HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 5379 Jllllillllllllfiillliiillillilllllll►iii�lliiill►iiilllillVii►Iliiilliiiillii
Doe ID: 0,1119600005 Type: .REL
Kind: ORDINANCE
Recorded: 01/14/2011 at 03:14:20 PM
Fee Amt: $35.00 Paaa 1 of 5
Watt,
County. AR
8atte Stamps C1rcult Clerk
Flle2011-00001453
ORDINANCE NO. 5379
AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN
REZONING PETITION RZN 10-3608, APPROXIMATELY 0.74 ACRE,
LOCATED AT 101 EAST ALICE STREET, FROM RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE-FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE, TO C-2, THOROUGHFARE
COMMERCIAL.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS:
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the zone classification of the following described property is hereby
changed as follows:
From RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4 units per acre, to C-2,
Thoroughfare Commercial, as shown on Exhibits "A" and `B"
attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Section 2: That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas is hereby
amended to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1 above.
Section 3: That the zoning change is subject to the Bill of Assurance offered by the
applicant and hereby accepted by the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, as shown on
Exhibit "C".
PASSED and APPROVED this 4th day of January, 2011.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
TRq
L ELD JO ,Mayor SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/TreSer
r -.FAYETTEVILLE:
"Pys°910KANSP�°J=cam
°g0eeutdspst°°a
�Vsr�iryt�h County, ria`'
I:certifythis instrument was filed on
01/14/2011 01:14:20 PM
and recorded in Real Estate
File Number 2011-00001453
Bette Stamps• Circuit Clerk
EXHIBIT "A"
RZN 10-3608
RZN 10-3608
Close Up View PARKERM01 E. ALICE ST
REFI
RSF�54-•
R
SUBJECT PROPERTY
; a
O
i Z
MAS
OXFORD PL
ALI
t
qF IMBLEDON P
j aaQ
Z
O
Q Z
RO
Leg ndBERTHAST
Mut Use Trail (E i i g)
Fut re Trails
o' R-0
O
,,Footprints 2010
- Hillside-Hilltop Overlay District
Design Overlay Di 5trict
Design Overlay Di 3trict
------ Planning Area
0 125 250 500 750 1,000
Fayetteville Fee
EXHIBIT "B"
RZN 10-3608
SURVEY DESCRIPTION OF LAND TO BE REZONED:
A PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 17 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY,
ARKANSAS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, TO-WIT:
BEGINNING AT A POINT WHICH IS N87009'58"W 719.74' FROM THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF SAID FORTY ACRE TRACT, SAID POINT BEING A SET IRON PIN, AND
RUNNING THENCE S02039'51"W 180.28' TO A SET IRON PIN, TLIENCE N87°03'20"W
179.93' TO A FOUND IRON PIN, THENCE NO2°38'34"E 179.93' TO A FOUND IRON PIN,
THENCE S87009'58"E 180.00' TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 0.74
ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
EXHIBIT"C"
RZN 103608
Paqe 1 of 2
BILL OF ASSURANCE
FOR THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS
In order to attempt to obtain approval of a request for a zoning reclassification,
the owner, developer, or buyer of this property, (hereinafter"Petitioner")
Richard P. &Vikki D. Parker,hereby voluntarily offers this Bill of
Assurance and enters into this binding agreement and contract with the City of
Fayetteville,
Arkansas.
The Petitioner expressly grants to the City of Fayetteville the right to enforce
any and all of the terms of this Bill of Assurance in the Circuit Court of Washington
County and agrees that if Petitioner or Petitioner's heirs, assigns, or successors violate
any term of this Bill of Assurance, substantial irreparable damage justifying
injunctive relief has been done to the citizens and City of Fayetteville, Arkansas.The
Petitioner acknowledges that the Fayetteville Planning Commission and the Fayetteville
City Council will reasonable rely upon all of the terms and conditions within this Bill of
Assurance in considering whether to approve Petitioner's rezoning request.
Petitioner hereby voluntarily offers assurances that Petitioner and Petitioner's
property shall be restricted as follows IF Petitioner's rezoning is approved by the
Fayetteville City Council.
1. The use of Petitioner's property shall be limited to that of an automobile dealership.
2. Other restrictions including number and type of structures upon the property are
limited to one structure which shall not exceed 20 feet in height.
3. Specific activities will not be allowed upon petitioner's property include;
adult live entertainment club or bar, liquor store,race track, gasoline service station and
drive-in restaurant,hotel, motel, and amusement facilities.
4. The petitioner shall dedicate a 10' wide landscape buffer being 5' on both sides of the
eastern boundary of the subject property. The petitioner shall construct a 6' tall masonry
wall along the eastern boundary of the subject property.
EXHIBIT"C
RZN 103608
Pape 2 of 2
5. Petitioner Specifically agrees that all such restrictions and terms shall run with the
land and bind all future owners unless and until specifically released by Resolution of the
Fayetteville City Council. This Bill of Assurance shall be filed for record in the Washington
County Circuit Clerk's Office after Petitioner's rezoning is effective and shall be noted on any
Final Plat or Large Scale Development which includes some or all of Petitioner's property.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF and in agreement with all the terms and conditions stated
above, I, A i' °..1«r c ,� 1/I k, �,z , as the owner, developer or buyer
(Petitioner)voluntarily offer all such assurances and sign my name below.
Date
��rrt tee( ke✓ --- ---
Address
/-he 717031 yl k.lc.l �. �a�kv�-
NOTARY OATH
STATE OF ARKANSAS }
} .ss
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON }
And now ��n this the e day of �, 20PO, appeared before me,
ViC6y? ��Vi Yt4 !7 CaYkPh a Notary Public, and after being placed upon his/her oath swore
or affirmed that he/she agreed with the terms of the above Bill of Assurance and signed his/her
name above.
NOT
P
UBLIC
My Commission Expires: OFFICIAL. seal
KAREN McCoy
11
NOTARPUBLIC ARK ANSAS
WASHINOTON COUNTY
MY COMM.EXPIRES 131101/2012
it
City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form
City Council Agenda Items
and
Contracts, Leases or Agreements
12/21/2010
City Council Meeting Date
Agenda Items Only
Dara Sanders Planning Development Services
Submitted By Division Department
Action Required:
RZN 10-3608: (Parker, 102 East Alice Street, 213): Submitted by BLEW &ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at
101 EAST ALICE STREET. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY-4 UNITS/ACRE and contains
approximately 0.74 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial.
