HomeMy WebLinkAbout148-04 RESOLUTION08(16/2003 15:27 FAX 4795824807
•
•
JORGENSEN & ASSOC
JORGENSEN & ASSOC
ADDENDUM NO.2 TO BILL OF ASSURANCE
FOR DAVID LYLE $IJBDMSION
This addendum No. 2 is intended to revise the R -O property referred to on page 4 of the
c:iginal Bill of Assurance.
The original Bill of Assurance states that no "residential structures shall be situated" and
this addendum revises this to allow for single family on said R-0 property,
Witness the execution hereof on this 5/
STATE OF ARKANSAS
day of C27 � , 2004.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON)s. s.
BE IT REMEMBERED, that on this date, before the undersigned, a duly comrnissioned
and acting �j otary Pubic within and. for said County end State, personally
appearedIMkc Public
, to me well lmow u the persons who
executed the foregoing document, and who stated and acknowledged that they are duly
authorized in their respective capacities to mane the foregoing instrument for and in the
name and behalf of said corporation, and further stated and acknowledged that they
signed, executed and delivered said instrument for the consideration, uses and purposes
therein mentioned and set forth
WITNESS my hand and seal on this
My Commission Expires:
JUDITH ANN TYRA
Notary Public
Benton County, Arkaneae
Commission Expires: 7.1.2012
9
day of J`hj S Kf .2004.
Public 44÷
411002
ch 001
mapoompoommo
Doi b 0070 00001 Typo REL
Recorded M. /2004 at 08:33 23 AM
Fos Amt $0.00 Poo. 1 01
Sett*etom000Cnrcu tRClerk
m02004-00032757
E)dni bri- 9faro'
BILL OF ASSURANCE
This declaration of a Bill of Assurance is executed by
the undersigned Owners of the following real property located
in Fayetteville, Washington County, Arkansas, described as
follows, to -wit:
A part of the Southwest Quarter (SW%) of the
Southwest Quarter (SW1), the Northeast Quarter (NE;
of the Southwest Quarter (SW%), the Southeast
Quarter (SE's) of the Southwest Quarter (SW%), and
the Southwest Quarter (SW%) of the Southeast
Quarter (SE$) of Section Eighteen (18), and a part
of the Northwest Quarter (NW1/2) of the Northwest.
Quarter (NW§), the Northeast Quarter (NE:) of the
Northwest Quarter (NW$), the Southeast Quarter
(SE'j) of the Northwest Quarter.(NW\), the Northwest
Quarter (Nigh) of the Northeast Quarter (NE1), and
the Northeast Quarter (NE$) of the Northeast
Quarter (NE§) of Section Nineteen (19), all in
Township Sixteen (16) North, Range Twenty-nine (29)
West of the 5th Principal Meridian in Washington
County, Arkansas, being more particularly described
as follows:
From the Southeast corner of the SE: of the SW/ of
said Section 19, run N 0'01'34" W - 3556.47 feet to
a set iron pin, the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence N
56'30'24" W - 498.70 feet to a set iron pin; thence
S 0'01'34" E - 300:00 feet to a set iron pin on the
right-of-way of Arkansas State Highway 16; thence
along said right-of-way N 56'30'24" W - 1088.39
feet to a set iron pin; thence leaving said right-
of-way N 0'2'26" W - 1040.03 feet to a set iron
pin; thence N 89'53'42" W - 754.08 feet to a set
iron pin on the east bank of the West Fork of the
White River; thence along said east bank the
following bearings and distances:
N 45'43'37" E - 287.94 feet;
N 55'49'20" E - 95.44 feet;
N 36'30'18" E - 114.93 feet;
N 48'58'50" E - 229.31 feet;
N 44'01'14" E - 415.09 feet;
N 34'15'11" E - 222.77 feet;
N 14'41'45" E - 256.60 feet;
N 24'16'08" E - 166.59 feet; 95036372
N 29'32'22" E - 188.46 feet;
N 57'26'05" E - 262.26 feet;
6c(ab•i `[' fb 212
$d, A.3
•
•
S 75'04'58" E - 243.01 feet;
S 49'51'28" E - 85.47 feet;
S 19'19'17" E - 869.08 feet;
N 84'50'18" E — 300.00 feet;
N 82'59'45" E - 236.57 feet;
S 77'04'49" E - 199.74 feet;
S 56'49'49" E _ 216.72 feet;
S 67'40'15" E - 555.33 feet to a set iron pin;
thence leaving said bank S 0'01'38" E - 708.61 feet
to a set iron pin; thence N 89'53'42" W - 122/76
feet to a set iron pin; thence N .76'24'19" W -
1233.58 feet to a set iron pin; thence S 0'01'34" E
- 1627.94 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING,
containing 112.59 acres, more or less, subject to
easements and right-of-way of. record.
