HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-08-22 - Agendas - FinalCOY
j ARKANSAS
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville. AN 72701
Telephone: (479) 575-8267
AGENDA FOR A MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, August 22, 2005, 5:30 p.m.
Room 219, City Administration Building
The following items will be considered:
Old Business:
1. ANX 05-1488: Annexation (COLLINS/KINGHORN, 533/534): Submitted by MICHELE, A
HARRINGTON for property located at 6102/6110 LAKE SEQUOYAH DRIVE. The property is in the
Planning Area and contains approximately 17.33 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into
the City of Fayetteville. Planner: SUZANNE MORGAN
2. RZN 05-1489: Rezoning (COLLINS/KINGHORN, 533/534): Submitted by MICHELE, A
HARRINGTON for property located at 6102 AND 6110 LAKE SEQUOYAH DRIVE. The property is
zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, and contains approximately 17.64 acres. The request is to
rezone the subject property to RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre.
Planner: SUZANNE MORGAN
New Business:
3. ADM 05-1693: Administrative Item (ZION VALLEY NAME CHANGE, 136): Submitted by April Rucker
for property located south of Zion Rd. and east of Vantage Dr. The property is zoned RMF -24,
RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY, 24 UNITS PER ACRE and contains 27.72 acres. The request is to
amend Final Plat 99-7.00, to allow for the subdivision to be renamed Bellafont Gardens.
Planner: JESSE FULCHER
4. LSD 05-1462: Large Scale Development (RIDGEHILL APARTMENTS, 405): Submitted by N.
ARTHUR SCOTT for property located at NW OF GREGG AVENUE AT HOLLY STREET. The
property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.68 acres.
The request is to approve a residential apartment complex on the subject property with 38 units and 56
bedrooms proposed.
Property Owner: BRANDON BARBER SCB INVESTMENTS, LLC
Planner: SUZANNE MORGAN
5. PPL 05-1608: Preliminary Plat (WATER BROOK PHASE I, 571): Submitted by MEL
MILHOLLAND for property located N OF HUNTSVILLE, W OF DEERFIELD The property is zoned
RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4 units per acre and contains approximately 35.17 acres. The request is
to approve a residential subdivision with 97 single family lots proposed.
Property Owner: FORREST & MODYNE LANE Submitted on behalf of: CLINT MCDONALD
Planner: ANDREW GARNER
6. R-PZD 05-1599: Planned Zoning District (ZION GARDENS, 137): Submitted by H2
ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at NW OF THE INTERSECTION OF RANDALL PLACE
AND ZION ROAD. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately
1155 acres. The request is to approve the preliminary plat of a Residential Planned Zoning District with
95 town homes, attached and detached, on the subject property.
Property Owner: MORRISS & ANN HENRY Submitted on behalf of: ZION PLACE, LLC
Planner: ANDREW GARNER
7. VAC 05-1651: (PETRINO/PRINCE, 362): Submitted by ED PRINCE for property located at 3041 &
3043 MARIGOLD DRIVE. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE. The
request is to vacate a portion of a utility easement on the subject property.
Planner: JESSE FULCHER
8. RZN 05-1649: (NORTH STREET CHURCH OF CHRIST, 362): Submitted by HIGHT-JACKSON
ASSOC. P.A. for property located at MT. COMFORT ROAD. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE
FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 9.10 acres. The request is to rezone the subject
property to P-1, Institutional. Planner: ANDREW GARNER
9. RZN 05-1650: (KNIGHT, 600): Submitted by MORGAN BARRETT for property located at 880-888
CATO SPRINGS RD. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER
ACRE and contains approximately 5.52 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RMF -6,
RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY, 6 UNITS PER ACRE. Planner: ANDREW GARNER
All interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearings. A copy of the proposed amendments and other pertinent data are open and available for
inspection in the office of City Planning (575-8267), 125 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. All interested panes are invited to review the petitions.
Interpreters or TDD for hearing impaired are available for all public hearing; 72 hour notice is required. For further information or to request an interpreter, please
call 575-8330.
ORDER OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A. Introduction of agenda item — Chairman
B. Presentation of Staff Report
C. Presentation of request — Applicant
D. Public Comment
E. Response by Applicant/Questions & Answer with Commission
F. Action of Planning Commission (Discussion & Vote)
NOTE TO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE
If you wish to address the Planning Commission on an agenda item raise your hand when
the Chairman asks for public comment. He will do this after he has given Planning
Commission members the opportunity to speak and before a final vote is taken. Public
comment will only be permitted during this part of the hearing for each item.
Once the Chairman recognizes you, go to the podium at the front of the room and give
your name and address. Address your comments to the Chairman, who is the presiding
officer. He will direct them to the appropriate appointed official, staff member or others
for response. Please keep your comments brief, to the point, and relevant to the agenda
item being considered so that everyone has a chance to speak.
Please, as a matter of courtesy, refrain from applauding or booing any speakers or actions
of the Planning Commission.
2005 Planning Commissioners
Nancy Allen
Jill Anthes
Candy Clark
James Graves
Christine Myres
Alan Ostner
Audy Lack
Sean Trumbo
Christian Vaught
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission
FROM: Suzanne Morgan, Current Planner
THRU: Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning
DATE: May 18, 2005 Updated August 18, 2005
PC Meeting of August 22, 2005
125 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (479) 575-8267
ANX 05-1488: (COLLINS/KINGHORN, 533/534): Submitted by MICHELE, A HARRINGTON
for property located at 6102/6110 LAKE SEQUOYAH DRIVE. The property is in the Planning
Area and contains approximately 17.33 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the
City of Fayetteville.
Planner SUZANNE MORGAN
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation of 17.33 acres into the City of
Fayetteville based on the findings herein. Incorporation of this property into the City of
Fayetteville will establish zoning regulations and ensure compliance with ordinance
regulations at the time of development.
Should the Planning Commission vote to recommend approval of the annexation, staff
recommends denial of the request to rezone the property to RSF-4.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Date: August 22, 2005
Required YES
0 Approved O Denied
CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Required YES'
0 Approved
Date: September 20, 2005 (1St reading if recommended)
O Denied
BACKGROUND:
Property description: The subject property contains four parcels of property consisting of 17.33 -
acres. The majority of property is owned by the Collins with the remainder owned by the Kinghorns.
The property is located west of Lake Sequoyah, north of Lake Sequoyah Drive. Property north and
east of the subject property was annexed into the City of Fayetteville in the 1960s to incorporate
Lake Sequoyah, a primary water source.
K:IReports120051PC Reports108-22-051.4NX 05-1488 (Collins & Kinghorn).doc
August 22, 2005
Planning Commission
ANX 05-1488 (Collins/Kinghorn)
Page 1.1
Proposal: The applicant proposes annexation of 17.33 acres into the City of Fayetteville.
Public Comment: Staff has received no public comment concerning the requested annexation.
Recommendation: Staff recommends the incorporation of this property into the City of Fayetteville.
Although the proposed annexation is located on the fringes of the City's eastern limits, incorporation
of this property will create an acceptable city boundary and ensure that development of the property
is compliant with City regulations within an appropriate zoning district.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
Direction
Land Use
Zoning
North
Woodland
R -A, Residential Agricultural
South
Single family farms
Planning Area
East
Lake Sequoyah Spur
Lake Sequoyah
Planning Area
R -A, Residential Agricultural
West
Vacant; Pasture
Planning Area
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Streets: Currently the site has access to Lake Sequoyah Drive. With development, road
improvements are required for Lake Sequoyah Drive along the property to include:
right-of-way dedication, pavement 14' from centerline, curb and gutter, storm
drainage, and sidewalks.