Cost of this request Category/Project Budget Program Category/Project Name
Account Number Funds Used to Date Program/Project Category Name
Project Number Remaining Balance Fund Name
Budgeted Item = Budget Adjustment Attached
011W-N4• V, Previous Ordinance or Resolution#
Depa t rector Date
Original Contract Date:
V Original Contract Number:
City Attorney Date
Y"c 0k2etC1
Finance and Internal Services Director Date Received in City 1 2-0 3- 1 0 F,1 1 3 7 R C V D
Clerk's Office
Chief of St If Date EkrrfR`Il
Received in
Mayor's Office
ayor Date
Comments:
--E,�A- oh 4-hR— J�- e:._
CC YAVc
Revised January 15,2009
a e dv*lle THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
YDEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENCE
S
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
To: Mayor Jordan, City Council
Thru: Don Marr, Chief of Staff �q
Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director U
From: Dara Sanders, Current Planner
Date: November 30, 2010
Subject: RZN10-3608
RECOMMENDATION
Planning Commission recommends approval of an ordinance to rezone a portion of the subject property from RSF-4,
Residential Single Family Four Units Per Acre to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial (RZN 10-3608). Staff
recommended denial of the rezoning request.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is located at 101 East Alice Street in the northwest corner of the Maple Crest Subdivision. The
overall property contains 1.67 acres and was developed in 1975 for a single-family residence. In 2007, the Planning
Commission denied the applicant's request to rezone the subject property from RSF-4 to C-2 (RZN 07-2436) in
order to allow for the expansion of the adjacent car dealership, finding that the request was not consistent with the
City's land use planning objectives, principles, and policies to encourage compatible and livable neighborhoods and
mixed-use development, as indicated in the Urban Center Area future land use designation, and finding that the
request would introduce some potentially objectionable uses, nuisances, and heavy commercial traffic into the
primarily single-family neighborhood to the east and south.
Similar to the request in 2007, the applicant has submitted a new application to rezone a portion of the property to
the east of the car dealership from RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 du/acre, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial,
stating that the reason for the rezoning request is to make the property's zoning consistent with the zoning of the
adjacent Nissan car dealership at the southeast corner of the College Avenue/Masonic Drive intersection. The
applicant, with this application, offered a Bill of Assurance limiting the use of the subject property to an auto
dealership and committing to the installation of a 6' tall masonry wall and 10' wide landscape buffer along the
eastern boundary.
DISCUSSION
On November 22, 2010 the Planning Commission forwarded this item to the City Council with a recommendation
for approval with a vote of 6-2-0 (Commissioner Cabe and Commissioner Chesser voted "no").
Planning staff recommended denial of the request, finding that the proposal is not consistent with the City's land use
and zoning policies and finding that alternative zoning districts are available in Chapter 161, Zoning Regulations,
which would allow for an appropriate transition and would permit the expansion of the Nissan dealership by
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS
approval of a conditional use permit. The conditional use permit is more appropriate in this location than an
expansion by right, because it would allow the Planning Commission to determine the appropriate screening and
landscaping required for the parking lot expansion. The staff report and meeting minutes are included in this packet.
BUDGETIMPACT
None.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY
DESCRIBED IN REZONING PETITION RZN 10-3608,
APPROXIMATELY 0.74 ACRE, LOCATED AT 101 EAST
ALICE STREET, FROM RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-
FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE, TO C-2, THOROUGHFARE
COMMERCIAL, SUBJECT TO THE BILL OF ASSURANCE.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the zone classification of the following described property is hereby
changed as follows:
From RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4 units per acre,
to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, as shown on Exhibits
"A" and `B" attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Section 2: That the official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas is hereby
amended to reflect the zoning change provided in Section I above.
Section 3: That the zoning change is subject to the Bill of Assurance offered by the
applicant and hereby accepted by the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, as shown on
Exhibit "C".
PASSED and APPROVED this day of 2010.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
By: By:
LIONELD JORDAN, Mayor SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer
EXHIBIT "A"
RZN 10-3608
RZN 10-3608
Close Up View PARKER/101 E. ALICE ST
i
G G2 7
F
� I RSF<
$F
O
MILLSAP RD
c2
RSFi
R
02 SUBJECT PROPERTY
\ a
\ cz Q
\
RG j
Z
- MASONIC
OXFORD P
ALICE S
02
IMBLEDONP
W
w a
Z R < Q
G1 h O
------LONCaYfEWST a Z
R-0 F
Leg nd BERTHA ST 0R
gsF-0 Mu , Use Trail (E is g)
Fut re Trails
R0
ORZ HAROLDST
,,,.Footprints 2010
- Hillside-Hilltop Overlay District
Design Overlay Di 5trict
Design Overlay Di trict
------ Planning Area
0 125 250 500 750 1,000
Fayetteville Fee
EXHIBIT "B"
RZN 10-3608
SURVEY DESCRIPTION OF LAND TO BE REZONED:
A PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 17 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY,
ARKANSAS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, TO-WIT:
BEGINNING AT A POINT WHICH IS N87009'58"W 719.74' FROM THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF SAID FORTY ACRE TRACT, SAID POINT BEING A SET IRON PIN,
AND RUNNING THENCE S02039'51"W 180.28' TO A SET IRON PIN, THENCE
N87003'20"W 179.93' TO A FOUND IRON PIN, THENCE NO2038'34"E 179.93' TO A
FOUND IRON PIN, THENCE S87°09'58"E 180.00' TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 0.74 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
EXHIBIT "C"
RZN 103608
Paae 1 of 2
BILL OF ASSURANCE
FOR THE CITY OF FAYE7TCEVILL E, ARKANSAS
In order to attempt to obtain approval of a request for a zoning reclassification,
the owner, developer, or buyer of this property, (hereinafter "Petitioner")
Richard P. & Vikki D. Parker, hereby voluntarily offers this Bill of
Assurance and enters into this binding agreement and contract with the City of
Fayetteville,
Arkansas.