WHEREAS, the Owners of the real property described herein
are seeking the approval of the Fayetteville City Council to
amend Fayetteville zoning map to rezone from A-1 to R-0
(Residential -Office District) the following described
property:
A part of the Northeast Quarter (NE$) of the
Northwest Quarter (NW's) and the Southeast Quarter
(SE\) of the Northwest Quarter (NWS.) of Section
Nineteen (19), all in Township Sixteen (16) North,
Range Twenty-nine (29) West of the 5th Principal
Meridian in Washington County, Arkansas, being more
particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Southeast corner of the SE; of
the Sigh of said Section 19, thence N 01-34 W
3616.29 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, said point
being 300.00 feet perpendicular distance from the
north right-of-way of Arkansas State Highway 16;
said point also being on the existing Fayetteville
City Limits;
Thence S 00-01-34 E 59.82 feet
Thence N 56-30-24 W 498.70 feet;
Thence S 00-01-34 E 300.00 feet to the right-
of-way of Arkansas State Highway 16;
Thence along said right-of-way N 56-30-24 W
1088.39 feet to the west line of said NEI* of
the NW\ of Section 19;
Thence N 00-02-26 W 359.90 feet to the
Fayetteville City Limit;
Page 2
95036373
GxkibittR%tects3
•
• •
Thence along said Fayetteville City Limit S 56-30-24 E
1587.20 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 8.07 f'
acres, more or less.
.and,
WHEREAS, the Owners of the real property described herein
are seeking the approval of the Fayetteville City Council to
amend Fayetteville zoning map to rezone from A-1 to R -S
following described property;
A part of the Southeast .Quarter (SE$) of the
Southwest Quarter (SW%) of Section Eighteen (18),
and a part of the Northeast Quarter (NE$) of the
Northwest Quarter (NW%) and the Southeast Quarter
(SE%) of the Northwest Quarter (NW§) of Section
Nineteen (19), all in Township Sixteen (16) North,
Range Twenty-nine (29) West of the 5th Principal
Meridian in Washington County, Arkansas, being more
particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Southeast corner of the SE$ of
the SWk, of said Section 19, thence. N 00-01-34 W
3616.29 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; said point
being 300.00 feet perpendicular distance from the
north right-of-way of Arkansas State Highway 16;
said point also being on the existing Fayetteville
City Limits;
Thence N 56-30-24 W 1587.20 feet along said
Fayetteville City Limit to the west line of said
NE§ of the NWS of. Section 19;
Thence N 00-02-26 W 830.13 feet;
Thence S 89-53-42 E 1323.46 feet;
Thence S 00-01-34 E 1703.58 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING, containing 38.49 acres, more or less.
WHEREAS, the remaining portion of the full tract of land.
from which the above two (2) tracts of property are taken is
to remain A-1; and,
WHEREAS, Owners are desirous of executing this Bill of
Assurance with the intention of guaranteeing the preservation
of certain values and amenities in the community and to bind
Page 3.
95036374
akobi4 "pita
•
•
•
themselves, -their successors, .heirs, and assigns, and to
restrict the use of the herein described real property,
NOW THEREFORE, Owners declare the real property described
herein to be rezoned R -S
transferred, sold, conveyed,
covenant and restriction that
shall be held, developed,
and occupied subject to the
there will be no more than one
hundred fifty-four (154) dwelling units on said 38.49 acres
(four single-family homes per acres, as in R-1 zoning).
Owners declare the real property described herein to be
rezoned R-1 shall be subdivided into lots with a minimum size
of each lot of six thousand (6,000) square feet, and the
maximuum size of each lot to be ten thousand (10,000) square
feet.
Owners declare that the real property described herein
shall have protective
shall contain no less
(1,450) square feet.
covenants requiring that each house
than one thousand four hundred fifty
•
Owners declare the real property described herein to be
rezoned R -O shall be held, developed, transferred, sold,.
conveyed, and occupied subject to the covenant and restriction
that no residential structures shall be situated on said 8.07
acres.
Owners declare that the remaining approximately 66 acres
(flood plain area) shall be a permanent conservation easement,
and will be restricted to agricultural use only, except the
City park area.
Page 4
r..
1
950363'75
Ex.ki bii "A" cet.ile5
•
Owners declare that -a minimum of six (6) acres of the
flood plain will be dedicated for a City park.
