HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 5830113 West Mountain Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
(479)575-8323
Ordinance: 5830
File Number: 2015-0544
Doc ID: 016693230008 Type: REL
Kind: ORDINANCE
Recorded: 01/27/2016 at 02:32:47 PM
Fee Amt: $50.00 Page 1 of 8
Washington County, AR
Kyle Sylvester Circuit Clerk
File2016-00002 1 12
RZN 15-5214: (WEST OF N. GREGG AVE. & W. VAN ASCHE DR./WG LAND
COMPANY) APPEAL:
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN REZONING PETITION RZN 15-
5214 FOR APPROXIMATELY 186.65 ACRES LOCATED WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF
NORTH GREGG AVENUE AND WEST VAN ASCHE DRIVE FROM R -A, RESIDENTIAL
AGRICULTURAL TO C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL AND C4, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,
ARKANSAS:
Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby changes the zone classification
of the following described property from R -A, Residential Agricultural to C-21 Thoroughfare Commercial
and C-3, Central Commercial as shown on Exhibits "A" and `B" attached to the Agenda item.
Section 2. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby amends the official zoning map
of the City of Fayetteville to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1.
Section 3. Severability. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby determines that if
the Johnson City Council determines that a portion of this rezoned acreage is not "compatible with the zoned
land uses of the adjoining lands" in Johnson pursuant to its power under A.C.A. § 14-56-306 and refuses to
agree to a portion of this rezoning, then all other unaffected property within this Petition RZN 15-5214 shall
still be immediately rezoned pursuant to Section 1.
PASSED and APPROVED on 12/15/2015
Page 1 Printed on 12/17/15
File Number- 2015-0544
Ordinance 5830
Page 2
Lisa Branson, Deputy City Clerk
Printed on 12117/15
EXHIBIT'A'
RZN 15-5214
RZN 15-5214 WG LAND COMPANY
Close Up View
RMF-12 LE
11
FIEND
- ii'WGHTS N�
p r JOYCE BLV JoY
OS` O CIRCLE DR
n DR Q
SUBJECT PROPERTY YVONNE -
L t 'r WARY DRS i C.3 m
SHULER-DR
!
LU
-J
U)W
.�
w
- - -
----------
t
- `
Proposed C-2
Proposed
2
DUNBAR
-.
VAN ACNE DR
VAN ASCHE DR
Proposed C-2
Proposed
REN
CIR
RO
E ERPRISIq
-.
C-3
RSF-4
a.. 7
Cs DR ti
_
OWING
W,R
z `'''°'�"°
PRIVATE
ry 3359
1/-A
WALLO
off �R s►
CIR
t.C H
SALEM
f
6
C.-
�
L
�IJTRA�-V �
'
�z
h'.j'y M0NTE
I-1 D
j
'
TRUCKERS DR pA�5p .O.2�
d • . ��N,aF
s
Proposed
< ��
''• `4(C`��4
i _00
<<+}
AI'PLEB APPLEBY APPLEBY RD FS
RD RD APPLEBY RD Ago
O Igo R,�+Z+
CPZID �/'a� ♦
■
%
RMF-
p
Le •
ski .
n p
�L p Y CYDNEE ST,@
"9/ �O m
-.._
O
z
i"z w
Sh - P Mad Trail
R•O
th
n
m
}O
X BISHOP OR
borh Par Trail
k
!ar-,s
o z z a
��'�� •`
't °-2 m 2 Z D x o
LU
tural Surfa rail
DRAKE ST
DRAKE ST
'
:,� ,
`�
r
bven,iJRZN 15-5214
Hillside -Hilltop Ov
rlay District
Proposed Zoning:
Fayetteville City Li
its
C-2 118.4 acres
- - -
Footprints 2010
C-3 68.25 acres
L _ ! Design Overlay Di
trict
------ Planning Area
0 450
900 1,800
2,700
3,600
Feet
RZN 15-5214
EXHIBIT `B'
C-2 SOUTH OF VAN ASCHE DR (PARCEL 8)
DESCRIPTION:
PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 AND PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 17 NORTH,
RANGE 30 WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SW 1/4 SAID SECTION 27;
THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE THEREOF S87°28'55"E 988.26 FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF
THE ARKANSAS & MISSOURI RAILROAD;
THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY S01°34'49"W 1712.60 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE S01°34'49"W 171.00 FEET TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE FULBRIGHT EXPRESSWAY;
THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY THE FOLLOWING THREE COURSES:
THENCE $65°21'43"W 355.03 FEET;
THENCE $60°30'43"W 100.69 FEET;
THENCE S67°08'02"W 625.91 FEET TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF INTERSTATE 49;
THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY THE FOLLOWING NINE COURSES:
THENCE N81°59'29"W 198.65 FEET;
THENCE N58°07'30"W 164.05 FEET;
THENCE N37°54'08"W 83.74 FEET;
THENCE N26°05'10"W 266.41 FEET;
THENCE N37°30'29"W 172.40 FEET;
THENCE N50°18'36"W 201.70 FEET;
THENCE N61°54'01"W 434.65 FEET;
THENCE N67°25'47"W 807.54 FEET;
THENCE N52°35'02"W 99.87 FEET;
THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY N02°34'30"E 1191.74 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SW 1/4
SAID SECTION 27;
THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE S87°33'34"E 530.13 FEET;
THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH LINE S02°25'35"W 330.78 FEET;
THENCE 861.15 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH A RADIUS OF 737.00 FEET AND A LONG CHORD
OF S31°02'50"E 812.99 FEET;
THENCE 564°31'15"E 903.27 FEET;
THENCE 152.94 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 560.00 FEET AND A LONG
CHORD OF S56°41'48"E 152.47 FEET;
THENCE S48°52'22"E 238.02 FEET;
THENCE 414.13 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH A RADIUS OF 600.00 FEET AND A LONG CHORD
OF $68°38'46"E 405.96 FEET;
THENCE S88°25'11"E 476.47 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 51.43 ACRES MORE OR
LESS.
RZN 15-5214
EXHIBIT `B'
C-2 SOUTH OF VAN ASCHE DR (PARCEL 9)
DESCRIPTION:
PART OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 AND PART OF THE N 1/2 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP
17 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SW 1/4 SAID SECTION 27;
THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE THEREOF S87°28'55"E 19.28
THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH LINE S02°53'13"W 328.61 FEET;
THENCE 615.52 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 1529.50 FEET AND A LONG
CHORD OF S 14°24'56"W 611.37 FEET;
THENCE S25°56'40"W 421.65 FEET;
THENCE N64°31'15"W 778.17 FEET;
THENCE 861.15 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 737.00 FEET AND A LONG
CHORD OF N 31°02'50"W 812.99 FEET;
THENCE N02°25'35"E 330.78 FEET;
THENCE 587°33'34"E 1443.04 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 33.98 ACRES MORE OR
LESS.
C-3 SOUTH OF VAN ASCHE AND WEST OF GREGG AVE (PARCEL 10)
DESCRIPTION:
PART OF THE W 1/2 OF THE SE 1/4 AND PART OF THE E 1/2 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIF
17 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SW 1/4 SAID SECTION 27;
THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE THEREOF 587°28'55"E 19.28 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTH LINE S87°28'55"E 968.98 FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY
OF THE ARKANSAS & MISSOURI RAILROAD;
THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY S01°34'49"W 1712.60 FEET;
THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY N88°25'11"W 476.47 FEET;
THENCE 414.13 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 600.00 FEET AND A LONG
CHORD OF N 68°38'46"W 405.96 FEET;
THENCE N48°52'22"W 238.02 FEET;
THENCE 152.94 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH A RADIUS OF 560.00 FEET AND A LONG CHORD
OF N 56°41'48"W 152.47 FEET;
THENCE N64°31'15"W 125.10 FEET;
THENCE N25°56'40"E 421.65 FEET;
THENCE 615.52 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH A RADIUS OF 1529.50 FEET AND A LONG
CHORD OF N 14°24'56"E 611.37 FEET;
RZN 15-5214
EXHIBIT `B'
THENCE N02°53'13"E 328.61 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 40.82 ACRES MORE OR
LESS.
C-2 NORTH OF VAN ASCHE DR (PARCEL 11)
DESCRIPTION:
PART OF THE S 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 17 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST,
WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NW 1/4 SAID SECTION 27;
THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE THEREOF N87°33'34"W 1973.17 FEET;
THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH LINE N02°24'36"E 702.29 FEET;
THENCE S87°45'36"E 1975.41 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE S 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 27;
THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE S02°35'23"W 709.22 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING
31.99 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
C-2 NORTH OF VAN ASCHE DR AND EAST OF BALL ST (PARCEL 12)
DESCRIPTION:
PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 17 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST,
WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 27;
THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE THEREOF N02°35'26"E 10.22 FEET;
THENCE LEAVING SAID WEST LINE S87°28'55"E 13.40 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE N02°35'23"E 208.71 FEET;
THENCE 587°28'55"E 208.71 FEET;
THENCE S02°35'23"W 208.71 FEET
THENCE N87°28'55"W 208.71 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 1.00 ACRES MORE OR
LESS.
C-3 NORTH OF VAN ASCHE DR AND WEST OF BALL ST (PARCEL 13)
DESCRIPTION:
PART OF THE S 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 17 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST,
WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NW 1/4 SAID SECTION 27;
THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE THEREOF N02°35'23"E 709.22 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE LEAVING SAID EAST LINE N87°45'36"W 1975.41 FEET;
THENCE N02°24'36"E 544.65 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF PARCEL 765-15773-500;
THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE THE FOLLOWING SEVEN COURSES:
RZN 15-5214
EXHIBIT `B'
THENCE S87°02'16"E 1198.25 FEET;
THENCE 559°03'54"W 57.73 FEET;
THENCE 503°11'44"E 116.81 FEET;
THENCE N88°08'05"E 131.25 FEET;
THENCE N85°29'05"E 116.82 FEET;
THENCE N03°11'44"W 122.79 FEET;
THENCE S87°02'16"E 580.82 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE S 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 27;
THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE S02°35'23"W 519.73 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING
23.38 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
C-2 SOUTH OF FULBRIGHT EXPY AND WEST OF GREGG AVE (PARCEL 14)
DESCRIPTION:
PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 17 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST,
WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 27;
THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE THEREOF S87°27'54"E 78.35 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, SAID
POINT BEING ON THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE FULBRIGHT EXPRESSWAY;
THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY THE FOLLOWING THREE COURSES:
THENCE N69°12'31"E 205.16 FEET;
THENCE N71°41'54"E 500.42 FEET;
THENCE N75°09'57"E 301.76 FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE ARKANSAS & MISSOURI
RAILROAD;
THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY S01°14'22"W 349.41 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SW 1/4 OF
THE SE 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 27;
THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE N 87°27'54"W 951.99 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING,
CONTAINING 4.05 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION BY JORGENSEN: (ZONING: C-2) (PARCEL 15)
A part of the SW1/4 of the NW1/4 of Section 27, T17N, R30W in Washington County, Arkansas and
being described as follows: Beginning at the SW Corner of said SW1/4, NW1/4, said point being the
POINT OF BEGINNING, thence N02°29'17"E 47.32 feet, thence S88°20'38"E 21.51 feet, thence
N00°25'06"E 71.11 feet, thence N87°39'29"W 18.94 feet, thence N02°29'17"E 581.33 feet, thence
S87°45'36"E 659.95 feet, thence 502°24'36"W 702.29 feet, thence N87°33'34"W 660.90 feet to the
POINT OF BEGINNING: Containing 10.60 acres more or less subject to easements and right of way of
record.
RZN 15-5214
EXHIBIT `B'
LEGAL DESCRIPTION BY JORGENSEN: (ZONING: C-3) (PARCEL 16)
A part of the SW1/4 of the NW1/4 of Section 27, T17N, R30W in Washington County, Arkansas, and
being described as follows: Commencing at the SW Corner of said SW1/4, NW1/4, thence N02°29'17"E
47.32 feet, thence S88°20'38"E 21.51 feet, thence N00°25'06"E 71.11 feet, thence N87°39'29"W 18.94
feet, thence N02°29'17"E 581.33 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence N02°29'17"E 525.51 feet,
thence S87°39'07"E 659.23 feet, thence S02°24'36"W 524.27 feet, thence N87°45'36"W 659.95 feet to
the POINT OF BEGINNING: Containing 7.95 acres more or less subject to easements and right of way of
record.
Washington County, AR
I certify this instrument was filed on
01/27/2016 02:32:47 PM
and recorded in Real Estate
File Number 2016-00002112
Kyle Sylvester- Cir t Clerk
by
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 113 West Mountain Street
- Fayetteville, AR 72701
(479) 575-8323
Text File
File Number: 2015-0544
Agenda Date: 12/15/2015 Version: 1 Status: Passed
In Control: City Council Meeting File Type: Ordinance
Agenda Number: B. 3
RZN 15-5214: (WEST OF N. GREGG AVE. & W. VAN ASCHE DR./WG LAND COMPANY)
APPEAL:
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN REZONING PETITION RZN
15-5214 FOR APPROXIMATELY 186.65 ACRES LOCATED WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF
NORTH GREGG AVENUE AND WEST VAN ASCHE DRIVE FROM R -A, RESIDENTIAL
AGRICULTURAL TO C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL AND C-3, CENTRAL
COMMERCIAL
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,
ARKANSAS:
Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby changes the zone
classification of the following described property from R -A, Residential Agricultural to C-2,
Thoroughfare Commercial and C-3, Central Commercial as shown on Exhibits "A" and "B" attached to
the Agenda item.
Section 2. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby amends the official zoning
map of the City of Fayetteville to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1.
Section 3. Severability. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby determines
that if the Johnson City Council determines that a portion of this rezoned acreage is not "compatible
with the zoned land uses of the adjoining lands" in Johnson pursuant to its power under A.C.A. §
14-56-306 and refuses to agree to a portion of this rezoning, then all other unaffected property within
this Petition RZN 15-5214 shall still be immediately rezoned pursuant to Section 1.
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Page 1 Printed on 12/10/2015
Exhibit 'A' Final
RZN
15-5214
RZN15-5214 WG LAND COMPANY
Close Up View
I ! 7jRMF-12 c LE
HENDI r - JD
� r
JOYCE BLV JQ).
CfD
tJpSs�
p4CIRCLE0R
SUBJECT PROPERTY
Y0NNE DR I
z 1
Q E�
MARY DR t -°
�
c,HULER DR
I
C•3
U
1/}
1
`ti I
Il
13 r — — — _
ScttiiCI
I
I t
II
G16% [
_J11
-. —osed
C-3 — — —
FEE
x ul
C'1
Proposed C-2
, Proposed C-2
OUNSAR
VAN ASCHE DR
-=.VAN ASCHE Dry
i�
♦ �1 Proposed C-2
VREN
Proposed ctR
R0
i
E ERPRI
CS DR
'►ice<
w o,
J, C-3 RSF.4 u L±J
1
�w
RED ,WRING
ai Z
PRIVATE
3359
sS
�4 SWALLO
`y yC1-H*�at1iV
w CIR
5�{L41}�
S Pztl m
•SN11 to
��_.,-FUTRN1>6
UTRALN �y
T
1 FtD
w >
p,� '• SP! MQNTE
..< 4. AINTER DR
TRUCKERS DR �pS15F -2°
�
Proposed_ ¢
v SAO ¢
$
-2....
APPLEB ••
O RD
/ RD
APPLEBY APPLEBY
_PLEBY APPLEBY RD �ASOI
RD RD
`
' ova m m m mm / RMF-2 cPzc I • !ter► 1
DR
Le d
+
n
tZ mO Y CYDNEE STO
./
~
�R' z w
Sh !1- Peed Trail
R-0
x
0
m BISHOP DR d
borho /Park Trail
^h'%Cgs
Z a
' 4'
f
•t"
op m° .Z > > ° c� o z
tural Surfa, rail
DRAKE
DRAKE ST /
ST'
T.