The Petitioner expressly grants to the City of Fayetteville the right to enforce
any and all of the terrors of this Bill of Assurance in the Circuit Court of Washington
County and agrees that if Petitioner or Petitioner's heirs, assigns, or successors violate
any term of this Bill of Assurance, substantial irreparable damage justifying
injunctive relief has been done to the citizens and City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. The
Petitioner acknowledges that the Fayetteville Planning Conunission and the Fayetteville
City Council will reasonable rely upon all of the terms and conditions within this Bill of
Assurance in considering whether to approve Petitioner's rezoning request.
Petitioner hereby voluntarily offers assurances that Petitioner and Petitioner's
property shall be restricted as follows IF Petitioner's rezoning is approved by the
Fayetteville City Council.
1. The use of Petitioner's property shall be limited to that of an automobile dealership.
2. Other restrictions including number and type of structures upon the property are
limited to one structure which shall not exceed 20 feet in height.
3. Specific activities will not be allowed upon petitioner's property include;
adult live entertainment club or bar, liquor store, race track, gasoline service station and
drive-in restaurant, hotel, motel, and amusement facilities.
4. The petitioner shall dedicate a 10' wide landscape buffer being 5' on both sides of the
eastern boundary of the subject property. The petitioner shall construct a 6' tall masonry
wall along the eastern boundary of the subject property.
5. Petitioner specifically agrees that all such restrictions and terms shall run with the
land and bind all future owners unless and until specifically released by Resolution of the
Fayetteville City Council. This Bill of Assn-ance shall be filed Ibr record in the Washington
County Circuit Clerk's Office after Petitioner's rezoning is effective and shall be noted on any
Final Plat or Large Scale Development which includes Some or all of Petitioner's property.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF and in agreement with all the terms and conditions stated
above, I, _Kk-, 4 1_'-i�ec, ,_1/!-l.t L!1'11------ as the owner, developer or buyar
(Petitioner) voluntarily offer all such assurances and sign my name below.
Date
Address
il,
/�ke.t' _
VI IL lc.v- �_ i r r Iq
NOTARY OATH
STATE OF ARKANSAS }
} .SS
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
And now gg❑ this the --he clay of Ztlto, appeared before me,
PP Vir4lt' R--rco( PA, a Notary Public, and after being placed upon his/her oath swore
or affirmed that he/she agreed with the term,;of the above Bill of Assurance and signed his/her
name above.
_ NOTAR PUBLIC
My Commission Expires: OFFICIAt SPAI
NARENMcCOY
NOTARY PUBLIC
iC Af2KANSAS
WASHINOTON COUNTY
MY cOMM FXPIRFS PI nP 2012
TayM—AleKANSAS PC Meeting of November 22, 2010
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 125 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE Fclephone: (479) 575-8267
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission
FROM: Dara Sanders, Current Planner
THRU: Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director
DATE: ,.r, ve ffibef 16, 2010 Updated November 23, 2010
RZN 10-3608: Rezoning (PARKER /101 EAST ALICE STREET, 213): Submitted by BLEW &
ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at 101 EAST ALICE STREET. The property is zoned
RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.67 acres. The request is
to rezone the subject property to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial.
Planner: Dara Sanders
BACKGROUND:
November 11, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting: This request was heard at the November 11,
2010 Planning Commission meeting and was tabled to the November 22, 2010 meeting in order to
allow the applicant additional time to meet with staff to discuss all available options and alternative
nonresidential zoning districts that may be appropriate for the subject property.
Staff met with the applicant's representative and the owner of the Nissan dealership on Friday,
November 12th. During this meeting the owner of the Nissan dealership discussed offering a bill of
assurance that would limit the uses of the property to a car dealership and require screening and
buffering along the east property line; however, staff expressed support for a lower -intensity zoning
district, such as CS, Community Services, which is consistent with the City's planning principles and
objectives and would allow for the expansion of the Nissan dealership by conditional use permit. The
applicants have stated that they are not interested in an alternative zoning district at this time.
The applicant has voluntarily submitted a Bill of Assurance that would limit the use of the subject
property to an automobile dealership, require a structure of less than 20 feet in height, and require a
buffer of five feet on both sides of the property line and a masonry wall no less than 6 feet in height.
Property Description: The subject property is located at 101 East Alice Street in the northwest
corner of the Maple Crest Subdivision. The overall property contains 1.67 acres and was developed
in 1975 for a single-family residence. As indicated in Table I, the site is adjacent to a car dealer to
the west, a mixed commercial strip center, and a residence to the south. The legal description for the
rezoning request contains the western 0.74 acre backyard of the subject property.
History: In 2007, the Planning Commission denied the applicant's request to rezone the subject
G: Itr lY ;Developnien[ Sevvices Reriewl2010 Development Revieii 10-3578 RZN 1130 Garlant1103- Plmming Conunission:O6J4-101Comnuans and
Redlines
property from RSF-4 to C-2 (RZN 07-2436) in order to allow for the expansion of the adjacent car
dealership, finding that the request was not consistent with the City's land use planning objectives,
principles, and policies to encourage compatible and livable neighborhoods and mixed -use
development, as indicated in the Urban Center Area future land use designation, and finding that the
request would introduce some potentially objectionable uses, nuisances, and heavy commercial
traffic into the primarily single-family neighborhood to the east and south. The complete staff report
is included in this packet.
Surroundina Land Lisp and Zonina
Direction from Site
Land Use
Zoning
North
Commercial, office, and Masonic Lode
C-2, R-O, RSF-4
South
Mixed Commercial, Single-family residential
C-2, RSF-4
West
Car Dealership
C-2
East
_
Single-family residential
RSF-4
Propos'ak Similar to the request in 2007, the applicant has submitted a new application to rezone a
portion of the property to the east of the car dealership from RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4
du/acre, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, stating that the reason for the rezoning request is to make
the property's zoning consistent with the zoning of the adjacent Nissan car dealership at the
southeast corner of the College Avenue/Masonic Drive intersection.