Owners declare and agree to make an offsite contribution
for use and improvement of the Route 16 -Hwy. 265 intersection,
to help mitigate the traffic impact of the development, to be
paid to the City at its call, in the amount of Twenty-five
Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($25,000.00).
Owners declare that the parking areas for the tract to be
zoned R -O shall be screened from view of Hwy. 16.
Owners declare that the entire tract will have not more
than four (4) access points from Hwy. 16 and that there will
be significant landscaping along the Hwy. 16 frontage.
Owners declare that not less than four (4) large canopy
trees, as specified in the Fayetteville landscape ordinance,
with at least one (1) each DBH will be required on each lot,
to be provided by the owner of said lot at the time of
construction of a structure on each lot.
WITNESS our signatures:
OWNERS
ton' By
CITY OF,,FAYETTEVILLE
FADIL BAYYARI
GERALDINE BAYYARI, by Fadil
Bayyari, pursuant to authority
contained in Power of Attorney
Page 5
95036376
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF ARKANSAS
.COUNTY OF WASHINGTON �yf
On this the 4'94 day of June, 1995, before me the
undersigned office, personally appeared Fadil Bayyari and
Geraldine Bayyari, by Fadil Bayyari, pursuant to. authority
contained. in Power of Attorney, whose names are subscribed to
the within Bill of Assurance and acknowledged that they
executed the same for the purposes therein contained.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I hereunto set my hand and official
seal.
ss.
My Commission Expires:
3-3-3
STATE OF ARKANSAS
•
No ary Public
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
)
ss.
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON ).
Z -UW
On this the 2Dril day of Jena, .1995,
undersigned office, personally appearedA
for the City of Fayetteville, known to me to
whose name is subscribed to the within Bill of
acknowledged that he executed the same for
therein contained.
seal.
before
be the person
Assurance and
the purposes
me
the
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I hereunto set my hand and official
/14F IGiV Cl*Eil+sion Expires:
4P
=i-rp)2;L2. . i gLI
e p U •LIC• ;v
•
/ , „ ,ti.• •
.w
No ary Public
Page 6
0695\05.03
95036377
NAME OF FILE:
CROSS REFERENCE:
Resolution No. 148-04
w/Amendment No. 2 & Bill of Assurance
Document
•
NOTES:
1
09/03/04
memo to mayor & City Council
2
draft resolution
3
letter from Jorgensen & Associates
4
copy of preliminary plat
5
copy of map of David Lyle
Subdivision
6
copy of legal description
7
copy of Ord. 3911
8
copy of Planning
Commission minutes 12/17/96
g
copy of Addendum to Bill of
Assurance 7/24/95
10
memo to City Council
11
copy of City Council minutes 4/4/95
12
copy of City Council minutes 4/18/95
13
copy of City Council minutes 5/2/95
14
copy of City Council minutes 7/5/95
15
copy of City Council minutes 12/5/95
16
copy of City Council minutes 12/19/95
17
copy of Ord. 3912
18
copy of Ord. 3911
19
copy of Ord 3899
20
Staff Review Form
21
memo to Dawn Warrick
NOTES:
•
City Council MeetingIPSeptember 21, 2004 / «2
Agenda Item Number
/106",//
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
To: Mayor and City Council
Thru: Tim Conklin, Community Planning and Engineering Services Director
From: Dawn T. Warrick, AICP, Zoning and Development Administrator(
Date: September 03, 2004
Subject: ADM 04-1180 Request to amend the Bill of Assurance offered for property to
be developed south of the David Lyle Subdivision
RECOMMENDATION
Planning Staff recommends approval of a resolution amending the Bill of Assurance
originally submitted with rezoning R95-05 (approved by ordinance #3911) on May 02,
1995 and later amended by City Council.
BACKGROUND
The subject property was rezoned from R -A, Residential Agricultural to R -O, Residential
Office in 1995, subject to approval of the associated annexation and a Bill of Assurance
offered by the applicant. Several other properties owned by the applicant were rezoned
concurrently, along with an annexation approval of approximately 99 acres. A portion of
the property has developed as a single family residential subdivision known as David
Lyle Subdivision, directly to the north of the subject parcel. The first amendment to the
subject Bill of Assurance regarding the sizes of homes to be built was made during the
Final Plat of the David Lyle Subdivision.
The current tract, containing approximately 8.07 acres and zoned R -O, Residential
Office, is platted as three separate out lots of the David Lyle Subdivision, located along
Hwy 16 East. The associated Bill of Assurance prohibits this undeveloped property from
developing with any residential structure. Within the R -O, Residential Office zoning
district, single family and two family dwellings are uses allowed by right. The applicant's
amendment proposes to allow for single family residential structures on the subject
property. The proposal to amend the Bill of Assurance must be approved by the City
Council.
