The General Plan itself notes that this site is designated as a Residential Area. The
Planning Commission varies this future land use. We submit that the Planning Commission did
not follow the General Plan 2020 Future Land Use Plan and this development should be rejected.
In essence, the neighborhood is asking the City to adhere to its own plan.
At present Fayetteville is in the process of developing a new City 2025 Plan. At the City
2025 Plan meetings residents were told to "ignore topography, infrastructure and compatibility"
when they placed dots on a city map to suggest where appropriate infill might be developed.
Residents (including members of our neighborhood) who took part in these planning sessions
were specifically directed to ignore all important considerations that are considered when making
development decisions. Therefore the City 2025 Plan is not applicable to this development and
neighborhood because the serious concerns regarding topography, safety, incompatibility of the
proposed development, etc., were not considered. The City 2025 Plan has not been finalized or
officially adopted. In addition, the proposed development is not consistent with the principles of
the City 2025 Plan to foster compatible and appropriate infill.
Rationale 6: The rezoning to allow the proposed development is incompatible with the
neighborhood and runs counter to historical covenants and precedents.
166.06 Planned Zoning District (PZD) E - Approval or Rejection Criteria (CD 166:21)
"Whether the subject land is suitable for the intended use and is compatible with the natural
environment."
166.14 Commercial Design and Development Standards (A) Purposes
(2) To address environmental concerns which include, but are not limited to, soil erosion,
vegetation preservation, and drainage.
(6) To preserve property values of surrounding property.
166.06 Planned Zoning District (PZD) E - Approval or Rejection Criteria (CD 166:21)
"Whether the subject land is suitable for the intended use and is compatible with the natural
environment."
166.06 Planned Zoning District
(PZD)
E - Approval or Rejection Criteria (CD
166:21)
"Whether any other recognized
zoning
consideration would be violated in this
PZD."
7
The Planning Commission Staff Report to the City Council states "The General Plan 2020 Future
Land Use Plan designates this site as a Residential Area Rezoning this property to R-PZD 05-
1636, with the associated Master Development Plan, varies this future land use to a mixed use,
though the principal use on the property will remain residential."
Strong and unified opposition to the development from the neighborhood and abutting
property owners was voiced at all previous public meetings. The opposition includes objections
regarding compatibility, an inadequate transition, and a lack of green space or buffer as intended
and required by the original covenants. Again, these are some of the reasons a similar
development was denied in 1991.
On page CDD 166:25 it is noted that "Primary emphasis shall be placed upon achieving
compatibility between the proposed development and surrounding areas so as to preserve and
enhance the neighborhood" and "The Planning Commission shall determine that the specific
development features.. .shall be combined in such a way as to further the health, safety, amenity
and welfare of the community." As the abutting property owners and neighborhood object
strongly to this development, it is argued that the Planning Commission did not take the welfare
of the community into account when making this decision.
The proposed PZD is incompatible because it is an inappropriate transition between
Evelyn Hills and the existing neighborhood. First, the green space behind Evelyn Hills was
originally conceived to screen the neighborhood from the shopping center, two incompatible
land uses. This screen was to protect and enhance these residences and the neighborhood, a
purpose still accepted as important by the City of Fayetteville in its Unified Development Code
and tree ordinance. Thus an important criterion for denying a similar development in 1991 on the
property is still recognized and followed in current City ordinances.
Second, the density of this development is an inappropriate transition between the
shopping center and neighborhood. The strips of land are too narrow for an adequate transition.
Thirty town homes and duplexes packed in such a tight area without the typical amenities of
"luxury condos" (such as a swimming pool, recreation facilities, covenants or agreements for
maintaining the buildings and grounds, adequate green space, etc.) are not an adequate transition.
Third, the quality of the proposed town homes and duplexes are incompatible and are not
an appropriate transition. Initially the neighbors were told the units will be sold for
approximately $200 per square foot at a meeting hosted by Cooper Architects on January 26,
2006. In the Planning Commission meeting the developers indicated an estimate of $125 per
square feet. A 1,750 unit would sell for $350,000 based on the $200 estimate or $218,750 based
on the $125 estimate. Will families seeking quality residences realistically pay these amounts for
dwellings overlooking the roof of Evelyn Hills?
These units also overlook the dumpsters on the access road behind Evelyn Hills, which
have an unpleasant odor at various times of the year and attract pests. The development abuts
dumpsters from Evelyn Hills on one side and may face dumpsters or trash areas provided for this
development on the other. The owners and/or their representatives asked for a variance regarding
trash storage and collection which appears to acknowledge yet exacerbate this problem. In
addition the proposed private road overlooks the back of a mattress store and Rick's Bakery
where it empties onto Abshier Road. Details including the size and nature of the sign and the
location of mailboxes or where mail would be delivered are omitted from the master
development plan given to the neighbors. It is unclear whether these are 3 -bedroom units, which
would dictate planning for 90 additional vehicles in the area or one per bedroom.
Assume the units do not sell, or do not sell at the proposed prices. Presumably each unit
would require 3 to 4 renters to meet mortgage and upkeep costs. This compounds the
aforementioned traffic, safety and infrastructure issues. Units also may sit vacant and be targets
for vandalism, crime or become eyesores. If there are no condominium agreements or covenants
for maintaining the property and grounds these problems could quickly worsen.
It is reasonable to note that potential buyers who intend to live in the units will not desire
to have trash receptacles on both sides of their residence or overlook the unattractive roof or back
sides of aging shopping centers. Condos in the old St. Joseph buildings on Lafayette Street and
the Oak Park Condos on Sycamore Street behind the old Long John Silver's restaurant remain
empty. This suggests the market for this type of unit is already saturated. This development is not
the appropriate type or character of residential development for the area and is inconsistent with
the existing neighborhood. It is not an appropriate transition between Evelyn Hills, the
neighborhood, and the historic Jones residence across the street.
The Restrictive Covenants from 1962 and the 1991 Planning Commission decision to
deny a similar development provide intent and historical precedents that the area remain green
space. This screen was to protect and enhance the neighborhood and these residences, a purpose
still accepted as important by the City of Fayetteville in its Unified Development Code and tree
ordinance. The Master Plan designates this area to be a residential area. Therefore the Planning
Commission decision violates both the precedents and intent regarding the property and
neighborhood.
The neighbors have suggested appropriate development might include seven single-
family homes if the site allows. Most appropriate is leaving the property as a green space as it
was originally intended. Neighbors regularly see deer, foxes and other wildlife on the property,
which is especially a delight for the neighborhood children. The existing green space has added
to the natural and intimate character of the neighborhood and fits the architectural and landscape
vision of E. Fay Jones and his historic residence across the street.
Finally, residents would be interested in working with the City of Fayetteville to acquire
private, federal, state or other financial resources or grants to improve the site to be designated as
the E. Fay Jones Park or Natural Preserve. We have researched the E. Fay Jones archives and
papers in the Special Collections at Mullins Library. Renderings of possible uses of that space by
Jones himself are available in that collection.
Rationale 7: Consideration and Protection of Historically and Culturally Significant
Residence or Structure Abutting the Development.
166.06 Planned Zoning District (PZD): "Master development plans may include more restrictive
regulations than that which is included in other sections of the UDC, but standards shall not be
established that fall below these minimum standards."
166.06 Planned Zoning District (PZD) E - Approval or Rejection Criteria (CD 166:21)
"Whether any other recognized zoning consideration would be violated in this PZD."
166.14 Commercial Design and Development Standards (A) Purposes
(3) To protect and preserve the scenic resources distributed throughout the city which have
contributed greatly to its economic development, by attracting tourists, permanent part-time
residents, new industries and cultural facilities.
166.14 Commercial Design and Development Standards (A) Purposes
(6) To preserve property values of surrounding property.
In addition to the numerous reasons for denying this proposed PZD, the neighborhood
and abutting property owners strongly object to it because it violates the privileged space
surrounding the E. Fay Jones residence. According to Mrs. Gus Jones it was the first residence
Jones designed and built after he became a registered architect. The residence is a cultural and
architectural landmark designed by Jones himself in 1956 and listed on the National Register of
Historic Places in 2000. E. Fay Jones, a native of Arkansas and full-time resident of Fayetteville,
was among only a handful of distinguished architects worldwide to be awarded the American
Institute of Architect's (AIA) Gold Medal.
A good part of the cultural heritage of Fayetteville --and tourism revenue --rests on the fact
that Fayetteville was Jones' chosen home. He graced the city and surrounding communities with
architectural treasures recognized worldwide. While Eureka Springs has Thorncrown Chapel,
Fayetteville has the distinct privilege of being home to the E. Fay Jones residence, one of his first
and formative designs and his own home. Thus, approving this project compromises the city's
future heritage tourism revenue.
Widening Hillcrest to accommodate the development would dramatically affect the
Jones home site landscape. The landscape's relationship to the approach and entry to the home
was always a primary concern to Jones — a signature concern, in fact. Any change to the street
would dramatically damage this critical relationship, thus doing severe damage to the overall
design, the landscape, and the sculpture. In terms of motorist safety, widening Hillcrest Avenue
in front of the Jones residence will certainly make it more likely that someone could crash into
the sculpture or stone landscaping, especially during slick or icy conditions.
More important, the proposed development disrespects Jones' legacy in the eyes of
neighborhood residents, city residents, and the architectural community worldwide. Few
distinguished architects would support a development such as this across the street from their
own residences, but the space around Jones' distinguished house merits very special, sensitive,
and thoughtful consideration. It does not require professional training in architecture to
understand that the delicate balance struck between nature and architecture is Jones' most
significant contribution to 20°i- century architecture. Anyone with access to the internet quickly
learns that Jones' unique appreciation of the site and environment demanded that nature, light,
and air be invited to penetrate the building, reinvigorating the inhabitants. The density of the
proposed development is most particularly an affront to this exquisite statement of Jones' Ozark
style. Because the density of the proposed project is so high, some of the planned units would
stand very close to the Jones residence. Others will disturb the peaceful environs through untold
and uncalculated traffic volume, and noise and air pollution from 30 units wedged behind Evelyn
Hills Shopping Center and Hillcrest Avenue.
Mr. Jones himself was instrumental in establishing the original covenants for the property
behind Evelyn Hills and opposing the development that was declined in 1991. Keeping the
property in its natural state or as a green space maintains the intent and vision of this noted
international architect for the area for future generations and visitors. Thus the significance and
nature of his work, as well as his personal views of what is appropriate for the property, oppose
the proposed development.
10
It appeared some members of the Planning Commission did not seem to fully appreciate
that the architectural and personal legacy of E. Fay Jones and his historic residence at 1330
Hillcrest have global significance. According to the National Register of Historic Places: "The E.
Fay and Gus Jones House is exceptionally significant because with this house Jones expressed
the guiding principles of his personal organic design philosophy, including sensitivity to natural
setting, honest use of materials, and an appreciation for the interplay of light and space. The
construction of this house jump-started Jones' career." Some members seemed not to understand
how dependent Jones' designs are on their landscape and surroundings for their architectural
resonance. Hence, even if the building itself is not physically damaged by the oversized
development, it will, in effect and in fact, be ruined for future generations.
The global significance of his work was very recently reaffirmed when Mrs. Gus Jones
accepted the AIA Twenty-five Year Award for Thorncrown Chapel just two days before the
Planning Commission voted to approve the Abshier Heights project. The award is given to one
building annually for the architectural design that has stood the test of time for 25 years. Mrs.
Jones accepted the award in honor of her husband on February 11, 2006, in Washington, D. C.
Significantly, the AIA release stated: "Five million people have visited Thorncrown Chapel since
it opened in 1980... During certain times of the year, the chapel draws more than 2,000 people
per day, and Sunday services draw 300 people...This indicates the popularity and enduring
appeal of Jones's work.. .Jones passed away on August 31, 2004, at his home in Fayetteville,
Ark., at the age of 83... He will always be recognized as the man who built Thorncrown Chapel,
and remembered as one of the leading architects of the 20th century."
(See http://www.aia.org/release_122005_25yrThrncrown).
Clearly, E. Fay Jones continues to bring much national and international attention to
Fayetteville, a community he called home for many, many years. Thus, for the Planning
Commission to approve the proposed Abshier Heights development simply on the grounds that
there was no legal reason not to build in front of Jones' residence inadvertently disrespects Jones'
legacy and compromises the present and future cultural heritage of the city. The UDC itself
states it is important to preserve and protect Fayetteville's scenic resources. Consequently there
are grounds upon which the Planning Commission should have denied this development. We ask
you to deny this development and protect one of Fayetteville's most important scenic, cultural
and historic resources.
ADDENDUM: We concur with the comments of Planning Commissioner Member Candy Clark,
a former resident of this neighborhood, made at the February 2, 2006 Subdivision Committee
meeting.
Clark: I cannot support this project as it currently is — can't do it for several reasons.
• First of all, I'm very confused about the issue of the buffer. I've grown up
hearing about it. If 1,000 people changed their mind, the neighborhood
has been left out and I'm not sure why we honor other promises to
neighbors that I can't find in stone anywhere, just a verbal promise, but
not these neighbors.
• Secondly, I think the density is by far too much — 7.3 units in this area are
totally out of character with the neighborhood. It is a very nice
neighborhood, spread out, larger homes. It dovetails into my third concern
which is traffic.
11
• Abshier and Hillcrest are horribly maintained streets, local streets — no
curb, no gutter and they don't go anywhere. Abshier goes to College, that
is one of the most deadly intersections trying to pull out from the Rick's
Bakery. Hillcrest goes to North Street to a stop sign that I never could
figure out when I lived there. Who has the right-of-way? You pray and
go. It doesn't go anywhere to the north. I think if you add this much
density to those streets, it is going to compound a horrific problem. A lot
of people walk in that area because they go down to the pond in the other
development. It is a very, very communal area. It doesn't have sidewalks
now and the only place you can walk is in the street. And to add this
much density there is just a terrible mistake.
• Finally, I think the slope off of Abshier is very steep and I'm going to go
review that. I don't know that there is a lot of greenery on that slope
either. It's pretty dam severe and that concerns me. I do think this could
develop but I think it could develop into single-family homes on larger
lots. I would support that. But I cannot support it with the current 7.3
units that are proposed. I think you are going to be making it a horrific
traffic situation. I don't think Hillcrest is ever going to go to the north. If
you look at the pictures, it kind of stops. As long as you are funneling
traffic out into North Street or to College, it is just going to compound a
bad situation. And that access [to Hillcrest from behind Evelyn Hills] that
we are talking about, come on. That is ill maintained concrete that is
riddled with potholes most of the time. I don't know who is in charge of
it, but don't call it an access to me unless you are going to go in and gut it,
pave it and do what you need to do to it and at that point it is still a
significant slope. That was my favorite cut through to get home and I lost
a muffler there one time. You kind of compounded this, too, Tim, by
saying they can't sell that property behind Evelyn Hills. I wonder if that is
tied up in the covenants buffer thing. Right now there are too many
unknowns to me and the density is way too high and the bad traffic
situation will be compounded...
• I don't think it is compatible with the neighborhood at all with that
density. I think it could develop beautifully but not like that.
• Transitional is a little bit more than 50'. You can stand on the front
porches and spit on Evelyn Hills. That's not a big transition at all. To me,
if it was bigger, if you were talking about on the other side of the street
maybe, that could be transitional. To me that is a transitional zone. I
don't know if there is a definition for it — it has to be "X" number of
square feet, but as long as you can stand in a house and see the
commercial, I'm not sure that is real transitional.
12
City Council Meeting — March 7, 2006 — Abshier Heights
Speakers
1. Rob Wicks — resident, 1314 Hillcrest Avenue. Overview of
the objections to R-PZD 06-1883 Abshier Heights.
2. Professor Jeff Shannon, dean, School of Architecture,
University of Arkansas. Architectural significance of E.
Fay Jones Home.
3. Robert Alguire — resident, 1235 Hillcrest Avenue.
Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, University of
Arkansas. Safety and infrastructure concerns.
4. Shay Hopper — resident, 1224 Hillcrest Avenue.
Development and the 2025 plan.
5. Jimmie Beauchamp — resident, 1516 Hillcrest Avenue.
History and tradition.
6. Jan Wicks — resident,1314 Hillcrest Avenue:
The E. Fay Jones legacy and future considerations.
y; / f n
� . - .+} imil l J , 'A'- / a ' i�r.y{" /. �1 f'..
i. �F !i , ..� ''.. n "1 / iY ':� Vl /: .. r , �.ii Y t l A.
' r ` JOHN G. WILLIAMS,EAIA, Emeritu's'Professor,of.Architecture, Univer-sityof,Arkansas
".; Do'ctor..of Arts amid Humane::Getters;. Universityof,Ar�kahtsas
1.J -ai. ♦ \ '1 ti. L; _ �1 n .'
•. -j:.{.': t `,..7.- `. A• k 1� ' ��.SF// '\� �j' /jf r -Pr ,r'
\. v: r�1 l '/ - \ ,cii 7 : i - ..i j_ r{ ` �I
J Y Ifn ♦M'�iYI { It ,{.;r.;�.Y'.1 :a ^//. ✓,
: . .i. .f r ♦ y
-fl� .. Sr' / .i .l .'- Y. , v. ( ♦ •. ley ( , , 1 +�5� 'w
) ?./f .'r 'r, \\ `.Z/e t4 �./j... r. , .ii/t + i.i' .If H!^�h si.f \7..'✓
1,• • rl } l :- L - .. :, . e 'rte. r , ?i:v, — ,e .fF.
.•K S s t A r 4/'- t .. I d / r ) ,
lax•nr .u�.r.. 4u .%} ' rt �'{.L^{" : '- `1 ` J �! �"~ r•
1blaroh 3 200b t <. . y
n y ) / ' } iC ♦ `'-• 1.' i 4. !' •iL i !
rl :x - ;y ' 3 , 5t _'•
\
Y l- ~ -� A l f fl ,! , . r ' + / n \ '' Z �." ) rl A y ✓ •\'
Dear 1Mayor Cooilq`and Members of the Csity Cduncil 'l .:: t ' � '
•'ja b'i- Yr / i iV riff 4 A '� I .,,,�'1! 'rL i .j.. ,� �� / r r [,r� yAka •-a , ir-
This letter is wtitYen`fo`,your.constderatton regardmgahe need fo-pot ct the`ateanear'the ,�S,
' 5 residence: • fthe late Fay,oties and'Mrs. FayJones: r% `';' ; T' r ;; f
�✓ .+. - .. .i .'}.., lF a /v'. •. .Y 3\S�lt .. . �`�= y::.j , . 1: r.
'.F '� , f. -A. ! '(-' T /l -'
/ lam including a paragraph;from a letter I wrote to the• Chairperson and Members of the •' . r '.
e -n .'. -Planning Commission a'nd Staff, of Fayetteville *iArkansas; dated-.October;9;;1995 I •believe this,
. n paragraph:(,5) -,J_-'-,_
to be relevant'to the; City of ayetteville_today; ...........,_,•__
ally to the need to . :r'
protect certain\special areas of the city as the one near the.Fay �ones.resid`ence: � ,�'';: .,� ? r iy:
s , y ♦ J - iC ..1 i r 'r �ai..V ` 1 /_
T. _• y> ,i `i . \ :y. .'r1 i., /'•I ♦.y. ./ rI♦ s "
1 " .r.--7 }' ild a question that man ' of ussee as ve 'im ortant-to most of the aesidents of.. < - -' rY p,
j' t Fayetf vjlle ,Many of us have�cho'sen_ to3noye to Fayetteville Ind;contmueso hve here
s„ because.we deeplywalue;arid appreciate the quality oflife the city and the rea provide ' ` •.�\ 1
' V1 , �.�A.. fl �k . r\� . 4 V, o
,'There are„tnany rspectal; t_angsble elements • such as soil; bcoorruC, educational, and Y A x � . ,
/ � " A r r"� aA ' q , ✓ � �. r ... v I ''. A v . / �., r I iq ,�1�
l . 1 r recreatiotial}advantages, but`.Qie=vecyspeclaf/quality of life m;Fayetteville.rs,largelg a.r/
combination df b-oth tangibl• e: and'intangible elements .r_./.I ' • S'
a, - Yr , `..p.: t -r �^. _1 9 :1� `3-vfF z. 4'n 1 _ .
! , k 9 � ,rte" j � .� ,,.v. va . , - ,.:'I';
" .� \,�, •c1' i ha. 'f , �- . 1w Ij „�{ •!�\' ern i rY 'rJZ, .. -a _., 'k, /
x \ .'.One ofthe intangible elements is theisual.beauty ofthe,city; ifs neighborhoods;and the :� ;w ` kf
r. ' riaturai lieaiityyof its setting Many; ofiis believe that'tliis gualityris',pe�hags Fayetteville's. /; •k ,
most valuable`as�sets.Man3 io£us,haye an.uneasy concern hat this valuable asset`isrbeing •
threatened and destroyed: _ , , xk '. r
/l i .k ` 1✓i / .f v �.• ^,. ` / \.� 1.`' F "1.� N♦ ,/ ' ,,l
. " The area.around'the FayJones residence iW an important exainple:of our city's beauty thatf
must be'protected-because it is an integral part of the home'•s setting: The Jones `home is a f'
' ' nationallyyrecognized residence of unique architectural value in a iiatural'settrng ievea ing the
•visual beauty of Fayetteville that, no'.other fesidenee reveals in the: same way If ihis;area'is not-
-
protected -in its natural state,1whichrepresents.:Fay Jones uision,for the area we have destroyed:: r
-: this valuable assetforever. _ '.., ;
r/ ti r V. -.rIf 1 : 11r ll-.'-:.,`' _ Y/
Also'iticluded are=paragraphsfrorn the Foreword to Th'e Curious anddthel3eautiful:.A
_ Memoir Histoiyof the Architecture Proeram'at the University of Arkansas, published -in 1984;
which; point out an'inipottant'contribution to the quality .ofthe'architectural design that. became
especial...........'-".-.----•.- , lle. _' +y,
r
_. to
Emeritus Architect -•\Landscape Architect .,• Consultant, Campus Planning & Energy Conservation in Design
140 North Sang Avenue • Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701, (479j 44'2-,4317:
"... John [Williams] and his faculty began and sustained architectural education in
Arkansas ---forthright friendliness; unassuming, almost naive trust in"unpretent'ious work and
• honest of purpose; and easygoing humor.:InTseverat.visits to the school in Fayetteville over
•the years, I have found reassuring evidence'that.wholesomeness combined with a desire for
• and supportof extraordinary design talent have been and• remain the hallmark.of the school.
• The sustaining presence of John Williams and Fay Jones, the heritage of Ed Stone, and the
influx and outflow of talented faculty and students have left an -indelible impression on the
community, state, and region." .
The Foreword by A. Richard Williams, professor emeritus of architecture at the University of
Illinois and an author and' lecturer on architecture concludes by reiterating the important legacy
of Fay Jones, Edward Stone and those of us involved in establishing the University of Arkansas.
School of Architecture:
"I believe that Professor John Williams's story of the. school's beginnings, struggles,
accori plishments,.and aspirations, is more than a conscientious record of historical facts,
though these have great value to the"community. It is also of wide significance in the national,
perspective of architectural education, as future scholars, educators and practitioners look for
those unique places in America where the integrity of architecture as. one of the highest
values in the lives of free men has been understood and quietly piactice4."
Tconcurr with Mr. Richard Williams that the significance_ and influence of the residential
designs of Fay Jones are an importantpart of our city's history. MI expressed on page 38, "After
building several houses for Fay, some of these'builders were sought Out To build other Jones -like
houses, and Fay's designs came to have -a noticeable influence onresidential.architecture in
Fayetteville and the'surroundingarea.'' Frank Lloyd Wright himself recognized the importance
of the Fay Jones. residence in his lecture at the University of: Arkansas on April 15, 1958; -
The Fay Jones residence is indeed one of those,unique places in America where the integrity
of architectural design in a place of natural beauty is exhibited. The area surrounding the .. .
residence is integral to the invaluable architectural vision 'of Fay Jones: If we allow any
development in the area, we are destroying an irreplaceable example of the highest architectural
value and integrity that is; unique to Fayetteville. In essence, we destroy the foremost historic
example of that intangible visual beauty and charm that defines us as Fayetteville.
Thanks,
s.
John Williams
abS-c,,,,-
Original Message From Roy Reed <royreed@pgtc.com>
March 6-7, 2006
Fay Jones and I sat at his dining room table
on 65 Monday mornings and tape-recorded his
thoughts and memories for the Arkansas Center for
Oral and Visual History. Those interviews are
being compressed into a book for the University of
Arkansas Press. One of the emphatic themes running
through his recollections is his insistence that
environment matters. A building that violates the
nature of its site is an affront to the
environment, he said over and over. The land south
of Evelyn Hills was left wild to serve as a buffer
between the commercial and residential districts.
More than once, Fay sat at the table and mused
over the importance of keeping that land in its
natural state. He was a modest man. He would never
try to persuade the city to build a park and name
it for him. But there is no doubt in my mind that
he would applaud turning the land into a park. He
would probably say, "Just name it John Doe Park."
I think the city can do better than that. Here's a
Fayetteville citizen who ranks in the world's
memory with the likes of J. W. Fulbright and
Edward Durrell Stone. Naming a park for him would
be entirely appropriate. And what better place for
the park than across the street from his house?
Roy
ABSHIER HEIGHTS
MASTER DEVELOPMENT
(R-PZD 05-036)
ENGINEERING, INC.
Developer: D&P Chance Properties, LLC
598 Randall Wobbee Lane
Springdale, AR 72764
Representative: H2 Engineering
2758 Millennium Dr., Suite i
Fayetteville, AR 72703
Summary
Abshier Heights is a Proposed Residential PZD located along Abshier Drive and
Hillcrest Avenue just East of Evelyn Hills Shopping Center. We are proposing 30
residential units, consisting of 22 multi -family units and 8 two family units. The
property is currently zoned C-2, with C-2 zoning to the West and North and RSF-
4 to the East and South. We feel that the proposed PZD is a perfect fit between
these two zonings. The property is presently owned by Smith Two -Way Radio.
The Developer, D & P Chance Properties, LLC will be purchasing this property
contingent on the approval of this project.
General Project Concept
• Street and Lot Layout — This PZD consists of 8 single buildings with
parking as required by the Unified Development Code.
• Site Plan — See Master Development Plan Sheet
• Buffer Areas — There is a natural buffer of existing pine and oak trees
along every edge of this property.
• Tree Preservation Areas — There are no large open areas that could serve
as one large tree preservation area. However, most of the existing
canopy should not be affected by this development. We have an existing
canopy of 17.9% and we will only reduce this amount by 0.9%. The only
trees taken out will be trees to construct the detention pond near the
middle portion of the property. Mitigation trees will be planted in the
detention ponds, and landscape trees will be planted along the drive to
further increase the beauty of the existing tree canopy.
• Storm Water Detention Areas and Drainage — Runoff on this site will be
diverted to one of three detention ponds planned. There was no area
large enough to detain water for the entire site; therefore three smaller
ponds were created to better catch runoff and detain it. Discharge runoff
from the ponds will flow into existing storm sewers on the South part of the
property, and into an existing swale to the North of the property.
• Undisturbed Natural Areas — Most of the area behind the proposed
buildings will be undisturbed in order to keep the existing canopy. Some
disturbance in these areas may be required for grading purposes.
• Existing and Proposed Utility Connections and Extensions — A 6" sanitary
sewer line as well as an 6" water line are located to the east along
Hillcrest Avenue. A 6" waterline tees off of the existing 6" water line and
turns down the access road into Evelyn Hills. We will tie our waterline into
the 6" waterline and loop it to the North, tying into the 6" waterline along
Hillcrest Avenue. Our sanitary sewer will tie into the existing 6" sanitary
sewer line in two places.
• Development and Architectural Design Standards — The condos and
duplexes on this project have a modem and contemporary feel. They
were designed to fit the site with their large window views and inset
balconies. The buildings will be built so that in most areas, the rooftops
and backs of the buildings will not be seen through the existing tree
canopy, as well as the extensive change in grade from the existing street
2
down to the bottom of the property. These buildings were not built as a
rental property, but instead as condos that will be individually sold.
Building Elevations —Building Elevations are attached.
Proposed Development Phasing and Time Frame
This project consists of 1 phase. This zoning approval is intended to allow
construction anytime within 3 years of approval. However, construction is
anticipated to occur from May, 2006 — January, 2007.
Proposed Planning Areas with Proposed Zoning and Development
Standards
This project has only 1 planning area which consists of 30 residential units. There
will be 22 multi -family units and 8 two family units.
Permitted uses will be City-wide Uses by right (Use Unit 1), two family dwelling
(Use Unit 9), home occupation (Use Unit 24), and multi -family dwellings (Use
Unit 26).
Conditional uses will be city-wide uses by conditional use (Use Unit 2).
The residential unit density will be 7.3 units or less per acre. Front setbacks will
be a minimum of 25 feet, side setbacks will be a minimum of 8 feet, and rear
setbacks will be a minimum of 15 feet. Height restrictions in this project are set
at 35 feet.
Materials proposed for the building are brick, hardi-board siding (to be painted),
metal roofing, and wrought iron railings.
Analysis of the Site Characteristics
No environmentally hazardous, sensitive, or natural resource areas have been
found on this site.
Recreational Facilities
There is an existing park, Gregory Park, % of a mile to the north and west of this
site. Also, Wilson Park and Clarence Craft Park are about a half of a mile away.
No park areas are proposed for this site, however close access to one is
available.
Reason for Zoning Change Request
A request for a zoning change is being made on this piece of property because
we feel that multi -family will be a good transition between C-2 and RSF-4. We
find that placing these residences here will help to create more revenue for the
adjacent business owners in the area as well. This zoning should also create
less traffic in the area if the increase in traffic is homeowners instead of a
constant stream of customers to a C-2 business that could be placed here with
the current zoning. The town homes and duplexes that will be built here have
3
been designed by the architect to fit the natural slope and grade of the land and
be nearly invisible to the nearby neighborhood. The colors and materials used
will also blend in with the surrounding canopy.
Comparison of the Proposed Master Development Plan to the Current
Zoning District Requirements
Description
Current Zoning (C-2)
Requirements
Proposed Zoning (R-PZD)
Requirements
Use Unit 1- City-wide Uses by right
Use Unit 1- City-wide Uses by right
Use Unit 4 -Cultural and recreational facilities
Use Unit 9 -Two family dwellings
Use Unit 12 - Offices, studios and related services
Use Unit 26 - Mum -family dwellings
Use Unit 13 - Ealing Places
Use Unit 14 - Hotel, motel, and amusement facilities
Use Unit 15 - Neighborhood shopping goods
Permitted Use
Units Allowed
Use Unit 16 - Shopping goods
Use Unit 17 - Trades and services
Use Unit 18- Gasoline service stations & drive-in restaurants
Use Unit 19- Commercial recreation, small sites
Use Unit 20 - Commercial recreation, large sites
Use Unit 33 - Adult live entertainment club or bar
Use Unit 34- Liquor store
Use Unit 2- City-wide uses by cond. Use permit
Use Unit 2- City-wide uses by cond. use permit
Use Unit 3 -Public protection and utility fac.
Use Unit 24- Home occupation
Use Unit 21- Warehousing and wholesale
Cononal
uses
Use Unit 28 - Center for collecting recyclable materials
Use Unit 32- Sexually oriented business
Use Unit 35 -Outdoor music establishments
Use Unit 36 -Wireless comm. facilities
Description
Current Zoning (C-2)
Requirements
Proposed Zoning (R-PZD)
Requirements
Front Setback
50 Ft.
25 Ft
Side Setbacks
None
8 Ft.
Rear Setbacks
20 Ft.
15 Ft.
Maximum Height
75 Ft.
35 Ft.
Density
- Units per Acre
RMF-24 (24 units/acre)
7.3 (max)
Land Area per Dwelling Unit
N/A
5,663 SF
(max)
Site Coverage (% covered by bldg)
60%
17.0%
Note: The existing zoning of this property is C-2.
Relationship to the Existing and Adjacent Land Uses
This property is currently zoned C-2 and backs up to an RSF-4 neighborhood.
With C-2 to the North and West and RSF-4 to the South and East, we feel that
this multi -family development would be a great transition between the two
zonings. Rezoning this property would create the opportunity to have less traffic
because any use under a C-2 zoning would entail a constant stream of customer,
employee, and any other traffic in and out of the business located on the site.
With a residential zoning, the only traffic would be from homeowners and would
likely be morning and afternoon traffic, which would be consistent with the RSF-4
neighborhood adjacent to the site. The appearance of these buildings would also
be appropriate for the area because they were designed with the land so that
they will not even be seen from most points along the adjacent roads.
Compliance with
Fayetteville
General
Plan 2020
This
development
does
comply
with the
Fayetteville General Plan 2020.
Traffic Study
No traffic study has yet been performed for this project due to the small amount
of impact this project will have on the existing roads.
Impacts on City Services
There are no significant impacts to city services associated with this project.
Statement of Commitments
Dedication and On or Off -site Improvements
There is 50 feet of right-of-way existing along Abshier Drive as well as
Hillcrest Avenue which meets the master street plan requirement,
therefore, no right-of-way will need to be dedicated by this plat. Offsite
improvements will be required in order to widen Abshier Drive and
Hillcrest Avenue, 14 feet from the centerline. Both streets are currently an
5
average of 20 feet wide. The north side of Abshire Drive will be widened
from College Avenue east to the intersection with Hillcrest Avenue. The
west side of Hillcrest Avenue will be widened from the intersection with
Abshire Drive north to the northern boundary of the project.
Natural Resources and Environmental Sensitive Areas
There are areas that indicate springs located near the North West
boundary line of the southern portion of our property. Because of this, we
will use methods of construction that will take this into account such as
curtain walls and french drains.
Project Phasing Restrictions
The phases and estimated completion dates have been established as
presented previously herein the master plan for the project. As phasing
has been identified, described and approved as part of the PZD master
development plan, process phasing may vary from the requirements of
Chapter 166 of the UDC with regard to expiration of permits and plans.
Fire Protection
Abshier Heights will be served by the Fayetteville Fire Department number
5 on Crossover Road.
Other Commitments Imposed by the City
There are currently no other commitments imposed by the City.
Parks, Trails and Open Space Commitments
Tree preservation and protection will be implemented in accordance with
the City of Fayetteville code of Ordinances Title XV Unified Development
Code: Chapter 167 Tree Preservation & Protection. Landscaping within
Abshier Heights will be designed in accordance to the City of Fayetteville
Landscape Manual which sets forth the standards and specifications for
Tree Preservation, Protection and Landscaping.
Building Elevations
Building Elevations are attached.
Development Standards, Conditions and Review Guidelines
Screening and Landscaping
The screening and landscaping will be provided as set forth in Section
166.09 Buffer Strips and Screening. We will be planting trees every 8
spaces as shown on the grading and tree preservation plan. We are also
planting trees on the northern section of the property, however they are
being planted opposite the parking area in order to keep them out of the
proposed utility easement. Other shrubs and plants shall be planted in
greenspace areas between buildings.
6
Traffic and Circulation
Design of the traffic and circulation on the project will be in accordance
with Section 166 of the Unified Development Code. There are several
access points to the property. Both parts of the site will have at least two
access points with several options for direction of travel after exiting the
site.
Parking Standards
The parking lot has been designed and in accordance with the standards
found in Section 172 of the Unified Development Code, with the exception
of the number of parking spaces. With the multi -family residential nature
of this development, we felt the need to adjust the number of parking
spaces. Tenants of the proposed units may utilize the garages for
storage, forcing them to use the driveway for parking. Because of this,
every unit's driveway will be used. If anyone in the development has
guests over, there will be no place for them to park. We feel that adding
parallel parking will relieve this situation. Therefore, we are proposing 42
spaces for garage parking, 42 spaces for driveway parking, and 38
parallel spaces.
Perimeter Treatment
No perimeter treatment is planned.
Sidewalks
Sidewalks will be designed and constructed in accordance with the Master
Street Plan and Section 171 of the Unified Development Code.
Street Lights
Street lights will be designed and constructed in accordance with the
Unified Development Code.
Water
Water lines will be designed and constructed in accordance with the City
of Fayetteville Water and Sewer Specifications. A 6" water line is located
site which we propose to connect to, as well as an 8" to loop the system.
Sewer
Sewer lines will be designed and constructed in accordance with the City
of Fayetteville Water and Sewer Specifications. A 6" sanitary sewer line is
located to the east of the property along Hillcrest Avenue that we propose
to connect to.
Streets and Drainage
Streets and drainage will be designed and constructed in accordance with
the Unified Development Code and the Master Street Plan.
7
I.
Construction of Nonresidential Facilities
There will be no nonresidential facilities on the property.
Tree Preservation
Tree preservation and protection will be implemented in accordance with
Section 167 of the Unified Development Code. The existing canopy is
17.9% tree covered, we are reducing this number to 17%. This requires 6
mitigation trees to be planted. These trees will be located in proposed
detention areas in order to provide tree canopy in these areas.
Architectural Design Standards
Materials proposed for the building are brick, hardi-board siding (to be
painted), metal roofing, wrought iron railings, and glu-lam balconies. No
vinyl siding will be permitted.
Signage
All signage on the project shall be permitted in accordance with R -O
district criteria as set forth by Chapter 174 of the Unified Development
Code. An entrance sign is proposed.
View Protection
Because of the steep grade of the property and existing tree canopy,
buildings may not even be seen from the adjacent roads. In addition, an
existing tree canopy should remain along Hillcrest and Abshier. The only
trees removed from this area are for a detention pond. Mitigation trees will
be planted in this pond after construction to put back the existing canopy
that was removed.
Revocations
The developer understands causes for revocation and will take all
measures necessary to avoid revocation.
Covenants, Trusts, and Homeowner Associations
There are no covenants, trusts or Homeowner Associations associated
with this project.
8
UNDISTURBED TREE CANOPY (PER FAYETTEVILLE 019)
EXTENDED TREE CANOPY PER AER4LL PHOTOS
EXISTING TREE CANOPY TO BE REMOVED
PROPOSED DONATION TO MRS. JONES
EXISTING TREE r DIA OR LARGER TO REMAIN 5Ir
EXISTING TREE C DM OR LARGER TO BE REMOVED
MITIGATION TREE
i
JONES PROPERTY
ABSNIEP Mrvc
II
SITE & TREE CANOPY ANALYSIS
SECTION A I PRDPERTYLINE SITE SECTION AT TOWNHOUSES
HILLCREST AVE
I
SECTION B
EXISTING
SITE SECTION AT CONDOMINIUMS
iithk
Z
O
W
W
O
Ai;
Z w
Ow
—w
H -
U
W
J j
W
a
0
W u
LL
Z
Ow
Z
O
W
J
W
U)
Lfl
1 .s
O DIa o ■
Q W ~ 0
>< QC)
�a W o_ �■
0 U W Q
OjhIiIlu
ARCHITECTURAL
R E C O R D FEBRUARY 2006
Multifamily Housing
Infill Solutions
FOUR MID -RISE, MULTIFAMILY HOUSING PROJECTS SHOW
THAT HIGH DENSITY, LOW BUDGETS, AND DIFFICULT SITES CAN
BE OPPORTUNITIES FOR GOOD DESIGN, NOT OBSTACLES.
By Jane F. Kolleeny
ollowing strong growth over the ast decade, housing starts 4W
will ease off in 2006 to the same evel as 2004, according to aD
forecasts of the National Association of Home Builders
(NAHB). While this puts the brake on housing construction's G
rapid pace in recent years, the overall message is positive, and the level of H
building is considered historically healthy.
During this year's slowdown, multifamily and affordable hous- W
ing will both do well, says NAHB chief economist David Seiders. Of this CL
activity, mull development —projects on small land parcels close to urban H
centers —will account for a larger percentage than before, says AIA's chief t.7
economist Kermit Baker. With developable land dwindling and the pop- w
ulation growing in major urban centers of the U.S., this trend is no
surprise. It sets the stage for interesting architectural solutions for build-
ings that occupy lots deemed difficult until now.
San Diego, California
Jonathan Segal Architects invigorates
the urban landscape of a San Diego
neighborhood with a Modern nine -
unit housing complex.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
With thus project, Onion Flats takes
its imaginative design approach
beyond the drawing board, going
on -site to build the property.
�, • li� SF M.YN.Yr
. ) ,
;% :' '
'it -
I-- ''4 '•;I
11
7" 'I
t
Y•H I '-
1.I
I
SITE ACCESS STUDY - ABSHIER HEIGHTS
I
I
I
I
IJ
I
I
L
I
I
I
I
I
The site will have access from four different entry points. The first entry point is on
Abshier, the second is from Hillcrest and the third and fourth entry points are from the
Evelyn Hills Shopping Center.
U.S. 71 B is west of the development and serves as a major north/south arterial in the state
highway system carrying approximately 31,000 Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT).
EXISTING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
24 Hour traffic counts were taken on College Avenue, Abshier, Hillcrest and North Street.
Turning movement counts were conducted at Abshier & College, Abshier & Hillcrest,
Hillcrest & Evenlyn Hill South Driveway and Hillcrest & North. Table 1 shows a
summary of the 24 hour traffic counts and Figure 2 shows the turning movements for the
PM peak hour at each intersection.
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF 24 COUNT VOLUMES
Location
College Ave.
Abshier
Hillcrest
North St.
Description
At Abshier
Bwtn. College/Hillcrest
N. of Abshier
S. of Abshier
At Hillcrest
Time
NB
SB
EB
WB
NB
SB
NB
SB
EB
WB
1100
863
844
8
6
15
12
31
16
108
191
1200
1120
997
4
6
18
19
17
19
162
209
1300
1193
1164
10
6
18
28
23
32
163
201
1400
1039
1105
7
7
17
19
18
33
185
171
1500
1045
1068
11
5
27
30
27
35
193
190
1600
1193
1138
23
16
30
25
38
42
226
231
1700
1183
1246
28
2
28
38
21
58
314
216
1800
1216
1365
31
19
23
35
26
57
337
237
1900
849
985
7
1
23
41
23
49
254
232
2000
629
687
5
0
8
16
8
22
155
132
2100
591
633
3
6
7
16
11
19
129
162
2200
321
432
0
0
6
7
8
7
87
118
2300
203
278
1
0
2
2
2
3
58
64
2400
158
165
2
0
0
1
0
2
34
30
100
92
67
0
0
1
2
0
2
21
5
200
79
50
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
12
300
53
44
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
12
400
40
43
1
1
0
1
0
2
10
5
500
37
42
0
1
2
1
4
1
13
17
600
112
124
0
6
8
1
10
0
9
39
700
255
298
7
20
9
5
20
6
50
115
800
729
890
11
27
18
7
34
18
150
342
900
774
780
12
19
17
9
31
16
140
270
1000
738
692
4
7
24
13
32
14
115
209
24 Hour Totals
14512
15137
175
155
301
328
384
453
2943
3410
3/17/2006 - 2 -
T:Vob\100717.H2 Engin'bshier HeightsReponWepon 03-20-06.doc �:Atf2i48tJI�255
SITE ACCESS STUDY - ABSHIER HEIGHTS
Cl)
OZ
oo
=o
y U
Q r
wZ
fl -u
MISSION a'o
xz
x�
I-
z
Z
19
23 5
N HILLCREST
as
0 T
65
Hi
W_
I
N
1323
COLLEGE
1344
3/17/2006 -3- -.
T:Vob\100717.H2 Engm\Abshier Heights'RepoMepoh 03-20-06.doc Ica-railwrgess
I
SITE ACCESS STUDY - ABSHIER HEIGHTS
I
I
I
U
Li
n
I
I
7
I
I
P
I
I
I
I
I
Peak Hour Traffic. The peak hour analyzed for this study is the PM Peak. The Saturday
Peak is higher for the shopping centers, but should not add additional traffic along Abshier
and Hillcrest in the study area.
Average Daily Traffic (ADT). The ADT analyzed for this study is the 24 hour two-way
traffic volumes from the traffic counts taken on College, Abshier, Hillcrest and North. The
City of Fayetteville Traffic and Transportation Study (CFTTS) defines Abshier Road and
Hillcrest Avenue as Local Streets. The study also sets up guidelines for traffic volumes of
• Residential Street carry less than 300 vehicles per day and
• Local Streets carry less than 2000 vehicles per day.
The 24 hour traffic counts fall within the guidelines of local streets and are at or below the
threshold for residential streets.
Intersection Level of Service. Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing
operational conditions within a traffic stream, based on service measures such as speed and
travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, and convenience as
defined by the Highway Capacity Manual. The LOS for a stop controlled intersection is
determined by the computed or measured control delay and is defined for each minor
movement. LOS is not defined for the intersection as a whole. LOS Criteria are defined in
Table 3.
TABLE 2
LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA- UNSIGNALIZED
LOS
Avg. Control Delay (s/veh)
A
0-10
B
>10-15
C
>15-25
D
>25-35
E
>35-50
F
>50
The intersections of Abshier & Hillcrest, Abshier & College, South Drive & Hillcrest and
North & Hillcrest were analyzed to determine the existing LOS using the Highway
Capacity Software (HCS). The results of the analysis are summarized in Table 3. Due to
the high volume of traffic along College Avenue, westbound traffic on Abshier is at a LOS
of D for the analysis period.
The intersection of North and Hillcrest has some geometric issues. The intersection is just
north of the crest of a vertical curve limiting the stopping sight distance for westbound
traffic. Currently the intersection operates with eastbound having right-of-way and
westbound and southbound traffic are stop sign controlled. The HCS results do not
consider the stop control for the westbound traffic.
3/17/2006 -4-
T:Uob\100]17.H2 Enginvbshier HeighrsU4ponVepon 03-20-0L.dac �W �RiRWJr9e
L
SITE ACCESS STUDY - ABSHIER HEIGHTS
I
I
I
H
I
I
L
I
H
I
I
I
I
TABLE 3
Existing Level of Service
PM Peak Hour
HCS
Abshier & Hillcrest
Abshier & College
S. Drive & Hillcrest
North & Hillcrest
Movement
EBL & R
NBL
SBL
WBL & R
NBL
EBL & R
EBL
SBL & R
Lane LOS
A
A
B
D
A
A
A
B
Control Delay
8.8
7.3
11.3
32.7
7.3
8.5
7.8
13.6
Approach LOS
A
D
A
B
OFF -SITE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
The study area is developed with commercial and residential development. The
undeveloped area is Abshier Heights. No off -site future development traffic was looked at
for this study. The Master Street plan for the City of Fayetteville shown in the CFTTS
does not show either Abshier or Hillcrest moving up in classification. The zoning maps for
the City of Fayetteville do not show any zoning differing from what is now outside of the
Abshier Heights Development.
SITE DEVELOPMENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC
Abshier Heights is a high -quality condo development with 30 units. Using ITE's Trip
Generation Rates, the traffic was developed. Table 4 shows the land use type, 24 hour two
way volume and PM peak hour entering and exiting volumes. Pass -By trips and internal
trip capture were not used with this development. All trips for the development will be
new trips. Figure 3 shows the layout and distribution of the different land uses by
percentages and corresponding traffic volumes to be added to the existing traffic volumes.
• TABLE 4
Summary of Trip Generation for Abshier Heights
Land Use
Size
Units
24 Hr
2 -Way
Vol.
PM Pk Hour
Enter
Exit
High -Quality Condos
30
Dwellings
176
..11
5
Totals
176
11
5
Land Use
Size
Units
Saturday
Sunday
2 War
Y
Vol.
Peak Hour
2 War
Y
Vol.
Peak Hour
Enter
Exit
Enter
Exit
High -Quality Condos
30
Dwellings
170
8
7
145
7
7
Totals
170
8
7
145
7
7
Note: A zero indicates no data available.
3/17/2006 - 5 -
' T:Vob\I007J7.H][ngin\Abshkr Heights\Repon4eport03.30.06.doc Ca:rerew•ye
SITE ACCESS STUDY - ABSHIER HEIGHTS
Ll
Z
W
0
a
O
J
w
MISSIONw
Li -
0
z
O
I
I-
C N
z o
HILLCREST
rn
Li
w_
t2
�^ COLLEGE
EXISTING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC WITH DEVELOPED SITE
3/17/2006 - 6 -
T:Vob\100717.H2 Engi,Mbchier HeightsRcporl port03-20.06.doc Wiiern e55
n
SITE ACCESS STUDY - ABSHIER HEIGHTS
n
I
I
I
I
I
The combination of existing traffic with the proposed traffic from the development is
shown in Figure 4. The results of the intersection analysis from HCS are summarized in
Table 5.
TABLES
Existing with Proposed Level of Service
PM Peak Hour
HCS
Abshier & Hillcrest
Abshier & College
S. Drive & Hillcrest
North & Hillcrest
Movement
EBL&R R
NBL
SBL
W BL & R
NBL
EBL&R R
EBL
R
SBL&R
Lane LOS
A
A
B
D
A
A
A
B
Control Delay
8.9
7.3
11.3
31.3
7.3
8.5
7.8
13.8
Approach LOS
A
D
A
B
• 1 " • " 1 .5 - 1 " • 1
• • •
lµ'fq} Y or•,41ICrIl 1y•(J�,�`♦ i; • • . • '5
-
le B F
r: 'T. �.:J. "`.^tier. • 1 1
"ff �J� • 1 • • 1 • 1 1 1 . •
1 y
Y a r
1 l Gil ^' _ "i" f, •R.� 2 ..-r ^ •A4[i.. • . • • • " • I /
iiuJNa ..r ,�((,, v •yY'.rva f4 I.4 aF .' � 'M,�yF��r. c
t•. c� .4'f OjQi, �'lv'�y} .tom' t G .- 4
1 • .i /l��'i I'� m�:.Ji `i4 .. J``n�`q.*+s,"°-•.c.•i `�'t.
• • • • • • • • • • 1'i .e�r`.a. ' •� k"
• 1 " • • I, . 1 • 1 Baas- -
3/17/2006 - 7 -
T:Vob\100717.H2 Engin\bshier Heights\Repon'epon 01-20-06.doc
Car eruBi--rges;
' SITE ACCESS STUDY - ABSHIER HEIGHTS
T
The combination of existing traffic with the proposed traffic from the development is
shown in Figure 4. The results of the intersection analysis from HCS are summarized in
Table 5.
TABLE 5
Existing with Proposed Level of Service
PM Peak Hour
II
II
HCS
Abshier & Hillcrest
Abshier & College
S. Drive & Hillcrest
North & Hillcrest
Movement
EBL & R
NBL
SBL
WBL & R
NBL
EBL & R
EBL
SBL & R
Lane LOS
A
A
B
D
A
A
A
B
Control Delay
8.9
7.3
11.3
31.3
7.3
8.5
7.8
13.8
Approach LOS
A
D
A
B
' The impacts of the development on the intersections of Abshier & Hillcrest, Abshier &
College, South Drive & Hillcrest and North & Hillcrest are negligible. More traffic will
use the intersections; however the overall traffic volumes and the development traffic
' volumes are small enough to keep the delays low and allow the intersection to operate at a
LOS of A.
I
L
I
SITE TOPOGRAPHY REGARDING ACCESS
The topography of the site slopes from
Abshier and Hillcrest down to the
Evelyn Hills Shopping Center.
Existing Slopes. Hillcrest slopes up from
north to south with an average grade of
5% from the north end to Woodcrest and
10.8% from Woodcrest to Abshier.
Abshier slopes up from US 71B to
Hillcrest with an average slope of 5.2%.
Proposed Drives and Improvements.
' The access drives into the Evelyn Hills
Shopping Center having maximum
Y
slopes of 14.85% on the southern drive
'• and 13.20% on the northern drive.
The north drive within the
development has a maximum proposed
' slope of 5.38% and the south drive
within the development has a
maximum proposed slope of 5.43%.
'
3/17/2006 - 7 -
' T:Vob\I®717H3 Engimnbshier Heigbts\Report'sepon03-2U06.doc CarternBurgess
UI
L
I
I
I
U
I
I
I
I
I
U
I
U
I
I
I
U
SITE ACCESS STUDY - ABSHIER HEIGHTS
T
24
u)
RECOMMENDATIONS
3/17/2006
T:Vob\100] I7.H2 Engin\bshier Heights\Repon\repon 03-20 06.doc
23
1344
-8-
�3 r -I -4i
7 N
HILLCREST
?
1323
Curler44*ss
I
SITE ACCESS STUDY - ABSHIER HEIGHTS
I
I
I
I
I
I
L
H
I
I
i
I
Site access during inclement weather should be accomplished using the interior drives of
the development and Abshier Drive if trips have to be made. The proposed grading within
the site will allow a safer route for accessing the existing residences on Hillcrest north of
Abshier than before the development.
No improvements are recommended along Abshier, Hillcrest or at the intersections of
Abshier & Hillcrest, Abshier & College, Hillcrest & South Drive and Hillcrest & North for
traffic operations. The traffic generated by the development has insignificant impacts to
the existing roadways and intersections. However, both streets are substandard according
to the City of Fayetteville's Traffic and Transportation Study with a narrow cross section
and open ditches. Therefore, it is recommended the development improve Abshier and
Hillcrest along the street frontage of the property for the north half and west half
respectively of the existing streets.
3/17/2006 - 9 -
' T;Vob\100]I7.H2 EnginAbshier Heighis\Rcpon'sepon 03-20-06.doc
carter°surges
r;
SITE ACCESS STUDY = ABSHIER HEIGHTS
SUMMARY OF STUDY
• Development — 24 High Quality Condominiums (Study analyzes 30 Condos)
• The Level of Service (LOS) remains the same for existing and proposed
• Abshier — 24 hour traffic volume — 330
• Hillcrest (north of Abshier) — 24 hour traffic volume — 629
• Hillcrest (south of Abshier) — 24 hour traffic volume — 837
• North — 24 hour traffic volume — 6353
• College Ave. — 24 hour traffic volume — 29649
• Development — 24 hour traffic volume — 176 (ITE Trip Generation Handbook)
3/21/2006 - I -
T:UohU00717.H2 Engin\Ahshia Heghls\Ncpop nlCily Council Handout O3 -2l- doc CaarterrBurgess
2
ma
4)
N
0
Q
0
L
a
J
m
z
J H H J a
m m m m m m 2
zzcncnwwa
■ ■■■.■ ■ ■ ■.■ ■
m m m
z w w
I I
a a a
` ` `
aaa
J
CO N
m
m
0
w
M
CD
a
0
co
a
■
0
°
0
Co
N
W
O
Z
cq
■
H
•
Cv
a�
o
■
w v
to
F
z
Q
N
O
a
J
Z
co
ca
2
(h
L
a
■
0
0
m
N
N
0
J
w
O O
O
J CC J m
w w w
J m J F F in a a a a
m m m m m m o o o o
wCnww a`an`d
❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ■ ❑ ■ ❑
IC
4-
I -
O
z
C)
L
ci
If
a)
N
0
am
0
I-
0
J
Ui
a
O
a
■
J
m N
o
N
W
O
m
V a❑
m 7 O)
c7
(n
W
O
❑
I
>
o\
T
LO
a
O
O
■
�co Imo) O
0
0
. Cn LU
t�
0
U)
,cam
a
O
O
I-
0
J
m
C))
a
O
O
a-
a
�
o
m
Q) co
rN
N
>
N CO
J H H Ji
m m m m
Z Z U) W
J F F pC J pC a a a a'
m m m m m m 0 0 0 0;
zzcncnwwaaYaaY
■ ■ ❑ ❑ ■ ■ ■ ❑ ■ ■
MO
a)
N
O
0
L
a
F -^
r-
Zr-
m
J
0
o
W
o
m
r
z
O
N
d
0
I-
C')
•
v
n
o
CO
Y
C-
■
z
a
'It
U
a
0
ri
a
J
❑
m
Z
o
a
O
0
Y
0
W N N ■
nCDO
C
ti
cr
0
o
moo
H
J
H
m
m
m
m
m
z
z
cn
U)
■
■
❑
❑
■
CO 0)
■
J
fL
U) o
' 'tin
' T
O
o
2
d
a
❑
■
0
U
N
z o
z
c
N
Q'O
0
0 o
L
a.
a
■
CC
0
o
J
0
T
m
r
2
r �
-
r
O
p
❑
■
J
m
m
z
U)
m
o
o
o
M 0
Q
0
mNN
Z
O
00)0
U)
O
m
m
m
m
m
m
Z
Z
(A
(n
W
W
0
■
❑
❑
■
■
7.
L
0
0
m
T M
V'
0
m N
r
N
\ o
J
o
O
O
W
m
J L Jr m m
m m m m
U)U)ww��
J
CO
w
a:
! T
0
mac)
N c7
U
m
m
m
m
m
m
Z
Z
cn
dl
W
W
F
m
z
m
L
❑
Cl)
Z
C1
L
1,
m
Ui
m ,-oCl)
❑
■
•
CC
J
F
J
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
z
z
0
uJ
❑
■
❑
❑
■
D
CO M 0)
m o
m
iO
Q
It CO O
r IO
m
m n
N
Z
O
Ja)0
A
H`
ZONING CHRONOLOGY OF 150 FOOT WIDE STRIP, BOUNDING THE WESTERN
EDGE OF HILLCREST AVENUE RUNNING NORTH FROM ITS INTERSECTION
WITH ABSHIER
(Based on documentation provided by Fayetteville Planning Staff)
6/27/62: T. I. Abshier and Evelyn Hills, Inc., petition Planning Commission, City Board, and
Mayor to re -zone approximately 3 Y2 acres on West side of Hillcrest drive from R- IA to C-2.
The strip is 150 feet wide along Hillcrest and runs 1,030 feet northward from Hillcrest's
intersection with Abshier. Proposes a protective covenant that no commercial building will be
constructed on the East 75 feet which would extend above street level of Hillcrest avenue.