Public Comment: Staff has received public comment in opposition to the request by email and at the
last Planning Commission meeting. An email has been included in this packet.
Discussion. Staff finds that the extension of the C-Izoning further east along Masonic Drive is not
consistent with the Future Land Use designation of Urban Center Area. Other appropriate
nonresidential zoning districts are currently available that are consistent with City Plan 2025 and
would permit a range of residential and nonresidential uses, should the property redevelop in the
future. The expansion of a parking lot for the Nissan dealership would be allowed by conditional use
permit in the Community Services zoning district, allowing staff and the Planning commission to
determine a proper screen and buffer to the residential property to the east.
Additionally, staff does not find in favor of the associated Bill of Assurance to limit the use of the
subject property to only a car dealership, finding that this restriction would prohibit the adaptive
reuse or redevelopment of the subject property for a use or mixture of uses that that would be
compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood and consistent with the goals of City Plan
2025. Further, the restrictions included in the proposed Bill of Assurance do not exceed the
minimum screening and landscaping requirements of the Unified Development Code. Chapter
166.14, Commercial Design and Development Standards, requires a view obscuring fence, berm,
architectural treatment, or vegetation between nonresidential and residential uses, and Chapter
177.04, Site Development and Parking Lot Landscape Standards, requires only five feet of
landscaped area between the property line and a parking lot. The offered buffer essentially is the
minimum screen required by City codes.
Staff finds that the minimum development requirements for a permitted use in the C-2 zoning district
G: IE7iCDevelopmery Services Revieirl20101Developmerrr Reviei,110-3578 RZN 1130 Garlana103- Planning Conrmission106-14-101Commenls and
Redlinar
and the restrictions included in the Bill of Assurance are insufficient to protect the impacts of a high -
intensity nonresidential use on the adjacent residential neighborhood and single-family dwelling.
Staff has received noise complaints about the existing Nissan dealership from the adjacent
neighborhood. While staff is supportive of the Nissan dealership remaining and even expanding in
this location, further encroachment of a dealership and parking lot into the neighborhood warrants
significant separation, buffering, and screening to reduce the additional visual, noise, odor, drainage,
and lighting impacts on the existing residential neighborhood to the east of the subject property. It is
staffs opinion that a conditional use permit process is the best vehicle to review this type of
application.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of RZN 10-3608 based on findings stated herein.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required
ate: November 22, 2010 ❑ Tabled ❑ Forwarded ❑ Denied
lotion: Kennedy Second: Honchell Vote: 6-2-0
ITY COUNCIL ACTION: Required YES
❑ Approved ❑ Denied
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Streets: The site has access to Masonic Drive. Masonic Drive is an improved two-lane city
street in this location. Street improvements will be evaluated with development
submittal
Water: Public water is not directly available to the property. Public water main
improvements will need to be constructed to provide domestic and fire flow for any
proposed development.
Sewer: Sanitary sewer is available to the site. There is a 6" public main located along the
south side of Masonic Drive. The existing sanitary sewer may need to be analyzed to
ensure that it has adequate capacity to serve a future development on this lot.
Drainage: Standard improvements and requirements for drainage will be required for any
development. This property is not affected by the 100-year floodplain.
Police: The City Planning Division has not received comments from the Fayetteville Police
GIETCIDevelopmeni Se,vice.s Re. view1201010evelopmed Review10-3578 RZN 1130 Ca) land103- Planning Conmii.uion106l4-IOVCoumier¢r and
Redlines
Department.
Fire: This development will be protected by Engine 4, located less than one mile from the
property. The Fayetteville Fire Department does not anticipate an increase in service
with this rezoning request.
CITY PLAN 2025 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN: City Plan 2025 Future Land Use Plan
designates this site as Urban Center Area, which encourages complete, compact and connected
neighborhoods including building types that accommodate retail, gfces, rowhouses and
apartments. These areas contain taller buildings and have the most intense and dense development
patterns within the City, as well as the greatest variety of buildings. These areas recognize
conventional strip development, but encourage the redevelopment of these existing properties for
more efficient use gfthe land.
FINDINGS OF THE STAFF
A determination of the degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent with land use
planning objectives, principles, and policies and with land use and zoning plans.
Finding: As stated in the findings for the previous application in 2007 to extend the C-2
zoning district to the subject property, staff finds that the request is not
consistent with Fayetteville's land use planning objectives, principals, policies,
and goals to protect adjoining properties from potential adverse impacts
associated with a nonresidential use adjacent to residential areas, to plan for the
long-term use of a property, to make appropriate infill and revitalization our
highest priorities, to discourage suburban sprawl, to make traditional town;
form the standard, and to encourage mixed -use development.
Land use planning principles and policies should not only consider the way in
which the property will develop in the near future but also the way in which the
property and the entire area could redevelop in the long-term. The Future Land
Use designation of the subject property, Urban Center Area, is intended to
provide a mixture of uses that are compatible with adjacent properties and uses,
to encourage future redevelopment for more efficient use of land, and to utilize
principals of traditional neighborhood development. Staff finds that the C-2
zoning in this area is not consistent with the Future Land Use designation of
Urban Center Area, as this district requires a 50-foot front building setback off
of all street frontages and requires development in a conventional suburban
sprawling pattern, which is discouraged by City Plan 2025.
Additionally, land use planning principles and policies should consider the way
in which uses transition from higher -intensities to lower -intensities, as well as in
form. Staff does not find that the applicant's proposal would permit the subject
property to serve as a transition from the form required by the C-2 zoning
G:IEMDevelopment services Review120100evelopment Rewo,,U0-3578 RM 1130 Garland103- Planning C'onnnissionM-14-101Gomments and
Redlines
district and the car dealership to the west and the single-family neighborhood to
the east. Alternative zoning districts are available in Chapter 161, Zoning
Regulations, of the Unified Development Code, and have been recommended to
the applicant that would allow for an appropriate transition in both use and
form and would permit the expansion of the Nissan dealership by Planning
Commission approval of a conditional use permit, at which time screening and
buffering may be examined closely in order to encourage a suitable transition in
the near future.