DISCUSSION
The applicant has submitted an amended Bill of Assurance, as well as a conceptual site
layout for the subject property. The desire is to develop the property with single family
homes that access interior streets.
BUDGET IMPACT
None.
• •
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL OF
ASSURANCE SUBMITTED FOR R95-05 SUBMITTED WITH
ORDINANCE NO. 3911, AND APPROVED BY TH E CITY COUNCIL
ON MAY 2, 1995.
BE IT ORDAINED 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. 3911, passed and approved by
the City Council on May 2, 1995 and revised by the Planning
Commission in 1996. A copy of the revised Bill of Assurance, marked
Exhibit "A" is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
PASSED and APPROVED this 21st Day of September, 2004.
ATTEST:
By:
Sondra Smith, City Clerk
APPROVED:
By:
DAN COODY, Mayor
08/18/2003 15:27 FAX 4795824807
t
JORGENSEN & ASSOC
0 001
• •
JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS
124 WEST SUNBRIDCE, SUITE 5 • PAYETTEVILLF, ARKANSAS 72703 • (479 442-9127 • FAX (479) 582-4807
DAVID L. JORGENSEN, P.E., P.L.S.
CHRISTOPHER B. BRACKETT, P.E.
8/12/04
City of Fayetteville
113 W. Mountain
Fayetteville, Alt 72701
ATT: Jeremy Pate
Re: David Lyle Village Phase 3
Dear Jeremy;
Attached herewith please find "Addendum No. 2 to the Bill of Assurance" for David Lyle
Village.
This addendum No. 2 is for the R -O zoned property between David Lyle village and
Hwy. 16 East.
The original Bill of Assurance is recorded in the Washington County Courthouse as
document # 95036372.
Addendum No. 2 allows single-family residences in the R -O zoned property. Page # 4 of
the original Bill of Assurance states no residential structures shall be allowed.
The Addendtun No. 2 has been approved by POA.
We would like this Addendum No. 2 to be presented to the City Council (if required) so
that we can proceed with submittal of a preliminary plat for phase 3 of David Lyle
Village.
Please call concerning any questions you may have.
Thank you.
Sincerely;
avid L.J fgensen P E
• STRUCTURAI. DESIGN • LAND DEVELOPMENT • WATER SYSTEMS • WASTEWATER SYSTEMS • LAND SURVEYING
itVJORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES
�.a CIVIL YENGINEERS . SURVEYORS
DAVID LY E VILLAGE PRASE J
PRELIMINARY PL A"l
r
m
0 n�
m
0
350
E CANVAS RD I Z•
2100
6,Q
GS
'S$T
'Qof (4,
8
n.
53 Conrir ✓�--�1'Tn
13 t8.EaS9M14 wf AIJJL
x%24 19 •..-
1\
5
a
170
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR R95-05
A part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter and the Southeast
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 19, all in Township 16 North, Range
29 West of the 5th Principal Meridian in Washington County, Arkansas, being
more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of
the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 19, thence N
01°34' W 3616.29 feet to the Point of Beginning; said point being 300.00 feet
perpendicular distance from the North right-of-way of Arkansas State Highway
16; said point also being on the existing Fayetteville City Limits; thence S
00"01'34" E 59.82 feet; thence N 56°30'24" W 498.70 feet; thence S 00"01'34"
E 300.00 to the right-of-way of Arkansas State Highway 16; thence along said
right-of-way N 56`30'24" W 1088.39 feet to the west line of said Northeast
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 19; thence N 00"02'26" W 359.90
feet to the Fayetteville City Limits; thence along said Fayetteville City Limits S
5630'24" E 1587.20 feet to. the point of beginning, containing 8.07 acres, more
or less.
95036407
►LEO FOR RECORD
a21 0fq 9 50
ORDINANCE NO. 3911 WASHINGTON CO AR
K• HARNESS
AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED
IN REZONING PETITION R95-05 FOR A PARCEL
CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 8.05 ACRES LOCATED AT
4240 HUNTSVILLE REQUESTED BY WAYNE AND
DARLENE COUNTS, HUSBAND AND WIFE, LARRY AND
DIANE OMOHUNDRO, HUSBAND AND WIFE, AND FADIL
AND GERALDINE BAYYARI, HUSBAND AND WIFE;
REZONING SHALL BE CONTINGENT UPON APPROVAL OF
ANNEXATION OF THE SUBJECT REAL PROPERTY OF
APPROXIMATELY 99.8 ACRES.