•:�,
rn 0)V ui C
o
}
,, rv-ZN15-5214
Hillside -Hilltop Overlay
District
Proposed Zoning:
- - - Fayetteville City Li
its
C-2 118.4 acres
Footprints 2010
C-3 68.25 acres
[_ _ ! Design Overlay Di
trict
------ Planning Area
0 450 900 1,800
2,700 3,600
Feet
RZN 15-5214
EXHIBIT B'
C-2 SOUTH OF VAN ASCHE DR (PARCEL 8)
DESCRIPTION:
PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 AND PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 17 NORTH,
RANGE 30 WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SW 1/4 SAID SECTION 27;
THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE THEREOF S87°28'55"E 988.26 FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF
THE ARKANSAS & MISSOURI RAILROAD;
THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY S01°34'49"W 1712.60 FEETTO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE S01°34'49"W 171.00 FEET TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE FULBRIGHT EXPRESSWAY;
THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY THE FOLLOWING THREE COURSES:
THENCE $65°21'43"W 355.03 FEET;
THENCE $60°30'43"W 100.69 FEET;
THENCE $67°08'02"W 625.91 FEET TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF INTERSTATE 49;
THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY THE FOLLOWING NINE COURSES:
THENCE N81°59'29"W 198.65 FEET;
THENCE N58°07'30"W 164.05 FEET;
THENCE N37°54'08"W 83.74 FEET;
THENCE N26°05'10"W 266.41 FEET;
THENCE N37°30'29"W 172.40 FEET;
THENCE N50°18'36"W 201.70 FEET;
THENCE N61°54'01"W 434.65 FEET;
THENCE N67°25'47"W 807.54 FEET;
THENCE N52°35'02"W 99.87 FEET;
THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY N02°34'30"E 1191.74 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SW 1/4
SAID SECTION 27;
THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE S87°33'34"E 530.13 FEET;
THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH LINE S02°25'35"W 330.78 FEET;
THENCE 861.15 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH A RADIUS OF 737.00 FEET AND A LONG CHORD
OF S31°02'50"E 812.99 FEET;
THENCE S64°31'15"E 903.27 FEET;
THENCE 152.94 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 560.00 FEET AND A LONG
CHORD OF S56°41'48"E 152.47 FEET;
THENCE S48°52'22"E 238.02 FEET;
THENCE 414.13 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH A RADIUS OF 600.00 FEET AND A LONG CHORD
OF $68°38'46"E 405.96 FEET;
THENCE S88°25'11"E 476.47 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 51.43 ACRES MORE OR
LESS.
RZN 15-5214
EXHIBIT `B'
C-2 SOUTH OF VAN ASCHE DR (PARCEL 9)
DESCRIPTION:
PART OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 AND PART OF THE N 1/2 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP
17 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SW 1/4 SAID SECTION 27;
THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE THEREOF S87°28'55"E 19.28
THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH LINE S02°53'13"W 328.61 FEET;
THENCE 615.52 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 1529.50 FEET AND A LONG
CHORD OF S 14°24'56"W 611.37 FEET;
THENCE S25°56'40"W 421.65 FEET;
THENCE N64°31'15"W 778.17 FEET;
THENCE 861.15 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 737.00 FEET AND A LONG
CHORD OF N 31°02'50"W 812.99 FEET;
THENCE N02°25'35"E 330.78 FEET;
THENCE S87°33'34"E 1443.04 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 33.98 ACRES MORE OR
LESS.
C-3 SOUTH OF VAN ASCHE AND WEST OF GREGG AVE (PARCEL 10)
DESCRIPTION:
PART OF THE W 1/2 OF THE SE 1/4 AND PART OF THE E 1/2 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIF
17 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING ATTHE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SW 1/4 SAID SECTION 27;
THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE THEREOF S87°28'55"E 19.28 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID NORTH LINE S87°28'55"E 968.98 FEETTO THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY
OF THE ARKANSAS & MISSOURI RAILROAD;
THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY S01°34'49"W 1712.60 FEET;
THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY N88°25'11"W 476.47 FEET;
THENCE 414.13 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 600.00 FEET AND A LONG
CHORD OF N 68°38'46"W 405.96 FEET;
THENCE N48°52'22"W 238.02 FEET;
THENCE 152.94 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH A RADIUS OF 560.00 FEET AND A LONG CHORD
OF N 56°41'48"W 152.47 FEET;
THENCE N64°31'15"W 125.10 FEET;
THENCE N25°56'40"E 421.65 FEET;
THENCE 615.52 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH A RADIUS OF 1529.50 FEET AND A LONG
CHORD OF N 14°24'56"E 611.37 FEET;
RZN 15-5214
EXHIBIT `B'
THENCE N02°53'13"E 328.61 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 40.82 ACRES MORE OR
LESS.
C-2 NORTH OF VAN ASCHE DR (PARCEL 11)
DESCRIPTION:
PART OF THE S 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 17 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST,
WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NW 1/4 SAID SECTION 27;
THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE THEREOF N87°33'34"W 1973.17 FEET;
THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH LINE N02°24'36"E 702.29 FEET;
THENCE 587°45'36"E 1975.41 FEETTO THE EAST LINE OF THE S 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 27;
THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE S02°35'23"W 709.22 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING
31.99 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
C-2 NORTH OF VAN ASCHE DR AND EAST OF BALL ST (PARCEL 12)
DESCRIPTION:
PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 17 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST,
WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 27;
THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE THEREOF N02°35'26"E 10.22 FEET;
THENCE LEAVING SAID WEST LINE 587°28'55"E 13.40 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE N02°35'23"E 208.71 FEET;
THENCE S87°28'55"E 208.71 FEET;
THENCE S02°35'23"W 208.71 FEET
THENCE N87°28'55"W 208.71 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 1.00 ACRES MORE OR
LESS.
C-3 NORTH OF VAN ASCHE DR AND WEST OF BALL ST (PARCEL 13)
DESCRIPTION:
PART OF THE S 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 17 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST,
WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NW 1/4 SAID SECTION 27;
THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE THEREOF N02°35'23"E 709.22 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE LEAVING SAID EAST LINE N87°45'36"W 1975.41 FEET;
THENCE N02°24'36"E 544.65 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF PARCEL 765-15773-500;
THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE THE FOLLOWING SEVEN COURSES:
RZN 15-5214
EXHIBIT B'
THENCE S87°02'16"E 1198.25 FEET;
THENCE S59°03'54"W 57.73 FEET;
THENCE S03°11'44"E 116.81 FEET;
THENCE N88°08'05"E 131.25 FEET;
THENCE N85°29'05"E 116.82 FEET;
THENCE N03°11'44"W 122.79 FEET;
THENCE S87°02'16"E 580.82 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE S 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 27;
THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE S02°35'23"W 519.73 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING
23.38 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
C-2 SOUTH OF FULBRIGHT EXPY AND WEST OF GREGG AVE (PARCEL 14)
DESCRIPTION:
PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 17 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST,
WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING ATTHE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 27;
THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE THEREOF S87°27'54"E 78.35 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, SAID
POINT BEING ON THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE FULBRIGHT EXPRESSWAY;
THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY THE FOLLOWING THREE COURSES:
THENCE N69°12'31"E 205.16 FEET;
THENCE N71°41'54"E 500.42 FEET;
THENCE N75°09'57"E 301.76 FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE ARKANSAS & MISSOURI
RAILROAD;
THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY S01°14'22"W 349.41 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SW 1/4 OF
THE SE 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 27;
THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE N 87°27'54"W 951.99 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING,
CONTAINING 4.05 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION BY JORGENSEN: (ZONING: C-2) (PARCEL 15)
A part of the SW1/4 of the NW1/4 of Section 27, T17N, R30W in Washington County, Arkansas and
being described as follows: Beginning at the SW Corner of said SW1/4, NW1/4, said point being the
POINT OF BEGINNING, thence N02°29'17"E 47.32 feet, thence S88°20'38"E 21.51 feet, thence
N00°25'06"E 71.11 feet, thence N87°39'29"W 18.94 feet, thence N02°29'17"E 581.33 feet, thence
S87°45'36"E 659.95 feet, thence S02°24'36"W 702.29 feet, thence N87°33'34"W 660.90 feet to the
POINT OF BEGINNING: Containing 10.60 acres more or less subject to easements and right of way of
record.
RZN 15-5214
EXHIBIT `B'
LEGAL DESCRIPTION BYJORGENSEN: (ZONING: C-3) (PARCEL 16)
A part of the SW1/4 of the NW1/4 of Section 27, T17N, R30W in Washington County, Arkansas, and
being described as follows: Commencing at the SW Corner of said SW1/4, NW1/4, thence N02°29'17"E
47.32 feet, thence S88°20'38"E 21.51 feet, thence N00°25'06"E 71.11 feet, thence N87°39'29"W 18.94
feet, thence N02°29'17"E 581.33 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence N02°29'17"E 525.51 feet,
thence S87°39'07"E 659.23 feet, thence S02°24'36"W 524.27 feet, thence N87°45'36"W 659.95 feet to
the POINT OF BEGINNING: Containing 7.95 acres more or less subject to easements and right of way of
record.
WG LAND COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
PO Box 8157
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72703
TO: Sondra Smith
City Clerk
RECEIVED
City of Fayetteville
113 W Mountain Street, Room 308
NOV 13 2015
Fayetteville, AR 72701
CITY OFFAYEVIZI.
CITY CLERKS S OFFICE
DATE: November 12, 2015
RE: RZN 15-5214
This is an appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission on November 9, 2015, to deny the
rezoning request of WG LAND COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ("WG LAND") as set forth in the
application for RZN 15-5214.
This appeal is made pursuant to Section 155.05 of the Uniform Development Code. The decision
of the Planning Commission was in error in that the applicant has presented a zoning request that is in
conformity with the Future Land Use Map as published by the City of Fayetteville and with the applicable
zoning criteria of Chapter 161 the Uniform Development Code.
The applicant further states that the denial of the zoning request by the Planning Commission was
in error in not following the Memorandum of Understanding dated April 1, 2008, between the City of
Fayetteville and the applicant which was approved by the City Council as Resolution No. 76-08. The
background and details of the Resolution are stated in a letter dated October 27, 2015, from Kit Williams
to Andrew Garner and contained in the records for RZN 15-5214.
The Memorandum of Understanding was the basis upon which WG LAND filed a de -annexation
lawsuit against the City of Johnson based on the stated representations of the City of Fayetteville. One of
the representations was that the land being annexed into the City of Fayetteville would be rezoned to a
Commercial Zoning District. The Memorandum was signed on behalf of WG LAND by Robert Whitfield
as a General Partner. Robert Whitfield was a licensed real estate broker for many years and developed real
estate. His understanding of a Commercial Zoning District was from the perspective of a licensed real
estate professional which would be the three commercial zones in existence in 2008 — Cl, C2 and C3.
Another point in the Memorandum was that the R/A zoning would continue until future
improvements were commenced. The land has been agriculture with cattle until recently when the
development of the land for commercial use commenced. The applicant and related parties have expended
significant sums on engineering, core drilling, site evaluations, street planning, and a myriad of other
activities that are part of commencing development of a large tract of land. The completion of the Van
Asche Extension is itself a commencement of construction. "Actual development" is the not the final
completion and occupancy of a building on the land; it is the process that begins with activities that have
been underway for the last 18 months or so by the WG LAND and others.
Sondra Smith
City Clerk
November l2, 20I5
Page 2
WG LAND COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
Gerald Xchnes, General Ptaier
City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form
2015-0544
Legistar File ID
12/1/2015
City Council Meeting Date - Agenda Item Only
N/A for Non -Agenda Item
City Planning/
Andrew Garner 11/18/2015 Development Services Department
Submitted By Submitted Date Division / Department
Action Recommendation:
RZN 15-5214: Rezone (WEST OF N. GREGG AVE. & W. VAN ASCHE DR./WG LAND COMPANY, 210): Submitted by
TOM TERMINELLA for properties located WEST OF N. GREGG AVE. & W. VAN ASCHE DR. INTERSECTION. The
properties are zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL and contain approximately 186.65 acres. The request is to
rezone the properties to C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and C-3, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL.
Budget Impact:
Account Number
Fund
Project Number Project Title
Budgeted Item? NA Current Budget $
Funds Obligated $
Current Balance
Does item have a cost? No Item Cost
Budget Adjustment Attached? NA Budget Adjustment
Remaining Budget
V20140710
Previous Ordinance or Resolution #
Original Contract Number:
Comments:
Approval Date:
CITY OF
e uviile CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
ARKANSAS
MEETING OF DECEMBER 1, 2015
TO: Mayor, Fayetteville City Council
FROM: Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director
DATE: November 18, 2015
SUBJECT: RZN 15-5214: Rezone (WEST OF N. GREGG AVE. & W. VAN ASCHE
DR./WG LAND COMPANY, 210): Submitted by TOM TERMINELLA for
properties located WEST OF N. GREGG AVE. & W. VAN ASCHE DR.
INTERSECTION. The properties are zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL
AGRICULTURAL and contain approximately 186.65 acres. The request is
to rezone the properties to C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and C-
3, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on planning and zoning criteria, the Planning Commission and staff recommend denial of
an ordinance to rezone the property to C-2, Thoroughfare Commerical and C-3, Central
Commercial. Staff is supportive of portions of the property being rezoned to C -2/C-3, particularly
along the boundaries with adjacency to the interstate and railroad, with the balance of the interior
of the property being rezoned for commercial uses through one of the City's form -based zones.
The applicant has appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council.
Please refer to the memos arovided by the City Attorney regarding the legal imalications and
former ag reements of Resolution 76-08 made between the property owner and City. This planning
recommendation, made before this resolution was brought to the staffs attention, assumes that
the City is not limited by Resolution 76-08 to zone the property to specific zones such as C-1, C-
2, or C-3. The Planning Staff makes planning recommendations based on the specific findings
used in a rezoning application and found in the staff report, and does not attempt to interpret the
legal matters of a resolution that was never discussed at the Planning Commission. All legal
interpretation and recommendations around Resolution 76-08 and the memorandum of
understanding fall under the purview of the City Attorney, and staff appreciates that offices'
direction in these matters.
BACKGROUND:
Background: This is a large undeveloped area of 186.65 acres generally bounded by the 1-49
corridor to the west, Fulbright Expressway to the south, Gregg Avenue to the east, and Jupiter
Drive to the north. The property is undeveloped farmland that has recently been bisected by the
City's construction of Van Asche Drive across the property connecting to Highway 112 just west
of 1-49. The property is currently zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural. The site includes an isolated
undeveloped 4 -acre parcel on the south side of the Fulbright Expressway along Gregg Avenue.
Mailing Address:
113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Request: The applicant requests to rezone the property to the zoning districts listed in Table I
and depicted in the attached rezoning exhibit. The applicant indicated that the rezoning is
necessary to support future development of the site.
Table 1
Proposed Zoning
Proposed Zoning Acres (approximate)
C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial 118.40
C-3, Central Commercial 68.25
TOTAL 186.65
City of Johnson's Comment on this Rezoning: Pursuant to state law, the portion of this rezoning
within 1,000 feet of the City of Johnson must also be approved by the City of Johnson. The Mayor
of Johnson and their staff engineer submitted a letter to the City of Fayetteville discussing that
residential uses would be incompatible with the existing industrial zones located in Johnson.
These industrial areas are located to the west of McGuire Street and east of Roosevelt Avenue.
Regardless of the zoning district adopted, staff recommends that the rezoning ordinance include
a provision excluding all residential use within 1,000 feet of the industrial -zoned property in
Johnson. Most all of the city's zoning districts (including C-2 and C-3) allow residential use either
as a primary or accessory use. This provision is needed to accommodate the City of Johnson's
request pursuant to state law.