Surrounding Master Street Plan Streets:
South: Lake Sequoyah Road, Local Street
East: Lake Sequoyah Spur, Local Street
Water: Public water is adjacent to the site. There is a 6" main along Lake Sequoyah Drive.
Water service will need to be extended within the property at the time of
development. Minimum size of new water mains is 8". Additional connections may
be required to complete a looped system. This may include an off-site connection to
be determined at a later date. No long range improvements to the water system are
planned at this time for the areas around Lake Sequoyah. A study of the water supply
shall be conducted prior to development.
Sewer: The site does not have access to sanitary sewer. There is a 6" sewer main along Lake
Sequoyah Drive to the south. Minimum size of new sewer mains is 8". Sewer will
need to be extended approximately 1000 feet to serve the property. A capacity
analysis of the downstream sewer lines shall be conducted and a capacity analysis of
the lift stations downstream of the site shall be conducted prior to development.
Fire: The subject property is located approximately 5.5 miles from Fire Station #5.
Response time to the property is projected at 12 minutes. A new Fire Station #3 is
August 22, 2005
Planning Commission
ANX 05-1488 (Collins/Kinghorn)
K:IReporIs12005V'C Reporrs108-22-0514NX05-/488 (Collins & Kinghorn).doc Page 1.2
proposed at the Tyson complex on Huntsville. It is located 4.4 miles from the subject
property with an 8 minute response time. At this time, no date of completion has
been anticipated for the completion of this proposed fire station.
Police: It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that this annexation will not
substantially alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on
police services or create and appreciable increase in traffic danger and congestion in
the area.
LAND USE PLAN: General Plan 2020 identifies the portion of this property within the Planning
Area as Residential.
FINDINGS:
11.6 ANNEXATION GUIDING POLICIES
BOUNDARIES
11.6.a Annex existing islands and peninsulas and do not annex areas that would create an
island or peninsula.
Finding: Annexation of the property will not create a peninsula. In the 1960s, property
was annexed into the City to create the peninsula with which this property
adjoins. The incorporation of this property will not extend the city limits
further west than the surrounding city properties to the north and south. At the
time the applicant initially submitted a request for annexation, staff requested
further investigation of the legal description of the property and ownership
information of property to the east, as it appeared the annexation of the 17.33
acres would create an island of unincorporated property. Upon further
investigation, it appears that this property is owned by the City of Fayetteville.
11.6.b Proposed annexation area must be adjacent, or contiguous, to city limits.
Finding: The proposed annexation area is adjacent to the City Limits to the north.
11.6.c Areas should either include or exclude entire subdivisions or neighborhoods, not
divide.
Finding: This area is currently utilized for several single family homes and agriculturally
related activities. The annexation of this property would neither include nor
exclude subdivisions/neighborhoods. The applicant anticipates subdivision of
this property for single family use.
11.6.d Boundaries for annexed areas should follow natural corridors.
Finding: Proposed boundaries follow property lines of the existing parcels, not natural
corridors.
K:IReports120051PC Reports108-22-0514NX 05-1488 (Collins & Kinghornjdoc
August 22, 2005
Planning Commission
ANX 05-1488 (Collins/Kinghorn)
Page 1.3
11.6.e Timing of services within annexation areas should be considered.
Finding: Annexation of the property as currently developed will not place an additional
burden on the services within the area. Should this property remain in the
Planning Area, the property could be developed with a minimum 10,000 sq ft
lots and 75' of lot width with septic systems, city water, and streets constructed
to city standards. Incorporation of the property into the City of Fayetteville will
ensure that the property is zoned such that it is compatible with surrounding
properties and development in accordance with all city regulations. Significant
evaluation and potential improvements of water services are required to
adequately service this property. Sewer is not currently available. Fire
response time to the property is 12 minutes from Fire Station #5. This can be
improved in the near future with a planned Fire Station #3 on Huntsville Road.
Reduction of this response time to 8 minutes is anticipated with the
construction of a new fire station on the former Tyson Complex; however, staff
has no anticipated time frame for the completion of this project.
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
11.6. f Annex environmentally sensitive areas that could be impacted by development and
utilize appropriate development regulations to protect those areas.
Finding: The property consists of cleared pasture land and wooded areas. No
information has been presented to designate the subject property
environmentally sensitive. However, the property is very near Lake Sequoyah,
a primary water source for the City of Fayetteville and surrounding
municipalities. Annexation of the property would allow for the extension of
sanitary sewer. Development within the Planning Area would necessitate the
utilization of a community septic system or individual septic systems on each lot.
Incorporation of this property would also allow for the requirement of parks,
open space and tree preservation.
EMERGENCY AND PUBLIC SERVICES
11.6.g Public services must be able to be provided efficiently in newly annexed areas.
Finding: Water and sewer service is of concern, with the Engineering Division requiring
a study of the water at the time of development and extension of the nearest
sewer services which are located 1,000 feet from the property. Response time to
this location for emergency personnel is anticipated at 8-12 minutes. Additional
fire hydrants and adequate access would need to be provided. Annexation of a
the property and a low density zoning comparable to the surrounding
properties may not necessitate significant improvements to public services in
this area.
K: IReportsl2005IPC Reporm108-22-051ANX 05-7488 (Collins & Kinghorn)doc
August 22, 2005
Planning Commission
ANX 05-1488 (Collins/Kinghorn)
Page 1.4
11.6.h Annexed areas should receive the same level of service of areas already in the city
limits.
Finding: This property is located at the north eastern -most portion of the city limits.
There is very little development in the surrounding area, and therefore does not
at this time require a high level of service from fire, police or water services.
Sewer is not available to this property. The considerable distance of this
property from the denser population within the core of the City may result in a
less efficient level of service to this property. The primary concern is an
increased density may result in more service calls with a higher response time
than desired. The annexation of property with a zoning of R -A, RSF-0.5 or RSf-
1 will not result in significant increase of demand on emergency and public
services.
11.6.i The ability to provide public services should be evaluated in terms of equipment,
training of personnel, number of units and response time.
Finding: These factors were taken into consideration in the responses and
recommendations included in this report.
INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES
11.6.j Areas currently served by utilities and other public services should be annexed.
Finding: Water, fire and police protection are currently provided in the surrounding
areas. The subject property is not being served by city utilities at this time. The
level of service for this property may be reduced in comparison to surrounding
subdivisions located in closer proximity to the more densely populated areas of
the City.
11.6.k Proposed annexation areas should not require the upgrading of utilities to meet the
demands of development unless there is a threat to public safety.
Finding: Annexation and future development of this property will result in an increased
demand on the existing infrastructure systems should the property be zoned and
developed at a density greater than the low density residential similar to the
surrounding development and comparable to R -A, RSF-0.5 and RSF-1 zoning
district. No long range improvements to the water system are planned for the
water system around Lake Sequoyah. Increased use of the existing services in
the area may negatively impact the water supply in this area. Additionally,
there is no immediately accessible sewer service in this area. Development of the
property would require an extension of the existing sewer lines, the nearest
being 1,000 feet from the property. Analysis of the downstream sewer lines and
a capacity analysis of the lift stations downstream of the site would need to be
conducted prior to development. The proposed annexation and subsequent
August 22, 2005
Planning Commission
ANX 05-1488 (Collins/Kinghorn)
Page 1.5
K:IReports12005IPC Reporis108-22-051ANX 05-1488 (Collins & Kinghorn).doc
rezoning could result in 69 units, with a calculated 152 -person population
increase.