Staff also finds that the proposed Bill of Assurance is not consistent with the
City's land use planning objectives, principles, and policies, as the proposed Bill
of Assurance would limit the use of the subject property to an automobile
dealership, require a structure of less than 20 feet in height, and require a
buffer of five feet on both sides of the property line and a masonry wall no less
than 6 feet in height. This restriction would prohibit the adaptive reuse or
redevelopment of the subject property for more appropriate land uses, such as
higher density residential, a professional office, or other lower -intensity
nonresidential uses that would serve the needs of the extensive residential
neighborhood to the east.
2. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the.
,rezoning is proposed. -
Finding: The applicant hag stated that the rezoning request is necessary to "match" the
existing zoning designation for the adjacent car dealership. Staff finds that the
rezoning request for C-2 is not justified or needed. As stated previously in this
report, alternative -,zoning districts are available in Chapter 161, Zoning<
Regulations, of the Unified Development Code, that are consistent with City
Plan 2025 and the Future Plan Use Plan and would allow for the expansion of
the adjacent car dealership to the subject property.
Additionally, staff does not find that geometric symmetry of the zoning map is
an appropriate justification for approval of a request to further extend a zoning
district. Staff does acknowledge that the western portion of the property
included in this rezoning application may be justified for a more intense zoning
as a transition between the C-2 to the west and the single-family neighborhood
to the east. Staff finds that there are other appropriate nonresidential zoning
districts are currently available in Unified Development Code Chapter 161,
Zoning Regulations, that would permit a range of housing types and lower -
intensity nonresidential uses by right and higher -intensity nonresidential uses,
such as a car dealership, by conditional use.
3. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase
traffic danger and congestion.
G:IETCIUevelopnreni 8'ervices Revieir120100evelopmenl Revtov 0-3?78 RZN 1130 Gailand103- Planning Qmmii.rsionl06-14-101Commenis and
Redlines
Finding: Access to the residential street, East Alice Street, is not proposed at this time.
Masonic Drive is adjacent to the subject property and is designated as a Local
Street in the Master Street Plan. Staff finds that this rezoning would increase
the traffic on Masonic Drive.
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 zoning would not increase population density. Increased load on
public services were taken into consideration and recommendations from the
Engineering Department is included in this report. The proposed zoning change
from RSF-4 to C-2 should have no major impact on public services due to the
existing infrastructure. However, water, sewer, and the surrounding street
system would likely need to be improved to support commercial development on
this site.
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;
Finding: As discussed previously in Finding 2, staff finds that it would ,be practical to
continue the single-family use of the subject property. Staff does acknowledge
that the western portion of the property included in this rezoning application
may be justified for a more intense zoning as a transition between the C-2 to the
west and the single-family neighborhood to the east; however, the applicants
have indicated that they are not interested in pursuing another zoning district at
this time.
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: Staff finds that there are not extenuating circumstances that justify the rezoning
as it is proposed and recommends denial of the request.
G:IETCIDeve1opmen1.Services Revieu,120100evelopmeni Review! 10-35 8RM 1130 Garlic,003- Planning Conrnnss,on106-14-101Conmenis and
Redlines
161.07 District 16117-4, Residential Single -Family— Four Units Per Acre
(A) Purpose. The RSF-4 Residential District is designed to permit and encourage the development of low density
detached dwellings in suitable environments, as well as to protect existing development of these types.
(B) Uses.
(1) Perinitled uses.
Unit 1 City-wide uses by right
Unit 8 Single-family dwellings
Unit 41 Accesso dwellings
(2) Conditional uses.
Unit 2
City-wide uses by conditional use
permit
Unit 3
Public protection and utility facilities
Unit 4
Cultural and recreational facilities
Unit 5
Government facilities
Unit 9
Two-family dwellings
Unit 12
Limited business
Unit 24
Home occupations
Un
I Wireless communications facilities
(C) Density.
Single-family
Mailings
Two-family
dwellings
Units per acre
4 or less
7 or less
(D) Bulk and area regulations.
Single-family
Two-family
dwellings
dwellings
Lot minimum
70 ft.
80 ft.
width
Lot area
8,000 sq. ft.
12,000 sq.-ft.
minimum
Land area per
8,000 sq. ft.
6,000 sq. ft.
dwelling unit
Hillside Overlay
60 ft.
70 ft.
District Lot
minimum width
Hillside Overlay
8,000 sq. ft.
12,000 sq.-ft.
District Lot area
minimum
Land area per
8,000 sq. ft.
6,000 sq. ft.
dwelling unit
G.' IEMDevelopnrem Services Review120100evelopmenl Review I M-3.578 RZN 1130 Garbnd103- Planning Connnission106-1 d-101Connnents and
Redlines
(E) Setback requirements.
Front
Side
Rear
15 ft.
5 ft.
15 ft.
(F) Building height regulations.
Building Height Maximum 45 ft.
Height reg¢dations. Structures in this District are limited to a building height of 45 feet. Existing structures that
exceed 45 feet in height shall be grandfathered in, and not considered nonconforming uses, (oid. tl 4858).
(G) Building area. On any lot the area occupied by all buildings shall not exceed 40% of the total area of such lot.
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 laces
Unit 14
Hotel, motel, and amusement facilities
Unit 16
Shopping oods
Unit 17
Transportation trades and services
Unit 18
Gasoline service stations & drive-in
restaurants
Unit 19
Commercial recreation, small sites
Unit20
Commercial recreation, large sites
Unit 25
Offices, studios, and related services
Unit 33
Adult live entertainment club or bar
Unit34
Liquor store
(2) Conditional uses.
Unit 2
City-wide uses by conditional use permit
Unit 3
Public protection and utility facilities
Unit21
Warehousing and wholesale
Unit28
Center for collecting recyclable materials
Unit29
Dance Halls
Unit32
Sexually oriented business
Unit 35
Outdoor music establishments
Unit 36
Wireless communications facilities
Unit38
Mini -storage units
Unit40
Sidewalk Cafes
Unit42
Clean technolo ins
G.'IETCIDevelopmeiit Services Review120100evelopment Revien410-3578 RZN I130 Caila,003- Planning Conunissioir106-14-I0lCommenis and
Redlines
(C) Density. None.
(D) Bulk and area regulations. None.