City Council Agreement with WG Land Company: On April 1, 2008 the City Council adopted
Resolution 76-08 referring to a Memorandum of Understanding regarding the WG Land Company
property (attached). This resolution stated an understanding between the City and WG land
Company that WG land Company would seek to de -annex its property abutting the proposed Van
Asche extension from the City of Johnson, and in return the City would annex the property: (1)
zoned as R -A, Residential Agricultural until development of improvements commenced; (2) that
as the property was brought into development, north of Van Asche shall be rezoned industrial;
and (3) that as the property was brought into development, south of Van Asche shall be rezoned
for a commercial zoning district.
During several pre -application meetings with the applicant on the rezoning, this resolution was
never mentioned to City Planning or Development Services Department staff. The Planning
Commission and City Planning staff were made aware of the resolution by the City Attorney after
the rezoning recommendation was published, following the Planning Commission agenda
session. However, because staff and the Commission felt the agreement was general and does
not specify a certain zoning district, the recommendation for denial included discussion that a
smaller portion of continuous highway commercial and form -based commercial zoning districts
would be preferred to the applicant's request. However, further discussion with the City Attorney
has advised that the legal interpretation retation of this resolution is that the City must rezone the property
to either C-1. C-2. or C-3.
It is ultimately up to City Council to decide if the resolution that the Council passed in 2008 limits
the zoning options to C-1, C-2, or C-3 or if all commercial zones available now or then are
available. Depending upon how the Council interprets the resolution, staff has two alternative
recommendations for this rezoning:
Alternative 1
Zoning is limited to C-1, C-2, or C-3
If the zoning options on this property are limited to C-1, C-2, and C-3 by the stated agreement
found in Resolution 76-08, staff would recommend in favor of the applicant's request for C-2 and
C-3. It is our understanding that the City Attorney's legal position is that these three commercial
zones are the only zones available from which the applicant could choose and meet the definition
of commercial — please refer to the City Attorney's correspondence on this matter.The C-1 zoning
district is geared primarily for smaller neighborhood scale commercial buildings that would prohibit
the development of this property as a large, regional -scale commercial destination, which is the
scale of the City Plan designation for much of the site.
Alternative 2
Zoning is not limited to C-1, C-2, or C-3
If zoning is not limited to C-1, C-2, or C-3, staff recommends denial of the applicant's request for
the reasons generally discussed below and described in detail in the Planning Commission staff
report. Staff has presented zoning recommendations to the applicant that would be supported.
These recommendations include utilizing primarily form -based commercial zoning districts along
the Van Asche Road corridor and interior to the property to create a walkable, urban, regional
destination. The property frontages along 1-49 and Fulbright Expressway would be appropriate to
be rezoned and developed in suburban, auto -oriented zoning districts such as C-2 or C-3, given
lack of potential for walkable commercial districts in these areas and proximity to highway traffic.
Land Use Compatibility: The proposed C-2 and C-3 commercial zoning is generally compatible
with the surrounding 1-49/Fulbright Expressway transportation corridor and undeveloped land to
the north, west, and south. The zoning will allow a high level of density and intensity compared to
the single family neighborhood to the east and will establish non -industrial uses in close proximity
to some established industrial facilities. The larger areas around this neighborhood have been
developed or planned for non-residential growth for many years.
Land Use Plan Analysis: Staff finds that portions of the C-2 and C-3 rezoning request are
consistent with the City's land use planning objectives, policies and future land use plan, but that
a large portion of the rezoning, particularly interior to the site, is in conflict with these criterion and
policies. Some of the primary staff concerns include rezoning the entire site to a zoning that
prescribes suburban (auto -oriented) development rather than traditional (pedestrian -oriented)
town form. The applicant proposes the entire site to be rezoned to the C-2 and C-3 suburban
zoning districts. These districts would continue the suburban development pattern of the CMN
Business Park/Northwest Arkansas Mall Area into this site. This conflicts with the City's adopted
land use policies dating back to 2004 with the adoption of the Downtown Master Plan and to 2006
with the adoption of City Plan 2025. At that time, after a city-wide planning effort and as a result
of hundreds of citizens providing input, Council adopted policies that directed change from
previous decades of suburban development patterns. Citizens and elected officials indicated a
desire for new development to be walkable and for neighborhoods to be complete, compact, and
connected. This lead to the adoption of six primary goals in City Plan 2025, which were reiterated
into the current plan (City Plan 2030). The rezoning is not consistent with these Council -adopted
goals as discussed further in the Planning Commission staff report.
DISCUSSION:
This request was discussed and tabled at the October 26, 2015 Planning Commission meeting.
At that meeting one member of the public spoke in favor of applicant's rezoning discussing sales
tax revenue that could be generated from commercial development. On November 9, 2015 the
Planning Commission denied this request by a vote of 9-0-0. One member of the public discussed
opposition to the applicant's proposed rezoning citing that we have enough C-2 zoning in the city
and we need progressive zoning and mixed use, walkable neighborhoods to attract and retain the
Millennial generation.
The primary point of discussion by the Commission at both of these meetings was that the
applicant's proposal for suburban zoning districts was not consistent with the overall goals and
policies of the city's Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Further, the Planning Commission members
stated that the recommendation for a majority of the site to be rezoned to form -based commercial
zoning districts met the requirement that that this property would be zoned commercial, per the
previously adopted resolution indicating the property be rezoned commercial.
The City Attorney has concerns with staff and the Planning Commission's recommendation as
discussed at the meeting and submitted in writing (attached). He generally discussed concerns
that form -based commercial zoning districts recommended for this property by the Commission
and staff do not meet the intent of the adopted resolution to rezone this property to commercial.
Ultimately the City_Attorneys opinion is the one that matters in the case of legal interpretation of
the adopted resolution, not the Planning Staff nor the Planning Commission. The Planning Staff
and Planning Commission's recommendation should be based in planning and zoning findings.
BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT:
N/A
Attachments:
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Planning Commission Staff Report
4
CITY OF
7ayrle PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO
AS
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission
FROM: Andrew Garner, City Planning Director
MEETING DATE: November 9, 2015 Updated with Planning Commission results
SUBJECT: RZN 15-5214: Rezone (WEST OF N. GREGG AVE. & W. VAN ASCHE
DRJWG LAND COMPANY, 210): Submitted by TOM TERMINELLA for
properties located WEST OF N. GREGG AVE. & W. VAN ASCHE DR.
INTERSECTION. The properties are zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL
AGRICULTURAL and contain approximately 186.65 acres. The request is
to rezone the properties to C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and C-
3, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of RZN 15-5214 for the reasons discussed herein.
BACKGROUND:
October 26, 2015 Planning Commission: This item was tabled at the October 26, 2015 Planning
Commission meeting. The request has been modified slightly from this previous meeting by
removing the proposed UT zoning and replacing it with C-3.
Property Description: This is a large undeveloped area -of 186.65 acres generally bounded by I-
49 corridor to the west, Fulbright Expressway to the south, Gregg Avenue to the east, and Jupiter
Drive to the north. The property is undeveloped farmland that has recently been bisected by the
City's construction of Van Asche Drive across the property connecting to Highway 112 just west
of 1-49. The property is currently zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural. The site includes an
undeveloped 4 -acre parcel on the south side of the Fulbright Expressway along Gregg Avenue.
The surrounding land use and zoning is depicted in Table 1.
Table 1
Surrounding Land use and Zoning
Direction Land Use Zoning
from Site
North Undeveloped hillside (City of Johnson); Tune Concrete A-1, i..p . ) Agriculture
South Fulbright Expressway; undeveloped rural R -O; R -A
East Arkansas Missouri Railway Corridor; undeveloped; Tune Concrete; R -A; C-1; RSF-4; C-2;
Johnson Road Subdivision; Washington Regional Medical Center P-1
West 1-49; Industrial, undeveloped C-2; I-1
Mailing Address: Planning Commission
113 W. Mountain Street www.fayett �e99v2015
Fayetteville, AR 72701 Agenda Item 4
15-5214 WG Land Co.
Page 1 of 34
DISCUSSION:
Request: The applicant requests to rezone the property to the zoning districts listed in Table 2,
depicted in the attached rezoning exhibit. The applicant indicated that the rezoning is necessary
to support future development of the site.
Table 2
Proposed Zoning
Proposed Zoning Acres (approximate)
C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial 118.40
C-3, Central Commercial 68.25
TOTAL 186.65
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Streets: The subject property has access to the newly constructed Van Asche Drive
(Principal Arterial) through the center of the site. Van Asche Drive is improved to
four lanes divided by a center median with curb, gutter, storm drainage, sidewalk,
and a multi -use trail/cycle track. The area is bounded by Gregg Avenue (Minor
Arterial) to the east, however, access is limited due to the Arkansas Missouri
Railroad along the eastern property line. The site is also accessed vial McGuire
Avenue, Jupiter Drive, and Roosevelt Avenue, all two-lane unimproved streets
along the northern portions of the site. Access to the south and west is constrained
because of the 1-49 and Fulbright Expressway transportation corridors. Access to
the west is provided with the new connection of Van Asche Drive to Highway 112
under 1-49.
Water: Public water is available to portions of the site. An 8 -inch public main exists along
portions of Van Asche Drive, and portions of Roosevelt Avenue. An existing 36 -
inch water transmission main runs along Van Ashe Drive. This will need to be taken
into consideration when developing the property to maintain proper setbacks.
Public water will likely need to be extended to serve the property at the time of
development. Any extensions of public mains will be the responsibility of the
developer.
Sewer: Sanitary sewer is available to a portion of the site. There is an existing 8 -inch main
along the north side of Fulbright Expressway, and northeast of the on ramp to I-
49. Public sanitary sewer will likely need to be extended to serve the property at
the time of development. Any extensions of public mains will be the responsibility
of the developer.
Drainage: Any additional improvements or requirements for drainage will be determined at
time of development. This property is not affected by the 100 -year floodplain. This
parcel does not contain any protected streams per the Streamside Protection map.
A large portion of the site is shown to contain hydric soils, which is an indicator of
wetland areas. An evaluation by an appropriate environmental professional will be
required at the time of development.
Planning Commission
G:\ETC\Development Services Review\2015\Development Review\15-5214 RZN Van Asche & Gregg (WG Land) November 9, 2015
\03 Planning Commission\10-26-2015\Comments and Redlines Agenda Item 4
15-5214 WG Land Co.
Page 2 of 34
Fire: The Fire Department has expressed no concerns with this request.
Police: The Fire Department has expressed no concerns with this request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required
Date: October 26, 2015 X_ Tabled O Forwarded O Denied
Motion: Chesser
Second: Selby
Vote: 5-0-0
Date: November 9, 2015 O Tabled 11 Forwarded X Denied
Motion: Chesser_
Second: Hoffman
Vote: 9-0-0
CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Required
Date: O Approved O Denied
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of RZN 15-5214 not primarily because of the
land uses, but because of the suburban development pattern proposed on the entire site. Staff
agrees with the applicant's proposal for heavy commercial uses over much of the property.
However, staff finds that the C-2 and C-3 suburban zoning districts proposed over the entire
property are in direct contrast to Goal 3 of City Plan 2030: "We will make a traditional town form
the standard."While suburban development patterns are likely and appropriate along the site's I-
49 and Fulbright Expressway frontage, the interior of the site is appropriate to be developed in a
"traditional town form" as referenced above. Because the site is completely undeveloped, the form
of development faces no physical or environmental constraints to meet the City's adopted policy
for better, safer, more efficient forms of development. Clearly there are exceptions along the
interstate, expressway and railroad corridor, and staff is not opposed to suburban zoning districts
in these locations, for practical purposes.
CITY PLAN 2030 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN:
The City Plan 2030 Future Land Use Plan map (FLUM) identifies this area City Neighborhood
Area north of Van Asche Drive and Urban Center Area south of Van Asche.
City Neighborhood Areas are more densely developed than residential neighborhood
areas and provide a varying mix of nonresidential and residential uses. This designation
supports the widest spectrum of uses and encourages density in all housing types, from
single family to multifamily. Non-residential uses range in size, variety and intensity from
grocery stores and offices to churches, and are typically located at corners and along
connecting corridors. The street network should have a high number of intersections
creating a system of small blocks with a high level of connectivity between neighborhoods.
Planning Commission
G:\ETC\Development Services Review\2015\Development Review\15-5214 RZN Van Asche & Gregg (WG Land) November 9, 2015
\03 Planning Commission\10-26-2015\Comments and Redlines Agenda Item 4
15-5214 WG Land Co
Page 3 of 34
Setbacks and landscaping are urban in form with street trees typically being located within
the sidewalk zone.
Urban Center Areas contain the most intense and dense development patterns within
the City, as well as the tallest and greatest variety of buildings. They accommodate
rowhouses, apartments, local and regional retail, including large-scale stores, hotels,
clean tech industry and entertainment uses. These areas are typified by their location
adjacent to major thoroughfares with high visibility, usually automobile -dependent
customers and large areas dedicated to parking. Although Urban Center Areas recognize
the conventional big -box and strip retail centers developed along major arterials, it is
expected that vacant properties will be developed into traditional mixed -use centers,
allowing people to live, work and shop in the same areas. Additionally, infill of existing
development centers should be strongly encouraged, since there is greater return for
properties already served by public infrastructure.
FINDINGS OF THE STAFF
1. A determination of the degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent with land use
planning objectives, principles, and policies and with land use and zoning plans.
Finding: Surrounding Land Use Compatibility: The proposed use of the property for
a mixture of commercial and residential properties is generally compatible
with the surrounding 1-49/Fulbright Expressway transportation corridor and
undeveloped land to the north, west, and south. The zoning will allow a high
level of density and intensity compared to the single family neighborhood to
the east and will establish non -industrial uses in close proximity to some
established industrial facilities, the larger areas around this neighborhood
have been developed or planned for non-residential growth for many years.
Land Use Plan Analysis: Staff finds that portions of the rezoning request are
consistent with the City's land use planning objectives, policies and future
land use plan, but that a large portion of the rezoning, particularly interior to
the site, is in conflict with these criterion and policies. Some of the primary
staff concerns include rezoning the entire site to a zoning that prescribes
suburban (auto -oriented) development rather than traditional (pedestrian -
oriented) town form. The applicant proposes the entire site (187 acres) to be
rezoned to the C-2 and C-3 suburban zoning districts. These districts would
continue the suburban development pattern of the CMN Business
Park/Northwest Arkansas Mall Area into this site. This conflicts with the
City's adopted land use policies dating back to 2006 with the adoption of City
Plan 2025. At that time after a city-wide planning effort and as a result of
hundreds of citizens providing input, Council adopted policies that directed
change from previous decades of suburban development patterns. Citizens
and elected officials indicated a desire for new development to be walkable
and for neighborhoods to be complete, compact, and connected. This lead
to the adoption of six primary goals in City Plan 2025, which were reiterated
into the current plan (City Plan 2030). The rezoning is not completely
consistent with these goals as discussed in Table 3.
Planning Commission
G:\ETC\Development Services Review\2015\Development Review\15-5214 RZN Van Asche & Gregg (WG Land) November 9, 2015
\03 Planning Commission\10-26-2015\Comments and Redlines Agenda Item 4
15-5214 WG Land Co.
Page 4 of 34
Table 3
RZN 15-5214 Compliance with City Plan 2030
City Plan 2030 RZN 15-5214 Compliance With
Goals City Plan 2030
Goal 1: We will make
appropriate infill and
revitalization our highest
priorities.
Goal 2: We will discourage
suburban sprawl.
Goal 3: We will make
traditional town form the
standard.
Goal 4: We will grow a livable
transportation network.
Goal 5: We will assemble an
enduring green network.
Goal 6: We will create
attainable housing.
This project is not an infill project. However the site has been recently
bisected by the construction of a new Principal Arterial Street and
development of this site with a high level of density and/or intensity has
been anticipated for years.
Rezoning the entire site to C-2 and C-3 will encourage suburban
sprawling development patterns. However, given limited access
because of surrounding 1-49/Fulbright Expressway/A&M Railway
corridor, suburban patterns are appropriate around these perimeter
areas of the site, due to practical issues with access and the intrinsic
use of these transportation corridors.
This rezoning will not result in a traditional town form as discussed in
Finding No. 1.
This rezoning would encourage intense development near Principal
Arterials. The density and intensity of this rezoning would help define a
node, or concentration of development in this vicinity of the City,
helping towards the goal of public transit. However, the suburban
zoning districts do not encourage a well-connected and livable
transportation network that supports multiple types of vehicular and
pedestrian movement, especially those identified within a neighborhood
development pattern. This zoning will likely lead to a suburban
commercial street system of large blocks where driving between
developments is required.
Not applicable. This site does not have a high level of environmental
resources that have been identified during the rezoning process The
property has been utilized for cattle/hay farming for many years.
Rezoning this site to commercial suburban zoning districts does not
make inclusion of housing a feasible possibility.
This area is designated on the FLUM as Urban Center Area south of Van
Asche Drive, and City Neighborhood Area north of Van Asche Drive. The City
Neighborhood Area designation recognizes existing conventional strip
commercial developments, but encourages new development in a more
complete, compact and connected development pattern. This designation
intends for non-residential services to serve the residents of Fayetteville,
rather than the regional population. The Urban Center Designation contains
the most intense and dense development patterns within the city and are
intended to serve not only Fayetteville but the region. As with the City
Neighborhood designation, development in the Urban Center Areas should
utilize principals of traditional urban design to create compatible, livable and
accessible neighborhoods.
2. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the
rezoning is proposed.
Finding: The City has recently completed construction of the Van Asche Drive project
through this property. A rezoning is needed because of the development
Planning Commission
G:\ETC\Development Services Review\2015\Development Review\15-5214 RZN Van Asche & Gregg (WG Land) November 9, 2015
\03 Planning Commission\10-26-2015\Comments and Redlines Agenda Item 4
15-5214 WG Land Co.
Page 5 of 34
pressure that will result from this project, in addition to the FLUM
designating this land for future development. The existing R -A zoning is not
appropriate for the long term. However, Guiding Policy 'G' of the Urban
Center Area designation states:
"Approve new regional commercial development as Planning Zoning
Districts (e.g. shopping centers, business parks, medical parks, industrial
parks and mixed -use developments) or complete neighborhood plans in
order to assure the overall integration of design and use."
Staff finds that the rezoning is not justified as currently submitted and
recommends utilization of primarily form -based zoning districts, a PZD, or a
complete neighborhood plan as indicated in the policy above to assure that
development of this major regional shopping destination meets the City's
goals.
3. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase
traffic danger and congestion.
Finding: A rezoning this size will allow a large volume of development that will
increase traffic. The site is severely constrained from traffic access because
of the surrounding interstate highways and railway corridors which could
lead to severe traffic congestion. However, as discussed earlier in this
report, the City's Van Asche Drive project has recently been completed,
facilitating planned growth in the area and providing a beneficial east/west
transportation corridor connecting Hwy 112 and Gregg Avenue. As
individual developments are reviewed, on and off -site street improvements
will be reviewed and recommended. As mentioned under Finding No. 1,
rezoning the site as proposed will likely lead to a suburban commercial
street system of large blocks of wide roadways where driving between
developments is required, adding to the congestion on surrounding streets.
4. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would alter the population density and
thereby undesirably increase the load on public services including schools, water, and
sewer facilities.
Finding: The proposed rezoning could increase the population density over the
current low density zoning that allows 1 unit per 2 acres. The applicant
proposes to rezone 68 acres of the site to C-3. This district allows multi-
family development with unlimited density. Commercial uses allowed with
this rezoning would create additional demand on public services. However,
development of this area has been anticipated for many years and the load
created on public services is not an undesirable or detrimental impact, with
improvements required at the time of development.
5. If there are reasons why the proposed zoning should not be approved in view of
considerations under b (1) through (4) above, a determination as to whether the proposed
zoning is justified and/or necessitated by peculiar circumstances such as:
a. It would be impractical to use the land for any of the uses permitted under its
existing zoning classifications;
Planning Commission
G:\ETC\Development Services Review\2015\Development Review\15-5214 RZN Van Asche & Gregg (WG Land) November 9, 2015
\03 Planning Commission\10-26-2015\Comments and Redlines Agenda Item 4
15-5214 WG Land Co
Page 6 of 34
b. There are extenuating circumstances which justify the rezoning even though there
are reasons under b (1) through (4) above why the proposed zoning is not
desirable.
Finding: N/A
BUDGETISTAFF IMPACT:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
• Existing and proposed zoning criteria
• Request letter
• City attorney memo and Resolution 76-08
• Email from former mayor Dan Coody
• Current land use map
• Close up map
• Future land use map
• One mile map
Planning Commission
G:\ETC\Development Services Review\2015\Development Review\15-5214 RCN Van Asche & Gregg (WG Land) November 9, 2015
\03 Planning Commission\10-26-2015\Comments and Redlines Agenda Item 4
15-5214 WG Land Co.
Page 7 of 34
161.03 District R -A, Residential -Agricultural
(A) Purposes. The regulations of the agricultural district are designed to protect agricultural land until an orderly transition to urban
development has been accomplished; prevent wasteful scattering of development in rural areas; obtain economy of public funds
in the providing of public improvements and services of orderly growth; conserve the tax base; provide opportunity for affordable
housing, increase scenic attractiveness; and conserve open space.
(B) Uses.
(1) Permitted uses.
Unit 1
City-wide uses by right
Unit 3
Public protection and utility facilities
Unit 6
Agriculture
Unit 7
Animal husbandry
Unit 8
Single-family dwellings
Unit 9
Two-family dwellings
Unit 37
Manufactured homes
Unit 41
Accessory dwellings
Unit 43
Animal boarding and training
(2) Conditional uses.
Unit 2 City-wide uses by conditional use permit
Unit 4 Cultural and recreational facilities
Unit 5
Government facilities
Unit 20
Commercial recreation, large sites
Unit 24
J Home occupations
Unit 35
Outdoor Music Establishments
Unit 36
Wireless communications facilities
Unit 42
Clean technologies
(C) Density
Units per acre One-half
(D) Bulk and area regulations.
m
200 ft.
m:
EArea
ntial:
2 acres
sidential:
2 acres
dwelling unit
2 acres
E) Setback requirements
Front Side Rear
35 ft. I 20ft 35ft
(F) Height requirements There shall be no maximum height limits in the A-1 District, provided, however, that any building which
exceeds the height of 15 feet shall be setback from any boundary line of any residential district a distance 01 1.0 foot for each
foot of height in excess of 15 feet. Such setbacks shall be measured from the required setback lines.
(G) Building area, None,
(Code 1965, App. A , Art. 5(1); Ord. No. 1747, 6-29-70; Code 1991, §160.030; Ord No 4100, §2 (Ex. A), 6-16-98; Ord. No 4178, 8-
31-99; Ord. 5028, 6-19-07; Ord. 5128, 4-15-08; Ord, 5195, 11-6-08; Ord. 5238, 5-5-09, Ord. 5479, 2-7-12)
Planning Commission
G:\ETC\Development Services Review\2015\Development Review\15-5214 RZN Van Asche & Gregg (WG Land) November 9, 2015
\03 Planning Commission\10-26-2015\Comments and Redlines Agenda Item 4
15-5214 WG Land Co.
Page 8 01 34
161.20 District C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial
(A) Purpose. The Thoroughfare Commercial District is designed especially to encourage the functional grouping of these commercial
enterprises catering primarily to highway travelers.
(B) Uses
(1) Permitted uses.
Unit 1
City-wide uses by right
Unit 4
Cultural and recreational facilities
Unit 5
Government Facilities
Unit 13
Eating places
Unit 14
Hotel, motel. and amusement facilities
Unit 16
Shopping goods
Unit 17
Transportation trades and services
Unit 18
Gasoline service stations and drive-in/drive
through restaurants
Unit 19
Commercial recreation, small sites
_
_Unit 20
Commercial recreation, large sites
Unit 25
Offices, studios, and related services
Unit 33
Adult live entertainment club or bar
Unit 34
Liquor store
Unit 44
Cottage Housing Development
Unit 45
Small scale production
(2) Conditional uses
Unit 2
City-wide uses by conditional use permit
Unit 3
Public protection and utility facilities
Unit 21
Warehousing and wholesale
Unit 28
Center for collecting recyclable materials
Unit 29
Dance Halls
Unit 32
Sexually oriented business
Unit 35
Outdoor music establishments
Unit 36
Wireless communications facilities
Unit 38
Mini -storage units
Unit 40
Sidewalk Cafes
Unit 42
Clean technologies
Unit 43
Animal boarding and training
(C) Density. None.
(D) Bulk and area regulations None.
tt.1 Setback regulations.
Front
15 ft.
Front, if parking is allowed
between the right-of-way and
the building
50 h.
Side
None
Side, when contiguous to
a residential district
15 IL
Rear
20 it,
(F) Bulldinc; yhtre ulatlons.
Building He ht maximum I 75 ft.'
*Any building which exceeds the height of 20 feet shall be set back from a boundary line of any residential district a distance of
one foot for each foot of height in excess of 20 feet.
(G) Building area. On any lot, the area occupied by all buildings shall not exceed 60% of the total area of such lot.
(Code 1965, App. A., Art. 5(VI); Ord. No. 1833, 11-1-71; Ord. No. 2351, 6-2-77; Ord. No. 2603, 2-19-80; Ord No. 1747, 6-29-70; Code
1991, §160.036; Ord. No. 4034, §3,4,4-15-97; Ord. No. 4100, §2 (Ex. A), 6-16-98; Ord No 4178, 8-31-99; Ord 4727, 7-19-05; Ord.
4992, 3-06-07; Ord. 5028, 6-19-07; Ord. 5195, 11-6-08; Ord. 5312, 4-20-10; Ord. 5339, 8-3-10; 5353, 9-7-10; Ord 5462, 12-6-11;
Ord. 5592, 6-18-13; Ord. 5664, 2-18-14; Ord. 5735, 1-20-15)
Planning Commission
G:\ETC\Development Services Review\2015\Development Review\1 5-5214 RZN Van Asche & Gregg (WG Land) November 9, 2015
\03 Planning Commission\10-26-2015\Comments and Redlines Agenda Item 4
15-5214 WG Land Co.
Page 9 of 34
161.22 District C-3, Central Commercial
(A) Purpose. The Central Commercial District is designed to accommodate the commercial and related uses commonly found in the
central business district, or regional shopping centers which provide a wide range of retail and personal service uses.
(B) Uses.
t) Permitfeci uses
Unit 1
City-wide uses by right
Unit 4
Cultural and recreational facilities
Unit 5
Government facilities
Unit 13
Eating places
Unit 14
Hotel, motel, and amusement facilities
Unit 16
Shopping oods
Unit 18
Gasoline service stations & drive-in
restaurants
Unit 19
Commercial recreation, small sites
Unit 25
Offices, studios, and related services
Unit 26
Multi -family dwellings
Unit 34
Liquor stores
Unit 44 _
Cottage Housing Development
Unit 45
Small scale production
(2) Conditional uses
Unit 2
I City-wide uses by conditional use perteit
Unit 3
Public protection and utility facilities
Unit 17
Trans artation trades and services
Unit 28
Center for collecting recyclable materials
Unit 29
Dance Halls
Unit 35
Loutdoor music establishments
Unit 36
Wireless communications facilities
Unit 40
Sidewalk Cafes
Unit 42
Clean technologies
(C) Density. None.
(D) Bulk and area regulations. None
(E) Sefbackr ulatiorts.
Central
Business
Shopping
District
5 ft.
Center
25 ft
Front
Front, if parking is
allowed between
the right-of-way
and the building
50 ft.
50 ft.
Side
None
None
Side, when
contiguous to a
residential district
10 ft.
25 ft.
Rear, without
easement or alley
15 ft.
25 ft
Rear, from center
line of a public
ally -_
10 ft.
10 ft.
(F) Building height regulations.
Buitding Height Maximum J 56/84 ft
"A building or a portion of a building that is located between 0 and 15 feet from the front property line or any master street plan
right-of-way line shall have a maximum height of 56 feet. A building or a portion of a building that is located greater than 15 feet
from the master street plan right-of-way line shall have a maximum height of 84 feet
(Code 1965, App. A., Art. 5(VII); Ord. No. 2351, 6-21-77; Ord. No. 2603, 2-19-80; Ord. No. 1747, 6-29-70; Code 1991, §160.037; Ord.
No. 4100, §2 (Ex. A), 6-16-98; Ord. No. 4178, 8-31-99; Ord 4727, 7-19-05; 4863, 5-02-06; Ord. 5028, 6-19-07; Ord. 5195, 11-6-08;
Ord 5312, 4-20-10; Ord. 5462, 12-6-11; Ord. 5592, 06-18-13; Ord. 5735, 1-20-15)
G:\ETC\Development Services Review\2015\Development Review\15-5214 RZN Van Asche & Gregg Planning Commission
(WG Land) November 9,2015
103 Planning Commission\10-26-2015\Comments and Redlines Agenda Item 4
15-5214 WG Land Co.
Page 10 of 34
161.19 Community Services
(A) Purpose. The Community Services district is designed primarily to provide convenience goods and personal services for persons
living in the surrounding residential areas and is intended to provide for adaptable mixed use centers located along commercial
corridors that connect denser development nodes. There is a mixture of residential and commercial uses in a traditional urban
form with buildings addressing the street. For the purposes of Chapter 96: Noise Control, the Community Services district is a
commercial zone. The intent of this zoning district is to provide standards that enable development to be approved
administratively.
(B) Uses
(1) Permitted uses
Unit 1
City-wide uses by right
Unit 4
Cultural and recreational facilities
Unit 5
Government facilities
Unit 8
Single-family dwellings
Unit 9
Two-family dwellings
Unit 10
Three-family dwellings
Unit 13
places
Unit 15
Neighborhood Shop in goods
Unit 18
Gasoline service stations and drive-
in/drive through restaurants
Unit 24
Home occupations
Unit 25
Offices, studios and related services
Unit 26
Multi -family dwellings
Unit 44
Cottage Housing Development
Unit 45
Small scale production
Note: Any combination of above uses is permitted upon any lot within this zone. Conditional uses shall need approval when combined
with pre -approved uses.
(2) Conditional uses
Unit 2
City-wide uses by
conditional use permit
Unit 3
Public protection and utility facilities
Unit 14
Hotel, motel and amusement services
Unit 16
Shopping goods
Unit 17
Transportation, trades and services
Unit 19
Commercial recreation, small sites
Unit 28
Center for collecting
recyclable materials
Unit 34
Liquor stores
Unit 35
Outdoor music establishments
Unit 36
Wireless communication facilities'
Unit 40
Sidewalk Cafes
Unit 42
Clean technologies
(C) Density. None
(O) Bulk and area regulations
(1) Lot width minimum.
Dwelling 18 ft.
All others None
(2) Lot area minimum. None
(E) Setback regulations
Front:
A build -to zone that is located
between 10 feet and a line 25
feet from the front property line.
Side and rear:
None
Side or rear, when contiguous to a
15 feet
sin le -family residential district:
(F) Building Height Regulations.
Building Height Maximum 56 ft.
(G) Minimum buildable street frontage 50% of the lot width.
(Ord. 5312, 4-20-10; Ord. 5339, 8-3-10; Ord. 5462, 12-6-11; Ord 5592, 6-18-13; Ord. 5664, 2-18-14; Ord. 5735, 1-20-15)
161.21 Urban Thoroughfare
(A) Purpose. The Urban Thoroughfare District is designed to provide goods and services for persons living in the surrounding
communities. This district encourages a concentration of commercial and mixed use development that enhances function and
appearance along major thoroughfares. Automobile -oriented development is prevalent within this district and a wide range of
commercial uses is permitted. For the purposes of Chapter 96: Noise Control, the Urban Thoroughfare district is a commercial
zone. The intent of this zoning district is to provide standards that enable development to be approved administratively.
(B) Uses.
(1) Permitted uses
Unit 1
City-wide uses by right
Unit 4
Cultural and recreational facilities
Unit 5
Government facilities
Unit 8
Single-family dwellings
Unit 9
Two-family dwellings
Unit 10
Three-family dwellings
Unit 13
Eating laces
Unit 14
Hotel, motel and amusement services
Unit 16
Shopping goods
Unit 17
Transportation trades and services
Unit 18
Gasoline service stations and drive-in/drive
through restaurants
Unit 19
Commercial recreation, small sites
Unit 24
Home occupations
Unit 25
Offices, studios, and related services
Unit 26
Multi -family dwellings
Unit 34
Liquor store
Unit 41
Accessory Dwellings
Unit 44
Cottage Housing Development
Unit 45
Small scale production
Kate. Any eombinaltAn of above uses Es perrntltOd upon any tot within this zone. Conditional uses shall need approval when combined with pre -approved uses.
(21 Conditional uses
Unit 2
City-wide uses by conditional use permit
Unit 3
Public protection and utility facilities
Unit 20
Commercial recreation, large sites
Unit 21
Warehousing and wholesale
Unit 28
Center for collecting recyclable materials
Unit 29
Dance halls
Unit 33
Adult live entertainment club or bar
Unit 35
Outdoor music establishments
Unit 36
Wireless communication facilities
Unit 38
Mini -storage units
Unit 40
Sidewalk cafes
Unit 42
Clean technologies
Unit 43
Animal boarding and training
(C) Density None
(D) Bulk and area regulations
(1) Lot width minimum
Single-family dwelling 18 feet
All other dwellings None
Non-residential None
(2) Lot area minimum. None
tEI Setback regulations
Front:
A build -to zone that is located
between 10 feet and a line 25
feet from the front property line.
Side and rear:
None
Side or rear, when contiguous to a
15 feet
single-familysingle-famiiy residential district:
(F) fluifchrtg height re ulatfons,
[Building Height Maximum 56/84 ft.*
A building or a portion of a building that is located between 10 and 15 ft. from the front property line or any master street plan
right-of-way line shall have a maximum height of 56 feet. A building or portion of a building that is located greater than 15 feet
from the master street plan right-of-way shall have a maximum height of 84 feet, Any building that exceeds the height of 20 feet
shall be set back from any boundary line of a single-family residential district, an additional distance of one foot for each foot of
height in excess of 20 feet.
(G) Minimum buildable street frontage, 50% of the lot width.
161.23 Downtown Core
(A) Purpose Development is most intense, and land use is densest in this zone. The downtown core is designed to accommodate
the commercial, office, governmental, and related uses commonly found in the central downtown area which provides a wide
range of retail, financial, professional office, and governmental office uses. For the purposes of Chapter 96: Noise Control, the
Downtown Core district is a commercial zone.
(B) Uses
(1) Permitted uses
Unit 1
City-wide uses by right
Unit 4
Cultural and recreational facilities
Unit 5
Government facilities
Unit 8
(gle-family dwellings
Unit 9
Two-family dwellings
Unit 10
Three-family dwellings
Unit 13
Eating laces
Unit 14
Hotel, motel, and amusement facilities
Unit 16
Shopping oods
Unit 17
Transportation trades and services
Unit 19
Commercial recreation, small sites
Unit 24
Home occupations
Unit 25
Offices, studios, and related services
Unit 26
Multi -family dwellings
Unit 34
Liquor stores
Unit 44
Cottage Housing Development
Unit 45
Small scale production
Note: Any combination of above uses is permitted upon any lot within this zone. Conditional uses shall need approval when combined
with pre -approved uses.
(2) Conditional uses.
Unit 2
City-wide uses by conditional use permit
Unit 3
Public protection and utility facilities
Unit 29
Dance Halls
Unit 35
Outdoor music establishments
Unit 36
Wireless communication facilities
Unit 40
Sidewalk Cafes
Unit 42
Clean technologies
(C) Density. None.
(D) Bulk and area regulations. None.
E Setback regulations.
Front
A build -to zone that is
located between the front
property line and a line 25
ft. from the front property
line.
Side
None
Rear
5 ft.
Rear, from center line of
12 ft.
an alley
(F) Minimum buildable street frontage. 80% of lot width.
(G) Building height regulations
ELBuiding Height Maximum 56/168 ft.*
*A building or a portion of a building that is located between 0 and 15 feet from the front property line or any master street plan
right-of-way line shall have a maximum height of 56 feet. A building or portion of a building that is located greater than 15 feet
from the master street plan right-of-way shall have a maximum height of 168 feet.
(Ord. 5028, 6-19-07; Ord. 5029, 6-19-07; Ord. 5195, 11-6-08; Ord 5312, 4-20-10; Ord. 5462, 12-6-11; Ord. 5592, 6-18-13; Ord. 5664,
2-18-14; Ord, 5735, 1-20-15)
161.24 Main Street/Center
(A) Purpose. A greater range of uses is expected and encouraged in the Main Street/Center. The Center is more spatially compact
and is more likely to have some attached buildings than Downtown General or Neighborhood Conservation. Multi -story buildings
in the Center are well -suited to accommodate a mix of uses, such as apartments or offices above shops. Lofts, live/work units,
and buildings designed for changing uses over time are appropriate for the Main Street/Center. The Center is within walking
distance of the surrounding, primarily residential areas. For the purposes of Chapter 96: Noise Control, the Main Street/Center
district is a commercial zone.
(B) Uses.
(1) Permitted uses.
Unit 1
City-wide uses by right
Unit 4
Cultural and recreational facilities
Unit 5
Government facilities
Unit 8
Sinftle-family dwellings
Unit 9
Two-family dwellings _
Unit 10
Three-family dwellings
Unit 13
Eating places
Unit 14
Hotel, motel, and amusement facilities
Unit 16
Shopping oods
Unit 17
Transportation trades and services
Unit 19
Commercial recreation, small sites
Unit 24
Home occupations
Unit 25
Offices, studios, and related services
Unit 26
Multi -family dwellings
Unit 34
Liquor stores
Unit 44
Cottage Housing Development
Unit 45
Small scale roduction
Note: Any combination of above uses is permitted upon any lot within this zone. Conditional uses shall need approval when combined
with pre -approved uses.
f2} Conditional uses.
Unit 2
City-wide uses by conditional use permit
Unit 3
Public protection and utility facilities
Unit 18
Gasoline service stations and drive-
in/drive through restaurants
Unit 28
Center for collecting recyclable materials
Unit 29
Dance halls
Unit 35
Outdoor music establishments
Unit 36
Wireless communication facilities
Unit 40
Sidewalk Cafes
Unit 42
Clean technologies
(C) Density. None.
(D) Bulk and area regulations.
(1) Lot width minimum.
Dwelling (ail unit types) I 18 ft.
(2) Lot area minimum. None.
IE) Setback reaiilations.
Front
A build -to zone that is
located between the
front property line and a
line 25 ft. from the front
property line.
Side
None
Rear
5 ft..
Rear, from center line of an
12 ft.
alley
(F) Minimum buildable street frontage. 75% of lot width.
(G) Building height regulations.
Bui1ding Height Maximum 56/84 0
*A building or a portion of a building that is located between 0 and 15 feet from the front property line or any master street plan
right-of-way line shall have a maximum height of 56 feet. A building or a portion of a building that is located greater than 15 feet
from the master street plan right-of-way line shall have a maximum height of 84 feet.
(Ord. 5028, 6-19-07; Ord. 5029, 6-19-07; Ord. 5042, 8-07-07; Ord, 5195, 11-6-08; Ord. 5312, 4-20-10; Ord. 5339, 8-3-10; Ord. 5462,
12-6-11; Ord. 5592, 6-18-13; Ord. 5664, 2-18-14; Ord. 5735, 1-20-15)
161.25 Downtown General
(A) Purpose. Downtown General is a flexible zone, and it is not limited to the concentrated mix of uses found in the Downtown Core
or Main Street / Center. Downtown General includes properties in the neighborhood that are not categorized as identifiable
centers, yet are more intense in use than Neighborhood Conservation. There is a mixture of single-family homes, rowhouses,
apartments, and live/work units. Activities include a flexible and dynamic range of uses, from public open spaces to less intense
residential development and businesses. For the purposes of Chapter 96: Noise Control, the Downtown General district is a
residential zone.
(B) Uses.
1 Permitted uses.
Unit 1
City-wide uses by right
Unit 4
Cultural and recreational facilities
Unit 5
Government facilities
Unit 8
Jpgle-family dwellings
Unit 9
Two-family dwellings
Unit 10
Three-family dwellings
Unit 13
Eating places
Unit 15
Neighborhood shopping oods
Unit 24
Home occupations
Unit 25
Offices, studios, and related services
Unit 26
Multi -family dwellings
Unit 44
Cottage Housing Development
Unit 45
Small scale production
Note: Any combination of above uses is permitted upon any lot within this zone. Conditional uses shall need approval when combined
with pre -approved uses.
(2) Conditional uses
Unit 2
City-wide uses by
conditional use permit
Unit 3
Public protection and utility facilities
Unit 14
Hotel, motel and amusement services
Unit 16
Shopppg goods
Unit 17
Transportation trades and services
Unit 19
Commercial recreation: small sites
Unit 28
Center for collecting
recyclable materials
Unit 36
Wireless communication facilities
Unit 40
Sidewalk Cafes
(C) Density. None
(D) Bulk and area regulations
(1) Lot width minimum.
I Dwelling (all unit types) 1 18 ft. I
(2) Lot area minimum None
(E) Setback regulations.
Front
A build -to zone that is
located between the front
property line and a line 25
ft. from the front property
line.
Side
None
Rear
5 ft.
Rear, from center line of
12 ft.
an alley
(F) Minimum buildable street frontage. 50% of lot width.
(G) Building height regulations.
1 Building Height Maximum I 56 ft.
(Ord. 5028, 6-19-07; Ord. 5029, 6-19-07; Ord. 5312, 4-20-10; Ord. 5462, 12-6-11; Ord. 5592, 6-18-13; Ord. 5664, 2-18-14; Ord 5735,
1-20-15)
Garner, Andrew
From: Tom <terminella@aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 5:05 AM
To: Garner, Andrew
Subject: Re: Van Asche Rezoning Recommendation
Andrew,
I got your voice mail yesterday and the only change I have is UT zoning to C-3 on both tracts. Any questions please call.
Tom Terminella
The Terminella Company Inc.
24 East Meadow Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
(Cell) 479-841-1621
Email:
tterminella@aol,com
On Oct 8, 2015, at 9:05 AM, Garner, Andrew <grner@fayetteviiIear.tiav> wrote:
Sounds good. See you guys Tuesday the 13`" at your office.
Andrew
From: Tom Overbey [mailto:toverbey@artaxlaw.coml
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 8:42 AM
To: Garner, Andrew; Tom
Cc: Pate, Jeremy; Gerald Jones (geraid@flyinginvestments.com)
Subject: RE: Van Asche Rezoning Recommendation
Andrew - from those times, 2:30 PM Tuesday works best for everyone involved with
WG Land. Can we meet at my office again? Thanks.
Tor ( yE:i,
C) s` hey plat"i S
ev,yt}iii/tl'1ajF=-z. uv rl 'Y.html
This email message and any attachments are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately reply to
the sender and delete the message from your email system.
Thank you.
From: Garner, Andrew [_� �lt :agarnerfiettevilie-ar,gov]
Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2015 8:34 AM
To: Tom <tterminetla@aoI.com>
Planning Commission
November 9, 2015
Agenda Item 4
15-5214 WG Land Co.
Page 11 of 34
JORGE N S E N 124 W Sunbridge Drive, Suite 5
Fayetteville, AR 72703
+ASSOCIATES Fax:Offi4:95 2429127
07
Fax: 479 582 4807
Cv r=.. er n3 - Survey rig .>. re,s z _.= : e = Cf.
September 10, 2015
City of Fayetteville
113 W. Mountain Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Attn: Development Services
Re: Van Asche Rezoning
This letter is in regards to a proposed rezoning and the following required information:
A. The current owner of this site is as follows: WG Land Company Limited Partnership
B. Currently this property is zoned R -A. The reason for the requested rezoning is to convert the existing
agricultural land, to allow for development to occur around the newly constructed Van Asche
corridor.
C. To the west of 1-49 is C-2, to the north is a mix of vacant land along with industrial. To the east is a
mix of P-1, C-1, and RSF-4. To the south side of Fulbright Expressway is mostly vacant land with R -O
and R -A.
D. Existing water and sewer are already at this site.
E. We feel the requested zonings are in line with the goals of the City Plan 2030 for rezoning and that
development in the future in this area will to be consistent with growth patterns in this area.
F. This rezoning is needed at this time to allow this property to develop and coincides with the
construction of Van Asche.
G. This development will not adversely affect the existing or proposed streets in the area (it will
support it).
H. The potential to increase the population density in this area as a result of this rezoning would not
undesirably increase the load on public services.
1. The current agricultural zoning does not allow development along the newly constructed Van Asche.
We thank you for your consideration of this proposal and please call with any questions,
Thank you.
Sincerely;
Justin L. Jorgensen, PE
Planning Commission
November 9, 2015
Agenda Item 4
15-5214 WG Land Co
Page 12 of 34
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
OFFICE OF THE
CITY ATTORNEY Kit Williams
City Attorney
Blake Pennington
TO: Planning Commission Assistant City Attorney
Patti Mulford
Paralegal
CC: Andrew Garner, Planning Director
FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney
DATE: November 5, 2015
RE: Letter from Johnson Mayor Chris Keeney
I just received Johnson Mayor Chris Keeney's letter concerning the
proposed rezonings along Van Asche Boulevard. A.C.A. § 14-56-306 Land
use adjacent and contiguous cities to be compatible protects residents,
business owners and landowners in both Johnson and Fayetteville when
adjoining lands within 1000 feet of the city limits is being considered for
rezoning. Earlier Fayetteville rezoning applicants have sought and
received approval of the Johnson City Council of proposed rezonings in
Fayetteville pursuant to A.C.A. § 14-56-306.
As you may be aware from WG Land Company's letter of March
2008, its most northern most property (the hilltop) was above caverns used
for warehousing would have needed to be zoned industrial if brought into
Fayetteville. However, we did not annex this area.
Attached please find the letter from Mayor Keeney as well as their
enclosed Official Zoning Map of Johnson showing industrial zoning
districts abutting the proposed rezonings north of Van Asche on the west
border with the McClinton property.
Johnson Mayor Keeney's letter is possibly controlling over the
requested rezoning by McClinton. This supportive letter for the
McClinton's requested commercial rezoning is very important because the
City has no pre-existing agreement with McClinton as it does with WG
Land Company about rezoning its land "commercial." Without the City of
Johnson's objection to any non-commercial (especially residential or mixed
use) zoning for the McClinton property, the Fayetteville Planning
Commission would have much more discretion in recommending rejection
of McClinton's requested commercial -only zoning district. Now, the
Planning Commission needs to take into consideration not only the existing
industrial uses on the western border of the McClinton land for
compatibility purposes, but also the City of Johnson's statement "that the
inclusion of residential uses would be incompatible with the existing
industrial zones located in Johnson."
State law requires both cities to agree to a rezoning. Therefore, if
Johnson rejects any rezoning except to a commercial -only zoning district, it
would be improper to rezone to a residential or mixed use zoning district
that would allow residential which Johnson believes would be
incompatible with its long established industrial zoned districts.
Chris Keeney
Mayor
11/02/2015
City of Fayetteville
113 W. Mountain Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Attn: Development Services
RE: Rezoning along Van Asche corridor
Jennifer Allen
Recorder/Treasurer
IRECEJVED
NOV 052015
CITY ATTONEYS O F'CE
The City of Johnson has recently become aware that lands located in the City of Fayetteville are going
through a rezone process. This land is subject to State Law for adjacent properties located in cities to be
compatible (see attachment), since it is within 1000' of the city limits, The City of Johnson currently has
zoned industrial properties adjacent to the lands located in Fayetteville on both the east and west ends
of the Van Asche corridor. (see attached zoning map).
The City of Johnson has reviewed the rezone applications and Fayetteville's staff letter and is in
agreement with the proposed zoning changes submitted to the City of Fayetteville for these lands. The
proposed commercial districts would provide a buffer to the City of Johnson's current Industrial zones.
The City of Johnson feels that the inclusion of residential uses would be incompatible with the existing
Industrial zones located in Johnson. Per the state code, uses need to be compatible across city limits.
Residential sitting across from Industrial does not seem to be compatible.
Thank you,
7 1/
mes Geu"r ., P
City of.]dcso Contract Engineer
P.O. Box 563 • Johnson, Arkansas 72741 • Telephone (479) 521-7291 • Fax (479) 521-7292
II
\17
/
I
Z
V
0
11111iIt1i-
V
V
r
m
-
re
jj
Cl
O
m
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
OFFICE OF TI-IE
CITY ATTORNEY
TO: Andrew Garner, City Planning Director
CC: Mayor Jordan
Don Marr, Chief of Staff
Paul Becker, Finance Director
Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director
Planning Commissioners
Kit Williams
City Attorney
Blake Pennington
Assistant City Attorney
Patti Mulford
Paralegal
FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney '
DATE: October 26, 2015
RE: WG Land Company Rezoning Request
Most major road projects take many years from proposal to ribbon
cutting. However, few have been as colnplicated, and complex and long as
the extension of Van Asche Boulevard from Highway 112 under the interstate
to Gregg Street. A major problem for the design and construction of Van
Asche was that originally it would have to be built on the border between
Fayetteville and Johnson unless it veered south and then back north. This
expensive and inefficient job was not a good choice so the City
Administration sought other solutions. I explained the history of attempted
solution in my March 3, 2010 memo to Mayor Jordan and the City Council.
"The City Council approved the Street Committee's plans to
provide an 'interior bypass' from Highway 62 to the Northwest
Arkansas Mall by connecting Rupple Road from Highway 62 to
Highway 112 and then directly east by extending Van Asche
Boulevard to Gregg Street. This would provide not only much
improved interior traffic movement for our citizens, but an
Planning Commission
November 9, 2015
Agenda Item 4
15-5214 WG Land Co.
Page 13 of 34
important, comfortable and easy access to the Northwest
Arkansas Mall area without having to use 1-540.
The 'fly in the ointment' of this plan was the fact that the
City of Johnson's city liinits would come all the way down to this
multimillion dollar road project being paid by Fayetteville from I-
540 to Gregg Avenue. Recognizing this unfair situation in which
Fayetteville would be investing millions of dollars to build a
beautiful boulevard that would make land within Johnson
accessible and developable, the (Fayetteville City Council passed
Resolution No. 72-08 on March 18, 2009,. which stated that
extension of Van Asche Boulevard could be paid by our
Transportation Bond Program funds only after the land north of
this extension was annexed into the City of Fayetteville. I have
attached this Resolution as well as Resolution No. 76-08 passed on
April 1, 2008 with a Memo of Understanding that this annexed
land would eventually be zoned industrial or commercial when
development occurs.
Former Director of Operations Gary Dumas attempted long
negotiations with Johnson City Officials to arrive at an agreed
simultaneous detachment and annexation. Unfortunately, his
negotiations which would have brought hundred of acres of what
is now the City of Johnson into the City of Fayetteville and
promised extensive road building (beyond the extension of Van
Asche) were never successful. An initial extension of a neighborly
hand by Mayor Jordan when he first took office was also rebuffed.
It appeared that the City of Johnson preferred to fight it out in
Court with the landowners who eventually filed suit to deannex
from Johnson which could not provide sewer or enhanced water
service necessary for substantial commercial development. This
case is set for trial in May.
The attorneys for the landowners who were attempting to
deannex from Johnson and annex into Fayetteville approached
me last fall to see if there was any possibility to resolve this city
limits issue by joint agreement between Johnson and Fayetteville.
I explained that I had no authority to speak for the City of
2
Planning Commission
November 9, 2015
Agenda Item 4
15-5214 WG Land Co
Page 14 of 34
Fayetteville on this issue and that the Mayor and City Council
would have to approve any possible agreement. However, I did
speak with administration officials and then worked with our GIS
department to come up with the map showing the movement of
our city limits north about 1,250 feet into what is now Johnson.
This approximately 99 acres - should provide sufficient
development potential (and sales tax return to Fayetteville) when
the Van Asche Boulevard extension is built in compliance with
your Resolution No. 72-08.
This map along with a proposal drawn up by the
landowners' attorneys was provided to the Johnson City Attorney
by letter of November 10, 2009 (copy enclosed). In January of this
year, the Johnson City Council unanimously expressed its
willingness (I believe for the first time) to negotiate to deannex a
reasonable amount of land north of the proposed extension of
Van Asche if the City of Fayetteville would enter into sewer and
water contracts.
With this favorable turn of events, the landowners'
attorneys asked to set up a meeting with them, Johnson City
Attorney Danny Wright, their hired outside counsel Tom Kieklak,
and me. We all met in Tom Overbey's -office on February 9, 2010
for a couple of hours. I reported the results of this meeting to
Mayor Jordan and Chief of Staff Marr. All agreed that similar
Resolutions of intent to proceed with the proposed simultaneous
detachment and annexation, sewer contract, water contract, and
other parts of the proposal would be needed to be passed by both
City Councils before we could proceed further. We also agreed
that the City of Johnson City Council should pass its Resolution
on March 9th so the Fayetteville City Council would know
Johnson's position before it considered its Resolution on March
16th,
The City of Johnson desires that we purchase the land
Johnson condemned for a sewer line and lift station (.77 acres for
$68,000.00) which probably lies within the right-of-way for the
extension of Van Asche. We may have to make this purchase as
z
Planning Commission
November 9, 2015
Agenda Item 4
15-5214 WG Land Co.
Page 15 of 34
well as pay the $35,000.00 for the loss of sales tax Johnson will
suffer.
CONCLUSION
When I supplied the map showing our city limits moving
north into the city of Johnson by about 1,250 feet (99 acres) to the
landowners' attorneys, I expressly informed them that the -map
did not have the final approval of Mayor Jordan. I also informed
them that I was certain that this map represented the least amount
of increased city limits that could be acceptable to the Mayor and
City Council. I was informed by David Jurgens during
negotiations that our City had properly sized mains and sufficient
capacity in place to enable water and sewer service to our water
service area in Johnson without further expense to Fayetteville
rate payers.
I believe what I have presented and Mayor Jordan has
recommended for your approval conforms to the City Council's
intentions and goals stated within Resolution No. 72-08 as well as
numerous City Council Street Committee meetings and other City
Council meetings on the Transportation Bond Program.
I believe it is better to resolve issues amicably with our
sister cities. I am glad at least this proposed resolution to the Van
Asche expansion/ city limits issues can now be considered by you.
I join Mayor Jordan's recommendation for approval."
In order to convince the City of Johnson to give up sufficient acreage
north of the preferred location of Van Asche, the City of Fayetteville needed
and received the help of the owners of WG Land Company Ltd. Partnership.
These owners began an involuntary detachment suit in Circuit Court because
Johnson would not supply the necessary services (sewer service and
firefighting water) that new commercial development would require.
On April 1, 2008 the City of Fayetteville entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with these landowners after approval by the City Council
(Resolution No. 76-08 attached). WG Laxtd Company's property went to the
4
Planning Commission
November 9, 2015
Agenda Item 4
15-5214 WG Land Co.
Page 16 of 34
top of the hill under which industrial warehousing was operating (Zero
Mountain Storage). Accordingly, WG Land Company desired that the land
about this cavernous storage area be zoned I-1 Heavy Commercial/ Light
Industrial and the area south of Van Asche "should be encouraged to develop
as densely as possible .... For this reason the most logical zoning is C-3."
Memo of Operations Director Gary Dumas to City Council of March 19, 2008.
Mr. Dumas' memo and the Memo of Understanding deviated slightly
(and probably unintentionally), but importantly from the March 4, 2008 letter
from WG Land Company.
"As a consideration, we only ask that the City of Fayetteville
bring in the northern most acreage (hilltop) which covers the
underground cavern at an Industrial Zoning Classification
suitable for warehousing and cold storage. We will assume that
the other acreage will be brought in as Commercial."
• When the actual annexation occurred we did not annex all of WG Land
Company's property. We did not annex the "northern most acreage (hilltop)"
so that the need for Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial (I-1) was not needed.
However, their request for the remainder to "be brought in as commercial"
should be honored. Because of WG Land Company's efforts and litigation
expenses, the City was eventually able to annex 1,250 feet to the north for not
only their land, but the McClinton property. We also even secured the
northwest corner lot of Gregg Street and Van Asche on which a concrete plant
has long been located, but which will eventually be likely to convert to high
value commercial.
WG Land Company readily dedicated all of the necessary right of way
needed for the -extension of Van Asche. If gave the City of Fayetteville the
necessary leverage to obtain 99 acres north of the new Van Asche which
should provide a great commercial shales tax base to be held pay for the
boulevard. We should honor our understandings and commitments with WG
Land Company and rezone their property "as commercial" and "C-3" as
proposed and agreed to in 2008.
5
Planning Commission
November 9, 2015
Agenda Item 4
15-5214 WG Land Co
Page 17 of 34
RESOLUTION NO. 76-08
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING CONCERNING ANNEXATION AND
ZONING OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WITH WG LAND
COMPANY LTD. PARTNERSHIP.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
hereby approves a Memorandum of Understanding concerning annexation and
zoning of certain real property with WG Land Company Ltd. Partnership. A
copy of the Memorandum, marked Exhibit A is attached hereto and made a part
hereof. ,,iiei sri rer+rrf yr
�� °a'�`� 1 4 •4f rr
o FAYETrEVILLE;
..:
rlrrl� 1 V ry4�� yr
13y: 2 I
S DRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer
PASSED and APPROVED this 1st day of April, 2008.
APPROVED:
3y: r�
DAN COODY, ayor
ATTEST:
Planning
15-5214 WG Land Co.
Page 18 of 34
Memorandum of Understand➢ng
This Memorandum of Understanding, made and entered into this / day of April,
2008, by and between the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, a municipal corporation, 113 W,
Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas, and WG Land Company Ltd. Partnership, 3535 North College
Avenue, Fayetteville, Arkansas
WG Land Company Ltd. Partnership agrees to seek de -annexation of its real property
abutting the proposed Van Asche Boulevard Extension from the City of Johnson once the
proposed street extension is funded and scheduled for construction by the City of Fayetteville.
In return, the City of Fayetteville agrees to annex the real property adjacent to the
proposed Van Asche Boulevard Extension with the following understandings:
I That the property will be annexed into the City of Fayetteville as an R/A Zoning
District, and will remain so until actual development and construction of future
improvements is commenced;
2 That as the property is brought into development, the portion of the property
north of the proposed Van Asche Boulevard Extension shall be re -zoned to an
Industrial Zoning District consistent with its use for warehousing and cold
storage; and,
3 That as the property is brought into development, the portion of the property
south of the proposed Van Asche Boulevard Extension shall be re -zoned to a
Commercial Zoning District.
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE:
y n N OODY,Mayor �C�•sj1Cy �},r• {,gip 1
ATTEST: a „EAYET'IEVII.LE;
By:
S ON DRA E.SMITA, City Clerk/Treasurer
WG LAND COMPANY LTD. PARTNERSHIP
By:
ROBERT G. WHITFIELD, Genera
Planning
Agenda Ifern 4
15-5214 WG Land Co.
Page 19 of 34
265
City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form
' f / Av
7-O$
City Council Agenda Items
and
Contracts, Leases or Agreements
mil'
4/1/2008
City Council Meeting Date
Agenda Items Only
Gary Dumas
Operations
Submitted By Division
Department
Ar Action Required:
Approve Resolution Accepting the Memo of Understanding with the WG Land Company LTD. Partnership Regarding
the Van Asche Blvd. Extension
Cost of this request Category I Project Budget
Account Number Funds Used to Date
$
Program Category / Project Name
Program / Project Category Name
Project Number Remaining Balance Fund Name
Budgeted Item L. Budget Adjustment Attached I
Gary Dumas 3/19/2008 Previous Ordinance or Resolution #
Department Director Date
Original Contract Date: ______________ 3)7
2> Original Contract Number:
City At#om®y ate
Received in City
" S "1dd 1' Clerk's Office !C3
Finance an ntemal Service Director Date
Received in
J — / /' Mayor's Office
Date
Revised April 16, 2Inning Conmml ion
NLiyF s,ra�.+r g 7
Agenda Item 4
15-5214 WG Land Co.
Page 20 01 34
a e ev -Ie
ARKANSAS
OPERATIONS DIRECTOR
To: City Council
From: Gary Dumas
Date: March 19, 2008
RE; Memo of Understanding with the WG Land Company LTD. Partnership Regarding the
-Van Asche Blvd. Extension
Background
On March 18d the City Council approved the reallocation of bond resources in order to fund the
extension of Van Asche Blvd. with the stipulation that the property owner annex into the City of
Fayetteville. The property owner had requested that the property be permitted to be zoned
consistent with currently surrounding industrial uses and consistent with the type of commercial
development contemplated for this property. The area north, east, and west of the proposed Van
Asche extension is primarily industrial. The area south of the Van Asche extension is currently
used agriculturally.
This area is anticipated to be the extension of the intense development that has occurred in the
mall area.
Discussion
The area north of the Van Asche extension is primarily riddled with caverns created during past
mining activities. These caverns limit the potential for some uses but also open the realm of
possibilities for others. The current primary use of cavern space is for storage, warehousing, and
other industrial activities, Using the land above the caverns will require engineering and
coordination and agreement from owners and users of other adjacent and nearby caverns. The
likely most immediate use of cavern space will be in uses similar to those current in the area,
which is underground storage. This would require a zoning of I-1, Light Indusrial.
The area south of the extension of Van Asche should be encouraged to develop as densely as
possible. This area will develop similarly to the nearby commercial and health related activities.
Every effort should be made to promote a dense compact development style, not a highway
commercial style development. For this reason the most logical zoning is C-3.
Attached is a Memo of Understanding outlining the zoning classifications that will be granted
upon the annexation of this property into Fayetteville.
Recommendation
Adopt resolution agreeing to the attached Memo of Understanding.
113 Wesl Mountain
Foyctleville, Arkansas 72701
Office phone - 479-575-3330
Fax .479-575.8257
E-mail - gdumasQei.fayeltlle.ar_us
Planning
Agenda Item 4
15-5214 WG Land Co.
Page 21 of 34
March 4, 2008
Mr. Gary Dumas
Director of Operations
City of Fayetteville
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
Re: Van Asche Rd. Extension
Dear Mr. Dumas:
Please be advised that our family has agreed to Annex all property north of Van Asche
Rd. Extension to the City of Fayetteville subject to the commitment to build this road
ASAP. Once this road is funded and scheduled for construction, we will start the de -
annexation process thru the City of Johnson.
As a consideration, we only ask that the City of Fayetteville bring in the northern most
acreage (hilltop) which covers the underground cavern at an Industrial Zoning
Classification suitable for warehousing and cold storage. We will assume that the other
acreage will be brought in as Commercial, It should be futher understood that there will
be no change whatsoever in the current Farmland Zoning Classification up and until,
actual development and construction of improvements is undertaken.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. We will look forward to being notified
when the road will be funded and constructed and as result, we will start the de -
annexation process accordingly.