11.6.1 Phased annexation should be initiated by the City within active annexation areas
based on planned service extensions or availability of services.
Finding: The proposed annexation is not part of a phased annexation initiated by the
City.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
11.6.m Promote long-range planning with adjacent jurisdictions.
Finding: N/A
11.6.n Establish agreements to address regional concerns, such as water, stormwater and
sewer.
Finding: N/A
ADMINISTRATION OF ANNEXATIONS
11.6.o Designate zoning districts for the property during the annexation process.
Finding: Annexations are automatically zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural. The
property owners request annexation and rezoning of this property to RSF-4,
Residential single family - 4 units/acre. Increased density on this property will
increase the load on public infrastructure in this area.
11.6.p An annexation study should be completed on all annexation proposals.
Finding: Planning staff has asked the Engineering Division, Fire Department and Police
Department to study this annexation request to determine if facilities and
services are available to serve this property.
11.6.q Development proposals require a separate review from the annexation proposals.
Finding: Development of this property has not been proposed. At the time the applicant
desires to develop the property, the applicant will be required to submit project
plans for review and approval by the Planning Commission.
11.6.r Residents should be fully informed of annexation activities.
Finding: Adjoining neighbors have been notified of the annexation request. A legal ad
and display have both been submitted with a local newspaper prior to the
August 22, 2005
Planning Commission
ANX 05-1488 (Collins/Kinghorn)
Page 1.6
K: Reporn120051PCReports..108-22-051ANX 05-1488 (Collins & Kinghorn).doc
Planning Commission meeting for which this item is scheduled.
11.6.w Encourage larger annexations to create acceptable boundaries.
Finding: This annexation consists of 17.33 acres owned by the Lanes. Extending the city
boundary to the south will expand the existing peninsula, but will not extend the
city limits further east or west than currently located. Annexation of property
that would create an island of unincorporated property is not consistent with
the Annexation Policy and may create future problems at the time of
development by impeding access or extension of services west of Lake Sequoyah
Spur to this property.
11.6.1 Conduct a fiscal impact assessments on large annexations.
Finding: No fiscal impact assessment was conducted for this annexation of 17.33 acres.
K:IReports120051PC Reports108-22-051ANX 05-1488 (Collins & Kinghorn).doc
August 22, 2005
Planning Commission
ANX 05-1488 (Collins/Kinghorn)
Page 1.7
From Fayetteville General Plan 2020 — 2002 Revision
11.6 Annexation Guiding Policies
Boundaries
11.6.a Annex existing islands and peninsulas and do not annex areas that would create an island or
peninsula.
11.6.b Proposed annexation area must be adjacent, or contiguous, to city limits.
11.6.c Areas should either include or exclude entire subdivisions or neighborhoods, not divide.
11.6.d Boundaries for annexed areas should follow natural corridors.
11.6.e Timing of services within annexation areas should be considered.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
11.6. f Annex environmentally sensitive areas that could be impacted by development and utilize
appropriate development regulations to protect those areas.
Emergency and Public Services
11.6.g Public services must be able to be provided efficiently in newly annexed areas.
11.6.h Annexed areas should receive the same level of service of areas already in the city limits.
11.6.i The ability to provide public services should be evaluated in terms of equipment, training of
personnel, number of units and response time.
Infrastructure and Utilities
11.6.j Areas currently served by utilities and other public services should be annexed.
11.6.k Proposed annexation areas should not require the upgrading of utilities to meet the demands
of development unless there is a threat to public safety.
11.6.1 Phased annexation should be initiated by the City within active annexation areas based on
planned service extensions or availability of services.
Intergovernmental Relations
11.6.m Promote long-range planning with adjacent jurisdictions.
11.6.n Establish agreements to address regional concerns, such as water, stormwater and sewer.
Administration of Annexations
11.6.o Designate zoning districts for the property during the annexation process.
11.6.p An annexation study should be completed on all annexation proposals.
11.6.q Development proposals require a separate review from the annexation proposals.
11.6.r Residents should be fully informed of annexation activities.
11.6.w Encourage larger annexations to create acceptable boundaries.
11.6.t Conduct a fiscal impact assessments on large annexations.
K: IReports12005IPC Reports105-23-05WNX 05-1488 (Coiling & Kinghorn).doc
August 22, 2005
Planning Commission
ANX 05-1488 (Collins/Kinghorn)
Page 1.8
"= Proposed Station 3
August 22, 2005
Planning Commission
ANX 05-1488 (Collins/Kinghorn)
Page 1.9
May 16, 2005
Jeremy Pate
Zoning and Development Director
City of Fayetteville
113 W. Mountain
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
Dear Director Pate,
This document is in response to the request for a determination of whether the proposed
Annexation ANX 05-1488 _ The property is in the Planning Area and contains
approximately 17.33 acres. The request is to annex the subject property into the City.
It is the opinion of the Fayetteville Police Department that this annexation will not
substantially alter the population density and thereby undesirably increase the load on
police services or create and appreciable increase in traffic danger and congestion in the
area.
Individually, each of these annexations and rezoning do not necessarily substantially alter
the population density, nor do they create and appreciable increase in traffic danger and
congestion. The sum total presented over the years, however, has had a substantial impact
on the demand for police services and has caused an appreciable increase in traffic
congestion.
Sincerely,
Captain William Brown
Fayetteville Police Department
August 22, 2005
Planning Commission
ANX 05-1488 (Collins/Kinghorn)
Page 1,10
Planning Commission
May 23, 2005
Page 36
ANX • 05-1488: (COLLINS/KINGHORN, 533/534): Submitted by MICHELE, A
HARRINGTON for property located at 6102/6110 LAKE SEQUOYAH DRIVE. The
property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 17.33 acres. The request is
to annex the subject property into the City of Fayetteville.
RZN 05-1489: (COLLINS/KINGHORN, 533/534): Submitted by MICHELE, A
HARRINGTON for property located at 6102 AND 6110 LAKE SEQUOYAH DRIVE.
The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, and contains
approximately 17.64 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4,
Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre.
Ostner: The next item on our agenda is ANX 05-1488 for Collins/Kinghorn
submitted by Michelle Harrington for property located at 6102 and 6100
Lake Sequoyah Drive. If we could have the staff report please.
Morgan: Yes Sir. This subject property contains four parcels consisting of
approximately 17.33 acres. The property is owned by the Collins and the
Kinghorns. The property is located west of Lake Sequoyah and north of
Lake Sequoyah Drive. It is north of Huntsville Road. This property is
adjacent to city property to the north. This property to the north and the
surrounding property that encompasses Lake Sequoyah was annexed in
the 1960's as a primary water source. With regard to this application, the
applicant is requesting annexation of this 17.33 acres into the City of
Fayetteville. At this time we have received no public comment. With this
annexation request and rezoning request as well as any that we receive, we
have a zoning review team which tours these sites and evaluates these
applications. This consists of Planning staff, Engineering, Fire and Police.
With each of these applications we get reports from each of these
divisions. I would like to go through some of those comments. They are
very applicable because with the annexation policy guidelines that we
have, there are twenty and several of which refer to whether or not public
utilities will be adequate to serve these new areas, the abilities for the City
of Fayetteville to provide for them and the timing of extending new
services. Currently this site has access to Lake Sequoyah Drive. With
development, improvements will be required to this and adjacent rights of
way including our typical street improvements. Water is available
adjacent to this site. However, there are concerns with regard to water
pressure and the Engineering Division has requested that a study of water
supply be conducted prior to development. With regard to sewer, there is
no access to sewer at this time. The nearest sewer line is approximately
1,000 feet from this property and it is also suggested that a capacity
analysis of downstream sewer lines as well as an analysis of the lift station
downstream be conducted prior to development of this property. This
property is not the furthest east of the city limits. It is quite a bit east to
the city limits adjacent to the Lake Sequoyah and at this time city services
August 22, 2005
Planning Commission
ANX 05-1488 (Collins/Kinghorn)
Page 1.11
Planning Commission
May 23, 2005
Page 37
do provide emergency service and such to properties further east.
However, the Fire Department has stated that there is a projected 12
minute response time to this property, which is 5.5 miles away from Fire
Station #5. A new fire station, Fire Station #3, is proposed at the Tyson
complex with a projected response time of approximately eight minutes.
However, at this time there is no date of completion anticipated for this
proposed fire station. The police have analyzed this request and have
stated that this annexation itself will not substantially alter population
density nor result in an undesirable increase on their load for services.
One of the other policy guidelines which we review is whether or not this
annexation will create an island or peninsula. This request will not create
a peninsula. It will be adjacent to a peninsula that was created in the
1960's thereby perhaps potentially mitigating the existing peninsula
situation. However, we have found that the legal description that they
have submitted will create an island of property adjacent to Lake
Sequoyah and at this time staff has researched owner information for the
property with inconclusive results and we have contacted the applicant to
make them aware of this and I believe at this time they are trying to
resolve the situation of who owns the property. At this time if this
annexation is approved the property will be rezoned R -A, Residential
Agricultural. The property owners have requested a rezoning at this time
to RSF-4 and I will go over those findings and that staff report in just a
moment. At this time I would like to state that based on the findings that
we have made, that we are required to make for annexation, and the
information that has been provided to us by the applicant, staff is unable to
recommend approval of this request for annexation. This recommendation
is based on the review for the city's annexation policies and the
availability of services to this property. With regard to the rezoning,
should the annexation be approved, the property would be zoned R -A,
Residential Agricultural. The applicant is requesting that this property be
rezoned to RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre. The
anticipated development on this property as indicated by the applicant will
not exceed 56 residential lots for a total density of 3.17 units per acre.
Staff finds that a majority of the property adjacent to this subject property
is located within the Planning Area and contains large tracts of land
developed for single family and agricultural uses. Staff finds that the
development of this property for residential uses is compatible and
appropriate with the land use plan however, development of four units per
acre is not compatible with the surrounding properties. Nor do we find
that there is adequate infrastructure, utilities and such to service a
development of that density. Additionally, we have included the findings
from Engineering, Fire and Police as we have on the annexation. With
regard to differences, Police reviewed this slightly different than the
annexation request because they are doing so based on population.
Annexation with a zoning of R -A is considerably different than with
density to RSF-4. They have stated that it is their opinion that the
August 22,2005
Planning Commission
ANX 05-1488 (Collins/Kinghorn)
Page 1.12
Planning Commission
May 23, 2005
Page 38
Ostner:
Harrington:
rezoning will substantially alter the population density and will possibly
create an undesirable increase on police services. Therefore, staff is
recommending denial of the requested rezoning to RSF-4 based on the
findings herein. Staff would encourage the evaluation of an alternate
zoning district or designation that is more compatible with the surrounding
properties.
Thank you Ms. Morgan. Is the applicant present? If you could please
introduce yourself and give us your presentation.
I'm Mickey Harrington. I'm here representing the Collins. Mr. and Mrs.
Collins are here with us and Mr. Steve Brannon, the engineer on the
project is also here and may want to address you in addition. First of all, I
wanted to say, I don't know how you can do this, maybe by just helping us
with your comments, but it is very important to the Collins to understand
the zoning along with the annexation. They don't feel that they are ready
and able to annex if they are not able to rezone in this manner. I am sure
that others have asked for this before and so I would encourage you to
make your comments on both of these topics if you are negative on the
one but positive on the other so we can make a decision about that in the
process. I always appreciate the hard work of your excellent staff but I do
have a few things I want to factually correct if I may. Water is at this site.
There is a water line through this property so it is already present. The
island that they refer to is I think an odd use of the word "island". As they
told me on Thursday, and I have been researching with the title company
ever since, if you look at the map, this one is the closest one to be able to
tell what I am going to describe to you. The history of this land before the
Collins owned it was with a family named Roberts from about the 1890's
forward. The land was always described as the boundary going to the
center of the river. The river is of course, now Lake Sequoyah. When
Lake Sequoyah was filled up and the city annexed that land the city drew a
boundary and annexed up to a point and that line sort of runs down the
right side of this page. The little gray area between the dark line and light
line with the solid gray and little corners on it is the "island", that they are
referring to. It is not really an island of separate ownership of land, it is
actually a gap in the legal description that must have occurred when the
city annexed this land. At a point there the Roberts who owned this land
prior to the Collins, started conveying this land down to their family after
the annexation of the city land and Lake Sequoyah fill up to the edge of
their street, which is a little county road along the lake there. Their
property line description runs to the dark gray and then the city's line is
this hard dark line and the gap in between that is sort of a piece of no
man's land. The title company is still researching. They have several
questions, which Kit might find interesting, it is not clear that the Roberts
family ever deeded the Lake Sequoyah land to the city, I'm not sure what
hat means. I think that we will probably find when they are done with
August 22, 2005
Planning Commission
ANX 05-1488 (Collins/Kinghorn)
Page 1.13
Planning Commission
May 23, 2005
Page 39
their research, and they have had this for three days, that this little strip of
land was probably owned by one of the Roberts family before and at the
time of annexation and that something didn't get squared up with that
boundary. I would propose that regardless of what happens here tonight
the city and the Collins, we will find out the answer from the title
company. It may be that the city should just acquire the rest of that piece
so you have up to the edge of where the Collins have taken title. I think
you just have a discrepancy that does occur over time sometimes with how
people go to the edge of a road and this happened, I think the city is
actually the reason that this discrepancy occurred when the city filled up
the lake and the city annexed that land. It is not really an island of
separate ownership that I think would affect your policy, I think it is a
legal discrepancy that can be cured and will be cured if you give us
permission to go forward. The police have been patrolling this land since
1979 and a map I really would like you to watch while we are talking
about this is this map in your packet that shows the subject parcel in dark.
All the white land north, east, partly south and a very large portion of land
going to the east from here is all already in the city limits of Fayetteville.
