HomeMy WebLinkAbout200-02 RESOLUTIONRESOLUTION NO. 200-02
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL OF
ASSURANCE SUBMITTED WITH ORDINANCE NO. 4410,
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON
AUGUST 20, 2002.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1. That the City Council of Fayetteville, Arkansas, hereby
approves amendments to the Bill of Assurance, which was submitted with
rezoning Ordinance No. 4410, passed and approved by the City Council on
August 20, 2002. A copy of the Revised Bill of Assurance, marked Exhibit "A" is
attached hereto and made a part hereof
PASSED and APPROVED this 17th day of December, 2002
irt
<,
By:
4
EATHER WOODRUFF, C1 Clerk
APPROVED:
By:
DAN COODY, Ma
NAME OF FILE:
CROSS REFERENCE:
Item #
Date
Resolution No. 200-02
Document
1
12/17/02
Resolution # 200-02
2
12/12/02
Bill of Assurance
3
12/20/02
Staff review form
4
12/26/02
Memo from Heather Woodruff, City Clerk to Tim Conklin,
Planning
NOTES:
• •
REVISED AND SUBSTITUTED BILL OF ASSURANCE
FOR THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
This Revised and Substituted Bill of Assurance is given this l0 day of December,
2002 by Mathias Properties, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "Buyer/Developer" unto the City of
Fayetteville, hereinafter referred to as "City".
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Buyer/Developer has a contract to purchase approximately 21 acres in the City
of Fayetteville, which property is situate in Section 5 and part of Section 8 of Township 16 North,
Range 30 West, Washington County, Arkansas, hereinafter referred to as "Subject Property"; and
WHEREAS, Buyer/Developer's contract to purchase Subject Property is conditioned upon
certain approvals from City; and
WHEREAS, Buyer/Developer did recently request, on behalf of the owners of the Subject
Property, a rezoning of the Subject Property and such property was rezoned to RMF -6 and in
connection therewith, a Bill of Assurance was given to the City relating to the use the Subject
Property, and
WHEREAS, it has now become necessary to modify the original Bill of Assurance dated the
22' day of July, 2002; and
WHEREAS, City has agreed to accept this Revised and Substituted Bill of Assurance and
has or will pass a resolution to accept it.
NOW, THEREFORE, Buyer/Developer covenants with City as follows:
1. Buyer/Developer acknowledges that this Bill of Assurance was offered to assist in the
rezoning of the Subject Property and hereby acknowledges that this Bill of Assurance shall constitute
a binding agreement and contract with City relating to the use of the Subject Property.
2. Buyer/Developer expressly grants to the City the right to enforce any and all terms of this
Bill of Assurance in the Circuit Court of Washington County, and agrees that if Buyer/Developer
or its successors or assigns violate any terms of this Bill of Assurance, City shall have the right to
seek injunctive relief on its behalf and the behalf of the citizens of City. Buyer/Developer
acknowledges that the Fayetteville Planning Commission and the Fayetteville City Council have
reasonably relied upon all of the terms and conditions of this Bill of Assurance in considering
whether to approve Buyer/Developer's rezoning request.
OR!O!NAL
•
•
3. The use of the Subject Property shall be limited to single-family condominiums and patio
homes.
4. The number and type of structures upon the Subject Property are limited to the following:
Five (5) Single Family Units, Ten (10) Condominiums with Four (4) per Condo -Forty (40) Units,
Thirty -Seven (37) Patio Homes with Two (2) each -Seventy -Four (74) Units, Seven (7) Units on Two
(2) Lots along Deane Street. The total number of Units shall be One Hundred Twenty -Six (126).
As used herein, "Unit" shall mean a single family dwelling.
5. The Buyer/Developer agrees to install 2"DBII Loblolly pine trees space at 30'O.C. along
the south boundary line. In addition, a privacy fence will be installed along this same south property
line.
6. Condominiums units will have two (2) bedrooms each with a one -car garage. Each patio
home will have two (2) or three (3) bedrooms with a two -car garage.
7. The Buyer/Developer agrees to install a view obscuring hedge along the back of the other
properties along Sang Avenue.
8. The quality of construction shall be established and enforced by covenants.
9. Buyer/Developer acknowledges that occupants of the Units must abide by City ordinances
relating to the occupancy of any one Unit.
10. Greenspace will be set aside for City Park or use by occupants of this project.
11. Buyer/Developer 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
Clerk's Office and shall be noted on the Final Plat, which includes all of Buyer/Developer's Subject
Property.
12. This Revised and Substituted Bill of Assurance is offered as a complete revision of the
Bill of Assurance dated July 22, 2002 and it is intended to be substituted therefor.
13. Nothing contained herein shall preclude Buyer/Developer from filing, as part of its final
plat process, restrictive covenants relating to the use of the Subject Property; provided, however,
nothing contained in any other restrictive covenants shall release Buyer/Developer from any
obligations hereunder to the City.
•
• •
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and in agreement with all the terms and conditions stated above,
Buyer/Developer voluntarily offers such assurances.
MATHIAS PROPERTIES, INC.
BY:
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF ARKANSAS
)ss.
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
On this / 2 fh day of December, 2002, before the undersigned, a Notary Public, duly
commissioned, qu�,l1fied an acting within and for the County and State, appeared in person the
within named amix j'.FS to me personally known, who stated that he was the
of Mathias Properties, Inc., a corporation, and was duly authorized in such
capacity to execute the foregoing instrument for and in the name and behalf of said corporation, and
further stated and acknowledged that he had so signed, executed and delivered said instrument for
the consideration, uses and purposes therein mentioned and set forth.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal this
day of December, 2002.
My Commission Expires:
1 , a-ocx ,
_142.1
Notary Publ
w LL)ik
•
• •
REVISED AND SUBSTITUTED BILL OF ASSURANCE
FOR THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
Hi
This Revised and Substituted Bill of Assurance is given this lA day of December,
2002 by Mathias Properties, Inc., hereinafter referred to as 'Buyer/Developer" unto the City of
Fayetteville, hereinafter referred to as "City".
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Buyer/Developer has a contract to purchase approximately 21 acres in the City
of Fayetteville, which property is situate in Section 5 and part of Section 8 of Township 16 North,
Range 30 West, Washington County, Arkansas, hereinafter referred to as "Subject Property"; and
WHEREAS, Buyer/Developer's contract to purchase Subject Property is conditioned upon
certain approvals from City; and
WHEREAS, Buyer/Developer did recently request, on behalf of the owners of the Subject
Property, a rezoning of the Subject Property and such property was rezoned to RMF -6 and in
connection therewith, a Bill of Assurance was given to the City relating to the use the Subject
Property; and
WHEREAS, it has now become necessary to modify the original Bill of Assurance dated the
22"" day of July, 2002; and
WHEREAS, City has agreed to accept this Revised and Substituted Bill of Assurance and
has or will pass a resolution to accept it.
NOW, THEREFORE, Buyer/Developer covenants with City as follows:
1. Buyer/Developer acknowledges that this Bill of Assurance was offered to assist in the
rezoning ofthe Subject Property and hereby acknowledges that this Bill of Assurance shall constitute
a binding agreement and contract with City relating to the use of the Subject Property.
2. Buyer/Developer expressly grants to the City the right to enforce any and all terms of this
Bill of Assurance in the Circuit Court of Washington County, and agrees that if Buyer/Developer
or its successors or assigns violate any terms of this Bill of Assurance, City shall have the right to
seek injunctive relief on its behalf and the behalf of the citizens of City. Buyer/Developer
acknowledges that the Fayetteville Planning Commission and the Fayetteville City Council have
reasonably relied upon all of the terms and conditions of this Bill of Assurance in considering
whether to approve Buyer/Developer's rezoning request.
1
•
• •
3. The use of the Subject Property shall be limited to single-family condominiums and patio
homes.
4. The number and type of structures upon the Subject Property are limited to the following:
Five (5) Single Family Units, Ten (10) Condominiums with Four (4) per Condo -Forty (40) Units,
Thirty -Seven (37) Patio Homes with Two (2) each -Seventy -Four (74) Units, Seven (7) Units on Two
(2) Lots along Deane Street. The total number of Units shall be One Hundred Twenty -Six (126).
As used herein, "Unit" shall mean a single family dwelling.
5. The Buyer/Developer agrees to install 2"DBII Loblolly pine trees space at 30'O.C. along
the south boundary line In addition, a privacy fence will be installed along this same south property
line.
6. Condominiums units will have two (2) bedrooms each with a one -car garage Each patio
home will have two (2) or three (3) bedrooms with a two -car garage.
7. The Buyer/Developer agrees to install a view obscuring hedge along the back of the other
properties along Sang Avenue.
8. The quality of construction shall be established and enforced by covenants.
9. Buyer/Developer acknowledges that occupants of the Units must abide by City ordinances
relating to the occupancy of any one Unit.
10. Greenspace will be set aside for City Park or use by occupants of this project.
11. Buyer/Developer 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
Clerk's Office and shall be noted on the Final Plat, which includes all of Buyer/Developer's Subject
Property.
12. This Revised and Substituted Bill ofAssurance .is offered as a complete revision of the
Bill of Assurance dated July 22, 2002 and it is intended to be substituted therefor.
13. Nothing contained herein shall preclude Buyer/Developer from filing, as part of its final
plat process, restrictive covenants relating to the use of the Subject Property; provided, however,
nothing contained in any other restrictive covenants shall release Buyer/Developer from any
obligations hereunder to the City.
•
•
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and in agreement with all the terms and conditions stated above,
Buyer/Developer voluntarily offers such assurances.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
MATHIAS PROPERTIES, INC.
BY:
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
)ss.
On this / 2.. th day of December, 2002, before the undersigned, a Notary Public, duly
commissioned, qu fied an acting within and for the County and State, appeared in person the
within named amp/ iii -PS to me personally known, who stated that he was the
of Mathias Properties, Inc., a corporation, and was duly authorized in such
capacity to execute the foregoing instrument for and in the name and behalf of said corporation, and
further stated and acknowledged that he had so signed, executed and delivered said instrument for
the consideration, uses and purposes therein mentioned and set forth.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal this /a
day of December, 2002.
My Commission Expires.
fith
Notary Publ
--
SAlk
1
• •
STAFF REVIEW FORM
x Agenda Request
Contract Review
Grant Review
For the Fayetteville City Council meeting of December 17, 2002.
FROM:
Tim Conklin, City Planner
Name
Division Department
ACTION REQUESTED: To approvCADM%t2-37.00 to consider amending the Bil of
Assurance associated with ,RZN. 02-17.00 (Mathias/Barnes) for property
located south of Deane Street, west of Sang Avenue and east of Porter
Road. The amendment would alter the number of single-family homes,
duplexes, and four plexes allowed in the proposed Skyler Place
Subdivision.
COST TO CITY:
s0
Cost of this request Category/Project Budget Category/Project Name
Account Number
Project Number
Funds used to date Program Name
Remaining balance Fund
BUDGET REVIEW:
Budget Coordinator
Budgeted Item Budget Adjustment Attached
Administrative Services Director
CONTRACT/GRANT/LEASE REVIEW: GRANTING AGENCY:
3g4V-2°a
at ADA Coordinator Date
Lty Fjtorney /D -D t Internal Auditor Date
Purchasing Officer
Date
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended consideration by the City
Council of an amended Bill of Assurance and on November 25, 2002
the Planning Commission voted 9-0-0 to forward the request to the
City Council with no recommendation.
6ivision
Head
Department Director
Date
Date
Admip. strat've Services Date
Di(4r
Mayor{ ( S
Cross Reference
New Item: Yes No
Prev Ord/Res#:
Orig Contract Date:
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL OF
ASSURANCE SUBMTI T1:D WITH ORDINANCE NO. 4410,
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE C:11Y COUNCIL ON
AUGUST 20, 2002..
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1. That the City Council of Fayetteville, Arkansas, hereby
approves amendments to the Bill of Assurance, which was submitted with
rezoning Ordinance No. 4410, passed and approved by the City Council on
August 20, 2002. 'A copy of the Revised Bill of Assurance, marked Exhibit "A" is
attached hereto and made a part hereof.
PASSED and APPROVED this 3rd day of December, 2002.
ATTEST:
B
• •
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission
FROM: Sara Edwards, Associate Planner
THRU: Tim Conkhn, A.I.C.P., City Planner
DATE- November 21, 2002
PC Meeting of Nov. 25, 2002
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (479) 575-8264
ADM 02-37.00: Administrative Item: An administrative item to consider amending the Bill of
Assurance associated with RZN 02-17 (MathiasBames) for property located south, of Deane
Street, west of Sang Avenue and east of Porter Road. The amendment would alter the number of
single-family homes, duplexes, and four-plexes allowed in the proposed Skyler Place
Subdivision
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission forward this item to the City Council with a
recommendation.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required YES
0 Approved 0 Denied
Date: November 25, 2002
CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Required YES
0 Approved
Date: December 17, 2002
0 Denied
Comments:
BACKGROUND:
This property was rezoned on August 20, 2002 from R-1 to RMF -6. A Bill of Assurance
G:IPL.4NNINGIREPORJSIPCREPOR7S20021NOVEMBER111-151ADM02-37 SKYLER.DOC
• •
was offered as part of the proposed rezoning. The Bill of Assurance outlined the exact
number of units that would be allowed on the site as well as the number of single-family
homes, duplexes, and four -unit condominiums and the locations of each. Due to an
unanticipated amount of area needed for detention four duplex lots were lost based upon
what was proposed onginally with the rezoning. In order to make up for the lost lots and
dwelling units the developer has proposed the following changes:
Change the use of lots 1 and 10 from Single -Family Residential to 4 unit condominium.
Change the maximum number of units allowed on lots 56 and 57 from five to seven.
NOTIFICATION:
All adjacent property owners were notified of the large scale development by the
developer and by the Planning Commission.
The large scale development notice was published in the paper.
•
The developer notified property owners directly affected by the change in the Bill of
Assurance.
The Planning Division notified property owners directly affected by the change.
The Asbell Neighborhood Association President notified all members with email
addresses via email of the proposed changes.
Staff notified the Asbell Neighborhood Association via email of the proposal and the
meeting dates.
CONDITIONS:
1. The revised Bill of Assurance offered by the owner shall be amended to
include the addition of hedges along lots 1 and 10 adjacent to Porter and Sang.