Cordially yours,
WG LAND COMPANY LTD. PARTNERSHIP
Robert G. Whitfield
Planning
15-5214 WG Land Co.
Page 22 of 34
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING CONCERNING ANNEXATION AND
ZONING OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WITH WG LAND
COMPANY LTD. PARTNERSHIP.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
hereby approves a Memorandum of Understanding concerning annexation and
zoning of certain real property with WG Land Company Ltd. Partnership. A
copy of the Memorandum, marked Exhibit A is attached hereto and made a part
hereof.
PASSED and APPROVED this 1s, day of April, 2008.
APPROVED. ATTEST:
By: _ By:_
DAN COODY, Mayor SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer
PDanning
15-5214 WG Land Co.
Page 23 of 34
Memorandum of Understanding
This Memorandum of Understanding, made and entered into this day of April,
2008, by and between the City of Fayetteville,: Arkansas, a municipal corporation, 113 W.
Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas, and WG Land Company Ltd. Partnership, 3535 North College
Avenue, Fayetteville, Arkansas
WG Land Company Ltd. Partnership agrees to seek de -annexation of its real property
abutting the proposed Van Asche Boulevard Extension from the City of Johnson once the
proposed street extension is funded and scheduled for construction by the City of Fayetteville.
In return, the City of Fayetteville agrees to annex the real property adjacent to the
proposed Van Asche Boulevard Extension with the following understandings:
> That the property will be annexed into the City of Fayetteville as an R/A Zoning
District, and will remain so until actual development and construction of future
improvements is commenced;
> That as the property is brought into development, the portion of the property
north of the proposed Van Asche Boulevard Extension shall be re -zoned to an
Industrial Zoning District consistent with its use for warehousing and cold
storage; and,
> That as the property is brought into development, the portion of the property
south of the proposed Van Asche Boulevard Extension shall be re -zoned to a
Commercial Zoning District.
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE:
By:_
DAN COODY, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
SONDRA E.SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer
WG LAND COMPANY LTD. PARTNERSHIP
By:
ROBERT G. WHITFIELD, General Partner
Planning
15-5214 WG Land Co
Page 24 of 34
3=ac-off'
Memorandum of Understanding
This Memorandum of Understanding, made and entered into this day of April,
2008, by and between the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, a municipal corporation, 113 W.
Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas, and WG Land Company Ltd. Partnership, 3535 North College
Avenue, Fayetteville, Arkansas
WG Land Company Ltd. Partnership agrees to seek dc -annexation of its real property
abutting the proposed Van Asche Boulevard Extension from the City of Johnson once the
proposed street extension is funded and scheduled for construction by the City of Fayetteville.
In return, the City of Fayetteville agrees to annex the real property adjacent to the
proposed Van Asche Boulevard Extension with the following understandings;
I That the property will be annexed into the City of Fayetteville as an R/A Zoning
District, and will remain so until actual development and construction of future
improvements is commenced;
2 That as the property is brought into development, the portion of the property
north of the proposed Van Asche Boulevard Extension shall be re -zoned to an
Industrial Zoning District consistent with its use for warehousing and cold
storage; and,
3 That as the property is brought into development, the portion of the property
south of the proposed Van Asche Boulevard Extension shall be re -zoned to a
Commercial Zoning District.
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
By:
DAN COODY, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
SONDRA E.SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer
WG LAND COMPANY LTD. PARTNERSHIP
By:
ROBERT G. WHITFIELD, Genera
Planning C
November
15-5214 WG Land Co.
Page 25 of 34
{ .3.49j Clarice Pearman Fees. 76 0 - __ LTii
Page 4
From:
Clarice Pearman
To:
Dumas, Gary
Date:
4.3.08 10:13 AM
Subject:
Res. 76-08
Attachments:
76-08 WG Land Company LTD.pdf
CC: Audit
Gary:
Attached Is a copy of the above resolution passed by City Council regarding WG Land Company. I am forwarding to you
one of two original agreements. Please let me know If there is anything else needed for this Item. Have a good day.
Thanks.
Clarice
Planning
15-5214 WG Land Co.
Page 26 of 34
Garner, Andrew
From:
Garner, Andrew
Sent:
Wednesday, November 04, 2015 9:40 AM
To:
Garner, Andrew
Subject:
FW: Request from Planning Commissioner
-----Original Message -----
From: Charles d Coody [mailto:dcoody@icloud.comj
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 9:26 AM
To: Garner, Andrew
Subject: Re: Request from Planning Commissioner
Hello Andrew,
Commissioner Chesser called and asked if I could clarify the City's intent concerning the 2008 memorandum of
understanding with the developers at Van Ashe. I understand the developers are requesting a majority of their property
be rezoned to typical suburban commercial zoning districts based on a memo to Council by Gary Dumas.
Both the City and the landowners wanted the land annexed into Fayetteville if we were going to spend a ton of money
improving Van Ashe. Commercial development was requested and It was logical that it should be rezoned that way.
After reading the documents it is clear that Gary was expressing his personal opinion as to the type of commercial
development, not making an edict concerning city policy for this project.
Obviously, commercial zoning for that area is its highest and best use. But having a blanket suburban commercial zoning
was not the intent of my office or the Council. If a specific zoning district zoning had been the intent the resolution
would have clearly stated that.
I believe that if the area were rezoned all to typical suburban commercial zoning districts we would end up with a
repeat of the CMN business Park. That would not only short change the citizens of Fayetteville, it would short change
the developers and owners, as well. CMN was approved 20 years ago. It was designed in the old -school fashion and it
still has a surprising amount of vacant land available. If the developers and the City had been more innovative it would
have filled up years ago and it would be a draw much more than it has been for both businesses and customers.
When this Van Ashe land is developed there will be the opportunity to benefit from creative, new urban design that will
provide much more interest for the citizens of the region and more income for the owners. It has been proven time and
again that artistic design and higher density brings in more businesses and customers more quickly and the produces
higher income over a longer period of time.
It's easy to do the same old thing, if that's all we're capable of doing. But Fayetteville and its developers need to lead by
example and inspire by design. It's more profitable for everyone.
I hope this helps.
Dan Coody
Sent from my iPad
Planning Commission
November 9, 2015
Agenda Item 4
15-5214 WG Land Co.
Page 27 of 34
Proposed Rezoning RZN 15-5214
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
400' u' 400'
NW 1/4 NW 1/4 \\\ 1 NE 1/4 NW 1/4
C-3 C-3
..w�. �s..'ue ^,r 13
SW 1/4 NW 1/4 --- / IA',
SW 1/4 NE 1/4
0-2 C2
C-2
�c•r*,
NW i/ SW 1!'4 1/.4 5'N 1/1
\'F i J"•� e 1
_ I
C�2
SW 1/4 SW 1/4 SE l/>1!4/
Sda �1;
Planning Commission
November 9, 2015
Agenda Item 4
15-5214 WO Land Co.
Page 28 of 34.
�}�►tip—�. � i...
r
X
if;
i X
Y Y
I
y
I
'
/
�Y Y
X I
' + P
� r
eY
1f Y
Y
I
F'Garfn ng Commission
November 9, 2015
Agenda Item 4
15-5214 WG Land Co.
Page 29 of 34
0
Planning Commission
November 9, 2015
Agenda Item 4
15-5214 WG Land Co.
Page 30 of 34
RZNi5•52i4 WG
LAND COMPANY
Cmr'erlt Land Use
y .
LOtSUBEC1P
ROPE=RTY
'� 'f r, ! UIVi;)L'/l-I_t:l I-LJ ,s:;•. Y �.., a
ate'
+
`•+ham _ , . .r. -. a"
�r �. Idt< + y eye
C 7UEMEi: •I'! Prs�l]cSx :.J '
i r
j&1'
IV ASCH D�'
d' r�i4 ... - .• , ' � - :' a �'�
�'�1`•.� �,.y, 4� Y• � '
4 A"•A•' r?5..0 '� „j �C `'�y:'i. ..r'rf C t l��l?1� �.` r PropoSeri -
SINGLE FAMILY �c„�. : '.
nn
Pr _
J
sit �' tj
lrC P.
RETAIL MEDICAL Fern e�R
ter.. R Propo5p P �' f
Ct ;4 ..a ,v+a sfix�owt� l�•arr Y R}"'' fP¢T ,h
k Li JUUE\/ELOPEI7 � y _ -
SINGLE FAMILY
e 1 J tL
'
# ighbCnl�cv h¢r+�+i. 311. ae ST J' T
uFL+v{e,ANail.JraI Surface Tr it
f ZN15-52I41 Proposed Zoning.
r� Fayetteville City Li its C-`2 11 8.4 acres
Footprints 2010 C-3 68.25 acres
Design Overlay Di trut
.i
Planning Area r _ter Planning Commis ion
November 0 201
Agenda Item 4
15-5214 WG Land Co.
Page 31 of 34
RZN15-5214
WG LAND COMPANY
Close Up View
i c j J1RMF•12
yl
HENU }
6H.rslJ �P
r
2
JOYCE SLV .1Q
JIlN1E rj
CQ`Oe
_a4 CIRCLE OR u�
SUBJECT PROPERTY f JT�YVONNE DR N
A"Y D R:
SHUL R DR
ti 1 03
1
F
DJ
--_--•_--e_--- ,
Proposed C-3 _ _ _ - r'
r.
�
C-1
Proposed C-2 Proposed C 2
DUNBAR
+f V
VAN ASCHE_J1 DR
VAN ASCHE j
P �
1
ti
•REN
Proposed C-2 JProposed
CIR
qR8 th,••
ERPRIS
DR \
. ( C-3
RSF-4
4 r W IIY'
c5
OWING
CIA
t3 ¢ '!y
O
PRIVATE
3359
.A
WALL
A DEZ, 5Y44.
pYl
"t�1�
SALES I
CIR
LOII
`
RP24 m
FI1rR¢�44'
$H frill A�-\1 `y
355
o.
r+ y Mo�ixE
' Cj r{ RAIIJTER DR
TRUCKERS DR .G2 �
f '
, Proposed ' lG�r
�yaM
S o
Q
AP LEB
y
APPLEOY APPLEBY RD
J D RD APPLEBY RD DR
Le d t
"`' O Om Y CYDNEE STS
Sh - R� ed Trail
R -o M O 2 } W
m BISHOP DR
borho /Pa Trail
z
712 m p �. Z
, mz z a
Aa
tural Surfa {C--
�+ � mz �a w z
DRAKE ST i}�� O v a
_ .. DRAKE $7
•
vernRZN 15-5214
Hillside -Hilltop Overlay
District
Proposed Zoning:
Fayetteville City Li
its
C-2 118.4 acres
Footprints 2010
C-3 68.25 acres
Design Overlay Di
trict
------ Planning Area
0 450
900 1,800 2,700 3,600
Feet
Planning commis
ion
November 9, 201
Agenda Item 4
15-5214 WG Land Co.
Page 32 of 34
RZN15-5214 WG LAND COMPANY
Future Land Use All I �i�PD
ifENa}4
gEtENO
JOYCE sLV �`ar
o CIRCLE I
Ry• V
'tIIP, SUBJECT PROPERTY nrVONns+: arz r'
'P MARY OR I
SHL1LER DR I f— j�c{f�•'� t
liJ
tY r• T t
•
-JUPICP:R �F'C�;;J3SL'ri r.-„-. _ �`•i f
r 0-2 Proposes C-2 DUNBAR
- VA VAN VAN ASCHE DR VAN ASCH[DR
` Proposed C-2
Rlyfrs Proposed .,.s..
DR C-3 PID,fI1UG"
PRIVATE ^ •'SN,ALLf]
$kall.0H '
n ` �LjTRA4
Shared sa ved Trait} ' Is t4 -
••••�, Neighh iood ik Trail' l}�, a 7 f MIX
Nu. Zfl
ci o .-�
lUf91 rice Trail ° F •
i 0
-• Shared. • Paved Trail
MONTE
1� V hborl �l�F i�FUi f "fir Pa 14FERl7R
�•.?61ural s1 'mil Q� Proposed. - �''
i ZN15.5 0 G3•'' "� AP -L B r1aPZEBY APPLEBY Rp n r
R!7 • R0 APPLEBY RD i
Fay eti , :sly is + ptlb I
"fl..fa.e i o
7 oe�• 9 0 Y CYDNEE
I...'P S10
I O m z x
� �� v Q �• o m
FU R S 203 - — .-- — �� s za > W
sX g 3 (` w m BISHOP DR a_
CL Q°� z Q
r s, {y' o } z
g5 a d ttiGq z Q) O a
rlAr DRAKE ST m o
9-(ty Neighborhood Area
Urban Center Area Proposed Zoning:
Industrial C-2 118.4 acres
Complete Neighborhood p► B
C-3 68.25 acres
Civic and Private Open Sp e/Parks
Civic Inslitulionai
Non -Municipal Government 0 500 1.000 2.000 3,000 4-DOO
ROW Planning Commis ion
November 9, 201
Agenda Item 4
15-5214 WG Land Co.
Page 33 of 34
RZNI5-5214 WG LAND COMPANY
One Mile View
GEEEffa�_'
'
TAVE A 0- SAM StL hiiJG
4245
3 ,rENORj+
tTg FYl
JOYCE eLvo
O - JANE
ORCLE Cdr V0
SUBJECT PROPERTY OR 1'YVONNE
C+ Cf to ..-. i, MARY DR
$k a SFIULER
DR ,
i -
eC3 c� JUPIT �� I9 +.� bC
e m Y Proposed C -3y r` (-1
- �Q
I Co z Propos PALMETTO
Proposed C-2 C•2 DUNBAR '.
ittil -R• b/REN
Proposed C-2 cIR 4R
RPRISE 12sE" k �t bYh4'
iS{+' OR Proposed RWING a n St
C1R o gA R�
PR3vAT -3 $ LLOW DVS fiht }J1SU +
it1';!I1 �1 ; FtTrRItiLti't+ CC
ca rA L tea+
c_Z i v VIE4Y 5�
7"JC{� S Oil �dxt �L�R1C' i
MAClNPropsed,
dAP EY RI] APPLEBY Re
CECl Y~s. i p C NEE is nr2
I C m z ST
f P7.T)
d __ Shared -Use
Paved Trail Eissilcw Da APPLEBY AD
Neighborhood/Park `rail >( W. MlNit]Sn.
r a e Tr S : ❑RAiEE CIUSTA DRAKE STO �N
€!a
> DR
- I 1 RZN 1 5 521 ¢ tt Wt i -2 FORSSYTHIA DR'
w Q m �_ ST MEADS ST A0O8r_ST
Overview ..._
L Design Overlay District Proposed Zoning.
Planning Area
C-2 118.4 acres
Fayetteville C-3 68.25 acres
1 �a
0 0.25 0.5 1
nV !/j
t l es Planning Co ission
. 015
Agenda Item 4
15-5214 WG Land Co -
Page 34 of 34
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
OFFICE OF THE
CITY ATTORNEY
TO: Mayor Jordan
City Council
CC: Don Marr, Chief of Staff
Paul Becker, Finance Director
Jeremy Pate, Development Serviced Director
Andrew Garner, Planning Director
Kit Williams
City Attorney
Blake Pennington
Assistant City Attorney
Patti Mulford
Paralegal
FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney
DATE: November 18, 2015
RE: Potential Multi -Million Dollar Judgment Against City If City Council
Breaches Contract With WG Land Company, Inc.
Please read my memo of October 27, 2015 to the Fayetteville Planning
Commissioners and others for the history and legal analysis of the contract
(entitled Memorandum of Understanding) entered into between WG Land
Company, Inc. and the City of Fayetteville on April 1, 2008. The key phrase in
that contract signed by Mayor Coody is that WG Land Company, Inc.'s property
"shall be re -zoned to a Commercial Zoning District."