(E) Setback reputations.
Front
50 ft.
Side
None
Side, when contiguous to
a residential district
15 ft.
Rear
20 ft.
(F) Height regulations. In District C-2 any building which exceeds the height of 20 feet shall beset back from
any boundary line of any residential district a distance of one foot for each foot of height in excess of 20
feet. No building shall exceed six stories or 75 feet in height.
(G) Building area. On any lot, the area occupied by all buildings shall not exceed 60% of the total area of
such lot.
G-T7GIDevelopmenl,Services Revie1020100evelopinent ReviewVO-3578 RLN 1130 Garland103- Planning Comniission106-14-101Conmienis and
Redlines
November 23, 2010
Jeremy Pate
Development Services Director
City of Fayetteville
113 W. Mountain
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
Dear Director Pate,
This document is in response to the request comments on the proposed RZN 10-
3608: Rezoning (PARKER /101 EAST ALICE STREET, 213): Submitted by BLEW &
ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at 101 EAST ALICE STREET
I understand that this request is to expand the parking lot from the adjacent
business. I do not believe the rezoning of this property will cause any substantial call
volume increases or traffic danger and congestion problems.
Sincerely,
Captain William Brown
Fayetteville Police Department
The City of Fayetteville Fire Department
303 W. Center St. Fayetteville, AR. 72701
Phone (479) 575-8365 Fax (479) 575-0471
Zoning Review
To:
Dara Sanders
From:
Captain Mark Stevens
Date:
November 18, 2010
Re:
RZN 10-3608
This development will be protected by Engine 4 located at 3385 Plainview
It is less than 1 mile from the station with an anticipated response time of 2-3 minutes to the beginning of the
development.
Since this is a request is to change the zoning from R-4 to C-2; we don't calculate a response impact for
commercial zoning of this size. The Fayetteville Fire Department does not feel this development will affect
our calls for service or our response times.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.
Mark Stevens
Assistant Fire Marshal
Fayetteville Fire Department
Honor, Commitment, Coinage;
Our people make the difference!
..
F
�`•�iedBlew ® ,� •
pp i
III,
'a,r __—Professional Land Surveyors
RE: Parker to Avis Auto Property LLC
To Whom It May Concern:
524 W. Sycamore Street Suite 4, Fayetteville, AR 72703
PH: 4794434506 * FAX: 479-582-1883
httl),//www.blewinc.coni
June 3, 2010
Our client's Richard & Vikki Parker and Avis Auto Property LLC are requesting
a property line adjustment between their two adjoining properties. Avis Auto Property
LLC would be acquiring approximately 0.74 acres from the Parkers, Avis Auto Property
LLC would need to rezone the acquired property from RSF-4 to match their current
zoning of C-2. Our client's would like to do both the property line adjustment and the
rezoning concurrently with this one submittal. We feel that since this rezoning request
will match the Avis Auto Properties current zoning it will not have any negative affects
on the surrounding properties, it will not increase traffic, and it will not increase the load
on public services. We also feel that if the property line adjustment is approved the
rezoning request is justified to match the Avis Auto Properties current use. If you have
any questions please feel free to contact me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Buckley Blew
(11 /4/2010) Dara Sanders - Fwd... mail I,om Accessayettevillej - c 2 Zoning request,. ,ce St Seite 1 ±
From: Planning
To: Dara Sanders
Date: 11/4/2010 8:29 AM
Subject: Fwd: [Form mail from AccessFayetteville] - C-2 Zoning request, Alice St.
Hi Dara,
Here is another one..
>>> On 11/3/2010 at 10:11 PM, in message<1599253130.301288840290268.JavaMail.root@ch-web3>,
<info0fayettevilleviolin.com> wrote:
From: Raymond Palmer
Email: info(&favettevilleviolin.com
To: planning(cDcl.faygtteville.ar.us
Subject: C-2 Zoning request, Alice St.
Message:
Hello, my name is Raymond Palmer. My wife and I live on Alice street, a couple doors down from the lot
that is up for a re -zoning request. It is my understanding that this request is to change it from a
residential designation to C-2 commercial. We both think this is a bad idea and that the request should
be denied. The neighborhood is well -established, well -kept, and purely residential. While there are
some C-2 areas nearby (current businesses include a Nissan dealership and Liquor World), they are well -
contained and do not interfere with the overall residential nature of the area. In our current situation,
the lot is a good sized residential lot with a house and a nice lawn. I see it every day when I check the
mail or leave for work. It fits in with the neighborhood perfectly. If the re -zoning is approved, my
neighbors and I will be looking at the back side of a metal machine shed or a bunch of junk cars the
dealership doesn't know what to do with. While granting this request might benefit some who are in the
area from 9 to 5, it will seriously impact the lives of us who actually live here. Thanks for your
consideration.
Raymond Palmer
Planning Connnission
November 22, 2010
Page 4 of 16
Old Business:
RZN 10-3608: Rezoning (PARKER /101 LAST ALICE STREET', 213): Submitted by BLEW &
ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at 101 EAST ALICE STREET. The property is zoned RSF-4,
SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE, and contains approximately 0.74 acre. The request is to rezone the
subject property to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial,
Dara Sanders, Current Planner, gave the staff report and recommended denial based on the
information included in the staff report.
Avis Bailey, Nissan Dealership Owner, discussed the bill of assurance being offered by the
applicants, the existing zoning in the area, and requested approval of the rezoning request to allow
for the expansion of a parking lot on the subject property. She believes that her proposal will fit into
the neighborhood really well.
No public comment was received.
Commissioner Chesser asked staff if the applicant's intent to expand the dealership could be
approved by conditional use permit (CUP) in the Community Services (CS) zoning district.
Sanders verified that the request could be approved by CUP in the CS zoning district. She explained
staffs opinion that attention to screening and buffering of the proposed car dealership use for the
subject property is warranted.
Commissioner Chesser asked if the limitations outlined in the proposed Bill of Assurance would be
permitted in the CS zoning district.
Sanders stated that the Bill of Assurance significantly limits the uses and development of the
property, further than the uses and building height permitted in the Community Services district.