Exhibit 1
7/5/62: Public notice to all persons concerned of public hearing by Planning Commission to
reconsider Abshier petition for re -zoning, date of hearing 7/24/62 Exhibit 2
7/23/62 Objections filed to proposed re -zoning Exhibit 3
7/24/62: Public hearing, Planning Commission certifies to City Board recommendation that re-
zoning occur except for east 20 feet thereof as buffer and on condition that petitioner's restrictive
covenants dated 8/11/62, with revisions suggested by planning commission, be filed. Exhibits 4
and 5
8/27/62 Ordinance 1314 passed re -zoning west 130 feet to C-2 and requiring certain other
requirements in Restrictive covenants to be filed in favor of and enforceable by neighbors
Exhibits 4 and 5
8/31/62: date of Restrictive Covenants which were filed of record by Evelyn Hills Shopping
Center, Inc. and Mr. and Mrs. T.I. Abshier on 9/18/62 at Vol 580, p214 : Recites 130 feet
converted to C-2, and "if it is re -zoned" to benefit owners along Hillcrest, no commercial
building which extends above Hillcrest Street level shall be placed on 80 feet west of 20 foot
buffer, egress is limited to present driveway; nothing built w/in 20 feet of Hillcrest, and within 12
months after passage of re -zoning ordinance, 6 foot high fence built along west 20 feet and area
shall be beautified. Covenants run with the land for 20 years after recorded, extended
automatically for 5 year period unless all neighbors agree to change. Inure to benefit of any
person on Hillcrest Avenue. Exhibit 6
11/26/62: drawing of area, w/ handwritten notes "Special election on Ordinance no 1314: Foi
471, against, 682, The ordinance was defeated by 212 votes. City Council minutes of 11/26/62,
Book "G" Page 177, Referendum petition. " Also noted Planning Commission administrative
sheet showing history of progress of Ordinance 1314 through Planning Commission and City
board, "3/1/91, according to my research, the re -zoning was brought to public vote by
referendum, the re -zoning was overturn. BB" Exhibit 7 and 8
8/15/67 Minutes of Planning Commission meeting, attorney E.J. Ball petitions in behalf of
owners that the property west of Hillcrest be re -zoned for R -1 A to C-2. Lewis Jones represented
3
4
41 opponents. The minutes note the prior 1962 Planning Commission and City Board action and
that, "this issue was presented for public vote later that year and the voters decided the property
should be left as a residential zone." The matter was not voted on for lack of a quorum, and was
scheduled for action on 8/22/67. Exhibit 9
8/22/67 Minutes of a Planning Commission meeting, request to re -zone this same property from
R-1 to C-2 unanimously denied. Exhibit 10
10/17/67 Letter from City manager to attorney Lewis Jones, who represented the Hillcrest Street
neighbors, noting that appeal of the Planning Commission decision on re -zoning this property to
the City Board has been is scheduled for rehearing on 11/6/67. Exhibit 11
11/67 City Board rehears the appeal, recommends the applicant work out a compromise with
neighborhood, table then matter for 120 days, referring it to the Planing Commission. (City
zoning history memo)
2/68 Planning Commission indefinitely tables the re -zoning petition, never acted upon it. (City
zoning history memo)
6/70 City wide re -zoning confirms that this strip remains R-1. (City zoning history memo, also
Exhibit 12 -June 1970 official zoning map, and Exhibit 13- crayon map used by zoning
office)
11/27/72: plat map reflecting "Appeal 72-40 Osage Oil and Transportation 1600 N. College
Board of Adjustment 11/27/72", shows that all property between Evelyn Hills and Hillcrest is R-
1. Exhibit 14
6/24/91 Planning Commission minutes, request by Charles Sloan for conditional use for duplexes
within R -I on West side of Hillcrest. Sloan had contract to purchase contingent upon approval of
conditional use. Motion tabled. Exhibit 15
722/91 Planning Commission minutes, motion to deny Sloan motion for conditional use of
duplexes within R-1 denied by 7-1 vote. Exhibit 16
1970-1999 A review of all actions since 1970 requesting re -zoning within one mile of this site
shows that on 19 separate occasions, occurring almost every other year, the planning staff shows
this property as R-1 Exhibit 17'- list of zoning matters, and Exhibits 18 and 19, - exemplar
maps for planning appllications dated 7/18/88 and 6/18/90
1999 The first, and only time; that the planning staff has not been consistent in holding all
property from the western edge of Hillcrest, to the eastern edge of the Evelyn Hills shopping
center was not all R-1, was on a 1999 application by Weingarten, then owner or manager of
Evelyn Hills, for parking expansion. The "One Mile Diameter" map prepared by the planning
department shows that the R-1 zoning continues west from Hillcrest to a point approximately
x
halfway between Hillcrest Avenue, and the Evelyn Hills building lines. The "Close Up" map
prepared by the planning department does not even show any line of separation between the R-1
running west from Hillcrest Street and the C-2 of the shopping center proper. Thus, even those
documents are confusing and ambiguous, and certainly no basis for re- zoning this area from R-1
to C-2 Exhibits 20 and 21
7/15/03 For reasons completely unknown to the Fayetteville City Board or to the Mayor, or to
the Planning Commission, or to any of the City Planning staff, when the City adopted the new
Zoning Map effective 7/15/013, it showed, for the first time in Fayetteville City Planning history,
this 1030 X 150 foot strip of space as C-2. There was no public notice, no public hearings, no
discussions, no chance for the neighbors to be heard, and in fact, no awareness on this Board's
part, much less the neighborhood, that the City had re -zoned property which had been
successfully defended as R-1 3 different times over 40 years: successfully defended at the
Planning Board, at the City Board, and when those failed, by public referendum. Exhibit 22
Now it is proposed that an unknown drafter's mistake resolve the issue.
'iEVll1e
ARKANSAS
125 W. Mountain St.
01
THE CITY OF FAYETTE VILLE, ARKANSAS phme:(4l9 5A7-2267
Telcphonc: (479)575-8267
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
TO: File
FROM: Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning r
DATE: February 10, 2006
Planning Staff has researched Planning Commission meeting minutes, rezoning files and City
Clerk records of City Council/Board of Directors meeting minutes and ordinances in an
attempt to locate the ordinance that zoned the approximately 150' strip of property between
Evelyn Hills Shopping Center and Hillcrest Avenue, in conjunction with the Abshier
Heights Planned Zoning District Proposal. The following represent the best timeline that we
have been able to establish:
Zoning History—
Evelyn Hills /Abshier Heights PZD
• 1960
Evelyn Mills rezoned to G2 (excluding 150' strip adjacent to
Hillcrest)
• August, 1962
City Council approved rezoning to Q2 with restrictive
covenants (Ordinance 1314)
• November, 1962
Referendum vote (election) defeated Ordinance 1314, 682 to
471. Property remains zoned Ri-A.
• August, 1967
Planning Commission recommends denial of rezoning to G2
• September, 1967
Applicant appealed to Board of Directors
• October, 1967
Board of Directors review of appeal, apphcant not present;
no action taken
• November, 1967
Board of Directors rehear appeal, recommend applicant work
out compromise with neighborhood; tabled 120 days,
referred to Planning Commission
o February, 1968
Planning Commission table indefinitely the rezoning
consideration
• June, 1970
City-wide rezoning affirmed C-2 zoning for Evelyn 1 -hits;
Zoning exhibit excludes the 150' wide portion adjacent to
I lllcrest
• July, 1991
Request to rezone property from C-2 to R -L5 withdrawn;.
Conditional Use to allow duplexes on the property (noted
as being zoned RI) denied
• 1991-1999
Projects in area reviewed for zoning maps; all reference R-1,
until 1999, when the property is indicated as zoned C-2.on
the 1 -mile maps associated with a parking lot expansion for
Weingarten (Evelyn Hills)
t
• June, 2003 Unified Development Code adopted through Ordinance No.
• 4489, codified through Ordinance 4789; Ordinance B 4503
city-wide rezoning; property zoned C-2 to Hillcrest, as
noted in the official Zoning Map of the City of Fayetteville
To date, staff has been unable to locate a formal action by the Planning Commission or
the Board of Directors regarding any request on the property after its indefinite tabling in
February, 1968 and the city-wide rezoning in 1970. Furthermore, the 1970 city-wide
rezoning indicates that the subject property was not zoned C-2; rather, it remained at that
time R -I (see attached). The city-wide rezoning in 2003, however, as officially adopted
by the City Council, indicates the property as zoned C-2, therefore staff is processing this
project as being zoned C-2 currently.
!II
PETITION TO. THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION, THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
Comes now, T. I. Abshier, an individual, and EVELYN HILLS
SHOPPING CENTER, INC., a corporation, and for cause state:
I
That they are the owners and in possession of the following
described real estate situated in Fayetteville, Washington County,
Arkansas, to -wit:
A strip of.land one hundred fifty (150) feet deep lo-
cated on -and abutting the Wast.boundary of Hillerest
Avenue, beginning at Abshier Drive, and running, thence
North three hundred seventy (370) feet.
A strip of land one hundred fifty (150) feet deep lo-
cated on and abutting the West boundary of Hillcrest,
Avenue, beginning three hundred seventy' (370) feet
North of Abshier Drive, and running, thence North six
hundred sixty (660) feet.
Exhibit A attached hereto is a plat of the area which
discloses the area to be rezoned.
The aforesaid real estate is presently zoned as 1t -1A Residential
District
Petitioners propose to construct a parking lot on the aforesaid
real estate for the use and benefit of EVELYN HILLS SHOPPING CENTER,
INC. which shopping center adjoins said real estate on the west, but
before Petitioners can procure authorization to construct said parking
lot it will be necessary to have said premises rezoned to C-2 Commerci-
al District.
It is to the best interest of the City of Fayetteville and the
people therein that the above described real estate to be rezoned frdm
R-lA Residential District to C-2 Commercial District.
The rezoning of the aforesaid real estate will not unreasonably
conflict with the surrounding land uses since the entire area west of
the aforesaid real estate to the United States Highway No. 71 is C-2
Commercial District and comprises the main area of the Evelyn Hills
Shopping Center which is, located in a valley with all buildings being
below the existing Hillcrest Avenue street level, and the entire area
to the East of Hillcrest, Avenue and the aforesaid real estate is zoned
as R-lA Residential District situated directly on the top of the high
hill overlooking the Evelyn Hills Shopping Center. The residents in
the area to the east of the aforesaid real estate will receive additional
protection by placing of record a protective covenant that no commerci-
al building will be constructed upon the East 75 feet of said area which
extends above the street level of Hillcrest, Avenue as it now exists.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioners pray that the
Fayetteville City Planning Commission fix a time and place fora public
hearing setting forth a time, place and purpose thereof to be published
in the Northwest Arkansas Times more than fifteen (15) days prior to
said public hearing, and that the Fayetteville City Planning Commission
recommend to the City Council of the City of Fayetteville that said City
Council pass an Ordinance rezong the above described premises from R -1A
Residential District to C-2 Commercial District.
Respectfully submitted,
T. I. Abshier and
EVELYN HILLS SHOPPING CENTER, INC.
By:
E. J. Ball, Their Attorney
t G,4Z &4,
TO THE MAYOR, THE CITY COUNCIL, AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
Comes now the undersigned petitioners and respectfully peti-
tion the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council and
• the:City Council to disapprove the petition filed on the 27th day
of Jun, 1962, by T. I. Abahier and the Evelyn Hills Shopping
Center, Inc. for the rezoning from R-li residential district to
- CYt.11RiT
iThe City Council of Fayetteville, Arkansas, met in regular session on Monday, August 27, 1962, at 7:30 P.l
(Present: Mayor Guy E. Brown, City Clerk George J. Davis, City Controller Albert J. Jones, City Attorney
'Pass Trum o, City Engineer H. C. Smith, Chief of Police Hollis Spencer, Fire Chief Burl Skelton, and
p
JA AJ1u �}{0M Aldermen: Heflin, Christie, Standley, Scheeler, Thomas, Durgin, Faucette, and Short.
Absent: None.
The minutes of the regular meeting on Monday, August 13, 1962, and of the special meeting on Tuesday,
ZaAts 'O L-4� August 21, 1962, a copy of these having -been mailed to each of the Aldermen prior to this meeting,
were approved as written.
large group of property owners appeared before the Council protesting the rezoning of a strip of land
Reaming or 150 feet deep located on and abutting the West boundary of Hillcrest Avenue, beginning at Abshier Drive,
'-oferty near and running, thence North 370 feet; a strip of land 150 feet deep located on and abutting the West
c]yn Hills boundary of Hillcrest Avenue, beginning 370 feet North of Abshier Drive, and running, thence North 660 Fe
•'i:.p.Ping Center. from R-lA Residential District to C-2 Commercial District.
This is located near the Evelyn Hills Shopping Center and was discussed at the last regular meeting of th
Council on Monday, August 13, 1962.
After a long discussion, the City Attorney introduced a proposed ordinance entitled, "AN ORDINANCE AMERD-
IUG ZONING ORDINANCE NO. J239, PASSED AND APPROVED JUNE 13, 1960, AHD REVISED ZONING DISTRICT MAP OF
r.!inance No. FATLITEVIILE, ARKANSAS, APPROVED 14AY 28, 1962, TO REZONE CERTAIN REAL ESTATE FROM R -IA SINGLE FAMILY
1316. RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO C-2 THOROUGHFARE COI)ERCIAL DISTRICT".
Alderman Burgin moved to place the proposed ordinance on the first reading.
The motion was seconded by Alderman Heflin and passed unanimously, whereupon the City Attorney read the
ordinance in its entirety for the first time. .
Alderman ':!heeler moved that the proposed zoning ordinance be amended to require Evelyn Hills Shopping
.._ Center, Inc., to construct and maintain a six foot fence between the one hundred thirty foot strip of
land on the host and the twenty foot strip of land on the East, of the property in question.
The motion was seconded by Alderman Heflin and upon roll call the following vote was recorded, "Aye"
Heflin, Standley, Wheeler, Thomas, and Faucette.
"Nay" Christie, Durgin, and Short.
There being'five "Ayes" and only three "flays", the Mayor declared the motion passed.
The City Attorney recommended that this requirement be added to the restrictive covenants previously
executed by Evelyn Hills Sh6pping Center, Inc., in order that the covenant could be recorded in the Circus
Clerk's Office with the Deed Records of the County thereby causing it to have the legal effects desired.
The City Attorney suggested that the Council could vote on the ordinance in its original form provided
the Mayor would not sign and approve the ordinance, nor have it published, until the above mentioned
condition was fulfilled.
Alderman Burgin then moved that the ordinance pass. The motion was seconded by Alderman Christie and upon
roll call the following vote was recorded, "Ave" Heflin, Christie, Standley, Wheeler, Thomas, Burgin,
and Short. "Nay" Faucette.
There being seven "Ayes" and one "Nay", the ordinance failed to pass on one reading for lack of a
unanimous vote.
Alderman Burgin then moved that the rule be suspended and the ordinance placed on the second reading.
The motion was seconded by Alderman Heflin and upon roll call the following vote was recorded, "Aye"
Heflin, Christie, Standley, Wheeler, Thomas, Durgin, and Short. "Nay" Faucette.
There being seven "Ayes" and only one "hay", the Mayor declared the motion passed.
The ordinance was then read for the second time.
Alderman Burgin then moved that the rule be further suspended and that the ordinance be placed on the
third and final reading.
The motion was seconded by Alderman Christie and upon roll call the following vote was recorded, "Aye"
Heflin, Christie, Standley, Wheeler, Thomas, Burgin, and Short. "Nay" Faucette.
There being seven "Ayes" and only one "Nay", the Mayor declared the motion passed.
!The ordinance was then read for the third and last time.
!The Mayor then declared the ordinance open for discussion. There being no further discussion, the Mayor
'asked the question, "Shall the Ordinance pass"?
:Upon roll call the following vote was recorded, "Aye" Heflin, Christie, Standley, Wheeler, Thomas, Burgin,
and Short. "Nay" Faucette.
(There being seven "Ayes" and only one "hay", the Mayor declared the Ordinance passed.
ORDINANCE NO. 1314
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 1239, PASSED AND APPROVED JUNE 13, 1960, AND REVISED ZONING
DISTRICT MAP OF FAYEfTEVILLE, ARKANSAS, APPROVED VA' 28, 1962, TO REZONE CERTAIN REAL ESTATE FROM R-lA
:SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO C-2 THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission of the City of Fayetteville, Arkan-
sas, on July 24, 1962, on the petition of Evelyn Hills Shopping Center, Inc., a corporation,and T. I.
Abshier and Grace E. Abshier, his wife, requesting that said Planning Commission recommend to, the City
Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, that said City Council enact an ordinance rezoning the
property described as.follows, to -wit:
A strip of land 150 feet deep located on and abutting the West boundary of Hillcrest Avenue, beginnizi
at Abshier Drive, and running,thence North 370 feet; a strip of land 150 feet deep located on and
abutting the West boundary of Hillcrest Avenue, beginning 370 feet North of Abshier Drive, and
running, thence North 660 feet,
from R-lA Single Family Residential District to C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial. District, and
IAIEREAS, notice of said public hearing, setting forth the date, time, place and purposes of hearing,
and location of property was published in the Northwest Arkansas Times, a newspaper of general circulatio
in said City more than 15 days prior to said public hearing, and
1RIEREA5, following said public hearing, said Planning Commission certified to the City Council of th
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, its recommendation that an ordinance be adopted rezoning the west 130 fee
of the above -described property from R-lA Single..gamily Residential District to C-2 Thoroughfare Commere
EXHIBIT 'District, and that the east 20 feet thereof remain zoned R-lA Residential District as a bufterzone betwee
the C-2 ThoroughfareC.ozmnercial District and the existing R -3A Single Family Residential District east of _4__ the above -mentioned 150 foot strip; the recommendation from the Planning Commission having been made on
condition that the Evelyn Hills Shopping Carter, Inc., and T. I. Abshier and Grace E. Abshier, his wife,
'file for record their restrictive covenants dated August 11, 1962, affecting the property, which covenant
'incorporate revisions suggested by the Planning Commission.
NCH, THEREFORE, BE IT ORPAIRED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
✓,: , ORDINANCE 110. 1314 JCgHT,INNEO) _____
✓,
Section 1. That the west 130 feet strip of the above -mentioned property be rezoned from R -IA Single
Family Residential District to C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial District.
Section 2. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed, and
this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval, and publication.
PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 27th day of August, 1962.
APPTDVED: ATTEST:�rYXYXY//A
C 4'.6tege Q.'--' GUY E. BRCWN, MAYOR
CEOROE .LJDAVIS, CITY CLERK
1i to action The City Attorney reported that, in his opinion, the Council could take no action on an appeal from the
Ire Hoard of Adjustment but any appeal would have to be made to a Court of Record.
r.vm the This was in reference to the rezoning of certain property on Highway No. 62 West by Ted Williams and
aard of on rezoning certain property on Fast 6th Street to permit the Church of Christ (COLORED) to use a building
'ijustment. located at 331 Past 6th Street for Church Services.
The Building Inspector presented a Final Plat for a subdivision by Pat Watkins to be known as Elmwood
Flat for Addition to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, which had been approved by the Planning Commission.
:Aamood After a brief discussion, Alderman Short moved that the plat be accepted and filed.
Addition The motion was seconded by Alderman Wheeler and passed unanimously.
eceptedi The City Clerk then read a proposed ordinance entitled, "At t ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT AND CONFIRM THE DEDICAT]
:OF ALL STREETS, ALLEYS, AND EASr7:ENTS IN ELMf00D ADDITION TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS".
Alderman Wheeler moved that the Ordinance be passed.
The notion was seconded by Alderman Short and passed unanimously, whereupon the Mayor declared the Ordir
passed.
vn >nance
ORDINANCE N0. 1315
flu. 1315 AN OaDIl'!AUCE TC ACCEFT MUD CONFIRM TOE DEDICATION OF ALL STREETS, ALLEYS, AND EASEI'FNTS IN ELMWCOD ADDIT
TO 7Nc CITY CF FAYETTEVILLEE, ARKANSS.
WHEREAS, there has been duly presented to the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, a
plat dated August, 1962, known as the Elmwood Addition to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, and being a
part of the West Half (W 112) of the West Half (W 1/2) of Section 2 and part of the East Half (E 1/2) of
Section 3, Township 16 North, Range 30 West, located in Washington County, Arkansas, by which the owners
of the platted real estate have dedicated for the public use the streets, alleys and easements shown upon
said plat,.and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, has recommended the
acceptance of said plat.
IICU, TH&'ti EFCRE, C3 IT ORDAINED Pt THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
SECTION 1. That the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, hereby accepts and confirms the dedication of al
streets, alleys, and easements dedicated in Elmwood Addition to. the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, and
hereby declares said streets, alleys and easements, to be public streets, alleys, and easements, and the
said City Council hereby assumes the care, control, and jurisdiction of the same.
SECTION 2. That this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force and effect from and after its
.passage, approval, and publication.
DATED TRi3 27th day of August, 1962.
'ATTEST: 6�j ^ APPROVED:
F CEORJAVIS, CITY CLE Ic GUY E. BRO RI, MAYOR
Authorize : Alderman Wheeler moved that the Mayor and/or City Clerk he and he is hereby authorized to execute a
.ubdivider's Subdivider's Contract with the owner, Pat Watkins, of the Elmwood Addition and that the City Clerk be
Contract further authorized to cause the Subdivider's Contract to be recorded in the Circuit Clerk's Office of
Inwood Washington County, Arkansas, with the Deed Records of the County.
Addition The motion was seconded by Alderman Burgin and passed. unanimously.
1 _
Alderman Short reported that it would be necessary to employ a Fiscal Agent for the City for the proposed
Bond Issue which the City was contemplating for a new Police Station,&Fire Stations and that the City
Fiscal :Controller had contacted several companies who had sent representatives to this meeting.
'gent bids. Alderman Short suggested that the agents be interviewed, one at a time to make their offers, and the
Company and bids are as follows:
Cost
Hill, Crawford, and Langford 90 cents per $1000.00 bond and the City pay all other
Waldorf & Lindsay expenses.
Raucher, Pierce, Fenner, & Beane
T. J. Raney & Sons, Inc.
Dabbs Sullivan, & Co.
( This offer was later reduced to $7.00
per $1000.00 bond)
$5.50 per $1000.00 bond and pay all expenses.
$0.35 per $1000.00 bond and the City pay all expenses
or $4.50 " m " " pay all expenses.
t' of bond issue and pay all expenses and he explaine
that 1/2 mill would be sufficient taxation to vote
extra, provided the City would refund the original
1959 Library & Airport Bonds, as the interest rate
would be much lower.
Villareal & Co. $3.50 per $1000.00 bond and pay all expenses.
iscal :After a long discussion, Alderman Faocetto moved to employ Dabbs. Sullivan, & Co. as the City's Fiscal
:ent Agent for the Bond Issue pt'a:dast'not t6'exceed':l$rof the total bond issue with Dabbs Sullivan, & Co.
employed. paying all necessary expenses pertaining thereto provided they will include in their contract a guarantee
.to reduce the interest rate below the present rate and that the Mayor and City Clerk be and they are here
authorized to execute a contract under these conditions.
The notion, was seconded by Alderman Heflin and passed unanimously.
Ordinance ho. 1322 (Continued)
I
us•in tier
:.octal Election
eferendw,.
Section 2. A copy of the ordinance duly certified by the City Clerk shall be filed in the office of
the Recorder of Lite County and recorded in the Deed Records of the County.
Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage, approval,
aim! puhli cation.
:.CD Afif APPROVED TILL 22nd day of CAtdher, 1962.
AFfRNED:
O'� GUY [i2tPAIJ, F'AYOR
CEO2i J .7.1'JL^., CITY CLEUf
TLa City Attorney read a proposed resolution for a special election on a Referendwr vote on City Ordinanc
1:... 1314.
Alderman Eurgin moved that the resolution be a,k.pted and LIat Lite date of the special election be on
Tuesday, Uovea:ber 20, 19'S2.
The sa.ion was seconded by Alucrran T):oaas and ulwu roll call the following vote was recorded, "Aye"
Eeflin, Christie, Staridiey, Wheeler', Thomas, Burgin, and Fducette.
"t!a ." °hurt.
There being seven "Ayes" and only one "Nay", the Fayor declared the Resolution adopted.
_ RESOLUTION 1E-62
'diu'tEAE, on the 20th day of September, 1962, there was filed with the City Clerk of the City of
'ayetteville, Arkansas, awe bitinn esting a referendum el ction on Ord' a r N 131E f th C'ty of
Fa•ette•dille wsas; s..�ordmanc. having been passed by the City council of the City of Fayetteville
nr,ausaa"� �, on the 27th day of August, 1962, and
!iFuiEAS, said petitions have been certified to the City Council by the City Clerk as containing the
requisite number of signatures to call for a referendum election pursuant to the Constitution of the Stat
of Arkansas, and
WHEREAS, Lite City published its notice setting a date for a special meeting of the City Council on t
lOLh day of Gcfcber, 1962, to deterrine the sufficiency of said petitions, pursuant to the Constitution o
the State of Arkansas, and Ordinance Number 588 of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, and
§fa:HEAS, at the special council meeting held on the 10th day of October, 1962, the Council determine•
ti:at Lite petitions are in the proper order and contain the signatures of more than 152 of the number of
persons voting for the office of Mayor in the last general election held for said office in the City of
Fayetteville, Arkansas, and
W}I8REAS, the Constitution of the State bf Arkansas, requires that an election be held referring to a
vote of the people, whether or not said Ordinance Number 1314 shall pass, and Ordinance Number 588
requiring that a special election be called bf the City under these circumstances.
HOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COIRICIL LF THE CITY CF FAYETTiEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
SECTICN 1. That the petitions filed with the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, for a referendum electin
be and the sane are hereby found to be in substantial compliance with the Constitution of the State of
Arkansas, and the laws of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, and are found to contain sufficient number
of signatures of qualified electors in the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, to mandate a special election.
SECTION 2. That a special election be and the same is hereby called to ascertain whether or not
Ordinance tlo. 1314 shall be affirmed or repealed. That said special election shall be held on the 20th daj
of November, 1962. (Tuesday)
SECTIC*I 3. That the City Clerk of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, is hereby directed to certify
to the County of Washington election board, the following proposed ballot form for the said referendum
election, to -wit:
AN CRDIIIARC:: TO REZONE CERTAIN REAL ESTATE ADJOINING'THE EVELYN HILLS SHOPPING CENTER, FROM R -IA
SINGLE FAliILY RESIDEIITIAL DISTRICT TO C-3 THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.
ORDINANCE NO. 1314
For Ordinance No. 1314 ..............................�
Against Ordinance No. 1314 ..........................
PASSED APO APPROVED IRIS 22nd day of October, 1962.
APPROVED:
ATTMST: GUT E. BRPdN, }IMAY0R
l W�ITY
'GEORGE IC IS, CITY CLERK
TX Levy for Alderman Short reported that it was necessary that the 1962 Property Tax Levy be made at this time in
1962. order to clarify the proposed bond program.
( Alderman Short then moved that the tax levy for 1962 be and the same is hereby set at 14 mills and that
the distribution of the 14 mill' levy be made at the first regular council meeting following the general
election on Tuesday, November 6, 1962.
The nation was seconded by Alderman Faucette and passed unanimously.
The City Clerk read two letters, one from the Ozarks Electric Corporation and one from the Southwestern
i.e.LLers read from Electric Power Co. offering to purchase approximately 33 miles of power line running from the City Limits
i.i,:+ purer cophpanies to Lake Sequoyah and owned by the City of Fayetteville.
read. IJo action was taken at this time.
-•
1 �
:iivance to
The City Attorney introduced and,at the request 6f the Council, read a proposed ordinance entitled,
street left
"AF! CHDI;FAHCE Ci4A1:GIN0 TilE r;ANi OF A STREET WITHIN TILE CORPORATE LIMSTS OF THE CITY OF FAYETfEVILLE,
.. ;i rst reading.
Apl}:AF:SFS".
No further action was taken and the ordinance was left on the first reading.
=uthnri.ze mayor
Lo crenate
.Alderman Thomas moved that the Iayur be and he is hereby authorized and directed to execute an assignment
:ignment of
of a lease on an off-street parking lot known as the Lewis -Brown Parking Lot or Parking Lot No. 7.
1e. a,;e on Parking
The notion was seconded by Alderman Wheeler and passed unanimously.
Lot.
Alderman Durgin reported that bids had been received and opened for the City Housing Project Buildingtp
City !lousing
located at the Southeast corner of the intersection of South Street and Church Avenue and lying west of
n:r•.e ty sold
Highway lie. 71 Dyposs.
..≥: I..,f :!try 71)
lie reported that only two bids were received which were by Wade Fincher & Cheater House for $7,050.00
mu omm by Pert Rogers for :$151.00 and that the Building ContRittee recommmnded the acceptance of the bid
by rincher & [louse.
Alderman Purgin then moved to accept the high bid of Wade Fincher and Chester House and sell the property
for $7,050.00 and ttat the Nayor and City Clerk be and they are hereby authorized to execute the necessa
capers to complete the sale.
The motion was seconded by Alderman Christie and passed unanimously.
:41;urcan Furgi.n
.— -
::.usu,:.
..Ldenan Burgin was excused at this time.
lL,;rizc City Dig.
Alderman Aleeler reported that time City Engineer had requested that the City purchase a welding machine
:vpre bits
which was badly needed by the .:ester t. Sewer Department.
r uc1.'ing
After a brief discussiou, Alderman '.(heeler moved that the city Engineer procure bids on a gasoline driven
..ci.iue.
600 Ampere fielding Fachine mounted on a four wheel trailer with the necessary accessories to use for
welding or thawing nmdertround water pains.
The nwLico was seconded by Alderman Thongs and passed unanimously.
A.lderma,n Short reported that the Finance Cortudttee had recommended that the Tax Distribution for the year
.', restrilmtion for
of lc,62 be as follows:
identification Hills
General Government __-_____--_--__________________________ 5.00
General Olaigaticn Ponds ------------------------------------4.60
Fire irotecLion -------------------------------------------3.7
Pollen Pension Fund ______________.-_________-_--________-___ 0.5
Fire Pension Fund --------------------------------------- 0.5
rack Faintenance Fund _ 0.3
Total Hills ----- 14.0
Alderaau Short then moved to adcept the recommendation of the Finance Committee and. allocate the Tax
Levy for the year of 1962 as outlined above caking a total of 14 mills.
The notion vas seconded by Alderman Thomas and passed unanimously.
ity Cc lerk The City Clerk read the Certification from the Board of Election Commissioners on the Special Election
:oad :esalts of held in iayetteville on November 20, 1962, on Ordinance No. 1314 of the Fayetteville Ordinances which wag
::racial AAIi mrdNANCE '70 011E CERTAIN REM. ESTATE ADJOONIT:C TPE EVELY11 HIELS SHOPPING CENTER, FROM R -LA SINGLE
El.cc Lion FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO C-2 THOROUGHFARE COFO-EJlCIAL DISTRICT".
:.r. Ordinance The results were:
'c. 1314 7 FCR ORDINANCE NO. 1314---471
AGAINST ORDINANCE'NO. 1314 ------------------ 682
herefore the Ordinance was defeated by 211 votes.,
f.r. n'.te $650. for Alderman 'Wheeler moved to donate the sum of $650.00 to the Chamber of Commerce for Christmas Decorations
.::.s Decorations. 'as was done in the year of 1961.
The motion was seconded by Aldermen Thomas and passed unanimously.
: Alderman Faucette reported that the Police Committee and the Chief of Police had recommended a different
Purchase of new type of uniform for the City Police and that the City purchase one complete uniform for each patrolman
cni forms for l which would cost the City a total sum of approximately $2,700.00. -
'.-olice Dept. I After a long discussion, Alderman Faucette moved to accept the recommendation of the Police Committee and
the Chief of Police and purchase one complete uniform (new) for each policeman and that each policeman
:would hereafter purchase his uniforms through the Police Department.
The motion was seconded by Alderman Wheeler and passed unanimously.
•Alderman Short moved to increase the appropriation for the Public Work Fund by $25,000.00 and
Porr.,w $25,000. gybe further moved that an Inter -Departmental Transfer of $25,000.00 be made from the General Fund to the
.Ler-Cepartmental Public Yorks Fund with the stipulation that thid amount be repaid from collection of Street Department
r fubtic Works Revenues.
Fund. ;The motion was seconded by Alderman Heflin and passed unanimously.
There being no further business, Alderman Wheeler moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Alderman
:Thomas and passed unanimously, whereupon the Mayor declared the meeting adjourned.
APPROVED:
ATTEST: ` <
>/rray-�-a� GUY BRCNN, M&Y0R
:XRCE .;W D,'. S, CI!? CLSi•i:
ORDINANCE NO. 1314
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 1239, PASSED AND APPROVED
JUNE 13, 1960, AND REVISED ZONING DISTRICT MAP OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS,
APPROVED MAY 28, 1962, TO REZONE CERTAIN REAL ESTATE FROM R -1A SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO C -Z THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, a public hearing wa
of Fayetteville, Arkansas, on July 24,
Inc., a corporation, and T. I. Abshier
said Planning Commission recommend
Arkansas, that said City Council enact
follows, to -wit:
s held before the Planning Commission of the City
1962, on the petition of Evelyn Hills Shopping Center,
and Grace E. Abshier, his wife, requesting that
to the City Council of the City of Fayetteville,
an ordinance rezoning the property described as
A strip of land 150 feet deep, located on and abutting the West boundary of Hill -
crest Avenue, beginning at Abshier Drive, and running thence North 370 feet; a strip
of land 150 feet deep, located on and abutting the West boundary of Hillcrest Avenue,
beginning 370 feet North of Abshier Drive,and running thence North 660 feet.
I from fl -LA Single Family Residential District to C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial District, and
WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing, setting forth the date, time, place, and
?urposes of hearing, and location of property was published in the Northwest Arkansas
Times, a newspaper of general circulation in said City more than 15 days prior to said
'ublic hearing, and
WHEREAS, following said public hearing, said Planning Commission certified to
:he City Council of the City of Fayetteville, its recommendation that an ordinance be adopted
rezoning the west 130 feet of the above -described property from R -IA Single Family
tesident.ial District to C•2 Thoroughfare Commercial District, and that the east 20 feet
hereof remain zoned R -IA Residential District as a buffer zone between the C-2 Thorough -
are Commercial District, and the existing R -IA Single Family Reisdential District east
Af the above -mentioned 150 foot strip; the recommendation from the Planning Commission
laving been made on condition that the Evelyn Hills Shopping Center; Inc., and T. I.
'ibshier and Grace E. Abshier, his wife, file for record their restrictive covenants, dated
kgust 11, 1962, affecting the property, which covenants incorporate revisions suggested
iy the Planning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
SECTION
1. That
the west 130 foot strip
of
the above -described property be rezoned
rom R -IA Single
Family
Residential District to
C-2
Thoroughfare Commercial District.
SECTION 2. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are
.ereby repealed. and this, Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and aftar its
aseage, approval, and publication.
PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 27th day of August, 1962.
Ii
APPROVED: 5_.
TTEST:
O
GEOR J. AV IS, CITY CLERK
r
I C'/Z tE- I50I -
G"2
Iii
2
s
m
9
3
r us
� J
j J
A65H►ER DR'VE
Area proposed to be I
rezoned from R -1A
Single Family Resi-
Idential District to
C-2 Thoroughfare
Commercial District
;1
ORDINANCE NO. 1314
e
.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE NO; 1239, PASSED AND APPROVED
JUNE 13, 1960., AND REVISED ZONING DISTRICT MAP OF FAYETTEVILLE,- ARKANSAS,
APPROVED MAY 28, 1962, TO REZONE CERTAIN REAL ESTATE FROM R -IA SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO C-2 THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.
WHEREAS; a public hearing wa
of Fayetteville, Arkansas; on July 24,
Inc, , a corporation, and T. I. Abshier
said Planning Commission recommend
Arkansas, that said City Council enact
fellows, to -wit:
s held before the Planning Commission of the City
1962, on the petition of Evelyn Hills Shopping Center,
and Grace E. Abshier, his wife, requesting that
to the City Council of the City of Fayetteville,
an ordinance rezoning the property described as
• A strip of land 150 feet deep, located on and abutting the West boundary of Hill -
crest Avenue, beginning at Abshier Drive, and running thence North 370 feet; a strip
of land 150 feet deep, located on and abutting the West boundary of Hillcrest Avenue,
• beginning 370 feet North of Abshier Drive, and running thence North 660 feet.
from R -1A Single Family Residential District to C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial District, and
WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing, setting forth the date, time, place, and
purposes of hearing, and location of property was published in the Northwest Arkansas
Times, a newspaper of general circulation in said City more than 15 days prior to said
public hearing, and
WHEREAS, following said public hearing, said Planning Commission certified to
the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, its recommendation that an ordinance be adopted
rezoning the west 130 feet of.the above -described property from R-lA Single Family
Residential District to C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial District, and that the east 20 feet
thereof remain zoned R-lA Residential District as a buffer zone between the C-2 Thorough-
fare Commercial District, and the existing R-lA Single Family Reisdential District east
of the above -mentioned 150 foot strip; the recommendation from the Planning Commission
.having been made .on condition that the Evelyn Hills Shopping Center, Inc., and T. I.
Abshier and Grace E. Abshier, his wife, file for record their restrictive covenants, dated
August 11, 1962, affecting the property, which covenants incorporate revisions •suggested
by the Planning Commission.
• y
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
SECTION 1. That the west 130 foot strip of the above -described property be rezoned
from R -1A Single Family Residential District to C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial District.
SECTION 2. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are
hereby repealed, and this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its
paieage, approval, and publication.
PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 27th day of August, 1962. -
APPROVED:
ATTEST: GUY E. BROWN, MAYOR •GEOR J. AV IS, CITY CLERK
MS 4L i3� �r�
Vy RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
WHEREAS, EVELYN HILLS SHOPPING CENTER, INC., a corporation and T.Z. Abshier
and Grace E. Abshier, husband and wife (hereinafter called Owl'aERS), are the
record owners of the following described real estate situated in Fayetteville,
Washington County, Arkansas, to -wit: •
A parcel of land lying in the NW 4 Section 10, Township 16, North Range 30
West, within the corporate limits of the City of Fayetteville, and more
particularly described as follows: Be
p 30" W 184.35 feet from the NE corner of�said S NW NW ofjng at a point Sectionch. is S 89 deg.
thence South 660 feet, thence South 0 degrees 08' W 0f 10,
89 deg. 55' 30" W 916.5 feet to the East right of way of7U.0.fhwY. thence S
thence Northeasterly along said right of way ' ��f• 71;
' g more or less 1034.5 feet
to an iron pin which is S. 89 degrees 55 30" W 734 feet from the point of
II beginning; thence N. 89 degrees 55' 30" E, 734 feet to the point of
beginning, containing 20.2 acres, more or less.
WHEREAS the aforesaid real estate abuts the West boundary of Hillcrest
Avenue, Fayetteville, Arkansas, beginning at the North boundary line of Abshier
�i 11
( Drive in the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, and continuing North for a distant
of 1,030 feet; and:
WHEREAS, the OWNERS filed a petition with the Planning Commission of Fayette
ville; Arkansas, seeking to re -zone from R-lA Residential District to .C-2
Commercial District the following described premises, situated in Fayetteville,
Washington County, Arkansas, to -wit:
A Strip of land 150 feet deep located on and abutting the West boundary of
i ! Hillcrest Avenue, beginning at Abshier Drive, and running, thence North 370
feet; a strip of land 150 feet deep located on and abutting the West boundary
of Hillcrest Avenue, beginning 370 feet North of Abshier Drive, and running
thence North 660 feet, and
as a result of which the Planning Commission has recommended that the West 130
feet thereof be rezoned to C-2 Commercial District, and that the East 20feet
thereof remain zoned R-lA Residential District as a buffer zone betweelb
EXHIBIT GREER ABSTRACT COMPANY
RELIABLE ABSTRACTS SHEET No. 5 6j
FAYETTEVILLE-SPRINGDALE• ARKANSAS
the C_2 area and the Residential District East of the 150 foot strip of land;
and,
WHEREAS THE EVELYN HILLS SHOPPING CENTER, INC,, is now developing theEvelyn
Hills Shopping Center on a part of the real estate first hereinabove described
and desires to include said 150 foot East-West strip of real estate in the
Shopping Center area; and,
• WHEREAS, the OWNERS have agreed with the planning Commission, the Fayettevil
City Council and the owners of the real estate abutting the East boundary "of
Hillcrest Avenue, Fayetteville, Arkansas, that they will place of record the
restrictive covenants set out below if the West 130 feet of said 150 foot strip
of real estate 13 re -zoned from R-lA Residential District to C-2 Commercial
District with the East 20 feet of said 150 foot strip to remain zoned R -1A
Residential District as a buffer zone; and,
WHEREAS, the restrictive covenants set out below shall benefit the owners
of the real estate situated in Fayetteville, Arkansas, which abuts on the
East boundary of Hillcrest Avenue in said City and which is located due East of
the 1,030 feet of real estate first described hereinabove; now,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises set out herein and for the
purposes hereinabove mentioned, the said Evelyn Hills Shopping Center, Inc.,
and T.I. Abshier and Grace E. Abshier, husband and wife, hereby covenant:
1. That no commercial building which extends above thestreet level of
Hillcrest Avenue as it now exists shall be constructed of placed upon a strip
of land 80 feet by 1,030 feet which strip of land lies,20 feet West of
Hillcrest Avenue and abuts the North boundary of Abshier Drive; Fayetteville,
Arkansas, which strip of land is described as follows:
A parcel of land lying in the NW4 of Section 10, Township 16 North Range
30 West, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point which
is South 89 degrees 55 30" West 204 feet from the Northeast corner of the Si
NW 4 Nof Section 10, thence South 660 feet, thence South Odegrees 08' West
370 feet, thence South 89 degrees 55' 30" West 80 feet thence North 1,030
feet, more or less, to a point 80 feet due West of the beginning point,
thence East 80 feet to the place of beginning,
2. That no means of ingress or egress to and from the aforesaid real estate
described in paragraph 1 hereinabove from Hillcrest Avenue, Fayetteville,
Arkansas shall be permitted to exist, except that the present means of ingress
and egress to and from said real estate from the said Hillcrest Avenue Fayette-
GREER ABSTRACT COMPANY
RELIABLE AesrnALTs SHEET No. f'I
FAYET7EVILLEE.SPRINGDALE, ARKANSAS
y
ville, Arkansas, located about 350 feet North of Abshier Drive, Fayetteville,
Arkansas, and the North 50 feet of the real estate described in paragraph 1
hereinabove shall constitute and continue to be the means of ingress and egress
to and from said real estate described in paragraph 1 hereinabove from Hill -
crest Avenue Fayetteville, Arkansas
3. That no building, parking lot or any structure of any kind except retain-
ing walls and railings shall be placed upon said real estate described in para-
graph 1 hereinabove nearer than 20 feet to the present West boundary line of
Hillcrest Avenue, Fayetteville, Arkansas,
4. That the base of any motor vehicle parking lot placed and/or maintained
upon the real estate described in paragraph 1 hereinabove shall be at least 8
feet below the present street level of Hillcrest Avenue, Fayetteville, Arkansas,
except that this covenant shall not apply to the North 100 feet of said strip -
of land,
5. Within 12 months from the date of the passage of an ordinance re -zoning
the aforesaid 130 feet strip of land to C-2 Commercial District, and subject to
the provisions of paragraph 2 hereinabove, Evelyn Hills, Shopping Center, Inc.
shall construct a fence along the West bounday of the aforesaid 20 foot strip of
land which remains R-lA Residential District, which fence shall be at least six
feet in height.
6. That within 12 months from the date of the passage of an ordinance re-
zoning said 130 foot strip of land to C-2 Commercial District , the Evelyn Hills
Shopping Center, Inc., shall landscape and beautify the 20 foot. strip lying
immediately east of said 130 foot strip (which 20 foot strip also lies immedia-
tely west of Hill crest Avenue), which is the strip retained in R-lA Re sidentia
District as a buffer zone. That this beautification shall include the planting
and permanent maintenance at grass and shrubs. That if this beautification is
not done and maintained by the Evelyn Hills Shopping Center, Inc., the City
of Fayetteville may do the beautification and maintenance at the expense of the
Evelyn Hills Shopping Center.
7. These covenants shall run with the land and shall be binding on all
parties and all persons claiming under Evelyn Hills Shopping Center, Inc. and
PSI. Abshier and Grace E; Abshier, husband and wife for a period of twenty (20)
years from the date that these covenants are recorded, after which time said
covenants shall be automatically extended for successive periods of five (5)
GREER.ABSTRACT COMPANY
RELIAOLE ABSTRACTS
FAYETTEVILLE- SPRINGDALE ARKANSAS
SHEET No. ,58
t
t
years unless an instrument signed by owners of a majority of the separate tracts
of property fronting on both the East and West side of Hillcrest Avenue, Fay.
etteville, Arkansas, for the 1,030 feet as set out in the legal description
hereinabove, releasing said covenants, or any part thereof, is placed of record.
8. These covenants shall inure to the benefit of any persona owning any of
the real estate which abuts the East and West boundary lines of Hillcrest
Avenue for the distance of 1,030 feet as set out in the legal descriptionhere
inabove, and any such property owner is hereby granted the authority to enforce
such covenants,
In Witness Whereof, the parties hereto have hereunto caused this instrument
to be executed on this 31 day of August, 1962,
EVELYN HILLS SHOPPING CENTER, INC,
BY John D. Askew, President
ATTEST: John Maguire, Secretary
T.I, Abshier
Grace E. Abshier
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF ARKANSAS `
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
On this 31 day of August, 1962, before the undersigned, a Notary Public, duly
commissioned, qualified and acting, within and for the said county and state,
appeared in person the within named John D. Askew and John Maguire to me person-
ally known, who stated that they were the President and Secretary of Evelyn
Hills Shopping. Center, Inc,, a corporation, and were duly authorized in their
respective capacities to execute the foregoing instrument for and in the name
and behalf of said corporation, and further stated and acknowledged that they h.
so signed, executed and delivered said instrument for this consideration, uses
and purposes therein mentioned and set forth,
In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal
this 31 day of August, 1962.
I
Jane it, Horne, Notary Public,
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF ARKANSAS
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
Be it remembered that on this day came before me the undersigned, a Notary
GREER ABSTRACT COMPANY
RELIABLE ABSTRACTS
SHEET No. ,rj�}
Public, within and for the county aforesaid, duly commissioned, and acting,
T.I. Abshier and Grace E. Abshier, husband and wife, to me well known as parties
in the foregoing covenants, and stated that they had executed the same for the
consideration and purposes therein mentioned and set forth.
Witness my hand and seal as such Notary Public this 31 day of August, 1962.
Jane R. Horne, Notary Public.
Filed for Record Sept. 18, 1962 10:06 ROM. Recorded in Volume 580 page 214
GREER ABSTRACT COMPANY
RELIAOLE AncTnwn <IFFY
1 � 1
C -a
C/ / z X67 ors
'i2. /3/41
2Q
G.z
AE5H►ER
DR\vE
Area proposed to be
rezoned from R -1A
.Single Family Resi-
dential District to
C-2 Thoroughfare
Commercial District
i
s
ED
cC
vi
r
R -IA
0.
(Z -IA
S
PLANNING COMMISSION
Amendment to Zoning Map or Regulations
PETITIONER
T. I. Abahier
and EVELYN HILLS SHOPPING
CENTER,
INC.
DATE June
27, 1962
FEE PAID .$25.00
CASHIER
B-9192
I PROPERTY.DESCRIPTION
A strip of land 150 feet deep located on and abutting the west boundary
of Will crest Avenue, beginning at Abahier Drive, AM running, thence
North 370 feet.
A strip of land 150 feet deep located on and abutting the West boundary
of Hillcrest Avenue, beginning 370 feet North of Abahier Drive, and
running, thence North 660 feet.
X SKETCH OF PROPERTY ATTACHED
PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE FROM B-lA Single Family Residential. District
TO C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial District
REASON FOR REQUEST
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING Tuesday, July 24. 1962. 3:30 P.M.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
ORDINANCE NO. 1314
(X ) PETITION
(I ) SIGN NOTICE.
( ) N;WSPAPER NOTICE
PASSED AND APPROVED August 27, 1962
( ) RESOLUTION
(I ) ORDINANCE
(I ) OTHER INFORMATION
3/.A:
,1cLO. b,
..�
4.
w.y +mss.. ..�L.
1 Y..'.s
µs
b-.oM4'
Je{a.
\O
+Gvc.. 1+r,
Tti.
Ii
J.J
O..cr* '^ci
�3
EXHIBIT
MINUTES OF A CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
The City Planning Commission met in a regular meeting at 4:00 P.M.,
Tuesday, August 15, 1967, in the City Directors Room of the City
Administration Building.
Members present: Ernest Jacks, Allen Gilbert, James Mashburn, Roy Clinton,
and Henry Shreve.
Members absent: Clark McClinton, Suzanne Lighton, Wade Fincher, and
Byron Boyd.
Others present: Jim Vizzier, Harold Lieberenz, John Maguire, E.J. Ball,
Lewis Jones, Bass Trumbo, Mr. and Mrs. Donald Bunting,
• Mr. Austin Parish, Clay Yoe, Mr. Harold E. Duggar,
Vine Blumenberg, and twenty four interested parties.
The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman, Ernest Jacks.
The first petition on the agenda was that of Evelyn Hills Shopping Center,
Incorporated.
Mr. E.J. Ball represented the petitioner who is asking that the property,
located west of and adjoining Hillcrest Avenue situated in the unplatted
portion of Evelyn Hills Addition to the City of Fayetteville, be rezoned
from R-lA, Single Family Residential District, to C-2, Thoroughfare
Commercial District.
Mr. Ball explained that the intended use of the property, if the rezoning
is approved, is parking space for customers and tenants of the shopping
center. Mr. Ball pointed out that the area would be landscaped and
largely blacktopped. In. his opinion the equities would require that the
commission approve this rezoning.
Mr. Lewis Jones represented the opponents and presented a petition
signed by 41 persons protesting any rezoning of this property.
Mr. Jones pointed out that this case actually started in 1960, when
rezoning was proposed for the area in question along with the property
now occupied by the shopping center. A public hearing was held and
the rezoning was approved with the exception of the 150' strip now in
question. This area was left as a buffer zone between the commercial
and residential districts.
In 1962, T.I. Abshier and Evelyn Hills Shopping Center, Inc., again
asked for rezoning of the 150' strip. The Planning Commission and the
City Council approved rezoning to a commercial district 130' of the
property leaving the remaining 20' strip residential to serve as a
buffer zone, however, this issue was presented for public vote later
that year and the voters. decided the property should be left as a
residential zone. '
Under the City Ordinance a petition for rezoning which has not been EXHIBIT
approved may be resubmitted after one year if the conditions or
circumstances have changed.
e
The proponents changed the surface of said property, grading it and . I
(2)
spreading gravel on it making it unuseable for residential property
and at some later date used it for parking.
The circumstances have changed, but only to the effect the need is
greater for the buffer zone to be held. The residents of the area
feel it would be detrimental to the residential districtif this
rezoning were approved. The history of this property would militate
most strongly that this is not good planni 9.
Mr. Jones asked that Dr. Mashburn refrain from voting on the petition
as he had previously expressed his preference for this property to be
rezoned for commercial use.
Mr. Walter Brown spoke in behalf of Mrs. Richert who owns the property
at 1516 Hillcrest. Mrs. Richert was unable to attend the hearing.
Mr. Brown said that the property owners on Hillcrest had constantly
been harrassed by trucks, and on occassion elephants, parked on the
residential property in question. This use of the lot had been
protested to the City Manager and the City Building Inspector.
Mr. Brown said nothing has been done to landscape or beautify the
property and the residents of the area have been told that the City
cannot force the owners of shopping centers to landscape. A rezoning
to commercial use would further detract from the desirability of the
neighborhood.
Phylis Johnson spoke in behalf of Mr. J. Glenn Mitchell who resides
at 1314 Hillcrest, she expressed the opinion that if the property
were rezoned for commercial use, the petitioner could build a laundry
or some other commercial building on the lot.
I
Mr. Jacks, Acting Chairman, asked if anyone else desired to be heard
against the petition. There were none.
Mr. E.J. Ball presented his rebuttal by saying, in effect, that Evelyn
Hills Shopping Center, Inc., had purchased this property after the first
rezoning in 1960 had been approved and that he had no knowledge of any
agreements which might have been made by the former owners.
Any agreement made to keep the buffer zone was a verbal agreement and
would not be legally bindi.pg.
He pointed out that at the time the shopping cneter was built there
were not any commercial buildings on the east or west side of highway
71 in this vicinity. Since that time all of this property has been
commercially developed.
The building permit for the residence at 1516 Hillcrest was obtained
May 25, 1962, which was after the shopping center was built. The large
residence at 1440 Hillcrest has about 6 students living it it.
Mr. Ball pointed out that the petitioners have not broken the law,
have never sanctioned parking in the area in question and have taken
action to correct the situation when it has been brought to their
attention.
Those present had nothing further to add; therefore the Acting Chairman
closed the discussion of the rezoning petition filed by Evelyn Hills
Shopping Center, Inc.
(3)
Public hearing on the petition of Mr. and Mrs. Donald Bunting was next.
Mr. Bass Trumbo represented the petitioners who are asking for rezoning
from R-3, Multi -family Residential District to R-4, Multi -family Resi-
dential and Dormitory District, of Lot 1, in Block 7 of I.W. Duncan's
Addition to the City of Fayetteville.
Mr. Trumbo explained that Mr. Bunting is planning to construct multi --
family apartments on the property in question. He pointed out that
there are only slight differences in the two zones but with the R-4
classification Mr. Bunting will be able to construct two (2) more units
than would be permitted in the R-3 zone. The property immediatly north
of Center Street has units similar to those Mr. Bunting desires to erect.
Mr. Jack Krie - 3 South Duncan - explained that he was not objecting to
the rezoning but was unfamiliar with the ordinances and was interested
in whether this rezoning would effect the parking regulations.
Mr. Lieberenz explained the parking regulations are the same for both
of the zones.
Mr. Jacks asked if anyone else desired to be heard on the petition.
The next petition to be heard was that of Mr. Vine Blumenberg who is
asking for rezoning from R-2, Two Family Residential District, to R-3,
Multi -family Residential District, of the property located on the west
side of Leverett Street with the north property line on Lawson Street.
t
Mr. Blumenberg said he was asking for the property' be rezoned for
apartments. He pointed out the zoning of property to the south is
I -1A, Light Industrial and feels apartments would be more desireable in
thisneighborhood than industry.
Mr. Jacks asked abouth the location, in relation to Mr. Blumenberg's
property, of the apartments which are presently being built on Leverett
Street.
Mr. Blumenberg answered that this is in the first block south of his
property.
Mr. Jacks asked if there were opponents who wished to speak.:
Mr. James Mitchell - 910 Lawson - said he was opposed to R-3, he feels
R-2 is a satisfactory zoning for this neighborhood. He is opposed to
apartments of the size that would probably be erected on this property
if the rezoning is approved.
Margaret Thurman - 1500 North Oakland - pointed out the rejection, by
the Planning Commission, of the rezoning request for property adjacent
to that of Mr. Blumenberg. She said the property owners in this neighborhood
are for the most part elderly people who appreciate the peace and quiet of
the neighborhood.
Mr. Blumenberg. replied that the petition for rezoning which was turned'
down was on a small lot and was rejected because it was considered spot
zoning.
(4)
Mr. and Mrs. Clay Yoe's petition was next on the agenda, the have
requested rezoning from 0-1, Open Land District, to C-2, Thorough-
fare Commercial District, of property located on the southeast
corner of Highway 45 and Highway 265.
Mr. Yoe explained that he had purchased this property 13 years ago
with commercial use in mind. The area in question is at the inter-
section of two state highways and is well located to serve as a
shopping area for this part of the city.
Mr. Yoe presented a statement from Mr. Richard Walden, who owns
property to the south, to the effect that. he has no objections to the
rezoning.
Mr. Yoe said he had, with the help of the Federal Government, built
this highway (#265) and plans are to continue it north to Springdale
to intersect with Highway 264.
Mr. Roy Clinton asked the total area of the property in question.
Mr. Yoe replied that there is approximately 44 acres, and expressed
the belief that commercial use of this property would enhance the
value of the surrounding area.
There were no opponents present.
The next petition on the agenda was that of Mr. and Mrs. J. Austin
Parish who have requested the rezoning from R-2, Two family Residential,
to C -1, Neighborhood Commercial District, of one lot Sow x 150' located
on the east side of State Highway 112 and being the first property
north of the entrance drive to Oak Plaza Shopping Center.
Mr. Parish said the lot in question faces onto the presently zoned C-1
area of the shopping cneter. He explained that the intended use of
the lot is for a movie theater. His plans are to ask for permission
from the Board of Adjustment to erect a movie theater in the C-1,
Neighborhood Commercial Zone. He also explained that the title to
the property is vestdd in Oak Plaza Enterprises, Inc. which he and
Mrs. Parish. own.
There were no opponents to this petition present at the hearing.
Mr. Harold E. Duggar's petition for rezoning of property located on
the east side of Green Acres Road between Gibson's Discount Center
and Poplar Street was next on the agenda.
Mr. Duggar explained that the property is owned by his mother, Mrs. Frona
Duggar, the areas north, south and east are zoned commercial. The pro-
perty in question is the only area on the east side of Green Acres Road
not already zoned C-2.
There were no opponents to the petition.
Dr. Mashburn was called out of the meeting on an emergency, there no
(5)
longer being a quorum present the meeting was adjourned by Acting
Chairman, Ernest Jacks. A special meeting will be held August 22,
1967, to act on the petitions heard in todays meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Secretary
Approved:
Date:
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
The Planning Commission met in a special meeting Tuesday, August 22, 1967
at 4:00 P.M., in the Directors Room of the City Administration Building,
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Members Present: Roy Clinton, Ernest Jacks, Byron Boyd, Henry Shreve
and James Mashburn.
Members Absent: Allen Gilbert, Clark McClinton, Suzanne Lighton,
Wade Fincher.
Others Present: Jim Vizzier, Harold Lieberenz, and 12 interested persons.
The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman, Ernest Jacks. The Acting
Chairman said the purpose of the special meeting was to act on the six petitions
for rezoning for whichpublic hearing was held on August 15, approve minutes of
meetings of July 11 and August 15 and consider the preliminary plat of Harris
Addition subdivision.
petition of Evelyn Hills Shopping Center, Inc., was first on the agenda.
Jacks asked for discussion on this petition.
Roy Clinton, Planning Commission member asked Mr. Lewis Jones, attorney for
the opponents of this petition, if any attempts at arbitration had been made
between the opponents and proponents to perhaps divide the 1501 strip of property
in question to provide parking space for the shopping center and leave a buffer
zone between the commercial and residential properties.
Mr. Lewis Jones said it would not be ethical for the opponents to comment on
this since the proponents were not present, but that any attempts which may have
been made in this behalf had been unsuccessful.
James Mashburn, Planning Commission member said he would abstain from voting on
the petition as he had previously stated that he would like for the property to
be rezoned for commercial use. He expressed the opinion that commercial use
would be better than having smaller, less desireable residences constructed- on
the property.
On motion by Henry Shreve, seconded by Roy Clinton, the Planning Commission
unanimously voted todeny the petition of Evelyn Hills Shopping Center Inc. for
rezoning from R -1A, Single Family Residential District, to C-2, Thoroughfare
Commercial District, property described as:
A part of the South half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter
of Section ten (10) in Township sixteen (16) North of Range thirty (30)
West, described as follows: Beginning at a point three hundred fifty two
and nine -tenths (352.9) feet West and twenty-five (25) feet North of the
Southeast corner of said twenty acre tract, and running, thence North six
hundred thirty-five (635) feet; thence East one hundred fifty (150) feet,
more or less to the West side of the extension of Walnut Avenue lb the (lit;
(2)
of Fayetteville, thence South six hundred thirty. five (635).feet; thence
West one hundred fifty (150) feet to the place of. beginning, containing
two and * nineteen hundredths (2.19) acres, more or less. Situated in the
unplatted portion of Evelyn Hills Addition to the City of Fayetteville..
RESOLUTION PC 20-67
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Planning Commission, Tuesday,
August 15, 1967 fifteen (15) days after a sign was erected on the property and
after a notice was published in the Northwest Arkansas Times,a newspaper of gen-
eral circulation; and
WHEREAS, after the, public hearing, a quorum. for the Planning Commission was
present and the Planning Commission voted to make a recommendation to the Board
of Directors on the petition of Evelyn Hills Shopping Center, Inc., for rezoning;
NOW THEREFORE, BEflRECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD
OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLEs ARKANSAS.
SECTION 1. That the petition requesting the rezoning of property described
as follows from R -IA, Single Family Residential District, to C-2, Thoroughfare
Commercial District, be denied.
A part of the South half of the Northwest. quarter of the Northwest quarter
of Section ten (10) in Township Sixteen (16) North of Range Thirty (30)
West, described as follows: Beginning at a point three hundred fifty two
and nine -tenths (352.9) feet west and twenty-five.(25) feet North of the
Southeast corner of said twenty acre tract, and running, thence North six
hundred thirty five (635) feet; thence East one hundred fifty (150) feet
more or less to the West side of the extension of Walnut Avenue in the City
of Fayetteville, thence South six hundred thirty five (635) feet; thence
West one hundred fifty (150) feet to the place of beginning, containing two
and nineteen hundredths (2.19) acres, more or less, situated in the unplatted
portion of Evelyn Hills Addition to the City of Fayetteville.
SECTION 2. That the rezoning of the above described real estate would not presently
be desireable.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 22nd day of August, 1967.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
ERNEST JACKS, SECRETARY CLARK McCLINTON, CHAIRMAN
�TiAT V V V V V V
TT�I\�h n�n�nn n-FAwn-wT
The petition of Donald and Norma Bunting was next.
After discussion, James Mashburn moved that the Planning Commission recommend
to the Board of Directors the rezoning from R-3, Multi -family Residential District,
to R-4, Multi -family Residential and Dormitory District, property described as:
� 1J
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
October 17, 1967
I' Mr. Lewis Jones
Attorney at Law
13 1/2 East Center
Fayetteville, Arkansas
Re: Evelyn Hills Shopping Center, Inc.
Appeal of Planning Commission
OJ Decision to Board of Directors
Dear Mr. Jones:
The above referenced matter has been scheduled for rehearing at the
t1 regular meeting of the City Board of Directors on Monday, November 6,
LJ 1967 beginning at 7:30 p.m. This decision for rehearing was made
due to the proponents not being contacted as to the original hear-
ing on October 2, 1967.
Very truly yours,
Oer d C. Fox
City Manager
GGF:jm
cc Planning Administrator
1 lNl S
j� {
!ASV A Yj � 3
1 l� tiII i}
lI.-�.���
lit Ij:c 1 YI Jl 4
41e jflR�t - �+1• - s i
. ^'� n }}♦��fjj¢�� r 1111 s } • fufi r �t
e trU f9 �r v)` ` A11'4l aey �
4
Dr. off• ' ^ _
edge
hurch , r
2
I S.S.
W
Z
w
VI
Ei
Co
a
a
Montgomery Ward
Uo!hin
Sating uJ<h.
ue+htng
Fabrics
Shoes
clothing
orug
Cafe
dor
e ci'T
cntist
A85HIER flE
Laundry 1 1 I r _ I
24
_ NJ
11
d ii
H
Appeal 72-40
• Osage Oil & Transpo-tat:
1600 N. College
.1 Board of Adjustment
November 27, 1972
'2Ji l� ( al,
°
pue nr. i C: V'
;
O! : U I l i , —____LU
I � :
V _OAKWOOfl _H S STREET
a—,
Planning Commission
June 24, 1991
Page 4
'arvin stated he really would not think a double driveway would carta
much thaj.ags problem.
Ms. Britton ≥e&he did not believe there was enough r9omScthe site for
double driveway, tha a entire parking lot would ha o access the street.
Mr, Perry stated the parking lId not be g one, he would only need space .�
for five cars.
MOTION
Mr. Spring6orn stat e believed the downside ri and effect on the
neighborhood was great. He moved the rezoning be denie .
Me. Brit seconded the motion.
motion passed 8-0-0.
The fifth item on the agenda was a conditional use request for duplexes in an R-1
area submitted by Charles Sloan for property located on the west side of
Hillcreet Avenue, north of Abshier Drive.
Mr. Merrell explained the subject property was a narrow strip (146' x 660')
behind Evelyn Hills. He pointed out the property had a long and controversial
history. He stated previous owners had attempted to rezone the tract to
commercial several times. In 1962 the property was successfully rezoned; J
however, a year later the issue was presented for public vote, and voters decided
the property should be left as a residential zone. He explained some of the
neighbors contended that the property was designated greenspace, but staff had
been unable to locate any such agreements or other legal documents to that
effect. Mr. Merrell explained that Askew Enterprises recently sold Evelyn Hills
Shopping Center and now had a contract to sell the subject tract to Charles Sloan
contingent upon the conditional use.
Mr. Merrell stated Mr. Sloan had originally requested a rezoning to construct
seven duplexes however staff had pointed out to him he could construct the
duplexes in R-1 with a conditional use. He further explained Mr. Sloan proposed,
to retain all the trees along Hillcreet and construct a private drive along the
west property line for access. He stated Mr. Sloan proposed to develop with the
lay of the land, excavating only where necessary to drop the building height so
as not to infringe upon his neighbors' views.
Mr. Merrell pointed out there were five possible uses of the subject property:
(1) apartments, (2) offices, (3) single family residential, (4) greenepace,�and
(5) duplexes. He stated that, considering. the established, high -quality
surrounding residential properties, offices and apartments did not appear to be
a desirable development course. He pointed out that considering the domineering
presence of Evelyn Hills to the east, single family residential did not appear
to be feasible. He further explained that the subject property did not offer
much that would merit its purchase for a public park and, further, Mr. Askew
could not be required to retain the property as private greenspace. He pointed
out the only other development route was duplexes.
Mr. Merrell explained staff was only recommending this item be considered for
approval provided that Mr. Sloan assure that every tree along Hillcrest Avenue
be preserved, that there be no access through the trees, and that whatever access
drive was constructed be constructed on the west side of the property. He stated
I
Planning Commission
June 24, 1991
Page 3
Merrell explained that the R -O zoning allowed "five different use units
right including single and two family dwellings, Use Unit 12 and Use Unit
whic defined offices, studios and professional offices. Mr. Merrell then r,
those 'tems under both use unit 12 and 25.
Mr. Herr$l suggested one possible way this matter could be resolved wpl.zld to ..
have Mr. for offer a Bill of Assurance that would guarantee that he wgdld only
use the pr�erty for an office. He stated this was a very close ca,I for the
Planning couhfssion with A -Mart and the fire station in the immediat vicinity.
Mr. Springborn xpressed concern regarding the entire commercial strip to the
south. He explalped that, while there was nothing of a cuiuuuerciaj nature to the
north, granting o the rezoning request would open the door to 91e growth of the
In response to a q�stion from Mr. Allred regarding Se effect widening
Stubblefield would havk on the area, Mr. Merrell stated h did not know if the
Traffic Division had doe any projections regarding in ease in traffic. He
further stated he believW it would have a relatively significant impact in
this area.
Mr. Hanna
ants in the subd
explained there weNotad
ision prohibiting rezoning.
He stated
he believed they owe&ito
the resident
ofi the subdivision to uphold
the covenants. He furthergranting
the
zoning would encroach on the
integrity
of the neighborhounless
the a ire block, rather than one lot,
was to be
rezoned, it was
t zoning.
Mr. Tarvin stated that, while he did n agree with Mr. Hanna, the property
in the area was rental property, and e lieved the rezoning would help the
area. He pointed out the property across the street from commercial
property, it was adjacent to other c rcially zoned property, there was no
buffer between the R-1 and commercial y. He stated that an office, built
to look like a house with protectiv cove to, could make the property look
better in the future. He further xplain that a business ouch as the one
proposed would probably be quieter hen a real ence. He further stated he would
not consider rezoning beyond thi property but in this instance, the property
could be considered a buffer wean the R-1 an C-2.
Me. Jackman asked, if in the future someone else s ould purchase the property,
whether more parking space might be required.
Mr. Merrell explained th� once the property was rezon to R-0 it would remain
R-0 and there was the Iossibility that additional parRing would be required,
depending upon the type of business that owned the props y. He stated all of
the parking would be/off-street parking.
Mr. Tarvin state4.4hey had granted conditional zoning befo e. He suggested
rezoning the prerty with the condition that, should the ap licant sell the
property, it wqdld revert to R-1.
Mo. Britton jxpressed concern regarding the drainage in the area. She pointed
out there kre ditches down both perimeters- of the property that handle the
stormwate drainage at this time. She questioned disposition of tat water
should t e property be graded and a parking lot constructed.
Mr. Ailred asked
if
there
was data available concerning when to start
rent property
in
order
to keep the area from "bottoming out".
Merrell stated he did not believe there was a rule of thumb. He
ed he believed this area was still highly residential.
ti
1 11
Planning Commission
June 24, 1991
Page 5
staff believed the duplexes would be a buffer between the single family dwellings
and the shopping center.
Mr. Hanna stated that, since the property was zoned R-1, one of the alternatives
would be dividing the tract into 8 or 9 lots, with 8 or 9 driveways exiting onto
Hillcrest and removing of several of the trees.
Mr. Merrell agreed that, should the property be divided into separate lots they
would probably lose a number of trees along Hillcrest.
Mr. Tarvin stated the garages could come in from the back of the house.
Mr. Allred asked if the subject property had been previously dedicated as a
greenspace, why it would not have been zoned P-1 at that time.
Mr. Merrell explained staff could find no records relating to the area being
designated a greenspace.
Mr. Harry Gray, representing Charles Sloan, explained this was a unique piece of
property and the terrain did limit development. He further explained the
property had been rezoned in 1962 with covenants attached to the rezoning.
Mr. Merrell explained staff had
found information regarding
the property
being
zoned C-2 but the rezoning was
rescinded by referendum.
Ms. Britton asked if
the developer was
proposing a single, common
drive for the
consideration of the
property owners.
She explained she saw that
as a problem.
Mr. Gray explained that at this point they were just asking for the conditional
use and would have to come back on the actual construction of the duplexes. He
further stated they did propose to have a private drive at the rear of the
property and would not have access to Hillcrest. He explained they did not want
to remove any of the trees along Hillcrest. He stated they were willing to sign
a Bill of Assurance that there would be no existing trees removed.
Mr. Springborn asked if there was room for more than a 12 foot one-way street.
Mr. Allred stated subdivision committee could require no on -street parking if
this item were approved.
Me. Donna Copeland, 1502 N. Hillcrest, appeared before the Commission and gave
some history of the property. She explained that, at the time Evelyn Hills
Shopping Center was built, a promise was made to plant a barrier of trees between
the houses and shopping center and never to build on the land between Evelyn
Hills and Hillcrest. She asked the Commission to consider the impact the
conditional use would make oil the neighborhood. Ms. Copeland stated that when
Mr. Abehier dedicated the street to the city, he included the possibility of a
reverter. If it ceased to be used for a street, the land would revert to the
abutting landowners. She explained that not all of the strip of land was used
for a street, and the adjoining property owners had taken care of the street
right-of-way on both sides. She further stated many of the property owners had
purchased their homes along Hillcrest, because it was a dead-end street without
a lot of traffic or noise.
Me. Copeland explained that citizens relied on the city to control growth not
developers. She stated, if the city planned properly, zoning would stabilize
property values and there would be some predictability about what location could
be used for what purpose. She further pointed out, if the conditional use was
granted, there would be 14 residences across the street from six single family
homes. The new residences would be approximately 1,300 square feet as opposed
Planning Commission
June 24, 1991
Page 6
to 2,600 square foot homes currently existing. She pointed out there would be
an increase in traffic, noise and reduced safety. She also suggested there may
be a problem with the drainage in the area if the subject tract was built over.
She requested the conditional use be denied. She presented a petition protesting
the conditional use with approximately 40 signatures.
Mr. Paul Bailey, 1532 Hillcrest, appeared before the commission and stated he
believed the subject property was too small to construct 7 duplexes. He further
stated he thought it would be a very poor place to live. He pointed out that in
the winter when the weather was bad the road would be impassible. He suggested
the residents could join together to keep the property mowed.
E. Fay Jones, 1330 Hillcrest, stated construction of the duplexes would change
the environment of the neighborhood which had always been single-family homes.
He also mentioned an increase in traffic. He requested the conditional use be
denied.
Mr. Dick Oliver, 1440 Hillcrest, appeared before the Commission and stated that,
when he purchased his property in 1972, the realtor had told him the subject
property was to be used as greenspace, providing a buffer between the residential
area and the shopping center. He explained the company that purchased the
shopping center had not purchased the subject tract of land because it was
greenspace. He also pointed out that any construction would have_to destroy some
of the trees. He stated the noise from the shopping center was a problem, even
with the trees. He further stated there would be no view for any building
constructed on the subject property. He mentioned additional traffic,
impassibility when ice was on the roadway, and noise as some of his concerns
should duplexes be constructed. He suggested the Planning Commission should make
the area a permanent greenspace.
Ms. Trina Oliver, 1440 Hillcrest, appeared before the Commission, and strongly
urged the Commission to not approve the conditional use. She stated the property
had always be intended for and used as a greenspace.
Mr. Gray explained, when the property had been rezoned in 1962, there had been
restrictive covenants, but after the referendum revoked the zoning, all
restrictive covenants were voided.
Mr.
Allred asked
if there was
room for 8 or 9 lots should the property
develop
as
single family
homes.
Mr. Gray stated they would be able to get 8 lots under R-1 zoning.
Mr. Harold Copeland, 1502 Hillcrest, appeared before the Commission and stated
they had chosen the property because it was single-family residences. He further
stated the realtor had assured them that, should the subject property ever be
developed, it too would be single-family residences.
Mr. Gerald Davis, 1516 Hillcrest, appeared before the Commission and expressed
his concern over the proposed conditional use.
Mr. Allred stated he would be in favor of tabling this item to allow everyone to
diligently search for any documentation regarding the greenspace.. He explained
that unless documentation could be found, the property was zoned R-1 with no
restrictions.
MDTION
Ms. Britton moved to table the item for further research.
Planning Commission
June 24, 1991
Page 7
Mr. Hanna seconded the motion.
The motion and second were amended to table the item until the second meeting in
July.
The motion passed 8-D-0.
Mr. Allred suggested the property owners get with the staff and work together to
search for any documentation. He explained that a verbal contract regarding real
estate was non -binding. He stated he wanted to see something in writing, if
anything existed. -
IMIHARY PLAT - TIMBER CREST SUBDIVISION
MILHOLLAND N OF MISSION BLVD., E OF CROSSOVER RD
The s th item on the agenda was a preliminary plat for Timber Crest Subdivie' n
eubwitt by Mel Milholland on behalf of Mike Pennington. The property is
located the north side of Mission Blvd., east of Crossover Road. The pr arty
is zoned a , Low Density Residential and contains 27.52 acres with 58 ots.
Mr. Bunn had ft the meeting and, therefore, Mr. Merrell gave the ngineer's
report. He expta,ined the property was annexed into the city and rezpIted from A-1
to R-1 approximatb4y two weeks earlier by the Board of Directors. He stated the
development consist of 58 late located on 27.5 acres. He stat96 that water and
sewer were available o the site. He further stated there had een some question
as to whether the se r would have to be provided by a Jump station or by
gravity. The prelimina plat indicated the constructi9K of a pump station;
however, it has not been Wown that a gravity sewer was practical.
Mr. Milholland reminded the Commission that at a last meeting they had
questioned etormwater drainage noff and deposits f alit during construction.
He explained he had talked with dksp Bunn regardin the storm drainage. Mr. Bunn
felt the proposed drainage plan wa adequate. a stated they would be willing
to install catch ponds for the silt 'f that 9ts the Commission's desire.
At Me. Britton's request, Mr. Milholla xplained the highway department had
come up with a design for discharge of at ater. He explained the design would
slow the water down but still drain by ac g concrete blocks in the apron. He
explained this would slow the wat down d make a wider path with less
velocity.
Ms. Britton asked if Mr. Milho and would be giv' a bill of assurance that he
would build the silt ponds t contain the silt dun construction.
Mr. Milholland stated he would.
Mr. Tarvin stated the could not contain silt during co truction. When it
rains, muddy water 'ald wash silt out. He stated he beli ed the Commission
needed to be carefuX that they did not impose any conditions th t were out of the
ordinary with development in the city.
Mr. Cleghornked if Mr. Bunn had felt the catch ponds were necea ry.
Mr. Milho and stated they had not discussed them.
Mr. M�&4e11 pointed out the excavation and grading ordinance would come
effe ive in the middle of July and this development would have to abide by he
or 'nance. He further stated he would like to see an effort made to reduce a
q�htrol silt, but he agreed with Mr. Tarvin silt could not be totally contained.
Planning Commission
June 24, 1991
Page B
. Milholland
explained he
would be making
an effort to
reduce
the silt, but he
n�yer intended
to give the
impression that
there would
not be
muddy water.
Mr. ringborn stated he would not personally require a bill of assurance, but
he wou d be happy with the assurance they had received from Mr. Milholland.
explainb4 at the last meeting he had not felt the problem had been addressed �t
now he fett it had been.
Mr. Tarvin ked what was different about this subdivision that warrant d them
taking this pe of stand that they had not done in the past.
Mr. Merrell exp fined that he believed there was concern regarding t s property
because it border't a stream and needed to be handled carefully. Hf pointed out
the Land was relat vely level. He stated the Planning Commissio always needed
to be careful to no single out anyone.
Mr. Mike Pennington, t developer of the property, stated i was his intent to
develop the property so as -to please the City of Fayettev lle. Be stated he
believed the Commission' questions were valid.
Mr. Springborn moved to appro the plat subject plat review comments and
Commission comments.
Mr. Hanna seconded the motion.
In response to a question from Mr. T , it a determined that the preliminary
plat was being approved with Mr. Milho 1 making an effort to stabilize the
silt by constructing catch ponds during nstruction of the subdivision.
The motion passed 6-0-0.
FRKLI?IIMARy
PLAT - WEDINGTON HET
ADDITION PHASE
I, II, III & IV
MARE
FOR .P DHVEGOPHRMT
W OF SALffi •
N OF WBDINGTON DR.
The seventh
item on the agend
was a prelimin
plat for Wedington
Heights
Addition, Phases I, II, II ,
and IV submitted
y Mark Marquess
for BMP
Development
and represented Harry Gray. The prope
is located west
of Salem
Road, north
of Wedington D Lve.
The property is zone R-1.5, Moderate
Density
Residential
and contains 4 acres with 151 lots.
Mr. Merrell stated a p�tion of this property would be dev�4oped for affordable
housing. He explain�d the development consisted of four ph es with a total of
151 lots on approxlately 34 acres. He pointedoutthat PerIiy Franklin of the
Traffic Departmen had expressed some concern about the additib�al traffic that
would be genera at Highway 16 due to the development; h\nk
any new
development woy.td generate additional traffic.
Mr. Merrell ptated both water and sewer are readily available toe and the
general dr inage plan. appears to be control drainage. He Mr. Bunn
reconimenqdd approval subject to the plat review comments; submi'approval
of data' ed plans and specifications for water, sewer, streets, ans e; the
tying �f Anne Street through to an existing street in Giles AwitI the
cons ction of any phase after Phase I; the platting of a 50 fht-o way
for uture street construction north from the intersection of "Et and "S set; construction of sidewalks per city ordinance; and paymearks feds
r city ordinance.
1 1 1:1: 1 " • :1.
YLuj♦•.ae. •n,
A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, July 22,
1991 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City
Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jack Cleghorn, Fred Hanna, J. B. Springborn, Jerry Allred, Joe
Tarvin, Mark Robertson, Charles Nickle, and Jett Cato
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jana Lynn Britton
OTHERS PRESENT: Becky Bryant, Don Dunn, Sharon Langley, members of the press
and others
MINUTES
The minutes of the July 9, 1991 meeting were approved as distributed.
The second item on the agenda was a request for a conditional use in order to
construct duplexes in R-1, Low Density Residential submitted by Charlie Sloan and
represented by Harry Gray. The property is located on the west side of Hillcrest
Avenue, north of Abahier Drive. .
Becky Bryant reminded the Commission that, at the June 24, 1991 meeting, this
item had been tabled in order to allow staff to further investigation the
allegations that the subject 2.2 acres had been designated greenspace. She
stated that previously the Abshiers had offered to place restrictive covenants
on the property in exchange for C-2 zoning. The covenants were executed and
filed. She explained the rezoning had been brought to a public vote and citizens
had voted down the rezoning. She further explained that revoking the zoning had
the legal effect of also revoking the covenants. She stated she had discussed
this matter with the Assistant City Attorney who agreed the covenants were no
longer binding nor valid.
Me. Bryant further pointed out the original covenants had only affected the east
20 feet of the property. She stated the City had a 30 foot easement along the
east property line so there would be no building in that area anyway. She
further stated Mr. Sloan was willing to give a Bill of Assurance for tree
protection along the street. She explained staff believed this was a high
quality development which would not significantly. impact the neighborhood.
Me. Bryant suggested the Commission could apply conditions on the development.
She pointed out that, should the conditional use be denied, Mr. Sloan or any
other party could remove the trees on Hillcrest and construct a single family
affordable housing project over which the city would have little control. She
stated the only solid legal ground on which the Planning Commission could deny
the conditional use was by finding that the request was incompatible with
adjacent properties. She explained, however, that one of the planning principles
used to encourage buffering of single family residential from commercial was the
use of an intermediate type of zoning.
Me. Bryant stated Commissioner Britton had raised a question about access to the
property. She stated both drives on the north and south ends were included in
the legal description of the property which Mr. Sloan hoped to purchase. She
stated, if the conditional use were granted, the development would then go
Planning Commission
July 22, 1991
Page 2
through the large scale development process. She suggested any further concerns
about access be addressed at that time.
In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Ms. Bryant explained the. property
could be used for an affordable housing development without rezoning. She stated
the Commission had some control over the property with a conditional use but,
without a conditional use, the commission had very little control.
Mr. Tarvin asked
if
they could
add a provision to
the conditional
use a provision
denying parking
and
access by
pedestrians along
Hillcrest.
Me.
Bryant stated the
Commission could impose any reasonable condition as
long
as
the condition was
not arbitrary or capricious.
In response to a question from Mr. Hanna, Me. Bryant stated a 30 -foot easement
along Hillcrest had been executed by the developer. She explained nothing could
be built in the easement but an easement did not restrict the developer from
clearing the area.
In response to a question from Hr. Tarvin, Mr. Gray explained that, should the
property be developed as single family homes, he believed the property would be
split into eight lots all fronting on Hillcrest with drives onto Hillcrest. He
further explained it would be much more difficult to develop single family homes
with private drive's. He stated the terrain dictated thw type of construction.
Hr. Tarvin asked if the difference was because the duplexes would all be owned
by one person.
Mr. Gray stated the current plan was that Mr. Sloan would own all of them. He
stated eventually they could be sold. He explained there would be covenants set
up to cover the private drive.
Mr. Tarvin asked if the covenants could not be set up for private homes.
Mr. Gray explained they could but, due to the terrain, he did not see the
development being a quality single family development. He stated covenants were
normally tied to property owners associations which cover the maintenance of the
drives, etc. He further stated he could see some problems with covenants on
single family development on this property.
in response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Gray explained the duplexes would
face Hillcrest shielding the parked cars from view. He further explained the
apartment plan was for two-story duplexes with the lower floor being below the
level of Hillcrest and the upper floor extending slightly above it. He stated
the plan was to construct a wooden bridge to extend from Hillcrest to the upper
level of the duplexes in order to provide pedestrian access.
Dick Oliver, 1440 Hillcrest, appeared before the Commission and spoke in
opposition to the conditional use. He explained the construction of duplexes
would triple the number of people and traffic; that the residents of the duplex
and visitors to the duplexes would park on Hillcrest; there was only 120 feet of
flat land on the subject property which made it undesirable to build on; the
trees and shrubbery provided a buffer between Hillcrest and the shopping center;
water pressure was already poor in the area, additional residences would cause
more water problems; and the duplexes would lower property values in the
neighborhood. He stated they had a nice quiet neighborhood and the residents
believed it should be left as R-1 with no conditional use,
Mr. Tarvin asked if Mr. Oliver had his choice to leave the zoning R-1 without the
conditional use and have it constructed into single family houses facing onto
Planning Commission
July 22, 1991
Page 3
Hillcrest and possibly removing some of the trees versus the duplexes which would
he prefer.
Mr. Oliver stated he had seen in the newspaper that the property was going to be
rezoned R-1.5 for low rent housing. He explained that, if the property were
developed as single family housing similar to those already in the neighborhood,
he would not be opposed.
In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Bryant stated there was not an
application to rezone this property to R-1.5.
Mr. Tarvin'explained that the property could be developed into single family
housing without the lot size and house size being comparable to those existing
in the neighborhood. He asked Mr. Oliver his preference between R-1 with a
conditional use for duplexes with protective restrictions regarding the trees and•
parking versus R-1 single family with 70 foot frontages.
Mr. Allred explained that should the conditional use be granted the Planning
Commission would have some control, but if the conditional use were denied, they
would have no control over any single family development.
Mr. Oliver stated he would prefer the property remaining as it was, but since
that was not possible, he would opt for the conditional use for duplexes with the
conditions that all of the trees remain as a buffer and that there was no access
to Hillcrest from the duplex.
Mr. Allred pointed out the duplexes were to be large and rather expensive,
designed toward executive -type families which would be compatible with the
neighborhood. He further pointed out, should the property be developed as
affordable housing, the residents might not blend into the neighborhood. He
explained that would have more of a negative social impact.
Mr. Paul Bailey, a resident of the area, appeared before the Commission and asked
where the development would get its water. He explained there was only a 4 -inch
line serving the neighborhood. He stated the city had recently put in an 8 -inch
line in the area and he wanted to be sure the new development would tap off the
8 -inch line.
Mr. Bunn stated he had not seen a proposal but would have to make sure the
elevations were such that the development could use the 8 -inch line. He
explained the 8 -inch line was on a main pressure plain and the 4 -inch line was
on a high pressure plain.
Mr. Gray pointed out that should the conditional use be granted, the developer
would still have to present a large scale development plat or subdivision plat
which would cover water, streets, sewers, etc. He explained the residents would
be notified of the hearing at that time.
Mr. Bailey stated he believed the property should be developed in congruence with
existing properties. He stated he wanted to be sure if the duplexes were built
that there would be no access on Hillcrest.
Mr. Cato asked Hr. Bailey, if the property were to be developed as proposed into
seven duplexes accessing a private road on the west side of the property and
preserving the trees versus developing the property into seven or eight lots with
probable access onto Hillcrest, which he would prefer.
Mr. Bailey stated he would prefer no ingress or egress onto Hillcrest nor any
trees or bushes destroyed on Hillcrest.
Planning Commission _ _
July 22, 1991
Page 4
Mr. Allred asked the residents in the audience if they preferred the duplexes
with the requirement that the trees be preserved and no access to Hillcrest. It
appeared the majority of the residents preferred the duplexes with those
conditions.
Mr. Allred explained that the Commission was trying to determine what was best
for the neighborhood. He agreed that the most ideal use for the neighborhood was
to leave it like it was. He explained they did not have that type of control so
they were trying to determine what the next best alternative.
Me. Dawn Copeland, 1502 Hillcrest, appeared before -the Commission and stated she
was not in favor of the duplexes, that she would -prefer single family housing.
She questioned the size of the tract, stating she did not believe it was a large
enough tract to construct seven or eight houses.
She stated she had reviewed the city ordinance covering conditional use
applications, Section 160.195. She explained the Planning Commission would not
grant a conditional use unless certain requirements were met, including making
written findings certifying compliance with eight areas of concern.
Ma. Copeland stated the first two concerns were ingress and egress to the
property and off-street parking. She showed the Commission a drawing of the area
pointing out the subject property in comparison to the surrounding property. She
explained there was a private driveway coming out of Evelyn Hills Shopping Center
leading into a narrow alley with a retaining wall. She further explained the
developer was proposing to put a driveway at the top of the retaining wall, which
would have to go north (she stated the street would not be wide enough to go both
ways), and then feed back into Hillcrest to go south. She stated this area would
not be conductive to good traffic flow. She further stated there was the
possibility of a fire hazard since the fire trucks would have difficulty in
negotiating the street. She also pointed out the trash collectors would also
have difficulty in negotiating the street for pickup.
Ms. Copeland stated another concern was location and availability of utilities.
She explained the water pressure diminished as it went downhill. She stated the
residents had been told the new 8 -inch line was strictly for the purposes of fire
hydrants and would not have any residential service. She pointed out the
existing gas line along the tree line.,
She explained the builder had offered to buffer the area by leaving the trees on
the west side of Hillcrest but there would be no yard or open space since it
would be filled with buildings. She further stated that by filling the area with
buildings, it would create drainage problems with runoff going into the back of
the shops in Evelyn Hills.
Mr. Allred
explained the drainage would
be addressed
in the
large scale
development
and the city engineer would be
looking at the
plan.
Ms. Copeland stated she was confused because they were telling her this was just
proposals that the developer was making and that it had to go before another
board to decide on the streets, gutters, etc. She stated the ordinance read
"...Before any conditional use shall be issued the Planning commission shall make
written findings, certifying compliance with the specific rules governing
individual conditional uses and that satisfactory provision and engagement has
been made concerning the following..."
Mr. Allred explained the Planning Commission delegated their authority to the
planning office and city engineering staff. He further explained there were
other ordinances requiring that any development had to have the city engineer's
approval.
Planning Commission
July 22, 1991
Page 5
Me. Bryant concurred with Ms. Copeland that the Planning Commission should make
findings or reference staff findings.
Ms. Copeland stated other concerns were the signs they would have on the duplexes
and security lighting which would add to the glare. She stated the final
consideration was the compatibility and harmony with adjacent property. She
pointed out this was a density problem, that building duplexes would result in
too many people being crammed into too small an area in a quiet neighborhood
composed of single family dwellings.
Ms. Copeland stated she did not think preserving the trees would make up for
building duplexes. She asked the Commission to deny the conditional use.
Mr. Springborn pointed out, should the subject property be subdivided into
minimum size city lots, the new property owners would have the same rights as the
existing property owners and their driveways could also enter from Hillcrest.
Mo. Copeland stated she understood that.
Mr. Nickle pointed out neither the easements nor the setbacks entered into the
calculation of the lot size.
In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Gray explained the west edge of
driveway would be thirty feet east of the retaining wall. He stated the depth
of the lot, from the retaining wall to the right-of-way of Hillcrest was 146
feet.
Mr. Gray stated the proposal was that the duplex would be approximately 40 feet
in width.
Me. Trena Oliver appeared before the Commission and stated it bothered her that
they were trying to put too many people in a small area. She stated she was in
favor of single family housing with only 7 or 8 families.
In'reeponse to a question from Mr. Tarvin regarding access to Hillcrest, Mr. Gray
explained he had not looked at access to Hillcrest from a single family
standpoint.
Mr. Cleghorn stated he did not see a need for a change when the neighborhood had
existed for many years and the change was for a business venture.
Mr. Nickle agreed with Mr. Cleghorn. He stated he did not feel access was
sufficient - that a one-way street 12 feet wide, going across 600 feet, was not
in the beat interest of the city. He further stated he was opposed to the
conditional use.
MOTION
Mr. Springborn stated he normally voted in favor of the neighborhood, even though
as a Commissioner he felt like as far as the city was concerned, that the
application was a good one. He moved to deny the application.
Mr..Cleghorn seconded the motion.
The motion passed 7-0-1 with commissioners Cleghorn, Hanna, Springborn, Allred,
Tarvin, Cato and Nickle voting "yes" and Commissioner Robertson voting "no".
Planning Commission
July 22, 1991
Page 6
The ird item on the agenda was a request for a large scale development for e
Sport Park submitted by Rick Collins for property located on the south si4Iof
Wedingt n Drive, west of Betty Jo Drive. The property is zoned A-i,
Mr. Don Bun City Engineer, explained the large scale development co fisted of
a recreationb4 area on 76.35 acres. Activities include a golf driytng range,
batting cages, putting green, and pro shop. He explained future haves would
include a rest rant; a retail garden shop, and a par three go course. He
stated there wer no significant problems identified at the Pla Review meeting
or the Subdivision Committee meeting. He stated there was some lacuesionabout
the drainage plans lcd it had been suggested at the subdivisio committee meeting
that the drainage pthp be available for the planning commi ion. He explained
there was also a ques ion about the location of an ease�nt where there were
several large trees. recommended the large scale dfivelopment be approved
subject to plat review a�4 subdivision committee comme e• approval of drainage
plans by the City Engines resolution .f the locati n of the 15 foot utility
easement; construction of a idewalk along Wedinqton rive; and conformance with
the terms of the conditional se granted earlier the Planning Commission.
MOTION
Mr. Tarvin moved to accept the Scale
to staff comments, plat review and bdi�
Mr. Hanna seconded the motion.
The motion carried 8-0-0.
WAVIER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS LOT
BERT RAKES - N OF DICKSON ST. E F WEST
ipment of The Sports Park subject
committee comments.
#1
The fourth item on the
agenda as a request by BBL
Rakes, City of
Fayetteville
Land Agent, on behalf
of Ro rt Lewis and Nancy
kjtt Lewis for a
lot split on
property located north
of ckeon Street and east
West Avenue.
The property
is zoned C-3, Central
Bus Hess Commercial.
Commissioner Robertson tated he would be abstaining fr\m discussion and voting
on this item since . and Mrs. Lewis were his clients. \
Mr. Rakes explathef the subject property was a portion of tltq Walton Arta Center
parking and, to fftfill their obligation, the city had tofurs sh parking spaces.
He further exp fined this property contained 1.41 acres, exb�nding from West
Avenue to Campbell. He stated the split was in order to allow se's Restaurant
to retain th fir parking: He further stated the City would be buy g 0.79 acres.
Mr. Hna moved to grant the lot split as requested.
Mr./Sprinqborn seconded the motion.
r i zorr&3a
�� b
Ltd 7�
t7&— �Qr
c
I�f13 �/Z ��
_—_� _
19Z 1 _----
____.—
Ila,c,—(�
�)
iq-1�, C2
198 e i
—
I.
:1111±::
_ ii
_ ±11
EXHIBIT
I
11
auIaria
I.
I
flu % 111 1111111�(�'!'���„flF �I
M.W I1I�.
���I I==�III'ij/ _ `;1Ili.! ___
-- Y M� .� -- - _ d
------,
,I.Ir.
IUi'1 _ E ili �_ n s
inn■■■ /■■= r ._____.�■s ae
t
ii,
EE
' Ilfi■
E . J y r
I; ®OY
is
a` ®E■
[mom
LSD99-26.00 - Weingartern - One Mile Diameter
S F ________
49, _ __ _
lam I
us. -._J',a __
1$ . &______
__ ___ _ _ La!
a / 1iI __
IZI
_____N_If/i
� 1 t
__ ___ ____ P"
E,I _.fl!_.,_______ 4
• prr•I•(]pI
__ _ _ _ 1:111,11 w __
It__I JI___ I1S ___ __ .
as
zk
20
LSD99-26.00 - Weingartern - Close Up
G2 0 O J G2
ago U
LSD99-26.00 - Wein at -tern
i
15.29 A .
G22 -1
G2 / G2 -1
�1D R-1
Evelyn Hills
-1
Shopping Center
2
R-1
eterans
LJ
inistration
II G2
air' ____
'1!R I! I iIU
N 200 0 200 Feet
E
S
EXHIBIT
s a
kk
a �t
' • C�. YL
TITLE XV UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
CHAPTER 160: ZONING DISTRICTS
160.01 Establishment Of Districts
The following zoning districts are hereby established:
ZONING DISTRICTS
R -A
Residential - Aricultural
RSF-.5
Residential Single-family — One Half Unit per
Acre
RSF-1
Residential Single-family — One Unit per Acre
RSF-2
Residential Single-family —Two Units per Acre
RSF-4
Residential Single-family — Four Units per Acre
RSF-7
Residential Single-family — Seven Units per Acre
RT-12
Residential Two and Three-family
RMF-6
Residential Multi -family — Six Units per Acre
RMF-12
Residential Multi -family — Twelve Units per Acre
RMF-18
Residential Multi -family — Eighteen Units per
Acre
RMF-24
Residential Multi -family — Twenty -Four Units per
Acre
RMF-40
Residential Multi -family — FoUnits per Acre
R -O
Residential -Office
C-1
Neighborhood Commercial
C-2
Thoroughfare Commercial
C-3
Central Business Commercial
C-4
Downtown
Ti
Heavy Commercial and Light (Industrial
1-2
General Industrial
P-1
Institutional
E-1
Extraction
DOD
Design Overlay District
R-PZD
Residential Planned Zoning District
C-PZD
Commercial Planned Zoning District
I-PZD
Industrial Planned Zoning District
(Code 1965, App. A., Art, 5; Ord. No. 1747, 6-29-70; Ord.
No. 3115, 9-3-85; Ord. No. 3128, 10-1-85; Code 1991,
§§160.015, 160.048; Ord. No. 3792, §1, 5-17-94; Ord. No.
4100, §2 (Ex. A), 6-16-98; Ord. No. 4325, 7-3-01)
160.02 Official Zoning Map
(A) Map. The city is hereby divided into zones, or
districts, as shown on the official zoning map,
which together with all explanatory matter
whereon, is hereby adopted by reference and
declared to be a part of this chapter. .
(B) Signature/seal. The official zoning map shall be
identified by the signature of the Mayor attested
by the City Clerk, and bearing the seal of the city
under the following words:
"This is to certify that this is the Official Zoning
Map referred to in Section 1. of Ordinance No.
of the City of Fayetteville," together
with the date of the adoption of the ordinance.
(C) Location. The official zoning map shall be
located in the office of City Planning. A
conformed copy of the official zoning map shall
be located in the office of the City Clerk.
(D) Changes.
(1) Entry on map. If in accordance with the
provisions of the state law, changes are
made in the district boundaries or other
matter portrayed on the official zoning map
such changes shall be entered on the official
zoning map as promptly as is possible after
the amendment has been approved by the
City Council, with an entry on the official
zoning map as follows:
"Amended to _ by Ordinance No. _ "
(2) Effective date. Amendments to this
ordinance which involve matters portrayed
on the official zoning map shall be effective
upon the passage, approval, and publication
of the amended ordinance.
(3) Changes/unauthorized. No changes of any
nature shall be made in the official zoning
map or matter shown except in conformity
with the procedures set forth in this chapter.
(E) Damaged/destroyed. In the event that the official
zoning map becomes damaged, destroyed, lost,
or difficult to interpret because of the nature or
number of changes and additions, the City
Council may by resolution adopt a new official
zoning map which shall supersede the prior
official zoning map. The new official zoning map
may correct drafting or other errors or omissions
in the prior official zoning map, but no such
corrections shall have the effect of amending the
original official zoning map or any subsequent
amendment thereof. The new official zoning map
shall be identified by the signature of the Mayor
attested by the City Clerk, and bearing the seal of
the city under the following words:
'This is to certify that this Official Zoning Map
supersedes and replaces the Official Zoning Map
adopted (date of adoption of map being replaced)
as part of Ordinance No. of the City of
Fayetteville."
(F) Preservation. Unless the prior official zoning
map has been lost, or has been totally destroyed,
the prior map or any significant parts thereof
remaining, shall be preserved, together with all
available records pertaining to its adoption or
amendment.
(Code 1965, App. A., Art. 1; Ord. No. 1765, 10-19-70; Code
1991, §160.018; Ord. No. 4100, §2, (Ex. A), 6-16-98)
Cross reference(s)--Enforcement. Ch. 153.
CD160:3
,,^IV03/14/2006 13:14
W
4794631565
is�jr/Te evi le
/ ARKANSAS
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
JIMMIE BEAUCHAMP
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
TO: File
FROM: Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning r
DATE: February 10, 2006
125 W. Mountain Si,
rnyeuevine. AR 72701
Telephone: (479) $7$.8267
Planning Staff has researched Planning Commission meeting minutes, rezoning files and City
Clerk records of City Council/Board of Directors meeting minutes and ordinances in an
attempt to locate the ordinance that zoned the approximately 150' strip of property between
Evelyn Hills Shopping Center and Hillcrest Avenue, in conjunction with the Abshier
Heights Planned Zoning District Proposal. The following represent the best timeline that we
have been able to establish:
Zoning
History
— Eve
n
Hills/AbshierHeights
PZD
• 1960
Evelyn Hills rezoned to G2 (excluding 150' strip adjacent to
Hillcrest)
• August, 1962
City Council approved rezoning to G 2 with restrictive
covenants (Ordinance 1314)
• November, 1962
Referendum vote (election) defeated Ordinance 1314, 682 to
471. Property remains zoned Rl-A.
• August, 1967
Planning Commission recommends denial of rezoning to G2
• September, 1967
Applicant appealed to Board of Directors
• October, 1967
Board of Directors review of appeal, applicant not present;
-
no action taken
• November, 1967
Board of Directors rehear appeal, recommend applicant work
out compromise with neighborhood; tabled 120 days,
referred to Planning Commission
• February, 1968
Planning Commission table indefinitely the rezoning
consideration
• June, 1970
City-wide rezoning affirmed O2 zoning for Evelyn Fills;
Zoning exhibit excludes the 150' wide portion adjacent to
Hillcrest
• July, 1991
Request to rezone property from O2 to R- 1.5 withdrawn;
Conditional Use to allow duplexes on the property (noted
as being zoned R-1) denied
• 1991.1999
Projects in area reviewed for zoning maps; all reference R-1,
until 1999, when the property is indicated as zoned G2 on
the 1 -mile maps associated with a parking lot expansion for
Weingarten (Evelyn Hills)
03/14/2006 13:14 4794631565 JlMIE BEAt1CHAmp
PAGE 02
• June, 20D3 Unified Development Code adopted through Ordinance No.
4489, codified through Ordinance 4789; Ordinance # 4503
city-wide rezoning; property zoned C-2 to Hillcrest, as
noted in the official Zoning Map of the City of Fayetteville
Tn date, staff has been unable to locate a formal action by the Planning Commission or
the Board of Directors regarding any request on the property after its indefinite tabling in
February, 1968 and the city-wide rezoning in 1970. Furthermore, the 1970 city-widc
rezoning indicates that the subject property was not zoned C-2; rather, it remained at that
lime R -I (see attached). The city-wide rezoning in 200), however, as officially adopted
by the City Council, indicates the property as zoned C-2, therefore staff is processing this
project as being zoned C-2 currently.
, BILL Of ASSUHAM
This declaration of ■ Bill of Assurance made this M day of
�CFif&q •19 g I , by the undersigned, evners of the following
real estate described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and ends a part hereof
located in the City of Fayetteville, Washington County, Arkansas.
WIHEAS, the aforesaid olmers of the real property described in maid
Exhibit "A" have secured iton the Fayettevills Board of Directors a temporary
waiver of the requirement prescribed by f 18-31 of the Fayetteville Code of
Ordinance to iaatsli a sidewalk across said real property; and
. 54i6AEAS, the ownsts ate desirous of sating a declaration of the sane in the
fore of this Bill of Assurance with the intention of guaranteeing the
prefaevation of certain values and annuities is the community and to bind the
owners and the wee", sutces.ors and assigns and the real "rate deveribod in
!hibit "A" and its subsequent owners with the obligations and restrictions
hereinafter rat forth for all ,.moot and future devolcpssent end use of, said
property. ,�+ v
a n ran M
WOW, TTHOMPOfg, the onnrs declare that the above described t$ pi�erE�
to ,
shall be bald, dovslopad, trmnsfarrod, sold, conveyed aM occupied sbfrd'tt to the
cox o A
covenants and restrictions herein set forth; m a 3 ii
N
I. o 0
m d
Upon receipt of written notice from the City of Fayetteville, owners shall
eonetrecL to City Specifications and at owners' "peon, a sidewalk across the
entire aids of the above described property. The exact location of
Bsaid sidewalk shall be speci i _ tb City. Should owners fail to properly
coastrnat said sidewalk within from receipt of said written notice, the
City shall have the right to construct the sidewalk and charge the cost thereof
to veers. Said rust shall constitute a lien on the property described in
Exhibit "A", and the City shall have the right of foreclosure by public sale
without the necessity of court tirocasdings.
WIBss r heads this M" THoaday of xi�F;t Ar , 19?I.
* vararax
*/74i GN I;Y../Ne. L;a#ia;s A^
STATE OP AAKANSA$ )
CoUNfl 07 v&smw 0N) as
Public, Zr ��. that on this day came Defoe. the mdetflzned, a Notary
y qualified. o.asiaaioned std actfi� vitt�}yS(o� sad tot t!q :staid county and Stato, appeat.d in Per the within named Pb Ze. a•. 7wu.i
and ,,to ae vell moan,
aad�aore duly authorSs.d to eaeeuu the fornQoin; inatsaeent, a+osis.avbsn,
sad further stated end aeinwledted that had
so fl a.d, executed and delivered said Sntruaeat for the tommideratiaa, seas and
pvrpo... herein m ationed and eat forth.
y12NR,SS my hand and meal as much Notary Public on this fit day of
Notary P.
-JO 4•'Y.n.r •4
Ls.�Omd_'a.tt)04
I.
N
J
O
T
U
U
theme a C
beosnasay.
a072 Pitt Of tae a.rte..e Qoettsr (flit/.) of
.' e�too Lo, unmo tpLf 4 aorta, Moss 30 o.n of
6 tort Dssim� 6 at y°W;;6
'36• xe Im Safi teoe the southeast 0o=osr of
list r faaL/4i. eesa Point ay, I
alao$ nth riche -146 fus ■
.ems rl•OI S4 Vsr, s itnt t We io6 t..of
mats a ____ {• a, ua feet to tae point of
trine m Leslie
Fr H
y
tall1404rza284
I _
7J RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS cc
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
WHEREAS, EVELYN HMLS SHOPPING CENTER, INC., a corporation and T.I. Abshier
and Grace E. Abshier, husband and wife (hereinafter called OWNERS), are the
record owners of the following described real estate situated in Fayetteville,
Washington County, Arkansas, to -wit:
A parcel of land lying in the NWT Section 10, Township 16, North Range 30
West, within the corporate limitd of the City of Fayetteville, and more
particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point which is S 89 deg.
30" W 184.35 feet from the NE corner of said Sj NW;, NW4 of Section 10,
thence South 660 feet, thence South 0 degrees 08' W 370.0 feet; thence S
89 deg. 55' 30" W 916.5 feet to the East right of way of U.S. t'wy. No. 71;
thence Northeasterly along said right of way more or less ,034.5 feet
to an iron pin which is S. 89 degrees 55 30" W 734 feet from the point of
'IL'I beginning; thence N. 89 degrees 55' 30" E. 734 feet to the point of
beginning, containing 20.2 acres, more or less.
WHEREAS, the aforesaid real estate abuts the West boundary of Hillcrest
Avenue, Fayetteville, Arkansas, beginning at the North boundary line of Abshier
Drive in the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, and continuing North for a distance
of 1,030 feet; and:
WHEREAS, the OWNERS filed a petition with the Planning Commission of Fayette -
vine; Arkansas, seeking to re -zone from R-lA Residential District to C-2
Commercial District the following described premises, situated in Fayetteville,
Washington County, Arkansas, to -wit:
P. Strip of land 150 feet deep located on and abutting the West boundary of
Hillcrest Avenue, beginning at Abshier Drive, and running, thence North 370
feet; a strip of land 150 feet deep located on and abutting the West boundary
of Hillcrest Avenue, beginning 370 feet North of Abshier Drive, and running
thence North.660 feet, and
as a result of which the Planning Commission has recommended that the West 130
feet thereof be rezoned to C-2 Commercial District, and that the East 2Ofeet
thereof remain zoned R -1A Residential District as a buffer zone betwemb
GREER ABSTRACT COMPANY SHEET o. .Se
RELIABLE ABSTRACTS
FAYETTEVILLE•SPRINGDALE, ARKANSAS
the C-2 area and the Residential District East of the 150 foot strip of land;
and,
WHEREAS THE EVELYN HILLS SHOPPING CENTER, INC,, is now developing theEvelyn
Hills Shopping Center on a part of the real estate first hereinabove described
and desires to include said 150 foot East-West strip of real estate in the
Shopping Center area; and,
WHEREAS, the OWNERS have agreed with the planning Commission, the Fayetteville
City Council and the owners of the real estate abutting the East boundary of
Hillcrest Avenue, Fayetteville, Arkansas, that they will place of record the
restrictive covenants set out below if the West 130 feet of said 150 foot strip
of real estate is re -zoned from R-lA Residential District to C-2 Commercial
District with the East 20 feet of said 150 foot strip to remain zoned R-lA
Residential District as a buffer zone; and,
WHEREAS, the restrictive covenants set out below shall benefit the owners
of the real estate situated in Fayetteville, Arkansas, which abuts on the
East boundary of Hillcrest Avenue in said City and which is located due Fast of
the 1,030 feet of real estate first described hereinabove; now,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises set out herein and for the
purposes hereinbbove mentioned, the said Evelyn Hills Shopping Center, Inc.,
and T.I. Abshier and Grace E. Abshier, husband and wife, hereby covenant: I�
1. That no commercial building which extends above thestreet level of 11
Hillcrest Avenue as it now exists shall be constructed of placed upon a strip
of land 80 feet by 1,030 feet which strip of land lies -20 feet West of
Hillcrest Avenue and abuts the North boundary of Abshier Drive, Fayetteville,
Arkansas, which strip of land is described as follows:
A parcel of land lying in the NW k of Section 10, Township 16 North Range
30 West, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point which
is South 89 degrees 55' 30" West 204 feet from the Northeast corner of the S}j
NW 4 W4 of Section 10, thence South 660 feet, thence South Odegrees 08' West
370 feet, thence South 89 degrees 55' 30" West 80 feet thence North 1,030
feet, more or less, to a point 80 feet due West of the beginning point,
thence East 80 feet to the place of beginning.
2, That no means of ingress or egress to and from the aforesaid real estate II
described in paragraph 1 hereinabove from Hillcrest Avenue, Fayetteville,
Arkansas shall be permitted to exist, except that the present means of ingress
and egress to and from said real estate from the said Hillcrest Avenue Fayette-
- '1
GREER ABSTRACT COMPANY „ w
RELIABLE ABSTRACTS SHEET No. .1
FAYt 1E VILLE•SFRINGDALL ARKANSAS
H
It.
villa, Arkansas, located about 350 feet North of Abshier Drive, Fayetteville,
Arkansas, and the North 50 feet of the real estate described in paragraph 1
hereinabove shall constitute and continue to be the means of ingress and egress
to and from said real estate described in paragraph 1 hereinabove from Hill -
crest Avenue Fayetteville, Arkansas
3. That no building, parking lot or any structure of any kind except retain-
ing walls and railings shall be placed upon said real estate described in para-
graph 1 hereinabove nearer than 20 feet to the present West boundary line of
Hillcrest Avenue, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
4. That the base of any motor vehicle parking lot placed and/or maintained
upon the real estate described in paragraph 1 hereinabove shall be at least S
i
feet below the present street level of Hillcrest Avenue, Fayetteville, Arkansas,
except that this covenant shall not apply to the North 100 feet of said strip
of land.
5. Within 12 months from the date of the passage of an ordinance re -zoning
the aforesaid 130 feet strip of land to C-2 Commercial District, and subject to
the provisions of paragraph 2 hereinabove, Evelyn Hills, Shopping Center, Inc.
shall construct a fence along the West bounday of the aforesaid 20 foot strip off
land which remains R-lA Residential District, which fence shall be at least six
feet in height. 'I
6. That within 12 months from the date of the passage of an ordinance re-
zoning said 130 foot strip of land to C-2 Commercial District , the Evelyn Hills
Shopping Center, Inc., shall landscape and beautify the 20 foot strip lying
immediately east of said 130 foot strip (which 20 foot strip also lies immedia-
tely west of Hill crest Avenue), which is the strip retained in R-lA Re sidentia
District as a buffer zone. That this beautification shall include the planting
and permanent maintenance at grass and shrubs. That if this beautification is
not done and maintained by the Evelyn Hills Shopping Center, Inc., the City
of Fayetteville may do the beautification and maintenance at the expense of the
Evelyn Hills Shopping Center.
7. These, covenants shall run with the land and shall be binding on all
parties and all persons claiming under Evelyn Hills Shopping Center, Inc. and
T.I. Abshier and Grace E. Abshier, husband and wife, for a period of twenty (20)
years from the date that these covenants are recorded, after which time said
covenants shall be automatically extended for successive periods of five (5)
GREER ABSTRACT COMPANY
SHEET No.
REAfl LE ABSTRAGr9 LI`c3
FAYETTEVILLE-SPRINGDALE. ARKANSAS
years unless an instrument signed by owners of a majority of the separate tracts
of property fronting on both the East and West side of Hillcrest Avenue, Fay-
etteville, Arkansas, for the 1,030 feet as set out in the legal description
hereinabove, releasing said covenants, or any part thereof, is placed of record.
8. These covenants shall inure to the benefit of any persona owning any of
the real estate which abuts the East and West boundary lines of Hillcrest
Avenue for the distance of 1,030 feet as set out in the legal descriptionhere
inabove, and any such property owner is hereby granted the authority to enforce
such covenants,
In Witness Whereof, the parties hereto have hereunto caused this instrument
to be executed on this 31 day of August, 1962.
EVELYN HILLS SHOPPING CENTER, INC.
BY John D. Askew, President
ATTEST: John Maguire, Secretary
T.I. Abshier
Grace E. Abshier
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF ARKANSAS
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON I�
On this 31 day of August, 1962, before the undersigned, a Notary Public, duly l'
commissioned, qualified and acting, within and for the said county and state,
appeared in person the within named John D. Askew and John Maguire to me person-
ally known, who stated that they were the President and Secretary of Evelyn
Hills Shopping Center, Inc., a corporation, and were duly authorized in their
.respective capacities to execute the foregoing instrument for and in the name
and behalf of said corporation, and further stated and acknowledged that they h
so signed, executed and delivered said instrument for this consideration, uses
and purposes therein mentioned and set forth.
In Testimony "thereof, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal
this 31 day of August, 1962.
Jane R, Horne, Notary Public.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
Be it remembered that on this day came before me the undersigned, a Notary
GREER ABSTRACT COMPANY 51
SHEET No.
RELIABLE ABSTRACTS
Public, within and for the county aforesaid, duly commissioned, and acting,
T.I, Abshier and Grace E. Abshier, husband and wife, to me well known as parties
in the foregoing covenants, and stated that they had executed the same for the
consideration and purposes therein mentioned and set forth.
Witness my hand and seal as such Notary Public this 31 day of August, 1962,
Jane R. Horne, Notary Public.
Filed for Record Sept. 18, 1962 1006 N.M. Recorded in volume 580 page 214
GREER ABSTRACT COMPANY �l)
REUADLE AUSTRACTS SHEET NO.
Planning Commission
June 24, 1991
Page 3
Merrell explained that the R -O zoning allowed five different use units
rig t including single and two family dwellings, Use Unit 12 and Use Unit
whic defined offices, studios and professional offices. Mr. Merrell then
those items under both use unit 12 and 25.
Mr. Merr\expla
sted one possible way this matter could be resolved ld to
have Mr. t,ylorffer a Bill of Assurance that would guarantee that he wgdld only
use thepr�ertyfor an office. He stated this was a very close ca for the
PlanningCocoxr�,ssion with K -Mart and the fire station in the immediat vicinity.
Mr. Sprxpresaed concern regarding the entire commercial strip to the
south. He explaiped that, while there was nothing of a commerciaj nature to the
north, gthe rezoning request would open -the door to a growth of the
commerc.
In response to a qstion from Mr. Allred regarding �e effect widening
Stubblefield would havk the area, Mr. Merrell stated hfi did not know if the
Traffic Division hado'eany projections regarding 1.n�±ease in traffic. He
further stated he beLiev� it would have a relatively nsignificant impact in
this area.
Mr. Hanna explained r covenants in the eubd ision prohibiting rezoning.
He stated he believewe it to the resident of the subdivision to uphold
the covenants. He eta d granting the zoning would encroach on the
integrity of theneid; th unless the a ire block, rather than one lot,
was to be rezoned, ruly e t zoning.
Mr. Tarvin stated that, whileA
n p agree with Mr. Hanna, the property
in the area was rental proped e lieved the rezoning would help the
area. He pointed out the y across the street from commercial
property, it was adjacent toc rcially zoned property, there was no
buffer between the R-1 and coml o y. He stated that an office, built
to look like a house with prcove nta, could make the property look
better in the future. He fuxplain that a business such as the one
proposed would probably be quian a resi ence. He further stated he would
not consider rezoning beyond operty but in this instance, the property
could be considered a buffer the R-1 an C-2.
Ms. Jackman asked, if in the uture someone else a ould purchase the property,
whether more parking space might be required.
Mr. Merrell explained th once the property was rezon to R-0 it would remain
R -O and there was the saibility that additional par 'ng would be required,
depending upon the type of business that owned the props y. He stated all of
the parking would be/off-street parking.
Mr. Tarvin state they had granted conditional zoning befo e. He suggested
rezoning the pr rty with the condition that, should the ap licant sell the
property, it w�ld revert to R-1.
Ms. Britton xpressed concern regarding the drainage in the area. She pointed
out there j4re ditches down both perimeters- of the property that handle the
atormwate drainage at this time. She questioned disposition of 14tat water
should t e property be graded and a parking lot constructed.
Mr. A red asked if there was data available concerning when to start
rentfil property in order to keep the area from "bottoming out".
Merrell stated he did not believe there was a rule of thumb. He
ed he believed this area was still highly residential.
Planning Commission
June 24, 1991
Page 4
arvin stated he really would not think a double driveway would cau hat
much tajpags problem.
Ms. Britton etateLhe did not believe there was enough r9par'T the site for a
double driveway, tha a entire parking lot would h o access the street.
Mr. Perry stated the parking iEtwpuldriot.at5ig one, he would only need apace .�
for five cars.
MOTION
Mr. Springborn stat e believed the downside ri and effect on the
neighborhood was great. He moved the rezoning be denie
Me. BritteCC seconded the motion.
motion passed 8-0-0.
The fifth item on the agenda
was a conditional use
request
for duplexes in an R-1
area submitted by Charles
Sloan for property
located
on the west side of
Hillcreet Avenue, north of
Abahier Drive.
Mr. Merrell explained the subject property was a narrow strip (146` x 660`)
behind Evelyn Hills. He pointed out the property had a long and controversial
history. He stated previous owners had attempted to rezone the tract to \i
commercial several times. In 1962 the property was successfully rezoned; j
however, a year later the issue was presented for public vote, and voters decided
the property should be left as a residential zone. He explained some of the
neighbors contended that the property was designated greenspace, but staff had
been unable to locate any such agreements or other legal documents to that
effect. Mr. Merrell explained that Askew Enterprises recently sold Evelyn Hills
Shopping center and now had a contract to sell the subject tract to Charles Sloan
contingent upon the conditional use.
Mr. Merrell stated Mr. Sloan had originally requested a rezoning to construct
seven duplexes however staff had pointed out to him he could construct the
duplexes in R-1 with a conditional use. He further explained Mr. Sloan proposed
to retain all the trees along Hillcreet and construct a private drive along the
west property line for access. He stated Mr. Sloan proposed to develop with the
lay of the land, excavating only where necessary to drop the building height so
as not to infringe upon his neighbors' views.
Mr. Merrell pointed out there were five possible uses of the subject property:
(1) apartments, (2) offices, (3) single family residential, (4) greenspace, and
(5) duplexes. He stated that, considering the established, high -quality
surrounding residential properties, offices and apartments did not appear to be
a desirable development course. He pointed out that considering the domineering
presence of Evelyn Hills to the east, single family residential did not appear
to be feasible. He further explained that the subject property did not offer
much that would merit its purchase for a public park and, further, Mr. Askew
could not be required to retain the property as private greenspace. He pointed
out the only other development route was duplexes.
Mr. Merrell explained staff was only recommending this item be considered for
approval provided that Mr. Sloan assure that every tree along Hillcreet Avenue
be preserved, that there be no access through the trees, and that whatever access
drive was constructed be constructed on the west side of the property. He stated
Panning Commission
June 24, 1991 ..
Page 5
staff believed the duplexes would be a buffer between the single family dwellings
and the shopping center.
Mr. Hanna stated that, since the property was zoned R-1, one of the alternatives
would be dividing the tract into 8 or 9 lots, with 8 or 9 driveways exiting onto
Hillcrest and removing of several of the trees.
Mr. Merrell agreed that, should the property be divided into separate lots they
would probably lose a number of trees along Hillcrest.
Mr. Tarvin stated the garages could come in from the back of the house.
Mr. Allred asked if the subject property had been previously dedicated as a
greenspace, why it would not have been zoned P-1 at that time:
Mr. Merrell explained staff could find no records relating to the area being
designated a greenspace.
Mr. Harry Gray, representing Charles Sloan, explained this was a unique piece of
property and the terrain did limit development. He further explained the
property had been rezoned in 1962 with covenants attached to the rezoning.
Mr. Merrell explained staff had found information regarding the property being
zoned C-2 but the rezoning was rescinded by referendum.
Me. Britton asked if the developer was proposing a single, common drive for the
consideration of the property owners. She explained she saw that as a problem.
Mr. Gray explained that at this point they were just asking for the conditional
use and would have to come back on the actual construction of the duplexes. He
further stated they did propose to have a private drive at the rear of the
property and would not have access to Hillcrest. He explained they did not want
to remove any of the trees along Hillcrest. He stated they were willing to sign
a Bill of Assurance that there would be no existing trees removed.
Mr. Springborn asked if there was room for more than a 12 foot one-way street.
Mr. Allred stated subdivision committee could require no on -street parking if
this item were approved.
Ms. Donna Copeland, 1502 N. Hillcrest, appeared before the Commission and gave
some history of the property. She explained that, at the time Evelyn Hills
Shopping Center was built, a promise was made to plant a barrier of trees between
the houses and shopping center and never to build on the land between Evelyn
Hills and Hillcrest. She asked the Commission to consider the impact the
conditional use would make on the neighborhood. Ms. Copeland stated that when
Mr. Abshier dedicated the street to the city, he included the possibility of a
reverter. if it ceased to be used for a street, the land would revert to the
abutting landowners. She explained that not all of the strip of land was used
for a street, and the adjoining property owners had taken care of the street
right-of-way on both aides. She further stated many of the property owners had
purchased their homes along Hillcrest, because it was a dead-end street without
a lot of traffic or noise.
Me. Copeland explained that citizens relied on the city to control growth not
developers. She stated, if the city planned properly, zoning would stabilize
property values and there would be some predictability about what location could
be used for what purpose. She further pointed out, if the conditional use was
granted, there would be 14 residences across the street from six single family
homes. The new residences would be approximately 1,300 square feet as opposed
Planning commission
June 24, 1991
Page 6
to 2,600 square foot homes currently existing. She pointed out there would be
an increase in traffic, noise and reduced safety. She also suggested -there may
be a problem with the drainage in the area if the subject tract was built over.
She requested the conditional use be denied. She presented a petition protesting
the conditional use with approximately 40 signatures.
Mr. Paul Bailey, 1532 Hillcrest, appeared before the commission and stated he
believed the subject property was too small to construct 7 duplexes. He further
stated he thought it would be a very poor place to live. He pointed out that in
the winter when the weather was bad the road would be impassible. He suggested
the residents could join together to keep the property mowed.
K. Fay Jones, 1330 Hillcrest, stated construction of the duplexes would change
the environment of the neighborhood which had always been single-family homes.
He also mentioned an increase in traffic. He requested the conditional use be
denied.
Mr. Dick Oliver, 1440 Hillcrest, appeared before the Commission and stated that,
when he purchased his property in 1972, the realtor had told him the subject
property was to be used as greenspace, providing a buffer between the residential
area and the shopping center. He explained the company that purchased the
shopping center had not purchased the subject tract of land because it wag
greenspace. He also pointed out that any construction would have.to destroy some
of the trees. He stated the noise from the shopping center was a problem, even
with the trees. He further stated there would be no view for any building
constructed on the subject property. He mentioned additional traffic,
impassibility when ice was on the roadway, and noise as some of his concerns
should duplexes be constructed. He suggested the Planning Commission should make
the area a permanent greenspace.
Me. Trina Oliver, 1440 Hillcrest, appeared before the commission, and strongly
urged the Commission to not approve the conditional use. She stated the property
had always be intended for and used as a greenspace.
Mr. Gray explained, when the property had been rezoned in 1962, there had been
restrictive covenants, but after the referendum revoked the zoning, all
restrictive covenants were voided.
Mr. Allred asked if there was room for 8 or 9 lots should the property develop
as single family homes.
Mr. Gray stated they would be able to get 8 lots under R-1 zoning.
Mr. Harold Copeland, 1502 Hillcrest, appeared before the Commission and stated
they had chosen the property because it was single-family residences. He further
stated the realtor had assured them that, should the subject property ever, be
developed, it too would be single-family residences.
Mr. Gerald Davis, 1516 Hillcrest, appeared before the Commission and expressed
his concern over the proposed conditional use.
Mr. Allred stated he would be in favor of tabling this item to allow everyone to
diligently search for any documentation regarding the greenspace. He explained
that unless documentation could be found, the property was zoned R-1 with no
restrictions.
Ms. Britton moved to table the item for further research.
Planning Commission
June 24, 1991
Page 7
Mr. Hanna seconded the motion.
The motion and second were amended to table the item until the second meeting in
July.
The motion passed 8-0-0.
Mr. Allred suggested the property owners get with the staff and work together to
search for any documentation. He explained that a verbal contract regarding real
estate was non -binding. He stated he wanted to see something in writing, if
anything existed.
The s th item on the agenda was a preliminary plat for Timber Crest Subdivisifth
eubmitt d by Mel Milholland on behalf of Mike Pennington. The propert is
located 8w the north aide of Mission Blvd., east of Crossover Road. The pr arty
is zoned R\4, Low Density Residential and contains 27.52 acres with 5B ots.
Mr. Bunn had ft the meeting and, therefore, Mr. Merrell gave the ngineer's
report. He expl�ined the property was annexed into the city and rezpfied from A-i
to R-1 approximatb4y two weeks earlier by the Board of D/hadeen
He stated the
development consists of 58lots located on 27.5 acres. 5tat9t hat water and
sewer were available o the site. He further stated thersome question
as to whether the s r would have to be provided btation or by
gravity. The prelimina plat indicated the construcpump station;
however, it has not been own that a gravity sewer wasal.
Mr. Milholland reminded the Commission that at a last meeting they had
questioned stormwater drainage noff and deposits/f alit during construction.
He explained he had talked with J5Qp Bunn regardin the storm drainage. Mr. Bunn
felt the proposed drainage plan wa adequate. Ae stated they would be willing
to install catch ponds for the silt 'f that 9t9 the Commission's desire.
At Me. Britton's request, Mr. Milholl xplained the highway department had
come up with a design for discharge of at ater. He explained the design would
slow the water down but still drain by ac g concrete blocks in the apron. He
explained this would slow the wat down d make a wider path with less
velocity.
Me. Britton asked if Mr. Milho and would be giv' a bill of assurance that he
would build the silt ponds t contain the silt dun i construction.
Mr. Milholland stated he would.
Mr. Tarvin stated the could not contain silt during co truction. When it
rains, muddy water wfrid wash silt out. He stated he belied the Commission
needed to be carefu7 that they did not impose any conditions th t were out of the
oXCleghorn
th dev lopment in the city.
Mnked ifMr. Bunn had felt the catch ponds were neces ry.
Mand stated they had not discussed them.
M1 pointed out the excavation and grading ordinance would comeein the middle of July and this development would have to abide by heoHe further stated he would like to see an effort made to reduce aCt, but he agreed with Mr. Tarvin silt could not be totally contained.
Planning Commission
June 24, 1991
Page 8 -
M. Milholland
explained he
would be making
an effort to
reduce
the silt, but he
ne(er intended
to give the
impression that
there would
not be
muddy water.
Mr. ringborn stated he would not personally require a bill of assurance, but
he wou d be happy with the assurance they had received from Mr. Milholland. lie
explainb4 at the last meeting he had not felt the problem had be/dddt
now he fe2Kt it had been.
Mr. Tarvin ked what was different about this subdivision thaem
taking this of stand that they had not done in the past.
Mr. Merrell exp fined that he believed there was concern regardirty
because it border a stream and needed to be handled carefullyut
the land was relat vely level. He stated the Planning commissided
to be careful to nob single out anyone.
Mr. Mike Pennington, t'hq developer of the property, stated i was his intent to
develop the property so ae to please the City of Fayettev lle. He stated he
believed the Commission' questions were valid.
MOTION
Mr. Springborn moved to approVn.it
t plat review comments and
Commission comments.
Mr. Hanna seconded the motion.
In response to a question from etermined that the preliminary .t
plat was being approved with ing an effort to stabilize the J
silt by constructing catch pontion of the subdivision.
PRELDUNARY
PLAT - WEDINGTON HEIG
ADDITION PHASE I, II, III & IV
MARK MARQUESS
FOR BMP DEVELOPMENT
W OF SALEM N OF WEDINGION DR.
The seventh
as
item on the/.Lve,
a preliminar plat for Wedington
Heights
Addition, Phases I, II,nd
IV submitted y Mark Marquess
for BMP
Development
and representry
Gray. The prope&ty is located west
of Salem
Road, north
of Wedington The property is zone R-1.5, Moderate
Density
Residential
and contains with 151 lots.
Mr. Merrell stated a ition of this property would be dev�4oped for affordable
housing. He explain the development consisted of four ph es with a total of
151 lots on approx4rfately 34 acres. He pointed out that Per Franklin of the
Traffic Departmen had expressed some concern about the additi��al traffic that
would be genera at Highway 16 due to the development; ho ever, any new
development woq4d generate additional traffic.
Mr. Merrell pated both water and sewer are readily available to the �4te and the
general dr inage plan appears to be control drainage. He stated Mr. Bunn
recommen approval subject to the plat review comments; submittal of proval
of data' ed plans and specifications for water, sewer, streets, and drains e; the
tying f Anne Street through to an existing street in Giles Addition witt the
cons uction of any phase after Phase I; the platting of a 50 foot right -o way
for uture street construction north from the intersection of "E" Street and "
S eet; construction of sidewalks per city ordinance; and payment of parks fe
r city ordinance.
A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, July 22,
1991 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City
Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MKMBBRS PRESENT: Jack Cleghorn, Fred Hanna, J. E. Springborn, Jerry Allred, Joe
Tan -in, Mark Robertson, Charles Nickle, and Jett Cato
MEMBERS ASSENT: Jana Lynn Britton
OTHERS PRESENT: Becky Bryant, Don Bunn, Sharon Langley, members of the press
and others
MINUTES
The minutes of the July 9, 1991 meeting were approved as distributed.
CONDITIONAL USE CU91-14
CHARLIE SLOAN - W SIDE OF HILLCREST, N OF ABSHIER
The second item on the agenda was a request for a conditional use in order to
construct duplexes in R-1, Low Density Residential submitted by Charlie Sloan and
represented by Harry Gray. The property is located on the west side of Hillcrest
Avenue, north of Abahier Drive.
Becky Bryant reminded the Commission that, at the June 24, 1991 meeting, this
item had been tabled in order to allow staff to further investigation the
allegations that the subject 2.2 acres had been designated greenspace. She
stated that previously the Abshiers had offered to place restrictive covenants
on the property in exchange for C-2 zoning. The covenants were executed and
filed. She explained the rezoning had been brought to a public vote and citizens
had voted down the rezoning. She further explained that revoking the zoning had
the legal effect of also revoking the covenants. She stated she had discussed
this matter with the Assistant City Attorney who agreed the covenants were no
longer binding nor valid.
Me. Bryant further pointed out the original covenants had only affected the east
20 feet of the property. She stated the City had a 30 foot easement along the
east property line so there would be no building in that area anyway. She
further stated Mr. Sloan was willing to give a Bill of Assurance for tree
protection along the street. She explained -staff believed this was a high
quality development which would not significantly impact the neighborhood.
Ms. Bryant suggested the Commission could apply conditions on the development.
She pointed out that, should the conditional use be denied, Mr. Sloan or any
other party could remove the trees on Hillcrest and construct a single family
affordable housing project over which the city would have little control. She
stated the only solid legal ground on which the Planning Commission could deny
the conditional use was by finding that the request was incompatible with
adjacent properties. She explained, however, that one of the planning principles
used to encourage buffering of single family residential from commercial was the
use of an intermediate type of zoning.
Me. Bryant stated Commissioner Britton had raised a question about access to the
property. She stated both drives on the north and south ends were included in
the legal description of the property which Mr. Sloan hoped to purchase. She
stated, if the conditional use were granted, the development would then go
Planning Commission
July 22, 1991
Page 2
through the large scale development process. She suggested any further concerns
about access be addressed at that time.
In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Ms. Bryant explained the property
could be used for an affordable housing development without rezoning. She stated
the Commission had some control over the property with a conditional use but,
without a conditional use, the Commission had very little control.
Mr. Tarvin asked if they could add a provision to the conditional use a provision
denying parking and access by pedestrians along Hillcrest.
Me. Bryant stated the Commission could impose any reasonable condition as long
as the condition was not arbitrary or capricious.
In response to a question from Mr. Hanna, Ms. Bryant stated a 30 -foot easement
along Hillcrest had been executed by the developer. She explained nothing could
be built in the easement but an easement did not restrict the developer from
clearing the area.
In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Gray explained that, should the
property be developed as single family homes, he believed the property would be
split into eight lots all fronting on Hillcrest with drives onto Hillcrest. He
further explained it would be much more difficult to develop single family homes
with private drives. He stated the terrain dictated the type of construction.
Mr. Tarvin asked if the difference was because the duplexes would all be owned
by one person.
Mr. Gray stated the current plan was that Mr. Sloan would own all of them. He
stated eventually they could be sold. He explained there would be covenants set
up to cover the private drive.
Mr. Tarvin asked if the covenants could not be set up for private homes.
Mr. Gray explained they could but, due to the terrain, he did not see the
development being a quality single family development. He stated covenants were
normally tied to property owners associations which cover the maintenance of the
drives, etc. He further stated he could see some problems with covenants on
single family development on this property.
In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Gray explained the duplexes would
face Hillcrest shielding the parked cars from view. He further explained the
apartment plan was for two-story duplexes with the lower floor being below the
level of Hillcrest and the upper floor extending slightly above it. He stated
the plan was to construct a wooden bridge to extend from Hillcrest to the upper
level of the duplexes in order to provide pedestrian access.
Dick Oliver, 1440 Hillcrest, appeared before the Commission and spoke in
opposition to the conditional use. He explained the construction of duplexes
would triple the number of people and traffic; that the residents of the duplex
and visitors to the duplexes would park on Hillcrest; there was only 120 feet of
flat land on the subject property which made it undesirable to build on; the
trees and shrubbery provided a buffer between Hillcrest and the shopping center;
water pressure was already poor in the area, additional residences would cause
more water problems; and the duplexes would lower property values in the
neighborhood. He stated they had a nice quiet neighborhood and the residents
believed it should be left as R-1 with no conditional use.
Mr. Tarvin asked if Mr. Oliver had his choice to leave the zoning R-1 without the
conditional use and have it constructed into single family houses facing onto
Planning Commission
July 22, 1991
Page 3
Hillcrest and possibly removing some of the trees versus the duplexes which would
he prefer.
Mr. Oliver stated he had seen in the newspaper that the property was going to be
rezoned R-1.5 for low rent housing. He explained that, if the property were
developed as single family housing similar to those already in the neighborhood,
he would not be opposed.
In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Bryant stated there was not an
application to rezone this property to R-1.5.
Mr. Tarvin explained that the property could be developed into single family
housing without the lot size and house size being comparable to those existing
in the neighborhood. He asked Mr. Oliver his preference between R-1 with a
conditional use for duplexes with protective restrictions regarding the trees and
parking versus R-1 single family with 70 foot frontages.
Mr. Allred explained that should the conditional use be granted the Planning
Commission would have some control, but if the conditional use were denied, they
would have no control over any single family development.
Mr. Oliver stated he would prefer the property remaining as it was, but since
that was not possible, he would opt for the conditional use for duplexes with the
conditions that all of the trees remain as a buffer and that there was no access
to Hillcrest from the duplex.
Mr. Allred pointed out the duplexes were to be large and rather expensive,
designed toward executive -type families which would be compatible with the
neighborhood. He further pointed out, should the property be developed as
affordable housing, the residents might not blend into the neighborhood. He
explained that would have more of a negative social impact.
Mr. Paul Bailey, a resident of the area, appeared before the Commission and asked
where the development would get its water. He explained there was only a 4 -inch
line serving the neighborhood. He stated the city had recently put in an 8 -inch
line in the area and he wanted to be sure the new development would tap off the
8 -inch line.
Mr. Bunn stated he had not seen a proposal but would have to make sure the
elevations were such that the development could use the 8 -inch line. He
explained the 8 -inch line was on a main pressure plain and the 4 -inch line was
on a high pressure plain.
Mr. Gray pointed out that should the conditional use be granted, the developer
would still have to present a large scale development plat or subdivision plat
which would cover water, streets, sewers, etc. He explained the residents would
be notified of the hearing at that time.
Mr. Bailey stated he believed the property should be developed in congruence with
existing properties. He stated he wanted to be sure if the duplexes were built
that there would be no access on Hillcrest.
Mr. Cato asked Mr. Bailey, if the property were to be developed as proposed into
seven duplexes accessing a private road on the west side of the property and
preserving the trees versus developing the property into seven or eight lots with
probable access onto Hillcrest, which he would prefer.
Mr. Bailey stated he would prefer no ingress or egress onto Hillcrest nor any
trees or bushes destroyed on Hillcrest.
Planning Commission
July 22, 1991
Page 4
Mr. Allred asked the residents in the audience if they preferred the duplexes
with the requirement that the trees be preserved and no access to Hillcrest. it
appeared the majority of the residents preferred the duplexes with those
conditions.
Mr. Allred explained that the Commission was trying to determine what was beet
for the neighborhood. He agreed that the most ideal use for the neighborhood was
to leave it like it was. He explained they did not have that type of control so
they were trying to determine what the next best alternative.
Ma. Dawn Copeland, 1502 Hillcrest, appeared before -the Commission and stated she
was not in favor of the duplexes, that she would prefer single family housing.
She questioned the size of the tract, stating she did not believe it was a large
enough tract to construct seven or eight houses.
She stated she had reviewed the city ordinance covering conditional use
applications, Section 160.195. She explained the Planning commission would not
grant a conditional use unless certain requirements were met, including making
written findings certifying compliance with eight areas of concern.
Ms. Copeland stated the first two concerns were ingress and egress to the
property and off-street parking. She showed the Commission a drawing of the area
pointing out the subject property in comparison to the surrounding property. she
explained there was a private driveway coming out of Evelyn Hills Shopping Center
leading into a narrow alley with a retaining wall. She further explained the
developer was proposing to put a driveway at the top of the retaining wall, which
would have to go north (she stated the street would not be wide enough to go both
ways), and then feed back into Hillcrest to go south. She stated this area would
not be conductive to good traffic flow. She further stated there was the
possibility of a fire hazard since the fire trucks would have difficulty in
negotiating the street. She also pointed out the trash collectors would also
have difficulty in negotiating the street for pickup.
Me. Copeland stated another concern was location and availability of utilities.
She explained the water pressure diminished as it went downhill. She stated the
residents had been told the new 8 -inch line was strictly for the purposes of fire
hydrants and would not have any residential service. She pointed out the
existing gas line along the tree line.
She explained the builder had offered to buffer the area by leaving the trees on
the west side of Hillcrest but there would be no yard or open space since it
would be filled with buildings. She further stated that by filling the area with
buildings, it would create drainage problems with runoff going into the back of
the shops in Evelyn Hills.
Mr. Allred
explained the drainage would
be addressed
in the
large scale
development
and the city engineer would be
looking at the
plan.
Ms. Copeland stated she was confused because they were telling her this was just
proposals that the developer was making and that it had to go before another
board to decide on the streets, gutters, etc.. She stated the ordinance read
"...Before any conditional use shall be issued the Planning Commission shall make
written findings, certifying compliance with the specific rules governing
individual conditional uses and that satisfactory provision and engagement has
been made concerning the following..."
Mr. Allred explained the Planning Commission delegated their authority to the
planning office and city engineering staff. He further explained there were
other ordinances requiring that any development had to have the city engineer's
approval.
Planning Commission
July 22, 1991
Page 5
Ms. Bryant concurred with Ms. Copeland that the Planning Commission should make
findings or reference staff findings.
Ms. Copeland stated other concerns were the signs they would have on the duplexes
and security lighting which would add to the glare. She stated the final
consideration was the compatibility and harmony with adjacent property. She
pointed out this was a density problem, that building duplexes would result in
too many people being crammed into too small an area in a quiet neighborhood
composed of single family dwellings.
Me. Copeland stated she did not think preserving the trees would make up for
building duplexes. She asked the Commission to deny the conditional use.
Mr. Springborn pointed out, should the subject property be subdivided into
minimum size city lots, the new property owners would have the same rights as the
existing property owners and their driveways could also enter from Hillcrest.
Me. Copeland stated she understood that.
Mr. [tickle pointed out neither the easements nor the setbacks entered into the
calculation of the lot size.
In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Gray explained the west edge of
driveway would be "thirty feet east of the retaining wall. He stated the depth
of the lot, from the retaining wall to the right-of-way of Hillcrest was 146
feet.
Mr. Gray stated the proposal was that the duplex would be approximately 40 feet
in width.
Me. Trans Oliver appeared before the Commission and stated it bothered her that
they were trying to put too many people in a small area. She stated she was in
favor of single family housing with only 7 or 8 families.
In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin regarding access to Hillcrest, Mr. Gray
explained he had not looked at access to Hillcrest from a single family
standpoint.
Mr. Cleghorn stated he did not see a need for a change when the neighborhood had
existed for many years and the change was for a business venture.
Mr. Nickle agreed with Mr. Cleghorn. He stated he did not feel access was
sufficient - that a one-way street 12 feet wide, going across 600 feet, was not
in the best interest of the city. He further stated he was opposed to the
conditional use.
MOTION
Mr. Springborn stated he normally voted in favor of the neighborhood, even though
as a Commissioner he felt like as far as the city was concerned, that the
application was a good. one. He moved to deny the application.
Mr. Cleghorn seconded the motion.
The motion passed 7-0-1 with commissioners Cleghorn, Hanna, Springborn, Allred,
Tarvin, Cato and Nickle voting "yen" and Commissioner Robertson voting "no".
Planning Commission
July 22, 1991
Page 6
The ird item on the agenda was a request for a large scale development for 21e
Sport Park submitted by Rick Collins for property located on the south si of
Wedingt n Drive, west of Betty Jo Drive. The property is zoned A-1,
Agricult al.
Mr. Don Bu\Engines
ity Engineer, explained the large scale development copbisted of
a recreationA. area on 76.35 acres. Activities include a golf dri ng range,
batting caputting green, and pro shop. He explained future Ihases would
include a rant, a retail garden shop, and a par three go,f course. He
stated ther no significant problems identified at the Pla Review meeting
or the Subion Committee meeting. He stated there was some iscussion- about
the drainaplans Iqd it had been suggested at the aubdivieio committee meeting
that the dge pl be available for the planning commi ion. He explained
there was a quee ion about the location of an ease�nt where there were
several latrees. recommended the large scale 4�'velo�nnent be approved
subject to review art4 subdivision committee comme s; approval of drainage
plans by tity Engines resolution of the locati n of the 15 foot utility
easement; ruction of a idewalk along Wedington rive; and conformance with
the terms he conditional ae granted earlier bj the Planning Commission.
MOTION
Mr. Tarvin moved to accept the Larg Scale
to staff comments, plat review and bdi'
Mr. Hanna seconded the motion.
The motion carried 8-0-0.
WAVIER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS LOT
Hoop nnroc - v nv nrrecnw CT_ - F WRST
Ipment of The Sports Park subject
committee comments.
#1
The fourth item on the agenda as a request by 5¼t Rakes, City of Fayetteville
Land Agent, on behalf of Ro rt Lewis and Nancy ktt Lewis for a lot split on
property located north of fljckson Street and east d West Avenue. The property
is zoned C-3, Central Bus sees Commercial.
Commissioner/Roberteon tated he would be abstainingfr discussion and voting
on this itemand Mra. Lewis were his clients.Mr. Rakes exsubject property was a portion of t Walton Arta Center
parking and, their obligation, the city had to furs sh parking spaces.
He further this property contained 1.41 acres, a nding from West
Avenue to Castated the split was in order to allow se's Restaurant
to retain thg. He further stated the City would be buyMg 0.79 acres.
MOTYSpriangborn
Mr.moved to grant the lot split as requested.
Mr. seconded the motion.
motion passed 7-1-0 with Mr. Robertson abstaining.
• Ac.
WL OF ASSURA CE
This declaration of ■ Bill of Assurance =de this iqt day of
ICETW.Af�0 19g I , by the undersigned, owners of the following
real estate described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and mad% a past hereof
looted in the City of Fayetteville, Washington County, Arkanaw.
WKEBM, the sferesaaid aware of the real property described in said
Exhibit "A" have secured free the Fayetteville Board of Directors a teaporary
waiver of the requirement prescribed by f i8-31 of the Fayettefll9 Code of
Ordinances to install a sidewalk across said real property h aid
I WIf14USAS, the owners are desirous of =king a declaration of the tams in the
form of this Bill of Assurance with the intention of guaranteeing the
preservation of certain valves and enmities in the community and to bind the
owners and the owners' eucassaota and assigns and the real estate described In
Exhibit "A" and its subsequent owners with the obligations and restrictions
herainsfter sot forth for all present and future development and use of_ said
property. ¢ .+ w
NOW. t E B2ORE, the owners declare that the above described p'VSe4
shall be held, developed, transferred, sold, conveyed and occupied m4r$6j t to the
3 in
covenonG and restrictions herein set £orth; nia ro o
i 1.
e ^t
yUpon receipt of written notice from the City of Fayetteville, ownees shall
construct to City Specifications and at owners' expense. a sidewalk across the
aentire OAS,t side of the above described property. The exact location of
said sidewalk shall be specified Y_ 1lo r City, Should owners fail to properly
in construct said sidewalk withfrom receipt of said written notice, the
city shall have the right to construct the sidewalk and charge the cost thereof
to owners. Said cost shall constitute a lien on the property described in
Exhibit "A", and the City shall Mn the right of foreclosure by public eslo
without the necessity of court proceedings.
WITNESS Our hands this i� day of tr . 19??.
N
0
S
0
0
u
twi11404fi«282
a1FA,. Lg#el0 ,
a
STAf OP ARZANSAS )
as
COMM OP MASSINCM)
3
SS 1T RVe(kiwu. that an this day came before the undersigned, a Notary
Public, duly qualified, ceaadasianad and sating wiSfj to cad for the reoaid
County and State, appeared in parson the within named
and , to se well known,
and further siatad and acknowledged" that at flu
an sitneds executed and delivered said iettwment far the consideration, coos an
perposes heratn mentioned and set forth.
� q and s1 as curb Notary
/(yPublic
on
this day of
1
N1;'�i}don .ip�iros=
y.LOaU���O�
rl
€
O
u
cf kttsz± sc "
�rMM Or }1i@ ffili! Otla P{rt OL tLs'larttttat Quash, (61R/4) Of
Ois ur wwv4FWWwuELcn SOr 1�O"OOup 16 lasts, ?ug 30 Putt of
tsO /11th ftLna&VU less r , MkUM" ta&np most
9artidaiarlr dsadrihtd as fallout, tO-v , sap = et s mint taut Lo a
60"16'69" W, 206.03 tat and R 066'36" V. 90 toot tram the 6outMast Coxcer Or
said NoithwessitpQOutetar (s+n/6) 0l thu sorMxsst Quarteral($W3//1, said DOLdt b.S
0'46'36"t'3a1, 610 Lust, tstdOla Laiviag ..id right F)y oid t-OL-vmr, m
145 t.st
thsms a 0.66'26" 21, 610 Leah things N WOO 54 I, 116 Last to to DO1at Of
b"Laulagr gn tat.'_,q 2.06 an n, mosa or 1Ma.
E
(11()1404Pi6E284
ry
I y.
I
9
a
I
4
W
N
7
I
R
V
as
a
ttv11ie1
/ ARKANSAS
ddd 125 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS Telephone: (479) 575-8267
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
TO: File
FROM: Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning T
DATE: February 10, 2006 -
Planning Staff has researched Planning Commission meeting minutes, rezoning files and City
Clerk records of City CLuncil/Board of Directors meeting minutes and ordinances in an
attempt to locate the ordinance that zoned the approximately 150' strip of property between
Evelyn Hills Shopping Center and Hillcrest Avenue, in conjunction with the Abshier
Heights Planned Zoning District Proposal. The following represent the best timeline that we
have been able to establish:
Zoning History — Evelyn Hills/Abshier Heights PZD
• 1960 Evelyn Hills rezoned to C-2 (excluding 150' strip adjacent to
Hillcrest)
• August, 1962 City Council approved rezoning to C-2 with restrictive
covenants (Ordinance 1314)
• November, 1962 Referendum vote (election) defeated Ordinance 1314, 682 to
471. Property remains zoned RI -A.
• August, 1967 Planning Commission recommends denial of rezoning to C-2
• September, 1967 Applicant appealed to Board of Directors
• October, 1967 Board of Directors review of appeal, applicant not present;
no action taken
• November, 1967 Board of Directors rehear appeal, recommend applicant work
out compromise with neighborhood; tabled 120 days,
referred to Planning Commission
• February, 1968
Planning Commission table indefinitely the rezoning
consideration
• June, 1970
Oty--wide rezoning affirmed C-2 zoning for Evelyn Hills;
Zoning exhibit excludes the 150' wide portion adjacent to
Hillcrest
• July, 1991
Request to rezone property from C-2 to R- 1.5 withdrawn;
Conditional Use to allow duplexes on the property (noted
as being zoned R-1) denied
• 1991-1999
Projects in area reviewed for zoning maps; all reference R- 1,
until 1999, when the property is indicated as zoned C-2 on
the 1 -mile maps associated with a parking lot expansion for
Weingarten (Evelyn fT&)
• June, 2003 Unified Development Code adopted through Ordinance No.
4489, codified through Ordinance 4789; Ordinance #4503
city-wide rezoning; property zoned C-2 to Hillcrest, as
noted in the official Zoning Map of the City of Fayetteville
To date, staff has been unable to locate a formal action by the Planning Commission or
the Board of Directors regarding any request on the property after its indefinite tabling in
February, 1968 and the city-wide rezoning in 1970. Furthermore, the 1970 city-wide
rezoning indicates that the subject property was not zoned C-2; rather, it remained at that
time R-1 (see attached). The city-wide rezoning in 2003, however, as officially adopted
by the City Council, indicates the property as zoned C-2, therefore staff is processing this
project as being zoned C-2 currently.
—
From: rwicks <rwicks@uark.edu>
To: ward2_posl <ward2_posl@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>, ward2_pos2
<ward2_post@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>, ward3_pos2 <ward3_pos2@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>, ward4_posl
<ward4_posl@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>, bthiel <bthiel@cox.net>, Iljordan7 <Iljordan7@hotmail.com>, mayor
<mayor@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>, RRhoades <RRhoades@HallEstill.com>, <RRhoads@HallEstill.com>,
ssmith <ssmith@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 3/7/06 10:52AM
Subject: Covenants, 1991 Minutes & Talking Points
Mayor Cdody and Council members:
Some of you asked for copies of the covenents restricting development on the
site of the proposed Abshier Hights project, copies of the 1991 Planning
Commission meeting when this issue was resolved and a copy of our talking
points for this evening. I am attaching these in case they are not included in
your packet.
Thank you very much,
Rob Wicks on behalf of the Hillcrest and Abshier Community
Rob Wicks
Associate Professor
Department of Communication
Kimpel Hall 417
University of Arkansas
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Office: 479-575-5958
FAX: 479-575-6734
!R!!ilRlRRRRRR+YRYRRY+++Y Y++
I(P&6wWN'tev -to M xe-
ArL e.ue q-kktf+? e,)a5
b
f!►t Us RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
WHEREAS, EVELYN HILLS SHOPPING CENTER, INC., a corporation and T.I. Abshier
and Grace E. Abahier, husband and wife (hereinafter called OWNERS), are the
record owners of the following described real estate situated in Fayetteville,
Washington County, Arkansas, to -wit:
A parcel of land lying in the NWT Section 10, Township 16, North Range 30
West, within the corporate lvnitd of the City of Fayetteville, and more
particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point which is S 89 deg.
30" W 184.35 feet from the NE corner of said S7j NW,, NW4 of Section 10,
thence South 660 feet, thence South 0 degrees 08' W 370.0 feet; thence S
89 deg. 55' 30" W 916.5 feet to the East right of way of U.S. 'wy. No. 71;
thence Northeasterly along said right of way more or less 1034.5 feet
to an iron pin which is S. 89 degrees 55 30" W 734 feet from the point of
beginning; thence N. 89 degrees 55' 30" E. 734 feet to the point of
beginning, containing 20.2 acres, more or less.
WHEREAS, the aforesaid real estate abuts the West boundary of Hillcrest
Avenue, Fayetteville, Arkansas, beginning at the North boundary line of Abshier
Drive in the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, and continuing North for a distance
of 1,030 feet; and:
WHEREAS, the OWNERS filed a petition with the Planning Commission of Fayette-
villei Arkansas, seeking to re -zone from R-lA Residential District to C-2
Commercial District the following described premises, situated in Fayetteville,
Washington County, Arkansas, to -wit:
A Strip of land 150 feet deep located on and abutting the West boundary of
Hillcrest Avenue, beginning at Abshier Drive, and running, thence North 370
feet; a strip of land 150 feet deep located on and abutting the West boundary
of Hillcrest Avenue, beginning 370 feet North of Abshier Drive, and running
thence North 660 feet, and
as a result of which the Planning Commission has recommended that the West 130
feet thereof be rezoned to C-2 Commercial District, and that the East 20feet
thereof remain zoned R-lA Residential District as a buffer zone betwearb
GREER ABSTRACT COMPANY
SHEET No. r f 1
RELIABLE ABSTRACTS
FAYETTEVILLE •SPRINGDALE. ARKANSAS
the C-2 area and the Residential District East of the 150 foot strip of land;
and,
WHEREAS THE EVELYN HILLS SHOPPING CENTER, INC,, is now developing theEvelyn
Hills Shopping Center on a part of the real estate first hereinabove described
and desires to include said 150 foot East-West strip of real estate in the
Shopping Center area; and,
• WHEREAS, the OWNERS have agreed with the planning Commission, the FayettevilT`
City Council and the owners of the real estate abutting the East boundary of
.Hillcrest Avenue, Fayetteville, Arkansas, that they will place of record the
restrictive covenants set out below if the West 130 feet of said 150 foot strip
of real estate is re -zoned from R-lA Residential District to C-2 Commercial
District with the Fast 20 feet of said 150 foot strip to remain zoned R -1A
Residential District as a buffer zone; and,
WHEREAS, the restrictive covenants set out below shall benefit the owners
of the real estate situated in Fayetteville, Arkansas, which abuts on the
East boundary of Hillcrest Avenue in said City and which is located due East of
the 1,030 feet of real estate first described hereinabove; now,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises set out herein and for the Ij
purposes hereinhbove mentioned, the said Evelyn Hills Shopping Center, Inc.,
and T.I. Absbier and Grace E. Abshier, husband and wife, hereby covenant:
1. That no commercial building which extends above thestreet level of
Hillcrest Avenue as it now exists shall be constructed of placed upon a strip
of land 80 feet by 1,030 feet which strip of land lies.20 feet West of
Hillcrest Avenue and abuts the North boundary of Abshier Drive, Fayetteville,
Arkansas, which strip of land is described as follows:
A parcel of land lying in the NWI of Section 10, Township 16 North Range
30 West, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point which
is South 89 degrees 55' 30" West 204 feet from the Northeast corner of the S
NW{ Nid of Section 10, thence South 660 feet, thence South Odegrees 08' West
370 feet, thence South 89 degrees 55' 30" West 80 feet thence North 1,030
feet, more or less, to a point 80 feet due West of the beginning point,
thence East 80 feet to the place of beginning.
2. That no means of ingress of egress to and from the aforesaid real estate II
described in paragraph 1 hereinabove from Hillcrest Avenue, Fayetteville,
Arkansas shall be permitted to exist, except that the present means of ingress
and egress to and from -said real estate from the said Hillcrest Avenue Fayette -
1
GREER ABSTRACT COMPANY
RCUAOLE ABSTRACis SHEET NO. ., ,
FAYETTEVILLE-SFRINGDALE ARKANSAS
4 [
vile, Arkansas, located about 350 feet North of Abshier Drive, Fayetteville,
Arkansas, and the North 50 feet of the real estate described in paragraph 1
hereinabove shall constitute and continue to be the means of ingress and egress
to and from said real estate described in paragraph 1 hereinabove from Hill -
crest Avenue Fayetteville, Arkansas
3. That no building, parking lot or any structure of any kind except retain- k
ing walls and railings shall be placed upon said real estate described in para-
graph 1 hereinabove nearer than 20 feet to the present West boundary line of
Hillcrest Avenue, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
4. That the base of any motor vehicle parking lot placed and/or maintained
upon the real estate described in paragraph 1 hereinabove shall be least 8
feet below the present street level of Hillcrest Avenue, Fayetteville, Arkansas,
except that this covenant shall not apply to the North 100 feet of said strip
of land.
5. Within 12 months from the date of the passage of an ordinance re -zoning
the aforesaid 130 feet strip of land to C-2 Commercial District, and subject to
the provisions of paragraph 2 hereinabove, Evelyn Hills, Shopping Center, Inc.
shall construct a fence along the West bounday of the aforesaid 20 foot strip of I'
•land which remains R�lA Residential District, which fence shall be at least six
feet in height. �I
6, That within 12 months from the date of the passage of an ordinance re-
zoning �+
said 130 foot strip of land to C-2 Commercial District , the Evelyn Hills
Shopping Center, Inc., shall landscape and beautify the 20 foot. strip lying
immediately east of said 130 foot strip (which 20 foot strip also lies immedia-
tely west of Hill crest Avenue), which is the strip retained in R-lA Re sidentia
District as a buffer zone. That this beautification shall include the planting
.and permanent maintenance at grass and shrubs. That if this beautification is
not done and maintained by the Evelyn Hills Shopping Center, Inc., the City
of Fayetteville may do the beautification and maintenance at the expense of the
Evelyn Hills Shopping Center.
7. These covenants shall run with the land and shall be binding on all
parties and all persons claiming under Evelyn Hills Shopping Center, Inc. and
T.I. Abshier and Grace E. Abshier, husband and wife, for a period of twenty (20)
years from the date that these covenants are recorded, after which time said
covenants shall be automatically extended for successive periods of five (5)
GREER ABSTRACT COMPANY
RELIABLE ABSTRACTS SHEET NO. . l r
a
FAYETTEVILLE-SPRINGDALE, ARKANSAS
- �P
years unless an instrument signed by owners of a majority of the separate tracts
of property fronting on both the East and West side of Hillcrest Avenue, Fay-
etteville, Arkansas, for the 1,030 feet as set out in the legal description
hereinabove, releasing said covenants, or any part thereof, is placed of record.
8. These covenants shall inure to the benefit of any persona owning any of
the real estate which abuts the East and West boundary lines of Hillcrest
Avenue for the distance of 1,030 feet as s et out in the legal descriptionhere
inabove, and any such property owner is hereby granted the authority to enforce
such covenants.
In Witness Whereof, the parties hereto have hereunto caused this instrument
to be executed on this 31 day of August, 1962.
EVELYN HILLS SHOPPING CENTER,' 114G.
BY John D. Askew, President
ATTEST: John Maguire, Secretary
T.I. Abshier
Grace E. Abshier
STATE OF ARKANSAS
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON -
On this 31 day of August, 1962, before the undersigned, a Notary Public, duly
commissioned, qualified and acting, within and for the said county and state, I4
appeared in person the within named John D. Askew and John Maguire to me person-
ally known, who stated that they were the President and Secretary of Evelyn
Hills Shopping Center, Inc., a corporation, and were duly authorized in their
respective capacities to execute the foregoing instrument for and in the name
and behalf of said corporation, and further stated and acknowledged that they h
so signed, executed and delivered said instrument for this consideration, uses
and purposes therein mentioned and set,fuith.
In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set zq hand and official seal
this 31 day of August, 1962. -
Jane R. Horne, Notary Public,
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF ARKANSAS
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
Be it remembered that on this day came before me the undersigned, a Notary
GREER ABSTRACT COMPANY 9
SHEET No. , 5
RELIABLE ABSTRACTS
•
Public, within and for the county aforesaid, duly commissioned, and acting,
T.I0 Abshier and Grace E. Abshier, husband and wife, to me well known as parties
in the foregoing covenants, and stated that they had executed the same for the
consideration and purposes therein mentioned and set forth.
Witness my hand and seal as such Notary Public this 31 day of August, 1962.
Jane R. Horne, Notary Public.
Filed for Record Sept. 18, 1962 10:06 R*M. Recorded in Volume 580 page 214
GREER ABSTRACT COMPANY SHEET No. GU
RELIABLE ABSTRACTS
Sn
N
0
D
0
U
u
iI
1W. a ASSURAM
'This. declaration of a Bill of Assurance made this f 1d day of
m. FAAP 19_, by the andorsigned. owners of the following
seal errata described in Rrbibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof
located La the City of Fsyettevillo, Washington County. Ackaneas.
W&3, the oforessaid owners of the real property described in said
Exhibit ?'A" have secured from the Fayetteville Board of Directors a temporary
wine of the requirement prescribed by f 18-31 of the Fayetteville Code of
Ordinances to install a sidewalk across said real property; and
WB88RA8, the owners are desirous of asking a declaration of the saws in the
ion of this Bill of As....., with the intention of guaranteeing the
preservation of certain values and ananities in the community and to bind the
omen and the avows' successors and assigns and the real estate described in
Exhibit "A" and its subsequent owners with the obligations and rsateicticns
hereinafter set forth for all present and future dovoloponant and use of, said
so
prepeseq. v ""
NOW. 1II EFCRg. the wners declare that the above described !4 i,z 1
' shall be held, dsvolopedtransferred, sold, conveyed and occupied m�t to thi
commute and restriction. herein set forth, z o ro ev
V. 1, z p o
o y
Upon receipt of written notice from the City of Fayetteville, owners shall
construct to City Specifications and at owners' eapenae, a sidewalk across the
entire SASt side of the above described property. The want location of
said sidewalk shall be spociftsdjbjhm City. Should aomrs fail to properly
construct said sidewalk within days from receipt of said written notice, the
City shall have the right to construct the sidewalk and charge the cost thereof
to owners. Said coat shall constitute a lion on the property described in
Exhibit "A", and the City shall have the right of foreclosure by public sale
without the necessity of court
ceedings.
WITNESS our hands this // day of leg_ lye __ . 19'tI,.
*6aeaeaar
/aI
*4 4rmA7,by../Nb. t18"' fl' /40dl-?e
I
6
STATZ of ARKANUS )
as
COUNTY OP NASUZIZTON) 1
BE IT SIDWInSBD, that on this day came before the undersigned, & Notary
Publto, duly qualified, comeiatoned and acting wL34n and to 1c Wo Id
County and Stato, appeared in person the wtthla named //1 el,7 ee
and ,,to ma mall knave, asieraoaia: ' a+9.wsus�leR
sS arse duly outhorited to execute the f � �• foregoing an ackm;
and further stated and accrosledged that bed
so signed, executed and delivered said intrueeat for the conaidatatiea, uses and
purposes heroin xantioned and at forth.
S fl hand and seal as each Notary Public on this 1 day of
$ ______________• 19q1 Cif • Notary Pul≥c
•
fI ,' (-apion ispi ws
Iii
L
w
0
O
0
U
tfti
B*1
Tfl tpflOD 1tlO!< tint art 9690 of tl>t b[Cb
tha 9i[tp 9r ar a 90 on 7Ar Tb
1601061 Oar10 a6r
aa9tl'utarlf 66.0 H [Unarm, t0-rlfr
86'16•{9' Or 106.05 6 tat and N 46'Wt, 30 featfra
aid $orthw..t on ua9 N69te9 IMW41 at the Northwest art. am
a
[Tres 6111Ota6t 7N66YBI toanq a
00!6'16" Or 610 Lost, thana6os jsniag said 91gat..og wqr I
theme 6 0ct6'16• it 610 [Oat1tl !boats N 69'W'66'• 6r U
Wglaslnir Ountalnle6 1.06 assosr m or 1x66.
4
y
I
Planning Commission
June 24, 1991
Page 3
Mr Merrell explained that the R -O zoning allowed five different use units
right including single and two family dwellings, use Unit 12 and Use Unit
whic defined offices, studios and professional offices. Mr. Merrell then
those 'tems under both use unit 12 and 25.
Mr. Merr 11 suggested one possible way this matter could be resolved wpuild to
have Mr. taylor of
a Bill of Assurance that would guarantee that he w ld only
use the pr erty for an office. He stated this was a very close 5ca for the
Planning Co fission with K -Mart and the fire station in the immedivicinity.
Mr. Springborn xpressed concern regarding the entire commercial strip to the
south. He explalped that, while there was nothing of a commercia nature to the
north, granting o the rezoning request would open the door to a growth of the
commercial strip.
In response to a cjbestion from Mr. Allred regarding a effect widening
Stubblefield would havk on the area, Mr. Merrell stated hfi did not know if the
Traffic Division had do a any projections regarding in ease in traffic. He
further stated he believW it would have a relatively neignificant impact in
this area.
Mr. Hanna explained there wer covenants in the subdi ision prohibiting rezoning.
He stated he believed they owe it to the resi/eire
of the subdivision to uphold
the covenants. He further sta d granting toning would encroach on the
integrity of the neighborhood; thht unless the block, rather than one lot,
was to be rezoned, it was truly s t zoning.
Mr. Tarvin stated that, while he did n par agree with Mr. Hanna, the property
in the area was rental property, and a elieved the rezoning would help the
area. He pointed out the property across the street from commercial
property, it was adjacent to other co rcially zoned property, there was no
buffer between the A-1 and commercial op ty. He stated that an office, built
to look like a house with protectiv cove nte, could make the property look
better in the future. He further xplaine that a business such as the one
proposed would probably be quieter han a resi ence. He further stated he would
not consider rezoning beyond thi property but, in this instance, the property
could be considered a buffer b ween the R-1 an C-2.
Ms. Jackman
asked, if
in the future
someone else
should purchase
the property,
whether more
parking
spaces/might be
required.
Mr. Merrell explained th once the property was rezones
R-0 and there was the ssibility that additional part
depending upon the type of business that owned the prop
the parking would be/'of f -street parking.
Mr. Tarvin state they had granted conditional zoning
rezoning the pr erty with the condition that, should
property, it w ld revert to R-1.
• to R -O it would remain
ng would be required,
Ity. He stated all of
befo e. He suggested
the ap licant sell the
Ms.
Britton
xpressed concern
regarding the drainage
in the area.
she pointed
out
there Aere
ditches down
both perimeters of the
property that
handle the
/rentl
drainage at this time. She questioned disposition of t4iat water
yIeproperty be graded and a parking lot constructed.
asked if there was data available concerning when to start re acing
erty in order to keep the area from "bottoming out". stated he did not believe there was a rule of thumb.He furt relieved this area was still highly residential.
d
Planning Commission
June 24, 1991
Page 4
arvin stated he really would not think a double driveway would cau ha
much tajpage problem.
Ms. Britton etaee&he did not believe there was enough r9pr≤ the site for
double driveway, tha a entire parking lot would hjyeto access the street.
Mr. Perry stated the parking to uld not be sg one, he would only need space
for five cars.
MOTION
Mr. Springborn state e believed the downside r and effect on the
neighborhood was great. He moved the rezoning be denie .
Me. Britj.eiC seconded the motion.
motion passed 8-0-0.
CONDITIONAL USE CU91-14 - DUPLEXES
CHARLES SLOAN - W OF HILLCREST, N OF ABSHIER DR.
The fifth item on the agenda was a conditional use request for duplexes in an R-1
area submitted by Charles Sloan for property located on the west aide of
Hillcrest Avenue, north of Abshier Drive. _
Mr. Merrell explained the subject property was a narrow strip (146' x 660')
behind Evelyn Hills. He pointed out the property had a long and controversial
history. He stated previous owners had attempted to rezone the tract to
commercial several times. In 1962 the property was successfully rezoned; 3
however, a year later the issue was presented for public vote, and voters decided
the property should be left as a residential zone. He explained some of the
neighbors contended that the property was designated greenspace, but staff had
been unable to locate any such agreements or other legal documents to that
effect. Mr. Merrell explained that Askew Enterprises recently sold Evelyn Hills
Shopping Center and now had a contract to sell the subject tract to Charles Sloan
contingent upon the conditional use.
Mr. Merrell stated Mr. Sloan had originally requested a rezoning to construct
seven duplexes however staff had pointed out to him he could construct the
duplexes in R-i with a conditional use. He further explained Mr. Sloan proposed
to retain all the trees along Hillcrest and construct a private drive along the
west property line for access. He stated Mr. Sloan proposed to develop with the
lay of the land, excavating only where necessary to drop the building height so
as not to infringe upon his neighbors' views.
Mr. Merrell pointed out there were five possible uses of the subject property:
(1) apartments, (2) offices, (3) single family residential, (4) greenspace, and
(5) duplexes. He stated that, considering the established, high -quality
surrounding residential properties, offices and apartments did not appear to be
a desirable development course. He pointed out that considering the domineering
presence of Evelyn Hills to the east, single family residential did not appear
to be feasible. He further explained that the subject property did not offer
much that would merit its purchase for a public park and, further, Mr. Askew
could not be required to retain the property as private greenspace. He pointed
out the only other development route was duplexes.
Mr. Merrell explained staff was only recommending this item be considered for
approval provided that Mr. Sloan assure that every tree along Hillcrest Avenue
be preserved, that there be no access through the trees, and that whatever access
drive was constructed be constructed on the west side of the property. He stated
i
Planning Commission
June 24, 1991
Page 5
staff believed the duplexes would be a buffer between the single family dwellings
and the shopping center.
Mr. Hanna stated that, since the property was zoned R-i, one of the alternatives
would be dividing the tract into 8 or 9 lots, with 8 or 9 driveways exiting onto
Hillcrest and removing of several of the trees.
Mr. Merrell agreed that, should the property be divided into separate lots they
would probably lose a number of trees along Hillcreat.
Mr. Tarvin stated the garages could come in from the back of the house.
Mr. Allred asked if the subject property had been previously dedicated as a
greenspace, why it would not have been zoned P-1 at that time,
Mr. Merrell explained staff could find no records relating to the area being
designated a greenspace.
Mr. Harry Gray, representing Charles Sloan, explained this was a unique piece of
property and the terrain did limit development. He further explained the
property had been rezoned in 1962 with covenants attached to the rezoning.
Mr. Merrell explained staff had found information regarding the property being
zoned C-2 but the rezoning was rescinded by referendum.
Ms. Britton .asked if
the developer was
proposing a single, common
drive for the
consideration of the
property owners.
She explained she saw that
as a problem.
Mr. Gray explained that at this point they were just asking for the conditional
use and would have to come back on the actual construction of the duplexes. He
further stated they did propose to have a private drive at the rear of the
property and would not have access to Hillcrest. He explained they did not want
to remove any of the trees along Hillcrest. He stated they were willing to sign
a Bill of Assurance that there would be no existing trees removed.
Mr. Springborn asked if there was room for more than a 12 foot one-way street.
Mr. Allred stated subdivision committee could require no on -street parking if
this item were approved.
Me. Donna Copeland, 1502 N. Hillcrest, appeared before the Commission and gave
some history of the property. She explained that, at the time Evelyn Hills
Shopping Center was built, a promise was made to plant a barrier of trees between
the houses and shopping center and never to build on the land between Evelyn
Hills and Hillcrest. She asked the Commission to consider the impact the
conditional use would make on the neighborhood. Ms. Copeland stated that when
Mr. Abshier dedicated the street to the city, he included the possibility of a
reverter. If it ceased to be used for a street, the land would revert to the
abutting landowners. She explained that not all of the strip of land was used
for a street, and the adjoining property owners had taken care of the street
right-of-way on both sides. She further stated many of the property owners had
purchased their homes along Hillcrest, because it was a dead-end street without
a lot of traffic or noise.
Me. Copeland explained that citizens relied on the city to control growth not
developers. She stated, if the city planned properly, zoning would stabilize
property values and there would be some predictability about what location could
be used for what purpose. She further pointed out, if the conditional use was
granted, there would be 14 residences across the street from six single family
homes. The new residences would be approximately 1,300 square feet as opposed
Planning Commission
June 24, 1991
Page 6
to 2,600 square foot homes currently existing. She pointed out there would be
an increase in traffic, noise and reduced safety. She also suggested. there may
be a problem with the drainage in the area if the subject tract was built over.
She requested the conditional use be denied. She presented a petition protesting
the conditional use with approximately 40 signatures.
Mr. Paul Bailey, 1532 Hillcrest, appeared before the Commission and stated he
believed the subject property was too small to construct 7 duplexes. He further
stated he thought it would be a very poor place to live. He pointed out that in
the winter when the weather was bad the road would be impassible. He suggested
the residents could join together to keep the property mowed.
E. Fay Jones, 1330 Hillcrest, stated construction of the duplexes would change
the environment of the neighborhood which had always been single-family homes.
He also mentioned an increase in traffic. He requested the conditional use be
denied.
Mr. Dick Oliver, 1440 Hillcrest, appeared before the Commission and stated that,
when he purchased his property in 1972, the realtor had told him the subject
property was to be used as greenspace, providing a buffer between the residential
area and the shopping center. He explained the company that purchased the
shopping center had not purchased the subject tract of land because it was
greenspace. He also pointed out that any construction would have to destroy some
of the trees. He stated the noise from the shopping center was a problem, even
with the trees. He further stated there would be no view for any building
constructed on the subject property. He mentioned additional traffic,
impassibility when ice was on the roadway, and noise as some of his concerns
should duplexes be constructed. He suggested the Planning Commission should make
the area a permanent greenspace.
Ms. Trina Oliver, 1440 Hillcrest, appeared before the Commission, and strongly
urged the Commission to not approve the conditional use. She stated the property
had always be intended for and used as a greenspace.
Mr. Gray explained, when the property had been rezoned in 1962, there had been
restrictive covenants, but after the referendum revoked the zoning, all
restrictive covenants were voided.
Mr. Allred asked if there was room for 8 or 9 lots should the property develop
as single family homes.
Mr. Gray stated they would be able to get 8 lots under R-1 zoning.
Mr. Harold Copeland, 1502 Hillcrest, appeared before the Commissioh and stated
they had chosen the property because it was single-family residences. He further
stated the realtor had assured them that, should the subject property ever, be
developed, it too would be single-family residences.
Mr. Gerald Davis, 1516 Hillcrest, appeared before the Commission and expressed
his concern over the proposed conditional use.
Mr. Allred stated he would be in favor of tabling this item to allow everyone to
diligently search for any documentation regarding the greenspace. He explained
that unless documentation could be found, the property was zoned R-1 with no
restrictions.
,.a
Ms. Britton moved to table the item for further research.
Planning Commission
June 24, 1991
Page 7
Mr. Hanna seconded the motion.
The motion and second were amended to table the item until the second meeting in
July.
The motion passed 8-0-0.
Mr. Allred suggested the property owners get with the staff and work together to
search for any documentation. He explained that a verbal contract regarding real
estate was non -binding. He stated he wanted to see something in writing, if
anything existed.
ININARY PLAT - TIMBER CREST SUBDIVISION
MILHOLLAND, N OF MISSION BLVD., E OF CR
Thee th item on the agenda was a preliminary plat for Timber Crest Subdivisi n
submitt d by Mel Milholland on behalf of Mike Pennington. The propert is
located dthe north side of Mission Blvd., east of Crossover Road. The pr erty
is zoned R'4, Low Density Residential and contains 27.52 acres with 58 ots.
Mr. Bunn had 1�tt the meeting and, therefore, Mr. Merrell gave the ngineer's
report. He exptained the property was annexed into the city and rezpfied from A-1
to R-1 approximat y two weeks earlier by the Board of Directors. He stated the
development consists of 58 lots located on 27.5 acres. He stat3S that water and
sewer were available\o the site. He further stated there had een some question
as to whether the se r would have to be provided by a ump station or by
gravity. The prelimina'ty plat indicated the constructs of a pump station;
however, it has not been bown that a gravity sewer was practical.
Mr. Milholland reminded the Commission that at t e last meeting they had
questioned stormwater drainage unoff and deposits f alit during construction.
He explained he had talked with D n Bunn regardin the storm drainage. Mr. Bunn
felt the proposed drainage plan wa adequate. a stated they would be willing
to install catch ponds for the silt f that a the Commission's desire.
At Ms..Britton's request, Mr. Milholla xplained the highway department had
come up with a design for discharge of at water. He explained the design would
slow the water down but still drain by lac g concrete blocks in the apron. He
explained this would slow the wat down rid make a wider path with less
velocity.
Ms. Britton asked if Mr. Milho and would be givi a bill of assurance that he
would build the silt ponds to contain the silt dun g construction.
Mr. Milholland stated he uld.
Mr. Tarvin stated the could not contain silt during co truction. When it
rains, muddy water w uld wash silt out. He stated he bell ed the Commission
needed to be caret that they did not impose any conditions th t were out of the
ordinary with dev lopment in the city.
Mr. Cleghorn Iced if Mr. Bunn had felt the catch ponds were neces ary.
Mr. Milho and stated they had not discussed them.
Mr. M rell pointed out the excavation and grading ordinance would come
effe lye in the middle of July and this development would have to abide by he
or 'nance. He further stated he would like to see an effort made to reduce a d
c trol silt, but he agreed with Mr. Tarvin silt could not be totally contained.
Planning Commission
June 24, 1991
Page 8
. Milholland
explained he
would be making
an effort to
reduce
the silt, but he
ner intended
to give the
impression that
there would
not be
muddy water.
Mr.\tit
orn stated he would not personally, requite a bill of assurance, but
he whappy with the assurance they had received from Mr. Milholland. q�
explt the last meeting he had not felt the problem had been addressed t
now t it had been.
Mr. ked what was different about this subdivision that warrant d them
takis pe of stand that they had not done in the past.
Mr. l exp fined that he believed there was concern regarding t e property
becaborder d a stream and needed to be handled carefully. H pointed out
the s relat vely level. He stated the Planning Commissio always needed
to bful to not single out anyone.
Mr. Mike Pennington, t developer of the property, stated i was his intent to
develop the property so as to please the City of Fayettev lle. He stated he
believed the Commission, a questions were valid.
Mr. Springborn moved to appro\Tar
/making
plat review comments and
commission comments.
Mr: Hanna seconded the motion.
In response to a question from mined that the preliminary
plat was being approved with n effort to stabilize the
silt by constructing catch ponof the subdivision.
The motion passed 8-0-0.
PRELIMINARY PLAT - WEDINGTON HEIGHT% ADDITION PHASE I, II, III & IV
MARK MARQUESS FOR BMP DEVELOPMENT W OF SALEM ., N
OF WED INGTON DR.
The seventh
item on the agend was a preliminar plat for Wedington
Heights
Addition, Phases I, II, IIJi, and IV submitted y
Mark Marquess
for BMP
Development
and represented 9 Harry Gray. The prope�y
is located west
of Salem
Road, north
of Wedington D five. The property is zone
R-1.5, Moderate
Density
Residential
and contains 4 acres with 151 lots.
Mr. Merrell stated a ppftion of this property would be dev�4.oped for affordable
housing. He explain�d the development consisted of four ph ea with a total of
151 lots on approxi ately 34 acres. He pointed out that Per\hoever,
nklin of the
Traffic Departmen had expressed some concern about the additib�altraffic that
would be genera d at Highway 16 due to the development; any 'new development wo9ld generate additional traffic.
Mr. Merrell ated both water and sewer are readily available to the d4te and the
general dr inage plan appears to be control drainage. He stated Mr. Bunn
recommendfid approval subject to the plat review comments; submittal of proval
of deta' ed plans and specifications for water, sewer, streets, and drains e; the
tying f Anne Street through to an existing street in Giles Addition witt the
const,�uction of any phase after Phase I; the platting of a 50 foot right -o way
forytuture street construction north from the intersection of "E" Street and "
S set; construction of sidewalks per city ordinance; and payment of parks fe
per city ordinance.
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, July 22,
1991 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City
Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jack Cleghorn, Fred Hanna, J. E. Springborn, Jerry Allred, Joe
Tarvin, Mark Robertson, Charles Nickle, and Jett Cato
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jana Lynn Britton
OTHERS PRESENT: Becky Bryant, Don Bunn, Sharon Langley, members of the press
and others
MINUTES
The minutes of the July 9, 1991 meeting were approved as distributed.
CONDITIONAL USE
CU91-14
CHARLIE SLOAN -
W SIDE OF
HILLCREST,
N
OF
ARSHIER
The second item on the agenda was a request for a conditional use in order to
construct duplexes in R-1, Low Density Residential submitted by Charlie Sloan and
represented by Harry Gray. The property is located on the west side of Hillcrest
Avenue, north of Abshier Drive.
Becky Bryant reminded the Commission that, at the June 24, 1991 meeting, this
item had been tabled in order to allow staff to further investigation the
allegations that the subject 2.2 acres had been designated greenspace. She
stated that previously the Abshiers had offered to place restrictive covenants
on the property in exchange for C-2 zoning. The covenants were executed and
filed. She explained the rezoning had been brought to a public vote and citizens
had voted down the rezoning. She further explained that revoking the zoning had
the legal effect of also revoking the covenants. She stated she had discussed
this matter with the Assistant City Attorney who agreed the covenants were no
longer binding nor valid.
Ms. Bryant further pointed out the original covenants had only affected the east
20 feet of the property. She stated the City had a 30 foot easement along the
east property line so there would be no building in that area anyway. She
further stated Mr. Sloan was willing to give a Bill of Assurance for tree
protection along the street. She explained staff believed this was a high
quality development which would not significantly impact the neighborhood.
Ms. Bryant suggested the Commission could apply conditions on the development.
She pointed out that, should the conditional use be denied, Mr. Sloan or any
other party could remove the trees on Hillcrest and construct a single family
affordable housing project over which the city would have little control. She
stated the only solid legal ground on which the Planning Commission could deny
the conditional use was by finding that the request was incompatible with
adjacent properties. she explained, however, that one of the planning principles
used to encourage buffering of single family residential from commercial was the
use of an intermediate type of zoning.
Me. Bryant stated Commissioner Britton had raised a question about access to the
property. She stated both drives on the north and south ends were included in
the legal description of the property which Mr. Sloan hoped to purchase. She
stated, if the conditional use were granted, the development would then go
Planning Commission
July 22, 1991
Page 2
through the large scale development process. She suggested any further concerns
about access be addressed at that time.
In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Me. Bryant explained the property
could be used for an affordable housing development without rezoning. She stated
the Commission had some control over the property with a conditional use but,
without a conditional use, the Commission had very little control.
Mr. Tarvin asked if they could add a provision to the conditional use a provision
denying parking and access by pedestrians along Hillcrest.
Ms. Bryant stated the commission could impose any reasonable condition as long
as the condition was not arbitrary or capricious.
In response to a question from Mr. Hanna, Me. Bryant stated a 30 -foot easement
along Hillcrest had been executed by the developer. She explained nothing could
be built in the easement but an easement did not restrict the developer from
clearing the area.
In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Gray explained that, should the
property be developed as single family homes, he believed the property would be
split into eight lots all fronting on Hillcrest with drives onto Hillcrest. He
further explained it would be much more difficult to develop single family homes
with private drives. He stated the terrain dictated the type of construction.
Mr. Tarvin asked if the difference was because the duplexes would all be owned
by one person.
Mr. Gray stated the current plan was that Mr. Sloan would own all of them. He
stated eventually they could be sold. He explained there would be covenants set
up to cover the private drive.
Mr. Tarvin asked if the covenants could not be set. up for private homes.
Mr. Gray explained they could but, due to the terrain, he did not see the
development being a quality single family development. He stated covenants were
normally tied to property owners associations which cover the maintenance of the
drives, etc. He further stated he could see some problems with covenants on
single family development on this property.
In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Gray explained the duplexes would
face Hillcrest shielding the parked cars from view. He further explained the
apartment plan was for two-story duplexes with the lower floor being below the
level of Hillcrest and the upper floor extending slightly above it. He stated
the plan was to construct a wooden bridge to extend from Hillcrest to the upper
level of the duplexes in order to provide pedestrian access.
Dick Oliver, 1440 Hillcrest, appeared before the commission and spoke in
opposition to the conditional use. He explained the construction of duplexes
would triple the number of people and traffic; that the residents of the duplex
and visitors to the duplexes would park on Hillcrest; there was only 120 feet of
flat land on the subject property which made it undesirable to build on; the
trees and shrubbery provided a buffer between Hillcrest and the shopping center;
water pressure was already poor in the area, additional residences would cause
more water problems; and the duplexes would lower property values in the
neighborhood. He stated they had a nice quiet neighborhood and the residents
believed it should be left as R-1 with no conditional use.
Mr. Tarvin asked if Mr. Oliver had his choice to leave the zoning R-1 without the
conditional use and have it constructed into single family houses facing onto
Planning Commission
July 22, 1991
Page 3
Hillcrest and possibly removing some of the trees versus the duplexes which would
he prefer.
Mr. Oliver stated he had seen in the newspaper that the property was going to be
rezoned R-1.5 for low rent housing. He explained that, if the property were
developed as single family housing similar to those already in the neighborhood,
he would not be opposed.
In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Bryant stated there was not an
application to rezone this property to R-1.5.
Mr. Tarvin explained that the property could be developed into single family
housing without the lot size and house size being comparable to those existing
in the neighborhood. He asked Mr. Oliver his preference between R-1 with a
conditional use for duplexes with protective restrictions regarding the trees and
parking versus R-1 single family with 70 foot frontages.
Mr. Allred explained that should the conditional use be granted the Planning
Commission would have some control, but if the conditional use were denied, they
would have no control over any single family development..
Mr. Oliver stated he would prefer the property remaining as it was, but since
that was not possible, he would opt for the conditional use for duplexes with the
conditions that all of the trees remain as a buffer and that there was no access
to Hillcrest from the duplex.
Mr. Allred pointed out the duplexes were to be large and rather expensive,
designed toward executive -type families which would be compatible with the
neighborhood. He further pointed out, should the property be developed as
affordable housing, the residents might not blend into the neighborhood. He
explained that would have more of a negative social impact.
Mr. Paul Bailey, a resident of the area, appeared before the Commission and asked
where the development would get its water. He explained there was only a 4 -inch
line serving the neighborhood. He stated the city had recently put in an 8 -inch
line in the area and he wanted to be sure the new development would tap off the
8 -inch line.
Mr. Bunn stated he had not seen a proposal but would have to make sure the
elevations were such that the development could use the 8 -inch line. He
explained the 8 -inch line was on a main pressure plain and the 4 -inch line was
on a high pressure plain.
Mr. Gray pointed out that should the conditional use be granted, the developer
would still have to present a large scale development plat or subdivision plat
which would cover water, streets, sewers, etc. He explained the residents would
be notified of the hearing at that time.
Mr. Bailey stated he believed the property should be developed in congruence with
existing properties. He stated he wanted to be sure if the duplexes were built
that there would be no access on Hillcrest.
Mr. Cato asked Mr. Bailey, if the property were to be developed as proposed into
seven duplexes accessing a private road on the west side of the property and
preserving the trees versus developing the property into seven or eight lots with
probable access onto Hillcrest, which he would prefer.
Mr. Bailey stated he would prefer no ingress or egress onto Hillcrest nor any
trees or bushes destroyed on Hillcrest.
Planning Commission
July 22, 1991
Page 4
Mr. Allred asked the residents in the audience if they preferred the duplexes
with the requirement that the trees be preserved and no access to Hillcrest. It
appeared the majority of the residents preferred the duplexes with those
conditions.
Mr. Allred explained that the Commission was trying to determine what was beat
for the neighborhood. He agreed that the most ideal use for the neighborhood was
to leave it like it was. He explained they did not have that type of control so
they were trying to determine what the next beat alternative.
Ms. Dawn Copeland, 1502 Hillcrest, appeared before -the Commission and stated she
was not in favor of the duplexes, that she would -prefer single family housing.
She questioned the size of the tract, stating she did not believe it was a large
enough tract to construct seven or eight houses.
She stated she had reviewed the city ordinance covering conditional use
applications, Section 160.195. She explained the Planning Commission would not
grant a conditional use unless certain requirements were met, including making
written findings certifying compliance with eight areas of concern.
Ms. Copeland stated the first two concerns were ingress and egress to the
property and off-street parking. She showed the Commission a drawing of the area
pointing out the subject property in comparison to the surrounding property. She
explained there was a private driveway coming out of Evelyn Hills Shopping Center
leading into a narrow alley with a retaining wall. She further explained the
developer was proposing to put a driveway at the top of the retaining wall, which
would have to go north (she stated the street would not be wide enough to go both
ways), and then feed back into Hillcrest to go south. She stated this area would
not be conductive to good traffic flow. She further stated there was the
possibility of a fire hazard since the fire trucks would have difficulty in
negotiating the street. She also pointed out the trash collectors would also
have difficulty in negotiating the street for pickup.
Ms. Copeland stated another concern was location and availability of utilities.
She explained the water pressure diminished as it went downhill. She stated the
residents had been told the new 8 -inch line was strictly for the purposes of fire
hydrants and would not have any residential service. She pointed out the
existing gas line along the tree line.
She explained the builder had offered to buffer the area by leaving the trees on
the west side of Hillcrest but there would be no yard or open space since it
would be filled with buildings. She further stated that by filling the area with
buildings, it would create drainage problems with runoff going into the back of
the shops in Evelyn Hills.
Mr. Allred
explained the drainage would
be addressed
in the
large scale
development
and the city engineer would be
looking at the
plan.
Me. Copeland stated she was confused because they were telling her this was just
proposals that the developer was making and that it had to go before another
board to decide on the streets, gutters, etc. She stated the ordinance read
"...Before any conditional use shall be issued the Planning Commission shall make
written findings, certifying compliance with the specific rules governing
individual conditional uses and that satisfactory provision and engagement has
been made concerning the following..."
Mr. Allred explained the Planning Commission delegated their authority to the
planning office and city engineering staff. He further explained there were
other ordinances requiring that any development had to have the city engineer's
approval.
Planning Commission
July 22, 1991
Page 5
Me. Bryant concurred with Ms. Copeland that the Planning Commission should make
findings or reference staff findings.
Ms. Copeland stated other concerns were the signs they would have on the duplexes
and security lighting which would add to the glare. She stated the final
consideration was the compatibility and harmony with adjacent property. She
pointed out this was a density problem, that building duplexes would result in
too many people being crammed into too small an area in a quiet neighborhood
composed of single family dwellings.
Me. Copeland stated she did not think preserving the trees would make up for
building duplexes. She asked the Commission to deny the conditional use.
Mr. Springborn pointed out, should the subject property be subdivided into
minimum size city lots, the new property owners would have the same rights as the
existing property owners and their driveways could also enter from Hillcrest.
Me. Copeland stated she understood that.
Mr. Nickle pointed out neither the easements nor the setbacks entered into the
calculation of the lot size.
In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Gray explained the west edge of
driveway would be thirty feet east of the retaining wall. He stated the depth
of the lot, from the retaining wall to the right-of-way of Hillcrest was 146
feet.
Mr. Gray stated the proposal was that the duplex would be approximately 40 feet
in width.
Ms. Trena Oliver appeared before the Commission and stated it bothered her that
they were trying to put too many people in a small area. She stated she was in
favor of single family housing with only 7 or 8 families.
In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin regarding access to Hillcrest, Mr. Gray
explained he had not looked at access to Hillcrest from a single family
standpoint.
Mr. Cleghorn stated he did not see a need for a change when the neighborhood had
existed for many years and the change was for a business venture.
Mr. Nickle agreed with Mr. Cleghorn.
sufficient - that a one-way street 12
in the beet interest of the city.
conditional use.
He stated he did not feel access was
feet wide, going across 600 feet, was not
He further stated he was opposed to the
Mr. Springborn stated he normally voted in favor of the neighborhood, even though
as a Commissioner he felt like as far as the city was concerned, that the
application was a good one. He moved to deny the application.
Mr. Cleghorn seconded the motion.
The motion passed
7-0-1
with Commissioners Cleghorn, Hanna, Springborn,
Allred,
Tarvin, Cato and
Nickle
voting "yea" and Commissioner Robertson voting
"no".
r•
Planning Commission
July 22, 1991
Page 6
tRaB SCALE DEVELOPMENT - THE SPORTS PARK
iU�x COLLINS - S OF WEDINGTON DR., W OF BETTY JO DR.
The ird item on the agenda was a request for a large scale development for e�
Sport Park submitted by Rick Collins for property located on the south si of
Wedingt n Drive, west of Betty Jo Drive. The property is zoned A-1,
Agricu It a1.
Mr. Don Bun'ity Engineer, explained the large scale development co isted of
a recreation\1area on 76.35 acres. Activities include a golf dri inq range,
batting caputting green, and pro shop. He explained future bases would
include a rant, a retail garden shop, and a par three go course. He
stated therr no significant problems identified at the Pla Review meeting
or the Subdion Committee meeting. He stated there was some discussion about
the drainagns d it had been suggested at the subdivisio committee meeting
that the dge pl be available for.the planning commi ion. He explained
there was a ques ion about the location of an ease nt where there were
several larees. recommended the large scale velopment be approved
subject to review a subdivision committee comme a; approval of drainage
plans by tty Engines - resolution of the locati n of the 15 foot utility
easement; cruction of a idewalk along Wedington rive; and conformance with
the terms oe conditional se granted earlier bf the Planning Commission.
MOTION
Mr. Tarvin moved to accept the Larg Scale Dev lopment of The Sports Park subject
to staff comments, plat review and ubdivi on committee comments.
Mr. Hanna seconded the motion.
The motion carried 8-0-0.
WAVIER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS LOT SPL #1
RRRT RAKES - N OF DICKSON ST.. E F WEST AVE.
The fourth item on the
agenda as a request by Bt
Rakes, City of
Fayetteville
Land Agent, on behalf
of Ro rt Lewis and Nancy
W4tt Lewis for a
lot split on
property located north
of ckson Street and east
o West Avenue.
The property
is zoned C-3, Central
Bus ness Commercial.
Commissioner Robertson tated he would be abstaining fr\m discussion and voting
on this item since MVC and Mrs. Lewis were his clients. \
Mr. Rakes explains the subject property was a portion of ttq Walton Arts Center
parking and, to f fill their obligation, the city had to furn'sh parking spaces.
He further exp fined this property contained 1.41 acres, ex nding from West
Avenue to Cam ell. He stated the split was in order to allow as's Restaurant
to retain th it parking. He further stated the City would be buyl�g 0.79 acres.
Mr. Han'na moved to grant the lot split as requested.
Mr./Sprinqborn seconded the motion.
motion passed 7-1-0 with Mr..Roberteon abstaining.
To: Ma
Mr.
Ms
Mr.
Mr
Mr
Mr
Ms
Mr
yor Dan Coody
Robert Reynolds
Brenda Thiel
Kyle B. Cook
Don Marr
Robert K. Rhoads
Bobby Ferrell
Shirley Lucas
Lioneld Jordan
Copy Ms. Sondra Smith
From: Mr. Robert and Mrs. Jan Wicks, 1314 N. Hillcrest Avenue
Mrs. Gus Jones, 1330 N. Hillcrest Avenue
Ms. Linda Coon and Mr. Eric Coon, 1336 N. Hillcrest Avenue
Mr. Boyd and Ms. Trisha Logan, 1426 N. Hillcrest Avenue
Mr. Robert Alguire and Ms. Mary Alguire, 1235 N. Hillcrest Avenue
Mr. William and Ms. Nancy Miller, 309 E. Abshier Drive
Mr. David and Ms. Shay Hopper, 1224 N. Hillcrest Avenue
Mr. Jeffrey Jackson, 1414 N. Hillcrest Avenue
Ms. Rebecca Hass, 1440 N. Hillcrest Avenue
Mr. Jed and Ms. Irene Markum, 1236 N. Hillcrest Avenue
Mr. David Beauchamp and Mrs. Jimmie Barham Beauchamp, 1516 N. Hillcrest Avenue
Date: February 27, 2006
RE: R-PZD 06-1883: Planned Zoning District (ABSHIER HEIGHTS, 407)
General Statement
The neighborhood and abutting property owners express strong and unified opposition to
the proposed Planning Zoning District in Abshier Heights.
The proposed PZD will more than double the density of dwellings on two public
residential streets with limited access: Hillcrest Avenue and Abshier Road. It compresses 30
units into a very small crescent shaped area of land that overlooks the roof and dumpsters of
Evelyn Hills. It presents significant safety concerns because Abshier empties onto 71-B at a hilly
location with a limited line of sight. Hillcrest empties onto North Street at a blind stop sign that
motorists often ignore. North is often the first street to be closed during inclement weather.
Vehicles regularly are stuck or slide off the road in this neighborhood and around the shopping
center. These dangerous intersections are only exacerbated by the additional traffic during all
times of the day and night from the proposed PZD. It violates restrictive covenants, adds stress to
infrastructure including water pressure and other public facilities and services. The proposed
PZD will endanger and significantly degrade the environment and aesthetics of the historic E.
Fay Jones residence, the only one of its kind in the world. Thus we ask that the development be
denied and the parcels of land in question retain their current zoning status.
Planning Commission Member Candy Clark, who lived in this neighborhood for about
five years, voted against approving the PZD because of how dangerous Hillcrest and Abshier
streets are, the lack of honoring the covenant, the lack of compatibility with the neighborhood,
the excessive density of the PZD, lack of honoring the covenants, etc. Clark noted the lack of a
sufficient transition between the shopping center and existing residences, remarking "You can
stand on the front porches and spit on Evelyn Hills... as long as you can stand in a house and see
the commercial, I'm not sure that is real transitional." (A complete copy of her comments can be
found in the minutes of the February 2, 2006 Subdivision Subcommittee meeting. Excerpts are
included at the end of this appeal.)
(Copies of items referenced in this document including the Restrictive Covenants
regarding the property from 1962; the Planning Commission Meeting minutes of June 24, 1991;
the Planning Commission Meeting minutes of July 22, 1991; and the Bill of Assurance from
1991 are attached to this document.)
Rationales
Our objections include but are not limited to the following rationales listed herein. We have
based these objections on the Unified Development Code (UDC).
Rationale 1: Creating and Compounding Dangerous Traffic Conditions
Section 7-d (CDD 166:18-19): A development may be denied or refused because of a
dangerous traffic condition, "in which the risk of accidents involving motor vehicles is
significant due to factors such as, but not limited to, high traffic volume, topography, or the
nature of the traffic pattern."
Page CD 166:26: Traffic Circulation (including but not limited to):
(a) The adequacy of both the internal and external street systems shall be reviewed in light of
projected future traffic volumes.
(b) The traffic circulation system shall be comprised of a hierarchical scheme of local collector
and arterial streets, each designed to accommodate its proper function and in appropriate
relationship with one another.
Access to the neighborhood is limited and unsafe even without the addition of a
minimum of 60 vehicles. The proposed PZD will only add to an existing traffic pattern that is
already dangerous due to volume, topography and nature. The only neighborhood public ingress
and egress are Hillcrest Avenue and Abshier Road. Both are already dangerous intersections with
limited sight lines on or near steep slopes. Abshier empties onto 71-B, the most dangerous road
in Fayetteville, at a heavily -traveled hilly location between Rick's Bakery and the Evelyn Hills
Shopping_ Center light: Abshier Road is often impassible and always slick during periods of
heavy rain, snow and ice. The steep grade at the western end of Abshier Road can lead motorists
to slide onto 71B making this one of the most dangerous intersections in Fayetteville. Even
during clear weather, the intersection remains dangerous because traffic coming from the south
on 71B comes over a hill at high speeds that is very close to the intersection. The posted speed is
40 miles per hour, but many (if not most) motorists exceed this speed. The location between
heavy traffic in and out of Evelyn Hills, and more importantly to and from Rick's Bakery at that
Sondra Smith - Planning Commission A peal Final version 2 2-27-06.doc Page 3
corner, compounds the problem.
In addition motorists use Hillcrest Avenue and Abshier Road to circumvent the traffic
light at the corner of North Street and 71B. The addition of 30 units with a minimum of 60 more
vehicles in a small area accessed through limited and dangerous intersections will produce an
even more dangerous traffic situation. These problems will be further exacerbated by residents or
visitors to the proposed development who may park on Hillcrest or Abshier.
Leaving the neighborhood by way of Hillcrest Avenue onto North Street is equally
dangerous. Motorists driving east on North Street from Mission Boulevard climb a steep hill that
ends at Hillcrest Avenue before continuing downhill to 71 B. This is a "blind" stop sign where
motorists on Hillcrest cannot see down the hill toward Mission. Motorists coming up Mission
cannot see Hillcrest until they are virtually at the intersection. Motorists routinely ignore the stop
sign on North Street at Hillcrest Avenue. Motorists on Hillcrest turning either east or west onto
North Street are often forced to accelerate to avoid the westbound traffic on North Street.
Furthermore, motorists traveling east on North Street and turning north on Hillcrest Avenue must
yield to motorists from North Street and Hillcrest Avenue. This intersection presents a confusing
dilemma for motorists. The combination of a stop sign on North Street that is often ignored and
confusion among motorists as to who has the right of way poses a significant danger. Again, this
dangerous condition worsens during inclement weather. North Street is one of the locations in
the city closed first during inclement weather. One must expect that access is unavailable at this
ingress/egress at times.
The developers are counting Evelyn Hills as an ingress/egress for the development. One
must question whether there is sufficient ingress/egress in the area in the first place if the
developers must use a shopping center for this purpose. One must also question whether it is
appropriate to use private roads as primary ingress/egress.
The proposed primary ingress/egress through private property is a narrow and extremely
steep road into the back of the shopping center. There will be serious sight distance problems
here as well because motorists are looking down into the shopping center a short distance to a
curve that goes under the arch there. Motorists looking up to Hillcrest have a short sight distance
as well. Again, these problems are exacerbated during slick or impassable conditions due to rain,
snow and/or ice.
In addition, this primary entrance and exit to the proposed PZD is onto a private, narrow
road under an arch between the two halves of the shopping center. Between the two halves is a
pedestrian crosswalk with a stop sign that is largely ignored. The private access roads also have
significant truck traffic making deliveries to and from businesses in Evelyn Hills. Delivery trucks
often come barreling up and down Hillcrest and Abshier. Trucks get stuck on the access roads
during inclement weather, as happened during the snowstorm in February 2006. One must
therefore expect that access will be unavailable at times.
There.are serious questions of access for emergency and fire vehicles even without the
proposed development. The increased traffic in this small area used frequently by trucks of all
sizes and types will only exacerbate the dangerous traffic conditions including steep grades,
limited access at already dangerous intersections, and impassability during inclement weather,
heavy truck traffic, etc. The additional traffic from the proposed PZD only compounds the
existing serious traffic and safety concerns.
Sondra Smith - Planning Commission Appeal Final version 2 2-27-06.doc Page 4
Rationale 2: Historical Precedents Dictate Turning Down Duplexes and Similar
Developments Abutting Evelyn Hills and the Neighborhood
Historical precedents since the construction of Evelyn Hills turned down developments
for the same reasons raised now. The property has not changed, "improved" or overcome any of
the reasons for which development was denied in 1991. The difference now is that the reasons
have only worsened over time.
The Fayetteville Planning Commission voted 7-0-1 on July 22, 1991 to deny a
conditional use for constructing duplexes. Mr. Dick Oliver appeared before the Commission in
June 1991 and stated that the property was to be used as a green space to provide a buffer
between the residential neighborhood and Evelyn Hills. He explained the company that
purchased the shopping center had not purchased the subject tract of land because it was green
space. He stated the noise from the shopping center was a problem, there would be no view for
any building constructed there, and the impassability and danger due to the slopes was contrary to
development. Residents convinced planers in 1991 that development runs counter to the original
objectives of the property.
At the June 1991 meeting, E. Fay Jones, 1330 Hillcrest, stated construction of the
duplexes would change the environment of the neighborhood which had always been single-
family homes. He requested the conditional use e denied. As an internationally renowned and
honored architect, his perspective is valuable. Mr. and Mrs. Jones have noted repeatedly that the
original plans for rezoning the area for Evelyn Hills was granted on the condition that the area
abutting Abshier Drive and Hillcrest Avenue will remain buffer or green space in perpetuity. The
neighborhood submitted copies of covenants to the Planning Commission in support.
The abutting property owners and neighborhood object strongly to and are unified in
opposition to this development for the same reasons a similar development was turned down in
1991. It is incompatible with the neighborhood and hampers the health, safety, amenity and
welfare of the community.
Rationale 3: Issues of Public Services and Facilities and Site Unsuitability for the Large -
Scale Project Proposed
From Section 166.05 Large Scale Development (LSD) CD 166-18:
Section 7-b: "The developer may be required to install off -site improvements, where the need for
such improvements is created in whole or in part by the proposed large scale development or
preliminary plat. For purposes of this section, any off -site improvements shall mean all or any
part of, a street, surface drainage system, water system, or sanitary sewer system, which is to be
installed on property located outside the proposed large scale development or preliminary plat."
Section 7-c: "Any required off -site improvements shall be installed according to city standards.
The developer shall be required to bear that portion of the cost of off -site improvements which
bears a rational nexus to the needs created by the large scale development or preliminary plat."
166.06 Planned Zoning District (PZD) Section E - Approval or Rejection Criteria for Planned
Zoning Districts, including but not limited to: "(2) Whether the general impact of the rezoning
would adversely impact the provision of public facilities and services."
166.06 Planned Zoning District (PZD) E - Approval or Rejection Criteria (CD 166:21)
"Whether the subject land is suitable for the intended use and is compatible with the natural
environment."
166.14 Commercial Design and Development Standards (A) Purposes
(including but not limited to)
(2) To address environmental concerns which include, but are not limited to, soil erosion,
vegetation preservation, and drainage.
(6) To preserve property values of surrounding property.
166.14 Commercial Design and Development Standards (A) Purposes
(2) To address environmental concerns which include, but are not limited to, soil erosion,
vegetation preservation, and drainage.
The Planning Commission erred in approving this development because it has not even
been adequately considered whether the general impact of the rezoning would adversely impact
the provision of public facilities and services to the neighborhood. The neighborhood and
abutting property owners are very concerned about the effect on water and sewer pressure,
capacity and/or infrastructure from the proposed development. For example, the Fayetteville Fire
Department expressed concern that the fire hydrant at Hillcrest Avenue and Oakwood Drive
flows at less than 400 gallons per minute. The developers indicated they would tie into the
existing 6" sanitary sewer line in two places. The developers note a 6" waterline tees off of the
existing 8" water line and turns down the access road into Evelyn Hills. They state they will tie
their waterline into the 6" waterline and loop it to the north, tying into the 8" waterline along
Hillcrest Avenue.
City water department employees and experts have stated to various neighborhood
residents that nothing can be done to improve existing pressure without rebuilding the grid,
which is one of the oldest in the city. During the Planning Commission meeting one of its
members noted that there was no guarantee the residents would have sufficient water pressure
after the development was complete. There are no explicit requirements in the PZD about the
type and nature of water pressure, sewer pressure, etc., guaranteed to neighborhood residents if
the development were completed. The effect of such problems on the neighborhood was not fully
considered. This development will degrade the neighborhood as people will not buy property
where they cannot get adequate water pressure, public facilities and/or services. And it would
mean the city has willingly entered into an arrangement with a developer that deprived the
existing residences of an adequate water supply and other public facilities and services.
In addition there has been discussion of retaining walls or other aspects of the
development relating to the topography and steep slopes in the area. The area is surrounded by
extremely steep slopes due to the step excavation done to build Evelyn Hills. Slopes of this
nature are generally unstable and problematic for load bearing construction or utilization. This is
compounded by the presence of springs in the area. The area contained water during the whole
dry period over the last year suggesting a water table close to the surface in the area of heaviest
proposed density. The combination of the soil and saturated water conditions under the traffic
and overburden created by these units will lead to settling, causing cracks and misalignments in
doors and windows.
The presence of springs and soil moisture was documented by previous construction in
the area. The Jones Residence on 1330 Hillcrest Avenue was redesigned during construction due
to the discovery of a spring on its site. The Jones papers indicate springs were found when
Evelyn Hills was constructed. Apparently there have been problems with soil moisture recently
in the USA Drug construction at Evelyn Hills as well.
Abshier Road already has longitudinal cracking, especially near the side where the steep
slopes drop down onto the property, showing there is already some slope instability. Retaining
walls will be needed to stabilize the area. Widening Abshier as proposed, 14 feet from center in,
would require a retaining wall that could reach about 30 feet tall at certain parts of the streets.
This is similar to and in close proximity of the Kings Drive area that is collapsing. Given the
existing instability, it appears the city could have a reoccurrence of the crumbling and
infrastructure problems found on nearby Kings Drive.
Rationale 4: Covenants and Bills of Assurance Regarding the Property
150.07 Conflicts (CD 150:3): "UDC/private agreements: The UDC is not intended to abrogate
any private agreements, deed restrictions, covenants, easements, or other private agreements on
the use of land."
166 Section 7-d (CDD 166:18-19): "The Subdivision Committee or Planning Commission may
refuse to approve a large scale development or preliminary plat for any of the following reasons"
(with reasons i through vi).
i. The preliminary plat or development plan is not submitted in accordance with the requirements
of this chapter.
ii. The proposed development would violate a city ordinance, a state statute, or a federal statute.
166.06 Planned Zoning District (PZD) Section E - Approval or Rejection Criteria for Planned
Zoning Districts, including but not limited to: "(2) Whether the application is in compliance with
all applicable statutory provisions"
166.06 Planned Zoning District (PZD) E - Approval or Rejection Criteria (CD 166:21)
"Whether any other recognized zoning consideration would be violated in this PZD."
Copies of covenants and Bills of Assurances were provided to the Planning Commission
at the February 13 meeting. They also were discussed at the preceding Subcommittee Meeting of
the Planning Commission. The developer's preliminary plat or development plan given to
neighborhood residents claimed, "There are no covenants, trust or Homeowner Associations
associated with this project." (Found on page 7 of the Abshier Heights Master Development Plan
provided to abutting property owners.)
Rationale 5: The rezoning to allow the proposed development is inconsistent with and does
not follow the General Plan 2020 Future Land Use Plan.
The Planning Commission Staff Report to the City Council states "The General Plan
2020 Future Land Use Plan designates this site as a Residential Area. Rezoning this property to R-
PZD 05-1636, with the associated Master Development Plan, varies this future land use to a
mixed use, though the principal use on the property will remain residential."
At the initial Subcommittee Meeting members of the neighborhood noted that
approximately seven single-family houses would be the appropriate infill for this site if
developed. The General Plan itself notes that this site is designated as a Residential Area. The
Planning Commission varies this future land use. We submit that the Planning Commission did
not follow the General Plan 2020 Future Land Use Plan and this development should be rejected.
In essence, the neighborhood is asking the City to adhere to its own plan.
At present Fayetteville is in the process of developing a new City 2025 Plan. At the City
2025 Plan meetings residents were told to "ignore topography, infrastructure and compatibility"
when they placed dots on a city map to suggest where appropriate infill might be developed.
Residents (including members of our neighborhood) who took part in these planning sessions
were specifically directed to ignore all important considerations that are considered when making
development decisions. Therefore the City 2025 Plan is not applicable to this development and
neighborhood because the serious concerns regarding topography, safety, incompatibility of the
proposed development, etc., were not considered. The City 2025 Plan has not been finalized or
officially adopted. In addition, the proposed development is not consistent with the principles of
the City 2025 Plan to foster compatible and appropriate infill.
Rationale 6: The rezoning to allow the proposed development is incompatible with the
neighborhood and runs counter to historical covenants and precedents.
166.06 Planned Zoning District (PZD) E - Approval or Rejection Criteria (CD 166:21)
"Whether the subject land is suitable for the intended use and is compatible with the natural
environment."
166.14 Commercial Design and Development Standards (A) Purposes
(2) To address environmental concerns which include, but are not limited to, soil erosion,
vegetation preservation, and drainage.
(6) To preserve property values of surrounding property.
166.06 Planned Zoning District (PZD) E - Approval or Rejection Criteria (CD 166:21)
"Whether the subject land is suitable for the intended use and is compatible with the natural
environment."
166.06 Planned Zoning District (PZD) E - Approval or Rejection Criteria (CD 166:21)
"Whether any other recognized zoning consideration would be violated in this PZD."
The Planning Commission Staff Report to the City Council states "The General Plan 2020 Future
Land Use Plan designates this site as a Residential Area. Rezoning this property to R-PZD 05-
1636, with the associated Master Development Plan, varies this future land use to a mixed use,
though the principal use on the property will remain residential."
Strong and unified opposition to the development from the neighborhood and abutting
property owners was voiced at all previous public meetings. The opposition includes objections
regarding compatibility, an inadequate transition, and a lack of green space or buffer as intended
and required by the original covenants. Again, these are some of the reasons a similar
development was denied in 1991.
On page CDD 166:25 it is noted that "Primary emphasis shall be placed upon achieving
compatibility between the proposed development and surrounding areas so as to preserve and
enhance the neighborhood" and "The Planning Commission shall determine that the specific
development features... shall be combined in such a way as to further the health, safety, amenity
and welfare of the community." As the abutting property owners and neighborhood object
strongly to this development, it is argued that the Planning Commission did not take the welfare
of the community into account when making this decision.
The proposed PZD is incompatible because it is an inappropriate transition between
Evelyn Hills and the existing neighborhood. First, the green space behind Evelyn Hills was
originally conceived to screen the neighborhood from the shopping center, two incompatible land
uses. This screen was to protect and enhance these residences and the neighborhood, a purpose
still accepted as important by the City of Fayetteville in its Unified Development Code and tree
ordinance. Thus an important criterion for denying a similar development in 1991 on the property
is still recognized and followed in current City ordinances.
Second, the density of this development is an inappropriate transition between the
shopping center and neighborhood. The strips of land are too narrow for an adequate transition.
Thirty town homes and duplexes packed in such a tight area without the typical amenities of
"luxury condos" (such as a swimming pool, recreation facilities, covenants or agreements for
maintaining the buildings and grounds, adequate green space, etc.) are not an adequate transition.
Third, the quality of the proposed town homes and duplexes are incompatible and are not
an appropriate transition. Initially the neighbors were told the units will be sold for
approximately $200 per square foot at a meeting hosted by Cooper Architects on January 26,
2006. In the Planning Commission meeting the developers indicated an estimate of $125 per
square feet. A 1,750 unit would sell for $350,000 based on the $200 estimate or $218,750 based
on the $125 estimate. Will families seeking quality residences realistically pay these amounts for
dwellings overlooking the roof of Evelyn Hills?
These units also overlook the dumpsters on the access road behind Evelyn Hills, which
have an unpleasant odor at various times of the year and attract pests. The development abuts
dumpsters from Evelyn Hills on one side and may face dumpsters or trash areas provided for this
development on the other. The owners and/or their representatives asked for a variance regarding
trash storage and collection which appears to acknowledge yet exacerbate this problem. In
addition the proposed private road overlooks the back of a mattress store and Rick's Bakery
Sondra Smith - Planning Commission Appeal Final version 2 2-27-06.doc Page 9
where it empties onto Abshier Road. Details including the size and nature of the sign and the
location of mailboxes or where mail would be delivered are omitted from the master
development plan given to the neighbors. It is unclear whether these are 3 -bedroom units, which
would dictate planning for 90 additional vehicles in the area or one per bedroom.
Assume the units do not sell, or do not sell at the proposed prices. Presumably each unit
would require 3 to 4 renters to meet mortgage and upkeep costs. This compounds the
aforementioned traffic, safety and infrastructure issues. Units also may sit vacant and be targets
for vandalism, crime or become eyesores. If there are no condominium agreements or covenants
for maintaining the property and grounds these problems could quickly worsen.
It is reasonable to note that potential buyers who intend to live in the units will not desire
to have trash receptacles on both sides of their residence or overlook the unattractive roof or back
sides of aging shopping centers. Condos in the old St. Joseph buildings on Lafayette Street and
the Oak Park Condos on Sycamore Street behind the old Long John Silver's restaurant remain
empty. This suggests the market for this type of unit is already saturated. This development is not
the appropriate type or character of residential development for the area and is inconsistent with
the existing neighborhood. It is not an appropriate transition between Evelyn Hills, the
neighborhood, and the historic Jones residence across the street.
The Restrictive Covenants from 1962 and the 1991 Planning Commission decision to
deny a similar development provide intent and historical precedents that the area remain green
space. This screen was to protect and enhance the neighborhood and these residences, a purpose
still accepted as important by the City of Fayetteville in its Unified Development Code and tree
ordinance. The Master Plan designates this area to be a residential area. Therefore the Planning
Commission decision violates both the precedents and intent regarding the property and
neighborhood.
The neighbors have suggested appropriate development might include seven single-
family homes if the site allows. Most appropriate is leaving the property as a green space as it
was originally intended. Neighbors regularly see deer, foxes and other wildlife on the property,
which is especially a delight for the neighborhood children. The existing green space has added
to the natural and intimate character of the neighborhood and fits the architectural and landscape
vision of E. Fay Jones and his historic residence across the street.
Finally, residents would be interested in working with the City of Fayetteville to acquire
private, federal, state or other financial resources or grants to improve the site to be designated as
the E. Fay Jones Park or Natural Preserve. We have researched the E. Fay Jones archives and
papers in the Special Collections at Mullins Library. Renderings of possible uses of that space by
Jones himself are available in that collection.
Rationale 7: Consideration and Protection of Historically and Culturally Significant
Residence or Structure Abutting the Development. I
166.06 Planned Zoning District (PZD): "Master development plans may include more restrictive
regulations than that which is included in other sections of the UDC, but standards shall not be
established that fall below these minimum standards."
166.06 Planned Zoning District
(PZD) E - Approval
or Rejection Criteria (CD
166:21)
"Whether any other recognized
zoning consideration
would be violated in this
PZD."
166.14 Commercial Design and Development Standards (A) Purposes
(3) To protect and preserve the scenic resources distributed throughout the city which have
contributed greatly to its economic development, by attracting tourists, permanent part-time
residents, new industries and cultural facilities.
166.14 Commercial Design and Development Standards (A) Purposes
(6) To preserve property values of surrounding property.
In addition to the numerous reasons for denying this proposed PZD, the neighborhood
and abutting property owners strongly object to it because it violates the privileged space
surrounding the E. Fay Jones residence. According to Mrs. Gus Jones it was the first residence
Jones designed and built after he became a registered architect. The residence is a cultural and
architectural landmark designed by Jones himself in 1956 and listed on the National Register of
Historic Places in 2000. E. Fay Jones, a native of Arkansas and full-time resident of Fayetteville,
was among only.a handful of distinguished architects worldwide to be awarded the American
Institute of Architect's (AIA) Gold Medal.
A good part of the cultural heritage of Fayetteville --and tourism revenue --rests on the fact
that Fayetteville was Jones' chosen home. He graced the city and surrounding communities with
architectural treasures recognized worldwide. While Eureka Springs has Thomcrown Chapel,
Fayetteville has the distinct privilege of being home to the E. Fay Jones residence, one of his first
and formative designs and his own home. Thus, approving this project compromises the city's
future heritage tourism revenue.
Widening Hillcrest to accommodate the development would dramatically affect the
Jones home site landscape. The landscape's relationship to the approach and entry to the home
was always a primary concern to Jones — a signature concern, in fact. Any change to the street
would dramatically damage this critical relationship, thus doing severe damage to the overall
design, the landscape, and the sculpture. In terms of motorist safety, widening Hillcrest Avenue
in front of the Jones residence will certainly make it more likely that someone could crash into
the sculpture or stone landscaping, especially during slick or icy conditions.
More important, the proposed development disrespects Jones' legacy in the eyes of
neighborhood residents, city residents, and the architectural community worldwide. Few
distinguished architects would support a development such as this across the street from their
own residences, but the space around Jones' distinguished house merits very special, sensitive,
and thoughtful consideration. It does not require professional training in architecture to
understand that the delicate balance struck between nature and architecture is Jones' most
significant contribution to 20`h -century architecture. Anyone with access to the internet quickly
learns that Jones' unique appreciation of the site and environment demanded that nature, light,
and air be invited to penetrate the building, reinvigorating the inhabitants. The density of the
proposed development is most particularly an affront to this exquisite statement of Jones' Ozark
style. Because the density of the proposed project is so high, some'of the planned units would
stand very close to the Jones residence. Others will disturb the peaceful environs through untold
and uncalculated traffic volume, and noise and air pollution from 30 units wedged behind Evelyn
Hills Shopping Center and Hillcrest Avenue.
Mr. Jones himself was instrumental in establishing the original covenants for the property
10
behind Evelyn Hills and opposing the development that was declined in 1991. Keeping the
property in its natural state or as a green space maintains the intent and vision of this noted
international architect for the area for future generations and visitors. Thus the significance and
nature of his work, as well as his personal views of what is appropriate for the property, oppose
the proposed development.
It appeared some members of the Planning Commission did not seem to fully appreciate
that the architectural and personal legacy of E. Fay Jones and his historic residence at 1330
Hillcrest have global significance. According to the National Register of Historic Places: "The E.
Fay and Gus Jones House is exceptionally significant because with this house Jones expressed
the guiding principles of his personal organic design philosophy, including sensitivity to natural
setting, honest use of materials, and an appreciation for the interplay of light and space. The
construction of this house jump-started Jones' career." Some members seemed not to understand
how dependent Jones' designs are on their landscape and surroundings for their architectural
resonance. Hence, even if the building itself is not physically damaged by the oversized
development, it will, in effect and in fact, be ruined for future generations.
The global significance of his work was very recently reaffirmed when Mrs. Gus Jones
accepted the AIA Twenty-five Year Award for Thorncrown Chapel just two days before the
Planning Commission voted to approve the Abshier Heights project. The award is given to one
building annually for the architectural design that has stood the test of time for 25 years. Mrs.
Jones accepted the award in honor of her husband on February 11, 2006, in Washington, D. C.
Significantly, the AIA release stated: "Five million people have visited Thorncrown Chapel since
it opened in 1980... During certain times of the year, the chapel draws more than 2,000 people
per day, and Sunday services draw 300 people... This indicates the popularity and enduring
appeal of Jones's work.. .Jones passed away on August 31, 2004, at his home in Fayetteville,
Ark., at the age of 83...He will always be recognized as the man who built Thorncrown Chapel,
and remembered as one of the leading architects of the 20th century."
(See http://www.aia.org/release_122005_25yrThrncrown).
Clearly, E. Fay Jones continues to bring much national and international attention to
Fayetteville, a community he called home for many, many years. Thus, for the Planning
Commission to approve the proposed Abshier Heights development simply on the grounds that
there was no legal reason not to build in front of Jones' residence inadvertently disrespects Jones'
legacy and compromises the present and future cultural heritage of the city. The UDC itself states
it is important to preserve and protect Fayetteville's scenic resources. Consequently there are
grounds upon which the Planning Commission should have denied this development. We ask you
to deny this development and protect one of Fayetteville's most important scenic, cultural and
historic resources.
ADDENDUM: We concur with the comments of Planning Commissioner Member Candy Clark,
a former resident of this neighborhood, made at the February 2, 2006 Subdivision Committee
meeting.
Clark: I cannot support this project as it currently is — can't do it for several reasons.
• First of all, I'm very confused about the issue of the buffer. I've grown up
hearing about it. If 1,000 people changed their mind, the neighborhood
has been left out and I'm not sure why we honor other promises to
Sondra Smith - Planning Commission Appeal Final version 2 2-27-06.doc Page 12
neighbors that I can't find in stone anywhere, just a verbal promise, but not
these neighbors.
• Secondly, 1 think the density is by far too much — 7.3 units in this area are
totally out of character with the neighborhood. It is a very nice
neighborhood, spread out, larger homes. It dovetails into my third concern
which is traffic.
• Abshier and Hillcrest are horribly maintained streets, local streets — no
curb, no gutter and they don't go anywhere. Abshier goes to College, that
is one of the most deadly intersections trying to pull out from the Rick's
Bakery. Hillcrest goes to North Street to a stop sign that I never could
figure out when I lived there. Who has the right-of-way? You pray and
go. It doesn't go anywhere to the north. I think if you add this much
density to those streets, it is going to compound a horrific problem. A lot
of people walk in that area because they go down to the pond in the other
development. It is a very, very communal area. It doesn't have sidewalks
now and the only place you can walk is in the street. And to add this much
density there is just a terrible mistake.
• Finally, I think the slope off of Abshier is very steep and I'm going to go
review that. 1 don't know that there is a lot of greenery on that slope
either. It's pretty darn severe and that concerns me. I do think this could
develop but I think it could develop into single-family homes on larger
lots. I would support that. But I cannot support it with the current 7.3
units that are proposed. I think you are going to be making it a horrific
traffic situation. I don't think Hillcrest is ever going to go to the north. If
you look at the pictures, it kind of stops. As long as you are funneling
traffic out into North Street or to College, it is just going to compound a
bad situation. And that access [to Hillcrest from behind Evelyn Hills] that
we are talking about, come on. That is ill maintained concrete that is
riddled with potholes most of the time. I don't know who is in charge of
it, but don't call it an access to me unless you are going to go in and gut it,
pave it and do what you need to do to it and at that point it is still a
significant slope. That was my favorite cut through to get home and I lost
a muffler there one time. You kind of compounded this, too, Tim, by
saying they can't sell that property behind Evelyn Hills. I wonder if that is
tied up in the covenants buffer thing. Right now there are too many
unknowns to me and the density is way too high and the bad traffic
situation will be compounded...
• I don't think it is compatible with the neighborhood at all with that
density. I think it could develop beautifully but not like that.
• Transitional is a little bit more than 50'. You can stand on the front
porches and spit on Evelyn Hills. That's not a big transition at all. To me,
if it was bigger, if you were talking about on the other side of the street
maybe, that could be transitional. To me that is a transitional zone. I
don't know if there is a definition for it — it has to be "X" number of
square feet, but as long as you can stand in a house and see the
12
commercial, I'm not sure that is real transitional.
13
Sondra SmRh _ - ... ,__ Pa e 1
R-PZD 06-1883 Abshier Heights
Page 1 of 34
• From: <unbeldi@cox.net> -
To: <ssmith@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 2/27/06 4:25PM
Please add the following as supporters of the neighborhood document on Abshier Heights:
Mr. David Gay and Mr. Gary Thornton, 240 E. Oakwood Si, Fayetteville
Yours truly,
David Gay
(442-5027)
P
C
Y
t
Dwc� Cole
C. 3
R-PZD 06-1883 Abshier Heights
Page 2 of 34
To: Mayor Dan Coody •
Mr. Robert Reynolds
Ms. Brenda Thiel
Mr. Kyle B. Cook
Mr. Don Marr
Mr. Robert K. Rhoads
Mr. Bobby Ferrell
Ms. Shirley Lucas
Mr. Lioneld Jordan
Copy Ms. Sondra Smith
From: Mr. Robert and Mrs. Jan Wicks, 1314 N. Hillcrest Avenue
Mrs. Gus Jones, 1330 N. Hillcrest Avenue
Ms. Linda Coon and Mr. Eric Coon, 1336 N. Hillcrest Avenue
Mr. Boyd and Ms. Trisha Logan, 1426 N. Hillcrest Avenue
Mr. Robert Alguire and Ms. Mary Alguire, 1235 N. Hillcrest Avenue
Mr. William and Ms. Nancy Miller, 309 E. Abshier Drive
Mr. David and Ms. Shay Hopper, 1224 N. Hillcrest Avenue
Mr. Jeffrey Jackson, 1414 N. Hillcrest Avenue
Ms. Rebecca Hass, 1440 N. Hillcrest Avenue
Mr. Jed and Ms. Irene Markum, 1236 N. Hillcrest Avenue
Mr. David Beauchamp and Mrs. Jimmie Barham Beauchamp, 1516 N. Hillcrest Avenue
Date: February 27, 2006 •
RE: R-PZD 06-1883: Planned Zoning District (ABSHIER HEIGHTS, 407)
General Statement
The neighborhood and abutting property owners express strong and unified opposition to
the proposed Planning Zoning District in Abshier Heights.
The proposed PZD will more than double the density of dwellings on two public
residential streets with limited access: Hillcrest Avenue and Abshier Road. It compresses 30
units into a very small crescent shaped area of land that overlooks the roof and dumpsters of
Evelyn Hills. It presents significant safety concerns because Abshier empties onto 71-B at a hilly
location with a limited line of sight. Hillcrest empties onto North Street at a blind stop sign that
motorists often ignore. North is often the first street to be closed during inclement weather.
Vehicles regularly are stuck or slide off the road in this neighborhood and around the shopping
center. These dangerous intersections are only exacerbated by the additional traffic during all
times of the day and night from the proposed PZD. It violates restrictive covenants,adds stress to
infrastructure including water pressure and other public facilities and services. The proposed
PZD will endanger and significantly degrade the environment and aesthetics of the historic E.
Fay Jones residence, the only one of its kind in the world. Thus we ask that the development be
denied and the parcels of land in question retain their current zoning status.
RECEIVE
FEB 27 2000
CITY OF FAYETrEVILLE
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
C.3
R-PZD 06-1883 Abshier Heights
Page 3 of 34
• Planning Commission Member Candy Clark, who lived in this neighborhood for about
five years, voted against approving the PZD because of how dangerous Hillcrest and Abshier
streets are, the lack of honoring the covenant, the lack of compatibility with the neighborhood,
the excessive density of the PZD, lack of honoring the covenants, etc. Clark noted the lack of a
sufficient transition between the shopping center and existing residences, remarking "You can
stand on the front porches and spit on Evelyn Hills. -.as long as you can stand in a house and see
the commercial, I'm not sure that is real transitional." (A complete copy of her comments can be .
found in the minutes of the February 2, 2006 Subdivision Subcommittee meeting. Excerpts are
included at the end of this appeal.)
(Copies of items referenced in this document including the Restrictive Covenants
regarding the property from 1962; the Planning Commission Meeting minutes of June 24, 1991;
the Planning Commission Meeting minutes of July 22, 1991; and the Bill of Assurance from
1991 are attached to this document.)
1.4
Rationales
• Our objections include but are not limited to the following rationales listed herein. We have
based these objections on the Unified Development Code (UDC).
Rationale 1: Creating and Compounding Dangerous Traffic Conditions
Section 7-d (CDD 166:18-19): A development may be denied or refused because of a
• dangerous traffic condition, "in which the risk of accidents involving motor vehicles is
significant due to factors such as, but not limited to, high traffic volume, topography, or the
nature of the traffic pattern."
Page CD 166:26: Traffic Circulation (including but not limited to):
(a) The adequacy of both the internal and external street systems shall be reviewed in light of
projected future traffic volumes.
(b) The traffic circulation system shall be comprised of a hierarchical scheme of local collector
and arterial streets, each designed to accommodate its proper function and in appropriate
relationship with one another.
Access to the neighborhood is limited and unsafe even without the addition of a
minimum of 60 vehicles. The proposed PZD will only add to an existing traffic pattern that is
already dangerous due to volume, topography and nature. The only neighborhood public ingress
and egress are Hillcrest Avenue and Absbier Road.' Both are already dangerous intersections with
limited sight lines on or near steep slopes. Abshier empties onto 71-B, the most dangerous road
in Fayetteville, at a heavily -traveled hilly location between Rick's Bakery and the Evelyn Hills
Shopping Center light. Abshier Road is often impassible and always slick during periods of
heavy rain, snow and ice. The steep grade at the western end of Abshier Road can lead motorists
to slide onto 71B making this one of the most dangerous intersections in Fayetteville. Even
during clear weather, the intersection remains dangerous because traffic coming from the south
on 71B comes over a hill at high speeds that is very close to the intersection. The posted speed is
40 miles per hour, but many (if not most) motorists exceed this speed. The location between
heavy traffic in and out of Evelyn Hills, and more importantly to and from Rick's Bakery at that
corner, compounds the problem.
• .
C. 3
R-PZD 06-1883 Abshier Heights
Page 4 of 34
In addition motorists use Hillcrest Avenue and Abshier Road to circumvent the traffic •
light at the corner of North Street and 71 B. The addition of 30 units with a minimum of 60 more
vehicles in a small area accessed through limited and dangerous intersections will produce an
even more dangerous traffic situation. These problems will be further exacerbated by residents or
visitors to the proposed development who may park on Hillcrest or Abshier.
Leaving the neighborhood by way of Hillcrest Avenue onto North Street is equally
dangerous. Motorists driving east on North Street from Mission Boulevard climb a steep hill that
ends at Hillcrest Avenue before continuing downhill to 71 B. This is a "blind" stop sign where
motorists on Hillcrest cannot see down the hill toward Mission. Motorists coming up Mission
cannot see Hillcrest until they are virtually at the intersection. Motorists routinely ignore the stop
sign on North Street at Hillcrest Avenue. Motorists on Hillcrest turning either east or west onto
North Street are often forced to accelerate to avoid the westbound traffic on North Street.
Furthermore, motorists traveling east on North Street and turning north on Hillcrest Avenue must
yield to motorists from North Street and Hillcrest Avenue. This intersection presents a confusing
dilemma for motorists. The combination of a stop sign on North Street that is often ignored and
confusion among motorists as to who has the right of way poses a significant danger. Again, this
dangerous condition worsens during inclement weather. North Street is one of the locations in
the city closed first during inclement weather. One must expect that access is unavailable at this
ingress/egress at times.
The developers are counting Evelyn Hills as an ingress/egress for the development. One
must question whether there is sufficient ingress/egress in the area in the first place if the
developers must use a shopping center for this purpose. One must also question whether it is
appropriate to use private roads as primary ingress/egress.
The proposed primary ingress/egress through private property is a narrow and extremely
steep road into the back of the shopping center. There will be serious sight distance problems
here as well because motorists are looking down into the shopping center a short distance to a
curve that goes under the arch there. Motorists looking up to Hillcrest have a short sight distance
as well. Again, these problems'are exacerbated during slick or impassable conditions due to rain,
snow and/or ice.
In addition, this primary entrance and exit to the proposed PZD is onto a private, narrow
road under an arch between the two halves of the shopping center. Between the two halves is a
pedestrian crosswalk with a stop sign that is largely ignored. The private access roads also have
significant truck traffic making deliveries to and from businesses in Evelyn Hills. Delivery trucks
often come barreling up and down Hillcrest and Abshier. Trucks get stuck on the access roads
during inclement weather, as happened during the snowstorm in February 2006. One must
therefore expect that access will be unavailable at times.
There are serious questions of access for emergency and fire vehicles even without the
proposed development. The increased traffic in this small area used frequently by trucks of all
sizes and types will only exacerbate the dangerous traffic conditions including steep grades,
limited access at already dangerous intersections, and impassability during inclement weather,
heavy truck traffic, etc. The additional traffic from the proposed PZD only compounds the
existing serious traffic and safety concerns.
•
C.3
R-PZD 06-1883 Abshier Heights
Page 5 of 34
• Rationale 2: Historical Precedents Dictate Turning Down Duplexes and Similar
Developments Abutting Evelyn Hills and the Neighborhood
Historical precedents since the construction of Evelyn Hills turned down developments
for the same reasons raised now. The property has not changed, "improved" or overcome any of
the reasons for which development was denied in 1991. The difference now is that the reasons
have only worsened over tune.
The Fayetteville Planning Commission voted 7-0-1 on July 22, 1991 to deny a
conditional use for constructing duplexes. Mr. Dick Oliver appeared before the Commission in
June 1991 and stated that the property was to be used as a green space to provide a buffer
between the residential neighborhood and Evelyn Hills. He explained the company that
purchased the shopping center had not purchased the subject tract of land because it was green
space. He stated the noise from the shopping center was a problem, there would be no view for
any building constructed there, and the impassability and danger due to the slopes was contrary
to development. Residents convinced planers in 1991 that development runs counter to the
original objectives of the property.
At the June 1991 meeting, E. Fay Jones, 1330 Hillcrest, stated construction of the
duplexes would change the environment of the neighborhood which had always been single-
family homes. He requested the conditional use a denied. As an internationally renowned and
honored architect, his perspective is valuable. Mr. and Mrs. Jones have noted repeatedly that the
original plans for rezoning the area for Evelyn Hills was granted on the condition that the area
abutting Abshier Drive and Hillcrest Avenue will remain buffer or green space in perpetuity. The
• neighborhood submitted copies of covenants to the Planning Commission in support.
The abutting property owners and neighborhood object strongly to and are unified in
opposition to this development for the same reasons a sinrilar development was turned down in
1991. It is incompatible with the neighborhood and hampers the health, safety, amenity and
welfare of the community. -
Rationale 3: Issues of Public Services and Facilities and Site Unsuitability for the Large -
Scale Project Proposed
From Section 166.05 Large Scale Development (LSD) CD 166-18:
Section 7-b: "The developer may be required to install off -site improvements, where the need for
such improvements is created in whole or in part by the proposed large scale development or
preliminary plat. For purposes of this section, any off -site improvements shall mean all or any
part of, a street, surface drainage system, water system, or sanitary sewer system, which is to be
installed on property located outside the proposed large scale development or preliminary plat."
Section 7-c: "Any required off -site improvements shall be installed according to city standards.
The developer shall be required to bear that portion of the cost of off -site improvements which
bears a rational nexus to the needs created by the large scale development or preliminary plat."
166.06 Planned Zoning District (PZD) Section E - Approval or Rejection Criteria for Planned
Zoning Districts, including but not limited to: "(2) Whether the general impact of the rezoning
would adversely impact the provision of public facilities and services."
CI
Ca
R-PZD 061883 Abshier Heights
Page 6 of 34
•
166.06 Planned Zoning District (PZD) E - Approval or Rejection Criteria (CD 166:21)
"Whether the subject land is suitable for the intended use and is compatible with the natural
environment."
166.14 Commercial Design and Development Standards (A) Purposes
(including but not limited to)
(2) To address environmental concerns which include, but are not limited to, soil erosion,
vegetation preservation, and drainage.
(6) To preserve property values of surrounding property.
166.14 Commercial Design and Development Standards (A) Purposes
(2) To address environmental concerns which include, but are not limited to, soil erosion,
vegetation preservation, and drainage.
The Planning Commission erred in approving this development because it has not even
been adequately considered whether the general impact of the rezoning would adversely impact
the provision of public facilities and services to the neighborhood. The neighborhood and
abutting property owners are very concerned about the effect on water and sewer pressure,
capacity and/or infrastructure from the proposed development. For example, the Fayetteville Fire
Department expressed concern that the fire hydrant at Hillcrest Avenue and Oakwood Drive
flows at less than 400 gallons per minute. The developers indicated they would tie into the
existing 6" sanitary sewer line in two places. The developers note a 6" waterline tees off of the •
existing 8" water line and turns down the access road into Evelyn Hills. They state they will tie
their waterline into the 6" waterline and loop it to the north, tying into the 8" waterline along
Hillcrest Avenue.
City water department employees and experts have stated to various neighborhood
residents that nothing can be done to improve existing pressure without rebuilding the grid,
which is one of the oldest in the city. During the Planning Commission meeting one of its
members noted that there was no guarantee the residents would have sufficient water pressure
after the development was complete. There are no explicit requirements in the PZD about the
type and nature of water pressure, sewer pressure, etc., guaranteed to neighborhood residents if
the development were completed. The effect of such problems on the neighborhood was not fully
considered. This development will degrade the neighborhood as people will not buy property
where they cannot get adequate water pressure, public facilities and/or services. And it would
mean the city has willingly entered into an arrangement with a developer that deprived the
existing residences of an adequate water supply and other public facilities and services.
In addition there has been discussion of retaining walls or other aspects of the
development relating to the topography and steep slopes in the area. The area is surrounded by
extremely steep slopes due to the step excavation done to build Evelyn Hills. Slopes of this
nature are generally unstable and problematic for load bearing construction or utilization. This is
compounded by the presence of springs in the area. The area contained water during the whole
dry period over the last year suggesting a water table close to the surface in the area of heaviest
proposed density. The combination of the soil and saturated water conditions under the traffic
and overburden created by these units will lead to settling, causing cracks and misalignments in
doors and windows.
C. 3
R-PZD 06-1883 Abshier Heights
Page 7 of 34
• The presence of springs and soil moisture was documented by previous construction in
the area. The Jones Residence on 1330 Hillcrest Avenue was redesigned during construction due
to the discovery of a spring on its site. The Jones papers indicate springs were found when
Evelyn Hills was constructed. Apparently there have been problems with soil moisture recently
in the USA Drug construction at Evelyn Hills as well.
Abshier Road already has longitudinal cracking, especially near the side where the steep
slopes drop down onto the property, showing there is already some slope instability. Retaining
walls will be needed to stabilize the area. Widening Abshier as proposed, 14 feet from center in,
would require a retaining wall that could reach about 30 feet tall at certain parts of the streets.
This is similar to and in close proximity of the Kings Drive area that is collapsing. Given the
existing instability, it appears the city could have a reoccurrence of the crumbling and
infrastructure problems found on nearby Kings Drive.
Rationale 4: Covenants and Bills of Assurance Regarding the Property
150.07 Conflicts (CD 150:3): "UDC/private agreements: The UDC is not intended to abrogate
any private agreements, deed restrictions, covenants, easements, or other private agreements on
the use of land."
166 Section 7-d (CDD 166:18-19): "The Subdivision Committee or Planning Commission may
refuse to approve a large scale development or preliminary plat for any of the following reasons"
(with reasons i through vi).
• i. The preliminary plat or development plan is not submitted in accordance with the requirements
of this chapter.
ii. The proposed development would violate a city ordinance, a state statute, or a federal statute.
166.06 Planned Zoning District (PZD) Section E - Approval or Rejection Criteria for Planned
Zoning Districts, including but not limited to: "(2) Whether the application is in compliance with
all applicable statutory provisions"
166.06 Planned Zoning District (PZD) E - Approval or Rejection Criteria (CD 166:21)
"Whether any other recognized zoning consideration would be violated in this PZD."
Copies of covenants and Bills of Assurances were provided to the Planning Commission
at the February 13 meeting. They also were discussed at the preceding Subcommittee Meeting of
the Planning Commission. The developer's preliminary plat or development plan given to
neighborhood residents claimed, "There are no covenants, trust or Homeowner Associations
associated with this project." (Found on page 7 of the Abshier Heights Master Development Plan
provided to abutting property owners.)
•
C. 3
R-PZD 06-1883 Abshier Heights
Page 8 of 34
Rationale 5: The rezoning to allow the proposed development is inconsistent with and does •
not follow the General Plan 2020 Future Land Use Plan.
The Planning Commission Staff Report to the City Council states "The General Plan
2020 Future Land Use Plan designates this site as a Residential Area. Rezoning this property to
R-PZD 05-1636, with the associated Master Development Plan, varies this future land use to a
mixed use, though the principal use on the property will remain residential."
At the initial Subcommittee Meeting members of the neighborhood noted that
approximately seven single-family houses would be the appropriate infill for this site if
developed. The General Plan itself notes that this site is designated as a Residential Area. The
Planning Commission varies this future land use. We submit that the Planning Commission did
not follow the General Plan 2020 Future Land Use Plan and this development should be rejected.
In essence, the neighborhood is asking the City to adhere to its own plan.
At present Fayetteville is in the process of developing a new City 2025 Plan. At the City
2025 Plan meetings residents were told to "ignore topography, infrastructure and compatibility"
when they placed dots on a city map to suggest where appropriate infill might be developed.
Residents (including members of our neighborhood) who took part in these planning sessions
were specifically directed to ignore all important considerations that are considered when making
development decisions. Therefore the City 2025 Plan is not applicable to this development and
neighborhood because the serious concerns regarding topography, safety, incompatibility of the
proposed development, etc., were not considered. The City 2025 Plan has not been finalized or
officially adopted. In addition, the proposed development is not consistent with the principles of
the City 2025 Plan to foster compatible and appropriate infill. •
Rationale 6: The rezoning to allow the proposed development is incompatible with the
neighborhood and runs counter to historical covenants and precedents.
166.06 Planned Zoning District (PZD) E - Approval or Rejection Criteria (CD 166:21)
"Whether the subject land is suitable for the intended use and is compatible with the natural
environment."
3.
166.14 Commercial Design and Development Standards (A) Purposes
(2) To address environmental concerns which include, but are not limited to, soil erosion,
vegetation preservation, and drainage.
(6) To preserve property values of surrounding property.
166.06 Planned Zoning District (PZD) E - Approval or Rejection Criteria (CD 166:21)
"Whether the subject land is suitable for the intended use and is compatible with the natural
environment."
166.06 Planned Zoning District (PZD) E - Approval or Rejection Criteria (CD 166:21)
"Whether any other recognized zoning consideration would be violated in this PZD."
• .
7
C. 3
R-PZD 06-1883 Abshier Heights
Page 9 of 34
• The Planning Commission Staff Report to the City Council states "The General Plan 2020 Future
Land Use Plan designates this site as a Residential Area. Rezoning this property to R-PZD 05-
1636, with the associated Master Development Plan, varies this future land use to a mixed use,
though the principal use on the property will remain residential."
Strong and unified opposition to the development from the neighborhood and abutting
property owners was voiced at all previous public meetings. The opposition includes objections
regarding compatibility, an inadequate transition, and a lack of green space or buffer as intended
and required by the original covenants. Again, these are some'of the reasons a similar
development was denied in 1991.
On page CDD 166:25 -it is noted that "Primary emphasis shall be placed upon achieving
compatibility between the proposed development and surrounding areas so as to preserve and
enhance the neighborhood" and "The Planning Commission shall determine that the specific
development features... shall be combined in such a way as to further the health, safety, amenity
and welfare of the community." As the abutting property owners and neighborhood object
strongly to this development, it is argued that the Planning Commission did not take the welfare
of the community into account when making this decision.
The proposed PZD is incompatible because it is an inappropriate transition between
Evelyn Hills and the existing neighborhood. First, the green space behind Evelyn Hills was
originally conceived to screen the neighborhood from the shopping center, two incompatible
land uses. This screen was to protect and enhance these residences and the neighborhood, a
purpose still accepted as important by the City of Fayetteville in its Unified Development Code
• and tree ordinance. Thus an important criterion for denying a similar development in 1991 on the
property is still recognized and followed in current City ordinances.
Second, the density of this development is an inappropriate transition between the
shopping center and neighborhood. The strips of land are too narrow for an adequate transition.
Thirty town homes and duplexes packed in such a tight area without the typical amenities of
"luxury condos" (such as a swimming pool, recreation facilities, covenants or agreements for
maintaining the buildings and grounds, adequate green space, etc.) are not an adequate transition.
Third, the quality of the proposed town homes and duplexes are incompatible and are not
an appropriate transition. Initially the neighbors were told the units will be sold for
approximately $200 per square foot at a meeting hosted by Cooper Architects on January 26,
2006. In the Planning Commission meeting the developers indicated an estimate of $125 per
square feet. A 1,750 unit would sell for $350,000 based on the $200 estimate or $218,750 based
on the $125 estimate. Will families seeking quality residences realistically pay these amounts for
dwellings overlooking the roof of Evelyn Hills?
These units also overlook the dumpsters on the access road behind Evelyn Hills, which
have an unpleasant odor at various times of the year and attract pests. The development abuts
dumpsters from Evelyn Hills on one side and may face dumpsters or trash areas provided for this
development on the other. The owners and/or their representatives asked for a variance regarding
trash storage and collection which appears to acknowledge yet exacerbate this problem. In
addition the proposed private road overlooks the back of a mattress store and Rick's Bakery
where it empties onto Abshier Road. Details including the size and nature of the sign and the
location of mailboxes or where mail would be delivered are omitted from the master
development plan given to the neighbors. It is unclear whether these are 3 -bedroom units, which
would dictate planning for 90 additional vehicles in the area or one per bedroom..
•
C. 3
R-PZD 06-1883 Abshier Heights
Page 10 of 34
Assume the units do not sell, or do not sell at the proposed prices. Presumably each unit •
would require 3 to 4 renters to meet mortgage and upkeep costs. This compounds the
aforementioned traffic, safety and infrastructure issues. Units also may sit vacant and be targets
for vandalism, crime or become eyesores. If there are no condominium agreements or covenants
for maintaining the property and grounds these problems could quickly worsen.
It is reasonable to note that potential buyers who intend to live in the units will not desire
to have trash receptacles on both sides of their residence or overlook the unattractive roof or back
sides of aging shopping centers. Condos in the old St. Joseph buildings on Lafayette Street and
the Oak Park Condos on Sycamore Street behind the old Long John Silver's restaurant remain
empty. This suggests the market for this type of unit is already saturated. This development is not
the appropriate type or character of residential development for the area and is inconsistent with
the existing neighborhood. It is not an appropriate transition between Evelyn Hills, the
neighborhood, and the historic Jones residence across the street.
The Restrictive Covenants from 1962 and the 1991 Planning Commission decision to
deny a similar development provide intent and historical precedents that the area remain green
space. This screen was to protect and enhance the neighborhood and these residences, a purpose
still accepted as important by the City of Fayetteville in.its Unified Development Code and tree
ordinance. The Master Plan designates this area to be a residential area. Therefore the Planning
Commission decision violates both the precedents and intent regarding the property and
neighborhood.
The neighbors have suggested appropriate development might include seven single-
family homes if the site allows. Most appropriate is leaving the property as a green space as it
was originally intended. Neighbors regularly see deer, foxes and other wildlife on the property, •
which is especially a delight for the neighborhood children. The existing green space has added
to the natural and intimate character of the neighborhood and fits the architectural and landscape
vision of E. Fay Jones and his historic residence across the street.
Finally, residents would be interested in working with the City of Fayetteville to acquire
private, federal, state or other financial resources or grants to improve the site to be designated as
the E. Fay Jones Park or Natural Preserve. We have researched the E. Fay Jones archives and
papers in the Special Collections at Mullins Library. Renderings of possible uses of that space by
Jones himself are available in that collection.
Rationale 7: Consideration and Protection of Historically and Culturally Significant
Residence or Structure Abutting the Development.
166.06 Planned Zoning District (PZD): "Master development plans may include more restrictive
regulations than that which is included in other sections of the UDC, but standards shall not be
established that fall below these minimum standards."
166.06 Planned Zoning District (PZD) E - Approval or Rejection Criteria (CD 166:21)
"Whether any other recognized zoning consideration would be violated in this PZD."
166.14 Commercial Design and Development Standards (A) Purposes
(3) To protect and preserve the scenic resources distributed throughout the city which have
contributed greatly to its economic development, by attracting tourists, permanent part-time
residents, new industries and cultural facilities.
C. 3
R-PZD 06-1883 Abshier Heights
Page 11 of 34
CI
166.14 Commercial Design and Development Standards (A) Purposes
(6) To preserve property values of surrounding property.
In addition to the numerous reasons for denying this proposed PZD, the neighborhood
and abutting property owners strongly object to it because it violates the privileged space
surrounding the E. Fay Jones residence. According to Mrs. Gus Jones it was the first residence
Jones designed and built after he became a registered architect. The residence is a cultural and
architectural landmark designed by Jones himself in 1956 and listed on the National Register of
Historic Places in 2000. E. Fay Jones, a native of Arkansas and full-time resident of Fayetteville,
was among only a handful of distinguished architects worldwide to be awarded the American
Institute of Architect's (AIA) Gold Medal.
A good part of the cultural heritage of Fayetteville --and tourism revenue —rests on the fact
that Fayetteville was Jones' chosen home. He graced the city and surrounding communities with
architectural treasures recognized worldwide. While Eureka Springs has Thomcrown Chapel,
Fayetteville has the distinct privilege of being home to the E. Fay Jones residence, one of his first
and formative designs and his own home. Thus, approving this project compromises the city's
future heritage tourism revenue.
Widening Hillcrest to accommodate the development would dramatically affect the
Jones home site landscape. The landscape's relationship to the approach and entry to the home
was always a primary concern to Jones — a signature concern, in fact. Any change to the street
would dramatically damage this critical relationship, thus doing severe damage to the overall
• design, the landscape, and the sculpture. In terms of motorist safety, widening Hillcrest Avenue
in front of the Jones residence will certainly make it more likely that someone could crash into
the sculpture or stone landscaping, especially during slick or icy conditions.
More important, the proposed development disrespects Jones' legacy in the eyes of
neighborhood residents, city residents, and the architectural community worldwide. Few
distinguished architects would support a development such as this across the street from their
own residences, but the space around Jones' distinguished house merits very special, sensitive,
and thoughtful consideration. It does not require professional training in architecture to
understand that the delicate balance struck between nature and architecture is Jones' most
significant contribution to 20`x- century architecture. Anyone with access to the Internet quickly
learns that Jones' unique appreciation of the site and environment demanded that nature, light,
and air be invited to penetrate the building, reinvigorating the inhabitants. The density of the
proposed development is most particularly an affront to this exquisite statement of Jones' Ozark
style. Because the density of the proposed project is so high, some of the planned units would
stand very close to the Jones residence. Others will disturb the peaceful environs through untold
and uncalculated traffic volume, and noise and air pollution from 30 units wedged behind Evelyn
Hills Shopping Center and Hillcrest Avenue.
Mr. Jones himself was instrumental in establishing the original covenants for the property
behind Evelyn Hills and opposing the development that was declined in 1991. Keeping the
property in its natural state or as a green space maintains the intent and vision of this noted
international architect for the area for future generations and visitors. Thus the significance and
nature of his work, as well as his personal views of what is appropriate for the property, oppose
the proposed development.
•
10
C. 3
R-PZD 06-1883 Abshier Heights
Page 12 of 34
It appeared some members of the Planning Commission did not seem to fully appreciate •
that the architectural and personal legacy of E. Fay Jones and his historic residence at 1330
Hillcrest have global significance. According to the National Register of Historic Places: "The E.
Fay and Gus Jones House is exceptionally significant because with this house Jones expressed
the guiding principles of his personal organic design philosophy, including sensitivity to natural
setting, honest use of materials, and an appreciation for the interplay of light and space. The
construction of this house jump-started Jones' career." Some members seemed not to understand
how dependent Jones' designs are on their landscape and surroundings for their architectural
resonance. Hence, even if the building itself is not physically damaged by the oversized
development, it will, in effect and in fact, be ruined for future generations.
The global significance of his work was very recently reaffirmed when Mrs. Gus Jones
accepted the AIA Twenty-five Year Award for Thorncrown Chapel just two days before the
Planning Commission voted to approve the Abshier Heights project. The award is given to one
building annually for the architectural design that has stood the test of time for 25 years. Mrs.
Jones accepted the award in honor of her husband on February 11, 2006, in Washington, D. C.
Significantly, the AIA release stated: "Five million people have visited Thorncrown Chapel since
it opened in 1980.. .During certain times of the year, the chapel draws more than 2,000 people
per day, and Sunday services draw 300 people...This indicates the popularity and enduring
appeal of Jones's work... Jones passed away on August 31, 2004, at his home in Fayetteville,
Ark., at the age of 83.. .He will always be recognized as the man who built Thorncrown Chapel,
and remembered as one of the leading architects of the 20th century."
(See http://www.aia.org/release_122005_25yrThmerown).
Clearly, E. Fay Jones continues to bring much national and international attention to •
Fayetteville, a community he called home for many, many years. Thus, for the Planning
Commission to approve the proposed Abshier Heights development simply on the grounds that
there was no legal reason not to build in front of Jones' residence inadvertently disrespects Jones'
legacy and compromises the present and future cultural heritage of the city. The UDC itself
states it is important to preserve and protect Fayetteville's scenic resources. Consequently there
are grounds upon which the Planning Commission should have denied this development. We ask
you to deny this development and protect one of Fayetteville's most important scenic, cultural
and historic resources.
ADDENDUM: We concur with the comments of Planning Commissioner Member Candy Clark,
a former resident of this neighborhood, made at the February 2, 2006 Subdivision Committee
meeting.
Clark: 1 cannot support this project as it currently is — can't do it for several reasons.
• First of all, I'm very confused about the issue of the buffer. I've grown up
hearing about it. If 1,000 people changed their mind, the neighborhood
has been left out and I'm not sure why we honor other promises to
neighbors that I can't find in stone anywhere, just a verbal promise, but
not these neighbors.
• Secondly, I think the density is by far too much - 7.3 units in this area are
totally out of character with the neighborhood. It is a very nice
neighborhood, spread out, larger homes. It dovetails into my third concern
which is traffic.
•.
11
C. 3
R-PZD 06-1883 Abshier Heights
Page 13 of 34
S.
• Abshier and Hillcrest are horribly maintained streets, local streets — no
curb, no gutter and they don't go anywhere. Abshier goes to College, that
is one of the most deadly intersections trying to pull out from the Rick's
Bakery. Hillcrest goes to North Street to a stop sign that I never could
figure out when I lived there. Who has the right-of-way? You pray and
go. It doesn't go anywhere to the north. I think if you add this much
density to those streets, it is going to compound a horrific problem. A lot
of people walk in that area because they go down to the pond in the other
development. It is a very, very communal area. It doesn't have sidewalks
now and the only place you can walk is in the street. And to add this
much density there is just a terrible mistake.
• Finally, I think the slope off of Abshier is very steep and I'm going to go
review that. I don't know that there is a lot of greenery on that slope
either. It's pretty dam severe and that concerns me. I do think this could
develop but I think it could develop into single-family homes on larger
lots. I would support that. But I cannot support it with the current 7.3
units that are proposed. I think you are going to be making it a horrific
traffic situation. I don't think Hillcrest is ever going to go to the north. If
you look at the pictures, it kind of stops. As long as you are funneling
traffic out into North Street or to College, it is just going to compound a
bad situation. And that access [to Hillcrest from behind Evelyn Hills] that
we are talking about, come on. That is ill maintained concrete that is
• riddled with potholes most of the time. I don't know who is in charge of
it, but don't call it an access to me unless you are going to go in and gut it,
pave it and do what you need to do to it and at that point it is still a
significant slope. That was my favorite cut through to get home and I lost
a muffler there one time. You kind of compounded this, too, Tim, by
saying they can't sell that property behind Evelyn Hills. I wonder if that is
tied up in the covenants buffer thing. Right now there are too many
unknowns to me and the density is way too high and the bad traffic
situation will be compounded...
• I don't think it is compatible with the neighborhood at all with that
density. I think it could develop beautifully but not like that.
• Transitional is a little bit more than 50'. You can stand on the front
porches and spit on Evelyn Hills. That's not a big transition at all. To me,
if it was bigger, if you were talking about on the other side of the street
maybe, that could be transitional. To me that is a transitional zone. I
don't know if there is a definition for it — it has to be "X" number of
• square feet, but as long as you can stand in a house and see the
commercial, I'm not sure that is real transitional.
•
12
C.3
R-PZD 06-1883 Abshier Heights
ppna:14 4
_
•
) RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
WHEREAS, EVELYN HILLS SHOPPING CENTER, INC., a corporation and T.I. Abshier
and Grace E. Abshier, husband and wife (hereinafter called OWNERS), are the
record owners of the following described real estate situated in Fayetteville,
Washington County, Arkansas, to -wit:
A parcel of land lying in the NW4 Section 10, Township 16, North Range 30
West, within the corporate limitd of the City of Fayetteville, and more
particularly described as follows: Beginning at a rint which is S 89 deg.
30" W 184.35 feet from the NE corner of said SIj NW; NW4 of Section 10,
thence South 660 feet, thence South 0 degrees 08' W 370.0 feet; thence S
89 deg. 55' 30" W 916.5 feet to the East right of way of U.S. "wy. No. 71;
thence Northeasterly along said right of way more or less ,034.5 feet
to an iron pin which is S. 89 degrees 55 30" Si 734 feet from the point of
beginning; thence N. 89 degrees 55' 30" E. 734 feet to the point of
beginning, containing 20.2 acres, more or less.
WHEREAS, the aforesaid real estate abuts the West boundary of Hillcrest
Avenue, Fayetteville, Arkansas, beginning at the North boundary line of Abshier
Drive in the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, and continuing North for a distance •
of 1,030 feet; and:
WHEREAS, the OWNERS filed a petition with the Planning Commission of Fayette-
villei Arkansas, seeking to re -zone from R-lA Residential District to C-2
Commercial District the following described premises, situated in Fayetteville.,
Washington County, Arkansas, to -wit:
A Strip of land 150 feet deep located on and abutting the West boundary of
Hillcrest Avenue, beginning at Abshier Drive, and running, thence North 370
feet; a strip of land 150 feet deep located on and abutting the West boundary
of Hillcrest Avenue, beginning 370 feet North of Abshier Drive, and running
thence North 660 feet, and
as a result of which the Planning Commission has recommended that the West 130
feet thereof be rezoned to C-2 Commercial District, and that the East 2Ofeet
thereof remain zoned R-lA Residential District as a buffer zone betwee�li
GREER ABSTRACT COMPANY SHEET No. 11L
RELIABLE Ae6?fACTH
FAYETTEVILLE-SPRINGDALE. ARKANSAS
... - I
C. 3
R-PZD 06-1883 Abshier
the C-2 area and the Residential District East of the 150 foot strip of land;
and,
WHEREAS THE EDELYN HIM SHOPPING CENTER, INC., is now developing theEvelyn
Hills Shopping Center on a part of the real estate first hereinabove described
and desires to include said 150 foot East-West strip of real estate in the
Shopping Center area; and,
WHEREAS, the OWNERS have agreed with the planning Commission, the Fayettevili`
City Council and the owners of the real estate abutting the East boundary of
Hillcrest Avenue, Fayetteville, Arkansas, that they will place of record the
fl
restrictive covenants set out below if the West 130 feet of said 150 foot strip
of real estate is re -zoned from R.1A Residential District to C-2 Commercial
District with the East 20 feet of said 150 foot strip to remain zoned RIA
Residential District as a buffer zone; and,
WHEREAS, the restrictive covenants set out below shall benefit the owners
of the real estate situated in Fayetteville, Arkansas, which abuts on the
East boundary of Hillcrest Avenue in said City and which is located due East of
the 1,030 feet of real estate first described hereinabove; now,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises set out herein and for the
purposes hereinhbove mentioned, the said Evelyn Hills Shopping Center, Inc., II
and T.I, Abshier and Grace E. Abshier, husband and wife, hereby covenant: II
•1, That no commercial building which extends above thestreet level of
Hillcrest Avenue as it now exists shall be constructed of placed upon a strip
of land 80 feet by 1,030 feet which strip of land lies.20 feet West of
Hillcrest Avenue and abuts the North boundary of Abshier Drive, Fayetteville,
Arkansas, which strip of land is described as follows:
A parcel of land lying in the NW W of Section 10, Township 16 North Range
30 West, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point which
is South 89 degrees 55' 30" West 204 feet from the Northeast corner of the S
NWW MT'k of Section 10, thence South 660 feet, thence South Odegrees 08' West
370 feet, thence South 89 degrees 55' 30" West 80 feet thence North 1,030
feet, more or less, to a point 80 feet due West of the beginning point,
thence East 80 feet to the place of beginning,
2. That no means of ingress or egress to and from the aforesaid real estate
described in paragraph 1 hereinabove from Hillcrest Avenue, Fayetteville,
Arkansas shall be permitted to exist, except that the present means of ingress
and egress to and from said real estate from the said Hillcrest Avenue Fayette-
GREER ABSTRACT COMPANY
- RiLwelc ABSiR,:R5 SHEET No.
FAYETTEVZLLE-Sr RING DALL ARKANSAS
'... - ...
,. _ ...r -
C.3
R-PZD 06-1883 Abshier Heights
Page 16 of 34
vile, Arkansas, located about 350 feet North of Abshier Drive, Fayetteville,
Arkansas, and the North 50 feet of the real estate described in paragraph 1
hereinabove shall constitute and continue to be the means of ingress and egress
to and from said real estate described in paragraph 1 hereinabove from Hill -
crest Avenue Fayetteville, Arkansas
3. That no building, parking lot or any structure of arr kind except retain- w
ing walls and railings shall be placed upon said real estate described in para-
graph 1 hereinabove nearer than 20 feet to the present West boundary line of
Hillcrest Avenue, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
4. That the base of any motor vehicle parking lot placed and/or maintained
upon the real estate described in paragraph 1 hereinabove•shall be at least B
feet below the present street level of Hillcrest Avenue, Fayetteville, Arkansas,'
except that this covenant shall not apply to the North 100 feet of said strip
of land.
5. Within 12 months from the date of the passage of an ordinance re -zoning
the aforesaid 130 feet strip of land to C-2 Commercial District, and subject to
the provisions of paragraph 2 hereinabove, Evelyn Hills, Shopping Center, Inc.
shall construct a fence along the West bounday of the aforesaid 20 foot strip of
land which remains fl -IA Residential District, which fence shall be at least six
feet in height.
6. That within 12 months from the d.te of the passage of an ordinance re-
zoning
said 130 foot strip of land to C-2 Commercial District , the Evelyn Hills
Shopping Center, Inc., shall landscape and beautify the 20 foot strip lying
immediately east of said 130 foot strip (which 20 foot strip also lies i.wnedia-
tely west of Hill crest Avenue), which is the strip retained in it-lA Re sidentia
District as a buffer zone. That this beautification shall include the planting
and permanent maintenance at grass and shrubs. That if this beautification is
not done and maintained by the Etrelyn Hills Shopping Center, Inc., the City
of Fayetteville may do the beautification and maintenance at the expense of the
Evelyn Hills Shopping Center.
7. These, covenants shall run with the land and shall be binding on all
parties and all persons claiming under Evelyn Hills Shopping Center, Inc. and
T.I. Abshier and Grace E. Abshier, husband and wife, for a period of twenty (20)
years from the date that these covenants are recorded, after which time said
covenants shall be automatically extended for successive periods of five (5)
GREER ABSTRACT COMPANY 5$
RELIABLE ABSTRACTS SHEET Na-
FAYETTEVILLE-SPRINGDALE ARKANSAS
•
C. 3
R-PZD 06-1883 Abshier Heights
Page 17 of 34
years unless an instrument signed by owners of a majority of the separate tracts
of property fronting on both the East and West side of Hillcrest Avenue, Fay-
etteville, Arkansas, for the 1,030 feet as set out in the legal description
hereinabove, releasing said covenants, or any part thereof, is placed of record.
8. These covenants shall inure to the benefit of any persona owning any of
the real estate which abuts the East and West boundary lines of Hillcrest
Avenue for the distance of 1,030 feet as set out in the legal descriptionhere
inabove, and any such property owner is hereby granted the authority to enforce
such covenants.
In Witness Whereof, the parties hereto have hereunto caused this instrument
to be executed on this 31 day of August, 1962.
EVELYN HILLS SHOPPING CENTER, INC.
BY John D. Askew, President
ATTEST: John Maguire, Secretary
•
C1
T.I. Abshier
Grace E. Abshier
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF ARKANSAS i1
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
On this 31 day of August, 1962, before the undersigned, a Notary Public, duly
commissioned, qualified and acting, within and for the said county and state, II
appeared in person the within named John D. Askew and John Maguire to me person-
ally known, who stated that they were the President and Secretary of Evelyn
Hills Shopping Center, Inc., a corporation, and were duly authorized in their
respective capacities to execute the foregoing instrument for and in the name
and behalf of said corporation, and further stated and acknowledged that they
so signed, executed and delivered said instrument for this consideration, uses
and purposes therein mentioned and set forth.
In TestimonyWhereof, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal
this 31 day of August, 1962.
Jane R. Horne, Notary Public.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF ARKANSAS
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
Be it remembered that on this day came before me the undersigned, a Notary
GREER ABSTRACT COMPANY SHEET NO.
RELIABLE ABBTBACTH
Ii
C. 3
R-PZD 06-1883 Abshier Heights
Page 18 of 34
Public, within and for the county aforesaid, duly commissioned, and acting,
T.I. Abshier and Grace E. Abshier, husband and wife, to me well known as parties
in the foregoing covenants, and stated that they had executed the same for the
consideration and purposes therein mentioned and set forth.
Witness my hand and seal as such Notary Public this 31 day of August, 1962.
Jane R. Horne, Notary Public.
1
Filed for Record Sept. 10, 1962 10:06 X.M. Recorded in volume 580 page 214
l
GREER ABSTRACT COMPAMv
RCUABLE AnSrRAcr6 SHEET no. 6 0
•
S
C. 3
R-PZD 06-1883 Abshier Heights
Page 19 of 34
t
Planning Commission
June 24, 1991
Page 4
arvin stated he really would not think a double driveway would cau hat
much arainQe problem.
Me. Britton eta she did not believe there was enough r9otcthe site for a
double driveway, tha a entire parking lot would hyrto access the street.
Mr. Perry stated the parking to uld not be g one, he would only need space
for five cars.
MOTION
Mr. Springborn stat a believed the downside ri and effect on the
neighborhood was great. He moved the rezoning be deni
Me. Brit seconded the motion.
The motion passed 8-0-0.
CONDITIONAL USE CU91-14 - DUPLEXES
CHARLES SLOAN - W OF HILL EST, N OF ABSHIER DR.
The fifth item on the agenda was a conditional use request for duplexes in an R-1
area submitted by Charles Sloan for property located on the west side of
Hillcrest Avenue, north of Abshier Drive.
Mr. Merrell explained the subject property was a narrow strip (146' x 660')
behind Evelyn Bills. He pointed out the property had a long and controversial
• history. .He stated previous owners had attempted to rezone the tract to
commercialseveral times. In 1962 the property was successfully rezoned;
however, a year later the issue was presented for public vote, and voters decided
the property should be left as a residential zone. He explained some of the
neighbors contended that the property was designated greenspace, but staff had
been unable to locate any such agreements or other legal documents to that
effect. Mr. Merrell explained that Askew Enterprises recently sold Evelyn Hills
Shopping Center and now bad a contract to sell the subject tract to Charles Sloan
contingent upon the conditional use.
Mr. Merrell stated Mr. Sloan had originally requested a rezoning to construct
seven duplexes however staff had pointed out to him he could construct the
duplexes in R-1 with a conditional use. He further explained Mr. Sloan proposed
to retain all the trees along Hillcrest and construct a private drive along the
west property line for access. He stated Mr. Sloan proposed to develop with the
lay of the land, excavating only where necessary to drop the building height so
as not to infringe upon his neighbors' views.
Mr. Merrell pointed out there were five possible uses of the subject property;
(1) apartments, (2) offices, (3) single family residential, (4) greenspace, and
(5) duplexes. He stated that, considering the established, high -quality
surrounding residential properties, offices and apartments did not appear to be
a desirable development course. He pointed out that considering the domineering
presence of Evelyn Hills to the east, single family residential did not appear
to be feasible. Be further explained that the subject property did not offer
much that would merit its purchase for a public park and, further, Mr. Askew
could not be :required to retain the property as private greenspace. He pointed
out the only -other development route was duplexes. .
Mr. Merrell explained staff was only recommending this item be considered for
approval provided that Hr. Sloan assure that every tree along Hillcrest Avenue
be preserved, that there be no access through the trees, and that whatever access
drive was constructed be constructed on the west side of the property. He stated
•
I.
C. 3
R-PZD 06-1883 Abshier Heights
Page 20 of 34
Planning Commission
June 24, 1991
Page 3
Merrell explained that the R -O zoning allowed five different use unite b
rig t including single and two family dwellings, Use Unit 12 and Use Unit 75
whit defined offices, studios and professional offices. Mr. Merrell then r,�ad
those tems under both use unit 12 and 25.
Mr. Merr 1 suggested one possible way this matter could be resolved wya1d to
have Mr_ tylar offer a Bill of Assurance that would guarantee that hew ld only
use the pr�Qerty for an office. He stated this was a very close ca for the
Planning ieaion with K -Mart and the fire station in the imtnediat vicinity.
Mr. Springborn\aerd
essed concern regarding the entire commercial strip to the
south. He explaleed that, while there was nothing of a ccnn.'erciaj nature to the
north, grantinghe rezoning request would open the door to a growth of the
commercial str
In response to a\theyit
from Mr. Allred regarding a effect widening
Stubblefield would havk the area, lit. Merrell stated h did not know if the
Traffic Division hado\eany projections regarding in ease in traffic. He
further stated he believeq it would have a relatively significant impact in
this area.
Mr • Hanna explained r covenants in the subd iaion prohibiting rezoning.
He stated he believeowe&it to the resident of the subdivision to uphold
the covenants. He eta d granting the zoning would encroach on the
integrity of the neid; th unless the a ire block, rather than one lot,
was to be rezoned, ruly a t zoning.
Mr. Tarvin stated that, while he didN
in the area was rental property, and
area. He pointed out the property
property, it was adjacent to other c
buffer between the R-1 and commercial
to look like a house with protectiv
better in the future. He further
/agree with Mr. Hanna, the property
:lieved the rezoning would help the
across the street from commercial
:ially zoned property, there was no
-ty. He stated that an office, built
nts, could make the property look
that a business such as the one
proposed would probably be quieter ban a rest ence. He further stated he would
not consider rezoning beyond thif property butX in this instance, the property
could be considered a buffer beXween the R-1
Me. Jackman asked, if in thejfuture someone else should purchase the property,
whether more parking space might be required.
Mr. Merrell explained th once the property was tezonq to R -C it would remain
R-0 and there was the jossibility that additional parltng would be required,
depending upon the type of business that owned the pro y. He stated all of
the parking would b,/of f -street parking.
Mr. Tarvin star they had granted conditional zoning befo e. He suggested
rezoning the prqerty with the condition that, should the ap licant sell the
property, it w,dld revert to R -I.
Ms. Britton xpressed concern regarding the drainage in the area. She pointed
out there 6ere ditches down both perimeters of the property that handle the
stormwate drainage at this time. She questioned disposition of b4iat water
should t e property be graded and a parking lot constructed.
Mr. A ed asked
if
there
was data available concerning when to start r
rentfil property
in
order
to keep the area from "bottoming out".
. Merrell stated he did not believe there was a rule of thumb. He
ated he believed this area was still highly residential.
•
•
C. 3
R-PZD 06-1883 Abshier Heights
Page 21 of 34
•
Planning Commission
June 24, 1991
Page 5
staff believed the duplexes would be a buffer between the single family dwellings
and the shopping center.
Mr. Hanna stated that, since the property was zoned R-1, one of the alternatives
would be dividing the tract into 8 or 9 lots, with 8 or 9 driveways exiting onto
Hillcrest and removing of several of the trees.
Mr. Merrell agreed that, should the property be divided into separate lots they
would probably lone a number of trees along Hillcrest.
Mr. Tarvin stated the garages could come in from the back of the house.
Mr. Allred asked if the subject property had been previously dedicated as a
greenspace, why it would not have been zoned P-1 at that time,
Mr. Merrell explained staff could find no records relating to the area being
designated a greenspace.
Mr. Harry Gray, representing Charles Sloan, explained this was a unique piece of
property and the terrain did limit development. He further explained the
property had been rezoned in 1962 with covenants attached to the rezoning.
Mr. Merrell explained staff had found information regarding the property being
zoned C-2 but the rezoning was rescinded by referendum.
Me. Britton asked if the developer was proposing a single, common drive for the
consideration of the property owners. She explained she saw that as a problem.
•' Mr. Gray explained that at this point they were just asking for the conditional
use and would have to come back on the actual construction of the duplexes. He
further stated they did propose to have a private drive at the rear of the
property and would not have access to Hillcrest. He explained they did not want
to remove any of the trees along Hillcrest. He stated they were willing to sign
a Bill of Assurance that there would be no existing trees removed.
Mr. Springborn asked if there was room for more than a 12 foot one-way street.
Mr. Allred stated subdivision committee could require no on -street parking if
• this item were approved.
Me. Donna Copeland, 1502 N. Hillcrest, appeared before the Commission and gave
some history of the property. She explained that, at the time Evelyn Hills
Shopping Center was built, a promise was made to plant a barrier of trees between
the houses and shopping center and never to build on the land between Evelyn
Hills and Hillcrest. She asked the Commission to consider the impact the
conditional use would make on the neighborhood. Ms. Copeland stated that when
Mr. Abehier dedicated the street to the city, be included the possibility of a
reverter. If it ceased to be used for a street, the land would revert to the
abutting landowners. She explained that not all of the -strip of land was used
for a street, and the adjoining property owners had taken care of the street
right-of-way on both sides. She further stated many of the property owners had
purchased their homes along Hillcrest, because it was a dead-end street without
a lot of traffic or noise.
Me. Copeland explained that citizens relied on the city to control growth not
developers. She stated, if the city planned properly, zoning would stabilize
property values and there would be some predictability about what location could
be used for what purpose. She further pointed out, if the conditional use was
granted, there would be 14 residences across the street from six single family
homes. The new residences would be approximately 1,300 square feet as opposed
•
C. 3
R-PZD 061883 Abshier Heights
Page 22 of 34
Planning commission
June 24, 1991
Page 6
to 2,600 square foot homes currently existing. She pointed out there would be
an increase in traffic, noise and reduced safety. She also suggested there may
be a problem with the drainage in the area if the subject tract was built over.
She requested the conditional use be denied. She presented a petition protesting
the conditional use with approximately 40 signatures.
Mr. Paul Bailey, 1532 Hillcrest, appeared before the commission and stated he
believed the subject property was too small to construct 7 duplexes. Re further
stated he thought it would be a very poor place to live. He pointed out that in
the winter when the weather was bad the road would be impassible. He suggested
the residents could join together to keep the property mowed.
S. Pay Jones, 1330 Hillcrest, stated construction of the duplexes would change
the environment of the neighborhood which had always been single-family homes.
He also mentioned an increase in traffic. He requested the conditional use be
denied.
Mr. Dick Oliver, 1440 Hillcrest, appeared before the Commission and stated that,
when he purchased his property in 1972, the realtor had told him the subject
property was to be used as greenspace, providing a buffer between the residential
area and the shopping center. He explained the company that purchased the
shopping center had not purchased the subject tract of land because it was
greenspace. He also pointed out that any construction would have to destroy some
of the trees. He stated the noise from the shopping center was a problem, even
with the trees. He further stated there would be no view for any building
constructed on the subject property. He mentioned additional traffic,
impassibility when ice was on the roadway, and noise as some of his concerns
should duplexes be constructed. He suggested the Planning Commission should make
the area a permanent greenspace.
Me. Trina Oliver, 1440 Hillcrest, appeared before the Commission, and strongly •:
urged the commission to not approve the conditional use. She stated the property
had always be intended for and used as a greenspace.
Mr. Gray explained, when the property had been rezoned in 1962, there had been
restrictive covenants, but after the referendum revoked the zoning, all
restrictive covenants were voided.
Mr.
Allred
asked
if there was room for
8 or 9
Lots should the
property
develop
as
single
family
homes.
Mr. Gray stated they would be able to get 8 lots under R-1 zoning.
Mr. Harold Copeland, 1502 Hillcrest, appeared before the commission and stated
they had chosen the property because it was single-family residences. Be further
stated the realtor had assured than that, should the subject property ever be
developed, it too would be single-family residences.
Mr. Gerald Davis, 1516 Hillcrest, appeared before the commission and expressed
his concern over the proposed conditional use.
Mr. Allred stated he would be in favor of tabling this item to allow everyone to
diligently search for any documentation regarding the greenspace. He explained
that unless documentation could be found, the property was zoned R-1 with no
restrictions.
MOTION
Ms. Britton moved to table the item for further research.
•
C. 3
R-PZD 06-1883 Abshier Heights
Page 23 of 34.
[1
•
•
Planning Commission
June 24, 1991
Page 7
Mr. Hanna seconded the motion.
The motion and second were amended to table the item until the second meeting in
July.
The motion passed 8-0-0.
Mr. Allred suggested the property owners get with the staff and work together to
search for any documentation. He explained that a verbal contract regarding real
estate was non -binding. He stated he wanted to see something in writing, if
anything existed.
1:19' Y• ' 1 :u :
The a th item on the agenda was a preliminary plat for Timber Crest Sul
submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of Mike Pennington. The prc
located 8the north aide of Mission Blvd., east of Crossover Road. The
is zoned RN, Low Density Residential and contains 27.52 acres with 51
Mr. Bunn had ft the meeting and, therefore, Mr. Merrell gave the ngineer's
report. He expta,ined the property was annexed into the city and rezpted from A-1
to R-1 approximat y two weeks earlier by the Board of Directors./Be stated the
development conBistk of 58 lots located on 27.5 acres. He stat that water and
sewer were available\o the site. He further stated there had )teen some question
as to whether the se r would have to be provided by a,lhimp station or by
gravity. The preliminay plat indicated the constructigri of a pump station;
however, it has not been own that a gravity sewer was practical.
Mr. Milholland reminded the Commission that at a last meeting they had
questioned stormwater drainage off'and deposits f alit during construction.
He explained he had talked with iJi Bunn regardin the storm drainage. Mr. Bunn
felt the proposed drainage plan w adequate. a stated they would be willing
to install catch ponds for the silt 'f that ts the commission's desire.
At Me. Britton's request, Mr. Milholl&4Axplained the highway department had
come up with a design for discharge of et ater. He explained the design would
slow the water down but still drain by ac g concrete blocks in the apron. He
explained this would slow the wat down d make a wider path with less
velocity.
Me. Britton asked if Mr. Milho12≤d would be giv a bill of assurance that he
would build the silt ponds t contain the silt dur2n construction.
Mr. Milholland stated he would.
Mr. Tarvin stated the could not contain silt during co\td
n. When it
rains, muddy water '�u1d wash silt out. He stated he beli�ked Commission
needed to be caret that they did not impose any conditionthate out of the
ordinary with dev lopmant in the city.
Mr. Cleghornked if Mr. Bunn had felt the catch ponds wry.Mr. Milho and stated they had not discussed them.
Mr. yell pointed out the excavation and grading orould comeeffe ive in the middle of July and this development wouldabide by heor 'nance. He further stated he would like to see an efforeduce a
�gafttrol silt, but he agreed with Mr. Tarvin silt could not be totally contained.
xi
C.3
R-PZD 06-1883 Abshier Heights
Page 24 of 34
e
Planning Commission
June 24, 1991
Page 8
Milholland explained he would be making an effort to reduce the silt, but he
n or intended to give the impression that there would not be muddy water.
Mr. ringborn stated he would not personally require a bill of assurance, but
he wou d be happy with the assurance they had received from Mr. Milholland.
explain at the last meeting he had not felt the problem had been addressed t
now he ₹ t it had been.
Mr. Tarvin ked what was different about this subdivision that warrant them i
taking thin of stand that they had not done in the past.
Mr. Merrell exp fined that he believed there was concern regarding t a property
because it border a stream and needed to be handled carefully. H pointed out
the land was relat vely level. He stated the Planning Commissio always needed
to be careful to no single out anyone.
Mr. Mike Pennington, t developer of the property, stated i was his intent to
develop the property so as to please the City of Fayettev lie. Be stated he
believed the Commission' questions were valid.
MOTION
Mr. Springborn moved to appro the plat subject plat review comments and
Commission comments.
Mr. Hanna seconded the motion.
In response to a question from Mr. Ta n, it a determined that the preliminary
plat was being approved with Mr. Milho 1 making an effort to stabilize the •
silt by constructing catch ponds during natruction of the subdivision.
The motion passed B-0-0.
PRELIMINARY PI AT - WRDIRGTCQI BEt
ADDITION PHASE
I. II, III a IV
MARK POQUESS FOR am DRVELOPMHN'P
W OF SALEM
N OF WEDINGTOR DR.
The seventh item on the agend was
a preliminar
plat for Wedington
Heights
Addition, Phases I, II, IIJ6 and
IV submitted
y Mark Marquess
for BMP
Development and represented 4r Barry
Gray. The propetty
is located west
of Salem
Road, north of Wedington D five. The property is zone R-1.5, Moderate
Density
Residential and contains 4 acres with 151 lots.
Mr. Merrell stated a pp&tion of this property would be dev oped for affordable
housing. He explain�d the development consisted of four ph es with a total of
151 lots on approxipfately 34 acres. He pointed out that Per Franklin of the
Traffic Departmen had expressed some concern about the additibQal traffic that
would be generaj�d It Highway 16 due to the development; ho ver, any new
development wo,yZd generate additional traffic.
Mr. Merrell ated both water and sewer are readily available to the 4te and the
general dr inage plan appears to be control drainage. He stated Mr. Bunn
recomnen4�d approval subject to the plat review comments; submittal of proval
of deta" ed plans and specifications for water, sewer, streets, and drains e; the
tying f Anne Street through to an existing street in Giles Addition wiI the
cons ction of any phase after Phase I; the platting of a 50 foot right -o way
for uture street construction north from the intersection of "E" Street and "
S set; construction of sidewalks per city ordinance; and payment of parks fed
r city ordinance.
C.3
R-PZD 06-1883 Abshier Heights
Page 25 of 34
•
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, July 22,
1991 in the Board of Directors Boom on the second floor of the City
Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
HERS PRESENT: Jack Cleghorn, Fred Hanna, J. E. Springborn, Jerry Allred, Joe
Tarvin, Mark Robertson, Charles Nickles and Jett Cato
ME BERS ABSENT: Jana Lynn Britton
OTHERS PRESENT: Becky Bryant, Don Bunn, Sharon Langley, members of the press
and others
MINUTES
The minutes of the July 9, 1991 meeting were approved as distributed.
CONDITIONAL USE CU91-14
CHARLIE SLOAN - W. SIDE OF HILLCREST, N OF ARCHER
The second item on the agenda was a request for a conditional use in order to
construct duplexes in R-1, Low Density Residential submitted by Charlie Sloan and
represented by Harry Cray. The property is located on the west side of Hillcrest
Avenue, north of Abahier Drive.
• Becky Bryant reminded the Commission that, at the June 24, 1991 meeting, this
item had been tabled in order to allow staff to further investigation the
allegations that the subject 2.2 acres had been designated greenspace. She
stated that previously the Abehiers had offered to place restrictive covenants
on the property in exchange for C-2 zoning. The covenants were executed and
filed. She explained the rezoning had been brought to a public vote and citizens
had voted down the rezoning. She further explained that revoking the zoning had
the legal effect of also revoking the covenants. She stated she had discussed
this matter with the Assistant City Attorney who agreed the covenants were no
longer binding nor valid.
Ms. Bryant further pointed out the original covenants had only affected the east
20 feet of the property. She stated the City had a 30 foot easement along the
east property line so there would be no building in that area anyway. She
further stated Mr. Sloan was willing to give a Bill of Assurance for tree
protection along the street. She explained staff believed this was a high
quality development which would not significantly impact the neighborhood.
Ms. Bryant suggested the Commission could apply conditions on the development.
She pointed out that, should the conditional use be denied, Mr. Sloan or any
other party could remove the trees on Hillcrest and construct a single family
affordable housing project over which the city would have little control. She
stated the only solid legal ground on which the Planning Commission could deny
the conditional use was by finding that the request was incompatible with
adjacent properties. She explained, however, that one of the planning principles
used to encourage buffering of single family residential from commercial was the
use of an intermediate type of zoning.
Ms. Bryant stated Commissioner Britton had raised a question about access to the
property. She stated both drives on the north and south ends were included in
the legal description of the property which Mr. Sloan hoped to purchase. She
stated, if the conditional use were granted, the development would then go
•
C. 3
R-PZD 06-1883 Abshier Heights
Page 26 of 34
Planning Commission
July 22, 1991
Page 2
through the large scale development process
about access be addressed at that time.
she suggested any further concerns
In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Ms. Bryant explained the property
could be used for an affordable housing development without rezoning. She stated
the Commission had some control over the property with a conditional use but,
without a conditional use, the Commission had very little control.
Mr. Tarvin asked
if
they could
add a provision to
the conditional
use a provision
denying parking
and
access by
pedestrians along
Hillcrest.
Me.
Bryant stated
the Commission could
impose any reasonable condition as
long
as
the condition was not arbitrary or
capricious.
In response to a question from Mr. Hanna, Me. Bryant stated a 30 -foot easement
along Hillcrest had been executed by the developer. She explained nothing could
be built in the easement 'but an easement did not restrict the developer from
clearing the area.
In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Gray explained that, should the
property be developed as single family homes, he believed the property would be
split into eight lots all fronting on Hillcrest with drives onto Hillcrest: He
further explained it would be much more difficult to develop single family homes
with private drive's. He stated the terrain dictated the type of construction.
Mr. Tarvin asked if the difference was because the duplexes would all be owned
by one person.
Mr. Gray stated the current plan was that Mr. Sloan would own all of them. He
stated eventually they could be sold. He explained there would be covenants set
up to cover the private drive.
Mr. Tarvin asked if the covenants could not be set up for private homes.
Mr. Gray explained they could but, due to the terrain, he did not see the
development being a quality single family development. He stated covenants were
normally tied to property owners associations which cover the maintenance of the
drives, etc. He further stated he could see some problems with covenants on
single family development on this property.
In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Gray explained the duplexes would
face Hillcrest shielding the parked cars from view. He further explained the
apartment plan was for two-story duplexes with the lower floor being below the
level of Hillcrest and the upper floor extending slightly above it. He stated
the plan was to construct a wooden bridge to extend from Hillcrest to the upper
level of the duplexes in order to provide pedestrian access.
Dick Oliver, 1440 Hillcrest, appeared before the Commission and spoke in
opposition to the conditional use. He explained the construction of duplexes
would triple the number of people and traffic; that the residents of the duplex
and visitors to the duplexes would park on Hillcrest; there was only 120 feet of
flat land on the subject property which made it undesirable to build on; the
trees and shrubbery provided a buffer between Hillcrest and the shopping center;
water pressure was already poor in the area, additional residences would cause
more water problems; and the duplexes would lower property values in the
neighborhood. He stated they had a nice quiet neighborhood and the residents
believed it should be left as R-1 with no conditional use.
Mr. Tarvin asked if Mr. Oliver had his choice to leave the zoning R-1 without the
conditional use and have it constructed into single family houses facing onto
e
I.
•
C. 3
R-PZD 06-1883 Abshier Heights
Page 27 of 34
•
Planning Commission
July 22, 1991
Page 3
Hillcrest and possibly removing some of the trees versus the duplexes which would
he prefer.
Mr. Oliver stated he had seen in the newspaper that the property was going to be
rezoned R-1.5 for low rent housing. He explained that, if the property were
developed as single family housing similar to those already in the neighborhood,
he would not be opposed.
In response to a question from Mr. Mired, Ms. Bryant stated there was not an
application to rezone this property to R-1.5.
Mr. Tarvin explained that the property could be developed into single family
housing without the lot size and house size being comparable to those existing
in the neighborhood. He asked Mr. Oliver his preference between R-1 with a
conditional use for duplexes with protective restrictions regarding the trees and
parking versus R-1 single family with 70 foot frontages.
Mr. Allred explained that should the conditional use be granted the Planning
Commission would have some control, but if the conditional use were denied, they
would have no control over any single family development.
Mr. Oliver stated he would prefer the property remaining as it was, but since
that was not possible, he would opt for the conditional use for duplexes with the
conditions that all of the trees remain as a buffer and that there was no access
to Hillcrest from the duplex.
Mr. Allred pointed out the duplexes were to be large and rather expensive,
• designed toward executive -type families which would be compatible with the
neighborhood. He further pointed out, should the property be developed as
affordable housing, the residents might not blend into the . neighborhood. He
explained that would have more of a negative social impact.
Mr. Paul Bailey, a resident of the area, appeared before the Commission and asked
where the development would get its water. He explained therewas only a 4 -inch
line serving the neighborhood. He stated the city had recently put in an 8 -inch
line in the area and he wanted to be sure the new development would tap off the
8 -inch line.
Mr. Bunn stated he had not seen a proposal but would have to make sure the
elevations were such that the development could use the 8 -inch line. He
explained the 8 -inch line was on a main pressure plain and the 4 -inch line was
on a high pressure plain. - ,
Mr. Gray pointed out that should the conditional use be granted, the developer
would still have to present a large scale development plat or subdivision plat
which would cover water, streets, sewers, etc. He explained the residents would
be notified of the hearing at that time.
Mr. Bailey stated he believed the property should be developed in congruence with
existing properties. He stated he wanted to be sure if the duplexes were built
that there would be no access on Hillcrest.
Mr. Cato asked Mr. Bailey, if the property were to be developed as proposed into
seven duplexes accessing a private road on the west side of the property and
preserving the trees versus developing the property into seven or eight lots with
probable access onto Hillcrest, which he would prefer.
Mr. Bailey stated he.would prefer no ingress or egress onto Hillcrest nor any
trees or bushes destroyed on Hillcrest.
C
C:3
R-PZD 06-1883 Abshier Heights
Page 28 of 34
Planning Commission
July 22, 1991
Page 4
Mr. Allred asked the residents in the audience if they preferred the duplexes
with the requirement that the trees be preserved and no access to Hillcrest. It
appeared the majority of the residents preferred the duplexes with those
conditions.
Mr. Allred explained that the Commission was trying to determine what was beet
for the neighborhood. He agreed that the most ideal use for the neighborhood was
to leave it like it was. He explained they did not have that type of control so
they were trying to determine what the next best alternative.
Me. Dawn Copeland, 1502 Hillcrest, appeared before -the Commission and stated she
was not in favor of the duplexes, that she would prefer single family housing.
She questioned the size of the tract, stating she did not believe it was a large
enough tract to construct seven or eight houses.
She stated she had reviewed the city ordinance covering conditional use
applications, Section 160.195. She explained the Planning Commission would not
grant a conditional use unless certain requirements were met, including making
written findings certifying compliance with eight areas of concern.
Me. Copeland stated the first two concerns were ingress and egress to the
property and off-street parking. She showed the commission a drawing of the area
pointing out the subject property in comparison to the surrounding property. She
explained there was a private driveway coming out of Evelyn Hills Shopping Center
leading into a narrow alley with a retaining wall. She further explained the
developer was proposing to put a driveway at the top of the retaining wall, which
would have to go north (she stated the street would not be wide enough to go both
ways), and then feed back into Hillcrest to go south. She stated this area would
not be conductive to good traffic flow. She further stated there was the
possibility of a fire hazard since the fire trucks would have difficulty in
negotiating the street. She also pointed out the trash collectors would also
have difficulty in negotiating the street for pickup.
Ms. Copeland stated another concern was location and availability of utilities.
She explained the water pressure diminished as it went downhill. She stated the
residents had been told the new 8 -inch line was strictly for the purposes of fire
hydrants and would not have any residential service. She pointed out the
existing gas line along the tree line.
She explained the builder had offered to buffer the area by leaving the trees on
the west side of Hillcrest but there would be no yard or open space since it
would be filled with buildings. She further stated that by filling the 'area with
buildings, it would create drainage problems with runoff going into the back of
the shops in Evelyn Hills.
Mr. Allred
explained the drainage would
be addressed
in the
large scale
development
and the city engineer would be
looking at the
plan.
Ms. Copeland stated she was confused' because they were telling her this was just
proposals that the developer was making and that it had to go before another
board to decide on the streets, gutters, etc. She stated the ordinance read
"...Before any conditional use shall be issued the Planning Commission shall make
written findings, certifying compliance with the specific rules governing
individual conditional uses and that satisfactory provision and engagement has
been made concerning the following..."
Mr. Allred explained the Planning Commission delegated their authority to the
planning office and city engineering staff. He further explained there were
other ordinances requiring that any development had to have the city engineer's
approval.
C. 3
R-PZD 06-1883 Abshier Heights
Page 29 of 34
r
Planning Commission
July 22, 1991
Page 5
Ms. Bryant concurred with Ms. Copeland that the Planning Commission should make
findings or reference staff findings. -
Ms. Copeland stated other concerns were the signs they would have on the duplexes
and security lighting which would add to the glare. She stated the final
consideration was the compatibility and harmony with adjacent property. She
pointed out this was a density problem, that building duplexes would result in
too many people being crammed into too small an area in a quiet neighborhood
composed of single family dwellings.
Me. Copeland stated she did not think preserving the trees would make up for
building duplexes. She asked the Commission to deny the conditional use.
Mr. Springborn pointed
out,
should the subject property be
subdivided into
minimum size city lots,
the new property owners would have the same rights as the
existing property owners
and
their driveways could also enter
from Hillcrest.
Me. Copeland stated she understood that.
CJ
•
Mr. Nickle pointed out neither the
calculation of the lot size.
In response to a question from Mr.
driveway would be thirty feet east
of the lot, from the retaining wa
feet.
easements nor the setbacks entered into the
.
Tarvin, Mr. Gray explained the west edge of
of the retaining wall. He stated the depth
L1 to the right-of-way of Hillcrest was 146
Mr. Gray stated the proposal was that the duplex would be approximately 40 feet
in width.
Me. Trena Oliver appeared before the Commission and stated it bothered her that
they were trying to put too many people in a small area. She stated she was in
favor of single family housing with only 7 or 8 families.
In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin regarding access to Hillcrest, Mr. Gray
explained he had not looked at access to Hillcrest from a single family
standpoint. -
Mr. Cleghorn stated he did not see a need for a change when the neighborhood had
existed for many years and the change was for a business venture.
Mr. Nickle agreed with Mr. Cleghorn. He stated he did not, feel access was
sufficient - that a one-way street 12 feet wide, going across 600 feet, was not
in the beat interest of the city. He further stated he was opposed to the
conditional use.
Mr. Springborn stated he normally voted in favor of the neighborhood, even though
as a Commissioner he felt like as far as the city was concerned, that the
application was a good one. He moved to deny the application.
Mr. Cleghorn seconded the motion.
The motion passed 7-0-1 with Commissioners Cleghorn, Hanna, Springborn, Allred,
Tarvin, Cato and Nickle voting ^yes" and Commissioner Robertson voting "no".
C. 3
R-PZD 06-1883 Abshier Heights
Page 30 of 34
Planning Commission
July 22, 1991
Page 6
The ird item on the agenda was a request for a large scale development for e
Sport Park submitted by Rick Collins for property located on the south s146 of
Wedingt n Drive, west of Betty Jo Drive. The property is zoned A-1,
Mr. Don Bun'h city Engineer, explained the large scale development co isted of
a recreation area on 76.35 acres. Activities include a golf dri ng range,
batting cages, putting green, and pro shop. He explained future jhaees would
include a rest rant, a retail garden shop, and a par three go course. He
stated there wer no significant problems identified at the Pla Review meeting
or the Subdivision Committee meeting. He stated there was some/discussion- about
the drainage plans d�d ithadbeen suggested at the subdivisio committee meeting
that the drainage plae be available for the planning commi ion. He explained
there was also a ques ion about the location of an easez�nt where there were
several large trees. recommended the large scale velopment be approved
subject to plat review ait4 subdivision committee comme s; approval of drainage
plane by the City Engineet4 resolution of the locati n of the 15 foot utility
easement; construction of a kidewalk along Wedington rive; and conformance with
the terms of the conditional se granted earlier the Planning Commission.
MOTION
Mr. Tarvin moved to accept the Larg scale
to staff comments, plat review and ubdil
Mr. Hanna seconded the motion.
The motion carried 8-0-0.
WAVIER OF sutwlvISION REGULATIONS LOT i
YQO.D n.v4C - W tw Trrrcllu CT V P VQGT
ipment of The Sports Park subject
committee comments.
Ii
The fourth item on the agenda as a request by BbRakes, City of Fayetteville
Land Agent, on behalf of Ro rt Lewis and Nancy 4tt Lewis for a lot split on
property located north of gtckaon Street and east o West Avenue. The property
is zoned C-3, Central Bus ness Commercial.
Commissioner Robertson tated he would be abstaining fi@m discussion and voting
on this item since and Mrs. Lewis were his clients. \
Mr. Rakes explain the subject property was a portion of Utq Walton Arts Center
parking and, to f fill their obligation, the city had to Turnsh parking spaces.
He further exp 'ned this property contained 1.41 acres, a nding from West
Avenue to CamplSell. He stated the split was in order to allow se's Restaurant
to retain th ir parking: He further stated the City would be buy%pg 0.79 acres.
Mr. Hay(na moved to grant the lot split as requested.
Mr./Sorinaborn seconded the motion.
•
C. 3
R-PZD 06-1883 Abshier Heights
Page 31 c134
•
I
.1' Ikaesr
-
Brit or ASSuxnn
This declaration of ■ Bill of Assurance made this �__ day of
11:r,PtlA4• 19 I . by the undersigned, owners of the following
real estate described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part boroof
looted in the City of Payatteville, Washington Caaty, Arkansas.
VERNMA5, the aforessaid amers of the real property described in said
Exhibit "A" have secured iron the Payettaville Board of Directors a temporary
waiver of the requirement prescribed by f 18-31 of the Payettovdlla Cods of
Ordinances to install a sidewalk across said rest property, and
WB88&5, the owners are desirous of s.kiug a declaration of the same in the
fora of this Sill of Assurance vith the intention of guaranteeing the
preservation of certain values and amenities in the cosemoity and to bind the
ownersand the owners` succeeears and soalgns aid the real estate described in
Exhibit "A" and its subsequent owners with the obligations and restrictions
hereinafter set forth for all pmosont and future deve1cpesant and use uf_aid
property. a non+ 'n
?'^ m m
SOW, 1nrskwOEE, the owner; declare that the above described 4'4 ps ac.
ti., to ,
shall be held, devalaped, trmaferred, sold, conveyed and occupied sn'_BJ'wet to tbb
z= 3 ^
covononte and restrictiam herein cot forth, r' o ro o
I. '° N
upon receipt of written notice from the City of Payettoville, owners shall
construct to City Specifications and at awmars' expenda sidewalt across the
aentire CAS+ aide of the abovegdescribed property. The Bract location of
said sidewalk shall be specif�_ tba City. Should owan ofail to properly
construct said sidewalk vlthin 3 days from receipt of said Witten notice, the
City shell have the right to construct the sidewalk' and charge the cost thereof
to awsere. Said cast shall constitute a lien an the property described in
Exhibit "A". and the City shall have the right of foreclosure by public pale
without the necessity of court procaodings.
WITNESS our heads this day of /{`itACy 19 'ft.
4 6ketcavr
lhua1404sct282
I
C. 3
R-PZD 06-1883 Abshier Heights
Page 32 of 34
SYATB 0y AAKAN3AS )
COMM W NA.4ffw) as 1
M tt RfN@SeR®, that an thin day comp before the underiifned, a Notary
Public, duly goelifSM. onatssianed and acting vi��TTiias and for tba aforonatd
County and Stato, appeared in parson the within named /71 Cn4 Aet. t.
and to me uai1 knom..vks.sasyi y tp.
_. a.nsy+sssha,
ssd�taes duly authorirsd to exaeute iTa faregok+g imerusnnt,
and further stated and acknonlad`ed that had
at sipnd, executed and delivered asid iutroagat for the considetatiea, ease and
purposes harotn Bastioned and Set forth.
.WLTMW s band and anal as such Notary Public an this do; of
c i hOT,lffy �' Notary pu e
RJfi ""'8�8}Zaa.heplrmI
. ••r r.. .• •y.
\' 2souf. alone
•
a
07
u
O
a
mui404f�283
a
•
C. 3
R-PZD 06-1883 Abshier Heights
Page 33 of 34
•
�x%LIPtL d^e,
tim w P� avafl Wit Past of t NOMM at Qs.nn (m/s) of
sa, teimat p 16 Reta. Aaeya 30 oast at
tbs PitUi Win
. paeetoelstly taaetilsd as tellers. to -K 7 C�nnptLtfP�• atluaeur t in
Dstfatep at • Posa Cot it a
99.15• {9' We 204.0$ fat and a o t9. Ro s, so fast !am ePa awes id point aormr et
j asltw weJ1rtlnnt Qurttat ctrl/dl oL n. Avem at brttnt (Nasa). crib - Dssais
• c� 5 3 was 610tf.nj t h of 9tilenst Ltasus/ t4san a1aa said trot4 to is
d {6 1f o. 619 Gate ttaao.Iaatlaq sasd cute-ebyP0 bj p•aa•6idWe 309 taatl
tSsaea a attatai a. Pia test/ Ltesets a q•a9.7t" Be 14$ test to the point of
bsglnelao. ^_�••-+�-•—t Z.Oa �es.a mts et lass.
•
E
8
ee�Ppp��
Ulaj.4V4,za284
I
9
0
• - - H:-
tll
O
•
0
u
a
O
• From: rwicks <rwicks@uark.edu>
To: ward2_pos1 <ward2_post@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>, ward2_pos2
<ward2_post@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>, ward3_pos2 <ward3_post@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>, ward4-pos1
<ward4_posl@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>, bthiel <bthiel@cox.net>, lljordan7 <Iljordan7@hotmail.com>, mayor
<mayor@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>, RRhoades cRRhoades@HallEstill.com>, <RRhoads@HallEstill.com>,
ssmith <ssmith@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 3/7/06 10:52AM
Subject: Covenants, 1991 Minutes & Talking Points
Mayor Coody and Council members
Some of you asked for copies of the covenents restricting development on the
site of the proposed Abshier Hights project, copies of the 1991 Planning
Commission meeting when this issue was resolved and a copy of our talking
points for this evening. I am attaching these in case they are not included in
your packet.
Thank you very much,
Rob Wicks on behalf of the Hillcrest and Abshier Community
• iililtfif< i..•. 1!111 111!{1!♦
Rob Wicks
Associate Professor
Department of Communication
Kimpel Hall 417
University of Arkansas
• Fayetteville, AR 72701
Office: 479-575-5958
FAX: 479-575-6734
1111111111111111111111111111
•
the C_2 area and the Residential District East of the 150 foot strip of land;
and,
WHEREAS THE EV ll, HILLS SHOPPING CENTER, INC., is now developing theEvelyn
Hills Shopping Center on a part of the real estate first hereinabove described
and desires to include said 150 foot East-West strip of real estate in the
Shopping Center area; and,
WHEREAS, the OWNERS have agreed with the planning Commission, the Fayettevill"
City Council and the owners of the real estate abutting the East boundary of
Hillcrest Avenue, Fayetteville, Arkansas, that they will place of record the
restrictive covenants set out below if the West 130 feet of said 150 foot strip
of real estate is re -zoned from R-lA Residential District to C-2 Commercial
District with the Fast 20 feet of said 150 foot strip to remain zoned R-lA
Residential District as a buffer zone; and,
WHEREAS, the restrictive covenants set out below shall benefit the owners
of the real estate situated in Fayetteville, Arkansas, which abuts on the
East boundary of Hillcrest Avenue in said City and which is located due East of
the 1,030 feet of real estate first described hereinabove; now,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises set out herein and for the
Purposes hereinabove mentioned, the said Evelyn Hills Shopping Center, Inc.,
and T.I. Abshier and Grace E. Abshier, husband and wife, hereby covenant:
1. That no commercial building which extends above thestreet level of
Hillcrest Avenue as it now exists shall be constructed of placed upon a strip
of land 80 feet by 1,030 feet which strip of land lies.20 feet West of
Hillcrest Avenue and. abuts the North boundary of Abshier Drive, Fayetteville,
Arkansas, which strip of land is described as follows:
A parcel of land lying in the NWI of Section 10, Township 16 North Range
30 West, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point which
is South 89 degrees 55' 30" West 204 feet from the Northeast corner of the S1
NW4 M'k of Section 10, thence South 660 feet, thence South Odegreas 08' West
370 feet, thence South 89 degrees 55' 30" West 80 feet thence North 1,030
feet, more or less, to a point 80 feet due West of the beginning point,
thence. East 80 feet to the place of beginning,
2. That no means of ingress or egress to and from the aforesaid real estate II
described in paragraph 1 hereinabove from Hillcrest Avenue, Fayetteville,
Arkansas shall be permitted to exist, except that the present means of ingress
and egress to and from said real estate from the said Hillcrest Avenue Fayette-
. GREER ABSTRACT COMPANY
R [LIABLE ABSTRACTS SHEET No. .1
FAYETTEVILLE.SFRINGDALE. ARKANSAS
villa, Arkansas, located about 350 feet North of Abshier Drive, Fayetteville, •
Arkansas, and the North 50 feet of the real estate described in paragraph 1
hereinabove shall constitute and continue to be the means of ingress and egress
to and from said real estate described in paragraph 1 hereinabove from Hill_
crest Avenue Fayetteville, Arkansas
3. That no building, parking lot or are- structure of any kind except retain-
ing walls and railings shall be placed upon said real estate described in para-
graph 1 hereinabove nearer than 20 feet to the present West boundary line of
Hillcrest Avenue, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
4. That the base of any motor vehicle parking lot placed and/or maintained
upon the real estate described in paragraph 1 hereinabove shall beatleast B
feet below the present street level of Hillcrest Avenue, Fayetteville, Arkansas,
except that this covenant shall not apply to the North 100 feet of said strip
of land.
5. Within 12 months from the date of the passage of an ordinance re -zoning
the aforesaid 130 feet strip of land to C-2 Commercial District, and subject to I'
the provisions of paragraph 2 hereinabove, Evelyn Hills, Shopping Center, Inc. J,
shall construct a fence along the West bounday of the aforesaid 20 foot strip rk
land which remains R -]A Residential District, which fence shall be at least a'
feet in height.
6. That within 12 months from the date of the passage of an ordinance re-
zoning said 130 foot strip of land to C-2 Commercial District , the Evelyn Hills
Shopping Center, Inc., shall landscape and beautify the 20 foot strip lying
immediately east of said 130 foot strip (which 20 foot strip also lies immedia-
tely west of Hill crest Avenue), which is the strip retained in R -1A Re sidentia
District as a buffer zone. That this beautification shall include the planting
and permanent maintenance at grass and shrubs. That if this beautification is
not done and maintained by the Evelyn Hills Shopping Center, Inc., the City
of Fayetteville may do the beautification and maintenance at the expense of the
Evelyn Hills Shopping Center.
T. These. covenants shall run with the land and shall be binding on all
parties and all persons claiming under Evelyn Hills Shopping Center, Inc. and
T.I. Abshier and Grace E. Abshier, husband and wife, for a period of twenty (20)
years from the date that these covenants are recorded, after which time said
covenants shall be automatically extended for successive periods of five (5)
GREER ABSTRACT COMPANY
RELIABLE ABSTRACTS SHEET No. � a
FAYETTEVILLE-.SPRINGDALE, ARKANSAS
years unless an instrument signed by owners of a majority of the separate tracts
of property fronting on both the East and West side of Hillcrest Avenue, Fay-
etteville, Arkansas, for the 1,030 feet as set out in the legal description
hereinabove, releasing said covenants, or any part thereof, is placed of record.
B.; These covenants shall inure to the benefit of any persona owning av of
the real estate which abuts the East and West boundary lines of Hillcrest
Avenue for the distance of 1,030 feet as set out in the legal descriptionhere
inabove, and any such property owner 1s hereby granted the authority to enforce
such covenants.
In Witness Whereof, the parties hereto have hereunto caused this instrument
to be executed on this 31 day of August, 1962.
EVELYN HILLS SHOPPING CENTER, INC.
BY John D. Askew, President
ATTEST: John Maguire, Secretary
T.I. Abshier
Grace E. Abshier
•
•
STATE OF ARKANSAS
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
On this 31 day of August, 1962, before the undersigned, a Notary Public, duly
commissioned, qualified and acting, within and for the said county and state, I4i
appeared in person the within named John D. Askew and John Maguire to me person-
ally known, who stated that they were the President and Secretary of Evelyn
Hills Shopping Center, Inc., a corporation, and were duly authorized in their
respective capacities to execute the foregoing instrument for and in the name
and behalf of said corporation, and further stated and acknowledged that they h
so signed, executed and delivered said instrument for this consideration, uses
and purposes therein mentioned and set forth.
In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal
this 31 day of August, 1962.
Jane R. Horne, Notary Public.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
Be it remembered that on this day came before me the undersigned, a Notary
GREER ABSTRACT COMPANY
SHEET No. 59
weuneLe nee7nacrn
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
KNOtt ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
WHEREAS, EVELYN HILLS SHOPPING CENTER, INC., a corporation and T.I. Abshier
and Grace E. Abshier, husband and wife (hereinafter called OWNERS), are the
record owners of the following described real estate situated in Fayetteville,
Washington County, Arkansas, to -wit:
A parcel of land lying in the NWT Section 10, Township 16, North Range 30
West, within the corporate limit# of the City of Fayetteville, and more
particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point which is S 89 deg.
30" W 184.35 feet from the NE corner of said Si NW4 M4 of Section 10,
thence South 660 feet, thence South 0 degrees 08' W 370.0 feet; thence S
89 deg. 55' 30" W 916.5 feet to the Bast right of way of U.S, hwy. No. 71;
thence Northeasterly along said right of way more or less 1034.5 feet
to an iron pin which is S. 89 degrees 55' 30" W 734 feet from the point of
beginning; thence N, 89 degrees 55 30" E. 734 feet to the point of
beginning, containing 20.2 acres, more or less.
WHEREAS, the aforesaid real estate abuts the West boundary of Hillcrest
Avenue, Fayetteville, Arkansas, beginning at the North boundary line of Abshier
Drive in the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, and continuing North for a dista
of 1,030 feet; and:
WHEREAS, the OWNERS filed a petition with the Planning Commission of Fayette-
ville, Arkansas, seeking to re -zone from R-lA Residential District to C-2
Commercial District the following described premises, situated in Fayetteville,
Washington County, Arkansas, to -wit:
A Strip of land 150 feet deep located on and abutting the West boundary of
Hillcrest Avenue, beginning at Abshier Drive, and running, thence North 370
feet; a strip of land 150 feet deep located on and abutting the West boundary {
of Hillcrest Avenue, beginning 370 feet North of Abshier Drive, and running
thence North 660 feet, and
as a result of which the Planning Commission has recommended that the West 130
feet thereof be rezoned to C-2 Commercial District, and that the East 20feet
thereof remain zoned R-lA Residential District as a buffer zone betweml:
GREER ABSTRACT COMPANY 56
.
fi
SHEET No. `'
RELIABLE ABSTRACTS •
FAYETTEVILLE- SPRINGDALE. ARKANSAS
- .. Y .. is ."\.. :' .. ...
•
LJ
•
Public, within and for the county aforesaid, duly commissioned, and acting,
T.I. Abshier and Grace E. Abshier, husband and wife, to me well known as parties
in the foregoing covenants, and stated that they had executed the same for the
consideration and purposes therein mentioned and set forth.
Witness my hand and seal as such Notary Public this 31 day of August, 1962.
Jane R. Horne, Notary Public.
Filed for Record Sept. 18,. 1962 10:06 R.M. Recorded in Volume 580 page 214
GREER ABSTRACT COMPANY �lj
RELIABLE AOSTRACTS SHEET No.
M'
C
r
I(t
a
i
Best m Assukj RE
This declaration of a Bill of Assurance wade this _ day of
IMGVBA.__ J _ 19�. by the onderaigsed, owners of the fallowing
zeal estate descriibed in Bahiblt "A" attached hereto and msda a part hated
located in the City of Payatteville. Washington County, Arkansas.
WHEREAS# the sforessaid amens of the real property described in said
Exhibit "A" have secured icon the Fayetteville Board of Directors a tesporary
waiver of the requirement prescribed by f 18-31 of the Pgotteville Code of
Ordiesnas to install a sidewalk across said real propartyt and
WII18AS, the owners are desirous of making a declaration of the sane in the
foe of thin Bill of Assurance with the intention of gusresteeing the
preservation of certain valves and amenities in the commity and to bind the
owners and the owners' sueca,sors and assigns and the real *state described in
Exhibit "A" and its subsequent anmrs with the obligations and restrictions
hereinafter set forth for all present and future dsralopmrmt and urns of` said
property. r w
"' rTw rrw
NOW. T$ UOSE, the owners declare that the above described 1°S' :
shall be hold. developed, tran,terrsd. sold, conveyed and occupied s4b$iet to thi
covenants and restrictions herein set forth, m n 3 n
1. a p O
—4
Upon receipt of written notice from the City of Fayetteville, owners shall
construct to City Speciflcatioes and at owners' expenses, a sidewalk access the
entire EASt side of the above described property. The exact location of
said sidewalk ,hall be speel9� City. Should awsors fail to properly
construct said sidewalk within days iron receipt of said written not Las. the
City sha11 have the right to construct the sidewalk and charge the cost thereof
to owners. said cast shall constitute a lien on the property described in
Exhibit "A", and the City shall have the right of foreeloaoza by public sale
without the necessity of court proccedisgs.
NlTNSSB Our hands this I0 dsy of SeRFns1Rv . 19'ii.
tms1404scr282
z*&:L. ( .7.krr,../Ne. L,;i.n. a A>
pill iik •t•
BB IT ROOOB=, that an this day came before the undersigned, & Notary
PublSa@ duly qualified, aarintoned and mina viU4n td for rho Sd
County and Stota, appeared In ptraon the vftbia named ITbtJutw( D..7 .ya.
,,to ma mall tno�m,
sedaswe duly authorftad to asacuu tha 4oregeSag la,tsamen; '
and further stated and ac aovledaed tbst had
n sired, executed and daliwtsd said inttgment for the conidsration, ow sad
purposes borate msntfon" mid out forth.
JG1t7683 Mad and seal as each Notay Public on this , d day of
fit•i3l`il� fq q/
lPUC
•Notary P' c
t��'��epdonrBtpisni
r1
i1
Y
a
a
S
N
0
T
0
u
r
a
•
t.
£yibt A°:
77• Put of ea. 5eenWw.e Qnatat 4) of
Elan 15r lbhaoOmW�sp�25 Rntb, a vs� .3y0n ��.t at
6'36". SO Lust at lat flat La a
W, fts !t. Oaathn.t Oese.t of
ha 5o.tbn.t Qatt t (1U2/4). Wald Ao1at b t
not ihu00W7 flea. N!6 tll-pl-varr if
q aid s=9tt'et'wYr / i!•00'8{ M. 1K fsWtJ
Int. ■ M'M'5d• y 141 f et to tnt point Of
�A OT 2....
•
f....i••
C,
3
a
S
8
W
3
Planning Commission
June 24, 1991
Page 3
M Merrell explained that the R -O zoning allowed five different use units
right including single and two family dwellings, Use unit 12 and Use Unit
whic defined offices, studios and professional offices. Mr. Merrell then
those 'terns under both use unit 12 and 25.
Mr. Merr 11 suggested one possible way this matter could be resolved w ld to
have Mr. for offer a Bill of Assurance that would guarantee that he wg�ld only
use the prOQerty for an office. He stated this was a very close cal for the
Planning Co fission with K -Mart and the fire station in the irnmediatf vicinity.
Mr. Springborn xpressed concern regarding the entire commercial strip to the
south. He explalped that, while there was nothing of a commercia nature to the
north, granting oE.the rezoning request would open the door to a growth of the
commercial strip.
In response to a stion from Mr. Allred regarding a effect widening
Stubblefield would hay on the area, Mr. Merrell stated h did not know if the
Traffic Division had do e any projections regarding in ease in traffic. He
further stated he believ it would have a relatively neignificant impact in
this area.
Mr. Hanna explained there werX
venants in the subdi ision prohibiting rezoning.
He stated he believed they oit to the resident of the subdivision to uphold
the covenants. He further d granting the zoning would encroach on the
integrity of the neighborhoot unless the e ire block, rather than one lot,
• was to be rezoned, it was trs t zoning.
Mr. Tarvin stated that, whildid in par agree with Mr. Hanna, the property
in the area was rental prop, and e elieved the rezoning would help the
area. He pointed out theoperty across the street from commercial
property, it was adjacent ther co rcially zoned property, there was no
buffer between the R-1 and crcial o rty. He stated that an office, built
to look like a house with pectiv cove nta, could make the property look
better in the future. He her xplaine that a business such as the one
proposed would probably be qer han a resi ence. He further stated he would
not consider rezoningbeyoni property but, in this instance, the property
could be considered a buffeween the R-1 an C-2.Me. Jackman asked, if in thture someone else a ould purchase the property,
whether more parking space ht be required.
Mr. Merrell explained th once the property was rezone to R -O it would remain
R -a and there was the asibility that additional par3Nng would be required,
depending upon the type of business that owned the propek4y. He stated all of
the parking would be//off-street parking.
Mr. Tarvin state they had granted conditional zoning befo e. He suggested
rezoning the pr erty with the condition that, should the ap licant sell the
property, it w ld revert to R-i.
Ms. Britton xpressed concern regarding the drainage in the area. She pointed
out there ere ditches down both perimeters of the property that handle the
stormwate drainage at this time. She questioned disposition of btiat water
should t e property be graded and a parking lot constructed.
Mr. A red asked if there was data available concerning when to start r
rent/l property in order to keep the area from "bottoming out".
• M/ Merrell stated he did not believe there was a rule of thumb. He
tated he believed this area was still highly residential.
Planning Commission
June 24, 1991
Page 4
arvin stated he really would not think a double driveway would cau hat
much nags problem.
Ms. Britton sta she did not believe there was enough ro on the site for a
double driveway, tha e entire parking lot would ha o access the street.
Mr. Perry stated the parking lo uld not be ig one, he would only need space
for five cars.
MOTION
Mr. Springborn state e believed the downside ri and effect on the
neighborhood was great. He moved the rezoning be denie
Ms. Brit seconded the motion.
T e motion passed 8-0-0.
CONDITIONAL USE CU91-14 - DUPLEXES
CHARLES SLOAN - W OF HILLCREST, N OF ABSHIER DR.
The fifth item on the agenda was a conditional use request for duplexes in an R-1
area submitted by Charles Sloan for property located on the west side of
Hillcrest Avenue, north of Abshier Drive.
Mr. Merrell explained the subject property was a narrow strip (l46' x 660•)
behind Evelyn Hills. He pointed out the property had a long and controversial
history. He stated previous owners had attempted to rezone the tract to
commercial several times. In 1962 the property was successfully rezoned;
however, a year later the issue was presented for public vote, and voters decided
the property should be left as a residential zone. He explained some of the
neighbors contended that the property was designated greenspace, but staff had
been unable to locate any such agreements or other legal documents to that
effect. Mr. Merrell explained that Askew Enterprises recently sold Evelyn Hills
Shopping Center and now had a contract to sell the subject tract to Charles Sloan
contingent upon the conditional use.
Mr. Merrell stated Mr. Sloan had originally requested a rezoning to construct
seven duplexes however staff had pointed out to him he could construct the
duplexes in R-1 with a conditional use. He further explained Mr. Sloan proposed
to retain all the trees along Hillcrest and construct a private drive along the
west property line for access. He stated Mr. Sloan proposed to develop with the
lay of the land, excavating only where necessary to drop the building height so
as not to infringe upon his neighbors' views.
Mr. Merrell pointed out there were five possible uses of the subject property:
(1) apartments, (2) offices, (3) single family residential, (4) greenspace, and
(5) duplexes. He stated that, considering the established, high -quality
surrounding residential properties, offices and apartments did not appear to be
a desirable development course. He pointed out that considering the domineering
presence of Evelyn Hills to the east, single family residential did not appear
to be feasible. He further explained that the subject property did not offer
much that would merit its purchase for a public park and, further, Mr. Askew
could not be required to retain the property as private greenspace. He pointed
out the only other development route was duplexes.
Mr. Merrell explained staff was only recommending this item be considered for
approval provided that Mr. Sloan assure that every tree along Hillcrest Avenue
be preserved, that there be no access through the trees, and that whatever access
drive was constructed be constructed on the west side of the property. He stated
• Planning Commission
June 24, 1991
Page 5
staff believed the duplexes would be a buffer between the single family dwellings
and the shopping center.
Mr. Hanna stated that, since the property was zoned A-1, one of the alternatives
would be dividing the tract into 8 or 9 lots, with 8 or 9 driveways exiting onto
Hillcrest and removing of several of the trees.
Mr. Merrell agreed that, should the property be divided into separate lots they
would probably lose a number of trees along Hillcrest.
Mr. Tarvin stated the garages could come in from the back of the house.
Mr. Allred asked if the subject property had been previously dedicated as a
greenspace, why it would not have been zoned P-1 at that time,
Mr. Merrell explained staff could find no records relating to the area being
designated a greenspace.
Mr. Harry Gray, representing Charles Sloan, explained this was a unique piece of
property and the terrain did limit development. He further explained the
property had been rezoned in 1962 with covenants attached to the rezoning.
Mr. Merrell explained staff had found information regarding the property being
zoned C-2 but the rezoning was rescinded by referendum.
Ms. Britton asked if the developer was proposing a single, common drive for the
• consideration of the property owners. She explained she saw that as a problem.
Mr. Gray explained that at this point they were just asking for the conditional
use and would have to come back on the actual construction of the duplexes. He
further stated they did propose to have a private drive at the rear of the
property and would not have access to Hillcrest. He explained they did not want
to remove any of the trees along Hillcrest. He stated they were willing to sign
a Bill of Assurance that there would be no existing trees removed.
Mr. Springborn asked if there was room for more than a 12 foot one-way street.
Mr. Allred stated subdivision committee could require no on -street parking if
this item were approved.
Ms. Donna Copeland, 1502 N. Hillcrest, appeared before the Commission and gave
some history of the property. She explained that, at the time Evelyn Hills
Shopping Center was built, a promise was made to plant a barrier of trees between
the houses and shopping center and never to build on the land between Evelyn
Hills and Hillcrest. She asked the Commission to consider the impact the
conditional use would make on the neighborhood. Ms. Copeland stated that when
Mr. Abshier dedicated the street to the city, he included the possibility of a
reverter. If it ceased to be used for a street, the land would revert to the
abutting landowners. She explained that not all of the strip of land was used
for a street, and the adjoining property owners had taken care of the street
right-of-way on both sides. She further stated many of the property owners had
purchased their homes along Hillcrest, because it was a dead-end street without
a lot of traffic or noise.
Ms. Copeland explained that citizens relied on the city to control growth not
developers. She stated, if the city planned properly, zoning would stabilize
property values and there would be some predictability about what location could
be used for what purpose. She further pointed out, if the conditional use was
• granted, there would be 14 residences across the street from six single family
homes. The new residences would be approximately 1,300 square feet as opposed
f
Planning Commission
June 24, 1991
Page 6
to 2,600 square foot homes currently existing. She pointed out there would be
an increase in traffic, noise and reduced safety. She also suggested there may
be a problem with the drainage in the area if the subject tract was built over.
She requested the conditional use be denied. She presented a petition protesting
the conditional use with approximately 40 signatures.
Mr. Paul Bailey, 1532 Hillcrest, appeared before the Commission and stated he
believed the subject property was too small to construct 7 duplexes. He further
stated he thought it would be a very poor place to live. He pointed out that in
the winter when the weather was bad the road would be impassible. He suggested
the residents could join together to keep the property mowed.
E. Fay Jones, 1330 Hillcrest, stated construction of the duplexes would change
the environment of the neighborhood which had always been single-family: homes.
He also mentioned an increase in traffic. He requested the conditional use be
denied.
Mr. Dick Oliver, 1440 Hillcrest, appeared before the Commission and stated that,
when he purchased his property in 1972, the realtor had told him the subject
property was to be used as greenspace, providing a buffer between the residential
area and the shopping center. He explained the company that purchased the
shopping center had not purchased the subject tract of land because it was
greenspace. He also pointed out that any construction would have to destroy some
of the trees. He stated the noise from the shopping center was a problem, even
with the trees. He further stated there would be no view for any building
constructed on the subject property. He mentioned additional traffic,
impassibility when ice was on the roadway, and noise as some of his concerns
should duplexes be constructed. He suggested the Planning commission. should make •
the area a permanent greenspace.
Ms. Trina Oliver, 1440 Hillcrest, appeared before the Commission, and strongly
urged the Commission to not approve the conditional use. She stated the property
had always be intended for and used as a greenspace.
Mr. Gray explained, when the property had been rezoned in 1962, there had been
restrictive covenants, but after the referendum revoked the zoning, all
restrictive covenants were voided.
Mr. Allred asked if there was room for 8 or 9 lots should the property develop
as single family homes.
Mr. Gray stated they would be able to get 8 lots under R-1 zoning.
Mr. Harold Copeland, 1502 Hillcrest, appeared before the Commissioh and stated
they had chosen the property because it was single-family residences.. He further
stated the realtor had assured them that, should the subject property ever. be
developed, it too would be single-family residences.
Mr. Gerald Davis, 1516 Hillcrest, appeared before the Commission and expressed
his concern over the proposed conditional use.
Mr. Allred stated he would be in favor of tabling this item to allow everyone to
diligently search for any documentation regarding the greenspace. He explained
that unless documentation could be found, the property was zoned R-1 with no
restrictions.
Na. Britton moved to table the item for further research.
•
• Planning Commission
June 24, 1991
Page 7
-
Mr. Hanna seconded_ the motion.
The motion and second were amended to table the item until the second meeting in
July.
The motion passed B -0-o.
Mr. Allred suggested the property owners get with the staff and work together to
search for any documentation. He explained that a verbal contract regarding real
estate was non -binding. He stated he wanted to see something in writing, if
anything existed.
PLAT - TIMBER CREST SUBDIVISION
The sI4th item on the agenda was a preliminary plat for timber Crest Subdivisimn
submitt d by Mel Milholland on behalf of Mike Pennington. The property/is
located dwthe north aide of Mission Blvd., east of Crossover Road. The pr erty
is zoned R\, Low Density Residential and contains 27.52 acres with 56 ots.
Mr. Bunn had ft the meeting and, therefore, Mr. Merrell gave the,.'Engineers
report. He exp fined the property was annexed into the city and re�pfied from A-1
to R-1 approximat y two weeks earlier by the Board of Directors. He stated the
development consis of 58 lots located on 27.5 acres. He stat9� that water and
sewer were available\o the site. He further stated there had een some question
as to whether the se*r would have to be provided by a ump station or by
gravity. The preliminay plat indicated the constructipi of a pump station;
• however, it has not been\planwa
a gravity sewer was practical.
Mr. Milholland reminded sion that at t e last meeting they had
questioned stormwater draand deposits/f slit during construction.
He explained he had talkednn regardin the storm drainage. Mn Bunn
felt the proposed drainagadequate. a stated they would be willing
to install catch ponds fo'f that .jds the Commission's desire.
At Ms..Britton's request, Mr.Milholla xplained the highway department had
come up with a design for discharge of et water. He explained the design would
slow the water down but still drain by lac g concrete blocks in the apron. He
explained this would slow the wat down nd make a wider path with less
velocity.
Ms. Britton asked if Mr. Milho and would be givi a bill of assurance that he
would build the silt ponds to contain the silt dun construction.
Mr. Milholland stated he uld.
Mr. Tarvin stated the could not contain silt during co traction. When it
rains, muddy water w uld wash silt out. He stated he beli ed the Commission
needed to be caret u that they did not impose any conditions th t were out of the
ordinary with dev lopment in the city.
M/Cleghorn ked if Mr. Bunn had felt the catch ponds were neces ary.Mnd stated they had not discussed them.
Mpointed out the excavation and grading ordinance would comeethe middle of July and this development would have to abide by heoe further stated he would like to see an effort made to reduce a dc, but he agreed with Mr. Tarvin silt could not be totally contained.
Planning Commission
June 24, 1991
Page 8
Milholland explained he would be making an effort to reduce the silt, but he
Xer intended to give the impression that there would not be muddy water.
Mr. pringborn stated he would not personally require a bill of assurance, but
he wou d be happy with the assurance they had received from Mr. Milholland. ijd
explain�4 at the last meeting he had not felt the problem had been addressed - t
now he f� it had been.
Mr. Tarvin ked what was different about this subdivision that warrantp4 them
taking this expe of stand that they had not done in the past.
Mr. Merrell exp14ined that he believed there was concern regarding t e property
because it border\d a stream and needed to be handled carefully. H pointed out
the land was relat vely level. He stated the Planning Commieaio always needed
to be careful to no single out anyone.
Mr. Mike Pennington, t'h� developer of the property, stated i was his intent to
develop the property so as to please the City of Fayettev lle. He stated .he
believed the Commission's questions were valid.
Mr. Springborn moved to appro'Iq
the plat
subject 14
plat review comments and
commission comments.
\
/
Mr. Hanna seconded the motion.
In response to a question from Mr. Tar in, it as determined that the preliminary
plat was being approved with Mr. Milho la making an effort to stabilize the
silt by constructing catch ponds during natruction of the subdivision.
The motion passed 8-O-0.
PRELIMINARY PLAT - WEDINGTON
PHASE I, II, III & IV
MD., N OF WEDINGTON DR.
The seventh
item on the
agend was a preliminar plat for Wedington
Heights
Addition, Phases I, II,
II , and IV submitted y
Mark Marquess
for BMP
Development
and represented Harry Gray. The proper
is located west
of Salem
Road, north
of Wedington
D five. The property is zone
R-1.5, Moderate
Density
Residential
and contains
A4 acres with 151 lots.
Mr. Merrell stated a p ion of this property would be dev oped for affordable
housing. He explain�d the development consisted of four ph�qes with a total of
151 Iota on approxi ately 34 acres. He pointed out that Per Franklin of the
Traffic Departmen had expressed some concern about the additib�al traffic that
would be generapd at Highway 16 due to the development; ho ever, any new
development wo d generate additional traffic.
Mr. Merrell pfated both water and sewer are readily available to the 'te and the
general dr inage plan appears to be control drainage. He stated Mr. Bunn
recommen4Id approval subject to the plat review comments; submittal of - proval
of Beta ed plane and specifications for water, sewer, streets, and drains e; the
tying Af Anne Street through to an existing street in Giles Addition wiIt the
cons uction of any phase after Phase I; the platting of a 50 foot right -o way
forjtuture street construction north from the intersection of "E" Street and "
S set; construction of sidewalks per city ordinance; and payment of parks fe
pr city ordinance.
0
•
LJ
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
FAYETTEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, July -22,
1991 in the Board of Directors Room on the second floor of the City
Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jack Cleghorn, Fred Hanna, J. E. Springborn, Jerry Alfred, Joe
Tarvin, Hark Robertson, Charles Nickle, and Jett Cato
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jana Lynn Britton
OTHERS PRESENT: Becky Bryant, Don Bunn, Sharon Langley, members of the press
and others
MINUTES
The minutes of the July 9, 1991 meeting were approved as distributed. .,
CONDITIONAL USE CU91-14
CHARLIE SLOAN - W SIDE OF HILLCREST, N OF ABSHIER
i
The second item on.the agenda was a request for a conditional use in order to
construct duplexes in R-1, Low Density Residential submitted by Charlie Sloan and
represented by Harry Gray., The property is located on the west side of Hillcrest
Avenue, north of Abshier Drive.
• Becky Bryant reminded the Commission that, at the June 24, 1991 meeting, this
item had been tabled in order to allow staff to further investigation the
allegations that the subject 2.2 acres had been designated greenspace. She
stated that previously the Abehiers had offered to place restrictive covenants
on the property in exchange for C-2 zoning. The covenants were executed and
filed. She•explained the rezoning had been brought to a public vote and citizens
had voted down the rezoning. She further explained that revoking the zoning had
the legal effect of also revoking the covenants. She stated she had discussed
this matter with the Assistant City Attorney who agreed the covenants were no
longer binding nor valid.
Ms. Bryant further pointed out the original covenants had only affected the east
20 feet of the property. She stated the City had a 30 foot easement along the
east property line so there would be no building in that area anyway. She
further stated Mr. Sloan was willing to give a Bill of Assurance for tree
• protection along the street. She explained staff believed this was a high
quality development which would not significantly impact the neighborhood.
Ms. Bryant suggested the Commission could apply conditions on the development.
She pointed out that, should the conditional use be denied, Mr. Sloan or any
other party could remove the trees on Hillcrest and construct a single family
affordable housing project over which the city would have little control. She
stated the only solid legal ground on which the Planning Commission could deny
the -conditional use was by finding that the request was incompatible with
adjacent properties. She explained, however, that one of the planning principles
used to encourage buffering of single family residential from commercial was the
use of an intermediate type of zoning.
Ms. Bryant stated Commissioner Britton had raised a question about access to the
property. She stated both drives on the north and south ends were included in
.the legal description of the property which Mr. Sloan hoped to purchase. She
• stated,•if the conditional use were granted, the development would then go
Planning Commission Si
July 22, 1991
Page 2
through the large scale development process. She suggested any further concerns
about access be addressed at that time.
In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Me. Bryant explained the property
could be used for an affordable housing development without rezoning. She stated
the Commission had some control over the property with a conditional use but,
without a conditional use, the Commission had very little control.
Mr. Tarvin asked if they could add a provision to the conditional use a provision
denying parking and access by pedestrians along Hillcrest.
Ms. Bryant stated the Commission could impose any reasonable condition as long
as the condition was not arbitrary or capricious.
In response to a question from Mr. Hanna, Ms. Bryant stated a 30 -foot easement
along Hillcrest had been executed by the developer. She explained nothing could
be built in the easement but an easement did not restrict the developer from
clearing the area.
In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Gray explained that, should the
property be developed as single family homes, he believed the property would be
split into eight lots all fronting on Hillcrest with drives onto Hillcrest. He
further explained it would be much more difficult to develop single family homes
with private drive's. He stated the terrain dictated the type of construction.
Mr. Tarvin asked if the difference was because the duplexes would all be owned
by one person.
Mr. Gray stated the current plan was that Mr. Sloan would own all of them. He •
stated eventually they could be sold. He explained there would be covenants set
up to cover the private drive.
Mr. Tarvin asked if the covenants could not be set up for private homes.
Mr. Gray explained they could but, due to the terrain, he did not see the
development being a quality single family development. He stated covenants were
normally tied to property owners associations which cover the maintenance of the
drives, etc. He further stated he could see some problems with covenants on
single family development on this property.
In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Gray explained the duplexes would
face Hillcrest shielding the parked cars from view. He further explained the
apartment plan was for two-story duplexes with the lower floor being below the
level of Hillcrest and the upper floor extending slightly above it. He stated
the plan was to construct a wooden bridge to extend from Hillcrest to the upper
level of the duplexes in order to provide pedestrian access.
Dick Oliver, 1440 Hillcrest, appeared before the Commission and spoke in
opposition to the conditional use. He explained the construction of duplexes
would triple the number of people and traffic; that the residents of the duplex
and visitors to the duplexes would park on Hillcrest; there was only 120 feet of
flat land on the subject property which made it undesirable to build on; the
trees and shrubbery provided a buffer between Hillcrest and the shopping center;
water pressure was already poor in the area, additional residences would cause
more water problems; and the duplexes would lower property values in the
neighborhood. He stated they had a nice quiet neighborhood and the residents
believed it should be left as R-1 with no conditional use.
Mr. Tarvin asked if Mr. Oliver had his choice to leave the zoning R-1 without the •
conditional use and have it constructed into single family houses facing onto
• Planning Commission
July 22, 1991
Page 3
Hillcrest and possibly removing some of the trees versus the duplexes which would
he prefer.
Mr. Oliver stated he had seen in the newspaper that the property was going to be
rezoned R-1.5 for low rent housing. He explained that, if the property were
developed as single family housing similar to those already in the neighborhood,
he would not be opposed.
In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Ms. Bryant stated there was not an
application to rezone this property to R-1.5.
Mr. Tarvin explained that the property could be developed into single family
housing -without the lot size and house size being comparable to those existing
in the neighborhood. He asked Mr. Oliver his preference between R-1 with a
conditional use for duplexes with protective restrictions regarding the trees and
parking versus R-1 single family with'70 foot frontages.
Mr. Allred explained that should the conditional use be granted the Planning
Commission would have some control, but if the conditional use were denied, they
would have no control over any single family development.
Mr. Oliver stated he would prefer the property remaining as it was, but since
that was not possible, he would opt for the conditional use for duplexes with the
conditions that all of the trees remain as a buffer and that there was no access
to Hillcrest from the duplex.
• Mr. Allred pointed out the duplexes were to be large and rather expensive,
designed toward executive -type families which would be compatible with the
neighborhood. He further pointed out, should the property be developed as
affordable housing, the residents might not blend into the neighborhood. He
explained that would have more of a negative social impact.
Mr. Paul Bailey, a resident of the area, appeared before the Commission and asked
where the development would get its water. He explained there was only a 4 -inch
line serving the neighborhood. He stated the city had recently put in an 8 -inch
line in the area and he wanted to be sure the new development would tap off the
8 -inch line.
Mr. Bunn stated he had not seen a proposal but would have to make sure the
elevations were such that the development could use the 8 -inch line. He
explained the 8 -inch line was on a main pressure plain and the 4 -inch line was
on a high pressure plain. .
Mr. Gray pointed out that should the conditional use*be granted, the developer
would still have to present a large, scale development plat or subdivision plat
which would cover water, streets, sewers, etc. He explained the residents would
be notified of the hearing at that time.
Mr. Bailey stated he believed the property should be developed in congruence with
existing properties. He stated he wanted to be sure if the duplexes were built
that there would be no access on Hillcrest.
Mr. Cato asked Mr. Bailey, if the property were to be developed as proposed into
seven duplexes accessing a private road on the west side of the property and
preserving the trees versus developing the property into seven or eight lots with
probable access onto Hillcrest, which he would prefer.
Mr. Bailey stated he would prefer no ingress or egress onto Hillcrest nor any
• trees or bushes destroyed on Hillcrest.
Planning Commission
July 22, 1991
Page 4
Mr. Allred asked the residents in the audience if they preferred the duplexes
with the requirement that the trees be preserved and no access to Hillcrest. It
appeared the majority of the residents preferred the duplexes with those
conditions.
Mr. Allred explained that the Commission was trying to determine what was best
for the neighborhood. He agreed that the most ideal use for the neighborhood was
to leave it like it was. He explained they did not have that type of control so
they were trying to determine what the next beat alternative.
Me. Dawn Copeland, 1502 Hillcrest, appeared before -the Commission and stated she
was not in favor of the duplexes, that she would -prefer single family housing.
She questioned the size of the tract, stating she did not believe it was a large
enough tract to construct seven or eight houses.
She stated she had reviewed the city ordinance covering conditional use
applications, Section 160.195. She explained the Planning Commission would not
grant a conditional use unless certain requirements were met, including making
written findings certifying compliance with eight areas of concern.
Ms. Copeland stated the first two concerns were ingress and egress to the
property and off-street parking. She showed the Commission a drawing of the area
pointing out the subject property in comparison to the surrounding property. She
explained there was a private driveway coming out of Evelyn Hills Shopping Center
leading into a narrow alley with a retaining wall. She further explained the
developer was proposing to put a driveway at the top of the retaining wall, which
would have to go north (she stated the street would not be wide enough to go both
ways), and then feed back into Hillcrest to go south. She stated this area would
not be conductive to good traffic flow. She further stated there was the
possibility of a fire hazard since the fire trucks would have difficulty in
negotiating the street. She also pointed out the trash collectors would also
have difficulty in negotiating the street for pickup.
Ms. Copeland stated another concern was location and availability of utilities.
She explained the water pressure diminished as it went downhill. She stated the
residents had been told the new 8 -inch line was strictly for the purposes of fire
hydrants and would not have any residential service. She pointed out the
existing gas line along the tree line.
She explained the builder had offered to buffer the area by leaving the trees on
the west side of Hillcrest but there would be no yard or open space since it
would be filled with buildings. She further stated that by filling the area with
buildings, it would create drainage problems with runoff going into the back of
the shops in Evelyn Hills.
Mr. Allred explained the drainage would be addressed in the large scale
development and the city engineer would be looking at the plan.
Me. Copeland stated she was confused because they were telling her this was just
proposals that the developer was making and that it had to go before another
board to decide on the streets, gutters, etc. She stated the ordinance read
"...Before any conditional use shall be issued the Planning Commission shall make
written findings, certifying compliance with the specific rules governing
individual conditional uses and that satisfactory provision and engagement has
been made concerning the following..."
Mr. Allred explained the Planning Commission delegated their authority to the
planning office and city engineering staff. He further explained there were
other ordinances requiring that any development had to have the city engineer's
approval. •
SPlanning Commission
July 22, 1991
Page 5
Me. Bryant concurred with Ms. Copeland that the Planning Commission should make
findings or reference staff findings.
Me. Copeland stated other concerns were the signs they would have on the duplexes
and security lighting which would add to the glare. She stated the final
consideration was the compatibility and harmony with adjacent property. She
pointed out this was a density problem, that building duplexes would result in
too many people being crammed into too small an area in a quiet neighborhood
composed of single family dwellings.
Me. Copeland stated she did not think preserving the trees would make up for
building duplexes. She asked the Commission to deny the conditional use.
Mr. Springborn pointed out, should the subject property be subdivided into
minimum size city lots, the new property owners would have the same rights as the
existing property owners and their driveways could also enter from Hillcrest.
Ms. Copeland stated she understood that.
Mr. Nickle pointed out neither the easements nor the setbacks entered into the
calculation of the lot size.
In response to a question from Mr. Tarvin, Mr. Gray explained the west edge of
driveway would be thirty feet east of the retaining wall. He stated the depth
of the lot, from the retaining wall to the right-of-way of Hillcrest was 146
feet.
• Mr. Gray stated the proposal was that the duplex would be approximately 40 feet
in width.
Ms. Trena Oliver appeared before the Commission and stated it bothered her that
they were trying to put too many people in a small area. She stated she was in
favor of single family housing with only 7 or 8 families.
In response to a questi
explained he had not
standpoint.
Mr. Cleghorn stated he
existed for many years
on from Mr. Tarvin regarding access to Hillcrest, Mr. Gray
looked at access to Hillcrest from a single family
• F
did not see a need for a change when the neighborhood had
and the change was for a business venture.
Mr. Nickle agreed with Mr. Cleghorn. He stated he did not feel access was
sufficient - that a one-way street 12 feet wide, going across 600 feet, was not
in the beet interest of the city. He further stated he was opposed to the
conditional use.
MOTION
Mr. Springborn stated he normally voted in favor of the neighborhood, even though
as a Commissioner he felt like as far as the city was concerned, that the
application was a good one. He moved to deny the application.
Mr. Cleghorn seconded the motion.
The motion passed 7-0-1 with Commissioners Cleghorn, Hanna, Springborn, Allred,
Tarvin, Cato and Nickle voting "yes" and Commissioner Robertson voting "no".
•
Planning Commission
July 22, 1991
Page 6
The 4iird item on the agenda was a request for a large scale development fore
Sport Park submitted by Rick Collins for property located on the south si _ of
Wedingt n Drive, west of Betty Jo Drive. The property is zoned A-1,
Rgricult al.
Mr. Don Bun), City Engineer, explained the large scale development co fisted of
a recreation\l area on 76.35 acres. Activities include a golf dri ing range,
batting cages, putting green, and pro shop. He explained future hales would
include a rest rant, a retail garden shop, and a par three go course. He
stated there wer�.no significant problems identified at the P1a Review meeting
or the Subdivision Committee meeting. He stated there was some discussion about
the drainage plans d it had been suggested at the subdivisio committee meeting
that the drainage plkp be available for the planning comma ion. He explained
there was also a ques ion about the location of an ease nt where there were
several large trees, H# recommended the large scale 4velopment be approved
subject to plat review aiM subdivision committee comme s; approval of drainage
plans by the City Engines • resolution of the locati n of the 15 foot utility
easement; construction of a idewalk along Wedington rive; and conformance with
the terms of the conditional se granted earlier the Planning Commission.
MOTION
Mr. Tarvin moved to accept the LXbdivi
ment of The Sports Park subject
to staff comments, plat review ommittee comments.
Mr. Hanna seconded the motion.
The motion carried 8-0-0.
WAVIER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIOBERT RAKES - N OF DICKSON ST.
The fourt/Robertson
on the agenda as a request by B t Rakes, City of Fayetteville
Land Agenbehalf of Ro rt Lewis and Nancy tt Lewis for a lot split on
property d north of ckeon Street and east o West Avenue. The property
is zoned entral Bue'nees Commercial.
Commissiobertson tated he would be abstaining fr m discussion and voting
on this ince and Mn. Lewis were his clients.
Mr. Rakesins the subject property was a portion of t Walton Arta Center
parking a £ fill their obligation, the city had to furnish parking spaces.
He furthefined this property contained 1.41 acres, ex nding from West
Avenue toell. He stated the split was in order to allow se's Restaurant
to retain parking. He further stated the City would be buy g 0.79 acres.
MOTION
Mr/Harna moved to grant the lot split as requested.
Mringborn seconded the motion.
e motion passed 7-1-0 with Mr. Robertson abstaining.
To: Mayor Dan Coody
Mr
Ms
Mr
Mr
Mr
Mr
Ms
Mr
Robert Reynolds
Brenda Thiel
Kyle B. Cook
Don Marr
Robert K. Rhoads
Bobby Ferrell
Shirley Lucas
Lioneld Jordan
Copy Ms. Sondra Smith
From: Mr. Robert and Mrs. Jan Wicks, 1314 N. Hillcrest Avenue
Mrs. Gus Jones, 1330 N. Hillcrest Avenue
Ms. Linda Coon and Mr. Eric Coon, 1336 N. Hillcrest Avenue
Mr. Boyd and Ms. Trisha Logan, 1426 N. Hillcrest Avenue
Mr. Robert Alguire and Ms. Mary Alguire, 1235 N. Hillcrest Avenue
Mr. William and Ms. Nancy Miller, 309 E. Abshier Drive
Mr. David and Ms. Shay Hopper, 1224 N. Hillcrest Avenue
Mr. Jeffrey Jackson, 1414 N. Hillcrest Avenue
Ms. Rebecca Hass, 1440 N. Hillcrest Avenue
Mr. Jed and Ms. Irene Ivlarkum, 1236 N. Hillcrest Avenue
Mr. David Beauchamp and Mrs. Jimmie Barham Beauchamp, 1516 N. Hillcrest Avenue
Date: February 27, 2006
RE: R-PZD 06-1883: Planned Zoning District (ABSHIER HEIGHTS, 407)
General Statement
The neighborhood and abutting property owners express strong and unified opposition to
the proposed Planning Zoning District in Abshier Heights.
The proposed PZD will more than double the density of dwellings on two public
residential streets with limited access: Hillcrest Avenue and Abshier Road. It compresses 30
units into a very small crescent shaped area of land that overlooks the roof and dumpsters of
Evelyn Hills. It presents significant safety concerns because Abshier empties onto 71-B at a hilly
location with a limited line of sight. Hillcrest empties onto North Street at a blind stop sign that
motorists often ignore. North is often the first street to be closed during inclement weather.
Vehicles regularly are stuck or slide off the road in this neighborhood and around the shopping
center. These dangerous intersections are only exacerbated by the additional traffic during all
times of the day and night froth the proposed PZD. It violates restrictive covenants, adds stress to
infrastructure including water pressure and other public facilities and services. The proposed
PZD will endanger and significantly degrade the environment and aesthetics of the historic E.
Fay Jones residence, the only one of its kind in the world. Thus we ask that the development be
denied and the parcels of land in question retain their current zoning status.
Planning Commission Member Candy Clark, who lived in this neighborhood for about
five years, voted against approving the PZD because of how dangerous Hillcrest and Abshier
streets are, the lack of honoring the covenant, the lack of compatibility with the neighborhood,
the excessive density of the PZD, lack of honoring the covenants, etc. Clark noted the lack of a
sufficient transition between the shopping center and existing residences, remarking "You can
stand on the front porches and spit on Evelyn Hills...as long as you can stand in a house and see
the commercial, I'm not sure that is real transitional." (A complete copy of her comments can be
found in the minutes of the February 2, 2006 Subdivision Subcommittee meeting. Excerpts are
included at the end of this appeal.)
(Copies of items referenced in this document including the Restrictive Covenants
regarding the property from 1962; the Planning Commission Meeting minutes of June 24, 1991;
the Planning Commission Meeting minutes of July 22, 1991; and the Bill of Assurance from
1991 are attached to this document.)
Rationales
Our objections include but are not limited to the following rationales listed herein. We have
based these objections on the Unified Development Code (UDC).
Rationale 1: Creating and Compounding Dangerous Traffic Conditions
Section 7-d (CDD 166:18-19): A development may be denied or refused because of a
dangerous traffic condition, "in which the risk of accidents involving motor vehicles is
significant due to factors such as, but not limited to, high traffic volume, topography, or the
nature of the traffic pattern."
Page CD 166:26: Traffic Circulation (including but not limited to):
(a) The adequacy of both the internal and external street systems shall be reviewed in light of
projected future traffic volumes.
(b) The traffic circulation system shall be comprised of a hierarchical scheme of local collector
and arterial streets, each designed to accommodate its proper function and in appropriate
relationship with one another.
Access to the neighborhood is limited and unsafe even without the addition of a
minimum of 60 vehicles. The proposed PZD will only add to an existing traffic pattern that is
already dangerous due to volume, topography and nature. The only neighborhood public ingress
and egress are Hillcrest Avenue and Abshier Road. Both are already dangerous intersections with
limited sight lines on or near steep slopes. Abshier empties onto 71-B, the most dangerous road
in Fayetteville, at a heavily -traveled hilly location between Rick's Bakery and the Evelyn Hills
Shopping Center light. Abshier Road is often impassible and always slick during periods of
heavy rain, snow and ice. The steep grade at the western end of Abshier Road can lead motorists
to slide onto 71B making this one of the most dangerous intersections in Fayetteville. Even
during clear weather, the intersection remains dangerous because traffic coming from the south
on 71 B comes over a hill at high speeds that is very close to the intersection. The posted speed is
40 miles per hour, but many (if not most) motorists exceed this speed. The location between
heavy traffic in and out of Evelyn Hills, and more importantly to and from Rick's Bakery at that
comer, compounds the problem.
In addition motorists use Hillcrest Avenue and Abshier Road to circumvent the traffic
light at the corner of North Street and 71B. The addition of 30 units with a minimum of 60 more
vehicles in a small area accessed through limited and dangerous intersections will produce an
even more dangerous traffic situation. These problems will be further exacerbated by residents or
visitors to the proposed development who may park on Hillcrest or Abshier.
Leaving the neighborhood by way of Hillcrest Avenue onto North Street is equally
dangerous. Motorists driving east on North Street from Mission Boulevard climb a steep hill that
ends at Hillcrest Avenue before continuing downhill to 71B. This is a "blind" stop sign where
motorists on Hillcrest cannot see down the hill toward Mission. Motorists coming up Mission
cannot see Hillcrest until they are virtually at the intersection. Motorists routinely ignore the stop
sign on North Street at Hillcrest Avenue. Motorists on Hillcrest turning either east or west onto
North Street are often forced to accelerate to avoid the westbound traffic on North Street.
Furthermore, motorists traveling east on North Street and turning north on Hillcrest Avenue must
yield to motorists from North Street and Hillcrest Avenue. This intersection presents a confusing
dilemma for motorists. The combination of a stop sign on North Street that is often ignored and
confusion among motorists as to who has the right of way poses a significant danger. Again, this
dangerous condition worsens during inclement weather. North Street is one of the locations in
the city closed first during inclement weather. One must expect that access is unavailable at this
ingress/egress at times.
The developers are counting Evelyn Hills as an ingress/egress for the development. One
must question whether there is sufficient ingress/egress in the area in the first place if the
developers must use a shopping center for this purpose. One must also question whether it is
appropriate to use private roads as primary ingress/egress.
The proposed primary ingress/egress through private property is a narrow and extremely
steep road into the back of the shopping center. There will be serious sight distance problems
here as well because motorists are looking down into the shopping center a short distance to a
curve that goes under the arch there. Motorists looking up to Hillcrest have a short sight distance
as well. Again, these problems are exacerbated during slick or impassable conditions due to rain,•
snow and/or ice.
In addition, this primary entrance and exit to the proposed PZD is onto a private, narrow
road under an arch between the two halves of the shopping center. Between the two halves is a
pedestrian crosswalk with a stop sign that is largely ignored. The private access roads also have
significant truck traffic making deliveries to and from businesses in Evelyn Hills. Delivery trucks
often come barreling up and down Hillcrest and Abshier. Trucks get stuck on the access roads
during inclement weather, as happened during the snowstorm in February 2006. One must
therefore expect that access will be unavailable at times.
There.are'serious questions of access for emergency and fire vehicles even without the
proposed development. The increased traffic in this small area used frequently by trucks of all
sizes and types will only exacerbate the dangerous traffic conditions including steep grades,
limited access at already dangerous intersections, and impassability during inclement weather,
heavy truck traffic, etc. The additional traffic from the proposed PZD only compounds the
existing serious traffic and safety concerns.
Rationale 2: Historical Precedents Dictate Turning Down Duplexes and Similar
Developments Abutting Evelyn Hills and the Neighborhood
Historical precedents since the construction of Evelyn Hills turned down developments
for the same reasons raised now. The property has not changed, "improved" or overcome any of
the reasons for which development was denied in 1991. The difference now is that the reasons
have only worsened over time.
The Fayetteville Planning Commission voted 7-0-1 on July 22, 1991 to deny a
conditional use for constructing duplexes. Mr. Dick Oliver appeared before the Commission in
June 1991 and stated that the property was to be used as a green space to provide a buffer
between the residential neighborhood and Evelyn Hills. He explained the company that
purchased the shopping center had not purchased the subject tract of land because it was green
space. He stated the noise from the shopping center was a problem, there would be no view for
any building constructed there, and the impassability and danger due to the slopes was contrary to
development. Residents convinced planers in 1991 that development runs counter to the original
objectives of the property.
At the June 1991 meeting, E. Fay Jones, 1330 Hillcrest, stated construction of the
duplexes would change the environment of the neighborhood which had always been single-
family homes. He requested the conditional use e denied. As an internationally renowned and
honored architect, his perspective is valuable. Mr. and Mrs. Jones have noted repeatedly that the
original plans for rezoning the area for Evelyn Hills was granted on the condition that the area
abutting Abshier Drive and Hillcrest Avenue will remain buffer or green space in perpetuity. The
neighborhood submitted copies of covenants to the Planning Commission in support.
The abutting property owners and neighborhood object strongly to and are unified in
opposition to this development for the same reasons a similar development was turned down in
1991. It is incompatible with the neighborhood and hampers the health, safety, amenity and
welfare of the community.
Rationale 3: Issues of Public Services and Facilities and Site Unsuitability for the Large -
Scale Project Proposed
From Section 166.05 Large Scale Development (LSD) CD 166-18:
Section 7-b: "The developer may be required to install off -site improvements, where the need for
such improvements is created in whole or in part by the proposed large scale development or
preliminary plat. For purposes of this section, any off -site improvements shall mean all or any
part of, a street, surface drainage system, water system, or sanitary sewer system, which is to be
installed on property located outside the proposed large scale development or preliminary plat."
Section 7-c: "Any required off -site improvements shall be installed according to city standards.
The developer shall be required to bear that portion of the cost of off -site improvements which
bears a rational nexus to the needs created by the large scale development or preliminary plat."
166.06 Planned Zoning District (PZD) Section E - Approval or Rejection Criteria for Planned
Sondra Smith - Planning Commission Appeal Final version 2 2-27-06.doc Page 5
Zoning Districts, including but not limited to: "(2) Whether the general impact of the rezoning
would adversely impact the provision of public facilities and services."
166.06 Planned Zoning District (PZD) E - Approval or Rejection Criteria (CD 166:21)
"Whether the subject land is suitable for the intended use and is compatible with the natural
environment."
166.14 Commercial Design and Development Standards (A) Purposes
(including but not limited to)
(2) To address environmental concerns which include, but are not limited to, soil erosion,
vegetation preservation, and drainage.
(6) To preserve property values of surrounding property.
166.14 Commercial Design and Development Standards (A) Purposes
(2) To address environmental concerns which include, but are not limited to, soil erosion,
vegetation preservation, and drainage.
The Planning Commission erred in approving this development because it has not even
been adequately considered whether the general impact of the rezoning would adversely impact
the provision of public facilities and services to the neighborhood. The neighborhood and
abutting property owners are very concerned about the effect on water and sewer pressure,
capacity and/or infrastructure from the proposed development. For example, the Fayetteville Fire
Department expressed concern that the fire hydrant at Hillcrest Avenue and Oakwood Drive
flows at less than 400 gallons per minute. The developers indicated they would tie into the
existing 6" sanitary sewer line in two places. The developers note a 6" waterline tees off of the
existing 8" water line and turns down the access road into Evelyn Hills. They state they will tie
their waterline into the 6" waterline and loop it to the north, tying into the 8" waterline along
Hillcrest Avenue.
City water department employees and experts have stated to various neighborhood
residents that nothing can be done to improve existing pressure without rebuilding the grid,
which is one of the oldest in the city. During the Planning Commission meeting one of its
members noted that there was no guarantee the residents would have sufficient water pressure
after the development was complete. There are no explicit requirements in the PZD about the
type and nature of water pressure, sewer pressure, etc., guaranteed to neighborhood residents if
the development were completed. The effect of such problems on the neighborhood was not fully
considered. This development will degrade the neighborhood as people will not buy property
where they cannot get adequate water pressure, public facilities and/or services. And it would
mean the city has willingly entered into an arrangement with a developer that deprived the
existing residences of an adequate water supply and other public facilities and services.
In addition there has been discussion of retaining walls or other aspects of the
development relating to the topography and steep slopes in the area. The area is surrounded by
extremely steep slopes due to the step excavation done to build Evelyn Hills. Slopes of this
nature are generally unstable and problematic for load bearing construction or utilization. This is
compounded by the presence of springs in the area. The area contained water during the whole
dry period over the last year suggesting a water table close to the surface in the area of heaviest
Sondra Smith - Planning Commission Apyeal Final version 2 2-27-06.doc Page 6
proposed density. The combination of the soil and saturated water conditions under the traffic
and overburden created by these units will lead to settling, causing cracks and misalignments in
doors and windows.
The presence of springs and soil moisture was documented by previous construction in
the area. The Jones Residence on 1330 Hillcrest Avenue was redesigned during construction due
to the discovery of a spring on its site. The Jones papers indicate springs were found when
Evelyn Hills was constructed. Apparently there have been problems with soil moisture recently
in the USA Drug construction at Evelyn Hills as well.
Abshier Road already has longitudinal cracking, especially near the side where the steep
slopes drop down onto the property, showing there is already some slope instability. Retaining
walls will be needed to stabilize the area. Widening Abshier as proposed, 14 feet from center in,
would require a retaining wall that could reach about 30 feet tall at certain parts of the streets.
This is similar to and in close proximity of the Kings Drive area that is collapsing. Given the
existing instability, it appears the city could have a reoccurrence of the crumbling and
infrastructure problems found on nearby Kings Drive.
Rationale 4: Covenants and Bills of Assurance Regarding the Property
150.07 Conflicts (CD 150:3): "UDC/private agreements: The UDC is not intended to abrogate
any private agreements, deed restrictions, covenants, easements, or other private agreements on
the use of land."
166 Section 7-d (CDD 166:18-19): "The Subdivision Committee or Planning Commission may
refuse to approve a large scale development or preliminary plat for any of the following reasons"
(with reasons i through vi).
i. The preliminary plat or development plan is not submitted in accordance with the requirements
of this chapter.
ii. The proposed development would violate a city ordinance, a state statute, or a federal statute.
166.06 Planned Zoning District (PZD) Section E - Approval or Rejection Criteria for Planned
Zoning Districts, including but not limited to: "(2) Whether the application is in compliance with
all applicable statutory provisions"
166.06 Planned Zoning District (PZD) E - Approval or Rejection Criteria (CD 166:21)
"Whether any other recognized zoning consideration would be violated in this PZD."
Copies of covenants and Bills of Assurances were provided to the Planning Commission
at the February 13 meeting. They also were discussed at the preceding Subcommittee Meeting of
the Planning Commission. The developer's preliminary plat or development plan given to
neighborhood residents claimed, "There are no covenants, trust or Homeowner Associations
associated with this project." (Found on page 7 of the Abshier Heights Master Development Plan
provided to abutting property owners.)
Rationale 5: The rezoning to allow the proposed development is inconsistent with and does
not follow the General Plan 2020 Future Land Use Plan.
The Planning Commission Staff Report to the City Council states "The General Plan
2020 Future Land Use Plan designates this site as a Residential Area. Rezoning this property to R-
PZD 05-1636, with the associated Master Development Plan, varies this future land use to a
mixed use, though the principal use on the property will remain residential."
At the initial Subcommittee Meeting members of the neighborhood noted that
approximately seven single-family houses would be the appropriate infill for this site if
developed. The General Plan itself notes that this site is designated as a Residential Area. The
Planning Commission varies this future land use. We submit that the Planning Commission did
not follow the General Plan 2020 Future Land Use Plan and this development should be rejected.
In essence, the neighborhood is asking the City to adhere to its own plan.
At present Fayetteville is in the process of developing a new City 2025 Plan. At the City
2025 Plan meetings residents were told to "ignore topography, infrastructure and compatibility"
when they placed dots on a city map to suggest where appropriate infill might be developed.
Residents (including members of our neighborhood) who took part in these planning sessions
were specifically directed to ignore all important considerations that are considered when making
development decisions. Therefore the City 2025 Plan is not applicable to this development and
neighborhood because the serious concerns regarding topography, safety, incompatibility of the
proposed development, etc., were not considered. The City 2025 Plan has not been finalized or
officially adopted. In addition, the proposed development is not consistent with the principles of
the City 2025 Plan to foster compatible and appropriate infill.
Rationale 6: The rezoning to allow the proposed development is incompatible with the
neighborhood and runs counter to historical covenants and precedents.
166.06 Planned Zoning District (PZD) E - Approval or Rejection Criteria (CD 166:21)
"Whether the subject land is suitable for the intended use and is compatible with the natural
environment."
166.14 Commercial Design and Development Standards (A) Purposes
(2) To address environmental concerns which include, but are not limited to, soil erosion,
vegetation preservation, and drainage.
(6) To preserve property values of surrounding property.
166.06 Planned Zoning District (PZD) E - Approval or Rejection Criteria (CD 166:21)
"Whether the subject land is suitable for the intended use and is compatible with the natural
environment."
166.06 Planned Zoning District (PZD) E - Approval or Rejection Criteria (CD 166:21)
"Whether any other recognized zoning consideration would be violated in this PZD."
The Planning Commission Staff Report to the City Council states "The General Plan 2020 Future
Land Use Plan designates this site as a Residential Area. Rezoning this property to R-PZD 05-
1636, with the associated Master Development Plan, varies this future land use to a mixed use,
though the principal use on the property will remain residential."
Strong and unified opposition to the development from the neighborhood and abutting
property owners was voiced at all previous public meetings. The opposition includes objections
regarding compatibility, an inadequate transition, and a lack of green space or buffer as intended
and required by the original covenants. Again, these are some of the reasons a similar
development was denied in 1991.
On page CDD 166:25 it is noted that "Primary emphasis shall be placed upon achieving
compatibility between the proposed development and surrounding areas so as to preserve and
enhance the neighborhood" and "The Planning Commission shall determine that the specific
development features... shall be combined in such a way as to further the health, safety, amenity
and welfare of the community." As the abutting property owners and neighborhood object
strongly to this development, it is argued that the Planning Commission did not take the welfare
of the community into account when making this decision.
The proposed PZD is incompatible because it is an inappropriate transition between
Evelyn Hills and the existing neighborhood. First, the green space behind Evelyn Hills was
originally conceived to screen the neighborhood from the shopping center, two incompatible land
uses. This screen was to protect and enhance these residences and the neighborhood, a purpose
still accepted as important by the City of Fayetteville in its Unified. Development Code and tree
ordinance. Thus an important criterion for denying a similar development in 1991 on the property
is still recognized and followed in current City ordinances.
Second, the density of this development is an inappropriate transition between the
shopping center and neighborhood. The strips of land are too narrow for an adequate transition.
Thirty town homes and duplexes packed in such a tight area without the typical amenities of
"luxury condos" (such as a swimming pool, recreation facilities, covenants or agreements for
maintaining the buildings and grounds, adequate green space, etc.) are not an adequate transition.
Third, the quality of the proposed town homes and duplexes are incompatible and are not
an appropriate transition. Initially the neighbors were told the units will be sold for
approximately $200 per square foot at a meeting hosted by Cooper Architects on January 26,
2006. In the Planning Commission meeting the developers indicated an estimate of $125 per
square feet. A 1,750 unit would sell for $350,000 based on the $200 estimate or $218,750 based
on the $125 estimate. Will families seeking quality residences realistically pay these amounts for
dwellings overlooking the roof of Evelyn Hills?
These units also overlook the dumpsters on the access road behind Evelyn Hills, which
have an unpleasant odor at various times of the year and attract pests. The development abuts
dumpsters from Evelyn Hills on one side and may face dumpsters or trash areas provided for this
development on the other. The owners and/or their representatives asked for a variance regarding
trash storage and collection which appears to acknowledge yet exacerbate this problem. In
addition the proposed private road overlooks the back of a mattress store and Rick's Bakery
Sondra Smith - Planning Commission Appeal Final version 2 2-27-06.doc Page 9
where it empties onto Abshier Road. Details including the size and nature of the sign and the
location of mailboxes or where mail would be delivered are omitted from the master
development plan given to the neighbors. It is unclear whether these are 3 -bedroom units, which
would dictate planning for 90 additional vehicles in the area or one per bedroom.
Assume the units do not sell, or do not sell at the proposed prices. Presumably each unit
would require 3 to 4 renters to meet mortgage and upkeep costs. This compounds the
aforementioned traffic, safety and infrastructure issues. Units also may sit vacant and be targets
for vandalism, crime or become eyesores. If there are no condominium agreements or covenants
for maintaining the property and grounds these problems could quickly worsen.
It is reasonable to note that potential buyers who intend to live in the units will not desire
to have trash receptacles on both sides of their residence or overlook the unattractive roof or back
sides of aging shopping centers. Condos in the old St. Joseph buildings on Lafayette Street and
the Oak Park Condos on Sycamore Street behind the old Long John Silver's restaurant remain
empty. This suggests the market for this type of unit is already saturated. This development is not
the appropriate type or character of residential development for the area and is inconsistent with
the existing neighborhood. It is not an appropriate transition between Evelyn Hills, the
neighborhood, and the historic Jones residence across the street.
The Restrictive Covenants from 1962 and the 1991 Planning Commission decision to
deny a similar development provide intent and historical precedents that the area remain green
space. This screen was to protect and enhance the neighborhood and these residences, a purpose
still accepted as important by the City of Fayetteville in its Unified Development Code and tree
ordinance. The Master Plan designates this area to be a residential area. Therefore the Planning
Commission decision violates both the precedents and intent regarding the property and
neighborhood.
The neighbors have suggested appropriate development might include seven single-
family homes if the site allows. Most appropriate is leaving the property as a green space as it
was originally intended. Neighbors regularly see deer, foxes and other wildlife on the property,
which is especially a delight for the neighborhood children. The existing green space has added
to the natural and intimate character of the neighborhood and fits the architectural and landscape
vision of E. Fay Jones and his historic residence across the street.
Finally, residents would be interested in working with the City of Fayetteville to acquire
private, federal, state or other financial resources or grants to improve the site to be designated as
the E. Fay Jones Park or Natural Preserve. We have researched the E. Fay Jones archives and
papers in the Special Collections at Mullins Library. Renderings of possible uses of that space by
Jones himself are available in that collection.
Rationale 7: Consideration and Protection of Historically and Culturally Significant
Residence or Structure Abutting the Development.
166.06 Planned Zoning District (PZD): "Master development plans may include more restrictive
regulations than that which is included in other sections of the UDC, but standards shall not be
established that fall below these minimum standards."
166.06 Planned Zoning District
(PZD) E - Approval
or Rejection Criteria (CD
166:21)
"Whether any other recognized
zoning consideration
would be violated in this
PZD."
166.14 Commercial Design and Development Standards (A) Purposes
(3) To protect and preserve the scenic resources distributed throughout the city which have
contributed greatly to its economic development, by attracting tourists, permanent part-time
residents, new industries and cultural facilities.
166.14 Commercial Design and Development Standards (A) Purposes
(6) To preserve property values of surrounding property.
In addition to the numerous reasons for denying this proposed PZD, the neighborhood
and abutting property owners strongly object to it because it violates the privileged space
surrounding the E. Fay Jones residence. According to Mrs. Gus Jones it was the first residence
Jones designed and built after he became a registered architect. The residence is a cultural and
architectural landmark designed by Jones himself in 1956 and listed on the National Register of
Historic Places in 2000. E. Fay Jones, a native of Arkansas and full-time resident of Fayetteville,
was among only a handful of distinguished architects worldwide to be awarded the American
Institute of Architect's (AIA) Gold Medal.
A good part of the cultural heritage of Fayetteville --and tourism revenue --rests on the fact
that Fayetteville was Jones' chosen home. He graced the city and surrounding communities with
architectural treasures recognized worldwide. While Eureka Springs has Thomcrown Chapel,
Fayetteville has the distinct privilege of being home to the E. Fay Jones residence, one of his first
and formative designs and his own home. Thus, approving this project compromises the city's
future heritage tourism revenue.
Widening Hillcrest to accommodate the development would dramatically affect the
Jones home site landscape. The landscape's relationship to the approach and entry to the home
was always a primary concern to Jones — a signature concern, in fact. Any change to the street
would dramatically damage this critical relationship, thus doing severe damage to the overall
design, the landscape, and the sculpture. In terms of motorist safety, widening Hillcrest Avenue
in front of the Jones residence will certainly make it more likely that someone could crash into
the sculpture or stone landscaping, especially during slick or icy conditions.
More important, the proposed development disrespects Jones' legacy in the eyes of
neighborhood residents, city residents, and the architectural community worldwide. Few
distinguished architects would support a development such as this across the street from their
own residences, but the space around Jones' distinguished house merits very special, sensitive,
and thoughtful consideration. It does not require professional training in architecture to
understand that the delicate balance struck between nature and architecture is Jones' most
significant contribution to 20ih-century architecture. Anyone with access to the internet quickly
learns that Jones' unique appreciation of the site and environment demanded that nature, light,
and air be invited to penetrate the building, reinvigorating the inhabitants. The density of the
proposed development is most particularly an affront to this exquisite statement of Jones' Ozark
style. Because the density of the proposed project is so high, some of the planned units would
stand very close to the Jones residence. Others will disturb the peaceful environs through untold
and uncalculated traffic volume, and noise and air pollution from 30 units wedged behind Evelyn
Hills Shopping Center and Hillcrest Avenue.
Mr. Jones himself was instrumental in establishing the original covenants for the property
10
. . - •.. �...
behind Evelyn Hills and opposing the development that was declined in 1991. Keeping the
propertyin its natural state or as a green space maintains the intent and vision of this noted
international architect forthe area for future generations and visitors. Thus the significance and
nature of his work, as well as his personal views of what is appropriate for the property, oppose
the proposed development.
It appeared some members of the Planning Commission did not seem to fully appreciate
that the architectural and personal legacy of E. Fay Jones and his historic residence at 1330
Hillcrest have global significance. According to the National Register of Historic Places: 'The E.
Fay and Gus Jones House is exceptionally significant because with this house Jones expressed
the guiding principles of his personal organic design philosophy, including sensitivity to natural
setting, honest use of materials, and an appreciation for the interplay of light and space. The
construction of this house jump-started Jones' career." Some members seemed not to understand
how dependent Jones' designs are on their landscape and surroundings for their architectural
resonance. Hence, even if the building itself is not physically damaged by the oversized
development, it will, in effect and in fact, be ruined for future generations.
The global significance of his work was very recently reaffirmed when Mrs. Gus Jones
accepted the AIA Twenty-five Year Award for Thomcrown Chapel just two days before the
Planning Commission voted to approve the Abshier Heights project. The award is given to one
building annually for the architectural design that has stood the test of time for 25 years. Mrs.
Jones accepted the award in honor of her husband on February 11, 2006, in Washington, D. C.
Significantly, the AIA release stated: "Five million people have visited Thomcrown Chapel since
it opened in 1980...During certain times of the year, the chapel draws more than 2,000 people
per day, and Sunday services draw 300 people...This indicates the popularity and enduring
appeal of Jones's work... Jones passed away on August 31, 2004, at his home in Fayetteville,
Ark., at the age of 83...He will always be recognized as the man who built Thorncrown Chapel,
and remembered as one of the leading architects of the 20th century."
(See http://www.aia.org/release_122005_25yrThmcrown).
Clearly, E. Fay Jones continues to bring much national and international attention to
Fayetteville, a community he called home for many, many years. Thus, for the Planning
Commission to approve the proposed Abshier Heights development simply on the grounds that
there was no legal reason not to build in front of Jones' residence inadvertently disrespects Jones'
legacy and compromises the present and future cultural heritage of the city. The UDC itself states
it is important to preserve and protect Fayetteville's scenic resources. Consequently there are
grounds upon which the Planning Commission should have denied this development. We ask you
to deny this development and protect one of Fayetteville's most important scenic, cultural and
historic resources.
ADDENDUM: We concur with the comments of Planning Commissioner Member Candy Clark,
a former resident of this neighborhood, made at the February 2, 2006 Subdivision Committee
meeting.
Clark: I cannot support this project as it currently is — can't do it for several reasons.
• First of all, I'm very confused about the issue of the buffer. I've grown up
hearing about it. If 1,000 people changed their mind, the neighborhood
has been left out and I'm not sure why we honor other promises to
11
neighbors that I can't find in stone anywhere, just a verbal promise, but not
these neighbors.
• Secondly, I think the density is by far too much — 7.3 units in this area are
totally out of character with the neighborhood. It is a very nice
neighborhood, spread out, larger homes. It dovetails into my third concern
which is traffic.
• Abshier and Hillcrest are horribly maintained streets, local streets — no
curb, no gutter and they don't go anywhere. Abshier goes to College, that
is one of the most deadly intersections trying to pull out from the Rick's
Bakery. Hillcrest goes to North Street to a stop sign that I never could
figure out when I lived there. Who has the right-of-way? You pray and
go. It doesn't go anywhere to the north. I think if you add this much
density to those streets, it is going to compound a horrific problem. A lot
of people walk in that area because they go down to the pond in the other
development. It is a very, very communal area. It doesn't have sidewalks
now and the only place you can walk is in the street. And to add this much
density there is just a terrible mistake.
• Finally, I think the slope off of Abshier is very steep and I'm going to go
review that. I don't know that there is a lot of greenery on that slope
either. It's pretty darn severe and that concerns me. I do think this could
develop but I think it could develop into single-family homes on larger
lots. I would support that. But I cannot support it with the current 7.3
units that are proposed. I think you are going to be making it a horrific
traffic situation. I don't think Hillcrest is ever going to go to the north. If
you look at the pictures, it kind of stops. As long as you are funneling
traffic out into North Street or to College, it is just going to compound a
bad situation. And that access [to Hillcrest from behind Evelyn Hills] that
we are talking about, come on. That is ill maintained concrete that is
riddled with potholes most of the time. I don't know who is in charge of
it, but don't call it an access to me unless you are going to go in and gut it,
pave it and do what you need to do to it and at that point it is still a
significant slope. That was my favorite cut through to get home and I lost
a muffler there one time. You kind of compounded this, too, Tim, by
saying they can't sell that property behind Evelyn Hills. I wonder if that is
tied up in the covenants buffer thing. Right now there are too many
unknowns to me and the density is way too high and the bad traffic
situation will be compounded...
• I don't think it is compatible with the neighborhood at all with that
density. I think it could develop beautifully but not like that.
• Transitional is a little bit more than 50'. You can stand on the front
porches and spit on Evelyn Hills. That's not a big transition at all. To me,
if it was bigger, if you were talking about on the other side of the street
maybe, that could be transitional. To me that is a transitional zone. I
don't know if there is a definition for it — it has to be "X" number of
square feet, but as long as you can stand in a house and see the
12
commercial, I'm not sure that is real transitional.
13
t.
sy, r
/ .. f
1
n
I
1 T
` r 1 f
�g l
I
SITE ACCESS STUDY - ABSHIER HEIGHTS
' INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The intent of this site access study is to determine the impacts of the Abshier Heights on
Abshier Drive from US 71 B to Hill Crest Avenue, Hillcrest Avenue from the north end to
Abshier Drive, the intersection of Abshier/US 71B (College Avenue) and the intersection
of Hillcrest/North Street. The development is located on the west side of Hillcrest Avenue,
north of Abshier Drive. The study area is shown below in Figure 1.
' Abshier Drive and Hillcrest
Avenue are 20' wide streets
' with open ditches and no
shoulders or curb and gutter.
' Abshier Heights is a
development of 30 high quality
condos, situated between a
' residential area and a
commercial shopping center.
The topography of the site
' slopes from Abshier and
Hillcrest down to the Evelyn
Hills Shopping Center.
I I
I
I
I
I
I
L
I
I
Figure 1. Study Area
STUDY AREA
3/17/2006 - 1 -
' T:Vob\I 7I7.H2 EnginAbshicr HeightsBepon'sepon 03-20-06.doc Carter=Burgess
- 1W it !flflfffl
a
�iCiP:el_� u1=�W ,1
L J 1 _ "S
_ I I
:4Il,
^JdY
rol:j \4 -I 1 y �Iy�I
a
r w 4)-f • 1 V
Shy:
ImLi!LtS
1 j1:..ttf -. - --a
UI
-
Iii I
+ 1. K_ t
w
w
in
Q
C
{
\
CM
§ ____
§
n
CM,[)|
, t 2
■ 2] «< {E
E.,!
/uu II -
nfl
k! 0
■o °` .. $f=,f
)a
;! )0 ■
(2 §7 \; #)2{)
/\} ) | d3 ) )))]\
�o! !• 2 : cy«
)!! !| !} !J ! ..,.. . «\
0
r
O-'
Wj
Z W
uJ
0
H
LU
I-
I —
(I)
Ix
LU
2
0)
m
Q
W
Q
U
w
w
H
w
J
J_
V/
T 1
• 1 1
2J V ii Alattta: a
•. ,
C0
`. a ..
w_ 'S:4tar-r tf.: Ia
•• w w
IT -. _
pp �, ,• \
z fie � .,— •, •
__
TIIt
' "d J i+ -C�f \,-•' ¢ t ��r ..•iii .S�.
D� \ t' � � ✓ -•l �.-ya ,�,,, 40. � ��
�.
�
.4
mryL
_ /
Cl)• f \ F
A _
!. ri MM
, r
•lid'.
_ � J � t-
IMF _fit
1 -- U u
•
a z -u z -u zMO r(m a
c
0 �0 7 � E
o--»
}(k2>03 {o %§ Sc 011 S
(;§$2 E EK SW k2 GAB -.
g2$f} o) 0k mk / /
, « •
(%(+� )/ k2 ■( k®� §
2§{§( '\ "Co �) —. .
\%��\ r " "\ " )
< mCL )( 9§ §W
CLMo0 0/ */ \
o w< ..
o , ;
(\ ]� k/
( §
} (
\
)
(
}
§
j
≤
§
z
■
ic
7
I
r
r
(a)
m
H
H
XI
m
m
Co
C.)
m
D
Z7
p
00
m
mn
�r
m
{
r
0
D
m
z
o
m
m
0
a
xl
mD
<c)
mn
—'Cl,m
z
FO
r N
�_
m
m
go
mD
<c)
!n
"m
zin
'H
FO
rN
v�_
m
m
W
I
m
m
z
x
m
z
C -)
D
2
XI
Cl)
m
m
H
Co
m
m
0
v
m
z
m
m
m
z
r
r
m
9
m
x
G)
x
m
mm
z
m
m
NORTHV�EST ARKANSAS EDITION
Benton County Daily Record
P.O. BOX 1607
FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72702
PHONE: 479-571-6415
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
I, Maria Attaway, do solemnly swear that I am Legal Clerk of the Arkansas
DemocrafGazefte newspaper. Printed and published in Benton County
Arkansas, (Lowell) and that from my own personal knowledge and
reference to the files of said publication, the advertisement of:
ORDINANCE 4850.
Was inserted in the Regular Editions:
April 13, 2006
Publication Charge: $344.93
Subscribed and worn't efore me
This/3day of , 2006.
Notary Public G�uXe�cc.
c5'2/jb
Sharlene D. Williams
My Commission Expires: Notary Public
State of Arkansas
My 18'
Ion Expires
October
**NOTE** Please do not pay from Affidavit 2014
Invoice will be sent.
RECEIVED
APR 172806
CITY OF FAYTEVh
cnnr Cusmmo
RESIDENTIAL
HILLCREST, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY - + w r E'MV 111/ /,
ACRES: AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING:
•+•-�"'4 ARKANSAS
OF THE CITY OF FAYETiRDEV;LOPMENPT-K.,a•'
NE ASSOCIATED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN' -S_ f
R ORDAINED --/Y -TME. CITY, COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF1 FAYETTEVILLE, I
In 1: That the zone clessifwation of the following described property Is hereby changed as Iol-
C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, to R-PZD O6-1883 as shown In Exhibit' Aattached hereto and
a part hereof. j^ y ... •� .:.ti.
in 2: -That the change In zoning classification is based upon the epprovetltmaster develop -
plan, development standards, and conditions of approval as subnilned, determined a evelopi-
Id approved by the City Council. .l as Sub itted..d rrmine approp.,
i 3: That this ordinance shalllake effect and be in full force at such time as all of the require-
ofthe master development plan have been met.
o4: That the official zoning map of Me City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. Is hereby amended to
Me rnnhn Mnnna nmNrdwr In Cent.,.,
.: Inm me master Uevelopnent Han IS approved subject to Me list of compromises agreed
neighbors, developer and architect shorn an Exhibit 'B' presented to and accepted
:ouncli. The Master Development Plan Is also subject to the Revised'Site Plan attached as
i'. Pt-!-
F ' `
1 Ill APPROVED this 4th day of April, 2006. •'
ED: °' - ATTEST: ..
By:
IODY. Mayer ' SOMDRA SMITH. City Chlk
EXHIBIT'A'
R-PZD OB-1883
;TA
OF THE NW 114 OF THE NW 114 OF SECTION 10,1
OF FAYETTEVILLE, WASHINGTON COUNTY. ARI
;RIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SE C
POINT BEING A FOUND 1' PIPE; THENCE N87°12'
I FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NOf
ICE 587°00'06'E 149.72 FEET TO A FOUND IRON P
REST'AVENUE; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT -O
JD PK NAIL IN THE APPROXIMATE CENTER LINE OF
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE BY ORDINAN(`.F. eiax
Si
co lid i nc ruin i 'Jr ECUINNING, GUN IAINING 2.187 ACRES. MORE OR
TO ANY AND ALL EASEMENTS OF RECORD OR FACT.
OF THE NW 114 OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH. RANGE 30 WFAT
OF
EXHIBIT'S'
R-PZD 061 B83 '
THE AFOREMENTIONED DEVELOPER AND ARCHITECT, HAVE RESPECT.
roar elevations of development to Include partial stone facades on
the side of the town honer tnninn Hlllrraet a,vl ehdh�e.. fn. e..»....
at the from Of the house near planter boxes; changes in paint palette in the natural earth tones;
enlarged window shapes and styles In the latest drawings presented to the neighborhood - all to
create a more natural,' softer feel in fine with the traditional character of the existing neighborhood.
2. 1ReduG7on in the number Of units to 24.
3. (Speed bumps to be butMnstalletl on Hillcreet, Abshler, lakeridga and Oakwood by Developer
anti City with 5010 cost share with up to four speed tables.
4. IA permanent, WRITTEN plan for maintaining the peal antl greensPace throughout the develop -
t Included In the homeowner's association agreements end/or covenants for those who pur-
ch se the town homes. The association agreements or covenants must be worked out in consuffe-
Ilod with the above -mentioned neighborhood repreeentetives throughout the process and approval.
Additionally -hew neighbors In the development must be aware that Lade Lucille and surrounding
property is a private entity end Is not available for their use for swimming, fishing, picnicking, etc.
(or(y accessible by property owners in Lake Lucllle/aay Yam aubdMsbn).
• 5. Additional trees and shrubs are to be planted along Mlllcresl and Abshier to fill in gaps and ensure
that Me tree buffer Is maintained end expanded. Trees and shrubs are needed to fill in both high
and low gaps and present an attractive, natural appearance to neighbors in the development and
across Hilorest and Abshler.
6. 1Core and sot sample testing win be conducted due to grade and Incline, Instability of land
because of natural springs end previous construction difficulty In area with USA Drug.
7- iWe respectfully request that City Planning division allow that no bridges or steps leading form Me
lalyn homes to Abshler or Hillcrest will be constructed. This would only encourage street parking
• and exacerbate traffic problems. The only steps in the development that are agreeable to the neigh-
bors are arose film the pocket parlWiewing area to Me parking area for the E. Fey Jones' home as
Aeslgnated an ptans.''—%— ---. -r .4 -• ._ ,`
6. Trees and shrubbery will be planted at the back of the development to screen the devabp-
menik residents Iron, the shopping center. These also should Include plantings to fill in high and
tor) gaps and present an attractive, natural appearance consistent with a high quality development.
9. No parking signs to be Installed along Hillcresl 6 Abshler on the development side, with no park-
Inavowed on either awe of these two streets.
101 Landscape design, and any newly planted trees and shrubbery will, as closely as possible, be
! , In accordance with E. Fay Jones' written/drawn design plans for the property fran the U. Of A.
Millions Library, Special Collections (neighbors have this document) (I.e. species of frees, place
m,L etc.).
11)- Above-memloned neighborhood representatives will see sample/rendering of mailbox design:
an � of Me sign for the development and provide input for approval, prior to installation.
12. Construction will be limited to daylight hours only.
131 We respectfuly request that If this development, PZD 00-1683, Abshier Heights, is not execut-
edF that the City require that this property revert back to RSF-4 (R-1), not its current zoning of record,
C-2
■ 14f 061883 agreed upon sentemmHee me be put h Fayetteville
and officially recorded d ym pril 4. 2006.
PZD 061663 and presented at the meeting of the ally bindin City Council, Tuesday, April 4, 2 car-
ded oAIImprpNses throughout this document are legally binding on the developer and must be cor-
ned ouL ..+�;
EXHIBIT 'C' IS A MAP AND MAY BE MEWED IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK DURING NORMAL. RI IAINFCA urn IRS
VICINITY MAP
• ALL ALL MATERIAL USED SHALL CONSIST OF "HIU.SIDE' AND IS
AVAILABLE FROM A LOCAL PIT. ALL FILL MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED IN
SIX (6) INCH LIFTS AND COMPACTED TO 95X STANDARD PROCTOR.
APPROXIMATELY 16„048 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL WILL BE CUT AND
REMOVED OFF -Stir TO A LOCATION OUTSIDE THE CITY UMITS.
• CONTRACTOR SHALL USE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES TO CONTROL
EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES IDENTIFIED
ON THIS PLAN SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS A FINAL DESIGN, OUT
RATHER A GENERAL REPRESENTATON OF THE EXPECTED MEASURES AND
LOCATION. IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT SILT FENCE AND STRAW RAZES
WOULD ACCOMMODATE THE EROSION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS.
• WHERE EXCESSIVE DUST MAY BECOME A PROBLEM, A PLAN FOR SPRAYINI
WATER ON HEAVILY TRAVELED DIRT AREAS SHALL BE ADDRESSED,
A SOILS ENGINEERING STUDY HAS NOT BEEN PERFORMED ON THIS SITE,
December 15, 2005
E t •! 1 EQflSIKTs' IIB pY/.. ,) T♦f
'1i1 f I.. ♦ I. y r W 1 1 •.
.♦B !. i 9 'B
] ]i • x `•V gal h S- ! f 1
ilnp1I.a
j. :
7
1 11 ]I 1 '•p ♦. , ,
a' • D Mi 1.. 'ir . +1.
r1 uXAC a r. I
i
I` f y ♦ NC I I - I ♦'
] I ♦ )i a' ♦t I Y
I
JIIJJIL
• I '
V. I
�1P
o f , es - n. ' j*Ps .- . , 1 • .
BUT NAY BE REQUIRED BY THE CITY ENGINEER IF CONDITIONS SO �• I v
F100D CERTnncA1TION: TATS PROPERTY DOES NOT UE rrwce. RARR wIRE OR - w, / . 1 1 --.
WIRE ME$H WITH Fuc'61 CU (j f(
WITHIN THE 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN. PER FIRM MAP _ r ' -.. �I / vErvcc rosr
NO, 05143CO0920, DATED 7-21-1999.
SITE AREA =
179,032
S.F.
CANOPY AREA
32085
S-F.
LXI�'�ITING CANOPY =
17.9%
CANOPY PRESERVED =
50.555
$p,
PRESERVED CANOPY -
17.0%
� T
--" �I f
I I
r-cyvcr. to nrlury a�intrs oE�Rrttea. Rlor eo el
e4 f„ s 2ih fs- >
:Gx1 I i I
MItIGA LION CANOPY
PRIORITY
DESIGNATION
DENSITY FACTOR
( )
REPLACEMENT
-.
TREES
MONETARY
0
iah Level
218
0
$0
)30
.eve
Mid I
1
290
6
1491
$ .
0
Low Level
436
0
$0
—TOTAL.:
6
$1.491
*d 11 ) 1YP' Y^ a.ro r. �r. j M ...... ... _
( r1 ' t Ie ,A - I I � ' / I Imo. �•
+., z.t Ih} i sx A I .. i.H I /!T
r /
� I
:/ r1 I'
� / e
,1. il liA t,l 't{'YVI>r"'d�tLiylh' : 1 'I / <i tJ.yll
i4 ;G, .: L 1 i `) Ti Y ADl%✓ y, I�o1!' . %
l4 1. ,
�� li 1 / ....
7R 15 TEE of RfITT OR'2L ST F BROOKS TRUST
O$ RR,F/.S N/L:L RD
1 ARFINstG ON rP, v7
n7(I r l
l >
pd
4 h
jj.'E1
I
14 I
l
vf
` a
I
l`
-,.
/'L
IIT1� I
1 ,
WI+ x > j. } I6& -I r)I 2 000.
{ STCPHE ,S 4'hNN/I TLIRrir R:
( IJ32 HN CRUST ),-
k!'1ITTI ✓1L1r fC /Pitta
I
ID)-'!/I3Z. 000
II .2/NM/r: cz:I r,RTTb BAR*(4M
V I6 fiV 1 (R t11 1
I . FAYE-TTEVuLLLT, AR 72203
IF:
l'ut/) lu,f y
1
I
III
I I
1 I
I
I
I.
I
11,1
:1
III
I
JJ�1Ii (:
765.11.1?
;M'r' Q lry RFnIG I R,Lt
5'(I b 1.J L4: /I/(Pk 1. I
F41H 'Jt V>11/, 4AIY7Dl '� -
I
111
jI
II I : ] Ir-
I
I 1 T III � IT
I
,I I)
& SEWER, .E.II
II
11 I IF DEDICATE —"-',
— I Ipp :._.a' _-.. 1; - o-,
BY THIS P T 7 G?1
ski
LJ/moo'
I
1 1. I
T I M1 7 I
/Hv) •�- qU 1 I �Ivt T1
V YIr I II � i.
v��D l elf Tr
^.N :-•/'� '..., - I
FOUND IRON PIN
® SET IRON PIN a
FIRE HYDRANT SMITH TWO—WAY RADIO SERVICE
O SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE 520 N COLLEGE AVE
FAYETTEVILLEBAR 72701
-- - - - V. WATER UNE DEVELOP,&,,
-- — SS— SANITARY SEWER UNE DAVID CHANCE
DTI- -, I,- II, - s I� -x —x —x —x — EXISTING FENCE D & P CHANCE PROPERflES LLC
S98 RANDALL WOBBEE LANE a ,I u W SPRINGDALE AR 72764
.1464 - - ry v1 1 " «s ni ;; ` EASEMENT LINE 479-601-3323
a rJ
o
- �d- f" ^ / DRAINAGE PIPE
•P _ �'-r'UI U .. ENGINEER REPRESENTATIVE:
�<;P1F�S D65 OA ! aR@hA „ St lliURp+ ,' .I •r p, c .,ar. n' ,.H K _.1490 .. .. -. ..... _ - -... EXLSTING CONTOUR H2 ENGINEERING, INC.
> V C) h (C / 6 UV
\ 1 51i-OAHVd00q n' a°._I to e• a, - F "D 1EM 2758 MILLENNIUM DR., SUITE 1
>xw I. ,` c� PROPOSED CONTOUR D
FAYEIIt WI Li;$Fi 1L .-•'(kl IV' flu L`y -i� F. . - ri E` t. I- v 9?� TEE IFAYmEViLLE, AR 72 3
0 AI F. ' ' .�
' /04 in r o
10P; 7 ui > c Ir1 •n -E Z n 1 $ FIRE HYDRANT
IrJ >, .• / V I 111 r t
5 1 a EXISTING TREE (♦Xf=REMOVE)
� s � li 1,
i_.I 71 "• SLOPES 15% OR GREATER
I'
I 1
6G 4.55 OM
<,T'vTINT..
1 .,�
�
ih/ r 3 3'LV`NU h T'
/ 11 I
'02 F I LC t?P S7 V'
}
H
1 FAY)-' TT.VII LC AR 72/03 N
F,
I
r
IF
HI
11
T
I)
H.
�_-IIS
000 •-
,
/,771 El /Ws
RlI
�'
C/S
d
!fl(
744E N Lf.hTM ' 57 'I
N
FM'F fl/c VIOL,
1 K.at
;'A(E7 :Rl':. /, A
EDGE OF PAVEMENT
, II '--PROPOSED.
EDGE OF PAVEMENT
1 it
I
FylOHS-I.1 8/) YE; 5 'FISHA A :Of -AN
JOHN l h WANDA LGC. AIV
II I
b. HILLCH'S T,11'f
1/
FAYC1]TINACf AR /103
)
<^A I 4 1
V
I/ I �
is I
7(5 _/• I31 OOCI
1
Ji /FrPS' HI Y C JA( ry SON
I
(/I4 HI' L(6597 AVE
[AYE TIEVi' SF, AR 72 >05
/
- 1,440 .:
f
_I
Hsu..--.
pppp00B8BBpB
OF
®�mpae�
,P
R G H2
tio>
ENGINEERING
a or INCORPORATED
W
0-
0 No.
1105
n��NSAS
BBBBBBBBBBBp'
Checked by: TAH
Drawn by: MLM
Horizontal Scale: Ni
Ve tieal Scale: WA
Date: 01 DEC05
Revisions:
Technical Plal Review -12-27-05
Subdivision Committee - 2-02-06
Planning Commission - 2-08-06
Ci Proect Number
P7005-1883
Plat Page
407
i
PAGE
01
FADES
H2 PROJECT NUMBER,
05-036
EINIGBNEERRRRIBG, me.
9758 MII I EN
Suite I
DRIVE
IAYETTEVILLI ARKANSAS 72/O9
PIIONI (479) 582 4'234
FAX. (479)
58?-. <_3'154
°"'"•m rI,
11 L ✓
USE UNIT CHART - PERMITTED USES
USE UNIT I CITY-WIDE USES BY RIGHT)
USE UNIT 9 (TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS)
USE UNIT 26 (MULTI -FAMILY DWELLINGS)
USE UNIT CHART - CONDITIONAL USES
USE UNIT 24 (HOME OCCUPATION) -�
IUSE UNIT 2 (CITY-WIDE USES BY CONDITIONAL USE)
LAND USE TABLE
SYMBOL
LAND USE
DENSITY
UNITS
ACRES
% OF BUILDING SPACE
MF
( MULTI -FAMILY
7.3
30
4.11
(TOTAL)
16.8%
TRASH PICKUP• THERE WILL BE INDIVIDUAL TRASH PICKUP,
NO DUMPSTER FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT
• LAND USEJZEII 1 INTENSITY
TOTAL SITE AREA: 4.11 ACRES
TOTAL NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS: 30
RESIDENTIAL: 7.3 UNITS / ACRE (MAX.)
• AREA REGULATIONS:
LOT AREA MINIMUM: N/A (CONDO UNITS AND DUPLEXES)
LOT WIDTH MINIMUM: N/A
LAND AREA PER DWELLING: MIN. 0.13 ACRES / DWELLING
• SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
FRONT: 25 FT
SIDE; 8 FT
REAR: 15 FT
m HEIGHT
35 FT MAX. HEIGHT
• BUILDING AREA
16.8% OF SITE
• LANDSCAPING
TREES REQUIRED TO BE PLANTED ON 30 FT CENTERS ALONG
STREET RIGHT OF WAY AS WELL AS SHRUB PLANTING.
I TREE REQUIRED PER ISLAND IN PARKING LOT.
• EARKIN2
RESIDENTIAL:
SINGLE FAMILY, DUPLEX, TRIPLEX:
REQUIRED: 2 PER DWELLING UNIT
PROVIDED: 4 DUPLEXES = 8 UNITS * 2 = 16 SPACES
MULTI -FAMILY OR TOWNHOME:
REQUIRED: I PER BEDROOM
PROVIDED: 12-2 BEDROOM TOWNHOMES =
12*2*1=24 SPACES
10-3 BEDROOM TOWNHOMES =
10*3*1= 30 SPACES
• TOTAL SPACES REQUIRED: 70 SPACES • TOTAL. SPACES PROVIDED:
GARAGE PARKING: 42 SPACES
U
•• DRIVEWAY PARKING: 42 SPACES
PARALLEL GUEST PARKING: 38 SPACES
• HANDICAP PARKING REQUIRED: 2 SPACES
• HANDICAP PARKING PROVIDED: 2 SPACES
* NOTE: ALL PARALLEL SPACES ARE 8' X 22.5'
SMMITV TWO-WAY RADIO SERVICE
520 N COLLEGE AVE
FAYETTEVILLE,AR 72701
Q VELOprD.
DAVID CHANCE
0 & P CHANCE PROPERTIES LLC
598 RANDALL WOBBEE LANE
SPRINGDALE, AR 72764
479-601-3323
H
2;
Si
FI
11
is.. I.@ d _A-./�`l..P F/HINCT i, A. ,ri jFLl f r3R(in�tS 1R, ':i?"
CA .,I rzr„,Ie �, � •
S87* 06 _E 149°
December .15, 2005
GENERAL PROVISIONS
AUTHORITY
THIS PZD MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS AUTHORIZED BY SECTIONS 161 AND 166 — PLANNED ZONING DISTRICTS
OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PZD MASTER DEVELOPMENT L E G E N I)
PLAN SHALL RUN WITH THE LAND. THE LANDOWNERS, THEIR SUCCESSORS, HEIRS, OR ASSIGNS SHALL BE BOUND BY THIS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AS AMENDED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL w FOUND IRON PIN
ADOPTION V SET IRON PIN
THE ADOPTION OF THIS PZO MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHALL EVIDENCE THE FINDINGS AND DECISION OF THE FIRE HYDRANT
FAYETTEVILLE CITY COUNCIL THAT THIS PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT FOR ARSHIER HEIGHTS IS IN GENERAL °
CONFORMITY WITH THE FAYETTEVILLE GENERAL PLAN 2020; IS AUTHORIZED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 161 SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE TO' ORE U.E.
AND t66 OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. DEDICATED
W- WATER LINE BY THIS PLAT
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PZD MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHALL PREVAIL AND GOVERN THE DEVELOPMENT OF -" "
ARSHIER HEIGHTS, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT WHERE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 00 _ a SS_ SANITARY SEWER LINENOT ADDRESS A PARTICULAR SUBJECT, THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE UNIFIED 20° U.E.-
DEVELOPMENT CODE, AS AMENDED, OR ANY OTHER APPLICABLE RESOLUTIONS OR REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF x -„_ EXISTING FENCE
FAYETTEVILLE, SHALL RE APPLICABLE. 'x
EASEMENT LINE SO' WATER
ENFORCEMENT & SEWER U.E.
TO FURTHER THE MUTUAL INTEREST OF THE RESIDENTS, OCCUPANTS, AND OWNERS OF THE PZD MASTER '-' DRAINAGE PIPE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OF THE PUBLIC IN THE PRESERVATION OF THE INTEGRITY OF THE PLAN, THE PROVISIONS -... EXISTING CONTOUR "
OF THIS PLAN RELATING TO THE USE OF LAND, STATEMENT OF COMMITMENTS, DEVELOPMENT AND ARCHITECTURAL -- - -
STANDARDS, AND THE LOCAZIOM OF COMMON OPEN SPACE SHALL RUN IN FAVOR OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE PROPOSED CONTOUR
AND SHALL BE ENFORCEABLE AT LAW OR IN EQUITY BY THE CRY WITHOUT LIMITATION ON ANY POWER OR
REGULATION OTHERWISE GRANTED BY LAW. TEE I
C'
CONFLICT
-.., FIRE HYDRANT ./, 7. ✓
Sr L/(). PA / SA^II i lc:/CC
WHERE THERE IS MORE THAN ONE PROVISION WITHIN THE PZD MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT COVERS THE �` " `r V v' r'/'
SAME SUBJECT MATTER, THE PROVISION WHICH IS MOST RESTRICTIVE OR IMPOSES HIGHER STANDARDS OR., EXISTING TREE C'X'=REMOVE)
REQUIREMENTS SHALL GOVERN UNLESS DETERMINED OTHERWISE BY THE ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATOR. ".. `:w<` I
MAXIMUM LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT - w
THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DWEWNGS OR THE TOTAL COMMERCIAL BUSINESS, OR INDUSTRIAL INTENSITY APPROVED U
FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE PLANNING AREAS IS THE MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT REQUESTED FOR PLATTING OR i'
CONSTRUCTION. THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF DWEWNGS OR LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT FOR COMMERCIAL, BUSINESS, OR 1 a
INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES MAY BE LESS DUE TO SUBDIVISION OR SHE IMPROVEMENT PLAN REQUIREMENTS OR OTHER j
REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
PROJECT TRACKING Ii
AT THE TIME OF SUBDIVISION FINAL PLAT OR LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT THE APPLICANT SMALL PROVIDE A " z
SUMMARY OF THE DEVELOPMENT, TO DATE, TO THE PLANNING DIVISION, IN ORDER TO ASSURE MAXIMUM iIi
DEVELOPMENT LIMITS ARE NOT EXCEEDED. F I ' a
'
LF,6.41 DECRITIO,R
Po rtP
,
o t
PRACT A•IF
FAYT TOFE THE LNW H OF THE NW a OF , MORE PA16
-NRTY, R 30 WEST, CITY OF i✓�7 *�, K"
AT THESE
CORNER NSOPINE
COUNTY. OF ARKANSAS. V,BEING MORE PARTICULARLYFOUNDDESCRIBED I AS HENCE 11 COMMENCING ��
AT THE SE *: OT AWN. THE NW '/o SAID POINT
OF BE A EN PIPE; THENCE N6T123 FEE v, h' �> F)..
4T 655.03 FEET TO
OF BEGINNING; THENCE NO2'5B E
ASc ISLED T: THEHENC E SOTO 3 E 2SA0 72ET TO THE POINT L 3a `,- ,
A CHiSiLEO X : THEN..E SGTO,r 06 E 143.72 FEET TO A FOUND IRON PIN IN THE WEST FOUND P WAY UNE OF L' t Vs, VAC 1
HILLCRE•ST AVENUE; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY. SO757'25"W 634:95: FEET PO A FOUND PK NAIL IN THE \`\ `
APPROXIMATE CENTER UNE OF. WOODCREST DRIVE: NOW. VACATED' BY- THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE BY ORDINANCE \\\
11205; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE NBT02'16OW 149.97 FEET -:TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING °
2.187 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, AND SUBJECT TO ANY AND ALL EASEMENTS OF RECORD OR FACT.
PAARRTlO F THE SW X OF THE NW U OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST, CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, _ r \�"
WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NE c.)
CORNER OF SAID SW X OF THE NW Vq THENCE N8T12'IO"W 203.60 FEET; THENCE S02'58.05"W 30.14 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING, SAID POINT BEING A FOUND IRON PIN IN THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY OF NILLCREST
AVENUE; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY SOZ5R'12"W 313.56 FEET TO A FOUND IRON PIN IN THE NORTH
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF ARSHIER DRIVE; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY UNE N88 -36'30W 537.42 FEET TO A I\ --- -.
FOUND IRON PIN; THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY N63'01'26•E 620.21 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, - ..
CONTAINING 1.935 ACRES MORE OR LESS, AND SUBJECT TO ANY AND ALL EASEMENTS OF RECORD OR FACT. : 0-"--"
NO2°59'5YE
FLOOD CERTIFICATION• THIS 25.00'
PROPERTY DOES NOT LIE �y{$ O
WITHIN THE 100 YEAR FLOOD
^' . "' " "M MAP NO. \41
DATED 5t10RQ ''
)
.f -Y' Q •�'10
f
7r ,L 3F 0/.
»rFio N u a raav fUR,r�R
--��—I y4 C
JJEiITL1 -r1
I l'
ar
I y� 4 (�, n't J cv4 flue
Ib6 T LI IJ r I
. I i 11LTll'rth IF nLi •?d/3
I'''s' C'
' I
\P)%1L• M1U34^'t!f'xt/
II^ I ISO/ I TU CNI Si
3I'FROM RAW To CL
14' FROM CL
F EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT
ROPO$ ROPOSED El1GE OE PAVEMENT
retlVE i 9! I/d,5 U00
AIrut'me<
• . LAYC aLI SY A4 5705
m om' ;?: A
iL_1EEI iii
1J1CH fl ROYI`ty i✓1SHAA. (JGP
PION 4 V4IN^4'i i 064N
Fl I « ✓. I4Lu,u51 ATP
yqq' ( 1 l rA°l rk VILi S. kt TNCJ
Ij; l
I I
. JEFTMY Jas I IL C.
I), r H/i.. L 4
1 1 s r r 5 E, 1WR 509 11„
1.
I 203.60'
02°56'05`W oVN4C
3054' -- _
JtPOB �, ] NER
W}30
7r' D !9+-OOV
H4 WY I R'4',( 0kWS
NIII S,
El j
I
....-...'J,+-
�� f� M Ln I 1CIRt ! N rE5
A �.^"�i66 t h! OilIi
- MEIEB
MAf0.T SMI ° ]b✓' 11v HhJ'1 SF RbICE
�il.l
20' (I.E. FAYFT1 !/'l
., n r �, rz- A✓r rvu 1 , {
.....--_-_..--..__�' ___ . i4 FROM CL - ^�' ) C __
50' RMJ _ __ Ir 2 I/4" :TTTTeTXIy/RAp W.L. .�..�`_" 1 IN
tr _
4 N F 00 I.
<, •C o: n 2 cr
IAM'5 U60M"hh `f^SNNVEfi `te oL�i""•-
� A) I , V I ' i 4E//O, i �' � a w Cr �
( C IL• L ., RI � i , ?� is
.: lxru"J �<>p .fi, v Ii r
¢1�i f LL� =
VICINITY MAP
*NOTE: THIS IS A SCALED DOWN VERSION
OF THE ORIGINAL PLOT. NOT TO SCALE.
DATE OF PREPARATION: DECEMBER 1, 2005
I
I Iwp IF
®®®aW„f 0f f fff
OF Aof
LJ��/'}1
P I I
P7
O •
L.
ENGINEERING n m
cxc INCORPORATED
o
No.
1105 =1
I40•*
Checked :TAN
Drawn by: MW
Ilorimntal Scale: MS
Vertical Scale: WA
Date: O1DEC05
Revisions:
Technical Plat Review -12-27-05
Subdivision Committee - 2-02-06
Planning Commission -2-08-06
City Pro ect Number:
P70 005-1883
Plat Page
407
f
F
9
PAGE
of
PAGES
1
2
112 PROJECT NUMBER: 05 036
ENGINEERING, ING,
29,58 MII.LENNIIJM
Suite I
DRIVE
FAYEFrEVILI_E
PHONE: (479)
ARKANSAS 72703
582-4234
EX: (479) 502-4)7.54
ill mr �..m � i ( / (ph lP pt4
xn�li � 6 � 1 I I
1 /
...Pi
I. I..1 v
{1 II I