G:IPLANNINGIREPOR7SIPCREPORJS2002WOVEMBERIJI.251ADM02-37 SKYLERDOC
Planning Commission
November 25, 2002
Page 8
• •
ADM 02-37.00: Administrative Item: An administrative item to consider amending the Bill of
Assurance associated with RZN 02-17 (Mathias/Barnes) for property located south of Deane
Street, west of Sang Avenue and east of Porter Road. The amendment would alter the number of
single-family homes, duplexes, and four-plexes allowed in the proposed Skyler Place Subdivision.
Aviles: Item four on our agenda is an administrative item, this is a companion item with
number five, which is a Preliminary Plat. We will hear both items separately.
ADM 02-37.00 is an item to consider amending the Bill of Assurance associated
with RZN 02-17.00 for property located south of Deane Street, west of Sang
Avenue, and east of Porter Road. The amendment would alter the number of
single-family homes, duplexes, and four plexes allowed in the Skyler Place
subdivision. Sara, would you give us the staff report for this please?
Edwards: Yes. As part of the rezoning, the applicant, on the Bill of Assurance, listed the
types and numbers of units to be constructed. As requested at agenda session, we
did get you the original staff report with the proposed plan at the time of rezoning.
When this development came for Preliminary Plat approval we discovered that a
larger area was going to be needed for detention than they originally planned on
which basically caused a four lot reduction. In an effort to recover those units, they
are requesting that the Bill of Assurance be revised. That is to change lots one and
ten from single-family residential to a four plex and lots 56 and 57 from five units
to seven units. Because the Planning Commission originally considered this Bill of
Assurance in a recommendation of the rezoning, we wanted to give you a chance to
make a recommendation with regard to the change. Also, since agenda session I
have distributed emails from the neighborhood association regarding their feelings
on that requested change and you should've got a memo from the City Attorney as
well.
Aviles: Thank you very much. Is the applicant present?
Jorgensen: My name is Dave Jorgensen and I am here on behalf of the owner/developer,
Bleaux Barnes and Sam Mathias on this project. I am here to try to answer
questions and explain the reason for the revised Bill of Assurance. I think Sara did
a pretty good job on that basically but we are here to try to answer questions.
Aviles: Do you have anything to add at this point or should we take public comment first?
Jorgensen: No I don't.
Aviles: Ok, thanks Dave. Is there any member of the audience that would like to address us
on this matter?
Maynard: My name is Richard Maynard, I am president of the Asbell Neighborhood
Association. I understand that this is kind of an unusual situation with you
amending the bill. Mr. Barnes and Mr. Mathias met with us, as you know, last May
Planning Commission
November 25, 2002
Page 9
• •
to talk about this project. In the past it was a pretty contentious piece of property. I
do want to remind the Commission that at that time these six houses were not part
of the discussion. They were not even offered as part of that. Those got added on
later as they got more into their development and realized they had these lots
vacant: I think it was Mr. Conklin that suggested that they put single-family units
there. We certainly would not object to that, it sounded like a good idea. As Ms.
Edwards explained, because of the detention pond they had to lose these units. Mr.
Jorgensen called me and asked me what I thought of this and what I thought the
neighborhood would think of it and I said I don't really see a big problem here
because what we agreed to was really density, the type of duplexes, what we agreed
to at that May 23`d meeting were just duplexes and the condos by themselves. This
was kind of added as a bonus. I think it is unfortunate that it had to change but one
or two houses taken away is not going to make a big deal to us I suppose I could
stand up here and say "Sony folks, you agreed to those six houses on that Bill of
Assurance." Personally though, I think it would be a real big breach of trust on us
as an association and as a neighborhood to hold them to that because they have
dealt with us with nothing but good faith and we want to do the same. Had this
been in the original agreement that we made on May 231'11 think it might be a little
trickier. If that would have been a selling point of yes we will give up our last big
area of R-1 zoning, we do regard it certainly as ours, if that was a big selling point,
then it might be kind of tough, but again, it wasn't. It was something that was
added on later to try to improve upon this development. I don't know a lot about
development but I am learning and I know you can only plan so far and so well and
cover all your basis. I think this is something that was unforeseen. When I read in
the paper on Friday that we might have to start all over from scratch it really kind of
worried me. I do want to tell you from a neighborhood point of view, we have one
other neighborhood member here and I would like him to weigh in on this too. We
have a real investment in this thing going through We want it to go through right
absolutely. You all know that land has been out there and it has been sitting out
there for three years. I think if you ask anybody in the neighborhood probably
100% of them, including me, if you ask them what you would rather have out there
they would probably say nothing, leave it alone but we know that is not an option
and is R-1 an option? I don't think so because nobody has made an offer on that in
three years. I would think that after what happened three years ago somebody
would have at least tested the waters. We are looking at a big area in the middle of
our neighborhood that we know is going to get filled in. Opposed to what happened
three years ago, at least here if their marketing plan works, we have a better than
even chance for a lot of home ownership. We feel that this is the best development
for that neighborhood that we are going to get. I can't say that for sure. I know we
have already discussed that but I am only saying this in that I hope that you will
approve this because we don't want to start from scratch or have to start all over
with somebody else on something that maybe will be better, whatever that means,
but it could certainly be a lot worse. In short, we have no problem with this change
for the reason I said at the very beginning. The houses were not part of the mix
when they first approached us about this. It was something added on and now they
Planning Commission
November 25, 2002
Page 10
Aviles:
Scarbrough:
Aviles:
Whitaker:
• •
have had to take a couple of them away. I think she said that she gave you the
emails. They originally asked if we wanted to have a meeting on this and I said no,
out of respect for the neighbors time I am not going to do that. I don't know if you
have copies of all of the emails, I think I sent you everything that I have. I have
them here, of the people that responded, and I only went by households by the way.
There were sixteen that said that they have no problem with this, only two objected
and the Asbell Neighborhood Association board was eight to zero in favor of these
changes. If somebody said "I have no problem." I didn't write them back and say
"How did your spouse feel?" if they said it was aye it was one vote. Unless you
have any questions I guess that is all I have to say.
Thank you very much Mr. Maynard. Is there any other member of the audience
that would like to address us?
My name is Dale Scarbrough and I am with Richard here. I think that they have
dealt with us in good faith and I don't think that changing because they need a
larger detention pond is a problem. I understand the economics of the situation,
trying to recover those units so I don't see a problem with it. In the sense that the
way they are marketing these units is to own them, not to rent them. I think for me
that is an important point. If it was rental property I would have a problem maybe
with that but so far they have done a good job and I agree with the change. I don't
think it is a problem.
Ok, thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this?
Seeing no one, I will go ahead and bring discussion back to the applicant and to the
Commission. Before we get started on that we do have a memo from our City
Attorney's office and I wonder David, if you would give us a short synopsis of that
please.
Just very briefly, what I was asked at the Thursday meeting to look at was whether
the change in the language of the Bill of Assurance would require that the applicant
return to square one as it were in the entire request for rezoning process or in short
what was the affect of that change on this process. The memo briefly goes through
the statute regarding rezoning and some of the language from that. I guess the jest
of it is that the Bill of Assurance has more of a characteristic of say a contract or
agreement that the City Council has approved. The rezoning itself does not change
no matter what as far as the facts here. The language has significantly changed
after reading through it and comparing the two documents, they are a significant
change from each other in several areas that I have outlined in the memo. What
that is going to require is that the City Council by resolution approve a contract
amendment is basically what it procedurally will look most like. It will simply be
an item where the Council will consider and by simple majority vote may approve
the changes to the language of the Bill of Assurance. The good news for the
applicant is that there is no need to seek rezoning. Obviously, the RMF -6 I believe
it is, is still going to be RMF -6 no matter what happens as far as that subsidiary
Planning Commission
November 25, 2002
Page 11
Aviles:
Whitaker:
Aviles:
Whitaker:
Aviles:
Jorgensen:
• •
question is concerned. Yes or no that remains the zoning. All I really need is to get
the Council's approval on that. After some discussion with the folks in Planning it
looks as though there certainly would be no problem with a conditional approval, if
you chose to, of the Preliminary Plat forwarding the admin item onto Council for
their consideration. The final step would be just getting the underlying approval for
the Bill of Assurance from the Council.
I have a question about one other thing in your memo. I think you recommended
some rewording of that.
I would like to see the second one have some of the stuff that the first one had in it
and I think that is a stylistic thing but I think in the end it has a lot of import for
property owners ten years out who pull it and don't really need to know about the
detention pond but they really do need phrases like "reasonably relied upon" a
reference to the township and range description of the property, things like that. I
think that is a format thing that we can work on and it is not a big deal. There was
one thing in item number four where suddenly in the new version there is specific
talk about the garages, single and two car garages. While I am certainly not going
to comment on the wisdom one way or the other of the language being in there it
wasn't in the original one so therefore, that lead to our conclusion that the
document had changed considerably from the first one. Specifically, the
introductory paragraphs, if that earlier language could be reinstated and we could
drop out any of the justification for the change. That is more appropriate in a memo
describing why the Bill of Assurance needs to be changed, not on the Bill of
Assurance itself'.
You would have time to work with the applicant regarding the redrafting of that
before it would go to Council?
Absolutely. The earliest thing at the Council at this point is the 17t. The 3`a is
already overbooked to the extreme. I think anybody that takes a look at the
December 3`d City Council agenda would agree that it probably is one of the longest
ever seen.
Thank you very much. Dave, do you want to respond?
I don't know that I have got a lot to add to this whole deal other than what was
already mentioned. The bottom line net result is this is exactly the same amount of
units that we originally had on the Bill of Assurance. The other thing is the fact that
we offered this Bill of Assurance in good faith and I guess maybe we got too
detailed in all the various things and maybe we should've just said 126 units, RMF -
6 and some of the very basics but it just so happened that we even actually spelled
out the amount of single-family units and four plexes and duplexes and on and then
we get into the situation about the detention pond. At any rate, we feel like we can
work out the verbiage with the city on it and move along, we are hoping anyway.
Planning Commission
November 25, 2002
Page 12
Aviles: Ok, thank you very much.
Estes: Because a Bill of Assurance may not be a condition preceding to granting a
rezoning at agenda I asked our City Attorney to opine whether it was permissible
that we hear this administrative item. He has done so and he has summarized his
opinion for us in a memo In that memo citing applicable statute and case law he
concludes that the new document must be reconsidered by the City Council before
the Planning process may proceed. It is for that reason that I would move that we
forward ADM 02-37.00 to the City Council without recommendation for it's
consideration.
Aviles: Thank you Commissioner Estes. Do I have a second?
Bunch: Second.
Aviles: There is a second by Commissioner Bunch. I think that this when looked at in
conjunction with the upcoming Preliminary Plat which I will be recommending that
we approve subject to Council's approval of this administrative item, I think that
this is the proper procedure to take so I will be voting for the motion. Is there any
additional discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to forward ADM 02-37.00 to the City
Council with no recommendation was approved by a vote of 9-0-0.
Aviles: The motion carries unanimously.
NOV-14-2002 02:51P FROM:
• •
T411151. P:2/2
ORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS
124 WEST SUNBItIUCE, SUITE 5 • FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703 • (479) 442-9127 • PAX (479) 582 4807
DAVID L. JORGENSEN, P.6., P.L.S.
CHRISTOPHER B. BRACKETT, P.E.
11/14/02
City of Fayetteville
113 W. Mountain
Fayeneville, AR 72701
Att: Planning
Re.: Skyler Place Additiun
As you know, we recently received approval fur Ilia rezoning ufproperty between Porter Rd,
Sang Street and sQnrh of Deane Street, which is a project called Skyler Place Addition. Along
with the rezoning was a bill of assurance that states the number of units on the lots. The property
was zoned to RMF -6, which allows for 126 units.
I lydraulie calculaliuus have caused the detention pond to he larger than originally expected which
reduced the number of lois and therefore the number of units.
As requested by the Planning Dept, we hereby request that this he placed on the City Council
Agenda for review.
The amount of the allowed units will not, change (126 units). The requested change is as follows:
Lot 1 Condominium (4 units) instead of 1 single tinnily
Lot 10 Condominium (4 units) instead 01'1 single tinnily
Lot 56 4 units instead of 3 units
Lot 57 3 units instead of 2 units
The intended use is summarized as
I.ot 1-10
Lots 11,12,22,23 & 55
Lots 13-21 & 24-51
Lots 52, 53 & 54
Lot 56
Lot 57
follows:
Condominium (4x 10)
Single family
Patio homes (2x37)
Common
a
40 units
5 units
74 units
0 units
4 units
3u
ni ss
126 units
This has btxm presented and reviewed by the president of the Asbell Neighborhood Association
(Richard Maynard) and also to the affected adjacent owners on Porter Rd.
All other items of the Bill of Assurance will be adhered to in full.
Please call conceming any questions you may have.
Thank you.
Sincerely;
David L..lo ensen, P E.
• SfRUCFURAL DFSR N • LAND DEVELOPMENT • WATER SYSTEMS • WASTEWATER SYSTEMS • LAND SURVEYING.
nuv-,tet-Ct C OC:Jlr rKurl:
•
•
TCII15831
P:2'2
JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS
124 WEST SUNBRIDGE, SUITE 5
City of Fayetteville
113 W. Mountain
Fayeneville, AR 72701
At Planning
Re: Skyler Place Addition
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703 • (479) 442-9127 • PAX (479) 5824807
DAVID L. JORGENSEN, P.B. P.L.S.
CHRISTOPHER B. BRACKETT, P.B.
11/14/02
As you know, we recently received approval fur the rezoning or property between Porta Rd,
Sang Street and south or Deane Street, which is a project called Skyler Place Addition. Along
with the rezoning was a bill of assurance that states the ntnnber of units on the lots. The properly
was zoned to RMF -6, which allows for 126 units.
I Iydraulic calculalions have caused the detention pond to he larger than nriginally expected which
reduced the number of lots and therefore the number of units.
As requested by the Planning Dept, we hereby request that this he placed nn the City Council
Agenda for review.
The amount of the allowed units will 'not change (126 units). The requested change is as follows:
Lot 1 Condominium (4 units) instead of 1 single family
Lot 10 Condominium (4 units) instead ul'1 single family
Lot 56 4 units instead of 3 units
Lot 57 3 units instead of 2 units
The intended use is summarized as follows:
I.ot 1-10 Condominium (4x10)
Lots 11,12,22,23 & 55 Single family
Lots 13-21 & 24-51 Patio homes (2x37)
Lots 52, 53 & 54 Common
Lot 56
Lot 57
= 40 units
- 5 units
= 74 units
= 0 units
— 4 units
— 3 units
126 units
This has bran presailtxl and reviewed by the president of the Asbell Neighborhood Association
(Richard Maynard) and ulsu to the alTectcd adjacent owners on Porter ltd.