Commissioner Chesser asked the Assistant City Attorney questions about the wording in the Bill of
Assurance
Commissioner Chesser asked if staff believes that the CS zoning district would provide a better
transition into the neighborhood.
Sanders stated that the reason for the rezoning request is due to the expansion of the Nissan
technology to electric cars; therefore, it is highly likely that the dealership will soon outgrow the
current site, allowing for redevelopment of the subject property. Staff prefers the CS zoning district
because it would allow for the expansion of the dealership at this time and allow for the reuse of the
property and would not limit the use of the property to only a car dealership.
Commissioner Chesser stated agreement with staff, finding that the applicant's request to expand
could be approved and allow for a better transition under the CS zoning district. He realizes that C-2
is surrounding but would prefer to see a better transition between the dealership and the adjacent
Planning Con nsission
November 22, 2010
Page S of 16
single-family neighborhood.
Commissioner Kennedy asked what happens to the land should the property ownership change
hands.
Jason Kelly, Assistant City Attorney, explained that the restrictions run with the land and that the
new owner would request that the City Council release the property from the restrictions.
Sanders added that the permitted and conditional uses in the C-2 zoning district could then operate
on the subject property and may not require notification.
Commissioner Earnest reiterated staffs concern with limiting the subject property to only a car
dealership.
Commissioner Hoskins asked staff if redevelopment of the property is anticipated in the future.
Sanders stated that it is highly likely that the property will redevelop in the future.
Commissioner Hoskins asked staffs opinion of the odds of a property owner of land on College
Avenue of saying in the future that they want to rezone from C-2 to CS - aren't they essentially down
zoning the property?
Sanders stated that staff would likely recommend that the applicant rezone the property from C-2 to
Urban Thoroughfare (UT), as a majority of the uses on College Avenue are consistent with the uses
permitted in the UT zoning district, which is also a form -based zoning district. However, the subject
property is a separate lot and could remain to be a separate lot. It could be redeveloped separately
from the existing car dealership site; therefore, staff finds that the CS zoning district is more
appropriate in order to serve as a better transition.
Commissioner Hoskins asked the applicant if it is the intent to construct a building on the property.
Bailey stated that there was not the intent to build a building and that their attorney recommended
including the building limitation. Parking is the primary concern.
Commissioner Hoskins has concerns with the ability of a service garage being constructed 10 feet
from the property line. He asked staff if there is another zoning district that will allow for the parking
of cars in the near future. He also expressed concern with the Bill of Assurance and would prefer
more detail for the "masonry wall", as he would not be in favor of a cinder block wall.
Bailey stated that she didn't have a cinder block wall in mind.
Commissioner Hoskins stated that lie has known the applicant for years and knows that she always
does a good job on everything she does; however, the Bill of Assurance isn't clear.
Plamsing CornȢissiorr
November 22, 2010
Page 6 of 16
Bailey stated that she is will to change it.
Kelly stated that the Commission can not negotiate changes in the Bill of Assurance.
Commissioner Hoskins explained that he doesn't support the Bill of Assurance.
Sanders stated that discussion of the Bill of Assurance is turning into something resembling a
conditional use permit, which is one reason for staffs recommendation to review the applicant's
expansion proposal through the conditional use pen -nit process under the CS zoning district, should
the property be rezoned. Regarding the different zoning districts, the City Council has determined
that the suburban zoning districts, such as C-1 and C-2, are not consistent with the City's future
vision and comprehensive plan, City Plan 2025. The Planning Commission and City Council
recently approved three new zoning districts proposed by staff. Neighborhood Services (NS),
Community Services (CS), and Urban Thoroughfare (UT). NS does not permit Use Unit 17,
Transportation Trades and Services, under which a car dealership is classified, by right or conditional
use. CS will allow the expansion of the car dealership by conditional use permit. UT will allow by -
right, as well as other uses that staff finds to be incompatible with the adjacent residential dwellings.
Staff has met internally and with the applicant to discuss that the CS district is the most desired
zoning district available in the Unified Development Code for the subject property because it is
consistent with the City's land use and zoning policies and will allow for the expansion of the car
dealership at this time.
Commissioner Hoskins asked staff if the recommendation for C-2 rezoning district will always be
for denial.
Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, stated that staff will take each rezoning request into consideration
and that the C-2 zoning district may be appropriate in some locations.
Commissioner Earnest complimented staff on the detail in the staff report and asked if a
conditional use permit could be issued for a parking lot in the existing underlying RSF-4 zoning
district.
Sanders stated that an off -site parking lot could be pennitted in the RSF-4 zoning district by
conditional use approval but would be specific only to parking cars. No business could be conducted
on the property, which would be difficult to enforce.
Commissioner Lack stated that he believes the neighborhood is encroaching on the commercial area
adjacent to College Avenue and that the boundary could be moved. He also believes that City Plan
2025 states that we acknowledge strip development but encourage complete and compact
development. He doesn't believe that City Plan 2025 says that we deny the C-2 request. He regrets
that the Bill of Assurance limits the uses to only a car dealership, but that can be altered. He
discussed the uses that the adjacent neighborhood doesn't want. He appreciates the applicant
responding to the neighborhood's concern. He discussed the noise ordinance requirements and
regulations. He supports the request.
Planning Comnlissiol?
November 22, 2010
Page 7 of 16
Commissioner Honchell will support the request. He believes that they've been good neighbors for
20 years and doesn't see anything in fi-ont of him that speaks volumes to noise complaints. He
understands the intent of zoning. We keep talking about them changing things dramatically, but
they've been here for 20 years and they probably won't be leaving tomorrow.
Motion:
Commissioner Cabe made a motion to deny the request. Commissioner Chesser seconded the
motion. Upon roll call the motion failed with a vote of 2-6-0 with Commissioners Hoskins,
Bunch, Honchell, Lack, Kennedy, andEarnest voting `no'.
Commissioner Kenney made a motion to forward the request to the City Council with a
recommendation of approval. Commissioner Honchell seconded the motion. Upon roll call the
motion passed with a vote of 6-2-0 with Commissioners Cabe and Chesser voting "no".