We are aware, you aren't aware yet, but this is going to be happening very
soon, that virtually the land from this parcel to the highway and some up
around it is all looking to come to you for annexation and rezoning. Some
of it doesn't have to be annexed, it is already in the city limits. They are
looking at RSF-4 development level. When you drive up to this area you
go through this section on Baldwin Lane and Lake Sequoyah Drive, it is
all very small lots. There is a little subdivision north of this, it is a county
subdivision with very small lots. Deerfield is very near and there is
pressure to develop in the area and all of it is going to be RSF-4 coming in
because in order to get to an RSF-2 or less type of density you have to end
up, as I understand it from the people who do the number crunching and
engineering, you have to end up with approximately $400,000 type homes.
The Collins hope to put in $200,000 plus type homes and make it very
nice and make the entire area an improvement to what is already there.
They have already removed chicken houses, which were Mr. Collins'
source of income with the thought that this would be something that is
now ripe to come into the city. The reason is, as I mentioned a few weeks
back when I was here, it has not been that long since the city was holding
numerous conversations and there were articles in the paper, and all of
these owners out there saw this, that this was land that the City of
Fayetteville was going to on it's own bring in all the way out to the lake.
We are getting some mixed signals out here in the public. Everybody that
lives out there thought that this was slated for annexation by the city and
as these are coming in it is becoming very difficult for you all to feel ok
about these being annexed this far out. I would submit to you that when
you have a city that is over here and all along the way here and a big patch
here, that people between that are going to expect that if they are right
there by the city almost surrounded by the land that it would be ok to be
August 22, 2005
Planning Commission
ANX 05-1488 (Collins/Kinghorn)
Page 1.14
Planning Commission
May 23, 2005
Page 40
annexed because again, you are going to want to control land around that
lake, one of your water sources. You have a little peninsula sticking out to
the north, this would fatten that up. It mitigates that peninsula and it just
makes sense to go with the type of development that is happening in this
area and is going to be increasingly happening in this area which would
provide much needed homes of a price range that people can afford out
there rather than only $400,000 plus homes which you would almost have
to have to get to a lesser density lot. The applicant has already acquired
easements to the nearest manhole and so those are in hand. They are
aware that you will require studies but they believe that the services in the
water and sewer area are going to be sufficient and back to the Police
issue, I know I was in here a few weeks ago talking about land not quite
this far out, the Police are patrolling the land now. There are all of these
residences and all of this white around the lake, there are homes all over
the place out here. This is already receiving police patrol. I recognize that
there may be political and budgeting reasons for taking the position that
they are taking on the load that will be brought upon police services but
this is not like a place that police have not been going. They are going
there now. They are there all the time. I don't know that police service, in
and of itself, is an issue if they are already currently adequately patrolling
this area. Deerfield is near and of course, we believe that this subdivision
will be a little higher end than that and we are hoping that the removal of
the,chicken'houses of course will be something favorable for the city and
that we are able to develop in a manner expressed. 56 is not the maximum
density. Two of the homes would be the existing homes so really it would
be 54 more units than presently. The fire response is the same thing you
hear regularly. It is a little long but you are planning a new fire station out
that direction. It will take it from 12 minutes to 8 minutes. People who
buy homes out there are going to be aware that they are a little far out and
time is going to take care of that in fairly short order we believe so we
don't believe that the fire service alone is enough to cause it to be a
problem to bring this property in. We did note that this is appropriate and
compatible development with the future land use plan to bring this in and I
tell you, if I'm, looking at this map and:I see all of these city limits, it
doesn't make any sense to me why you would take a parcel that is nearly
surrounded by city and say sorry, you can't come in because we don't
have the services, even though we are taking care of this whole piece of
land all around you and further east and further north than where you are.
I've been a little confused at the reluctance in support for the project.
Especially since we know that there are a lot of folks watching this project
and they are looking at the entire area for doing the same kind of
development. Basically, what I think has happened is a lot of these folks
that are living out there have been next to the city limits for years. As
time has gone on the city's discussions have gone on, these people are
now thinking it is time to go ahead and get into the city along with the
land all around them and join the city and do a similar kind of
August 22, 2005
Planning Commission
ANX 05-1488 (Collins/Kinghorn)
Page 1.15
Planning Commission
May 23, 2005
Page 41
development that is sort of below, beside and above them already and that
there is a big pressure on the need for these kind of homes out in that area.
We are hoping that you will support both of these projects and help us find
a way to make this work. We believe that the services can be made to
work with what this project proposes. With that, I would like to see if Mr.
Collins would like to make a few comments.
Collins: My name is Joe Collins, this is my wife Frances. We have come
requesting that you consider this annexation. As you can tell, I'm not the
youngest person here. We purchased the land, we moved out there in
1979 and have had use of this land since 1980 and actually purchased it
from the Roberts Family and the Johnson Family in 1990 with the hope
that we could develop it at some point to add to our retirement. We are at
that point that we want to retire. I appreciate the work that these people do
on your staff. I think they are wrong. The area, as far as the number of
houses per acre, if you look at the immediate area on Baldwin Avenue and
on Deerfield on Hwy. 16 and Mally Wagnon Road, if you look at those
areas, our subdivision is similar to that. We want a nice area there. We
want to have 85% brick we would like to have architectural shingles, we
would like to have an 8/12 pitch minimum on the roof, we want a nice
area. There was something said about water pressure. I did have two
poultry houses there and we have at least 100 psi of pressure on that main
line and I do want to emphasize that the city run a new 6" line on the
southeast portion of this subject land. I hope that you will find in favor. If
you feel that the requested number of houses per acre, you can't do that, I
don't want you to annex me into the city. We will have to do something
to recover our loss in income and I can't do that if you put me in the city.
Thank you.
Harrington: I quickly wanted to clear up a statement about that road with the gap in the
legal is, apparently the county thinks that is a city road and the city
apparently thinks that is a county road. The road itself is a little bit in
question. Also, when it comes to the access of this parcel off of Hwy. 16,
it is likely, and it is all subject to your approval of course going forward,
that as these landowners to the south between the highway and this parcel
come to you for development permission, if that is approved, that there
would be a new road that would connect all the way to this without having
to use Lake Sequoyah Drive through that subdivision right there. I think
that you may be seeing the beginning of a little bit of a pop out in this area
if you are willing and if you are able to allow this to go forward that you
will have access develop as part of that entire property.
Ostner: Thank you Ms. Harrington.
Collins:
Concerning the Lake Sequoyah spur road, that would be the road to the
east of our property, the city did in fact, blacktop that road and they keep it
August 22, 2005
Planning Commission
ANX 05-1488 (Collins/Kinghorn)
Page 1.16
Planning Commission
May 23, 2005
Page 42
up. Their trucks come out and patch it as it is required and so the city does
maintain that road.
Brannon: I'm Steve Brannon, the engineer on this project. Everybody has been
talking about Mr. Collins tonight but there is also another owner there, Mr.
Kinghorn. Although I represent Mr. Collins I think you need to be aware
of the fact that Mr. Kinghorn was very anxious to be annexed into the city.
He contacted me and wanted to be a part of it. There have been other land
owners around who have contacted me and we have plans to approach
you in the near future also. One thing that I noticed hasn't been
mentioned is that the city is currently picking up garbage along that road.
That is another city service that is being provided. I see no public outcry
against this. Everyone out there seems to be in favor of it that I spoke with
and I visited several homes along that road. Thank you.
Ostner: At this point I will open it up to public comment. If anyone would like to
speak to this issue please introduce yourself and give us your comments.