The Arkansas Supreme Court Has Not Found
Contract Zoning To Be Illegal
A non -lawyer sitting on the Planning Commission blithely stated that
"contract zoning is against the law." I would ask that you rely upon me as the
Fayetteville City Attorney for over 14 years for legal advice rather than any non -
lawyer. The Arkansas Supreme Court considered a challenge against a West
Memphis rezoning ordinance attacked as "contract zoning" by neighbors. The
West Memphis' rezoning ordinance was upheld first by the Circuit Judge and
later by the Arkansas Supreme Court:
"The legality of contract zoning is an issue of first impression in the
State of Arkansas. However, other jurisdictions have examined
contract zoning and found that contracts (which) rezone are not
prohibited...." Murphy v. City of West Memphis, 352 Ark. 315, 322,101
S.W. 3d 221, 226 (2003).
When the Supreme Court said "contract zoning is an issue of first
impression", it meant that this issue had never been decided by our Supreme
Court. The Arkansas Supreme Court noted that other jurisdictions have found
"contract zoning" in certain circumstances could be improper. The Arkansas
Supreme Court (like the trial court) affirmed the propriety of the rezoning
ordinance because "the actions of the West Memphis city government in
enacting the ordinance followed a bona fide procedure." Id. at 321,101 S.W. 3d at
226.
"Because the City of West Memphis followed a bona fide procedure,
this court need not address the legality of contract zoning at this
time." Id. at 323,101 S.W. 3d at 227.
Therefore, the Arkansas Supreme Court did not decide the issue of
contract zoning at that time. There is no question that the City of Fayetteville is
following a bona fide procedure considering WG Land Company, Inc.'s request
for a rezoning. In addition, I do not believe that the Memorandum of
Understanding that we entered into would even be the type of contract zoning
some other states have found improper.
Please remember that the City Council agreed to rezone the property sold
to Kum & Go if it purchased the lot. The City also contractually agreed to rezone
the old Water and Sewer headquarter and storage yard when we sold the land to
Biobased Realty, Inc. for their construction of a state of the art commercial lab
which later was acquired by the U of A for high tech start-ups. I believe these
were valid contracts, and the rezonings in conformity with our contracts were
proper and legal. I also believe the Memorandum of Understanding we entered
into with WG Land Company, Inc. on April 1, 2008, was a legal contract agreed
to by the City Council in a City Council meeting after public discussion and
signed by Mayor Coody.
Determining The Legal Meaning Of The Contract
So assuming that the contract between the City and WG Land Company
was a valid contract what did "shall be re -zoned to a Commercial Zoning
District" mean on April 1, 2008?
"The first rule of interpretation of a contract is to give to the
language employed the meaning that the parties intended. In
construing any contract, we must consider the sense and meaning of
the words used by the parties as they are taken and understood in
their plain and ordinary meaning." Health Resources of Arkansas, Inc.
v. Flener, 374 Ark, 208, 211, 286 S.W. 3d 704, 706 (2008) (citations
omitted).
"It is the duty of courts to enforce contracts as written and in
accordance with the ordinary meaning of the language used and
overall intent and purpose of the parties." Magic Touch Corp. v. Hicks,
99 Ark. App. 334, 338, 260 S.W. 3d 322, 326 (2007).
"It is well -settled that the polestar of contractual construction is to
determine and enforce the intent of the parties... In ascertaining this
intention, the court should place itself in the same situation as the
parties who made the contract in order to view the circumstances as
the parties viewed them at the time the contract was made." Taylor
v. Hinkle, 360 Ark. 121, 134, 200 S.W. 3d 387, 395 (2004).
So what did "a Commercial Zoning District" (emphasis added) mean to
the parties to the Memorandum of Understanding in March and April of 2008?
One indication is that one party, WG Land Company in its letter to the City
asked that "the other acreage will be brought in as Commercial." The Unified
Development Code had in 2008 three zoning districts actually titled
"Commercial": C-1 is "Neighborhood Commercial," C-2 is "Thoroughfare
Commercial" and C-3 is "Central Commercial." None of the Downtown Master
Plan zoning districts are titled "Commercial" nor refer to "commercial" in their
names. They are "Downtown Core" (hardly on appropriate description for land
along our northern border): "Mainstreet/Center" and "Downtown General"
which also refer "Downtown" and "Center", not our northern outskirts. These
are all Mixed Use Zoning districts, not "a Commercial Zoning District." The
only logical conclusion is that "Commercial Zoning District" was meant by the
parties to mean Neighborhood Commercial, Thoroughfare Commercial or
Central Commercial.
Operations Director Gary Dumas who supervised the Planning
Department wrote the memo proposing the City Council approve the
Memorandum of Understanding (which I believe he drafted). Director Dumas
never mentioned any Downtown form based zones, but opined that "the most
logical zoning is C-3." The City Council did not even zone the Walker Park
Neighbor Master Plan area with the new Downtown Master Plan Zoning
Districts until 3 1/2 months after this contact was entered into. The form based
mixed use zoning districts for use away from the downtown area were not even
enacted until 2010 — two years after the agreement was signed. Please
remember that the Arkansas Supreme Court held that a contract must be
interpreted using terms in existence "at the time the contract was made." Id.
It would be virtually impossible to convince any Court that "a Commercial
Zoning District" did not mean C-1, C-2 or C-3 on April 1, 2008, when the City
Council approved Resolution No. 76-08 authorizing Mayor Coody to sign the
agreement and when Mayor Coody signed the Memorandum of Understanding.
The Circuit Court would look at the documentary evidence existing at the time
the contract was entered into between the City and WG Land Company, Inc. to
interpret the contract, rather than listen to seven year old memories of any of the
parties.
Finally, if there could be any ambiguity about what "a Commercial Zoning
District" means such "ambiguities in a written contract are construed strictly
against the drafter." Byrne, Inc. v. Ivy, 367 Ark. 451, 459, 241 S.W. 3d 229, 236
(2006) (emphasis added). I believe all evidence shows that the City rather than
WG Land Company drafted the Memorandum of Understanding and so any
possible ambiguity would be interpreted as WG Land Company has requested,
C-2 and C-3 commercial zoning districts. Any uncertainty about the meaning of
"a Commercial Zoning District" means WG Land Company, Inc. wins.
Millions Of Dollars Of Liability Are Possible If You Deny WG Land
Company, Inc.'s Requested Rezoning
No Court has reversed a rezoning decision by the City Council of the City
of Fayetteville since I became Fayetteville City Attorney in 2001. As I have
repeatedly advised you, if we get sued over "legislative enactments such as
zoning ordinances, there is a strong presumption that the legislative branch acted
in a reasonable manner, and the burden is on the moving party to prove the
enactment was arbitrary and unreasonable." Murphy v. City of West Memphis, 352
Ark. 315, 321, 101 S.W. 3d 221, 225 (2003). Even if we ever lost a Court case over
a simple rezoning, there would be little, if any, liability exposure for the City.
However, WG Land Company, Inc. would likely sue the City for breach of
contract claiming the City violated its 2008 Memorandum of Understanding.
There are no presumptions to help the City in a breach of contract case, no
difficult burden for a plaintiff to prove the City was arbitrary or unreasonable.
Because of the rules for interpreting a contract, the City could very well be found
to have breached the contract and thus liable for any damages such breach
caused the WG Land Company, Inc.
These damages could well run into the millions for the City Council's
refusal to rezone this over 100 acres of very developable land along our new
boulevard which has vastly increased the value of the adjoining land. On top of
compensatory damages in the millions, the City could also be ordered to pay WG
Land Company, Inc.'s attorney fees.
Our best defense is only a timing issue. The contract states that the WG
Land Company, Inc.'s property shall remain zoned R/A "until actual
development and construction of infrastructure of future improvement is
commenced...." If we can convince the Court this language is not ambiguous
and that "actual development and construction of infrastructure" have not yet
commenced, then the City's duty to rezone their property "to a Commercial
Zoning District" is only a future, not a present, duty for the City.
However, this would be only a temporary defense as WG Land Company,
Inc. could begin such "development and construction" (which they claim they
have already begun) at any time. Such actual commencement would nullify
that defense.
CONCLUSION
The City Council is the guardian of the City treasury and our citizens'
money. The Fayetteville City Board in the late 1980's and early 90's failed to
protect our citizens' money and made two significant mistakes that cost our
taxpayers and ratepayers in excess of Five Million Dollars in attorneys' fees
alone. The citizens then ejected all Fayetteville Board Members from office by
changing the form of government to Mayor/ Council.
When I became Fayetteville City Attorney in 2001, I vowed to myself to do
everything I could to protect our citizens' tax revenues by warning the
Fayetteville City Council when they were considering a legally dangerous
decision that would be very costly to our taxpayers or more graphically:
"approaching the cliff." To the Fayetteville City Council's credit, the few times I
had to warn them to pull back from the cliff and avoid potentially massive
liability, the City Council heeded my warning. The City's treasury has remained
safe for 15 years, and the problems of the previous decade have not been
repeated.
I again call upon the City Council to preserve our City's treasury by not
taking the very risky and dangerous gamble of denying the commercial zoning
requested by WG Land Company, Inc. If the City Council denies this rezoning
request, you would be betting possibly millions of Fayetteville taxpayer dollars
to try to force WG Land Company, Inc. to use mixed -use, form based zoning
districts that it does not seek rather than convention commercial districts. This is
not a gamble the City of Fayetteville should take. It would likely come up
"snake eyes" for Fayetteville and our citizens. Where would you come up with
the millions of dollars needed to pay for such a litigation defeat?
The City made a contract with WG Land Company, Inc. in 2008 which led
to a great benefit for Fayetteville when we were able to annex 99 acres that had
been in Johnson north of the proposed (and now constructed) Van Asche in 2010.
The clear intent and actual wording of the contract was that the WG Land
Company, Inc.'s property "shall be re -zoned to a Commercial Zoning District."
The City Council needs to not only protect our City's treasury, but prove we
will honor our promises by approving the commercial rezonings requested by
WG Land Company, Inc.
RESOLUTION NO. 76-08
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING CONCERNING ANNEXATION AND
ZONING OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WITH WG LAND
COMPANY LTD. PARTNERSHIP.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
hereby approves a Memorandum of Understanding concerning annexation and
zoning of certain real property with WG Land Company Ltd. Partnership. A
copy of the Memorandum, marked Exhibit A is attached hereto and made a part
hereof.
tiS 411tllllffy,l
♦ N •i
PASSED and APPROVED this 1St day of April, 2008. � c11Y
APPROVED: ATTEST:- _ : AYETrEVILLE,
��- �''hlnpllti+tit
13y• __ B
DAN COODY, s ayor S(.1 JDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer
Memorandum of Understandin
This Memorandum of Understanding, made and entered into this / day of April,
2008, by and between the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, a municipal corporation, 113 W.
Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas, and WG Land Company Ltd. Partnership, 3535 North College
Avenue, Fayetteville, Arkansas
WG Land Company Ltd. Partnership agrees to seek de -annexation of its real property
abutting the proposed Van Asche Boulevard Extension from the City of Johnson once the
proposed street extension is funded and scheduled for construction by the City of Fayetteville.
In return, the City of Fayetteville agrees to annex the real property adjacent to the
proposed Van Asche Boulevard Extension with the following understandings:
I That the property will be annexed into the City of Fayetteville as an R/A Zoning
District, and will remain so until actual development and construction of future
improvements is commenced;
2 That as the property is brought into development, the portion of the property
north of the proposed Van Asche Boulevard Extension shall be re -zoned to an
Industrial Zoning District consistent with its use for warehousing and cold
storage; and,
3 That as the property is brought into development, the portion of the property
south of the proposed Van Asche Boulevard Extension shall be re -zoned to a
Commercial Zoning District.
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE:
I) N fIODY, Mayor _ �.••G� '"9p
ATTEST': : FAYETTEVPLLE:
r r'r ��v • � 5� �
I3y: f��llf7llllll�l1i'`
SONDRA E.SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer
WG LAND COMPANY LTD. PARTNERSHIP
I.3y: 4.
ROBERT G. WHITFIELD, Genera r
EXHIBIT'A'
RZN 15-5214
RZN 15-5214 WG LAND COMPANY
Close Up View
ti
RMF-12 LE
'H /'HENfl4 !
Q ,� J0YGE BLv •goy.
etf F JANE C
y4 O� [3 CIRCLE Dig tyy �I3
t°� SUBJECT P PERTY Irv°NNEDR4 !
z °
�' MARY ORy i m
J G3
SHULER_DR
Jt,PITER D '
--------------.� I Pro sed C-3 _ _ _ _ •'
Proposed C- Proposed C-2 DUNBAR
VAN ASCHE D VAN ASCHE DR
WREN
Prop sed C-2 Proposed CIR OR �•-
El ERPRIS -3 L O ur
RSFA a !, w
cs OR 1 REDWING
�pC+
PRIVATE i i 'A �. • WALLO ) 2 � pF 5�t4D
33S0CIR
SALEM a a s FUT'O¢
RPZD rn a'Srik�CrH FUTRM-
O
tr �'•
is.,
. ff%-, LL m
C
CL z
1 -- •�• , M0NTE
�w *• ' .` <:('2 PAINTER DR
TRUCKERS l R
oaM Proposed 0 6VAL
Q 0a
s o , C r APPLEB APPLEBY APPLEBY RD
O RV 4t��� / RD . RD APPLEBY RD ]ASU
DR
cpzD
Le d . •�• GYDNEE STS
Sh 49- P d Traii R, �, ,
pt, uk
m BISHOP DR n'
. borho 1 ar) Trail z <a Z
°° � �x c
tural Surf rail DRAKE ST DRAKE ST ,'_ 6 o
v rvj ZN 15-52 4
Hillside- illtop Overlay District Proposed oning:
- - Fayetteville City Li its C-2 118.4 acres
Footprints 2010 C-3 68.25 acres
[_ ! Design Overlay Di trwct
0 450 900 1,800 2,700 3,600
-------- Planning Area Feet
NORTHWEST ARKANSAS
Democrat -0 05azefte
CS. BOX 1507, FAYE�TI..EVII I.E., AR. 7:7702 a 4'79-442-1700 • FAX: 479-5950118 • WWW.NWA1.)G.COMi
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
I, Karen Caler, do solemnly swear that I am the Legal Clerk of the Northwest Arkansas Democrat -Gazette,
printed and published in Washington County and Benton County, Arkansas, and of bona fide circulation,
that from my own personal knowledge and reference to the files of said publication, the advertisement of:
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
Ord. 5830
Was inserted in the Regular Edition on:
December 31, 2015
Publication Charges: $ 77.82
4/LU
Karen Caler
Subscribed and sworn to before me
This .+ day of ,=)1 , 2016.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
CATHY WILES
•Arkansas - 8enton County
Notary Public - Comm# 12397118
My Commission Expires Feb 20, 2024
**NOTE**
Please do not pay from Affidavit.
Invoice will be sent.
ORDINANCE NO. 5830
AN ORDINANCE TO „REZONE. THAT :PROP
ARKANSAS
:BANE COMMERCIAL
.LE, ARKANSAS:
Itached to the Agenda item.
e tic on 2: That the CityCouncil of the City of Fayetteville,,Arltansas hereby amends the official`
ming map of the City of Payetteville to reflect' the zoning change provided in Section 1.
ection 3t Severability, That the- City ,Council of the City,_ of ,Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby=
aermines that if the Johnson City Council determines that a portion of this rezoned acreage:
not ;'compatible with the zoned land uses of the adjoining lands" in Johnson pursuant to its;
)wer under A.C.A. § 14-56-306 and refuses to agree to a portion of this rezoning, then all
her unaffected property within this Petition.RZN 15-5214 shall still be immediately rezoned'.
irsuant to Section 1.
ASSED and APPROVER this 15th ;day of December, 2015..
'PROVED: ATTEST:
By:;
ONEt4 JORDAN Mayor LISA BRANSON, ,Deojaty City Clerk