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:
R95-05 for the real property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made
a part hereof.
From A-1, Agricultural District to R -O, Residential -Office District.
Section 2. That such rezoning shall be contigent upon Council approval of annexation
of the subject real property of approximately 99.8 acres.
Section 3. 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 2nd day of May 1995.
ATTEST:ititX
By • : 22X/J1
Traci Paul, City Clerk
APPROVED:
By:
aavniamom
95036406
ce �t\Y1U4L
December 17, 1996
)9
Alderman Williams moved to go to the second reading. lderman
Miller seconded.- Upon roll Call, the motion passed on - vote of 8
to 0.
City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the -cond time.
Alderman Schaper was a little ,cancer
requirements of competitive bidding.
else around able to do this kind.of
waive the competitive bidding proc-
it. Next time, about six mont
invite proposals just to see i
interested in this kind of wo
to do more in commercial d
about waiving the
ere really isn't anyone
rk, so that is a reason to
s; but he was hesitant about
before expiration, we should
there is some other organization
He hoped they could be encouraged
elopment.
Alderman Schaper moved o suspend the rules and go to the third and
final reading. Ald n Williams seconded. Upon roll call, the
motion passed on ote of 8 to 0.
City Attorney •ose read the ordinance for the third time.
Mayor Han asked for further comments. There were none. He
galled '`fo the vote.
Upon oll call, the ordinance passed on a vote of 8 to 0.
O''INANCE 4010 IS FOUND ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOR
DAVID LYLE SUBDIVISION BILL OF ASSURANCE
Mayor Hanna introduced a discussion and possible amendment of the
Bill of Assurance for David Lyle Subdivision. -Mayor Hanna stated
the Planning Commission approved this but they wanted to send it
back for the Council's final approval since the Council was
originally involved in the issue.'
City Attorney Rose stated if the Council wishes to agree with the
Planning Commission, a motion would be in order to confirm their
decision of final plat approval regarding this project.
Alderman Young asked if it needed to be a resolution.
Rose stated it would be a simple motion.
Alderman Daniel made a motion to accept the Planning Commission's
approval of the Bill of Assurance. Alderman Schaper seconded the
motion.
Alderman Williams asked the City Attorney for clarification.
Rose stated there is a motion on the floor which would approve the
Planning Commission's decision to award final plat approval to the
David Lyle Subdivision.
5
•
•
•
•
ADDENDUM TO BILL OF ASSURANCE
This addendum is executed to run with Bill of. Assurance from Fadi1
Bayyari to the City of Fayetteville dated the 6th of June, 1995 and
filed in the Book of Records 75--. page 36.372 at Washington
County, amending Page number 4 Paragraph number 4. to read as
follows:
. one thousand two hundred (1200) square feet
—o a - gm,
........ ••;'
•'G�•snit'ny`
•
is c- c : x
'Di,',` .......... ;h el
„ 4 thad
95036691
X99
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: 501-575-8264
TO: Fayetteville City Council
FROM: Alett Little, City Planner
DATE: December 6, 1996
SUBJECT: David Lyle Subdivision, Resolution of Bill of Assurance Issue
Planning Commission met on December 2, 1996 to discuss business originally set for hearing at
the regularly scheduled meeting of November 25, 1996 (this meeting was canceled due to snow
and ice). Planning Commission approved David Lyle Subdivision, subject to four staff
comments. The fourth condition recommended by staff was that the covenants of the subdivision
should be revised to match the Bill of Assurance given to Council stating a minimum house size of
1450 square feet - the covenants presented to the City stated a minimum house size of 1200
square feet. Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting on the above captioned item are
attached.
At the meeting, Mr Bayyari reminded staff that he had submitted an addendum to the Bill of
Assurance lowering the square footage of the houses to 1200 square feet. Discussion then ensued
as to the legality of the addendum since it had not been presented to Council.
Planning Commission resolved the legality issue by requiring the discussion of the change of the
minimum square feet per house in the Bill of Assurance to be held and decided at the Council
level. Copies of minutes of all meetings before Council are attached and notes have been made to
identify pertinent parts of the minutes where the Bill of Assurance was discussed. Staff was
unable to find references in the minutes where the size of the houses were discussed. There are
discussions on minimum lot sizes and average sale price of homes which are indirect references to
the size of the homes.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of lowering the minimum size of houses in the Bill of Assurance from
1450 square feet to 1200 square feet based on the following findings:
1. Discussion of house size was not a key Issue in the negotiations that led to the rezoning.
2. Affordable housing was a key issue in the discussions and houses of 1200 square feet cost less
(are more affordable) than houses of 1450 square feet.