Planrsing Commission
Noveniber 8, 2010
Page 13 of 14
RZN 10-3608: Rezoning (PARKER /101 EAST ALICE STREET, 213): Submitted by BLEW &
ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at 101 EAST ALICE STREET. The property is zoned
RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE.,, and contains approximately 0.74 acre. The request is
to rezone the subject property to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial.
Dara Sanders, Current Planner, gave the staff report.
Buckley Blew, representative, explained that the Nissan dealership to the west of the subject property
intends to purchase the property for an expansion to the business.
Ms. Bailey, owner of the Nissan dealership, explained the business and expansion needs.
Donna Stewart, real estate agent, discussed possible restrictions on the property.
Public Comment:
John Darrens, neighbor, expressed opposition to the proposal and explained that the existing
greenspace proposed to be rezoned has served as a buffer between the highway commercial uses to
the west and the neighborhood to the east.
No more public comment was presented.
Commissioner Chesser supports business in Fayetteville but felt that the addition of a parking lot or
C-2 closer to the neighborhood would change the neighborhood character, which outweighs
expanding business opportunity.
Commissioner Lack believed that the neighborhood encroached into the commercial area adjacent
to College Avenue and finds that the current requirement for a visual screen in the Commercial
Design Standards is sufficient.
Commission Chesser and Kit Williams, City Attorney, discussed issues associated with a Bill of
Assurance.
Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director, explained that the previous item for a tire store
discussed by the Planning Commission needed a buffer and compared the two uses. He explained
staffs concern with future development of the property, as there is not a guaranty that the current
location of the Nissan dealership permanent.
Commissioner Chesser asked if staff might consider other zoning districts.
Pate explained that staff had already suggested that the applicant request the Community Services
zoning district.
Commissioner Chesser stated that he can not support the request as proposed.
Planning Connnission
November 8, 2010
Page 14 of 14
Commissioner Earnest shares staffs concern with C-2 but finds that a compromise is in order.
Commissioner Cabe discussed that it could be appropriate for a commercial development to occur
on the subject property but expressed hesitance to support C-2 because of the permitted uses
included in the zoning district.
Motion:
Commissioner Chesser made a motion to table the item until the November 22, 2010 Planning
Commission meeting. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed
with a vote of 8-0-0.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 PM.
-36081
RZN1 View
One Milea mew PARKERM 01 E. ALICE ST.
s
k
'AaRynRr viav��
�� t tA! #
W4 RV
E : Gy r •,
SUBJECT PROPERTY a
ry� Al Aa1+9' IflA
jW
4s R i� � x
soc
No
F R+�sR+icrzras��
SR00j V&, . ' SWEETS-
ST_._.
7,
P RIGpp' •# Fwig
ELAINE AVE �a
R¢
1 1 ati : a waF. NST
ST"
AM
ourL/SSLEFIEI.DiN 5 Rsr�
API _ is I �Ir �o neti rrer a' ror+ 1 Rar' ..,1.�'
NAROLC ST Ru
�}�py Ro� ale yA R�sai.�' 1 BRWtCLIFF Si kfMc,
{ 4
RA ,YQRd�' CCRTLANU ST �Fq�E
RSF
R8ti f • _ ` PFWATE-3103
o • i e ETON ST D 7! R.W-
,� �R�a}�amsx�a I* ' R/syr�FURM�AN ST al au+ CK OR
i?ti'gA ry�AM,Y R3+lLLlSORDR
Yu as.x RS
RSF�C �Wj
CUFF3T. RSFa 1 30�a0.Y
1 t 4 6 r-tFi R..Oyy�ftsr NTSi G�x; � Foal /auw
RURSiy
r�2nr.4�PoR5Y�T_gIA[R� K;i - iiI I III away ( �A
P
o set>Tre�it'sting
RSA J , NN y
�1 _< itYF'ir+' ` Ate(••
Overview Legend RZIN 10-3608
.�SubjW
"rt Property i_...! De n Overlay District
Boundary . ; Plan iing Area
Fayi ttevllle
S 0 0.25 0.5 1
M les
I r
`.: ( . w�-3L.: r,+y..F,2 (� •aaz...- '. Y J 1 I 1
tlo
�,t' ai✓e.fBW�. C..S d�V CCi�7s2 (�r r naY ¢ ta� � �3 }} �.. � � 4: '
,N��,,��}�('.
q l-
+d. �S f f °1 f�,` ,.a.L'1, Irtt 7 .
tF� x� eznS �.F�f � I •p,! � "}' 'y t" cea. l.•
'k)`'jj({ • t,P `{t�3 "t 1 • 4 �C I.�I U F Y �:.: � ry ;����Ix 1 ifi�k
{ : c
1 4:k j�i•tg{{yrhl � e '. ` i �?x ifi f `lii`Ni4X lit
�i-. � �� I 1• a ..�� '���a ��, �� � '�-`?"'p' �' art.-� V r'.� � � � ,f1
ht
Diu i
I
(
• • f t � T � � �qy o �({x � .
it a t T y 1v
R i1gHF 11 'i� ..c
(y 1 T1� I 1 •.. t� i •�.
y
t
1 1=4mnts 2010
NORTHWEST ARKANSAS
NEWSPAPERS
Northwest Arkansas Democrat Gazette
The Morning News of Springdale
The Morning News of Rogers
Northwest Arkansas Times
Benton County Daily Record
212 North East Avenue, Fayetteville Arkansas 72701/ PO Box 1607, 72702
PHONE: 479-571-6421
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
JAN 18 2011
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
I, Cathy Wiles, do solemnly swear that I am Legal Clerk of the Northwest
Arkansas Newspapers LLC. Printed and published in Washington & Benton
County, (Lowell), Arkansas and that from my own personal knowledge
and reference to the files of said publication, the advertisement of: City
of Fayetteville- Ordinance 5379
January 13, 2011
Publication Charge : $ 58.36
Signed:
Subscribed and sworn to before me
This 13 day of ;o-,,)�7 , 2011.
Notary Public
Jim Mears
act so
Washin ton
Commission Number 12374647
M Commission Expires:
Y p
Notary Public - Arkansas
My Commission Expires Jan.20, 2020
Do not pay from Affidavit, an
invoice will be sent
RECEIVED
JAN 1 S 2011
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE