Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Ordinance 5287
' I �'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIillllllllllllllll I�`I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Doc ID : 0132VO50003 . Type :_ REL Kind : ORDINANCE Recorded : 01/05/2010 at 02 : 35 : 34 PM Fee Amt : $25 . 00 Pace 1 of 3 Washinqton Countv . AR Bette Stems Circuit Clerk File2010-00000363 rat ORDINANCE NO. 5287 o `- TI N r AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBES ANNEXATION PETITION ANX 09-3409 (CC2009-4), FOR PRO - �.J LOCATED AT 3231 NORTH OLD WIRE ROAD THE NORTH E5 ' CORNER OF OLD WIRE ROAD AND ROM ORCHARD RAI ' w CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 39 ACRES. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1 : That the City Council hereby confirms the annexation to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, as shown in Exhibit "A" and depicted in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2 : That the official map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, is hereby amended to reflect the change provided in Section 1 above. Section 3 : That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas is hereby amended to assign the zoning designation of R-A, Residential Agricultural to the subject property. Section 4: That the above-described property is hereby assigned to Ward No. Three. PASSED and APPROVED this 1st day of December, 2009. APPROVED ATTEST: BdELDIOJO GBy: Mayor SONDRA E. SMITH, Cit ., . blY 0000 G 'a ; FAYETTEVILLEdd� • v�y-pRKarts,Po�� .,,^A(3 �,.�• EXHIBIT "A" ANX09-3409 BROYLES Close Up view o SUBJECT PROPERTY y , BRIDOEWATER.k:Ns�y� Ca li t �rxl� z r $ ¢i, e•t �.+ ~ -_ --ROM ORCHARD Cm ❑ F x4 I� FF 2 RSFi t — - -- - -- o Overview 1 0 150 300 600 000 1,200 Foot EXHIBIT "B" ANX 09-3409 DESCRIPTION ( PARCEL NOS . 001 - 15604 - 000 , 001 - 15605 - 000 , 001 - 15606 - 000 , 001 - 15608 - 000 , 001 - 15608 - 001 , 001 - 15609 - 000 , AND 001 - 15610 - 000 ) ALL OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEEDS RECORDED AS FILE NUMBERS 93 - 3908 , 2005 - 18120 , 2005 - 18121 , 2005 - 18122 , 2005 - 18123 , 2006 - 22924 , AND 2009 - 9274 IN THE CIRCUIT CLERK ' S OFFICE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY , ARKANSAS RESIDING IN THE SOUTHWEST 1 / 4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1 /4 OF SECTION 30 , TOWNSHIP 17 NORTH , RANGE 29 WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN BEING ALSO DESCRIBED BY METES AND BOUNDS AS FOLLOWS : BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE ABOVE SAID SOUTHWEST 1 / 4 ; THENCE NO2026 ' 06 " E , ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE ABOVE SAID SOUTHWEST 1 / 4 , A DISTANCE OF 1315 . 03 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE ABOVE SAID SOUTHWEST 1 / 4 ; THENCE S87016 ' 1311E , ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE ABOVE SAID SOUTHWEST 1 / 4 , A DISTANCE OF 1319 . 96 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE ABOVE SAID SOUTHWEST 1 / 4 ; THENCE S02029 ' 32 " W , ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE ABOVE SAID SOUTHWEST 1 / 4 , A DISTANCE OF 1016 . 73 FEET ; THENCE 518021 ' 47 " W , LEAVING THE ABOVE SAID EAST LINE , A DISTANCE OF 116 . 92 FEET ; THENCE 53403912611W , A DISTANCE OF 96 . 67 FEET ; THENCE 552001 ' 42 " W , A DISTANCE OF 94 . 13 FEET ; THENCE 569002113 " W , A DISTANCE OF 95 . 91 FEET ; THENCE 586030 ' 36 " W , A DISTANCE OF 46 . 95 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE ABOVE SAID SOUTHWEST 1 / 4 ; THENCE N87011 ' 42 " W , ALONG THE ABOVE SAID SOUTH LINE , A DISTANCE OF 1028 . 91 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING AND CONTAINING 11713 , 107 SQUARE FEET OR 39 . 33 ACRES , MORE OR LESS . 0J \71 � CENTRE FOR DESIGN September 17, 2009 Jeremy Pate Development Services Director City of Fayetteville _ 125 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Re: Old Wire Annexation - Appeal of Planning Commission denial Mr. Pate: On behalf of our client, we wish to appeal the September 14, 2009 City of Fayetteville Planning Commissions decision to deny ANX 09-3409 - Broyles/ 3231 N. Old Wire Road. We request that this item be place on the next available City Council meeting. Respectfully, �vvv Todd Jacobs Director of Design Appian Centre for Design 509 West Sprint Street, Suite 420 Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Office: 479-442- 1444 Lotco, and �(.eadt2a 1u� � 71o9 ec ntesf� . City Council Meeting of October 6, 2009 Agenda Item Number CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor and City Council Thru: Jeremy C. Pate, Development Services Director From: Andrew Garner, Senior Planner Date: September 16, 2009 Subject: Annexation for Broyles (ANX 09-3409) RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning Commission recommend denial of annexing the subject 39.33-acre property, located at the northwest comer of Old Wire Road and Rom Orchard Road. The applicant has appealed the Planning Commission decision to deny this request to the City Council. BACKGROUND Most of the property in this annexation request was included in annexation and- rezoning requests that were heard by the Planning Commission on October 10, 2005 and again on May 8, 2006. Planning Staff recommended denial of all requests. The Planning Commission denied or tabled both the annexation and rezoning requests in 2005 and 2006, expressing concern about the extension of the city in this area, development patterns, density, and compatibility, and the resulting extension of the boundary. The meeting minutes from these previous Planning Commission meetings are attached to the staff report. The applicant proposes to annex the subject 39.33 acres into the City. The applicant has stated an intent to propose a 200-acre master plan for a traditional neighborhood development, including the subject property. DISCUSSION This item was heard at the regular Planning Commission meeting on September 16, 2009. The Planning Commission voted 5-4-0 (commissioners Winston, Graves, Kennedy, and Trumbo voting "no") to deny this rezoning request. Several neighbors in the area spoke against rezoning the subject property to RSF-4, however, the applicant has withdrawn the rezoning application. Written comments from the neighbors are attached to the staff report. BUDGETIMPACT None. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN ANNEXATION PETITION ANX 09-3409 (CC2009-4), FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3231 NORTH OLD WIRE ROAD, THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF OLD WIRE ROAD AND ROM ORCHARD ROAD, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 39 ACRES. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1 : That the City Council hereby confirms the annexation to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, as shown in Exhibit "A" and depicted in Exhibit `B" attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2: That the official map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, is hereby amended to reflect the change provided in Section 1 above. Section 3 : That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas is hereby amended to assign the zoning designation of R-A, Residential Agricultural to the subject property. Section 4: That the above-described property is hereby assigned to Ward No. Three. PASSED and APPROVED this of 12009. APPROVED: ATTEST: By: By: LIONELD JORDAN, Mayor SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk EXHIBIT "A" ANX09-3409 BROYLES Close Up View rSUBJECTPROPERTYT ({tj -" BRIOGEWATER.LN— RArl u ' 4 z • z � ROM ORCHARD RD. f " RAUm b1 is k4 RS 4 qV RS < Overview 0 150 300 600 000 1,200 Foet EXHIBIT "B" ANX 09-3409 DESCRIPTION ( PARCEL NOS . 001 - 15604 - 000 , 001 - 15605 - 000 , 001 - 15606 - 000 , 001 - 15608 - 000 , 001 - 15608 - 001 , 001 - 15609 - 000 , AND 001 - 15610 - 000 ) ALL OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEEDS RECORDED AS FILE NUMBERS 93 - 3908 , 2005 - 18120 , 2005 - 18121 , 2005 - 18122 , 2005 - 18123 , 2006 - 22924 , AND 2009 - 9274 IN THE CIRCUIT CLERK ' S OFFICE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY , ARKANSAS RESIDING IN THE SOUTHWEST 1 / 4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1 /4 OF SECTION 30 , TOWNSHIP 17 NORTH , RANGE 29 WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN BEING ALSO DESCRIBED BY METES AND BOUNDS AS FOLLOWS : BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE ABOVE SAID SOUTHWEST 1 / 4 ; THENCE NO2026 ' 06 " E , ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE ABOVE SAID SOUTHWEST 1 / 4 , A DISTANCE OF 1315 . 03 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE ABOVE SAID SOUTHWEST 1 / 4 ; THENCE S87016 ' 13 " E , ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE ABOVE SAID SOUTHWEST 1 / 4 , A DISTANCE OF 1319 . 96 FEET TO THE . NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE ABOVE SAID SOUTHWEST 1 /4 ; THENCE S02029 ' 32 " W , ALONG THE EAST LINE OF , THE ABOVE SAID SOUTHWEST 1 / 4 , A DISTANCE OF 1016 . 73 FEET ; THENCE S18021 ' 47 " W , LEAVING THE ABOVE SAID EAST LINE , A DISTANCE OF 116 . 92 FEET ; THENCE S34039 ' 26 " W , A DISTANCE OF 96 . 67 FEET ; THENCE S52001 ' 4261W , A DISTANCE OF 94 . 13 FEET ; THENCE S69002113 " W , A DISTANCE OF 95 . 91 FEET ; THENCE S86030 ' 36 " W , A DISTANCE OF 46 . 95 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE 'ABOVE SAID SOUTHWEST 1 / 4 ; THENCE N87011 ' 42 " W , ALONG THE ABOVE SAID SOUTH LINE , A DISTANCE OF 1028 . 91 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING AND CONTAINING 11713 , 107 SQUARE FEET OR 39 . 33 ACRES , MORE OR LESS . ayve ee PC Meeting of September 14, 2009 ARKANSAS 125 W. Mountain St. THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS Fayetteville, AR 72701 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE Telephone: (479) 575-8267 TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM : Andrew Garner, Senior Planner THRU: Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director DATE: September- Updated September 16 2009 ANX 09-3409: (BROYLES / 3231 N. OLD WIRE RD., 217): Submitted by APPIAN CENTER FOR DESIGN for property located at 3231 N. OLD WIRE ROAD, NW CORNER OF OLD WIRE ROAD AND ROM ORCHARD ROAD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 39.33 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. Planner: Andrew Gamer Background: Most of the property in this annexation request was included in annexation and rezoning requests that were heard by the Planning Commission on October 10, 2005 and again on May 8, 2006. Planning Staff recommended denial of all requests. The Planning Commission denied or tabled both the annexation and rezoning requests in 2005 and 2006. The meeting minutes from these previous Planning Commission meetings are attached to the staff report for the associated rezoning (RZN 09-3410 Broyles) also being heard at this planning commission meting. Property: The property is located northwest of the intersection of Old Wire Road and Rom Orchard Road. As depicted in Table 1 , the site is surrounded by rural residential and undeveloped pasture, with unincorporated Washington County to the north, east, and south, and property zoned Residential Agricultural (R-A) in the City of Fayetteville to the west. Table 1 Surrounding Land Use and Zonin Direction from Site Land Use Zoning North Rural residential pasture Planning Area South Rural residential pasture Planning Area East Rural residential pasture Planning Area West Rural residential; pasture R-A, Residential Agricultural; Planninn Area The nearest developed subdivision is Paradise Valley Estates in the Planning Area, located approximately 1 ,600 feet east of the subject property and developed for single-family use with a density of approximately 1 unit per two acres. Proposal: The applicant intends to annex and rezone this property and stated intent to develop a traditional neighborhood. If the annexation for this property is approved, the request is to rezone the property from R-A, Residential Agricultural to RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. However, the applicant stated intent to propose a 200-acre master plan for a traditional neighborhood K.,Reporu120091PC ReporuQO-September 14WNX 09-3409 (Rroy(es).doc development, including the subject property. Request: The request is to annex the property into the City of Fayetteville Public Comment: Staff has received several phone calls, emails, and letters in opposition to the proposed rezoning. The opposition cites concern that a density of four units per acre is not compatible with the surrounding rural residential character and would result in adverse impacts to traffic safety and property values. INFRASTRUCTURE: Streets: Currently the site has access to Old Wire Road. With development, road improvements and dedication per the Master Street Plan would be required. Surrounding Master Street Plan Streets are shown on Table 2. Table 2 Surrounding Master Street Plan Streets Direction from Site Street Name Master Street Plan Classification South Old Wire Road Collector Street East Old Wire Road Collector Street Southeast Rom Orchard Road Local Street Water: Public water is adjacent to the site. There is a four-inch waterline along the south side of Old Wire Road. Public water will need to be upgraded to the property to provide domestic and fire flow for any proposed development. Sewer: Sanitary sewer is not adjacent to the site. The nearest sewer main an 18-inch public main about 2,500 feet west of the site at the intersection of Old Wire Road/Crossover Road. Public sewer mains may need to be extended to the property to serve any proposed development, depending on the nature and density of the development. Fire: The subject property is located 1 .5 miles from the Fire Station No. 5 at 2979 North Crossover Road. Projected response time at full development of this property is projected at 4 minutes to the beginning of this development. Police: The Fayetteville Police Department stated concern that this application may cause substantial call volume increase and will effect traffic congestion in the area. The Police Department also commented that this annexation would result in one side of the road inside the city while the other side is outside the city. This may cause confusion among officers and residents living in the area as to which law enforcement agency to call in an emergency. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the requested annexation based on the findings included in this report. K.I Repons120091PC ReporU120-Seplember 14UNX 09-3409 (Broy(es).doc PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required YES ❑ Forwarded X Denied Date: September 14, 2009 Motion : Mures Second: Zant Vote: 5-4-0 (Graves, Winston, Kennedy, Trumbo votm_ g "no) CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Required YES ❑ Approved ❑ Denied Date: October 6, 2009-(1" reading if-recommended) CITYPLAN2025 FUTURELAND USEPLAN. City Plan 2025 Future Land Use Plan designates this s ite as Rural Area. Rural Areas consist of land in an open or cultivated state or sparsely settled These areas only have infrastructure and public services to .support low-density zoning. They do not have adequate transportation or public services to support urban development patterns at this time. This area encourages conservation and preservation in any development pattern. The Guiding Policies for Rural Areas also discuss that if developed, these areas should encourage alternative development patterns to achieve compatibility with surrounding rural areas. This property is also identified as an Intended Growth Sector in City Plan 2025. Growth sector areas were initially identified during the City Plan 2025 charette process by citizens as areas with potential for population growth in the future. After the initial data was compiled and growth sectors were identified, additional input and analysis was completed in order to prepare the future land use map. This involved analysis ofthe actual development potential and public meetings where desired development patterns were analyzed and discussed The growth sector map . was an aid in preparation of the future land use map, which was ultimately adopted by the City Council. This area was identified as a Rural Area. FINDINGS : 12.3.4 POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREAS The potential annexation areas should be identified by the City using the following criteria: I . Areas that are already urban in character. Finding: The subject property is surrounded on all sides by sparely populated rural residential land uses. This area is not considered urban in character, and has not previously been identified by the City for annexation. The property is within the City's Planning Area. 2. Areas that can be developed at urban densities. Finding: The subject property cannot be developed at urban densities at this time. The roads accessing the property are two-lane unimproved roads and sewer is not in the immediate vicinity (approximately 2,500 feet to the west). Unless significant improvements occur, the property and surrounding area will likely remain in a relatively low density state for some time, until and unless development occurs along K:IRepor&s 2009WC Reporul20-Seplember 14WNA 09-3409 (Rroyfes).doc Crossover Road and moves in an eastern direction. 3. Immediate areas are those that are peninsulas or islands, where municipal services have already been extended. Finding: Municipal services that would accommodate future development have not been extended to this area. The proposed annexation would extend a peninsula of property approximately 1 ,300 feet into the county that is not served by city municipal services. The subject property and surrounding areas do not have adequate water or sewer service. There is an existing four-inch water line available to the subject site on the south side of Old Wire Road, however, the water line would have to be upgraded to provide domestic and fire flow for future development. Sewer service is not available and is located approximately 2,500 feet to the west and would have to be extended to serve development on the site. City police and fire service are provided to areas to the west. 4. Vacant lands that are subject to development pressure. Finding: This site has been proposed to be annexed approximately three times since 2005 and a conceptual subdivision layout was proposed then withdrawn in that timeframe. These applications and the developer's communication with staff indicate that this area is under development pressure, though this is certainly questionable at this time, given the reduction in building permits and development projects, and vacant subdivisions in the region. The site is less than one mile from Crossover Road (State Highway 265), which is the major north-south transportation corridor on the east side of Fayetteville, also providing connection to Springdale. The site is relatively cleared of vegetation and flat, and is not in a floodplain, without natural constraints to development. 5. Areas where urban services are already provided. Finding: Water, fire and police protection are currently provided in undeveloped areas to the west but not to the density to the proposed RSF-4 in this area. The subject property is not being served by city utilities that could support an urban development at this time. The level of service for this property may be reduced in comparison to surrounding subdivisions located in closer proximity to the more densely populated areas of the City. Also see Finding 12.3.5.a, and the attached comments from the Police Department expressing concerns with emergency service provision. 6. Areas where urban services are needed. Finding: As discussed above in Finding No. 5, water, fire, and police service are provided adjacent to the west, however sewer service is unavailable to the subject property and surrounding areas. Sewer service would be needed to serve development on the kWeportA2009WC Reports120-Sep(emher 14UNX 09-3409 (Broyles).doc subject property. The subject property and surrounding area are largely undeveloped or rural residential, and do not currently need urban service for existing land uses. 12.3.5 ANNEXATION GUIDING POLICIES BOUNDARIES 12.3.5.a Annex existing islands and peninsulas and do not annex areas that would create an island or peninsula. Finding: Annexation of the property will not create an island of unincorporated property. However, it will extend a peninsula of incorporated City approximately 1,300 feet. Creating a peninsula will extend the area of city property to which utilities and emergency response personnel must travel to benefit the future residents of the City. The Police Department commented that this annexation would result in one side of the road inside the city while the other side is outside the city. This may cause confusion among officers and residents living in the area as to which law enforcement agency to call in an emergency. Development in this area would also require the extension of sewer service to an area that is undeveloped or developed at low densities on septic systems. Extending sewer service would encourage leap -frog development of this site and the surrounding areas. Staff finds that this proposal is in direct conflict to the annexation policy direction of the City Council, and can therefore not recommend approval of this annexation. Further, this application is in conflict with two of the primary goals of City Plan 2025 including Goal 1, "We will make appropriate infill and revitalization our highest priorities.'; and Goal 2, " We will discourage suburban sprawl." The proposed annexation on the periphery of the City is not infill and would encourage sprawl, by spreading development across the natural landscape, and if this property is developed, making people solely dependent on the automobile, in conflict with these two goals. 12.3.5.b Proposed annexation area must be adjacent, or contiguous, to city limits. Finding: The proposed annexation area is adjacent to the City Limits to the west. 12.3.5.c Areas should either include or exclude entire subdivisions or neighborhoods, not divide. Finding: The subject property is not a part of a platted subdivision. 12.3.5.d Boundaries for annexed areas should follow natural corridors. K: IReports170091PC Reports 120 -September lot INX 09-3409 (&oyles).doc Finding: Proposed boundaries follow property lines of the existing parcels and right-of-way. 12.3.5.e The provisions of services should be concurrent with development. Finding: Public services will be required to be provided concurrent with development in accordance with Fayetteville Unified Development Code requirements. Currently adequate public services are not available to support an urban or suburban development. ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS 12.3.5. f Annex environmentally sensitive areas that could be impacted by development and utilize appropriate development regulations to protect those areas. Finding: There are no known environmentally sensitive areas that could be impacted by development, however, this site has been designated as a Rural Area on the City's Future Land Use Plan. The guiding policies for Rural Areas encourage conservation and preservation that would allow historical agricultural and related uses to continue to occur. EMERGENCY AND PUBLIC SERVICES 12.3.5.g Public services must be able to be provided efficiently in newly annexed areas. Finding: Public services are not able to be provided efficiently in the proposed annexation area. The four -inch water line would be required to be upgraded at the time of development and extension of the nearest sewer service is located approximately 2,500 feet west of the property. Response time to this location for emergency personnel is anticipated at four minutes. The Police Department commented that this annexation would result in one side of the road inside the city while the other side is outside the city. This may cause confusion among officers and residents living in the area as to which law enforcement agency to call in an emergency. 12.3.5.h Annexed areas should receive the same level of service of areas already in the city limits. Finding: Fire and police service will be required to be provided to this area with the same level of response and service as other properties in this area, if annexed in the City of Fayetteville. This property is adjacent to rural residential areas to the west already being served by the city. 12.3.5.1 The ability to provide public services should be evaluated in terms of equipment, training of personnel, number of units and response time. Finding: These factors were taken into consideration in the responses and recommendations included in this report. K. IRepor(s120091PC Reports120-September 141ANX 09-3409 (Rroyles).doc INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES 12.3.5.j Areas currently served by utilities and other public services should be annexed. Finding: Water, fire and police protection are currently provided in undeveloped areas to the west but not to the density to the proposed RSF-4 in this area. The subject property is not being served by city utilities at this time. The level of service for this property may be reduced in comparison to surrounding subdivisions located in closer proximity to the more densely populated areas of the City. 12.3.5.k Proposed annexation areas should not require the upgrading of utilities to meet the demands of development unless there is a threat to public safety. Finding: Annexation and future development of this property will result in an increased demand on the existing infrastructure systems. Improvements to sewer and street systems and installation of fire hydrants would be made necessary by the annexation should additional development occur on the subject property. 12.3.5.1 Phased annexation should be initiated by the City within active annexation areas based on planned service extensions or availability of services. Finding: The proposed annexation is not part of a phased annexation initiated by the City. INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS 12.3.5.m Promote long-range planning with adjacent jurisdictions. Finding: N/A 12.3.5.n Establish agreements to address regional concerns, such as water, stormwater and sewer. Finding: N/A ADMINISTRATION OF ANNEXATIONS I2.3.5.o Develop a land use plan for annexation initiated by the city. Finding: N/A 12.3.5.p Designate zoning districts for the property during the annexation process Finding: Annexations are automatically zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural. The property owners request annexation and rezoning of this property to RSF-4, Residential single family -4 units/acre. Increased density on this property will increase the load on public infrastructure in this area and is significantly K: IReports120091PC Reports120-September l4UNX09-3409 (Broyles).doc different than the surrounding density. The timing of development to urban densities in inconsistent with City policies in this area at this time. 12.3.5.q An annexation study should be completed on all annexation proposals Finding: Planning staff has asked the Engineering Division, Fire Department and Police Department to study this annexation request to determine if facilities and services are available to serve this property. Comments from each department have been provided herein. 12.3.5.r Development proposals require a separate review from the annexation proposals. Finding: Development of this property was proposed within the past few years for a single family residential subdivision in the Planning Area, however that application was withdrawn. 12.3.5.s Residents should be fully informed of annexation activities. Finding: Adjoining neighbors have been notified of the annexation request and a public notice sign has been placed on the property advertising that this request will be heard at the Planning Commission meeting. I2.3.5.t Encourage larger annexations to create acceptable boundaries. Finding: Extending the city boundary to the east as proposed will create a peninsula of incorporated land. This is not consistent with the Annexation Policy and may create future problems at the time of development by requiring water, sewer, and street infrastructure upgrades. These upgrades would encourage leap -frog development in an area not suitable for urban or suburban development patterns. Staff does not recommend increasing the size of the proposed annexation by one or two adjacent parcels, but might be supportive of a much larger annexation that would create a more acceptable City boundary. 12.3.5.0 Conduct a fiscal impact assessments on large annexations. Finding: No fiscal impact assessment was conducted for this annexation of 39.33 acres. The City of Fayetteville Fire Department 303 W. Center St. Fayetteville, AR. 72701 Phone (479) 575-8365 Fax (479) 575-0471 To: Dara Sanders, Andrew Garner, Jeremy Pate, and Jesse Fulcher From: Mark Stevens Date: August 26, 2009 Re: ANX 09-3409 and RZN 09-3410 (Broyles / 3231 N. Old Wire Rd, 217) This development will be protected by Engine 5 located at 2979 North Crossover Road. It is 1.5 milgs from the station with an anticipated response time of 4 minutes to the beginning of the development. The Fire Department anticipates 34 (22 EMS - 12 Fire/Other) calls for service each year after the development is completed and maximum build -out has occurred. Typically, this type of development usually takes 12- 18 months, after the development is started, before maximum build -out and the service impact to occur. The Fayetteville Fire Department does not feel this development will affect our calls for service or our response times. Al this lime there is not a water main near this property of sufficient size for firefahtina. The closest fire hydrant is located next to Fire Station 5. Old Wire Road has a 4" PVC main providing water East to Rom Orchard; it is reduced to a 2" PVC line providing water North next to Fincher Lane. A minimum 6" to 8" water main will be required to provide water to fire hydrants for firefighting purposes. Refer to the GIS water system map. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Captain Mark Stevens Fayetteville Fire Department Honor, Commitment, Courage; Our people make the difference! Date 9/01/09 Jeremy Pate Development Services Director City of Fayetteville 113 W. Mountain Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Dear Director Pate, This document is in response to the request comments on (lie proposed ANX 09- 3409 and RZN 09-3410: (BROYLES / 3231 N. OLD WIRE RD., 217): Submitted by APPIAN CENTER FOR DESIGN for property located at 3231 N. OLD WIRE ROAD, NW CORNER OF OLD WIRE ROAD AND ROM ORCHARD ROAD. This rezoning, when built out, may cause any substantial call volume increase and will definitely have an effect on the traffic congestion in the area. The road is narrow and could be Improvements to the road One cause con enforcement agency to call in an emergency. There is a similar situation off Skillern Road almost immediately to the south. This small peninsula extends to Rom Orchard road and places one side of the road in the city and one side outside the city. ivin v in the area as to which law Sincerely, Captain William Brown Fayetteville Police Department ANX 09-3409: (BROYLES /3231 N. OLD WIRE RD., 217): Submitted by APPIAN CENTER FOR DESIGN for property located at 3231 N. OLD WIRE ROAD, NW CORNER OF OLD WIRE ROAD AND ROM ORCHARD ROAD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 39.33 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. Planner: Andrew Garner RZN 09-3410: (BROYLES / 3231 N. OLD WIRE RD., 217): Submitted by TODD JACOBS for property located at 3231 N. OLD WIRE ROAD, NW CORNER OLD WIRE ROAD AND ROM ORCHARD ROAD. The property contains approximately 39.33 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY 4 UNITS PER ACRE. Planner: Andrew Garner Public water is available to the property. There is a 4" main at on the south side of Old Wire Rd. Public water will need to be upgraded to the property to provide domestic and fire flow for any proposed development. Sanitary sewer is not available to the site. There is a 18" public main at the intersection of Old Wire Rd. and Crossover about 2500' to the southwest of this property.. Public mains may need to be extended to the property to serve any proposed development. The site has access to Old Wire Rd. Old Wire Rd. is a two lane paved city street in this location. Street improvements will be evaluated with development submittal. Standard improvements and requirements for drainage will be required for any development. This property is not affected by the 100 -year floodplain. ml,"1411RE FOR DESIGN PIINNINC I CIVIL INCIN[ININC August 3, 2009 City of Fayetteville Planning Department 125 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 RE: Written Statement - Rezoning of 39.33 acres along Old Wire Road a. The subject property is located in Intended Growth Sector area by the City Plan 2025. The 2025 Plan describes Intended Growth Sectors as, "areas where new development in the form of Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) is to be centered." The development team has created a master plan framework in conjunction with the proposed Cambridge traditional neighborhood development that is consistent with land use planning, principles and policies of the 2025 plan. We believe the master plan for the Old Wire area and the TND form of Cambridge match the goals of the City Plan 2025. b. The property is currently being annexed. Rezoning the property to RSF-4 would be in line with the City of Fayetteville land use policies for an intended growth sector area. c. Old Wire Road is currently a two-way asphalt paved road with approximately nine feet lanes. The level of service along this road is good with few delays expected morning or evening. The primary flow of traffic from this development is expected to take Old Wire Road either north to Joyce Boulevard or south to Crossover Road, which is scheduled to be widened to a four -lane boulevard in the near future. At the intersection of Old Wire Road and Crossover Road, Old Wire is currently a three lane road with a turning lane, curb and gutter and shows an efficient level of service for traffic. The intersection of Joyce Boulevard and Old Wire -Road to the north is currently a two lane stop sign intersection. There is a low volume of traffic at the intersection of Joyce and Old Wire and it should not prove to be problematic or affect a delay on travel times. d. The proposed rezoning to RSF-4 will not dramatically increase population density. The widening of Hwy 265 to a four -lane boulevard, the subject property and the neighboring properties to the east will see additional homes and businesses in the near future. The master plan shown in conjunction with this neighborhood will provide a structure of planned growth that will include short blocks, ample parkland, trails, sidewalks, and a mix of uses that will inherently provide amenities for the project — all ideals intended through the City's Plan 2025. There is a recently built sewer pump station to the east very near the proposed connection of water and sewer lines that the development will utilize. A newly remodeled elementary school and a recently -built middle school are located very close to the proposed development. There is also a proposed school site in the 200 -acre master plan shown in conjunction with this development. e. A traditional neighborhood development would not be allowed to occur with a zoning of R -A. Additionally, the subject property has been designated by the City Plan 2025 as an Intended Growth Sector. The 2025 Plan describes Intended Growth Sectors as, "areas where new development in the form of Traditional Neighborhood Development is to be centered." R -A zoning is intended for use by one -acre homes, estate lots, or farmland. The property will be entirely single family to not change the land use in close proximity to the existing neighbors. R Ily Tbs Director of Design 509 West Spring Street, Suite 420 1 Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 1 479.422.1444 Fax 479.422.1450 U74MCENTRE FOR DESIGN PINNNINN I CIVIL [ICIN[[NINC August 5, 2009 City of Fayetteville Planning Department 125 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 RE: Rezoning Application - Written Description - 39.33 acres Old Wire Road Appian Centre for Design is requesting the rezoning of approximately 39.33 acres located on along Old Wire Road to RSF-4 a. Currents owners of the property are Hank Broyles (Old Wire Road LLC) and Thomas C. Lee and his wife Barbara Lee. b. The subject property is located in the City of Fayetteville planned growth area. It will be proposed as a Traditional Neighborhood Development designed in conjunction with a 200 -acre Master Plan that will create a framework to accommodate long term growth in northeast Fayetteville. This framework is designed to preserve open space, tree canopy, stream corridors, create trail corridors, and link neighborhoods on the East side of town. The subject property is located in what the City Plan 2025 refers to as an Intended Growth Sector. City Plan 2025 describes them as, "areas where new development in the form of Traditional Neighborhood Development is to be centered." The development team is dedicated to creating a framework for an Old Wire Neighborhood that matches the city's goals. c. The property will be design as a Traditional Neighborhood Development. The surrounding properties are currently R -A with several single family homes to the south, however, a few hundred feet to the west all properties are RSF-4, with a large parcel to the northwest zoned as RT- 12. The proposed development will be entirely single family with large green spaces or fields and small parks to blend in with surrounding pasture. Most lots at the proposed subdivision will be larger than typical TND neighborhood lots at seventy to eighty feet in width to better fit in with the surrounding homes. Architectural style will similar to surrounding homes as future elevations will show. Traffic from the proposed subdivision will initially utilize Old Wire Road to the south and east. The subdivision, however, will build the first extension of Bridgewater Lane, which will eventually connect west to Crossover Road. In the associated master plan this extension is proposed as a boulevard section and should connect well with the existing Crossover Road, slated to be widened to a four lane boulevard in 2011, forming a strong street axis for this section of northeast Fayetteville. Old Wire Road is currently a two-way asphalt paved road with no curb and gutter and approximately nine feet lanes. The level of service along this road is good with few delays expected morning or evening. Traffic from the subdivision is expected to be split north to Joyce Street and south to Crossover Road and not overburden the current system. d. Water and sewer lines are each located at the intersection of Old Wire Road and Skillern Road. The lines will be extended to the property where sewer and water will service homes in accordance with Fayetteville UDC. Respec Todd Jacobs Director of Design 509 West Spring Street, Suite 420 I Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 I 479.422.1444 Fax 479.422.1450 Colene Gaston and Roger Montgomery 3270 Rom Orchard Road Fayetteville, Arkansas 72703 September 9, 2009 Attention: Andrew Garner, Senior Planner: agarner@ci.fayetteville.ar.us City of Fayetteville Planning Commission 125 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 Re: Annexation and Rezoning at 3231 N. Old Wire Road Dear City of Fayetteville Planning Commissioners: We live one house back from the eastern boundary of the Old Wire Road property proposed simultaneously for annexation into the City of Fayetteville and for rezoning to Residential Single - Family, Four Units per Acre (RSF-4). We opposed previous requests to rezone and annex the property that were denied by the City. We also opposed the request for a Conditional Use that was denied by Washington County. Nothing has changed since those previous requests to alter our opposition to the proposal currently before the Planning Commission. If anything, we believe that there is now more reason to deny the requested rezoning as there clearly is no need for an RSF-4 subdivision in this area. There already are several subdivisions on Crossover Road and another on Skillern Road that have completed infrastructure but that remain all or mostly vacant lots. The proposed rezoning would result in an isolated zone of RSF-4 that is surrounded by property zoned for agricultural or residential development with a maximum density of either one-half or one house per acre. In fact, the single family homes in the area generally are on lots of three to ten acres. Several of the properties have livestock or agricultural uses. Some of the acreage is protected from development in perpetuity by conservation easements held by the Ozark Regional Land Trust. Rezoning the subject property to RSF-4 would be incompatible with the surrounding area. We recognize that Fayetteville will continue to grow and develop. We support infill in the City core and City policies that discourage sprawl. While some may argue that keeping this area rural supports sprawl, we think that's more the case if an RSF-4 development is permitted in the middle of stable, rural properties. We have lived in our house for fourteen years. In that time very few new homes have been built in the area. Most of our neighbors are committed to maintaining the rural character of the neighborhood. It is very unlikely that their properties would be densely developed, even if zoning restrictions were relaxed. In addition to benefitting our neighborhood (and we do think of it as a neighborhood even though it's rural), we believe that it benefits the entire community if some neighborhoods with a more rural character and open space are preserved. This also is in keeping with the City Plan 2025 for the subject property. As a practical matter, the roads in the area are not adequate to handle development as intensive as four houses per acre. Old Wire Road has a blind curve just to the west of the development when traveling in either direction. There is a second dangerous curve that borders the subject property to the east. Numerous cars have failed to navigate this curve. Traffic Comment to Fayetteville Planning Commission Re: Rezoning and Annexation Request for 3231 N. Old Wire Road September 9, 2009 Page 2 congestion already is significant at the intersections of Old Wire with Skillern Road and with Crossover Road. We do not feel as strongly about the proposed annexation as we do about the proposed rezoning, so our inclination is to take into account the recommendation of the City's Planning Division before taking a firm position. The report of Planning Division is not yet publicly available. We note, however, that the proposed annexation would create a peninsula of land in the City that juts out into the County. And we do oppose any action that would facilitate or result in higher density development of the subject property. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, Colene Gaston Roger Mont om ry September 1, 2009 TO: Fayetteville Boards of Annexation and Rezoning RE: Property at Old Wire and Rom Orchard Rd Request for Annexation and Rezoning To Whom it May Concern, As 23 year residents of 3162 Rom Orchard Rd, Washington Co, Arkansas, we would like to publicly express strong disapproval for the proposed zoning and annexation requests for the above -mentioned property. This letter may be read at the September 14 public input meeting as well as copies given to each relevant board member in our absence. We will be out of state during the time of this hearing. The following list gives some of the reasons that need to be seriously considered before this annexation and rezoning would ever be approved. 1. The character of this area is primarily rural and agricultural. Most landowners have property of three or more acres. The basic integrity of the area should not be altered to include multi -family use of the density requested. 2. The land is a peninsula jutting out into Old Wire Road for a large portion of its total size. Considering only the Old Wire Road lines of vision, either direction is dangerously blind around this peninsula. The entrance into or from Rom Orchard is a similar hazard. The traffic speed is too fast for safe entry and exit with the addition of the high number of vehicles involved in a large subdivision. 3. At the intersection of Skillern and Old Wire Roads, traffic from the west toward Hwy 265 has the right of way at this time. That is yet another very blind corner for those of us traveling toward that intersection. Traffic speed down Skillern is significantly more than would allow for ample yield time. 4. The morning commuting hours already present a difficult traffic issue with the number of cars continually going toward the light at Old Wire and Crossover Roads. It requires significant time to enter that stream of cars when traveling from the areas going north from the stop sign into Old Wire. A traffic count might be feasible to show how the problem we already face would be compounded many times over by adding ANY extra traffic each morning. It could only be dangerous as well as difficult. 5. To avoid the problem just mentioned, traffic from a new development would almost certainly go down Rom Orchard to get to Skillern to go with the unhindered route. Rom Orchard is quiet, SMALL and constructed of the chip and seal material not meant to withstand heavy traffic. Our road would be ruined. 6. The water treatment facility at the Old Wire/Crossover intersection has resulted in many days of unpleasant odors coming all the way to Rom Orchard and beyond. The area has homes serviced with septic tanks and the additional burden on the city sewer system would provide us with even more foul smelling air. 7. Most of us who oppose this high -density project would not object to housing that fits the area's use. Homes no less than one per acre would still be responsible for a traffic burden as well as difficulties in the previously -mentioned areas. It would be far better than the 3 home per acre ideas presented thus far. Please add our names to the large number of rural residents of the Rom Orchard area who oppose the development of a small house -large population neighborhood in rural Washington County. Sincerely, Larry and Tanya Floyd 3162 Rom Orchard Rd Fayetteville 72703 (9/9/2009) Andrew Garner Rezoning and annexation at ff N. Old Wire Rd 0 e T From: "Shelley Cassar' <shelley@blisscupcakecafe.com> To: <agarner@ci.fayetteville.ar.us> CC: "Stephen Cassar" <stephenc@ticketsage.com>, "Shelley Cassar' <shelley@bl... Date: 9/9/2009 3:58 PM Subject: Rezoning and annexation at 3231 N. Old Wire Rd To Whom it May Concern: We live at 2990 N. Rom Orchard Rd. We moved in to this house last year because of the quiet, country feel of the street and area. We were disturbed to hear talk of a subdivision being placed on the corner of our street. The roads in our neighborhood are very narrow and windy and not at all conducive to heavy traffic flow. Not to mention my children currently use these roads to ride bikes on and walk the dogs. The additional traffic would cause our kids to not be able to enjoy the country atmosphere we moved here for. We are opposed to the rezoning and annexation at 3231 N. Old Wire Rd. The additional traffic and noise that a subdivision would create would no longer make our current residence desirable. Most of the homes, including ours are on 2plus acres, most being 4plus acres. A subdivision does not fit into this type environment. Please leave some of Fayetteville untouched by yet another subdivision. Please consider this seriously as it would effect the lives of many families. Kind Regards, Shelley and Stephen Cassar 20r '09/09 14:32:18 1 /: September 9, 2009 City of Fayetteville Planning Commission 125 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 Attention: Andrew Gamer Senior Planner: agamet ®ci.fayetteville.ar.us Re: Annexation and Rezoning at 3231 N. Old Wire Road Dear City of Fayetteville Planning Commission: It is my understanding that Mr. Hank Broyles is requesting annexation of the property located at 323.1 North Old Wire. Road into the City of Fayetteville and the rezoning of the property to Residential Single -Family, Four Units per Acre (RSF-4). [ oppose the requested action to the. extent that it facilitates or results in higher density development of the property for the following reasons: I. The proposed change in zoning from Residential -Agricultural (RCA), which allows one house per two acres, to RSF-4, which allows four houses per acre, is not compatible with the surrounding area; 2. The rezoning to RSF-4 will be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the proposes already permitted, and will substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood; 3. The rezoning to RSF-4 is incompatible with City Plan 2025, which designates the property as a Rural Area with infrastructure and public services adequate to support only low density zoning; 4. There is no need for an RSF-4 subdivision in the vicinity; and 5. The rezoning to RSF-4 will be detrimental to public safety. The sutroundingarea is a mixture of residential and agricultural uses, with residential lots being generally three to five acres or more. A higher density subdivision, such as the one that would result from.the rezoning, is clearly incompatible with the surrounding area and with City Plan 2025. It will also decrease the value of the larger lots in the area and be injurious to the normal use and enjoyment of these lots. There is no need for an RSF-4 subdivision in this area as there already are several nearby subdivisions with completed infrastructure on SLillem Road and on Crossover Road that remain all or mostly vacant lots. The rezoning to RSF-4 single family would be detrimental to public safety by greatly increasing the traffic flow on Skillem Road. Old Wire Road, Rom Orchard Road. Bridgewater, and other roads in the vicinity. These roads are frequently used by joggers, bicyclers, and horses. Rom Orchard Road is a narrow, winding road that would be particularly hazardous to joggers, bicyclers and horses with increased automobile traffic. There are two dangerous curves in Old Wire Road that wrap around the south and southeast corner of the subject property. Vehicles frequently cross the center line when navigating these tight curves. Approximately once a year, automobiles fail to negotiate the southeast curve and crash through the fence on the west side of Old Wire Road. For these reasons, f respectfully request that the requested action be denied. Sincerely, � Gc f �< Gt%�l( T Ton j i'L� / .CL%Lj , L Signature, / C?-Cl.7L' 7 -----�.{,JCr'ii Address_?/L__-4_. jt-=/ C Prin�U ted Name SC'c9- b is, E,(_ / ,-2-c ' z. ;ai/� l/e. 0�7z1 Af. . 2%l o.>jc.' Serf / S T �'L-=l Otpo/ ��� 20(C '09/09 14:32:18 /' September 9, 2009 City of Fayetteville. Planning Commission 125 WestMountain Street Fayetteville, AR. 72701 Attention: Andrew Garner, Senior Planner: agamereei.fayetteville.ar.us Re: Annexation and Rezoning at 3231 N. Old Wire Road. Dear City of Fayetteville Planning Commission: It is my understanding that Mr. Hank Broyles is requesting annexation.of the property located at 323! North Old Wire Road into the City of Fayetteville and the rezoning of the propertyto Residential Single -Family, Four Units per Acre (RSF-4). .1 oppose the requested action to the extent that it facilitates or results in higher density development of the property for the following reasons: 1. The proposed change in zoning from. Residential -Agricultural (R A), which allows one house per two acres, to RSF-4, which allows four.houses per acre, is•not compatible with the surrounding area; 2. The rezoning to RSF-4 will be injurious to the use. and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, and. will substantially diminish and impairproperty values within the neighborhood; 3. The rezoning to RSF-4 is incompatible with City Plan.2025, which designates the property as a Rural Area with infrastructure and public services adequate to support only low density zoning; 4. There, is no need for an RSF-4 subdivision in the vicinity; and 5. The rezoning to RSF-4 will be detrimental to public safety. The surrounding area is a mixture of residential and agricultural uses, with residential lots being generally three to five acres or more. A higher density subdivision, such as the one that would result from the rezoning, is clearly incompatible with the surrounding area and with City Plan 2025. It wilt also.decrease the value of the larger lots in the area and be injurious to the normal use and enjoyment ofthese lots.. There is no need for an RSF-4 subdivision in this area as there already are several nearby subdivisions with completed infrastructure on Sicillem Road and on Crossover Road that remain all or mostly vacant lots. The rezoning to RSF-4 single family would be detrimental to public safety by greatly increasing the traffic flow on Skillem Road, Old Wire Road, Rom Orchard Road, Bridgewater, and other roads in the vicinity. These roads are frequently used by joggers, bicyclers, and horses. Rom Orchard Road is a narrow, winding road that would be particularly hazardous to joggers, bicyclers and horses with increased automobile traffic. There are two dangerous curves in Old Wire Road that wrap around the south and southeast corner of the subject property. Vehicles frequently cross the center line when navigating these tight curves. Approximately once a year, automobiles fail to negotiate the southeast curve and crash through the fence on the west side of Old Wire Road. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the requested action be denied. Sincerely, /" 1 j' / Signatur 1 `` v �j`j/ yi _� Address S5 r ii qv' /l Printed Name ��`JCc.r _ -- _ , _ ;1►%gin 5 9 K i: , fu�n�< i `z, - _ ' Yu )f) )tea). TIT ,en_ j1- ✓'✓ ( / i h i✓ 1 �,3 `'� cLe_7 F 1 rrl< '� `� -?�tJ +'�t_(,� /7C�'l� tLC%(-t,0 ;%Cd _ Senteiibcr 9. 2009 City of Fayetteville Planning Commission 25 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 Re: Rezoning and Annexation at 323 I N. Old Wire Road Dear it is my understanding that. Mr. Hank Broyles is requesting annexation of the property located at. 3231 iNonh Old Wire Road into the City or Fayetteville and the rezoning of (he Inroperiy to Residential Single -Family, lour Units per Acre (RS F-4). I oppose the requested action to the extent that it facilitates or results in higher density development oi'the property for the hollowing reasons: 1. The proposed change in zoning from Residential-tAbicultural (RA). which allows one house per two acres, to KS F-4 which atIoyvs 4 houses per acre, is not compatible With the Surrorl ndi nuarea: 2. "1'hc rezoning to RS F4 Will be injurious to the: u,c and enjoyment at' other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, and will substantially diminish and impair property values Within the neighborhood: ;. The rezoning to RSF-3 is ineompatible with City plan 2023; which designates the. property as a Rural Are: Willi in1'rastrueturo auul public services adequate to support only low density zoning; '['here is no need for an RSF-4 subdivision in the vicinity: and 5. The rezoning to RSF-•4 will he detrimental to public saretyy. The surrounding area is a mixture of residential and agricultural uses, with residential lots being generally three to five acres or snore- A higher density subdivision, such as the one than would result From the rezoning. is clearly incompatible with the surrounding area and with City Plan 2025. It tvill also decrease the value of the larger lots in the area and be injurious to the normal use and enjoyment of these lots. There is no need for an RSF-4 subdivision in this area as there already are several nearby subdivisions with completed infrastructure on Skillern Road and on Crossover Road that remain all or mostly vacant lots. i'he rezoning to RSF-4 single tinnily would be detrimental to public safety by greatly increasing the traffic flow on Skitters Road, Old Wire Road. Rom Orchard Road, Srid&'cwater, and other roads in ihe vicinity. These roads are frequently used by joggers, bicyclers, and horses. Rom Orchard Road is a narrow, winding road that would be particularly hazardous to joggers, bicyclers and horses with increased automobile traffic. There are two dangerous curves in Old Wire Road that wrap around the south and southeast corner of the subject property. Vehicles frequently cross the center line when navigating these tight can -es. Approximately once a year, automobiles fail to negotiate the southeast curve and crash through the fence on the west side of Old Wire Road. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the requested action be denied. Sincerely, i Signature_ �t vl- Printed Name / /-/ F?%- nJ: /%. Address 3 -87 /E't-- eoice d7 Ol V Y�r L f�� CST/I'"/1c'_; 1 D:JUG[� tt S (. l�C lC.'. I � ✓� SEP-09-2009 WED 04:01 PH NWA PEDIATRIC FAX NO, 47PA427379 P. 01 September 9, 2009 City of Fayetteville Planning Commission 125 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 Attention: Andrew Garner, Senior Planner: agarne rci.fayetteville.ar.us Re: Annexation and Rezoning at 3231 N. Old Wire Road Dear City of Fayetteville Planning Commission: It is my understanding that Mr. Hank Broyles is requesting annexation of the property located at 3231 North Old Wire Road into the City of Fayetteville and the rezoning of the property to Residential Single -Family, Four Units per Acre (RSF-4). I oppose the requested action to the extent that it facilitates or results in higher density development of the property for the following reasons: I. The proposed change in zoning from Residential -Agricultural (R -A), which allows one house per two acres, to RSF-4, which allows four houses per acre, is not compatible with the surrounding area; 2. The rezoning to RSF-4 will be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, and will substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood; 3. The rezoning to RSF-4 is incompatible with City Plan 2025, which designates the property as a Rural Area with infrastructure and public services adequate to support only low density zoning; 4. There is no need for an RSF-4 subdivision in the vicinity; and 5. The rezoning to RSF-4 will be detrimental to public safety. The surrounding area is a mixture of residential and agricultural uses, with residential lots being generally three to five acres or more. A higher density subdivision, such as the one that would result from the rezoning, is clearly incompatible with the surrounding area and with City Plan 2025. It will also decrease the value of the larger lots in the area and be injurious to the normal use and enjoyment of these lots. There is no need for an RSF-4 subdivision in this area as there already are several nearby subdivisions with completed infrastructure on Skillern Road and on Crossover Road that remain all or mostly vacant lots. The rezoning to RSF-4 single family would be detrimental to public safety by greatly increasing the traffic flow on Skillern Road, Old Wire Road, Rom Orchard Road, Bridgewater, and other roads in the vicinity. These roads are frequently used by joggers. bicyclers, and horses. Rom Orchard Road is a narrow, winding road that would he particularly hazardous to joggers, bicyclers and horses with increased automobile traffic. There are two dangerous curves in Old Wire Road that wrap around the south and southeast corner of the subject property. Vehicles frequently cross the center line when navigating these tight curves. Approximately once a year, automobiles fail to negotiate the southeast curve and crash through the fence on the west side of Old Wire Road. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the requested action be denied. Sincerely, r" J Signature_► Address Printed Name / f 4 Gy JAR. From: Susan Brisiel <susan.brisiel@fayarnet> To: <agarner@ci fayettevilleacus> Date: 9/9/2009 2:47 PM Subject: Opposition to proposed rezoning on Old Wire Rd Mr. Garner, Please allow me to go on record as strongly opposing the proposed rezoning of property located on Old Wire Rd. I live on Rom Orchard Rd, a nice quiet rural area with all the homes occupying at least 3 acres. The proposed 4 houses per acre is just totally at odds with the existing setting. Letters in opposition have been faxed from Susan Brisiel and Sharon Payton. Thank you for considering these letters in your discussion of the area. Susan Brisiel Please note email change: susan.brisiel@fayarnet Susan Brisiel Admin Asst Vandergriff Elementary 479.527.3600 office 479.527.3603 fax September Q. 2009 City of Fayetteville Planning Commission 125 West Mountain Street Pavcueville, AR. 72701 Re: Rezoning and Annexation at 3231 N. Old Wire Road Dear Planning Commission: It is our understanding that Mr. flank Broyles is requesting annexation of the property located at 3231 North Old Wire Road into the City of Fayetteville and the rezoning of the property to Residential Single -Family, Four Units per Acre (RSF-4). We own 10 acres located at 3284 Rom Orchard Rd., which is adjacent to the subject property to the east, across Old Wire Rd.. Our property is adjacent to the subject property for S95 feet_ We have lived at this location since 2000. We oppose the requested action to the extent that it fhcilitates or results in higher density development of the property for the following reasons: I . The proposed change in zoning from Residential -Agricultural (ft -A). which allo+vs one house lieu two acres, to RSF-4, which allows 4 houses per acre, is not compatible with the surrounding area; ?. 'fhe rezoning to ltSF-4 will be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity ti,r the purposes already permitted and will substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood; 3. The rezoning to RSF-4 is incompatible with City Plan 2025, which designates the property as a Rural Area with infrasuveture and public services adequate to support only low density zoning; 4. There is no need for an RSF-4 subdivision in the vicinity; and 5. The rezoning to RSF-4 will be detrimental to public safety. The surrounding area is a mixture of residential and agricultural uses; with residential lots being generally three to five acres or more. A higher density subdivision, such as the one that would result from the rezoning, is clearly incompatible with the surrounding area and with City Plan 2025_ It will also decrease the value of the larger lots in the area and be injurious to the normal use and enjoyment of these lots. There is no need for an RSF-4 subdivision in this area as there already are several nearby subdivisions with completed infrastructure On Ski! em Road and on Crossover Road that remain all or u+ostiv vacant tuts. The rezoning to RSF-4 single family would be detrimental to public safety by greatly increasing the traffic now on Skillern Road, Old Wire Road. Rom Orchard Road_ Bridgewater. and other roads in the vicinity. 'these roads are frequently used by joggers. bicyclers. and horses. Rom Orchard Road is a narrow. winding road that would be particularly hazardous to joggers, hicyclers and horses with increased automobile traffic. There arc two dangerous curves in Old Wire Road that wrap around the south and southeast corner of the subject property. Vehicles frequently cross the center line when navigating these tight curves. Approximately once a year. automobiles fail to negotiate tic southeast curve and crash through the fence on the west side of Old Wire Road. For these reasons, we respectfully request that the proposed action be denied. Sincerely. L rr 1 Jell & India Dangeau 3284 Rom Orchard Rd. Fayetteville, AR 72702 (479) 521-7416 /I September 9, 2009 City of Fayetteville Planning Commission 125 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 Re: Rezoning and Annexation at 3231 N. Old Wire Road Dear Planning Commission: It is my understanding that Mr. Hank Broyles is requesting annexation of the property located at 3231 North Old Wire Road into the City of Fayetteville and the rezoning of the property to Residential Single -Family, Four Units per Acre (RSF-4). I oppose the requested action to the extent that it facilitates or results in higher density development of the property for the following reasons: I. The proposed change in zoning from Residential -Agricultural (R -A), which allows one house per two acres, to RSF-4, which allows 4 houses per acre, is not compatible with the surrounding area; 2. The rezoning to RSF-4 will be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, and will substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood; 3. The rezoning to RSF-4 is incompatible with City Plan 2025, which designates the property as a Rural Area with infrastructure and public services adequate to support only low density zoning; 4. There is no need for an RSF-4 subdivision in the vicinity; and 5. lhe rezoning to RSF-4 will be detrimental to public safety. The surrounding area is a mixture of residential and agricultural uses, with residential lots being generally three to five acres or more. A higher density subdivision, such as the one that would result from the rezoning, is clearly incompatible with the surrounding area and with City Plan 2025. It will also decrease the value of the larger lots in the area and be injurious to the normal use and enjoyment of these lots. There is no need for an RSF-4 subdivision in this area as there already are several nearby subdivisions with completed infrastructure on Skillem Road and on Crossover Road that remain all or mostly vacant lots. I he rezoning to RSF-4 single family would be detrimental to public safety by greatly increasing the traffic flow on Skillern Road, Old Wire Road, Rom Orchard Road, Bridgewater, and other roads in the vicinity. These roads are frequently u-rA SEP 1 4 2009 PLANNING bicyclers, and horses. Rom Orchard Road is a narrow, winding road that would be particularly hazardous to joggers, bicyclers and horses with increased automobile traffic. There are two dangerous curves in Old Wire Road that wrap around the south and southeast corner of the subject property. Vehicles frequently cross the center line when navigating these tight curves. Approximately once a year, automobiles fail to negotiate the southeast curve and crash through the fence on the west side of Old Wire Road. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the requested action be denied. Sincerely, Signature_ ij C 12rw& Printed Name 2C) f C. IZO 4.4 Address 302$ t?vm Di2Cl-1hdt/ P ' 7Zrt 3 F n Trtv t.LL- Septeniher 9.2009 l;it ' of Fayetteville Planning Commission 125 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR. 7270! Re: Rezoning and Annexation at 3231 N_ Old Wire Road Dear Planning Commission_ It is my understanding that Mr. Flank Broyles is requesting annexation of the property located at 3231 North Old Wire Road into the City of Fayetteville and the rezoning of the property to Residential Single -Family, Pour [nits per Acre (RSF-4). I oppose the requested action to the extent that it facilitates or results in higher density development of the property for the following reasons: 1. The proposed change in zoning from Residential -Agricultural (R -A), which allows one house per two acres, to RSF-4, which allows 4 houses per acre, is not compatible with the surrounding area; `l. 'I'lic rezoning to RSF-4 will he injurious to the use and enjoymeni of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, and will substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood; 3. The rezoning to RSF-4 is incompatible with City Plan 2025, which designates the property as a Rural Area with infrastructure and public services adequate to support only low density zoning; 4. There is no need for an RSF-4 subdivision in the vicinity; and 5. The rezoning to RSF-4 will be detrimental to public safety. The surrounding arca is a mixture of residential and agricultural uses. with residemial lots being generally three io five acres orniore. A higher density subdivision, such as the one that would result from the rezoning, is clearly incompatible with the surrounding area and with City Plan 2025. tt will also decrease the value of the larger lots in the area and be injurious to the normal use mid enjoyment of these lots. 'There is no need for an RSF=1 subdivision in this area as there already are several nearby subdivisions with completed infrastructure on Skillern Road and on Crossover Road that remain all or mostly vacant lots. The rezoning to RSF-4 single family would be detrimental to public safety by greatly increasing the traffic flow on Skillern Road, Old Wire Road, Rom Orchard Road. Bridgewater, and other roads in the vicinity. 'Then; roads are ftequent!y used b, jgers. bicyclers, and horses. Rorn Orchard Road is a narrow, winding road that would be particularly hazardous to joggers, bicyclers and horses with increased automobile traffic. There are two dangerous curves in Old Wire Road that wrap around the south and southeast corner of the subject property. Vehicles frequently cross the center line when navigating these tight curves. Approximately once a year, automobiles fail to negotiate the southeast curve and crash through the fence on the west side of Old Wire Road. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the requested action be denied. Sincerely, Printed September 9, 2009 City of Fayetteville Planning Commission 125 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 Re: Rezoning and Annexation at 3231 N. Old Wire Road Dear Planning Commission: it is my understanding that Mr. Hank Broyles is requesting annexation of the property located at 3231 North Old Wire Road into the City of Fayetteville and the rezoning of the property to Residential Single -Family, Four Units per Acre (RSF-4). I oppose the requested action to the extent that it facilitates or results in higher density development of the property for the following reasons: 1. The proposed change in zoning from Residential -Agricultural (R -A), which allows one house per two acres, to RSF-4, which allows 4 houses per acre, is not compatible with the surrounding area; 2. The rezoning to RSF-4 will be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, and will substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood; 3. The rezoning to RSF-4 is incompatible with City Plan 2025, which designates the property as a Rural Area with infrastructure and public services adequate to support only low density zoning; 4. There is no need for an RSF-4 subdivision in the vicinity; and S. [he rezoning to RSF-4 will be detrimental to public safety. The surrounding area is a mixture of residential and agricultural uses, with residential lots being generally three to five acres or more. A higher density subdivision, such as the one that would result from the rezoning, is clearly incompatible with the surrounding area and with City Plan 2025. It will also decrease the value of the larger lots in the area and be injurious to the normal use and enjoyment of these lots. There is no need for an RSF-4 subdivision in this area as there already are several nearby subdivisions with completed infrastructure on Skillern Road and on Crossover Road that remain all or mostly vacant lots. The rezoning to RSF-4 single family would be detrimental to public safety by greatly increasing the traffic flow on Skillern Road, Old Wire Road, Rom Orchard Road, Bridgewater, and other roads in the vicinity. These roads are frequently used by joggers, bicyclers, and horses. Rom Orchard Road is a narrow, winding road that would be particularly hazardous to joggers, bicyclers and horses with increased automobile traffic_ There are two dangerous curves in Old Wire Road that wrap around the south and southeast corner of the subject property. Vehicles frequently cross the center line when navigating these tight curves. Approximately once a year, automobiles fail to negotiate the southeast curve and crash through the fence on the west side of Old Wire Road. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the requested action be denied. Sincerely, Signature nii) PGCG�� Printed Name_a/,F tc[ �7Or Address �$JLint__(9j?�� h5l/j////F �// i'�'12C23 Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2005 (ANX Denied) May 08, 2006 (ANX Denied) September 14, 2009 (ANX Denied) lanrn'ngf'wnmissi�n October l0, 200 Page ANX 05-1626: (OLD WERE INVESTORS, LLC, 217): Submitted by FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK LLP for property located at THE NW INTERSECTION OF OLD WIRE AND ROM ORCHARD ROADS. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 29.70 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. Planner: ANDREW GARNER RZN 05-1627: (OLD WIRE INVESTORS, LLC, 217): Submitted by FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK LLP for property located at NW INTERSECTION OF OLD WIRE AND ROM ORCHARD ROADS. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL - AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 34.51 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4 units per acre. Ostner: Our next item is another annexation for Old Wire Investors, ANX 05- 1626. Gamer: These items, fifteen and sixteen on the agenda are also tandem items for an annexation and a rezoning. The property contains four parcels consisting of approximately 30 acres to be annexed and the applicant is also seeking to rezone approximately 35 acres which includes 5 acres located in the city currently and zoned R -A. The site is located northwest of the intersection of Old Wire Road and Rom Orchard Road. It is surrounded by rural residential and undeveloped pasture with unincorporated Washington County to the north, east and south and property that is zoned R -A and the City of Fayetteville to the west. There is also unincorporated areas of Washington County to the west of some of the property line. Staff has received public comment from adjacent property owners objecting to this annexation and rezoning and has discussed this with the applicant. The applicant has indicated that they have discussed this request with the surrounding property owners and haven't been able to gain support for the annexation and rezoning. Staff finds that annexation of the property will not create an island of unincorporated property but it will extend a peninsula with irregular property lines that contain some out parcels between the proposed annexation area and the city limits. We find that expanding the city limits in this configuration is not in compliance with the policies for annexation and would create undesirable boundaries and problems with creating a peninsula in this manner with regard to extending public services across county and into city boundaries and will create gaps of unincorporated property almost entirely surrounded by city limits. The site is currently utilized for rural residential uses and undeveloped pasture and the applicant anticipates subdividing the property for single family use and proposing a density of four units per acre. Staff finds that this proposed zoning is not compatible with adjacent and nearby agricultural and rural residential uses. The General Plan does designate this area for residential Planning Commission October. l0, 2005 Page 54 land uses. However, this designation doesn't specify the density levels. Staff and the Planning Commission and City Council is charged with evaluating the surrounding land uses and this proposal's compatibility with these units. Staff finds that the proposed density is not consistent with density and surrounding zonings and existing land uses currently in this area. Engineering, Fire and Police Departments analyzed this proposed annexation and rezoning request and the Police Department found that the proposed annexation and rezoning would not substantially increase the load on police services. The Fire Department noted an adequate response time of seven minutes as well. The Engineering Division found that public water is adjacent to the site and sanitary sewer is not adjacent to the site with the nearest sewer main being approximately 2,500 feet to the west of this property and an off site sewer main extension would be required to serve the development. In summary, we find that the proposed configuration of this annexation would create an undesirable boundary and would create an undesirable peninsula and we find that rezoning is not compatible with the surrounding area. With that, we are recommending denial of both items. Earnest: I'm Hugh Earnest representing Old Wire Investors. We find ourselves on the horns of a dilemma tonight. About a month ago after careful consideration of this annexation request with staff we pulled the item from the agenda and have attempted to contact a large number of people generally bounded by Rom Orchard Road. There is a hatched area where we sent out letters to 28 different individuals asking for their support of annexation, the request was not for the land that Old Wire Investors owns but rather, for the property adjacent. What we attempted to do to meet what I believe is a legitimate concern of staff is to bring in something that is larger. However, we were unable to secure unanimous support from those individuals so we have gone back and are now bringing forward to you the original annexation request that we had earlier voluntarily pulled from the agenda in order to try to meet the objections of staff and bring forward a larger piece. Let me also make the point, five acres of the area is already inside the city. This is adjacent, it is a peninsula, the developer is willing to install the 2,500 foot sewer line to the property and the water line also to the property in response to the information that we just received from Colleen Gaston, in the many conversations that I have had with David Jurgens there has never been concern about capacity short fall in this particular part of town with respect to the capacity of the plant. Such is not the case, as you well know, in west Fayetteville. In this particular case there has never been any concern expressed on that. As recently as this morning I had a conversation with Mr. Jurgens because lie is a good planner and he was talking about how lie would need to wrap the 4" line down Rom Orchard Road to get water pressure into the area. Mr. Jurgens, from his perspective, is certainly thinking about the necessary infrastructure improvements that the area would require for adequate Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 55 water in that particular area. The bottom line, and the developers should be commended, Mr. Spradling, as a developer of record, is here with me tonight, the density that is proposed is slightly in excess of two units per acre. That has already been turned into the city. That discussion has already occurred with city staff. The questions that Mrs. Allen continues to ask are valid questions about fire stations. In my time with the city we certainly were aware of the issues in that area. I commend the city for moving forward aggressively and deciding to put Fire Station #5 at the corner of Old Wire Road and Crossover is their first priority. I suspect that since the city has a template for building fire stations that the station will be done well in advance of the development of this area and I think that probably occurs for the other developers in this area because the template that was used in west Fayetteville I'm sure will be essentially the one that is used in this area. I doubt that there is going to be significant changes in the design. I think that pretty much covers the points that we wanted to make and we are certainly respective to answer any concerns that you may have with respect to this joint request for annexation and rezoning. Ostner: At this point I will open it up for public comment if anyone would like to . speak to this request please introduce yourself and give us your comments. Parnell: I'm Paul Parnell, I seem to be the one right in the middle of this proposition. I don't necessarily object to the proposition. However, I feel that whoever is gaining from this transaction should defray any costs that we may have in connecting our residences to the sewer that may be established. We presently have perfectly good septic tanks and lateral fields that is not costing us anything to operate and we feel that we should be compensated by whomever is gaining from this endeavor because we don't consider ourselves gaining from this activity. We are very happy with what we have got. However, we are not opposed to developments and appreciate those things. However, fire protection, as just mentioned, is something that should be addressed at this time because we, at this particular month of October are to reconsider our contract with Goshen who has been providing us fire protection for many years. We need to have that addressed. In the event that we are annexed into the city, when does the city assume responsibility for fire protection for this area? Those are things that we feel are very important. Thank you very much. I live at 3287 Rom Orchard Road. Floyd: My name is Larry Floyd, my wife and I live at 3162 Rom Orchard Road and I didn't get a letter about it but I saw the sign in the field and fixed it up there so everybody could see it and proceeded to see what was going on. The letter that you mentioned earlier is the letter from Colleen Gaston but she really said what we are saying in the neighborhood. I have a number of people here who are opposed to this and who agree with staff Planning Commission October l0, 2005 Page 56 on the recommendation that they made. She was unable to attend but she wrote this letter and she basically says that she is opposed to both annexation and rezoning. They are my neighbors on Rom Orchard Road. She talks about the wastewater treatment plant down at Old Wire and Crossover and the smell is unbelievable. Even when you are in your car with the windows up when you guy by there you can smell what is taking place down there. She says that there have been a number of actions to attempt to address this but it still persists. While there may be a need for additional housing in Fayetteville the question of adequate capacity may apply to development within the existing city limits and it does not seem prudent at this time to expand the land area to which the city must provide sewer service. The proposed rezoning is out of character with our neighborhood. If you have been out on Rom Orchard Road it is the greatest area in Washington County. It is agricultural. There are four of the neighbors that have large horses. I have a miniature horse farm on that road. There is an apple orchard, people stroll up and down it like you are back in the 50's and pick an apple and eat it on the way home. It is unbelievable, it is like going to the Apple Festival every day. It is just a wonderful area. There are people walking their dogs and their horses and everything else along there. Traffic is a big concern for us as well. The character of our neighborhood is 3-10 acre lots and a lot of it is livestock and agricultural use. The other thing, I mentioned the traffic, the blind curves at Old Wire Road, there are a couple of them. People frequently go off of that curve right by this development into the neighbor's fence. Their fence is being fixed all the time because of the traffic there. It is very dangerous. I'm concerned with the stop sign that was placed at Old Wire Road. ??: The tax base unless you arc farming it forces you to do something or sell out and you need to take those things into consideration. I happen to farm my five acres and I'm making enough money that it is considered a farm by USDA standards. If I'm taken into the city I plan to try to stay agricultural because I plan to continue fanning. I grow vegetables, my wife sells at farmers market. We are pleased with that and we are pleased with where we live. I don't have a great concern about this particular proposal here tonight but I do think that we are sticking our head in the sand when we oppose development because it is going to increase traffic. The main traffic on Old Wire Road is about 200 gravel trucks a day now. We are in between the gravel pit off of 412 and the asphalt pit in Springdale. You people have a difficult job and I appreciate your time. I didn't plan to talk tonight but I wanted you to know that not everybody is opposed to this annexation across the street from me. Ostner: Is there any further public comment? We will come back to the applicant. Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 57 Dangio: My name is Jeff Dangio, I live at 3284 Rom Orchard Road. I am the guy with the cars going through the fence. We own a 10 acre tract directly east of the subject property and have a wood rail fence around it. There is a sharp curve to the north at the intersection of Rout Orchard Road and Old Wire. I guess more than once a year we have a vehicle come crashing through that fence. If we add a high density development in there you automatically increase the traffic. There is a safety concern that is kind of unique to our property. A lower density development would be better but if you do go with this proposal we would ask that you do something to improve the safety of that curve in some way. The good thing about the cars crashing through the fence is I may never have to pay to replace that fence. The insurance companies pay for a significant portion of it every year. The down side is if there are kids around and they happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time we could have a bad situation. Thank you for your time. Payton: My name is Terry Payton and I live on Bridgewater Lane about 600 yards east of the development. I just want to address the traffic concerns and make a couple of points that have not been made. In that section of Fayetteville the traffic from the east funnels to Crossover Road, you either go to Old Wire and Crossover or the Joyce and Crossover intersection. My main concern is the density that is being proposed. Tonight you approved the five acre subdivision that will be on Skillern Road from II up to 20. Bridgewater Estates has 22 or 24 lots and all of those lots have sold. There are only three houses there now. That is going to increase the traffic load and then if this subdivision goes in it will further increase by however many homes will end up there. The next time that you are out there and you see the Joyce Street Crossover intersection and the Old Wire Crossover intersection, both of those are backed up in the morning. That is my main point. Elliot: My name is Don Elliot, I live at 3743 Bridgewater, just cast of this development. I don't know much about zoning law. I don't care whether this area is annexed to the city or not, I don't have an objection to it being annexed to the city because I understand that that would give the city more authority to regulate it. I do have a big problem with the zoning. It is totally inconsistent with the lots in that area. The land that Terry and I live on and some of the other people, that started out as a 40 acre tract, and Mr. Stevenson sold it off and in the covenants, private covenants, there can't be any lots sold that are less than five acres. I live on 7 V2 and Terry lives on 8, there are a couple of 10 acre tracts and a 5 acre tract. These are all totally inconsistent with allowing four houses per acre. That is not just true of that land, it is also true of the other houses in there, I would guess that they are all one to five acre lots. To allow four houses on one acre is totally inconsistent with what is out there now. I don't care about the annexing but I do have a big problem with the zoning.change. Thank you. Planning Commission October l0, 2005 Page 58 Ostner: If there is no further comment from the public I will close the public comment session and bring it back to the Commission. Spradling: My name is Marcus Spradling, I am the developer. A couple of things that I ran into on the annexation was the majority of the people I talked to did not want to annex until they saw the sewer and water improvements, which is the same issue you get into with building a fire station or a Wal- Mart Super center where nobody lives, you don't do it. The people come and you bring the infrastructure to them. What we are trying to do is provide infrastructure to the area for water and sewer which eventually will lead to better fire protection for the people out there. You've got Fire Station #5 which is basically ready to go and should be built before we ever get there. The zoning, you have got one unit per acre or you've got four units per acre. There is no middle ground, there is no in between. We have handed in all of the Preliminary Plat information showing that we are just a little bit over two units per acre because we felt like that is what best fit in the neighborhood. We weren't going in there trying to put 65' wide lots with little houses in there and drop it in the middle of that market. It is an upscale subdivision and the houses that will be built in there are in the same area and the same price ranges as what is built out there now so the property values should increase. Our intent is not to devalue the property, it is to increase the value of the property. We are providing the water and sewer extension which will in turn allow people to tie into it. I don't know what other questions you may have. Anything we haven't covered? Pate: I just want to call your attention to page 13, the citizens that did speak, numbers five, six, 13, 14 and IS did speak tonight, just so you have an idea of where they were coming from. Vaught: I guess my problem is as we were speaking of earlier, where the other one was a logical shape and extension, this one seems illogical to me with the chunks missing, the spur out and this one creates more of a peninsula hanging out there by itself. I know Mr. Earnest spoke to bringing a larger tract forward, can you repeat what you said? Earnest: What we attempted to do at the request of staff, was to bring forward a larger more together area, if you will. There is a map in there that shows a hatched area bounded by Rom Orchard Road going back to the city limits. The hatched area shows the 28 property owners that we sent letters to. The majority of those individuals are in favor of annexation, but not all. One of the burdens that we have is unanimity is required for annexation_ I understand that and support it, but that is an effort that we made to accommodate the criticisms that this does not cover a larger area. Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 59 Vaught: It just makes it hard for us and staff to support something like this. Spradling: It is not that we have singled out a piece of property, out in the middle of nowhere. 25% of this property is already in the city. We are trying to extend what we have in the city. We are already in the city, we are just trying to incorporate the balance of the property into the city. With us putting in the infrastructure the majority of the people that I talked to will come in but they are not going to allow their taxes to be raised and not get any benefits. They aren't buying in to raise my taxes and when you get ready to bring me sewer. They can't get it unless we bring it in there, and they are not willing to do something without seeing that they can tie onto it first. That is where the consumer is today. Vaught: My concern is looking at the guiding policies, I counted six out of fifteen that this directly conflicts with. There is a peninsula issue, areas that exclude entire subdivision or neighborhoods or divide areas up, boundaries for annexation follow natural corridors. It doesn't follow natural corridors because there are bits and pieces here and there. You've got a couple of pieces of county that are kind of stuck out there in the middle of the city. It doesn't create islands but it comes close. Areas that are currently served by public services should be annexed. This is a 2,500 foot extension of sewer main, that is a pretty good chunk of sewer main to extend. Spradling: That is because it follows the road. As a crow flies we are 1,320 feet from RSF-4. Vaught: As for the engineering, I don't know if any additional lift stations would have to be constructed. I assume the one at the corner of Crossover and Old Wire would suffice? O'Neal: That one is a substantial lift station, I believe it is a 24" forced main. There is not a capacity issue at that station at this time. Vaught: While we are on it, can you address the smell of that lift station? O'Neal Due to the time that the sewer is retained in the station it smells bad_ There are a lot of other items that can be done with lift stations, that is something that we can look at. ['ate: A lot of times when a lift station is large and a forced main is large and is not 50% or closer to capacity it sits there for a longer amount of time so that is why the smell is produced. Vaught: So more development would help it. My main issue is about the annexation. I know that we are stuck in that spot where it is really Planning Commission October l0, 2005 Page 60 difficult but it is leaving a lot of gaps and holes in there and it is an area with a lot of development. Typically something like this I would be in support of but this one I'm having a hard time with those boundaries and how you are tying together. I know you are having a hard time with the neighbors and it is a chicken and egg kind of situation, but even if you run the sewer main down that line, they are not automatically connected, they are going to have a substantial expense to connect to it. We are not guaranteeing those people will even connect to it. Spradling: No, but they will have the ability to connect to it and it increases their property values because now they have access to sewer that they didn't have before. Vaught: Correct. You think that those people are going to come in and increase this area. That is what I am having trouble with. Spradling: The consumer is just not willing to bet on the come. They want to see the baby. Graves: I have the same concerns. If it was one of the guiding policies or two of the guiding policies it would be one thing because they are guiding policies and they are things, that as I said earlier, we use our common sense on. This one conflicts with a number of the guiding policies and just as I said the first one I didn't think was a peninsula, this looks like a peninsula to me. It looks much like the tail that is on the one mile map which is in the city, but I didn't vote for anything like that. This is a peninsula without question, it is long and oddly shaped and doesn't create nice boundaries for the city, it doesn't follow natural corridors and is not an area that is easily serviced in any way and these are some longer response times than what we saw with earlier items as well and I cannot support annexing this property the way it looks right now. Spradling: I think the long response time was an issue and that is why the city is building a brand new fire station right next to it. Obviously, they know something that we may not know. They have headed off that problem and they are planning on the expansion being on the east side of town. Graves: I'm not looking to argue with the applicant, ['m discussing with illy fellow commissioners this item. If the chair recognizes the applicant, that is fine. I'm not looking to have an argument back and forth, I'm just making my comments to my fellow commissioners. Spradling: I respect that, thank you. Clark: The only reason I would be in favor of annexation is we can control how it develops. I'm not in favor of rezoning at all. If we annex it I will vote to Planning Commission October 10, 2005 Page 61 let it sit just like it is. Step systems scare me. Development within the county close to our borders scares me. That puts us on a horn, what do we do? I don't think it is bad to annex it but I think it would be very, very bad to rezone it. I am seeing a very eager developer so I'm more inclined to annex it. Ostner: Just as a procedural issue, most developers withdraw their annexation requests if their rezonings are denied since they simply don't want to pay more taxes on land that they can't develop. Are there any motions? Myres: I will make a motion that we deny ANX 05-1626 as recommended by staff. Graves: I will second. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Vaught: My issue is mainly the boundaries and the way that this is drawn up and the gaps that it creates. I agree with staff's findings that we need a more logical boundary to create this annexation. It is an area of development, typically I would like to see this property annexed, because, like you said, there is a fire station coming in here. The way that this is coming in to me is not correct. We don't know when the stuff around it is going to come in. I would like to see a bigger picture in this and that is why I will be voting against it. Not because I don't think this is a right piece, but it just causes too many conflicts. Ostner: Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to deny ANX 05-1626 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Ostner: Mr. Williams, is the same procedure in place to appeal our recommendation? Williams: That is correct. At this point the petitioner would need to decide whether they want to withdraw the rezoning petition at this point in time or have that acted upon tonight also? You could ask to table the rezoning if you wanted to think about it or you could go ahead and ask for action to go forward. Earnest: I think it is obvious that we will ask for it to be tabled. Planning Commission October l0, 2005 Page 62 Ostner: The applicant has requested the next item to be tabled. That is RZN 05- 1627. Clark: So moved. Myres: Second. Ostner: Would the applicant like to share anything before we vote? Would anyone from the public like to share anything on the rezoning request before we table it? I will close the public comment session and bring it back to the Commission. Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table RZN 05-1627 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Announcements Subdivision Committee Appointment: Commissioner Trumbo to lake Commissioner Graves'seat. Meeting adjourned: 8:45 p.m. Plannin L mmission ay 8, 2006 age) ANX 06-2046: (OLD WIRE INVESTORS, 217): Submitted by RAYMOND SMITH for property located at NW INTERSECTION OF OLD WIRE AND ROM ORCHARD ROAD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 30.70 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville_ RZN 06-2047: (OLD WIRE INVESTORS, 217): Submitted by RAYMOND SMITH for property located at NW INTERSECTION OF OLD WIRE AND ROM ORCHARD ROAD. The property is in the Planting Area and contains approximately 35.51 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential Single -Family, 4 units per acre. Garner: This property is located at the northwest intersection of Old Wire and Rom Orchard Road east of Fayetteville. I will summarize both the annexation and rezoning together and we can answer any specific questions you might have. Subject annexation property was included in an annexation request that came before the Planning Commission on October 2005. Staff recommended denial of the request at that time and annexation was denied unanimously. The applicants included an additional property owner and one acre parcel on the north side of Old Wire Road in the current request for annexation and rezoning. Additional background, in March 2006 the applicant submitted a preliminary plat to the City of Fayetteville for a subdivision with 77 residential single-family lots. This subdivision has been tabled until the type of sewer service can be determined. The property that can be annexed contains live parcels consisting of 31 acres. The rezoning application contains approximately 5 acre parcel as well as that within the city limits. There is a difference in the acres between the annexation and rezoning. The applicant proposes annexation of 31.00 acres into the city and rezone the property if it were annexed from Residential -Agricultural to RSF-4, Residential Single -Family, 4 units per acre. The current site has access to Old Wire Road. The site has water available and sanitary sewer is not adjacent to the site. The nearest sewer main is approximately 2,500' west of the site on Old Wire Road. The fire and police department responded, and did not have any adverse effects on their services noted. Other than that they did acknowledge that it would be a change in the population density in this area. Staff finds annexation of this property would be in contrast to the city's policy not to annex islands or peninsulas. Finding that the configuration of these parcels would create a peninsula that would be undesirable and would have potential to have city services extended to areas where it would provide some potential service problems. Staff has discussed with the applicant that we would be more in support of this request if they were able to get the support of some of the adjacent property owners and provide a more continuous parcel to be annexed in and rezoned. As far as response, they have been unsuccessful in obtaining support from neighbors. Staff finds that this annexation and rezoning in general would not be compatible with Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 53 this area. It is largely agricultural, rural residential at this time. The density proposed, 4 units per acre, would not be compatible with these land uses. The closest subdivision is west of Crossover Road or south of Skillern Road. Those are the main reasons why we recommend denial and we would be happy to answer any questions you might have. Anthes: Would any member of the public would like to address either the •annexation or rezoning for Old Wire Investors. Gaston: Hello, my name is Colleen Gaston at 3270 Rom Orchard Road, which is one of the connector streets to this proposed subdivision. I definitely oppose the proposed rezoning. If you have looked at any of the attached maps to the staff report, you will see surrounding on all sides of this proposed annexation and rezoning land, the houses are on tracts of minimum 2 acres. More often, 3,4,5,6, and 10 acres. This falls completely out of character with this surrounding area. I'm not clear on the staff report on the traffic issue, exactly on what is being said. [ guess there is a letter from the police department from Captain William Brown. It stated that the proposal would have negligible impact on the cost from police services and traffic congestion for the area. Elsewhere in the report, it talked about increasing the density of traffic from approximately 170 vehicles per day to 1,380 vehicle trips per day. To me this is not just a negligible increase, particularly at certain times of the day. The intersection of Old Wire and Crossover, at morning rush hour and evening, has traffic backed up at least a mile on Crossover. This will clearly add to that traffic problem, not to mention the fact that there are several blind curves associated with this project. I do, however, have mixed feelings about the annexation. Some of my neighbors share those same concerns. If there is going to be development in this area, and we all know there is going to be more development, we would like to see it on a sewer system. We think that it would be better for the city and those of us in the area. If this was developed with sewer as opposed to septic, if you're looking at 80 houses on 35 acres. Its sort of a catch twenty-two, understand the staff recommendation for why they oppose the annexation. At the same time, I think there is some value to the city having property come in with sewer. Although, not as densely as proposed. The idea about this would be if this was annexed in as It -A, but allowed to have sewer. [ think those are the main points. This did come up before the Planning Commission in October and I know that many of you were here at that time and heard a number of the neighbors talk about how this proposal was not in keeping with the area. This is an area that is going to be developed with a lot of subdivisions. The surrounding properties are pretty stable and are going to stay with very low density housing on it. This would be an island of very dense development and for that reason, I think I support the staffs recommendation that this not be rezoned RSF-4. Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 54 Anthes: Thank you Mrs. Gaston, would any other member of the public like to address this item? Seeing none, I will close the public comment section. Oh, in the back. Elliot: My name is Don Elliot, I live at 3743 Bridgewater and I've spoken here once before, so I don't really want to repeat what I've already said. But I would like to join in with Mrs. Gaston said. The report from the senior planner states, this use is not compatible with adjacent land use or density in the surrounding area. We had to sell a 40 acre tract that had its own covenants and no lots less than 5 acres. That's the 40 acres just across the street, just east of this land. While there are closer houses nearby that are less than 5 acres, they arc not even close to this dense. I don't know if you have looked at the traffic, but I've talked with Perry Franklin about this, who I think does a great job. If you are traveling west on Old Wire Road at Crossover, you will sit thru three lights minimum between 7:30am to 8:15 in the morning. Corning back, going east on Old Wire Road and Crossover, I was just there last week sitting there at 6'oclock sitting thru three lights. I don't know how much you look at the traffic, but the traffic at that intersection at those times of day, going those directions, is horrendous. I don't see what you would do, you would have to change the road out there. If you put in 77 units and expect them to get to work on time and get home at a decent hour. Anyway, this project is just not compatible in that area. Anthes: Anyone else would like to speak on this item? Seeing none, I'll go ahead and close the public comment section and ask for the applicant's presentation. Sloan: I'm Charlie Sloan, representing the applicant. I'm a developer in Fayetteville, as you know. I do not have any investment or interest in this project. This project came through back in October at a time that I brought a project through. There were three of us, Mark Spradlin, Tim Estes, and myself. The first project that came through was Skillern Drive behind Savanna. It created a peninsula; it stuck out. It wasn't as big as this one. But, then again, it did get passed. My project, second, I was surrounded on three sides by the City of Fayetteville, I was annexed in. Sitting outside, talking to my engineer afterwards, we found out that this project was denied on the annexation. Later on, I read in the paper where this had gone to the county and had taken a conceptual plat only, to the county. It was not a plat to be approved, but it had gone to the county. They did seem to like it, it was in the paper. They acted like they would develop this property. The problem is to me as a private citizen on this, is if there is a project going to happen out there, sewer is available to this property. I've contacted the developers, I didn't know them, but said why not run sewer out there. They said that they would be willing to go back Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 55 and run sewer, at least a couple 1000 feet of sewer. We are out the same amount of money whether we put this on the step system or we put it on a sewer system in the City of Fayetteville. That's the issue that got me involved. One of these days, this area will be annexed in out there and the citizens of Fayetteville will be paying for sewer out there. My problem is, why not let private dollars pay for something that will be a public utility, plus they will have to upgrade the sewer water system, if they put the subdivision in. There is a 4 inch water line going out there, they will be putting in an 8, the City will probably want to upgrade that. It will cost - share you to 12. So, those are the issues that got me involved in this, it's strictly not knowing the issues about the compatibility, the rezoning, or the lay out of the subdivision. Five acres of their property is already in the City. The rest of it, they are asking to come in. The big issue, I saw, was whether this comes into the city as an annexation or not, or if this plan is. approved on the rezoning. Tell these people what the process is to go forward, to let them spend private dollars to take sewer out to this area, that I've felt like would eventually benefit everybody in that area. Some of the homes though developed on 5 acre lots, have covenants that will not allow them to ever break it down and develop smaller lots out there. Do you have a need for sewer? I don't know. Obviously, if there is a septic system working fine, it's working fine. I just hate to see a subdivision put on a step system that could be put on City sewer, even though it is a big expense to these people. This is a chance for us to let private dollars pay for it. That's the reason I ask to bring this forward, and try one more time. Ask if that is possible or maybe this is not the mechanism to go with it. Maybe they will get approved by the County and then come back in and request to be put on the City sewer system, which is fine with them. 122 lots, I believe is what the calculations are for 4 units per acre. They were proposing around 82-83 lots on their latest thing. We did talk with one of the neighbors for them, that I happen to know. They agreed to sale the one acre lot that was carved out of this, so it really made this an odd shape piece of property. It still creates a peninsula. We talked with the two other land owners, and they request not to come in. Cooper runs a business, landscaping business and lie wishes at this time not to be in. He had a letter signed for me and his wife said he lost it. He didn't have it with him the other day when I chased him down. Ile did say that he did not wish, at this time, to come into the City of Fayetteville, because he is running a landscaping business. That is my two cents. Clark: I have been told millions of times that not creating a peninsula is just a guideline. So, I'm asking for more clarification. if it's just a guideline, and 3 acres is already in the City, what is staff's rationale that the rest of the utilities are not available? What's unique about this one'? Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 56 Pate: With any annexation request, we look at all those guidelines and polices. If we feel it does not create a dangerous situation or there is some reason that, for instance, a request creates an island and we recommend it, the applicant has gone through every possible means to acquire that property or have that property come in. It's something we will evaluate each and every one of them on their own merit with every single request. The City Council has obviously gone against our recommendation, even recently with an annexation request in northwest Fayetteville. This particular request came before us 6-8 months ago, with very little difference. With the exception of the one acre lot, as Mr. Sloan mentioned.. We made a recommendation last summer for the applicant to look at properties, look at page 16 and 20, south of this down to Skillern Road. The property owner, that you mention - Mr. Lee, of course did not what to come in, which is a large notch of his property, in an effort to support this application. That has not been able to be done, for whatever reason. Those property owners do not wish to come into the city limits and staff does not feel this particular request was warranted or meet our guiding policies at this time. With regard to the other utilities as part of our finding, are utilities readily available? No. A sewer line is 2500 feet away. The development of this property would be unique with the surrounding properties. As staff mentioned earlier, the closest property developed as RSF-4 is west of Crossover, as you can see on the same page, or south of Skillern. Those properties are developed more around 2 or 2 '/2 units per acre. They are rather large lots in the area, even though you can see that they are much smaller than what's surrounding in the County. It was our rationale that it did not meet guiding policies for City Council and annexation. Graves: I have a question for staff as well. I'm testing my memory, I remember as Mr. Sloan does, that we saw several of these on one night and that I can see the Skillern Road on our one mile map here. I remember that we approved that one that night and didn't approve the other one. Partly based on staff recommendations, I believe, that staff recommended the one on Skillern Road for some reason. I don't remember what that was at this point. Pate: The one on Skillern Road was contiguous to an existing adjacent single family residential subdivision. IIyou look at that property, which those that were not here don't have the benefit of knowing, if you were on Skillern Road and how Natchez Trace curves around, it's directly to the cast of that. It is a small potion of property, about 5 acres, I believe. It is much less and does not extend the city limits any further east of those properties surround that. There is an obvious peninsula zoned R -A [to the north] and within a conservation casement and that is not to be developed. That was annexed a number of years ago. The rest of the properly is there, Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 57 you see, with the addition of the property just east of Township, which was just annexed in as well. This particular case, the city limit line from Skillern goes directly north without variation until you get quite a ways north and we felt it would not meet our guiding policies for this particular recommendation. As you mentioned, Planning Commission at that time, voted against the request to annex that property. We have found that nothing has changed since that particular request to warrant a recommendation. Anthes: Any further discussion on the annexation request? A motion? Clark: I'm kind of at a crossroads because I respect staff recommendations but I also know that with annexation comes development rights for the city. In other words, if somebody's going to develop this and put on a step system, since there is no zoning in the County, they can do that. I'd like some input from my fellow commissioners regarding annexing something that would go ahead and develop and not with a RSF-4 rezoning request. If you think it's too dense, there is no transition... I think its totally out of the norm for this area, but I'm riot so sure that annexation is not a wise choice. Opposed to high density and septic system, so ['m interested on the feed back from the commissioners. Graves: [ tend to agree; I don't see anything that's changed from when we saw this in October. We did vote it down last time. By the same token, understand and appreciate that this could develop that similar density to what's proposed on a step system, if it stays in the county. So, from that stand point, I can see its justification for annexing as requested. I know the density proposed is not appropriate against what's already out there. So, I would not be in favor of RSF-4 on the rezoning request. Anthes: It seems we have this conversation every time we're looking at one of these rezoning and that is, sort of the threat of development without city streets sections, sewer systems, water sewer, etc... What I have never quite been clear about is whether this body is actually suppose to weigh the threat of what we do as a substandard infrastructure, when we are evaluating an annexation request. Pate: Really, you should look at it as findings, and part of that are infrastructure and utilities. The findings that are listed there, areas currently served by utilities and other public services should be annexed. Proposed annexation areas should not require the upgrading of utilities to meet the demands of development unless there is a threat to public safety. Phased annexation should be initiated by the City within active annexation areas based on planned service extensions or availability of services. One of those is in the paper right now. I don't believe those services are currently Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 58 in this location. The threat of development is before us with every single annexation request we have anymore. There is always a potential to develop something that does not meet these standards. I think that's something that Commission and Council, ultimately the policy making body, has to take in consideration every time they vote on an annexation request. Graves: I don't believe that this applicant has made a quote threat. I think we've heard some covert comments along those lines from other applicants before. This applicant would prefer be in the City or they wouldn't be here a second time asking to come into the City. They could have gone before us with a step system or whatever, before now, if they wanted to do that. My comment, I used the word threat, but I didn't mean threat by the applicant. I just meant along the lines of the City attaching some more rights on development oversight when it comes in. It's true on all annexations. This one is within shouting distance of existing city boundaries. Williams: I certainly agree with Jeremy Pate on his analysis of annexation, but I would like to say that annexation is one of those issues where you have - especially City Council - has administrative discretion. The basic question is; do you want this property inside the city? I sure the guide lines will help you make the decision but it no small decision that you make on that level. You can recommend to the City Council an annexation even if maybe wouldn't meet all of the guidelines that we have for the 2020 or 2025 Plan. This is one place where you have tremendous amount of discretion. I just wanted to tell you that, because sometime you don't have any discretion, so this time you have a lot of discretion. Anthes: Any further discussion? Ostner: This is complicated and I'm glad I don't have to make the decision. I'm just going to recommend something to the others to make the discussion. The part two that Jeremy read us, I I.6.k: Proposed annexation areas should not require the upgrading of utilities to meet the demands of development unless there is a threat to public safety. To me, that is a one of the statements that I can use. The property that we are considering is a long distance from sewer. 2,500 feet is a long way to go. Sewer mains are expensive and I think that is important. That changes things, the area adjacent to this is in the City, but is not served by sewer to that extent. I'm not sure I'm in favor of this annexation. I'm certainly against the RSF-4, I would see RSF-I or even R_5 to be possible zoning district if the Council saw to annex this area. I'm not sure either, but I'll be inclined to be against the annexation. Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 59 Clark: The sewer was 500 ft? Anthes: It is showing 2,500 ft. Clark: Where is the sewer? Sloan: Somewhere out there.... laughter... He is not asking the City for the money, the developer is spending that money himself. They are willing to do that, to bring the sewer to them. They will be paying for that 2,500 ft to have the sewer come to them. It's not something the City would deliver to them, nor would water lines would be on them. All those expenses would be on them. I'm just saying, it's more than a wash for them. They probably will spend more money bringing sewer to them, than they would be putting a step system in. That's all I'm saying, I had a problem to see this go to a step system. Let the developers spend the money. He will bring the public utility out to that part of town. Let him spend the money to do it, he is willing to do that. That's the only reason I got involved with it, was over that issue that one of these days, that area is going to have to have service out there. Why not have private dollars pay for it now, rather then have the City pay for it later? That's the only reason why I got involved in this project, period. Ostner: Madam Chair, I did not mean to insinuate that the City would have to pay for the 2,500 feet. My point was simply to consider that this piece of property is including in its proposal to extend that as Mr. Sloan stated. I think it changes things; that simply means this piece of property is not only willing to apply for rezoning but is willing to go the long distance. It just makes it clear to me that it's a stretch. That's all I'm saying, I'm not casting judgment, not that it's bad. I'm not trying to say that the City is going to be holding the bag, I'm just saying it's a stretch. Part of our charge is to keep development contiguous I believe. That is why we are only allowed to annex adjacent to the City limits, under the logic of continuity. We are contiguous to the City limits, but not contiguous to the development. It's fairly undeveloped or sparsely developed as evidence by the 2,500 ft link. That's what I'm trying to say, it's a stretch. Anthes: Question for Mr. Williams, for as I can see here, the extension of the sewer line is a policy issue that an annexation, if we agree to accept property into the City, then we also agree to serve it with city services. What I'm wondering is, if this body recommended an annexationrequest, would we be requiring that the City would deliver City services to that site? Whereas, if the City Council chose to do so, they can negotiate with the applicant about extending those services... Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 60 Williams: In reality, there are number of places within Fayetteville that do not have sewer service. You get sewer service if you have a sewer main close enough to your property to access it. If they wanted sewer service inside the City, they would have to extend the main 2,500 ft at the developer's cost, not at the City's cost. The same thing even with the water. We have number of City residences, which I found out at recent City Council meetings, that don't have City water because they are not close enough to a water main and chose not to extend the water main, so they can get City water. So, the city makes available these services but you have to develop or the developer has to extend the sewer main to the corner of your property and you put your own service line to it. So, this would not be guaranteeing them the sewer service, even if they were annexed. Harris: I did have a question for the applicant, Charlie, sorry. If we in fact, were to vote to approve the annexation but change the rezoning to a much less dense zone, would the applicant be amendable? Sloan: Well, I guess zone it the way you want it and then I'll have to check with them. I will give you my permission. They have numbers they have to run to a certain point on the property. We will have to discuss it with the land owners around there. It would be nice if you could keep everything 5 acres. That's not going to be the reality of it. I don't know if they might not come back with a PZD. The problem of the zoning is the minimums on the widths and stuff like that when you are trying to work a property around. It's almost like you can throw these things away and just say we approve the project or not based on the layout, we like it. Because that gets into a tough situation to make things fit, because you have certain minimums. For instance, my project out there by my house, we did I acre estate lots. I asked for RSF-2 and got RSF-I. Ya'll gave me RSF-4, but we did the one acre, because a couple of those lots don't quite make that 50 -foot frontage, and didn't have the space to put it in there. So, we asked for RSF-2, still ended up going a little bit deeper, making our lots an acre depth. I can't speak for them; I'm not involved in that part of it. I was just trying to see if we could eliminate a step system out there, that's what I was trying to do with this. Compatibility is still yet another issue. I not sure if they would love to stay where they're at or somewhere in that range. All they can do is take your recommendation, maybe come back and switch it to a PZD. Something to allow them to guarantee to the neighbors what they are going be able to do to get some assurance. You know I'm a big fan of PZD's. Anthes: It seems to me that a lot of the discussion seems to be leaning towards possibility recommending annexation, but at a lower density zoning. I'm just looking at refact that this body made a unanimous recommendation awhile back and as staff has reported very little has actually changed in the Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 6/ application between that time and now. In the interest of consistency and findings of the staff that the configuration is not in compliance with the policies for annexation, I make a motion to deny annexation request 06- 2046. Trumbo: . Second. Anthes: A motion by Commissioner Anthes and a second by Commissioner Trumbo. Is there further discussion? Will you call the roll? Pate: What was the motion for? Anthes: To deny. Roll Call: The motion to deny 06-2046 carries with a vote of 6-3-0. Anthes: As far as the rezoning request, it drops right? But do we still need to state our opinions? Williams: In the past, you have gone ahead and recommended, if the City Council disagrees with you on the zoning. You would recommend what it would be. Anthes: Well, we have had several Commissioners state that they thought the RSF- 4 zoning district is too dense for the area. We have had one Commissioner state that he thought a RSF 0.5 or RSF-I would be more in keeping in the area. Do we have any others thoughts on that? Pate: RSF-.5, Residential Single -Family, '/2 unit per acre, has a minimum size of two acres, basically I unit for every two acres. It just doesn't allow agricultural uses. We have RSF-I, Residential Single -Family, I unit per acre which has an I acre minimum. RSF-2, Residential Single -Family, 2 units per acre, and then RSF-4 and RSF-7. Anthes: Mr. Williams, do we need to just state our preference? Or do you want a motion? Williams: I think in the past, you voted on it. If I'm not mistaken. Anthes: I'm thinking we did as well. Williams: Why don't you go ahead? Council disagrees with recommendation would be... A conditional recommendation, if the City you, assuming it is appealed, your Planning Commission May 8, 2006 Page 62 Ostner: I will start with a motion of approving the same piece of property, forwarding it to the City Council as RSF-.05, %2 a unit per acre or l unit sitting on 2 acres. Anthes: I'll second Trumbo: It seems to me, we will rezone RSF-4, which is pretty much standard in a residential neighborhood. The thing that concerns me is this is pretty close to being in the center of town. It has access to Hwy 265 and Old Wire. Just purely planning, standing back and taking a look at it, it appears to me that RSF-4 would be a more appropriate zone. Just where it's based in the City. Not considering what's already there, but the neighbors to the north and to the south. Everything else is just raw land. I'm not really stuck on RSF-4, but it doesn't seem way on the outskirts; a denser zoning would be appropriate right here, at some point in time. That's my only comments. I-Iarris: I would agree, and echo Commissioner Trumbo's comments. The applicant may wish that they don't get annexed with this zoning. I'm not entirely sure which one, I'm not married to RSF-4 either, but I would like to think of more dense on what we are currently discussing. Anthes: Any further discussion? We have a motion by Commissioner Ostner and second by Commissioner Anthes for RSF-.5 as a conditional recommendation to City Council. Will you call roll. Roll Call: The motion for RSF-.5 as a conditional recommendation to City Council for 06-2047 carries with a vote of 5-4-0. Planning Commission September 14. 