3. The Council accepted the original Bill of Assurance with its action on July 5, 1995, and Mr.
Bayyari filed the addendum on July 24, 1995, after talking with those with whom he had the most
negotiations (ie. The addendum has been filed at the County for over one year and this is not a
recent change of heart on Mr Bayyari's part).
4. While Bills of Assurance were discussed as clearly reflected in the meeting minutes and the Bill
of Assurance was relied upon in making the Council decision, the final ordinances passed do not
tie the Bill of Assurance to any one of the actions taken by Council (ie. the City's case in being
able to require compliance with the Bill of Assurance is weakened by not tieing the action to the
Bill of Assurance). Copies of the faces of the ordinances on the three actions are attached.
Nonetheless, Mr. Bayyari stands ready to meet the terms he thought had been accepted by the
city, including constructing houses no smaller than 1200 square feet By this Mr. Bayyari is not
saying that some of the houses will not be larger than 1200 square feet - he is only saying that
none of them will be smaller.
5. Adequate public notice has been given to the public as staff has provided a copy of this
correspondence to persons who are adjacent property owners, and they will be given the
opportunity to present their concerns prior to the final Council resolution of this matter.
Should you have any questions about this matter, please call me at 575-8305. This is a lot of
information and covered a long period of time, and we understand that this issue is not easy We
appreciate your patience and consideration!
•
April 4, 1995
137
Dirk Elsass stated that he had no comments and further stated he
was available to answer any questions.
Alderman Parker inquired as to whether or/ not the language was
acceptable to the utility representatives.:
Little stated that Dave Jurgens was present
//
Little that after several
on site meetings was satisfied that ,the 3 foot easement would be
adequate.
Discussion ensued regarding why /the easement space was necessary.
Elsass gave a history of tyre tract and stated that at purchase they
had anticipated adjustments\,to meet the easement requirements,
setback requirements, and green space requirements.
In answer to a question Aim Alett Little regarding the date the
subdivision was platted, Elsass stated that he thought it was
platted 5 years ago but was not certain.
,Alderman Williams stated that he felt i`would be appropriate to be
accommodating in /situation such as this
Williams, seconded by Young, moved to suspend the rules and place
the Ordinance On the second reading. Upon roil call, the motion
passed with,a vote of 7 to 0.
The City Attorney read the Ordinance
ec
for the secgnd time.
Miller, rdeconded by Daniel, moved to suspend the rules and place
the Ordinance on the third and final reading. Upon roll call, the
motion/passed with a vote of 7 to 0.
The City Attorney read the Ordinance for the third and fh al time.
Upon roll
•
ORDINANCE
\c---;;NEXATION
call the Ordinance passed with a vote of 7 to O.
3885 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOR
& REZONINa'R95-5/AND R95-6
Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance annexing 99.8
acres located north of Huntsville Road and east of Jarnagan Lane
and rezoning 38.49 acres of the property from A-1, Agricultural to
R-1, Low Density Residential and 8.07 acres of the property from A-
1, Agricultural to R -O, Residential -Office.
Mayor Hanna stated the Planning Commission voted 4-2-0 to recommend
the annexation and 5-1-0 to recommend the rezonings.
The City Attorney explained the 3 Ordinances and introduced a
letter from Rick Osborne, Attorney for the applicant.
•
0
April 4, 1995
Osborne explained the genesis of the request for R -S zoning and
development plans for the site. Osborne explained that the
petitioner would be willing to offer a Bill of Assurance
raatriCt1ng development t05. units per acre
Alderman Parker inquired as to whether, or not the development, would
proceed without an R -S zoning and Osborne• stated that the
petitioner wanted 5 units per acre.
In answer to a question from Alderman Young regarding whether or
not R -S zoning - was requested for the entire site, Osborne stated
that was correct and that they had no plans to rezone the. flood
plain.
Alderman Miller stated that the development appeared to .;be
clustered as the Council had recommended and further he inquired as.
to future plans for the flood plain area.
Osborne stated that at this time there was no plan for development
of the flood plain area. He explained that the front Section of
the tract would be developed as R -O and that a park and greenspace
would be included.
Fidel
Bayari stated
that
they had no development plan
for the;.flood
plain
but that they
had
planned a.
park in the bluff
area. H
Alderman Schaper requested that the petitioner provide permanent
conservation of the flood plain area to prohibit development of.
that area for all time. Discussion ensued. regarding ownership and
maintenance of the area.