All other items of the Hill of Assurance will be adhered to in full.
Please call conceming any questions you may have.
Thank you.
Sincerely;
David L. Josen, P.E. `^
Planning Commission
November 25, 2002
• STRUCTURAL DESIGN • LAND DEVELOPMENT • WATER SYSTEMS • WASTEWATER SIgt.E 4-471//4Qi/ll4fAIVB hIC. •
Page 4.3
, NOV-22-2002 02:55P FROM:
•
•
TO:575e3o P:3'4
9. Petitioner specifically agrees that all such restrictions and terms shall nm with
the land and bind all future owners unless and until specifically released by
Resolution of the Fayetteville City Council. This Hill of Assurance shall be
filed Ihr record in the Washington County Clerk's Office and shall be noted
on the Final Plot, which includes all of.Petitioner's Property.
1N WITNESS WHEREOF, and in agreement with all the terms and conditions
stated above, as the owner, developer or buyer (Petitioner) voluntarily offer all
such assurances.
Date
Date
Notary Oath
STATE OF ARKANSAS )
COUNTY (W WASHINGTON
And now on this day of—, 2002, appeared before rime, Rleau Barnes
and Sam Mathias, and after being placed upon his oath swore or affirmed that they agreed
with the terms of the Bill Assurance and signed thcir names above.
My Commission Expires:
Notary Public
Planning Commission
November 25, 2002
ADM 02-37 Mathias/Barnes
Page 4.5
JUN -29-2002 02:59' FROM
70:5758316
III •
7. Occupants mutt abide by the City ordinance that no more than 3 unrelated • .
people may occupy any unit
8. Oreenspace will be set aside for City Park or use by occupants of this project.
9. All of the above items as per plat submitted for this rezoning request
fN WITNESS WHEREOF, and in agreement with all the terms and conditions
stated above, as the owner, developer or buyer (Petitioner) voluntarily offer all
such assurances.
nate
STATr OF ARKANSAS
• • COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
And now on this'"' day of ,.2002, appeared before me, Blcau Burnes
and Sam Mathias, and after being pla.ed upon his oath swore or affirmed that they agreed
with the terms of the Bill Assurance and signed their names above.
Notary Oath
02&'^ 6.a.
nate
My Commission Expir;s:
�.%‘\citL'9iPl, yq,
NOTARYgri
¢=
%�4���Y1,1o%Az:
•
P:3'3 '
•
Public
Planning Commission
November 25, 2002
ADM02-37 (Mathis/Barnes)
Page 4.7
JUN -28-2002 02:58P FROM:
•
•11111
T0:57583� P:2/3
BILL OF ASSURANCE
FOR THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
c7Tht buyer/developer of property located between Sang Ave and Poner Rd and Deane
Street more particularly described as approximately 21 Acres in part of section 5 and part
of section 8 of T16N, R. 30W in Washington county Arkansas hereby voluntarily offers
this Bill of Assunutcc and enters into this binding agreement and contract with the City or
Foycttcvtlle, Arkansas. This bill of Assurance is offered to assist in the rezoning of the
above described property.
The petitioner expressly grants to the City nfFayetteville the right to enforce any and all
of the terms of this Bill of Assurance in the Chancery/Circuit Court of Washington
County and agrees that if Petitioner or Petitioner's heirs, assigns, or successors violate
any tens 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 reasonably rely upon rill of the teens and conditions within this Hill 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.
The use of Petitioner's property shall he limited to single-family
condominiums & patio homes.
2. Other restrictions including number and type of structures upon the property
arc limited, as follows; 7 single family units, 8 condominiums with four per
condo -32 units, 41 patio homes with 2 each=82 units,Xunits on two lots
along Deane Street. S
3. The petitioner agrees as install 2" D131I Lohlolly pine trees spaced at 30' U.C.
along the south boundary line. In addition, a privacy fence will be installed
along this same south property lure.
4. Condominiums units will have 2 bedrooms each. ,
5. The Petitioner agrees to install a view obscuring hedge along the east
boundary of this project
6. Quality of construction shall be established and enforced by covenants.
. JUN -28-2082 02:55P FROM:
•
TO:5758316
dub
7. Occupants roust abide by the City ordinance that no more than 3 unrelated
people may occupy any unit.
8. Greenspace will be set aside for City l'ark or use by occupants of this project.
9. All of the above items as per plat submitted for this rezoning requesL
•
TN WITNESS WHEREOF, and in agreement with all the terms and conditions
stated above, as rhe owner. developer or buyer (Petitioner) voluntarily offer all
such assurances.
Lys • 11,BA.-0--•
•
6 2 1T- o 2-
Date Date
Notary Oath
STATI? OF ARKANSAS
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
And now on this day oto', 2002, appeared before me, Bleau Barnes
and Sam Mathias, and after being plai.ed upon his oath swore or affirmed that they agreed
with the terms of the Bill Assurance and signed their names above.
My Commission Expires:
ttttftL'Bri,,4i
i
cpum. Eau 444-
NO-IA13Y =
E! P bi.06 c
%nS71Y1,1�a1.`:
GO�.
utma
P:3'3
• Public
FR
FAYETTEVIeLE
- THE CRY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
KIT WILLIAMS, CITY ATTORNEY
DAVID WHITAKER, ASST. CITY ATTORNEY
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Planning Commission
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
C.
FROM: David J. Whitaker, Assistant City Attorney D.1 Mb:C.
DATE: November 22, 2002
RE: ADM 02-37.00 Amended Bill of Assurance
You have requested a legal opinion as to whether the Revised Bill of
Assurance proffered by Messrs. Mathias and Barnes can be accepted by the
Planning Commission as is, or whether it requires reconsideration of the
rezoning already approved by the City Council.
As expected, no case law has developed dealing with precisely this
question. We can, however, look to the state statutes governing municipal
zoning for guidance. A.C.A § 14-56423 governs the rezoning process in
Arkansas:
"After adoption of plans, ordinances, and regulations and proper
filing in the offices of city clerk and county recorder, no alteration,
amendment, extension, abridgement, or discontinuance of the
plans, ordinances, or regulations may be made except in
conformance with the procedure prescribed in § 14-56-422, or by a
majority vote of the city council." (Emphasis added.)
Even a cursory examination of the proposed revisions to the Bill of
Assurance reveals that it easily qualifies as an ' alteration" or "amendment" of
the originally approved plan. Not only do the numbers in Restriction #2 change,
but language concerning garages appears at the end of Restriction #4. The
introductory paragraphs no longer contain the required property description or
the appropriate language establishing that the City reasonably relied upon the
Bill of Assurance when first considering the rezoning. For all of these reasons, I
cannot help but conclude, that the new document must be reconsidered by the
City Council before the planning process may proceed.
• •
This does not mean, however, that the applicants must return to "square
one" in the process. The last clause of the above -quoted statute allows such
changes to be approved by a majority vote of the City Council, without the need
to retrace the entire rezoning path. City of Russellville v. Banner Real Estate, 326
Ark. 673, 933 S.W.2d 803 (1996). Indeed, the facts of this situation do not require
amendment of the previously approved ordinance itself.
Mr. Crouch's point that the zoning of the parcel in question will not be
affected by these changes is correct, as far as it goes. But, the central point here is
that the Bill of Assurance, by its own terms, states that "the Planning
[C]ommission and the Fayetteville City [C]ouncil will reasonably rely upon all of
the terms and conditions within this Bill of Assurance in considering whether to
approve the Petitioner's rezoning request." (Emphasis added). There is no
reason to believe that the City Council did not so rely.
All of this leads to the conclusion that the Council must approve these
changes by a majority vote. A resolution will do, inasmuch as only the
underlying agreement is being amended, and not the zoning of the parcel itself.
This process will be greatly expedited if the missing language from the opening
paragraphs is reinserted before the new document is submitted to the City
Council I have attached a draft of the resolution for inclusion in the Agenda
Request.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding this opinion letter, please
contact me at 575-8313.
SS
•
-ebbe WC. Sar rnu•':
0 •
BILL OF ASSURANCE
FOR THF CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
;The buyer/developer of property located between Sang Ave and Poner Rd and Deane
Street more particularly described as approximately 21 Acres in part of section 5 and part
ot'section 8 of T1 6N, R 30W in Washington county Arkansas hereby voluntarily offers
this Bill of Assurance and enters into this binding agreement and contract with the City of
Fayetteville, Arkansas. This bill of Assurance is offered to assist in the rezoning of the
above described property.
The petitioner expressly grants to the City of Fayetteville the right to enforce any and all
of the terns of this Bill of Assurance in the Chancery/Circuit Court of Washington
County and agrees that if Petitioner or Petitioners 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 reasonably rely upon ell of thc 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.
The use of Petitioner's property shall be limited to single-family
condominiums & patio homes.
2. Other restrictions including number and type of structures upon thc property
are limited, as tbllows; 7 single family units, 8 condominiums with four per
condo -32 units, 41 patio homes with 2 each=82 units, scones un two Tots
along Deane Strut. s
3. The petitioner agrees to install 2" DSII Loblolly pine trees spaced at 30' U.C.
along the south boundary line. In addition, n privacy fence will be installed
along this same south pmperty.hoe.
4. Condominiums units will have 2 bedrooms tech.
5. Thc Petitioner agrees to install a view obscuring hedge along the east
boundary of this project
6. Quality of construction shall he established and enforced by covenants.
Planning Commission
November 25, 2002
ADM02-37 (Mathis/Barnes)
Page 4.6
11:13.,-28 -2002 02 59P FROM:.
Ca)
TO:5758316
al •
7. Occupants must abide by the City ordinance that no more than 1 unrelated
people may nccupy any unit.
S. Orcen+pace will be set aside for City Park or use by occupant of ttus project.
9. All of the above items as per plat submitted for this rezoning request.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and in agreement with all the terms and amditioos
stated above, as the owner. developer or buyer (Petitioner) voluntarily ober all
such assurances.
o X71
i-sIT- oL
Date
Nolan Oath
STATE OF ARKANSAS
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
6 a - eta
Date
Md now on thisaell" day of ,.2002, appeared before me, Bleats Barnes
and Snm Mathias, and after being placed upon his oath swore or affirmed that they agreed
with the terms of the Bill Assurance and signed thein names above.
twin
•
Public
Planning Commission
November 25. 2002
ADM02-37 (Mathis/Barnes)
Page 4.7
IKN-CG-CCRC u7•usr , %..•
• •
REVISED ISED BILL OF ASSURANCE
FOR TIIE CF1'Y OF FAYETTEVILLE
11/20/02
The owner recently received approval for the 'teaming of pmperty between Porter Rd,
Sang Strict and south of Deane Street, which is a property called Skyler Place Addition.
Along with the rezoning was a bill of assurance that states the number of units on the lots.
The property was zoned to RMF -6, which allows for 126 units.
Hydraulic calculations have caused the detention pond to he larger than originally
expected which reduced the number of lois and therefore the numbcr of wins.
As requested by the Planning Dept, we hereby offer the following Revisal Bill of
Assurance. The amount of the allowed units is 126 and this does not change. The only
difference between this revised bill of assurance and the original is the makeup of the
units.
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 Cimint Court of Washington County and
agrees that it' Petitioner or Petitioner's heirs, assigns, or successors violate any term of
this Bill of Assurance, substantial irreparable damage justifying injunctive relief has been
dune to the citizen; and City of Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Petitioner hereby voluntarily offers assurances that Petitioner and Petitioner's property
shall be restricted as follows;
1. lie use of Petitioner's property shall be limited to single-lamily
condominiums & patio hones.
2. Other restrictions intruding number and type of structures upon the property
are limited, as follows; 5 single family units, 10 condominiums with four per
condo a 40 units, 37 patio homes with 2 each — 74 units, 7 units nn two lots
along Deane Street, for a total of 126 units.
3. The petitioneragrees to install 2" D1311 Loblolly pint trees spaced at 30' U.C.
along the south boundary line. In addition, a privacy fence will he installed
along this same south property line.
4. Condominiums units will have 2 bedrooms each with a ono -car garage. F.uch
patio home will have 2 or 3 bedrooms with a two -car garage.
5. The Petitioner agrees to installs view obscuring hedge along the back of the
other pnpenics along Snng Ave.
•
Planning Commission
November 25, 2002
ADM02-37 (Mathis/Barnes)
Page 4.4
NOV-20-2002 04'02P FROM:
iu:rxfao
•
6. Quality of construction shall be established and enforced by covenant:.
7. Occupants must abide by the City ordinance that no more than 3 unrelated
people may occupy any tint.
It. Greenspace will be set aside for City Park or use by ou upants of this project.
9. 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. 'flus Hill of Assurance shall be
filed for reconl in the Washington County Clerk's Office and shall be noted
on the Filial Plat, which includes all of Petitioner's Property.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF. and in agreement with all the terms and amditions .
stared above, as the owner, developer nr buyer (Petitioner) voluntarily offer all
such assurances.
Date Date
Notary Oath
STATE OF ARKANSAS
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
And now on this — day of—, 2002, appeared before me, Blcau Bames
and Sam Mathias, and atter being placed upon his oath swore or affirmed that they agreed
with the terms of the Bill Assurance and signed their names above.
My Commission Expires:
Notary Public
Planning Commission
November 25, 2002
ADM02-37 (Mathis/Barnes)
Page 4.5
ORDINANCE NO. 4410
MICROFILMED
AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN
REZONING Ph 1 n ION RZN 02-17.00 FOR A PARCEL CONTAINING
APPROXIMATELY 21.03 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF DEANE STREET,
WEST OF SANG AVENUE, AND EAST OF PORTER AVENUE,
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS, AS SUBMITTED BY DAVE JORGENSEN
OF JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF BLEAUX BARNES
AND SAM MATHIAS
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 R-1, Low Density Residential to RMF -6, Low Density Multi -Family
Residential as shown in Exhibit A 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.
PASSED and APPROVED this the 20th day of August, 2002.