2009 Page l l of 14 ANX 09-3409: (BROYLES / 3231 N. OLD WIRE RD., 217): Submitted by APPIAN CENTER FOR DESIGN for property located at 3231 N. OLD WIRE ROAD, NW CORNER OF OLD WIRE ROAD AND ROM ORCHARD ROAD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 39.33 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, gave the staff report giving the background for the previous annexation requests for this property. Garner summarized the annexation findings, discussing that this property and the vicinity is not urban in character or able to be developed at urban densities, and would extend a peninsula of Cityproperty approximately 1,300 feet into the County. He discussed the public service challenges ofthis site as it is located approximately 2,500 feet from the nearest sewer line, approximately the same distance for water lines to ensure adequate fire flow for any development, and the configuration of the property line may cause confusion among emergency responders as one side of the road would be in the City and one side would be in the County. He also discussed that this application is in conflict with the two primary goals of City Plan 2025 to make infill and revitalization our highest priorities, and to discourage suburban sprawl. Staff recommends denial of the application. Hank Broyles, applicant, stated that they are a new applicant. They have taken steps to smooth out the borders of the proposed annexation boundary and added additional property owners to the annexation. He discussed that if this annexation is approved they will propose an R-PZD for development, including a master plan extending all the way to Highway 265. Highway 265 is the major north -south transportation corridor on the east side of Fayetteville. State Highway 265 is only three blocks to the west, the City is investing 7.7 million dollars on State Highway 265 in this vicinity, and we can't expect there not to be any development in this area. Most of the new development in recent years has taken place west of 1-540. However, many people work on Joyce, and other major commercial zones are in close proximity. We should have additional housing on the east side of town to have people be able to live closer to where they work. We need additional housing on this side of town. Infill is very difficult to make work. He discussed that City Plan 2025 encourages infill but that according to a search by Bassett -Mix Realty of this area of town, from Joyce to Lafayette, east of College to Highway 265, there were only four listings of two or more acres. Prices ranged from $110,000 per acre to $900,000 per acre. This is a piece of property, partially in the City limits, not on a mountain, few adjacent property owners, three blocks from the major north -south transportation corridor on the east side of Fayetteville. Todd Jacobs, applicant, gave a PowerPoint presentation. He discussed the land use setting, that the areas east of Hwy 265 are rural in nature, but the site is only three blocks from Crossover Road. He discussed the lack of opportunity for infill development in this area, due to existing development patterns and slopes to the west of Hwy 265. He went over historical growth patterns in this area, showing areas of single and multi -family development. Historical development patterns follow transportation corridors. The area east of Hwy 265 has development potential because of lack of slopes and streams, floodplains. This is an opportunity to master plan this area for development. He discussed developable land on this side of town and discussed that the east side of Crossover is more developable than the west side, which has hills, creeks, and existing development. He discussed that this site was identified by citizens as a Growth Sector as part of the City Plan 2025 charettes by citizens. Joyce has started to become a financial center. Development will fill in along the east side of Crossover over time. He showed and discussed various exhibits of developable area including slopes, existing development, and floodplains in the area. This site does not have those constraints. He reviewed the existing City limits and how they feel the area around this site will fill in over time. This area is prime for a City neighborhood area in a traditional town form. He discussed that our vision is a master plan for this area. Planning Commission September 14, 2009 Page 12 of 14 Public Comment: Peggy Hart, representing her parents, Lyle and Charlene Smith who live on Rom Orchard, questioned the rationale behind this. This location is nice because it is out in the country but ten minutes from downtown. Why would you want to add houses on curvy roads with no sidewalks? Houses are generally on three -acre lots. It is already congested in this area at Old Wire/Crossover. We currently have undeveloped subdivisions on Skillern and Township. She is recommending denial. Colleen Gaston, 3270 Rom Orchard Road, can see the property from her front porch. She is opposed to the rezoning anything less than Residential Agricultural. She thinks the annexation is premature. The comments from the developer about the development along the east side of Crossover are somewhat speculative. The applicant mentioned 200 acres but they are only annexing 40 acres. There is not reason to bring this into the City. There are several subdivisions in the City limits in this area of town that are vacant, very close to this area. Maybe the time will come to master plan for this area; however, this has been a very stable area, stayed rural in nature. From what I know of my neighbors no one is interested in selling or subdividing. I do not see this area being prime for development given the current economy. The annexation seems premature at this time. Terry Payton, has nine acres, he was concerned with the rezoning application. But he agrees with Colleen's comments on the annexation. We are concerned with what the plans for the area are. He discussed congestion at the intersection of Old Wire Road/Crossover Road. He is opposed to a density of four units per acre. Jeff Dangeau, 3284 Rom Orchard Road, adjacent neighbor to the east across Old Wire Road. Our main concern was with the rezoning. If this is annexed it would allow one house per two acres, which eases my concerns somewhat. He would feel better if a development plan were shown first. Public Comment Closed Commissioner Myres discussed that she agrees with staff's findings to recommend denial. Commissioner Zant said that in his past experience annexations in other Cities have annex property based on guess of whether or not the annexation would benefit the City. We are fortunate here that the City of Fayetteville has a number of annexation policies and guidelines that are to be analyzed when making a decision. There would be a significant investment to meet the sewer requirement. As discussed by staff this application does not meet the adopted annexation policies and based on those findings he recommends denial. Commissioner Graves discussed that he was on the planning commission when this application came through in previous years. Things have changed over the past 5-6 years. He looked at the old minutes and would still have concern with RSF-4 zoning today, similar to the past applications. However with the annexation, we previously had concerns with fire response that have been addressed now. The fire department now has a new station with a response time of four minutes to this property. He discussed that he would like to see more acreage involved in this annexation, to clean up the boundary. He mentioned the tail off of Skillern Road, not exactly clear how this came to be. This annexation is perhaps an opportunity to start to even up the eastern City boundary. This would leave a gap between this property and the tail off of Skillem Road. This does create a peninsula, but that isjust one guideline, and these arejust guidelines. He doesn't have as many qualms with this annexation that he had in previous years, now that the police and fire responses are better as opposed to 2005/2006. Development can make the roads better. I would be supportive of bringing it in and letting it be rezoned R -A, and seeing what the applicant proposes as a latertime. He is okaywith a Residential/Agricultural zoning on the property at this time. Planning Commission .September 14, 2009 Page 13 of 14 Commissioner Winston asked about the issue of one side of the road being in the City and one side of the road being in the County. Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director, discussed the potential problems that may occur ifa vehicular accident or other emergency occurred on this road, and issues with which emergency responder should be called, Fayetteville Police versus Washington County Sheriff's, which was cited as a difficultly by the Police Department. He discussed the past annexations when the City annexed islands of unincorporated property that were surrounded by City property to correct this issue. Commissioner Winston asked about Bridgewater Road, when it would be constructed. Pate responded that it wasjust a line on the Master Street Plan map at this point, and would be constructed by the developer at the time of development. Commissioner Winston asked about the improvements to Crossover Road, and if any improvements would be made to the intersection of Crossover Road/Old Wire Road. Pate discussed that Crossover is a state highway and the improvements are a state highway project and in our transportation bond program, with the City having committed 7.7 million dollars to the project. However, the costs for the project have risen since the 7.7 million dollars were committed. The project is eminent and right- of-way is being obtained. Pate discussed that he is not sure about detailed of the planned improvements to Crossover Road/Old Wire Road, but anticipates that intersection would be improved. Commissioner Winston asked about the City's responsibility to this property if it is annexed. Pate responded that we have to provide emergency response and trash service immediately, and access for connection to Citywater and sewer. In almost every annexation application, there is some sortof pressure, and the development would result in the required extensions or improvements to water and sewer. Commissioner Winston discussed that there is a multi -use trail shown along Skillem'Road, although the 'transportation plans show many trails outside the City. It seems like it may be appropriate now and will be appropriate in the future. Commissioner Zant normally I wouldn't have any problem with any annexation, but he doesn't see any rationale for the application at this time. Ultimatelythis property will be annexed. But the findings all lead to a recommendation for denial at this time and I feel strongly that it should be denied at this time. Motion: Commissioner Myres made a motion to deny the request. Commissioner Zant seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion to deny passed with a vote of 5-4-0 (commissioners Graves, Winston, Kennedy, and Trumbo voting "no"). ANX09-3409 BROYLES Close Up View (LI SUBJECT PROPERTY l BRIDGEWATER LN a Ra w z a W x z 2 LL z ROM ORCHARD RD r - y z z Q J R -A R< RSF.f SF Overview 0 150 300 600 900 1.200 Feet ANX09-3409 One Mile View RP -24 RAf3. Ra/Ra W RSF-4 Q�� O tMFU RA Ra RAT N J RSFJ / R.n MFFJ 5F4 RA RA a., Ra NNNN' • 0 Ra �-,.••O•1 a JOYCE BLV ,_ 2L. @. j w C z O Ra U TE 3027 R.rt a D t0R-O RPZD 9 F!1 RAT -24 R -A e`(l" Fd GOy R.2 R'A RMF-2. RAT -1a Rte. RAT'24 RAT -2e M-12 WESTON 2ARAT-74 5F dRAF- WEETBRUXDR n BIROIE D RSF ELAINE AVE R-1 SHARON ST RSF RSFJ RSF-4 WARN RC 4 RSFJ RSFA 'p RSF-4 VT . RSF RSF- RSF-4 SJ RSF-4 RA RSFJ WARWICK DR RSF-4 RSF-4 RSFJ BROYLES PRIVATE tl SUBJECT PROPERTY -- / I_ BRIDGEWATERLN• Z O F r O x ¢ • • •• 0 O S O Z ROMO •• O RC R9p0 F O yy RD DR -`-_ 1 P- SFd O R$ yS0 RSF RPZO X RSF RA RSF V RSF-4 ] RSFJ �RSFd RA Ra RA YRSF-4 O-�j P-i O RSFJ RSF-4 111 7C % S PI SO PL 0 PTO RSFJ r RSFJ hF2 �R SF- 8RSf Z sF RSF FP RSF OAV gsA,yO RSFJ RSFdR$F4 O PRIVATE 2680' \i0 r.1 RSFJ RA Cm� g5FJ RSFJ RSFJ Z UGH SP P\ND sF� RSFdOOJNTRY WAS RSFJ V RSF OO \{PRD RA CHATSWORTH RD ASP J p-1 RSF RSF gPLp Z, R RSF RSF RSF RSF-2 R -A F TLN _O'4MID RSF J I d RSF-1 t FBS J q_J t RSF -4 P-1 F7 RSF / RSFJ TORSFd TOWNSHIP ST Overview Legend Subject Property �.. ® AN%09-3x09 • 'L► i t I Boundary __l iJ 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles z w Q O z S DAVIS ANX09 3409 BROYLES Future Land Use q ILl SUBJECT PROPERTY J' R -A RSf< RSF-1 Overview 0 150 300 600 900 1.20) 'Feet Pagel of! Lisa Branson - Fwd: Old Wire Rd development From: City Clerk To: Aldermen Date: 11/3/2009 7:12 PM Subject: Fwd: Old Wire Rd development City Clerk Division City of Fayetteville 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479)575-8323 city_clerk@ci.fav_etteville.ar.us TDD (Telecommunications Device for the Deaf): (479) 521-1316 >>> <queencaptainmom@cox.net> 11/3/2009 3:57 PM >>> We are oppossed to the annexation of the Old Wire road development. The roads are rural and our road which would be a "feeder" to Skillem is chip and seal and is used by bikes, horses and dog walks. This type of development density would not be compatible with our farms in the area. There is no infrasturcture at this site and it would cost the city considerable to bring utilites to the site. Larry and Tanya Floyd 3162 Rom Orchard Rd Fayetteville, AR. 72703 file://C:\Documents and Settings\lbranson\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4AF0808FFA. 11/4/2009 ..._. ..._____.-.. ___! From: Sharon Payton <sharon.payton@fayar.net> To: <city_clerk@ci.fayetteville.ar.us> Date: 11/3/2009 1:36 PM Subject: Annexation and Rezoning at 3231 N. Old Wire Road Dear Planning Commissioners, My husband and I live at 3845 Bridgewater Lane. We are the second house on Bridgewater from Old Wire Road. We own approximately 10 acres. We have opposed each request to rezone and to annex the land located on 3231 Old Wire Road. In the beginning we were not as concerned about the annexation. However, after listening to the developers proposal, we are convinced that it would be detrimental. If you are familiar with our area, you know that there are many homes with acreage. Most of us have lived in our homes for 14 or more years. We are committed to maintaining the rural quality of our neighborhood. This benefits our neighborhood but also benefits the entire comomunity. We believe that this is in keeping with the City Plan 2025 for the subject property. The proposed rezoning would result in an isolated zone of RSF-4 that is surounded by property zoned for agricultural or residential development with a maximum density of one-half or one house per acre. Most of the homes in this area have anywhere from 3-10 acres. Several homes have livestock or agricultural uses. Some of the acreage is protected from development in perpetuity by conservation easements. Rezoning to RSF-4 would be incompatible with the surrounding area. We also feel that the roads are not equipped to handle the increase in traffic due to the dangerous curves in the area and to the congestion that is already occurring. As to the size of this proposed development, the developer continues to talk about his 200 acre development. When asked specifically where this extra acreage was coming from he stated that they did not own the land or expected too. So the development is now only limited to the original parcel. After speaking to Drs. Luke and Cindy Knox, the owners of the "extra acres", we were assured that they do not support this plan and have no intention of selling their land to anyone. They keep their horses on the pasture land and plan to continue doing that. If at all possible, I would hope that you would take a drive into our area and see how our area would be affected by this large of a development. We feel that by allowing the annexation just gives the developer a beginnig to his project. My husband and I hope that you would oppose the annexation and the project. Thank you for your consideration on this matter. Sincerely, Dr. Terry S. Payton Sheri S. Payton H O l d W "cad November 17, 2009 Mayor Lioneld Jordan and Members of the Fayetteville City Council 125 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 Re: Annexation at 3231 N. Old Wire Road ANX 09-3409 (CC2009-4) Dear Mayor Jordan and Members of the City Council: I am a resident of the City of Fayetteville. I live in Brookbury Subdivision off of Skillern Road and less than one mile from the approximately 39 acres on Old Wire Road proposed for annexation by the City of Fayetteville. I oppose the annexation for the reasons cited by the Planning Commission in its recommendation to deny the annexation and for the following reasons: 1. The intended use of the property is for a subdivision, which is not needed in this area. There already are several nearby subdivisions on Crossover Road and another on Skillern Road that have completed infrastructure but that remain all or mostly vacant lots. These subdivisions have not been well maintained. It would be better for the nearby neighborhoods if these developments were built out before new developments were permitted. 2. The roads in the area are not adequate to handle traffic from a development that is intended to be on the order of four houses per acre. Traffic congestion already is significant at the intersections of Old Wire Road with Skillern Road and with Crossover Road. 3. The proposed annexation would create a peninsula of land in the City that juts out into the County. This land is surrounded by very low density development. Although we live in a traditional subdivision, we enjoy and benefit from having the nearby greenspace and rural neighborhoods just north of Skillern Road. The intended higher density development of the 39 acres proposed for annexation would destroy the rural character the area. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerel [�&fctfOvzi1�iP 72773 I I o I J o November 17, 2009 Councilmen Rhoads and Ferrell City of Fayetteville 125 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 Re: Annexation at 3231 N. Old Wire Road, ANX 09-3409 (CC2009-4) Dear Councilmen Rhoads and Ferrell: I am a resident of the City of Fayetteville, Ward 3. My family and I live in Brookbury Subdivision off of Skillern Road and less than one mile from the approximately 39 acres on Old Wire Road petitioned for annexation to the City of Fayetteville. I oppose the annexation for the reasons given by the Planning Division when it recommended denial of the annexation, and I believe that the City Council should uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the annexation. The roads in the area are not adequate to handle traffic from a large, dense residential development. Traffic congestion already is a problem at the intersections of Old Wire Road with Skillern Road and with Crossover Road. Furthermore, there is no need for another subdivision (as is intended by the developer) in this area. There already are several nearby subdivisions on Crossover Road and another on Skillern Road that have completed infrastructure but that remain all or mostly vacant lots. It would be better for my neighborhood and other nearby neighborhoods if these incomplete developments, which often are not well -maintained, were built out before new developments were permitted. Although we live in a traditional subdivision, we enjoy and benefit from having the nearby greenspace and rural neighborhoods just north of Skillern Road. The large, dense subdivision intended for the 39 acres proposed for annexation would destroy the rural character of that area. The citizens of Fayetteville benefit from having areas of greenspace and rural neighborhoods adjacent to the City. I urge you as my City Council members to vote to deny the annexation so that the City can take advantage of having these nearby rural areas, work to preserve them, and fill-in where there already is urban and suburban residential development. Thank you. Sincerely, Lauri Cavell 3234 Idlewood Way Fayetteville, AR 72703 Cc: Mayor Lioneld Jordan and Ward 1, 2, and 4 Members of the Fayetteville City Council /(aN'U )aIolIO' 53,1, uA rugssflon December 1. 2009 Mayor Lioneld Jordan and Members of the Fayetteville City Council 125 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 Re: Annexation at 3231 N. Old Wire Road ANX 09-3409 (CC2009-4) Dear Mayor Jordan and Members of the City Council: We live at 3150 N Rom Orchard Rd, very close to the property in question. Changes to that property would certainly affect us along all the other homes on Rom Orchard Rd. For that reason we strongly urge the council to deny the annexation of the approximately 39 acres off of Old Wire Rd. The Planning Commission voted to deny the annexation following the recommendation of the City Planning Division and we feel the council should not reverse that decision. Considering that our neighborhood consists of lots with a minimum of 3 acres, the intended higher density acres proposed for annexation would certainly destroy the rural character of the area. People who live in this area do so because they appreciate the wide open spaces, lack of traffic and elbow room. We would have plenty of options to choose from if we desired a more populated area. A large, dense subdivision is not needed in this area. There are several nearby subdivisions on Crossover Road and another on Skillern Road that have completed infrastructure but that remain all or mostly vacant lots. There are plenty vacant lots located on Mission Blvd where great plans were made for hillside development. It would be best for the city if these developments were built out before new developments were permitted. Please consider this matter carefully and vote to deny the annexation of the 39 acres. We appreciate your consideration. Sincerely, Wb f3ob and Susan Brisiel 3150 N Rom Orchard Rd Fayetteville, AR 72703 479-587-9307 December 1, 2009 Mayor Lioneld Jordan and Members of the Fayetteville City Council 125 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 Re: Annexation at 3231 N. Old Wire Road ANX 09-3409 (CC2009-4) Dear Mayor Jordan and Members of the City Council: I am not a resident of the City of Fayetteville. I live about '% a mile past the sign. I reside at 3119 Rom Orchard Rd. I support the decision of the Fayetteville Planning Commission to deny the annexation of the approximately 39 acres off of Old Wire Road. The proposed annexation would create a peninsula of land in the City that juts out into the County. This land is surrounded by very low density development. The intended higher density development of the 39 acres proposed for annexation would destroy the rural character of the area. The citizens of Fayetteville benefit from having areas of greenspace and rural neighborhoods adjacent to the City. The City should take advantage of having these nearby rural areas, work to preserve them, and fill-in where there already is urban and suburban residential development. We purchased our home because of it being quiet and more laid back, and we do not look forward to increases in traffic and the noise, A large, dense subdivision is not needed in this area. There are several nearby subdivisions on Crossover Road and another on Skillem Road that have completed infrastructure but that remain all or mostly vacant lots. It would be best for the City if these developments were built out before new developments were permitted. I have already in the last two weeks almost had head on contact with speeding school buses and huge gravel trucks who don't move over at all on the small curving road we live on and Old Wire that leads directly on to Rom Orchard. Drivers take short cuts on Rom Orchard and drive as fast as they can. It is rather difficult backing out of our driveway at times. We turned down two nice homes well within the City limits so we could have the peace and quiet we have thus far enjoyed very much. We would like it to stay that way as long as possible. Please consider staying with the long term plans for Fayetteville. Sincerely, Lyle & Charlene Smith 3119 Rom Orchard Rd. 72703 i3, l OOANC 4 O I a/or/o9 November 17, 2009 Councilmen Rhoads and Ferrell City of Fayetteville 125 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 Re: Annexation at 3231 N. Old Wire Road, ANX 09-3409 (CC2009-4) Dear Councilmen Rhoads and Ferrell: I am a resident of the City of Fayetteville, Ward 3. My family and I live in Savanna Estates Subdivision off of Skillern Road and approximately one mile from the approximately 39 acres on Old Wire Road petitioned for annexation to the City of Fayetteville. I oppose the annexation for the reasons given by the Planning Division when it recommended denial of the annexation, and I believe that the City Council should uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the annexation. The roads In the area are not adequate to handle traffic from a large, dense residential development. Traffic congestion already is a problem at the intersections of Old Wire Road with Skillern Road and with Crossover Road. Furthermore, there is no need for another subdivision (as is intended by the developer) In this area. There already are several nearby subdivisions on Crossover Road and another on Skillern Road that have completed infrastructure but that remain all or mostly vacant lots. It would be better for my neighborhood and other nearby neighborhoods if these incomplete developments, which often are not well -maintained, were built out before new developments were permitted. Although we live in a traditional subdivision, we enjoy and benefit from having the nearby greenspace and rural neighborhoods just north of Skillern Road. The large, dense subdivision Intended for the 39 acres proposed for annexation would destroy the rural character of that area. The citizens of Fayetteville benefit from having areas of greenspace and rural neighborhoods adjacent to the City. I implore you as my City Council members to vote to deny the annexation so that the City can take advantage of having these nearby rural areas, work to preserve them, and fill-in where there already is urban and suburban residential development. Thank you. Sincere isa evine 3789 Natchez Trace Fayetteville, AR 72703 Cc: Mayor Lioneld Jordan and Ward 1, 2, and 4 Members of the Fayetteville City Council .• r .mow.. _ V',; a. r' 4 n - S , _ T Mostly vacant subdivisions in the vicinity of the Old Wire Road property proposed for annexation (ANX09-3409, CC2009-4). Photos taken November 17, 2009. Hickory Park Subdivision on Crossover Road between Old Wire and Township Roads Mostly vacant subdivisions in the vicinity of the Old Wire Road property proposed for annexation (ANX09-3409, CC2009-4). Photos taken November 17, 2009. 479-8453500 Subdivision on Crossover Road between Old Wire and Township Roads Mostly vacant subdivisions in the vicinity of the Old Wire Road property proposed for annexation (ANX09-3409, CC2009-4). Photos taken November 17, 2009. Lynwood Estates Subdivision on Crossover Road between Old Wire and Township Roads Mostly vacant subdivisions in the vicinity of the Old Wire Road property proposed for annexation (ANX09-3409, CC2009-4). Photos taken November 17, 2009. Crestmont Subdivision on Skillern Road M1 NORTHWEST ARKANSAS NEWSPAPERSu-c Northwest Arkansas Democrat Gazette The Morning News of Springdale IVE_D The Morning News of Rogers DEC 2 8 2009 Northwest Arkansas Times Benton County Daily Record BYc 212 North East Avenue, Fayetteville Arkansas 72701/ PO Box 1607, 72702 PHONE: 479-571-6421 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION I, Cathy Wiles, do solemnly swear that I am Legal Clerk of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette 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: City of Fayetteville —Ordinance 5287 December 17, 2009 Publication Charge : $ 77.82 Signed: Subscribed and sworn to before me This day of �j,� , 2009. Notary Public My Commission Expires: 6 2a 1P, Do not pay from Affidavit, an invoice will be sent ORDINANCE NO. 5287 • AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING THAT PROPERTY ( DESCRIBED IN, ANNEXATION PETITION ANX 09- PV1•1P TED AT 323431 NORTH OLD WIAE ROAD, THE NO 9-4). FOR PROPERTY THWESTARKANSK�V V I +q+V CORNER OF OLD WIRE ROAD AND ROM ORCHARD ROAD, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY - ' 39 ACRES.- BE R ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1'. That the City Council hereby confirms the annexation to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, as shown in Exhibit A* and depicted in Exhibit'8attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2'. That the official map of the City of Fayetteville. Arkansas. is hereby amended to reflect the change provided in Section 1 above. Section 3: That the official zoning map of the Ci(y of Fayetteville. Arkansas is hereby amended to assign the zoning designation of R -A, Residential Agricultural to the subject properly. Section 4, That the above -described property is hereby assigned to Ward No. Three. PASSED and APPROVED this tit day of December, 2009. APPROVED ATTEST: By: By: LIONELD JORDAN, Mayor SONDRA E. SMITH, City ClerklTreesurer Exhibits may bo viewed in the office of the Fayetteville City Clerk/Treasurer during normal 9nd-.r02w? State of Arkansas Secretary of State Charlie Daniels Secretary of State January 20, 2010 The Honorable Karen Combs Pritchard Washington County Clerk CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 280 North College, Suite 300 Fayetteville, AR 72701 Dear Ms. Pritchard, The Following Information has been recorded and filed in the Office of the Secretary of State: Business & Commercial Services 682-3409 Elections 682.5070 Building & Grounds 682.3407 Communications & Education 683-0057 State Capitol Police 682-5173 Business Office 682-8032 Information Technology 682-3411 RECEIVED JAN 22 2010 Date: December 1, 2009 County: Washington City: Fayetteville Annexation: Incorporation: Ordinance No. County Order No Plat Election Island Ordinance No. Co. Order No. Plat Election - 5287 CC2009-4 XX—Old Wire Investments Census Information: The following City or Town has been upgraded or reduced to: 1st Class City - 2nd Class City - Incorporated Town - I have forwarded this information to the Arkansas Municipal League and the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department and the Arkansas State Data Center. If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me at 1-800-482-1127 or (501) 682-3451. Sincerely, +1aitec,� Ckc Nancy Ci&kett Election Services Representative Arkansas Secretary of State Room 256 State Capitol • Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1094 501.682.1010 • Fax 501.682.3510 e-mail: arsos@sos.arkansas.gov • www.sos.arkansas.gov OZ. IN THE:COUNTY COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY IN THE MATTER OF: ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN LANDS TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVI L.LE,ARKANSAS NO.CC2 9-4 ORDER PE ANNEXATION Now on this 2e day df June, 2009, this cause comes on to be heard, Old Wire Investors, LLC,an Arkansas limited liability company,and Thomas Cooper Lee and Barbara C. Lee,husband and.wifc(collectively the"Petitioners")who are represented by James E Atwood,Attorney at Law, P.A.,after announcing the hearing of the cause and there being no protests.or objections,whereupon, the matter is submitted to the Court upon the Petition filed herein, and the oral and documentary evidence having been adduced,the Court being well and sufficiently advised finds, 1. The Petition in this.cause was filed on the day of May,2009 and therafter this Court fixed the 26�h day of June 2009,at 9.00a.m..as the date and time ofhearing for said cause,and that a full notice of this hearing was given as required.by law and the proof of publication of said notice is now on file with the County Clerk ofthis Court and the Court has jurisdiction of this cause. is 2. The Court is satisfied that the allegations of the Petition are sustained by the proof that the limits ofthe territory to be annexed have been properly filed,that the property owners have freehold interests in the property hereinafter described iinthe Petition and. constitute the real owners of the area affected. E, 3. The.land proposed to be annexed:to the.City of Fayetteville, Washington County, Page l of 2 �dij yr Arkansas,in this cause is described on`.`Exhibit A"attached hereto. 4. The area is not unusually large and it is contiguousand.adjacent to and adjoins the present corporate limits of.the City of Fayetteville, and it is adapted for urban purposes and this territory should be annexed to and made a part of the City of Fayetteville,Arkansas. ff IS THEREFORE,CONSIDERED,ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the aforesaid real estate situated in Washington County,Arkansas,is hereby annexed to and made a part ofthe City ofFayetteville,Arkansas,in accordance with Acet.No. 1 ofthe Acts ofthe Legislature of 1875 ofthe State of Arkansas, and all Acts amendatory thereto,.particularly including Act 142 of the Acts of Arkansas for the year 1953,as codified in Ark Code Ann.§14-40-601,et seq.,and this Order shall be duly recorded by the County Clerk of Washington.County. IT IS SO ORDERED.this �& day of 2009. The H6norabk Marilyn Edwards Washington County Judge Page 2 of 2 9 IN THE COUNTY COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY,ARKANSAS IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE..WASHINGTON COUNTY,ARKANSAS . q r� PETITION TO ANNEX TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE WASHINGTON COUNTY ARKANSAS Old Wire Investors,LLC, an Arkansas limited liability company, and Thomas Cooper Lee and Barbara C.Lee,husband and wife.(collectively the"Petitioners")hereby submit their Petition to annex certain real property into the City of Fayetteville,Washington,County,Arkansas,pursuant to A.C.A. Section 14-40-601, et. Seq. as follows: 1. That Petitioners collectively own the zeal property described on the Plat Map,Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a,part hereof(the "Real Property"); and said Real Property is situated in Washington County,Arkansas,and is contiguous with the City of Fayetteville;Arkansas, and is within the City of Fayetteville, School District.. 2. The Petitioners name James Atwood,Attorney at Lain,P.A.as the person authorized to act on their behalf with respect to this Petition. 3. The Petitioners desire that the Rea :Property become part of the City of Fayetteville; Arkansas,and petitions the County Judge for annexation of the Real Property into the City of Fayetteville. 4. A true and correct presentation of the Real Property and how it is contiguous to the City of Fayetteville,Arkansas is shown on the Plat Map,Exhibit"A",attached hereto. 5. The Petitioners herein desire that the Real Property become part;ofthe City of Pagel of 4 j Fayetteville,Washington County,Arkansas,and Petitioners state that theywill do any and all legal acts necessary to accomplish the objective set forth herein. f THEREFORE,Petitioners respectfully pray that this Court set a.hearing,and after notice of such hearing,that the County Judge sign.an Order anomi ng the above described Real Property into the City of Fayetteville,Washington County,Arkansas,and to order such other relief as is appropriate under applicable law. Respectfcily executed WmaAday of 2.000. pas.ofpfe MI M14r of Old Wire Investors, LLC S SCRIBED AND SWORN TO.before me,a Notary Public,on-this th 4dayof 200f. Notary Public Sharon Bishop My Commission Expo of ftansm,Washington County Y Commission.Expires August i8,2014 Page 2 of* S } Respectfully executed this day of .20dW Thomas Cooper.Lee SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me,a Notary Public,on this the j�day of DCD SA ,.2 • Mary�t3d1iC My Commission Expires: Sharon Bishop Shave of Aftrrw,Washout Cotmty MY Cession Expires_ QM 19,DJ4— Page 3 o Respectfully executed th�day o4�SILJ� n0j Barbara C.Lee S SCRIBED AND.5 W©RN TO before me,a Notary Public,on this t day of 4,-A-,I7.20Cq, Notary PublIa My conttnission E Sharon Bishop afe of Arkansas;Washington County My Commission Expires August 19,2014 Page 4 of+ Description (Parcel Nos. 001-15604-000r 001-15605-000, 001-15606-000, 0.01-25606-000, 001-15608-001, DOI-2560-000, and 001-15610-000) All of the land described in the deeds recorded as File Numbers 93- 3908, 20.05-18120, 2005-18121, 2005-18122, 2005-18123, 2006-22924, and 2009-9274 in- the Circuit Clerk's Office of Washington County, Arkansas residing in the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30, Township 17 North, Range 29 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian being also described by metes and bounds as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of .the above said Southwest 1/4; thence N021126'06"E, along the West line of the above said Southwest 1/4, a distance of 1315.03 feet to the Northwest corner of the above said Southwest 1/4; thence S8. 7016113"E, along the North line of the above said Southwest 1/4, a distance of 1319.96 feet to the Northeast corner of the above said Southwest 1/4.; thence S02'29'32nW, along the East line of the above said Southwest 1/4, a distance of 1016.73 feet; thence S18"21147"W, leaving the above said East line, a distance of 116.92 feet; thence S34'39'26"W, a distance of 96-67 feet, thence S52'01142"W, a distance of 94-13 feet; thence S6.90021130W, a distance of 95.91 feet, thence S86*30'36".W, a distance of 46.95 feet to a point on the South line of the above said Southwest 1/4; thence N87011'42"W, along the above said South line, a distance of 1028.91 feet to the Point of Beginning and containing 1,713,107 square feet or 39.33 acres, more or less. LA 758-1324 0 001>i*560.3-o00 ciai-41PU r� Prop. �,. t701-18$06-flClOj� .� $ 00115504-WO 1-1550.7-0.03 LO OL F e Ville , a � 001-is6o�0D� 001-1560 .000 to 001-15607-0D4 • O 1 y.. o c C3 4 L 10 CS r _ ppr N .Q Q: ti le 0 tfj r C3 7 O p r 0 1-1 Cs 1-15632-00 1-1582 a C tXl1>15634-040 001-15545-000 7 i) Feet County Disclaimer. 0 2$7,5 575 1,150 This map was created by Washloglon County using data created or acquired by its Assessor's office,Dept,of Emergency Management,and Road Department and in aceardanoe wb Arkansas Code 1SS-21-502(2)(a),which statea'The digital.cadastre manages and provides aCss to cadastral InfnrmatioM Digital cedasfre does not represent legal property boundary descriptions, nor is it sultable forboundary determination of the individual parcels included In the eadestre.":and Arkansas Code 15-21-502(S) which Eradicates that"Digital cadastre'means the storage and manipulation of computerized representattvna(if parcel maps and finked databases." This map has been developed from the best available sources. No guarantee sof accuracy f5.grsnted,not is any responsibility for reliance thereon assumed. in.no event shalt said W4-4hfngtcrn County be liable for direc€,indirft incidental,consequential or special damages of any kind,including,but not limited to,loss of antidpated profits or benefits arising out of use of or reliance on the map. The pRrcet lines shown are considered a graphical representation of the actual boundaries.,Washington County.is in rho sway responsible for or liable W any rMisrepmontatipn or re-use of this Wrap, Distribution of this map is intended for Inforrrrational purposes and should n t be considered authoritative for engineering,legal and othsr site4pedlfio os.