Stroden: My name is Charlie Stroden and I live behind where this development is
going to be. The thing that I'm concerned about, when I bought that about
18 years ago, the reasons that I bought it was it was outside of the city
limits and it had good water. Those were the two main things. The
chicken houses that Joe had there didn't bother my water at all. I'm on an
underground spring and I was talking to him about what they are going to
do with the sewer. He said if you approve it they are going to pump it to
the city and as long as it doesn't mess my well up I'm fine with that. I
would like to know is how soon do you think you are going to have before
you annex all of this? I will be moving. I don't want to be inside the city.
Another thing, that road, of course Joe told me he is going to fix it, but
that road is about wide enough for a log wagon and that's about it. If you
tum from Lake Sequoyah to Lake Sequoyah spur you take your life in
your own hands. I have seen probably 30 wrecks where the spur comes out
to Lake Sequoyah. I've been hit twice and without a miracle of god I
wouldn't be here today. A cop ran into me and almost killed me. The first
time I got ran off the road there I had to call the police from Joe's house
when he lived on the corner before he built his new house. Those are my
concerns. Something is going to have to be done with that road. It says
25 but there is not one out of 100 to drive 25. The only way you are going
to get people to drive 25 is if a cop moved there and camped out. Those
things are going to have to be addressed. I don't go Hwy. 16 in the
morning, I know how to go the back way up on Wyman Road and if you
plan on being somewhere at 8:00 if you don't leave by 7:00 you are not
going to get there just from just a few miles. Those are my concerns and
as long as those are taken care of then it is up to you all I guess. Joe said
they were going to take care of the sewer and if he is going to have a
development then there in front will be taken care of but the rest of that if
August 22, 2005
Planning Commission
ANX 05-1488 (Collins/Kinghorn)
Page 1.17
Planning Commission
May 23, 2005
Page 43
you come back across the bridge if you happen to blink for just a minute
you are going to get hit. I don't know how many times I have got out of
the way to keep from getting hit. I wish they would've come to talk to me.
The Engineer said he spoke to people but he didn't talk to me.
Ostner: Is there anyone else who would like to speak about ANX 05-1488 or RZN
05-1489?
Burnett: I am Ken Burnett, I'm a builder in Springdale and I build in Fayetteville.
A couple of years ago, I don't know who put this article in the paper, but
I'm sure most of you will remember, they talked to some developers in
Fayetteville that do some lots about having some affordable housing. You
can't have affordable housing on $70,000 Lots. I build houses for a living.
If you get a $70,000 lot you are going to have over a $400,000 house. You
can't make it work otherwise. You just can't do it. With the price of land
these days you can't have %z acre lots that sell for $45,000, it just won't
happen. As you go down Lake Sequoyah Drive, the majority of those
houses down through there are probably 1,200 or 1,300 sq.ft. My brother
built one of the first ones on lake Sequoyah Drive years ago and it was
about 1,200 sq.ft., had a carport and siding. A lot of those houses down
that drive are like that. I think what he is proposing as far as the aesthetics
of a neighborhood when you do a 1,500 sq.ft. house in brick and a two car
garage 1,500 sq.ft. for instance, and I don't know whathis minimum is, I
don't have any idea, but if you have that as a minimum most people are
going to build a little bit bigger in the neighborhood than what the
minimum is. I was just involved in a development in Springdale on
Oaklawn, the minimum was 1,500 sq.ft., the majority of the houses was
1,800 to 2,000 sq.ft. they are nice houses that are on basically the same
size lots that he has got proposed on this from what I understand. I think
that if you are going to have some affordable housing in Fayetteville
you've got to have some affordable Lots. They can't be 1/2 acre lots to do
that. Property is just too expensive. I know some of them say the houses
around there are bigger lots, some of them are, some are on four or five
acres, but they were put on there 60 and, 70 years ago when land could be
bought for $30 an acre. You can't find that today. If you want affordable
housing in Fayetteville you've got to have affordable lots. The only way
you are going to have them is they are going to have to be smaller, it
doesn't work any other way.
Ostner: Thank you. Are there any other members of the public who are not
affiliated with the developer who would like to speak? At this point I will
close it to the public comment session and bring it back to the
Commission. We can talk about both of these issues at once but will vote
on them independently.
August 22, 2005
Planning Commission
ANX 05-1488 (Collins/Kinghorn)
Page 1.18
Planning Commission
May 23, 2005
Page 44
Vaught: I would like to ask the City Attorney about that strip of property and how
we should view that in our consideration.
Williams: I think I probably agree with Ms. Harrington on that. It seems to be just an
anomaly. I think one way or the other either the city or the current owner
will wind up owning that so I think that that should not be the deciding
factor. I think one way or the other that is going to be closed up whether
the city or the owners take over. A lot of surveys were not done exactly
right. I've had to change some surveys on my own parent's land that
came down from the early 1900's and not all the surveys are exactly right.
We ran into that also when we did the island annexation, there was a
problem we had out west where there was a little strip of land that looked
like it was county land that kind of jetted in, we weren't absolutely sure
then that we totally surrounded this particular island of county land. We
run into those problems fairly regularly and I think that just on a common
sense basis, I would not recommend to the City Council, you will
recommend something to the City Council, but my recommendation to
them is that they shouldn't base their decision on that little strip. There
are lots of other things to think about. I told you before that when it comes
to annexation basically the city has complete discretion. Either you want
the land in or you don't want the land in. That is your decision to make
but I would not base it on that little strip of land, I believe that can be
taken care of.
Brannon: I just wanted to point out that the gentleman over here who mentioned a
dangerous intersection that in one of my first conversations with Ms.
Morgan that was one of the issues that she pointed out and we have
already worked out a design that I think will be acceptable. We have
spent quite a bit of time talking about it and that is something that we are
aware of.
Allen: I was going to say that it seems an inevitability that at some point this
piece of land will be annexed but based on the information that has been
given to us from staff and comments that have been made by the applicant,
it seems that maybe this is a little bit premature so I was going to move
that we table ANX 05-1488.
Ostner: Is there a second to this motion? I believe it fails for lack of a motion.
Vaught: From my perspective, I am not opposed to annexation. I think that filling
in these islands, this area between here and the city limits is something
that has been discussed. It meets our goals. It adds to this peninsula and
hopefully reduces it, as well as, it helps control development around one
of our primary water sources, which is important to me. I'm not excited
about the idea of 10,000 sq.ft. lots with 50 septic tanks. I don't know
about a perk or an effluent system although I've heard those are really
August 22, 2005
Planning Commission
ANX 05-1488 (Collins/Kinghorn)
Page 1.19
Planning Commission
May 23, 2005
Page 45
well managed but I don't understand the science of them and they are still
yet to be proved long term, which is a possibility in this location if we
don't annex it. From my perspective annexation is an easy question. It is
rezoning that is a tougher question.
Anthes: I'm trying to remember back to when we were talking about a lot of the
annexations west of town that were based on a lack of city services.
Didn't we wait for a certain number of those to come through, but that was
based on sewer capacity?
Pate:
There were a few annexations north of town that we waited on for a period
of about a year and a half I think for a sewer capacity study, as well as
response time which was in the neighborhood of seven or eight minutes at
that time. Fire Station #7 was not finalized and we did not have an
anticipated date for that time period and staff did recommend denial and
the Planning Commission voted to deny that recommendation until such
time as there could be a better response time and better timing of public
services with regard to that annexation. It brings up a very good point
because it is something that we utilize some of those recommendations
and reviewing our timing of services is one of the components of our
annexation policy for these types of development. The applicant
mentioned water, I don't disagree that there is a 6" water line but the
amount of capacity of water to serve that area is an extreme concern. Mr.
O'Neal had some preliminary numbers that suggest that we don't have the
water pressure necessary for our typical fire hydrants in that area. These
are the types of issues that we would like to do a little more research on in
order to come to a final recommendation of approval or denial. I think
that timing of service from the fire department is critical. Right now there
is a 12 minute response time. Although they do serve this area it is very
low density at this time so you probably don't see as many responses in
this particular area of the city as the 16 response calls for service that the
fire station projects with the full build out of just this 17 acres. The City
Council instructed Planning Staff to get together a zoning review team.
We look at their recommendations and formulate a recommendation. I
agree with the applicant's representative that it does make a better
boundary, it starts to fill in some of the gaps that were formed back in the
1960's with that actual boundary and I agree that it likely is inevitable that
this property is contained within the city limits. The timing I think is the
critical factor with any annexation request and how can we serve the
residents at a higher density in this particular area of the city. I would
mention, we talk about it almost every annexation request. There was an
annexation task force that looked at this area and identified this as a high
priority area for annexation sometime in the future. A lot of the reason for
that was to be able to plan future facilities, future fire stations to perhaps
the police department be able to plan in a more comprehensive manner
over time as opposed to piece meal and I think that is why you see some of
August 22, 2005
Planning Commission
ANX 05-1488 (Collins/Kinghorn)
Page 1.20
Planning Commission
May 23, 2005
Page 46
Pate:
these recommendations come in as a will or will not be able to support
those because it is very piece meal and that is essentially the process we
have. The City Council has not adopted a policy, has not made a
recommendation with regard to those types of annexation and are not
going to vote at any time that I know of. We work with what we have right
now which are the established policy guidelines and enough of the
findings of facts for us for those guidelines were not together to be able to
recommend approval at this time. I guess I can agree with Commissioner
Vaught that there is some environmental sensitivity in this area and that
would provide pressure but I also agree with staff at this point.
Particularly when I think about how we have looked at similar properties
north and west of town that we were waiting for information about
provision of services. That 12 minute number is really Large and now with
this information about the water line and some additional things, I find it
hard to recommend to City Council at this point. I feel like we haven't
done all the work that we need to do in order to whole heartedly make that
recommendation. I guess what I would like to know is what is the time
frame if we considered tabling this item, what would happen?
I'm right now attempting to get a meeting together with our three fire
chiefs and police chief and everyone else on the taskforce and trying to get
an idea of future recommendations both quantitatively and qualitatively
about how we need to proceed forward with this type of request. As Ms.
Harrington mentioned, there are several and we are very well aware of
them because they come to us every day in this area and we do have
concern. If it is something that the Fire Department can qualify, a 12
minute response time is just hard to get around, but they are serving this
area already to a certain degree. A higher density is going to result in
more response time so maybe they could support a lower density so I think
it comes down to getting together with a discussion as well as some
information provided by the applicant and working with the City
Engineering Division on water pressure capacity. I think the capacity is
ultimately the issue in this area. Not far east of here is where all of the
water starts heading towards the Elkins area so I think that is a
Supervalu's area that we need to determine right now because it
determines even if the Fire Department can support an annexation and
rezoning, it is going to determine fire flow and capacity to be able to
support an area if there is an emergency response call. As many of the
public comments responded, there are obviously police out there. I think
we can get beyond the island issue. Approximately two weeks ago we
determined that this was an issue when our GIS Division returned our
legal descriptions and we contacted the applicant and a lot of the
information tonight was new to us as well so I think it is a matter of
getting to that point, working those issues out in order to get to a
recommendation.
August 22, 2005
Planning Commission
ANX 05-1488 (Collins/Kinghorn)
Page 1.21
Planning Commission
May 23, 2005
Page 47
Anthes:
I think Mr. Pate has convinced me that we don't know everything that we
need to know in order to make this recommendation. If the applicant has
owned the property since the 1970's perhaps you will bear with us a little
while until we can get these details worked out so that we can do the job
that we need to do in order to make the recommendation. If
Commissioner Allen wanted to restate her motion I might be willing to
second it.
MOTION:
Allen: I would like to move that we table ANX 05-1488.
Anthes: I will second the motion.
Vaught: All of these issues sound like density issues, not necessarily annexation
issues, load on services. My question is if there is a water line across this
property, are they using it?
O'Neal: There is currently a 6" water line that runs along Lake Sequoyah. I just
recently had a fire hydrant test run on either the east or west side of the
bridge, but to my knowledge, at that time, I probably did that and someone
to the south of there probably did not have water in their shower. Mr.
Collins is correct, the pressure is available there. He mentioned it is
100psi, we actually about 170 psi. The problem is the flow rate. The flow
rate is only around 660 gallons per minutes and we typically like to see
around 1,500 gallons per minute. The typical ISO ratings for insurance,
that is what their benchmark is. As the size of the home increases then
that flow rate needs to also increase. I don't have those numbers with me
but that is what we have to look at from the fire fighting capacity issue.
Pate:
Just to follow up on that too, I agree, density is part of the issue but as the
policy guidelines that we are given, timing of services is a critical factor
and so we do look at the timing of public services in the annexation. If
those public servicesare there is the city going to have to spend a whole
lot of money to help facilitate or allow for growth in this area when there
are areas in the city currently that have potential problems for
development and rezoning. As Mr. Williams mentioned, it is entirely
discretionary by the City Council whether they want this property or not
and I think we have to take a look at all of those issues. It is a 40 day
process that we have right now from the time of submittal to the time you
get here and that just unfortunately, has not been enough time for us to get
everything together for us to make that recommendation. If the Planning
Commission is comfortable making that recommendation to the City
Council by all means, vote in that manor. Staff at this point is not
comfortable with that recommendation.
August 22, 2005
Planning Commission
ANX 05-1488 (Collins/Kinghorn)
Page 1.22
Planning Commission
May 23, 2005
Page 48
Vaught:
Pate:
Timing of services, I guess if you annex it but don't rezone it then Fire and
Police both would not change their response times at all because you
would be dealing with the same density and they are already serving this
area. I don't know if there is a joint response agreement on these
properties on Lake Sequoyah but I imagine that there would be so the
water and sewer become the services that you are concerned about on
that?
All services. Again, as you increase property into the city and it develops
that is property within the city that the city has a responsibility to serve.
As Ms. Anthes mentioned, we tabled an item for a year and a half for a
seven minute response time. That property is now developing because we
have Fire Station #7 on line but it is something that we are going to have
to come to grips with as the city continues to grow. I am not sitting here
saying that I won't ever support this request because I think there is a
point at which hopefully we can come to support this. Again, Planning
Staff feels it is a good policy decision to create this type of boundary and
to start filling in those gaps and I agree entirely with a lot of the comments
made by the public and by the applicant. For us it is a matter of timing
and a matter of those 2020 Guiding Policies that we are required by the
General Plan to review when we review an annexation.
Vaught: We have also annexed a number of properties with eight minute response
times. That is kind of where I'm stuck in that respect. To me it is more of
a density issue but that is my perspective. I feel comfortable with the
annexation, the density is what I do not agree with and I would not support
an RSF-4 at this time. After this develops out and there is better access
and better facilities to serve this property possibly, but not at this time with
the current state. I don't think this project could support running the sewer
line this far and doing the improvements necessary to increase the water
pressure and all of those issues. To me annexation makes sense, what I'm
worried about is it is county property, they are free to do what they want
there right now. They have the freedom to withdraw their application as
well. In my perspective, it an environmentally sensitive area and that is.
why I would annex it but not support the rezoning to that density.
Myres: I believe I heard the applicant state that if we did not want to approve the
RSF-4 he didn't want to be annexed so I think it is an all or nothing sort of
thing. Can you clarify for me if we do not table this, it comes up for a
vote, we deny it, they have to go through the entire process again?
Pate:
They would have the option to appeal to the City Council. You always
have the option to appeal Planning Commission decisions to the City
Council.
Myres: If it were denied at Council then what?
August 22, 2005
Planning Commission
ANX 05-1488 (Collins/Kinghorn)
Page 1.23
Planning Commission
May 23, 2005
Page 49
Pate:
Unless there was substantial change in the application, potentially more
property or something of that nature, then it would take at least one year
before they could reapply.
Myres: Potentially we are making it easier for them, or making it more possible
for them to gain approval if we table it and bring it back at another time
after more information is gathered.
Pate:
That is really up to you. You are going to make that call. You are going to
make that recommendation I think but staff might be able to be prepared
in discussions with the applicant and discussions with various city services
potentially to have another recommendation. Whether that is approval or
denial, I can't tell you right now. I think that is the issue that is critical for
staff is that we have some issues that we need to sit down and address
comprehensively.
Graves: I have a few questions. This relates to some of the things that came up
with the annexation taskforce, which by the way, met for several months
and submitted a report nine months ago that is still sitting out there. That
would be nice if we had some kind of action taken on it. The tests that
you mentioned on the water pressure, first of all, I have a question about
that Is that a case where it is insufficient for fire hydrants: or whatever the
standard is for the property out there that is already in the city?
O'Neal: That is correct.
Graves: So somehow, is all that property out there the part that was annexed back
in the 1960's or is that stuff that has been brought in more recently?
Pate: The high majority of it was brought in with two annexation requests in the
1960's. There have been small portions, the little R -A portions that
created peninsulas were brought in a little bit later. We have a map when
we did the island annexation, we had a map created that showed
annexation by decade and we can get that together for you. When we
looked at that most of this was created by two annexation requests.
Graves: When we had a similar situation a couple of years ago or a year and a half
ago with the property that we have discussed before, what action did we
take at that point in time? It seemed like we let a few of them stack up for
a while somehow until some kind of study was completed.
Pate:
I think in that case, not that that is going to be the case study, but there
was one where we identified some issues with response time for the fire
department, we identified some capacity for sewage capacity problems. At
that point in time we were in the process of contracting with an
August 22, 2005
Planning Commission
ANX 05-1488 (Collins/Kinghorn)
Page 1.24
Planning Commission
May 23, 2005
Page 50
Engineering Firm to do a sewer capacity analysis on that west side of
Fayetteville for several of the lift stations, Hamestring Basin, Owl Creek
and one other lift station in that area. It really came down to a capacity
issue in that area with those lift stations. We identified how many units
for instance, were able to be put on line at that time. We are actually right
now running another model because of the recent developments out on the
west side to determine how much more it can support and timing of
services again on that west side. When is the west side treatment facility
going to be available and how much time do we have before then. You
are right, there were annexations that stacked up until we could get to that
recommendation. Most of the applicants that came to staff we told them
that we would have to recommend denial as we had in the first case simply
because we were lacking information on timing of services. It just wasn't
there. That didn't mean that the City Council would not have approved
those, because ultimately they make that decision but staff would not have
recommended that at the time.
Graves: So on those we tabled them at the time?
Pate: I believe that is correct.
Graves: My only concern here with tabling and I'm not necessarily opposed to it
because I think that there is a potential that a few more properties in the
same area might come forward over the next couple of meetings or so and
we might have more of a picture of what might be going on out there than
we do right now with just this one property. In that situation we at least
'had an idea, as hazy as it may have been, that there was a finish line to it.
That we had somebody under contract that was figuring out how we were
going to remedy the situation. It doesn't seem like we necessarily have
that on line right now. Before we knew there was a fire station being built
and we knew we had contracted to have the sewer capacity study done. In
this situation I don't know that we have anything on line to figure out what
we would need to do to increase water pressure out there. I know we have
the Tyson Complex situation in the works. I don't necessarily know what
we would need to do to increase water pressure out there when we know
that these are properties that are out there that it makes sense to bring them
in and they are probably going to be coming forward pretty soon.
Pate
I think that those discussions are ones that we will have as well because if
there is no target date it really doesn't matter what the vote is or what the
recommendation is. I think that honestly we can provide you with some
more of that information. One piece of the puzzle is the Tyson Complex
and we can get together and get a better idea at least of where, from
Planning's understanding, there may be dates and things that have been
discussed and we haven't gotten to that point, the question needs to be
asked from administration, from the City Council, but I think we could sit
August 22, 2005
Planning Commission
ANX 05-1488 (Collins/Kinghorn)
Page 1.25
Planning Commission
May 23, 2005
Page 51
down at least and get an idea and that would help alleviate some of those
concerns. With the water pressure issues, we saw a development tonight
that has water pressure issues that would potentially be having a water
tank or some other source to utilize for development of that property that
is already within the city. That property is in the city and can't be served
by our current water system. That is a situation of fact in many areas of
the city there is not either the capacity or ability to serve some properties
without some major infrastructure improvements. This is an area outside
the city that we are looking at serving. Even if it develops outside the city
within the county we still provide that water service and so it would be an
issue regardless of how and when this property develops unless we have
some idea of where to go from here. I understand your concern entirely,
what is the end gain here about how we can recommend. Maybe there is
not one, maybe there is just a point in which we can feel comfortable
together with the Police, Wastewater Superintendent, and everyone else
involved to make that positive recommendation.
Graves: It just seems like everyone agrees that this is a property that needs to be in
the city and that it is an environmentally sensitive area with a primary
water source out there. If everybody knows that then it seems like we
ought to be working towards fixing whatever problems we have
discovered out there that might cause us to have to delay things right now.
One related question I had, I know when the annexation taskforce was
meeting, our City Attorney had told us something to the effect that some
services have to be provided immediately, some don't. I guess I wanted to
ask about that situation too.
Williams: If you have an election you can choose to promise to deliver certain
services and then you have to deliver those services. I don't think you
actually have to do that. You can look at Goshen. They basically did a
very major annexation and I don't think they provide any services. Water
is already provided by Fayetteville. They didn't provide sewer, police or
fire. Basically, you have to provide what you say you are going to provide
within a reasonable period of time.
Graves: That is just an election situation and wouldn't necessarily apply to an
individual petitioner trying to come into the city?
Williams: Except that I think that any person within the city would be entitled to at
least the fire, police and trash. We require developers to extend water
mains and sewer mains to their property so we would not necessarily
extend water mains and sewer mains throughout any area that we would
annex. That would be something that we might have a major trunk line
going out if that was City Council's decision. I don't think we would be
required to do that. Instead, it would be the developers who would be
required to tie on to our closest water main and sewer main. Of course, I
August 22, 2005
Planning Commission
ANX 05-1488 (Collins/Kinghorn)
Page 1.26