By:
20 2171 391
Sh:6 WV 8-AONlOOl
00338 80i 03113
~ • • Ord.• 4410
EXHIBIT "A°
PART OF THE NW 1//4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 8 AND PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE
SW 1/4 OF SECTION 5, ALL IN T16N, R30W IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS
AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT
THE SW CORNER OF SAID NW 1/4 NW 1/4 THENCE N00°05'24"W 330.00 FEET, THENCE
N89°59'09"E 35.00 FEET TO THE P.O.B., THENCE N00°05'24"W 327.97 FEET, THENCE
N89°55'02"E 588.66 FEET, THENCE N00°01'30"E 659.78 FEET, THENCE N89°59'07"E
51.97 FEET, THENCE N00°04'32"W 309.45 FEET, THENCE.N87°25'56"E 476.84 FEET,
THENCE S00°03'51"W 991.07 FEET, THENCE S89°07'23"E 152.87 FEET, THENCE
S00°37'19"W 325.72 FEET, THENCE 889°59'09"W 1264.55 FEET TO THE P.O.B.;
CONTAINING 21.03 ACRES MORE OR LESS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RIGHT OF
WAY OF RECORD.
2032171392
g• ••
I•
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission
FROM: Dawn T. Warrick, Senior Planner
DATE: July 8, 2002
113 W. Mountain St
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (479) 575-8264
RZN 02-17.00: Rezoning (Mathias/Barnes, pp 364/403) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of
Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Sam Mathias and Bleaux Barnes for property located south
of Deane Street, west of Sang Ave and east of Porter Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low
Density Residential and contains approximately 21.03 acres. The request is to rezone to RMF-6,
Low Density Multi -Family Residential.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings included as
• part of this report.
Date: July 8, 2002
COUNCIL ACTION:
August 6, 2002
Comments:
Required YES
0 Approved 0 Denied
Required YES
0 Approved 0 Denied
• H: IUSERSICOMMOMREPOR7SIPCREPORTS20021iutylmathiar_rrn02-i7doe
Planning Commission
November 25, 2002
Rezoning Infomation for MathiaslBarnes
02-17 staff report & minutes
• • • •
i.
Water: 8" line along Sang Ave.
12" line along Deane St.
Sewer: Available on Sang Ave., Porter Rd. and to the north of the subject property
LAND USE PLAN: General Plan 2020 designates this site Residential. Rezoning this property
to RMF-6, Low Density Multi -Family Residential is consistent with the land use plan and
compatible with surrounding land uses in the area.
FINDINGS OF THE STAFF
1. A determination of the degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent with land. use
planning objectives, principles, and policies and with land use and zoning plans.
Finding: The proposed zoning is consistent with land use planning objectives,
principles and policies and with land use and zoning plans. This rezoning
specifically addresses the guiding policies within the General Plan regarding
Residential Areas. This section states in part "this land use plan establishes a
policy for residential areas to be planned as traditional neighborhoods
containing a mix of different densities, housing types, and lot sizes."
• 2. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the
rezoning is proposed.
Finding: The zoning is needed in order for the property to be developed as proposed
by the applicant. The property is currently zoned R-1 and may be developed
with single family lots meeting the bulk and area requirements set forth in
the Unified Development Ordinance for that zoning district.
3. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase
traffic danger and congestion.
Finding: The proposed zoning will not appreciably increase traffic danger and
congestion. Initial proposals by the applicant indicate street connections to
Porter Rd., Sang Ave. and Deane, Street. Having multiple access points will
encourage the disbursement of traffic within the development.
Development of the property under current R-1 zoning would generate
approximately 805 vehicle trips per day (vpd) according to Institute of
Traffic Engineer's (ITE) software.
Under the applicant's proposal with RMF-6 zoning, the project would
generate, approximately 738 vpd.
• H.AUSERMCOMMONIREPORTSIPCREPOR7S2002VWylmathtas_rm01-17doc
Exhibit 'B'
161.061 DISTRICT RMF 6 LOW DENSITY MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
A. Purpose. The Low Density Multi family Residential District is designed to permit and encourage the
development of multifamily residences at a low density that is appropriate to the area and can serve as a transition
between higher densities and single family residential areas.
B. Uses.
Unit I I City -Wide Uses by Right
Unit 8 Single -Family Dwellings
Unit 9 Multifamily Dwellings - Medium
Density
2 Uses Permissible on Appeal to the Planning Commission.
I'•
11•
Unit 2
City -Wide Uses by Conditional Use
permit
Unit 3
Public Protection and Utility Facilities
Unit 4
Cultural and Recreational Facilities
Unit 11
Mobile Home Park
Unit 25
Professional Offices
C. Density.
Families Per Acre 4to 6
D. Bulk and Area Regulations.
1 Lot Width Minimum.
Mobile Home Park
100 Feet
Lot within a Mobile
Home Park
50 Feet
One Family
60 Feet
Two Family
60 Feet
Three or More
90 Feet
Professional Offices
100 Feet
to•
• •
•
•
ASBELL NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION
2615 Megan Drive
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72703
July 8, 2002
Dear Commissioners:
This is a summary of a neighborhood vote regarding the proposed rezoning and development of RZN 02-
17, located south of Deane Street, west of Sang Ave., and east of Porter Road. The vote was taken by
ballot following a meeting on May 23, 2002, at Calvary Baptist Church on Porter Road between Bleaux
Barnes and Sam Mathias of Mathias Properties and residents of the Asbell neighborhood. ANA members
not present at the meeting were allowed to e-mail or call in their votes later.
The meeting was open to all residents of the Asbell area who reside and/or. own property within the
boundaries of the neighborhood association. The meeting was advertised three weeks in advance to
association members and 5 to 7 days in advance to residents of the neighborhood by door-to-door
canvassing with flyers. Over three hundred flyers were distributed throughout the neighborhood.
We realize there is nothing binding in this vote. It is presented to you, the Planning Commission for the
City of Fayetteville, to give you an idea of the opinion of the neighborhood about this rezoning and this
development. All but two votes were from association members.
May 23 Meeting — 33 people attending (20 households)
For Against Abstain
Total Present 29 2 0
Total (including
ANA members not
present) 42.
The ANA Board voted 7-0-2 to approve.
The following is a breakdown of the above results by different blocks in the neighborhood.
For Against
Abstain
San Ave. 3 0 0
Lawson (b'twn
San & Porter 10 0
n
Hatfield/Valle 3 0
Turner/Vista/Wedin on 2 2 1
� • •
Mathias / Barnes Rezoning
Summary of Average Vehicle Trip Generation
or 84.12 Dwelling Units of Single Family Detached Housing
my 02, 2002
24 Hour 7-9 AM Pk Hour 4-6 PM Pk Hour
Two -Way
Volume Enter Exit Enter Exit
Average Weekday 805 16 47 55 30
24 hour Peak Hour
Two -Way
Volume Enter Exit
Saturday
849
43
36
Sunday
739
39
34
Note: A zero indicates no data available.
• Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers
Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997.
• TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS
I •
0.•
6 0
JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS
124 WEST SUNBRIDGE, SUITE 5 • FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703 • (501) 442-9127 • FAX (501) 5824807
DAVID L. JORGENSEN, P.E., P.L.S.
City of Fayetteville
113 W. Mountian
Fayetteville, AR 72701
THOMAS HENNELLY, P.E.
CHRISTOPHER B. BRACKETT, P.E.
6/10/02
Au: Planning Dept.
Re: Rezone property between Porter Rd & Sang
Attached herewith please fmd the documents required for rezoning the above referenced
property.
The property is between Porter and Sang Street and extends to Deane Street to the north
and consists of approximately 21 acres. The owner wishes to rezone from A-1 to RMF6.
We have met with the neighbors and I believe we have their support. The property to the
west is R-2. To the east the zoning is R -I and to the south is R-1.
• An 8" waterline exists on Sang Ave and a 12"waterline exists on Deane Street. Sewer is
available on Sang, Porter and to the north.
If this property is rezoned, the developer wishes to develop a subdivision which will
have a street running east -west connecting sang and Porter Street and also a street to the
north connecting to Deane Street. This will insure improved traffic flow.
The developer proposes town houses on the south and patio homes on the interior of the
property. The request is to rezone from R -I to RMF 6, which would allow 6 units per
acre. There will also be single family homes along Sang & Porter streets.
If rezoned, we will proceed with the normal process of submitting a concept plan for
•
parks review then the preliminary plat for review.
We do have exterior elevations of the units to be built. In addition, the developer
proposes to install 2" diameter trees along the south boundary and a privacy fence along
this south boundary line. A green space is reserved where the flood plain exists.
Please review and call me concerning any questions you may have.
Thank you,
• David L. J gensen
STRUCTURAL DESIGN • LAND DEVELOPMENT • WATER SYSTEMS • WASTEWATER SYSTEMS • LAND SURVEYING
JW-28-2002 02:59P FROM: • 70:5758316•
•
• 7. Occupants mast abide by the City ordinance that no more than 3 unrelated.
people may occupy any unit.
•
•
8. Greenspace will be set aside for City Park or use by occupants of this project.
fl' 9. Ali of the above items as per plat submitted for this rezoning request.
IN WPI'NESS WHEREOF, and in agreement with all the terms and conditions
stated above, as the owner, developer or buyer (Petitioner) voluntarily offer all
such assurances.
_ di -
6-27-oL
Date
Notary Oath
a
Date
STATE OF ARKANSAS
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON )
And now on this day ot, 2002, appcan:d before me, Bleats Barnes
and Sam Mathias, and after being placed upon his oath swore or affirmed that they agreed
with the terms of the Bill Assurance and signed their names above.
My Commission Expires:
(WO A?Y
-. .t
P1,
Public
P:3'3
la's *0�
D I
Z l r
p • 1 t -"
,I s
0-Ct
Z. , `I.
O
— a r%
}
I. n
as
2 w
�Aii
P
w
p
r v
�� z L-----
I
-
5UbpNlgION PRoJBc-r
DLLAU$ B,dRNC5
P'MYETTa"ILLI, AM-AI0a5
Co' Ib•o7
•
0
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL OF
ASSURANCE SUBMITTED WITH ORDINANCE NO. 4410,
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON
AUGUST 20, 2002.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1. That the City Council of Fayetteville, Arkansas, hereby
approves amendments to the Bill of Assurance, which was submitted with
rezoning Ordinance No. 4410, passed and approved by the City Council on
August 20, 2002. A copy of the Revised Bill of Assurance, marked Exhibit "A" is
attached hereto and made a part hereof.
I.
Planning Commission Minutes
• September 13, 1999
Page 4
Ward: How many units do you plan on putting on this?
Harrington: It's not certain yet but they're talking roughly 120 to 140 depending on the site
needs and demands.
Johnson: Any other Commissioners with initial questions.
Estes:
Staff, how many
units
would an
R-2
zoning
accommodate?
Conklin:
R-2 zoning does
allow
up to 24
units
per acre. This would allow 275.
Estes: Thanks.
Johnson: So, the maximum that you're contemplating, although, of. course, you're not
bound to this would be about half.
Harrington: About 12 to 15 units per acre.
• Public Comment
Richard Maynard, residing at 1717 N. Sang was present in opposition to the rezoning.
Maynard: I'm here with my neighbors today. Should I introduce them?
Johnson:
No.
If they wish
to speak individually,
they may. Otherwise, if they merely want
to let us know
that
they support
your position, they can do that through a show of hands.
Maynard: I own the property at 1717 N. Sang. First, I want to make it clear that we do not
object to Mr. Weatherford's selling of his property. We sit on Sang Avenue which is on the east
side. We've all enjoyed that little bucolic pasture for a long time. We know it isn't going to last
forever. We certainly don't want to interfere with his right to sell his property. Nor do we object
to Mr. Hahn developing that property. In fact, in a way, I would welcome it. What we do object
to is this drastic change to that neighborhood and to our quality of life and to our investments. I
moved here about 5 years ago and I looked around quite a bit in Fayetteville to find a place that I
thought I would be happy with and that I could build a home. I did find a really nice piece of
property. Ms. Lavender, one of my neighbor's here, her husband built it about 40 years ago but
it hadn't been kept up. One of the first things that I was a little bit nervous about was there was a
mobile home park across from me and as Tim said, there were several duplexes going south of
me to Ms. Hoskin's home. She lives by the Baptist church there and she is here with us tonight.
There's a 5-plex right to the south of me. It made me nervous. I came down to this office to find
•out exactly what the zoning was and it all said R-1. I didn't know what R-1 meant and I asked
them about that and the reason those were R-1, they can say there are duplexes there now and
it
•Planning Commission Minutes
September 13, 1999
Page 6
"A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time
the rezoning is proposed."
The finding of the staff was that yes, it was justified and yes, it is needed. Our question is why?
Why is it needed? I can only think of 2 reasons. If you're putting apartments in there for college
students, the only reason that I can think of is that there's a dearth of college housing available
now which is an interesting thing because I teach in a special program at the University. When I
was on my way to the office yesterday, I went. by the College Park Apartments. There's a big,
red sign out there with apartments available $199 and up. I got an idea and I started calling other.
places. I called Faucette Properties. They have apartments available. I called Washington Plaza,
just a half a block over from us on Deane and Lewis and they had apartments available., The
program I work at is an English program for international students. They come to us before they
go into the University. One thing we do get for them is housing. I talked to our housing
coordinator today and asked how much trouble they had finding apartments for our students and
she said none at all. There can always be more college housing. I understand that. We are a
growing university. What concerns me is when that starts to take prevalence over the people
who live and work in this city. There are houses available and there are places to put more
college housing. What we have there in this property that he's asking to rezone and you're
•
considering tonight is primarily residential. You don't have anything like you have to the east of
us. You don't have anything like you have at College Park Apartments. As I said before, it's
going to be a drastic change to that. neighborhood. It's going to be change that will dictate how
that neighborhood will be for now and forever. Like I said, we moved in there with an
understanding and we know situations change. We understand that. I don't buy this that there is
a compelling need to build affordable college housing at least right there. There are other places
to do it. We'll always need some. The only other need I can see and I'm sorry to say it. This is
a very valuable property. I wish I owned it myself. Somebody does stand a change to make a lot
of ovaluable property than mine is but mine is an investment,
too. I'm not just talking about a dollar investment. Although, we're all concerned about that.
We're very concerned about how this college housing is going to effect our property investment.
More importantly, we're talking about our investment and our quality of life that we have there.
Number 3:
"A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase
traffic danger and congestion."
Again, there is a bus line on Deane Street. It runs once an hour. Maybe, the University will
increase that. Again, we live there. There's a lot of traffic going down Sang now. I guess I can't
ask what the access plans are for this idea that Mr. Hahn.has. I can tell you there is.a lot of traffic
now. If you've ever come down on the bypass and gone off onto Porter Road about 8`.00 in the
morning, you will sit there for a few minutes. I've made that mistake. I visit my mother
•sometimes up in Bella Vista and once in a while I'll stay over and I'll forget and not take the
cloverleaf onto Garland but I'll go to Porter out of habit. You can sit there for awhile as people
t
Planning Commission Minutes
• September 13, 1999
Page 8
having to convince you to keep it R-1 or at least get more specifications as to what he has in
mind instead of leaving it up to him to give a compelling reason why they need to change this
outside of making a great business deal. I hope: to God that isn't your consideration tonight on
the amount of money somebody has to make. If that's it, then we don't stand a chance because
our properties don't come anywhere near that value. At the very least, I would ask you if you
would -- what you decide here to tonight is going to have a tremendous effect on us and the
neighborhood. It will change the nature of that neighborhood forever. Before you rush into a
decision, at least give it a second look. You're_welcome to come onto my property through the
back gate. I have a good panorama of that view. Imagine what that neighborhood could look
like. Also, try to imagine what it's going to look like with 300 or 400 college age students in
there. We have to live there, ladies and gentlemen. You don't. Mr. Hahn doesn't. Mr.
Weatherford doesn't. We are the ones that have to live there. Thank you.
Johnson: Thanks, Mr. Maynard. Are there others who would address us on this proposed
rezoning?
Faye Doege residing with her mother at 1745 N. Sang was present in opposition to the proposed
• rezoning.
• Doege: I'm going to address one problem which is a little complicated. When those
houses were first built on Sang Avenue, there were no apartment houses or anything across the
• street. There was no trailer park. My dad built those houses. Then they developed the
Washington Plaza apartment house. That was fine. We needed low cost apartments for people.
Unfortunately, one thing they did was to bring in 20 tons of fill and they raised the level of the
land there. That wasn't too bad because that water had places to go. It went east and it went
west and it went south. We had some natural absorbing areas there and one of the places that
used to collect most of the water from Washington Plaza was a place where they decided to build
this new apartment house, The Encore apartments which is across the street from our place now.
Now, they have concreted all that land that used to absorb the water that ran off of Washington
• Plaza. Now that water from Washington Plaza washes through there onto Sang and across Sang
into our property which has been causing a little bit of a problem but we have been able to get
by. One of the reasons we have been able to get by is the kind of soil that we have over there.
The soil on the west side of Sang is Captina silt loam. It has a slow percolation rate but it has
moderately good drainage so when we have a lot a rain, it will puddle a little bit but it will
eventually soak in and you can't say that about every place in Fayetteville because there are a lot
of places where it puddles and it will not soak in after a long, hot summer but it will eventually
sink in. The place where most of the water goes from across the street and from our place and
from the. University Farm where it drains down Sang, is into this property where they want to
build the apartments. That soil there is Pembroke silt. loam and it.has good drainage. Not only.
that, that whole area has excellent drainage because it used to be a vineyard about 50 years ago.
•A man named Rudolph had a vineyard there. That.was low property there and he came in and
put in drain tiles under all that property there. He used clay tiles with holes in them and he
•Planning Commission Minutes
September 13, 1999
Page 10
Harrington: I wanted to take a brief opportunity to make a couple of comments. With all due
respect to Mr. Maynard and the neighbors over there. I don't believe that the impact is going to
beas large as they think. I turned onto Sang and turned around in a large apartment building . .
directly across the street from all of these houses.this R -1 area is r of duplex, really
tnol onge5 r
R -l. In reality it has not been for many, many .years because of t
plex apartments, etc. I would like to think of this as a true R-1 but there is very little R-1 left in
this area and has not been for some time especially with a mobile home park right there and the
apartments that are already in existence. If this is done nicely as this developer intends to do and
he does, of course, intend to comply with all the city regulations and there are many as Ms.
Johnson has mentioned regarding the drainage. If there is a chance that it's not going to work,
this project will not go in and that will be discovered at the development stage when the drainage
is evaluated. The reason that R-2 is being looked at here is because it would be a very difficult
property to develop as R-1 given the surrounding mixed uses across the street where there's a
grain elevator, etc. It's not terribly conducive to R-1 and even with very small R-1 as you all
know, you have many bitter battles in here about the lower price home and the small lot R-1 for
the same reason that apartments are opposed. I believe that this developer intends to find a way
to do to this in such a way that it will not be a negative impact on the area and will provide much
needed housing. The need for housing continues to go up and maybe there are apartments
available today but that doesn't mean next year and the year after. There is very little, if any, R-2
• on this entire side of town available at this point. So, I wanted to briefly address those items. I
have the realtor here who has explored the market very seriously and can certainly address your
concerns about what the needs of the market are. I don't know if you want to take the time with • that so I'll just look for direction on whether you would like to have some comments from him or
from Mr. Hahn.
Johnson: Commissioners are certainly free to raise questions to the people Ms. Harrington
has made available.
Estes: I have several questions for staff. The status quo is R.I. We must make 4
specific findings of fact to grant the applicant's request. The first finding regards the 2020 Plan
which lists this property as residential. That finding is met. The second finding of fact that we
must make is that the proposed zoning is needed. That's the first question I have for staff. Do
we truly have a shortage of R-2 property? As I ask that question, I think about the Lindsey
Development that is going in to the northwest of this. I think of all the vacant apartment ads I
see in the Northwest Arkansas Times each morning. Is there truly a shortage of R-2 property in
the City of Fayetteville?
Conklin: Trying to answer your question accurately, as staff, we don't have a detailed
market analysis to determine how much R-2 land is available in this community. We do know
that there is not much R-2 land existing which is undeveloped in Fayetteville. When we looked
•at this recommendation and whether or not to recommend additional multi -family, this is an area
where the existing land use is very mixed. It was on the U of A bus route and it was possible to
C.
C
S
•Planning Commission Minutes
September 13, 1999
Page 12
Marr: Second.
Johnson: We have the motion by Commissioner Ward, seconded by Commissioner Marr to
approve RZ99-28. I remind you that a rezoning requires 5 positive votes and then if the rezoning
passes at this level, it goes to the City Council for finalizing.
Roll Call
Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 5-2-0. Commissioners Estes and Hoover voted
against the motion.
•
•
-680.
October 5, 1999•
CityCouncil Minutes
Page 8.
area, but she felt this was a natural evolution of the City as it grows. This development would be
• targeted at students; there would be a bus route servicing this apartment complex. There had
been concern that students would take Sang Avenue to get to the university, but she thought that
most people going to the university would take Garland Avenue instead. She and the Planning
Department didn't believe that the traffic. situation would be affected. She also didn't believe
that the quality of life would be affected by this development because the neighborhood was
already largely R-2 and R-3 zoning. Flooding and storm water run-off had also been mentioned
at the Planning Commission meeting; this developer would be required to meet all requirements
of the City on this subject and she didn't think run-off would be a significant problem at all.
There would be every attempt made to make this a quality development and a different kind of
apartment complex, and they would have the parking run along the outer edge of the property so
that the buildings would not be along the edge of the street. She felt that turning this infill piece
• of property into an R-2 zoning would not cause any problems for the neighbors and would end
up being a good development for the City, the area and the university students.
Jeff Whitener, Lindsey & Associates Realty, was introduced by Ms. Harrington. He stated that
•Realty Resources bad contacted him last year to find property on which to build apartments that
met three criteria; 1) to benear the university, 2) to be on a bus route, and 3) to have the correct
zoning. Using Highway 62 and Highway 71B as their borders, there was nothing on the market
at that time except property that was not already zoned. They found this piece and contacted the
owner who had said that he couldn't sell the property with its R-1 zoning. They chose the
property because they thought an. apartment complex would blend in with what was already
there. Everything to the west — a row of apartments, duplexes and.single-family residences — is
already zoned R-2, except for one piece with a duplex on it. Directly across the street from this
• mixture is R-3 zoning— a 22 -unit mobile home park and a 38 -unit apartment complex. The
• University of Arkansas Experimental Farm and Feed Mill are to the north. To the south is a
vacant field. Of the 78 housing units in the area he had described, 71 are rental units,
approximately 90%.
Alderman Santos asked whether the Planning Commission required a.Bill of Assurance for the
12-15 units per acre proposed
Ms. Harrington replied that they did not request a Bill of Assurance because the Planning
Commission was reluctant to require those because of the tracking required. The number of units
would be determined at the Large Scale Development stage.
Richard Maynard, 1717 N. Sang Avenue, introduced himself as an adjoining property owner.
•Three weeks ago he had come down before the Planning Commission regarding this rezoning.
He stated that he was joined by many neighbors who were opposed to this rezoning because it
would have a major negative impact on their homes, their way of life, their property values, the
neighborhood and the City of Fayetteville. He asked for a show of hands to show those opposed
682 . • • •
•• October 5, 1999
City Council Minutes
Page 10.
Master Plan, which showed that they had proposed 2300 new beds. He didn't think this was the
impetus behind this rezoning but rather a proposal to put as many apartments in this area as
possible. The third finding regards the impact on the traffic situation of Sang Avenue. He had
spoken to Perry Franklin in the Traffic Department. He knew this would be a student population
and he knew that you couldn't put 280-300+ cars on that road. He knew that Sang Avenue
would be the choice to the university and that no student would be using that bus route even if
they increased it. He felt that they were inviting a tragedy to happen by increasing the density in
front of an R-1 area in front of the school. Those living there already were conscious of the
small children playing in the area. He didn't think that those living in a transient neighborhood
• would have that same awareness and care for the neighborhood. The fourth finding concerns
whether this would increase the need for public services. Planning Commissioner Marilyn
Johnson had pointed out that the experimental farm was north of there and this project would
probably not constitute an increase on the water and sewer lines. He hoped that this was not the
only consideration that they would have. There is nothing like this in the neighborhood, Sang to.
Porter, Deane to Wedington. Additionally, Mr. Maynard pointed out that it would it be.
impractical to use the land for any of the uses permitted under its existing classification. He had
•gotten an education in his neighborhood in the last three weeks. Megan Place and Linda.Jo Place
have beautiful homes there. If he could be assured that the R-2 apartments going in there would
be the same, there wouldn't be a problem. He sees R-2 and R-3 zoning only in certain areas.
There is Porter Place at the comer of Deane and Porter, which is an eyesore and is not even
• completed and seems to be falling apart already. He is afraid that something similar would be
going into his own backyard. And finally, his neighbors were concerned about the traffic and the
flood, plain. They had had flooding problems already and would have to shell out a lot of money
• for flood insurance. He wanted to ask the Council whether they could guarantee that they
wouldn't be ruined by this, and wouldn't have to move because of this, that it wouldn't create
more flooding problems. There were a lot of good intentions and beliefs here, but that wasn't
good enough for him and his neighbors. This neighborhood, he admits, is imbalanced but he
knew that if they put this complex in here it would be a disaster and would deteriorate property
values. Right now it was a beautiful, peaceful, livable neighborhood. At some point he felt this
• would have to become personal. Would they want this in their backyard and behind their
property. If not, how could they ask for them to have it in theirs. Once the zoning was changed,
the impact would be irreversible. He hoped that they would at least think about this before they
voted on it, and vote no, because if they didn't vote no, they would. basically be telling him he
needed to find a new home.
Mayor Hanna asked for further comments from the Council.
• Alderman Davis asked if this was on the third year Flood Plan.
Mr. Conklin replied that it does contain areas classified as Zone A; no detailed study had been
conducted by FEMA. They would have to, as part of this project, calculate the amount of water
I.
OLD BUSINESS
City Council Minutes
• October 19, 1999
Page 3
RZ 99-28.00
An ordinance approving rezoning request RZ 99-28 submitted by Michele Harrington on behalf of
William M. Weatherford and Larry and Brenda Swain for property located at 2200 & 22.01 W. Deane
Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 11.64 acres. The
request is to rezone the property to R-2, Medium Density Residential. This item was left on the first
reading at the October 5, 11999 City Council meeting.
Mayor Hanna noted that Richard Maynard had passed out a packet at the last City Council meeting that
included a petition from the neighbors and some letters. He also stated that he had gotten a call from Mr.
Weatherford requesting that they leave this item on the second reading because he and his attorney would
be out of town for tonight's meeting.
Alderman Trumbo mentioned that he would.like to allow everyone who had come to tonight's meeting
have an opportunityto speak tonight
. Rose read the ordinance for the second time.
Mayor Hanna asked the Council for their comments.
Alderman Daniel mentioned that she had checked with the courthouse records and had found that Mr.
Weatherford was not the legal owner of the property in question.
Jeff Whitmer, Lindsey & Associates Realty, stated that he had the deeds which showed that Mr.
Weatherford owned the property but they had not been filed with the County Courthouse yet. He said that
he would bring them to the next Council meeting.
Alderman Daniel said that she had received about 25 e -mails and calls opposing this item and two calls in
favor.
Mayor Hanna introduced Father Douglas Simmons as one of the speakers representing the opposition to
this rezoning
Father Douglas Simmons, 1558 Stable, stated that his reason for opposing this item was because of its
hazard. The more dense the population, the more dangerous the area is. for its residents. This area has
small roads with no shoulders.or sidewalks, only ditches. There had been many accidents at the
ersection of Deane Street and Porter Road. People use Porter Road as a shortcut to Highway 71. The
rl'posed apartment complex would house many students who would use Deane Street, Sang Avenue, and
Porter Road. It has been his experience from, living in other cities like Fayetteville whose streets did not
increase .in proportion to the size of the population.
.695
City Council Minutes
• October 19,1999
• Page 5
Tim Conklin, City Planner, answered that it was July 21, 1999. The Corps of Engineers and FEMA had
reevaluated the Fayetteville area and were producing more current maps. The City maps showed the
designations at that date, not for the future, and showed who was required to get flood insurance.
Alderman Davis stated that the flood insurance rate maps changed constantly.
Mr: Conklin agreed..
Alderman Davis mentioned that flood insurance was very expensive.
Mr. Conklin answered yes and no: If your property had not been in the flood plain and had been built
correctly according to the existing flood maps of its time, then it would not be very expensive, it would be
grandfathered in. But if you do build below the flood elevation, then it could be a substantial increase.
•Annetta iiosldns, 1601 N. Sang Avenue, stated she and her husband had owned their home for 13 'f,
years. They had enjoyed Mr. Weatherford's cattle living across her back fence. She was not opposed to
Mr. Weatherford selling the property, nor the buyer developing the propety, but she was opposed to the
density being proposed. She didn't believe the property was limited to 140 units. She was concerned
-Wth the increase in traffic the development would bring. She was concerned with the flood plain; Mr.
eatherford's property looks like a lake after a heavy rain. She agreed with Ms. Harrington's comments
at the last Council meeting that it is the owners who are hurt; she pointed out that they, too, are owners.
Jim DeVore, 2615 Megan, stated that most of his concerns had already been expressed. He felt his
property would definitely be a part of any storm water run-off. The rainwater after the last rain had been
4'7" deep; one of his neighbors had had expensive damage done to his car due to the flooding. He felt that
the planning done in the City for the flood control had not been very good. Considering the people
affected by the run-off and the traffic from this development, it would not be necessary.
Richard Maynard asked fora show of hands for people opposed to this proposal. He deferred his time to
speak until after Mr. Hahn's attorney had spoken. .
Wayne Krug, the petitioner and Michele Hanington's partner, asked to respond to the major concerns of
the citizens who had already spoken before Council. He pointed out that this would truly be a fill-in
zoning; there is a mixture of zoning in the area. Across the street is R-3 zoning which allows an even
higher density zoning than what they were proposing: Currently they have a field•in the location, which is
not a good use of land for the landowner. He felt this was not a great change to the neighborhood in terms
of zoning. The change in zoning had been approved by the City's Planning staff and concurred with
sound planning strategy for the City. Issues of traffic, drainage, and screenage would all be dealt with
further in the development process. He stated that the issues of drainage and run-off would be handled by
engineers. As for speeding traffic, he said that in his experience of the university, the students didn't
out of class and speed through residential streets. He thought a legitimate concern would bethe
increase in the amount of traffic that this apartment complex would cause, but he didn't think it was right
to not do anything in this area that might increase traffic. As for putting duplexes in instead of
697
lie
• City Council Minutes
October 19, 1999
.per 7
wanting to
increase
the percentage of students
living on campus from about 27% to approximately 40% in
the future.
It would
still create an off campus
demand
for several thousand off -campus units.
Alderman Davis added that was what they were hoping for, but reality was a different question. His
concern was that the Cliff's had an additional 200 units in the process of being constructed. They had also
just approved another 225 units close to the University Farms. All these units would be coming on line by
next fall. The city currently had a lot of vacancies in the newspapers for apartments. He was not sure that
they could prove at this time that there was a need for more apartments.
Mayor Hanna replied he was not sure that it was the council's charge to debate the need. He thought they
were to listen to both sides and make the best judgment they could.
Alderman Russell questioned what the traffic increase would be.
Mr. Conklin stated they had done a trip generation calculation using the Institute of Transportation
Engineers with 140 dwelling units they would expect in a twenty-four hour, two-way volume, of 928
trips. That was 928 trips going two -ways.
ft. Krug stated most of the traffic would not be twenty-four hours a day. He thought they would be
�mmng approximately 80 vehicles an hour over the two or three exits. If they were to compare .with any
other reasonable intersection, they would find that it was not a large increase in traffic.
Ms. Doege stated she use to be a student. There was not way in the world she would only make two trips
a day. She was constantly make trips. She thought the estimate was too low for a student and needed to
be increased two to three times.
Alderman Russell asked if the equation to determine traffic estimate was if uniform or did they had a
factor to plug in there type of development or was it uniform for all type of dwelling unit and what type of.
people they had living there.
Mr. Conklin replied there were different factors they could put into the program. There was not a factor
for students. All apartments were factored the same. .
Alderman Austin questioned the different types of streets in the city.\
Mr. Conklin stated the city had a master street plan that classified streets by how they functioned and the
traffic they served. They had a local residential street that handled the traffic out of a subdivision. A
collector street which was a two-lane street, 36' wide which handled 4,000-6,000 vehicles per day. The
next street was a minor arterial street. It was a four -lane street it was 54' wide. It handled anywhere from
,800 to 14,500 vehicles per day. Deane Street was classified as a minor artierial. It was currently built
two-lane. They did have a principle arterial, which was also a four -lane street with a median boulevard
in the middle. Those were the city's major streets like College Avenue. Sang was classified as a local
street which was for 3,000 to 4,000 vehicles per day.
•.• •
708
[l
City Council Minutes
November 2,1999
. Page 2
HANNA MOORE LEASE
A resolution approving a lease agreement with Hanna Moore Development for a six-month lease
for heated storage located at 1671 Fred Hanna Drive per bid 99-77. The agreement will be for
the period from November 1,. 1999 to April 30, 2000.
RESOLUTION 141-99 AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
Alderman Davis moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Alderman Daniel seconded the
motion. Upon roll call the motion carried unanimously, 8-0-0.
OLD BUSINESS:
RZ 99-28
An ordinance approving rezoning request RZ 99-28.00 submitted by Michele Harrington
on behalf of William M. Weatherford and Larry and Brenda Swain for property located
at 2200 and 2201 W. Deane Street. Item was postponed until November 16, 1999 City
Council meeting.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
A resolution approving the 2000-2004 Capital Improvements Program.. This is a planning
document; any funding will be submitted with the 2000 Operating Budget.
Alderman Austin moved to approve the resolution. Alderman Santos seconded the motion.
Upon roll call the motion carried unanimously, 8-0-0.
RESOLUTION 142-99 AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF. THE CITY CLERK
RZ 99-29 PLANNING COMMISSION APPEAL
An ordinance approving rezoning request RZ 99-29.00. The request is to rezone approximately
1.0 acres of land located along Sycamore Street from R-1, Low Density Residential, to R -l.5,
Moderate Density Residential, to allow the development of an upper -scale six -unit residential
Planned Unit Development. The ordinance was left on the first reading at the October 19, 1999
City Council meeting.
Mr. Rose read the ordinance for the second time.
Mayor Hanna stated he had received a petition from the Board of Directors of the Richardson
• Center. He had also received a number of letters concerning the rezoning.
1
0 0
724
I.
•
•
City Council Minutes
November 16,1999
Page 4
were going to preserve hillsides, wooded areas and vista Views. He thought this was the kind of
project that followed all of those goals that they had professed to endorse, except when it came to
applying them to real life, which meant that no matter where they tried to place a development of
this type of density they were going to get this sort of complaints. This parcel was surrounded by
multi -family dwellings on the east, with duplexes and apartments to the west. The property
owner on the south supported this rezoning. The property owner on the north waste University
Farms. He could see how they could say they had these goals of increasing the density inside the
City limits and preserving hillsides and all those noble goals without causing some
inconvenience to the most immediate neighbors. In this case most of the neighbors were in
multi -family units. He thought they needed to. either follow or change their goals. He asked
whether the Council wanted to encourage sprawl and the planning principles or not.
Alderman Young stated he would take exception to the views of Alderman Santos.. They all
embraced the ideas increasing density. Everyone was looking to the land use plan and pointing
out one aspect of increasing density.. It was how they did it. It was not by rezoning into a higher
density. The whole idea of infill was that they were to infill that particular lot. They would
increase the density of the area but not by rezoning. If they increased the zoning, that was in
conflict with other parts of the plan, affecting compatibility.. He looked at the Grey.Apartments;
at the time they were constructed, the apartments would not be built, because the regulations had
been put into affect by the citizens of Fayetteville. He was going to oppose this development.
He did not believe these apartments would be compatible with the surrounding area.
Alderman Russell stated if they did need student housing and did not allow them to be developed
in areas like this, then they would be pushed out toward the edges of town and would increase
sprawl. The people of Fayetteville were going to be the ones to pay the price of that. He thought
if this was in his backyard he would be arguing against the rezoning because of property values.
The right of the property owner argument did not weigh well with him because he thought the:
property had been zoned R-1 for a long time. Perhaps the property owners could not get the
money they wanted for their property and were forced to sell it within the current zones. Another
reason to vote against the rezoning was that they had not, to his knowledge, had anyone from the
University state that this supported the University's goals. He thought in the future they would
need more student housing, but he did not believe the need was there now. He would be
opposing the rezoning.
Mayor Hanna called for the vote. Upon roll call the ordinance failed by a vote of 1-7-0,
Alderman Santos voting for the rezoning.
ORDINANCE FAILED BY VOTE OF 1-7-0.
I`_
I'
rianning Commission
July 8, 2002 •
Page 26
S.
1
RZN 02-17.00: Rezoning (MathiasBarnes, pp 364/403) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of
Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Sam Mathias and Bleaux Barnes for property located south
of Deane Street, west of Sang Ave and east of Porter Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low
Density Residential and contains approximately 21.03 acres. The request is to. rezone to RMF-6,
Low Density Multi -Family Residential.
Hoffman: The next item on the agenda is another rezoning. It is RZN 02-17.00 which was
submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Sam
Mathias and Bleaux Barnes for property located south of Deane Street, west of
Sang Ave and east of Porter Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density
Residential and contains approximately 21.03 acres. The request is to rezone to
RMF-6; Low Density Multi -Family Residential. Staff, do you have a report before
we get to the applicant?
Conklin: This rezoning request is for RMF-6. Prior to filing the application they did meet
• with staff and the applicant has met with the Neighborhood Association. There is
a Bill of Assurance in your packet. I would like to make sure that everyone
understands that this was offered voluntarily by the applicant. It is my
understanding also this evening that there have been some modifications to this
Bill of Assurance and the applicant will have to talk to you about that this evening
with regard to how that Bill of Assurance may have changed. I don't have that in
my possession this evening at this time. RMF-6 is one of the new zoning districts
that we adopted over a year ago. It allows for multi -family structures, apartments.
It also allows for single-family duplex or triplex. The Bill of Assurance that they
are proposing does limit the type of units that are proposed within the RMF-6.
They are proposing I believe a total of seven single-family homes as part of this
development. This piece of property a few years ago did come before the
Planning Commission and City Council. The request at that time was to rezone it
to R-2. There was quite a bit of opposition with regard to the proposed use for
student apartments or student housing. It was ultimately denied by the City
• Council. This request once again, goes back to this RMF-6, which is a total of a
maximum density of six units per acre. It is significantly less density than what
was requested a few years ago. That is all I have.
Hoffman: Thank you Mr. Conklin. Is the applicant present?
Jorgensen: My name is Dave Jorgensen and on behalf of the developers on this project I am
here to represent them and we have Bleaux Barnes, who is one of the owners on it
and also we have Richard Maynard here with us who is with the Asbell
Neighborhood Association. To carry on what Tim was talking about RMF-6, we
• have got 21 acres. We are allowed six units per acre, which brings us to 126
units, which is what we propose on this. We did meet with the Neighborhood
Association and we did come up with a plan that hopefully you have in your
packet. This is going to turn into what will eventually be the preliminary plat of
this project and the reason we did this is to show the neighbors what this project is
Ir
Planning Commission # •
July 8, 2002
Page 28
•
until specifically released by a 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 the
Final Plat, which includes all the petitioner's property." . That is a result of
meeting with everybody several times and you might say refining it.
Hoffman: Thank you. Would you provide the staff with a final copy of that for their
records?
Jorgensen:
Sure.
Hoffman:
Do you have any more presentation before I take public comment?
Jorgensen:
I think that is it. I would be glad to answer questions.
Hoffman:
I will go ahead and take public comment on this rezoning.
Maynard:
Good evening. My name is Richard Maynard. I am here both as an adjoining
property owner and also for spokesperson for the Asbell Neighborhood
Association. For a couple of years I have been pushing for these preliminaiy
•
meetings with developers and neighborhoods and now I've had two in as many
months so kind of be carefhl what you ask for because they do get kind of time
consuming but I am glad that we have them. I think as you all know, we did have
this meeting on May 23'a with Mr. Barnes and Mr. Mathias. Just to give you --a
little bit about that, because I think it is important and it is pertinent to this and
just how we do that. As a neighborhood association we are not there advocating
necessarily for the neighborhood but we are providing the forum to let this
• dialogue happen. I don't know how we could've advertised this anymore. I put it
out on over 300 flyers. We skipped the apartment complex. We didn't have as
great of a turnout. We had about 33 people from about 20 households, which is a
lot less than the one we had with the Lindsey development. My feeling about it is
in that sense it is like an election. You can choose to come and participate or
choose not to come and participate. If you don't mind, I would like to just give
you if you are interested the results of these if I may.
Hoffman:,
Hand those to Renee.
Maynard: Basically what it does is it just explains how we go about doing this because I
know you are just seeing the result of the process and not the process itself. I am
not going to take a lot of time even talking about that but that is really how it
should be. There are a lot of these things I think can get worked out before it ever
reaches this far or even before it gets very far in the planning office. Although,
we try to involve the planning office every step of the way because we don't want
to go making agreements with each other that wouldn't fit into the city plan. I
just wanted to break it down so you kind of, saw where the people were coming
it
Planning Commission • •
July 8, 2002
Page 30.
just because the neighborhood says it is ok it goes through or quite frankly, just
because the neighborhood says no that it doesn't go through. I don't believe in
that at all. I have never advocated that. Basically what we are saying is that it
looks good to us and now it is up to you. Thank you. .
Hoffman: Thank you Mr. Maynard. Is there anybody else that would like to address us?
Davison: Hi. I am still Sharon Davison. I sort of have to be a little sarcastic here and say I
think that it is great that we are all so happy that developers are finally showing
some minimal consideration and speaking with the neighborhoods. I think it is
sort of sad that we have to be so grateful that they are finally doing the decent
thing that they should have done to begin with. I would also like to .clarify for
people that aren't really. in a lot of these processes that when City Planners say
staff recommends, these things are saying these people have followed the rules, or
whatever they say they have to do. so we say they can. Very rarely do they
vigorously say we think this is a great project so do it. We need to listen to some
of these things. Lets also understand that with our neighborhoods when they are
saying ok. Well, they are resigned to having to say ok. It is wonderful that they
can have little things that actually turn into big things such as primarily where the
dumpster is located. These are issues and these are issues that developers have
chosen to ignore until we have really applied pressure. I think you all may have
had phone calls, you may have been paying attention the past year, neighborhoods
are feeling pinched and we are all really, really looking to you to help us out here.
It is great that we can rely on you for exactly what Mr. Maynard said, the details. I
appreciate going to Subdivision and having Commissioner Bunch say "Well, what
about these parking spaces? or what about these numbers?" That is what I feel
you are supposed to be doing for us and I appreciate you doing for us. My
problem is not that this may not be the persons right to develop, not that this may
not even be an appropriate project, but it is the timing of these projects. Look at
what we just discussed. All the building we are going to do with the Broyles and
Lazenby field. We have people over there by Wedington. Well, the thing is we
can't handle it all right now. I was wondering are we at this limited sewer
capacity? Does anyone know our current capacity rate at this point as of, we can
even say July 15`. What is our sewer capacity? Can anyone tell us that? Are we
operating at 99.4% as I have been told?
Conklin:. I don't have that information.
Davison: But we can keep approving everything and not know? This is part of my issue
and why I brought up a complaint at the City Council about dragging our feet on
impact fees. We have volumes of these projects. These are people that are living
in these neighborhoods that are still suffering with sewage water runoff in their
backyard in this very area. Simply as we are up on Mount Sequoyah dealing with
sewage runoff and we don't have these things fixed. The question came does
building drive infrastructure? You know, I think the whole point of planning is
Planning Commission • • • •
July 8, 2002
Page 32
the reasons that I voted against it are no longer with us. I am very pleased that the
developer has met with Mr. Maynard and with the neighborhood association. I
am very pleased that the matters and concerns that I had when we saw this before
have been resolved and have been worked out. It is for those reasons that I would
move that we forward to the full City Council for its consideration RZN 02-17.00.
Hoffman: - I have a motion for approval of this rezoning and forwarding to City Council by
Commissioner Estes.
Shackelford: I will second.
Ward: Does that include the new changes and the covenants?
Estes: The Bill of Assurance of course is not within our providence to dictate or to
request but let me address Mr. Jorgensen in that regard. Mr. Jorgensen, as the
movement I have heard your comments and I have heard the amendments to the
Bill of Assurance so let me say that. Let me also say that the form that you are
using for the Bill of Assurance references our Chancery Courts. By Amendment
80 we no longer have Chancery Courts, we have Circuit Courts so you need to
also strike the reference Chancery Courts from your Bill of Assurance.
Jorgensen: Ok.
Estes: It is the Circuit Court, strike Chancery Court. Amendment 80 was passed and we
now just have Circuit Court. Mr. Ward, is that responsive to your thoughts?
Ward: More than enough.
Hoffman: Thank you Commissioner Estes. Is there any further discussion? Renee, would
you call the roll please?
Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to approve RZN 02-17.00 was approved
by a vote of 8-0-0.
Hoffman: Thank you. The motion carries unanimously on a vote of eight to zero.
BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB: A resolution approving a
agreement in the amount of $5,296.00 with the Fayet
installation of a haul road to the Donald W. Reynolds Boys
CiCouncil Minutes
August 20, 2002
Page 2 of 15
change order to a cost share
teville Youth Center for the
and Girls Club Facility.
RESOLUTION 128-02 AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES: A resolution approving the second amendment to the
professional services agreement between the City of Fayetteville and Duncan Associates
and to direct the consultants to prepare initial and final drafts of the water and wastewater
impact fee ordinance.
RESOLUTION 129-02 AS RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK.
Alderman Davis moved to approve the consent agenda. Alderman Marr seconded.
Upon roll call the motion carried unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS
RZN 02-15.00: An ordinance approving rezoning request RZN 02-15.00 as submitted by
Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Larry Garriott for property located north of Persimmon
Street and west of 46th Street. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains
approximately .57.82 acres. The request is to rezone to R-1, Low Density Residential;
and to accept the attached Bill of Assurance. The ordinance was tabled on the second
reading at the August 6, 2002 meeting.
Alderman Davis asked to table the item because they were having a neighborhood
meeting on Thursday night.
ORDINANCE WAS TABLED ON THE SECOND READING.
ordinance approving rezoning request RZN 02-17:00 as submitted by
Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Bleaux Barnes and Sam Mathias for property located south
of Deane Street, west of Sang Avenue and east of Porter Road. The property is zoned R-
1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 21.03 acres. The request is to
rezone to RMF-6, Low Density Multi -Family Residential. The ordinance was left on the
second reading at the August 6, 2002 meeting.
Alderman Santos moved to suspend the rules . and move to the third reading.
Alderman Jordan seconded. Upon roll call the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Williams read the ordinance.
Mr. Jorgensen stated they had met with the surrounding property owners. They would
like to incorporate a park in their green space.
S Ciry Council Minutes
August 20, 2002.
Page 4 of 15
Alderman Young asked if the city was still giving the developers a letter stating that they
were not guaranteeing sewer hook ups.
Mr. Boettcher stated they were not. When the sales tax issue was passed it was no longer
added to the subdivision plats.
Alderman Marr asked why they would have eliminated that.
Alderman Young stated he thought the letter should be given out. Just because the bond
issue had been passed it did not mean that the plant was going to be on line in five years.
Right now they did not have a discharge permit. They did not have a whole lot of things
in place in order to get a plant under construction. Until that time, he did not see how
Fayetteville could guarantee sewer hook ups.
In response to questions, Mr. Boettcher stated he was looking for the new plant to be on
line in 2005 or 2006, approximately four years.
Mayor Coody stated businesses were wanting to come to town, but they were going to go
north because we could not guarantee that they would have sewer.
Mr. Williams stated the city did not guarantee sewer capacity. They were working at this
point to increase their capacity. The best estimates they were going to be able to handle
normal growth until the new plant came on line. They did not have to give a notice that
they did not guarantee that they would have capacity. If the council would rather have
the warning placed back on the plats, he was sure that could be done. It was more critical
before they knew whether or not they were going to be able to build the new plant.
Alderman Young stated he did not see the point on putting it on the plat, unless it was the
preliminary plat. He was concerned that a developer would come in and get a
preliminary plat approved, and the city was saying he could hook up, but then they could
not. If someone was to build a five or ten million dollar development and could not hook
up to the sewer, than what was the city going to do?
Mr. Williams stated he did not think that was going to happen. The voters had passed the
sales tax and they were going to get a new plant and they would be able to continue.
Alderman Bechard stated he did not understand how they could be at 99% capacity, but
yet they were able to handle the growth for the next four years.
Mr. Boettcher stated the waste water treatment facility had experienced extreme
variations in flow particularly during wet weather. That was where they had their
violation before because of overflows into the streams. During those periods that they
had wet weather flows they might see 30 mgd at their 12 mgd plant. Their permit
required them to meet their limits every day. The treatment plant had to be able to
acuminate this large fluctuation in flow. That was where they ran into difficulty in their
From: Richard Maynard <rmaynard@uark.edu>
To: Sarah Edwards <SEdwards@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 11/21/02 3:09PM
Subject: Re: ANA News (fwd)
from Megan Drive (VP and Treas of ANA)
Subject: Re: ANA News
Richard, Jim and I don't have a problem with the new arrangement.
Thanks,
Sue
At 01:48 PM 11/21/2002 -0600, you wrote:
>Thursday, November 21
>Hi everyone,
>1 really appreciate everyone who responded about the change in the Bill of
>Assurance for the Barnes development. If you haven't already weighed in
>on this and if you want to (you don't have to), please let me know. I'm
>forwarding all messages to the Planning Department They go into agenda
>session this afternoon and the PC meeting is this Monday, Nov. 25 when
>this will be discussed.
>The following is what I wrote about it earlier in the week.
>Thanks,
>
>richard
>> I'm going to try to explain this as clearly and concisely as I can, then
> > give my own opinion.
> > The Bames/Mathias development for the duplexes and condos has run into a
>> little snag regarding their bill of assurance. Because their detention
>> pond (which catches and holds excess rain water) on the west side of the
> > development in back of the Linda Jo duplexes needs to be bigger, they lost
> > four duplexes (8 units) along that street They want to make that up by
> > eliminating one of the single-family houses they were going to build on
> > Sang and one on Porter and extend the condos along the south end from
> > eight (32 units) to ten (40 units). They will plant trees or tall
> > shrubbery to screen the sides of the buildings from the street. Two
> > single-family homes along both Sang and Porter will still be built. That
> > will make up for six units they lost. To make up the other two units,
Planning Commission
November 25, 2002
E-mail of neighborhood responses for
ADM 02-37
From: "Frank Connors" <fconnors@arkansas.net>
To: "Sara Edwards" <SEdwards@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 11/21/02 11:43AM
Subject: Re: Mathias/ Bames Development
I have no problem with the requested changes. The single family homes were a
bonus to the original offer. This keeps two homes facing Porter and Sang.
Frank Connors
— Original Message From: "Sara Edwards" <SEdwards@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
To: <fmkelly@alltel.net>; <chrsnmell@aol.com>; <cst94@aol.com>;
<ebaldr@aol.com>; <hairylman@aol.com>; <KATKWIKIT@aol.com>;
<Iblinds@aol.com>; <Mep714gq@aol.com>; <RUSCHHALL@aol.com>;
<tppmot@aol.com>; <ckparis@arkansas.net>; <fconnors@arkansas.net;
<mferguso@arkansas.net>; <ahoskins@arkansasUSA.com>;
<cdsimmon@arkansasUSA.com>; <jswl 23@cox-intemet.com>; <wandaj11 @cs.com>;
<bss@engr.uark.edu>; <scox@fayar.net>; <Jon. Bitler@GFll.com>;
<danosamo@hotmail.com>; <finnality@hotmail.com>; <jatatge@hotmail.com>;
<mfl030@hotmail.com>; <johnb@ipa.net>; <dcokerl@juno.com>;
<julianaprice@juno.com>; <dcarlton@lindsey.com>; <scottmiller@lynks.com>;
<charliec@marshalltown.com>; <socwil@mc2kcom>; <11082910937@msn.com>;
<fayemaureen@pgtc.com>; <dlbair@prodigy.net>; <smadison@sbcglobal.net>;
<syoung@springdaleark.org>; <dahrent@uark.edu>; <gtatge@uark.edu>;
<jnr@uark.edu>; <Iscarbr@uark.edu>; <mvestal@uark.edu>; <rmaynard@uark.edu>;
<sdevore@uark.edu>; <simmons@uark.edu>; <mammygales@yahoo.com>;
<rickgales@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 12:53 PM
Subject: Mathias/ Barnes Development
> Attached please.find a letter of notification regarding the proposed
> development between Sang, Porter, and Deane. I realize that Richard
> Maynard has apprised you of the proposed changes and has asked for your
> opinion regarding the proposal. I encourage you to respond to either
> myself or Richard with any comments you have regarding the development.
> If we do not hear from you we will assume that the amendments are
> agreeable.
> Please note the public hearings dates in the attached. Your comments
> are welcomed at those meetings.
> Feel free to contact me, if you have any comments or questions.
> Sincerely,
> Sara Edwards
> Associate Planner
> City of Fayetteville
> Planning Division
> 113 W. Mountain
> Fayetteville, AR 72701
> (501) 575-8264
> (501) 575-8316 fax
> sedwards@ci.fayetteville.ar.us
From: Richard Maynard <rrnaynard@uark.edu>
To: Sarah Edwards <SEdwards@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: .11/21/02 1:44PM
M
Subject: RE: ANA News (fwd)
From Arthur Hart area
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, simmons wrote:
> >Good morning Richard,
>
> What busy people our council people are. Yes OK with us about
> the changes. We are going to be out of town on the 26th, could
> we vote early or absentee? Nina
From: Richard Maynard <rmaynard@uark.edu>
To: Sarah Edwards <SEdwards@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 11/21/02 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: ANA News (fwd)
From Lawson St, but not at the meeting. As she said, she really doesn't
know the details of this development.
Subject: Re: ANA News
p.s. I tried to reply to all on the list but my computer put it's foot down and flat out refused. Maybe you
guys forward it out for me...thanks
— Original Message
From: Cst94@aol.com
To: rmaynard@uark.edu ; 11082910937@msn.com ; ahoskins@ArkansasUSA.com
bss@engr.uark.edu; carmo@arkansasusa.com ; cdsimmon@ArkansasUSA.com ;
charliec@marshalltown.com ; Chrsnmel96@aol.com ; ckparis@arkaflsas.net; dahrent@uark.edu;
danosamo@hotmail.com ; dcarlton@lindsey.com ; dcokerl@juno.com ; dlbair@prodigy.net ;
EBALDR@aol.com ; fayemaureen@pgtc.com ; fconnors@arkansas.net ; finnality@hotmail.com;
fmkelly@alltel.net ; GPie444@aol.com ; gtatge@uark.edu ; Hairy1man@aol.com ; jatatge@hotmail.com ;
jnr@uark.edu ; johnb@ipa.net; Jon.Bitler@GFll.com ; jsw123@cox-intemet.com
jjudy@arkleg.state.ar.us ; julianaprice@juno.com; KATKWIKIT@aol.com ; ksantos@uafphpl.uark.edu;
LBLinds@aol.com ; lkarnes@uark.edu ; lljordan7@hotmail.com ; Iscarbr@uark.edu ; Mep714gq@aol.com
; mf1o3o@hotmail.com; mferguso@arkansas.net ; mhoover@ci.fayetteville.ar.us ; mvestal@uark.edu;
nataliakarnes@hotmail.com; RuschHall@aol.com ; scottmiller@lynks.com ; scox@fayar.net ;
sdevore@uark.edu ; simmons@uark.edu ; smadison@sbcglobal.net ; socwil@mc2k.com;
syoung@springdaleark.org ; TPPMOT@aol.com; vuvie@juno.com ; WandaJll@cs.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: ANA News
i think the houses would be better but i understand the bussiness
chris norris
it. the Droblem i have is the
I'd like to figure out ways we can get more neighborhood involvement like
almost every other NA has. The park controversy got us a park committee,
but I know there are folks out there who would like to be more involved if
we could figure out a way to involve them.
Let me know if Dec. 6 works for you.
richard
Richard Maynard (rmaynard@comp.uark.edu)
SPRING INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE CENTER
University of Arkansas
Fayetteville, Arkansas
From: Richard Maynard <rmaynard@uark.edu>
To: Sarah Edwards <SEdwards@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 11/21/02 1:39PM
Subject: Re: ANA News (fwd)
From Sue Madison who owns a duplex on Holly. She has an interesting
suggestion. Can that be done?
Forwarded message
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 20:12:50 -0600
From: Sue Madison <SMadison@sbcglobal.net>
To: Richard Maynard <miaynard@uark.edu>
Subject: Re: ANA News
Richard, I respect your opinion and glad you are on top of all this. One
thing that concerns me is that we keep building rentals in this town, we
need some more reasonably -priced units that could be for sale. I know
sometimes conditions of development are X -number of units for low-income
occupants, etc. So, why not a condition where X -number are for sale to
"owners". Just a question.
Thanks for all the help I had from Asbell folks.
Sue
From: Richard Maynard <rmaynard@uark.edu>
To: Sarah Edwards <SEdwards@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 11/21/02 1:38PM
Subject: Re: ANA News (fwd)
from Turner Street
Richard,
I agree with you re. the bill of assurance.
Susan
5 T r
I� •�j;�j(•�)f4',��'r�t{��z �•.�,j 'o � T
t f If♦'u♦i9•.S..♦2.'Yr�(llti•�U,{��!.GJA. kI��'"ir,,1���i�+t. ; t::
w f ' , +Y 1Sr��I �.il'f '���•� Irl I Y � I •� � w� I� I�f "�1i1�111',
Imo. L _^ �r� �w �• _
�. a-�+ f..,. Y�•� 7� 'may. ��jl�?•♦L�,�.,�.•.t� 7
•, yr +� • ' If 1( fl i l '+ ,��. � ...;,u:=J.! _ _..a � � -;f� v�ft' . �i�',
ir. n'. k. I.w�lir iI �✓'•' .ri H1 .••i♦r''�Q��wr�[[l`r�•♦
:t 1
. k
/!'ai�•1T�,I ,., •.�A♦. ♦ ',YYan•I 11NY1 lifnhfl;
��� fW fi({,w � • .• �f ' a•�r1 ..,.i... M � .Y ~•���
ten. XZ5%Jtt
J —_
1. ♦ ♦., 4,• -
_
♦
a LL' rF _l��i �' '{{yjiY�''.t .�1 ?F v.r."1�0 _v�'�,K.jJr w.�'. • S
._mar..,
1. 6 ✓
- a T a Y
• MTV ♦ F 6Y_ f• Z_�
6YY•
f — 'a
v-• -+mil Y _ ... ... . � .Jt_ J �
_ r • j�
t'
.�-~'-7' !fir•" IS!•1a-:1 4. f.' �� +e�/..�_..q�`
`. �• Q 1 r� . ' �. _ . • l 1-4 ♦-
_ • it
_ rte" • "
1 `
.' T j iU�'� 1 �� _ 'F ' . •1
_ . • ✓. ." Lie
c!
111 ?TZ r1�T#ll�®
L_4LI�1
.'.. `'r K,n
y ✓"
1
: r \ � f�I __� v.rmY�fIY •.1.. _ • ri � ...-_����-�y�� Ty -.��f
e � t• r
'e'-•m'i • .vJ y
'I r- • f CL ♦. r 1 I '�
IFpIFpIFpIFp ' 1 v t 1
r \ wY_�++ • • . , !1 ! Wires •r•
♦ P� r 9 � fig
T- • +l`^ . ••
a--.
� � �... �, ... r^"'�+r' ice.♦ -e rv✓'^ 1 v, ver k '" ."" .
�W++�� v l� y _.�-�� �♦ � e Y ♦ i 1 ♦t 'T rTu ar +. ♦ 1� ♦1 r
3 � r
V . . rte/ � 1 .� �♦ I {I
. - • ♦ _-•_- a z ♦�• .•.rr r
• .. .yew ♦ -
• C*Council Minutes
August 6, 2002
• RZN 02-17.00: An ordinance approving rezoning request RZN 02-17.00 as
submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Bleaux Barnes and Sam Mathias for
property located south of Deane Street, west of Sang Avenue and east of Porter
Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains
approximately 21.03 acres. The request is to rezone to RMF-6, Low Density Multi -
Family Residential.
Mr. Williams read the ordinance.
Alderman Jordan moved to suspend the rules and move to the second reading.
Alderman Thiel seconded. The motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Williams read the ordinance.
Alderman
Santos
stated the neighborhood was pretty much behind this, but he
would like
to wait
until the next meeting to pass
this.
THE ORDINANCE WAS LEFT ON THE SECOND READING.
•
•
FAYETTEVI &E
• . THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS
KIT WILLIAMS, CITY ATTORNEY
DAVID WHITAKER, ASST. CITY ATTORNEY
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
TO: Planning Commission [ ��
FROM: David J. Whitaker, Assistant City Attorney J- • I/�Z✓�''�—
DATE: November 22, 2002
RE: ADM 02-37.00 Amended Bill of Assurance
You have requested a legal opinion as to whether the Revised Bill of
Assurance proffered by Messrs. Mathias and Barnes can be accepted by the
Planning Commission as is, or whether it requires reconsideration of the
rezoning already approved by the City Council.
As expected, no case law has developed dealing with precisely this
question. We can, however, look to the state statutes governing municipal
zoning for guidance. A.C.A. § 14-56-423 governs the rezoning process in
Arkansas:
"After adoption of plans, ordinances, and regulations and proper
filing in the offices of city clerk and county recorder, no alteration,
amendment, extension, abridgement, or discontinuance of the
plans, ordinances, or regulations may be made except in
conformance with the procedure prescribed in § 14-56-422, or by a
majority vote of the city council." (Emphasis added.)
Even a cursory examination of the proposed revisions to the Bill of
Assurance reveals that it easily qualifies as an "alteration" or "amendment" of
the originally approved plan. Not only do the numbers in Restriction #2 change,
but language concerning garages appears at the end of Restriction #4. The
introductory paragraphs no longer contain the required property description or
the appropriate language establishing that the City reasonably relied upon the
Bill of Assurance when first considering the rezoning. For all of these reasons, I
cannot help but conclude, that the new document must be reconsidered by the
City Council before the planning process may proceed.
0 •
This does not mean, however, that the applicants must return to "square
one" in the process. The last clause of the above -quoted statute allows such
changes to be approved by a majority vote of the City Council, without the need
to retrace the entire rezoning path. City of Russellville v. Banner Real Estate, 326
Ark. 673, 933 S.W.2d 803 (1996). Indeed, the facts of this situation do not require
amendment of the previously approved ordinance itself.
Mr. Crouch's point that the zoning of the parcel in question will not be
affected by these changes is correct, as far as it goes. But, the central point here is
that the Bill of Assurance, by its own terms, states that "the Planning
[C]ommission and the Fayetteville City [C]ouncil will reasonably rely upon all of
the terms and conditions within this Bill of Assurance in considering whether to
approve the Petitioner's rezoning request." (Emphasis added). There is no
reason to believe that the City Council did not so rely.
All of this leads to the conclusion that the Council must approve these
changes by a majority vote. A resolution will do, inasmuch as only the
underlying agreement is being amended, and not the zoning of the parcel itself.
This process will be greatly expedited if the missing language from the opening
paragraphs is reinserted before the new document is submitted to the City
Council. I have attached a draft of the resolution for inclusion in the Agenda
Request.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding this opinion letter, please
contact me at 575-8313.
-2-
FlN t3 2002 02:56F'
0 •
IJ•VIV-
a
•
BILL OF ASSURANCE
FOR THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
c;711e buyer/developer of property located between Sang Ave and Putter Rd and Deane
Street more particularly described as approximately 21 Acres in pan of section 3 and part
of section 8 of T16N, R 30W in Washington county Arkansas hereby voluntarily offers
this Bill of Assurance and enters into this binding agreement and contract with the City of
Fayetteville, Arkansas. This bill of Assurance is offered to assist in the rezoning of the
above described property.
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 Chancery/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 reasonably rely upon all of the teams 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 an follows IF Petitioner's rezoning is approved by the Fayetteville City
Council.
1. The use of Petitioner's property shall he limited to single-family
condominiums & patio homes.
2. Other restrictions including number and type of structures upon the property
arc limited, as follows; 7 single family units, 8 condominiums with four per
condo -32 units, 41 patio homes with 2 eacb-82 units, Xunits on two lots
along Deane Street. S
3. The petitioner agrees to install 2" DHI1 Loblolly pine trees spaced at 30' O.C
along the south boundary line. In addition, a privacy fence will be installed
along this same south property.litre.
4. Condominiums units will have 2 bedrooms each.
5. The Petitioner agrees to install a view obscuring hedge along the east
boundary of this project
6. Quality of construction shall be established and enforced by covenants.
Planning Commission
November 25. 2002
ADM02-3 7 (Mathis/Barnes)
Page 4.6
ILd-28-2002 02.59P FROM: •
70:5758316
a 0
P
7. Occupants mast abide by the City ordinance that no more than 3 unrelated.
people may occupy any unit.
8. Green pace will be set aside for City Park or use by occupants of this project.
ell 9. All of the above items as per plat submitted for this rezoning request.
TN WITNESS WHEREOF, and in agreement with all the terms and conditions
stated above, as the owner, developer or buyer (Petitioner) voluntarily offer all
such assurances.
-2t-oL
Notary Oath
STATE. OF ARKANSAS
COUNTY OF WASh INGTT�OtLN )
And now on thisAW1 day of ,.2002, oppcared before me, Bleats Burnes
and Sam Mathias, and after being placed upon his oath swore or affirmed that they agreed
with the terms of the Bill Assurance and signed their names above.
My Commission Expires:
E16
( it4OTsaiRY
1.1e�a:
ry Public
Planning Commission
November 25, 2002
ADM02-37 (Mathis/Barnes)
Page 4.7
rMI-Ce-ct cc
0 •
REVISED BILL OF ASSURANCE
FOR TIIF CITY OF FAYETTr%V1l.LE
11/20/02
']lie owner recently received approval for the reaming of property between Porter Rd,
Sang Street and south ol'Deane Street, which is a property called Skyler Place Addition.
A long with the rezoning was a bill of assurance that states the number oI' units on the lots.
The property was zoned to RMF-6, which allows for 126 units.
Hydraulic calculations have caused the detention pond to he larger than originally
expected which reduced the number ol'lots and therefore the number of units.
As requested by the Planning Dept, we hereby offer the following Revised Bill of
Assurance, The amount of Utc allowed units is 126 and this does not change. The only
difference between this revised bill of assurance and the original is the makeup of the
units.
The pctitiorwr expressly grants to the (Sty 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 Hill of Assurance, substantial irreparable damagc justifying injunctive relief has been
done to the citizens and City of Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Petitioner hereby voluntarily offers assurances thut Petitioner and Petitioner's property
shall he restricted as follows;
J. llie use of Petitioner's property shall be limited to single-family
condominiums & patio hones.
2. Other restrictions including number and type of structures upon the property
arc limited, as follows; 5 single family units, 10 condoininiunts with fbur per
condo a 40 units, 37 patio homes with 2 each = 74 units, 7 units nn two lots
along Deane Street for a total of 126 units.
3. The petitioneragr es to install 2" Dlll l Loblolly pine trees spaced at 30' U.C.
along the south boundary line. In addition, a privacy fence will he installed
along this same south propcaty line.
4. Condominiums units will have 2 bedrooms each with a uno-car garage. Fisch
patio home will have 2 or 3 bedrooms with a two -car garage.
5. The Petitioner agrees to install,a view obscuring hedge along the back of the
other pnoperties along Sang Ave.
Planning Commission
November 25, 2002
ADM02-37 (Mathis/Barnes)
Page 4.4
NOV-20-2002 @4:02P FROM:
•
70:5758316
•
6, Quality of construction shall be established and enforced by covenants.
7. (k;cupunts must abide by the City ordinance that no more than 3 unrelated
people may occupy any titlit.
K. Greenspace will he set aside for City Park or use by occupants of this project.
9. Petitioner specifically agees that all such reshictions and terms shall run with
the land and bind all future owners unless and until specifically released by
Res olutiim of the Fayetteville City Council. lids Hill of Assurance shall be
filed for record in the Washington County Clerk's O(riec and shall be noted
on the Final Plus, which includes all of Petitioner's Property.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and in agreement with all the terms and conditions
stated above, as the owner, developer or buyer (Yctidoncr) voluntarily offer all
such Assurances.
Date Date
Notary Oath
STATE OF ARKANSAS
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
. And now on this — day of , 2002, appeared bclbre me, Bleats Balms
and Sam Mathias, and after being placed upon his oath swore or offtrrned that they agreed
with tho terms of the Bill Assurance and signed their names above.
My Commission Expires:
Notary Public
Planning Commission
November 25, 2002
ADM02-37 (Mathis/Barnes)
Page 4.5
ORDINANCE NO. 4410 MICROFILMED
AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN
REZONING PETITION RZN 02-17.00 FOR A PARCEL CONTAINING
APPROXIMATELY 21.03 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF DEANE STREET,
WEST OF SANG AVENUE, AND EAST OF PORTER AVENUE,
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS, AS SUBMITTED BY DAVE JORGENSEN
OF JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF BLEAUX BARNES
AND SAM MATHIAS.
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 R-1, Low Density Residential to RMF-6, Low Density Multi -Family
Residential as shown in Exhibit A 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.
PASSED and APPROVED this the 20th day of August, 2002.
D Q
APPROVED: = zo 0
a("r -
O
By:
F AYE rr
DAN COODY, y r a rn
•v(�'? \'e ` U)o �0 0
�� rat ioodruff, City
m
201 71 3491
• • . Ord. 4410
EXHIBIT "A"
PART OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 8 AND PART OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE
SW 1/4 OF SECTION 5, ALL IN T16N, R30W IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS
AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT
THE SW CORNER OF SAID NW 1/4 NW 1/4 THENCE N00°05'24"W 330.00 FEET, THENCE
N89°59'09"E 35.00 FEET TO THE P.O.B., THENCE N00°05'24"W 327.97 FEET, THENCE
N89°55'02"E 588.66 FEET, THENCE N00°01'30"E 659.78 FEET, THENCE N89°59'07"E
51.97 FEET, THENCE N00°04'32"W 309.45 FEET, THENCE.N87°25'56"E 476.84 FEET,
THENCE S00°03'51"W 991.07 FEET, THENCE S89°07'23"E 152.87 FEET, THENCE
S00°37'19"W 325.72 FEET, THENCE S89°59'09"W 1264.55 FEET TO THE P.O.B.;
CONTAINING 21.03 ACRES MORE OR LESS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RIGHT OF
WAY OF RECORD.
20021 �1 z92
FAYETTEVI !LE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
To: Tim Conklin
Planning
From: Heather Woodruff, City Clerk
Date: December 26, 2002
Attached is a copy of Resolution 200-02 approving amendments to the Bill of Assurance
submitted with ordinance no. 4410, passed and approved by the City Council on August
20, 2002.
The original resolution will be microfilmed and filed with the City Clerk.
cc: Nancy Smith, Internal Auditor
John Goddard, IT
Scott Caldwell, IT
Clyde Randall, IT
Ed Connell, Engineering