Milholland clarified the uses of the tract and the acreage splits.
Little stated that there are 61.31 acres in the flood plain area
and 8.07 acres in the rezoning area that have been annexed into the
city.
Milholland stated that half of the 61.31 acres are in the flood way
and are therefore unable to be developed but that the other half. of
the tract is in the flood plain which could be developed if brought
to standard. Discussion ensued regarding the flood potential of
the White River.
Milholland reiterated that there were not plans for development of
the flood plain area.
Alderman Schaper restated the request and commented on the
clustering recommendation as stated in the Planning Commission
Minutes.
Discussion ensued regarding the legal description and the amount of
land contained -in the tract.
139
• . •
April 4, 1995
Alderman Young stated his concern regarding the density.
Alderman Williams suggested a 10 acre easement.
Alderman Schaper expressed concern regarding the traffic impact of
the development. Discussion ensued.
Alderman Parker stated that the traffic would be a negative impact.
Osborne stated that this area would have less traffic than
Wedington. -
Alderman Schaper expressed concern that the Wedington traffic was
a burden and recommended against creating a similar burden in the
subject area.
Alderman Daniel commented that Dale Clark of the Parks Department
had looked at the plat and chosen the park land. Discussion*ensued
regarding green space and saving the same under any. conditions. -
Discussion ensued regarding the 100 year flood plain.
Alderman Daniel inquired as to the effect of passage of the flood
plain ordinance as stated in the Planning Commission Minutes.
Little stated that there were two provisions in the Flood: Plain
Ordinance which affect this development and further stated that the
petitioner was aware of the provisions and would comply with. the
Ordinance. Under Ordinance, every lot within, the flood plain must
have a minimum of 6,000 square feet outside the flood plain and if
it is impossible to plat a lot with 6,000 square feet out of the
flood plain, the minimum lot size must be 1 acre.
Alderman Schaper restated his concern that at a later date that
area could be filled in and taken off the FEMA map and requested
for rezoning to R -S. Discussion ensued regarding infill of the
flood plain and insurance requirements and options regarding
approval or disapproval of the petitioner's request.
Discussion ensued regarding the potential amount of acreage
available for future development.
Alderman Schaper stated that he was against any development of the
flood plain acreage.
Alderman Parker inquired as to the amount of cost incurred by the
City, if any, as a result of this annexation and rezoning.
Little stated that there were no City costs. Discussion ensued
regarding water and sewer line locations. Further discussion 3
ensued on how to proceed procedurally. -
April 4, 1995
Williams, seconded by Miller, made a motion to table the item until
the next meeting. Upon roll call; the. motion passed with a vote
of 7. to 0.
S.
May�� Hanna introduced consideration of an. ordinance ame ding
Sects n 33.046 of the .Code of Fayetteville to establish annu�.fe�s
for r��al fire contracts: for the two year: period .of June: ,_.1995,
to.May 1, 1997.
The City '*ttorney read the ordinance for the first ti
Alderman Mil4er inquired as to whether or not this as
burden to th City.
a financial
Alderman Williams stated that if there was additional annexation to
square off the City in the future, an examination of. coverage
expansion would bb prudent. .
Williams, seconded Young, made a motion'to suspend the rules and
proceed to the. seconareading. Upon.11 rocall the motion. passed
with a vote of 6 to i\with Parker abseat.
The City Attorney read t]
for the second. time.
Williams, seconded by Mille'. mad/a motion to further nncnanA thn
rulesand proceed to the.thi ad -final reading.. Upon roll call
the motion passed with a vote f 6 to 1, with Parker absent..
The City Attorney read the 0 ina ce for the third and final time.
Alderman Schaper inquired ,as to what point the two mile coverage
radius. applies to the corporate limits of- Fayetteville. He
expressed his concern of./expanding the\boundary.
Mayor Hanna stated tl
from the corporate ci
Upon roll call, the
Daniel absent.'
fire contracts
limits.
passed with
limited to two miles
vote of 6 to 1, with
ORDINANCE 3886 APPEARS ON PAGE OF .ORDINANCE. BOOK
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Mayor Hanna introduced consideration nsideratlon of a resolution\accepting Bid
95-14 and awarding a construction, contract with`, the lowest
qualified bidder, Kim Construction, Inc., f manhole
rehabilitation,;Illinois River Watershed Basins 12-14,;7, 20-22,
in the amount (of $1,223,565 plus a 5% contract contingency of
$61,178, for a':total cost of $1,284,.743.. C`
• • 145
April 18, 1995 a' •City is required to adopt FEMA standards In 1987, the .City
ad ed the minimum FEMA standards. By adopting the proposed
ordinmn�e which is more stringent than the current regulations,
flood insurance premiums would be reduced 5% to 45%.
In answer tb
a question from Denham,
Little stated
the pp6posed
ordinance is
thqre stringent in. that it
requires lots
thatAre:
in the flood
pl 'n to have a one acre
minimum: lot size./
If a lot
is partially
in th� flood plain, there
must be a 6,000/square foot
building area
outsi of the flood plain for the hom
o be located
on.
In answer to a question om•Little regarding her areas that. are
more stringent in the pro osed ordinance, in Santos explained
that the ordinance is more tringent in t same areas.
Alderman Williams explained th t the P nning Commission addressed
adding a section so that home uyer would be informed of flood
hazards.
In answer to a question from dean n Parker, Little stated, that
the ordinance would call tot attent'on of home builders possible
flood situations.
In answer to questions om Denham, Little stated the City does not
set the flood- zones. FEMA sets :the flog zones.. The proposed
ordinance was initted in a point effort 'k2etween FEMA and City
staff.
In Xanswetquestion from Denham, Little st\tedtheordinance
hasdo with wetlands.
Mayd if anyoneelse in the audienco address
theAldms expressed his support for thee.
Upon roll call, the ordinance passed by a vote of 8 to 0.
ORDINANCE 3888 AS APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK
D. ANNEXATION 8 REZONING 95- 6 .R95-6: An ordinance
annexing 99.8 acres loc orth of Huntsville Road and
east of 3arnagan Lane and rezoning 38.49 acres of the
property from A-1, Agricultural to R-1, Low Density
Residential and 8.07 acres of the property from A-1,
Agricultural to R -O, Residential -Office.
Mayor Hanna stated the Planning • Commission voted 4-2-0 to recommend
the annexation and 5-1-0 to recommend the rezonings. This item was
tabled at the April 4 Council meeting.
146
April 18, 1995
Bassett, seconded by- Miller, made.a motion to•remove the annexation
and rezoning -from the table. Upon roll call the motion passed by
a:.vote of 8 to 0. -
Alderman Young stated that the request brought forward from the
Planning Commission was to. rezone from A-1 to R-1 but that the
applicant has requested to rezone from A-1 to -R-S. Which request
.will be read? -
Rick Osborne, representing the applicant, stated that Mr. Bayari
wishes to develop the property in a village concept. In the area
that is not in the flood.. plain, . the .petitioner is requesting five
lots per acre which requires an R -S zoning. The petitioner is
willing to dedicate l0 acres that will never be:developedr The
overall tract will never exceed an R-1 density which provides four
lots per acre.
Little stated the original request was for R -S zoning on 38.49
acres. which is.. 100% outside of the flood plain. A .Bill of
Assurance has been offered limiting development to 5 units per
acre, one more unit per acre than is allowed in R-1. The
petitioner is willingto. dedicate 9.62. acres.im.the flood plain.
On the remaining acreage,. which is in the flood plain, the
petitioner has agreed to adhere to the Flood Plain Ordinance. The
ordinance would restrict development to one lot per acre.
In `answer to a question from Alderman Miller, Little explained that
a legal description is not, available but that approximately 25
'acres of the 99 is in the, flood way:
In answer to a question from Alderman Miller, Osborne stated that
the petitioner thought the. City would 'want the 10 acre dedication
next to the City park. Dale Clark had asked for the west side.
In answer to a question. from Alderman Schaper, Little. stated the
total area of the tract including the portion that is already in
the city is 107.87 acres.
Alderman Schaper summarized the request as follows: eight acres,
already in the city, would be zoned R -O and 38.5 acres would be
zoned R -S.
In answer to a question from Alderman Schaper, Osborne stated that
the approximate 25 acres located in the flood way will not be
developed and part of the flood plain will not be developed.
In answer to a question from Alderman Schaper, Little stated that
the, total area to be annexed is 99.80 acres. Subtract 38.49 acres
which is not in the flood plain, the six acres being developed as
park land, the additional 10 acre dedication, the 25 acres in the
flood way and the remaining land, which is in the flood plain, that
could be developed is 19 acres.
• • 147
April 18, 1995
In answer to another question: from. Alderman Schaper, Little stated
that in accordance with the newly passed Flood Plain Ordinance-, the
petitioner would be limited to one unit per acre on the 19.. acre
tract.
Alderman Schaper expressed concern., that in the. future the property
.within the flood. plain would be filled to -remove it from the flood
plain and a rezoning request brought before the City. He asked if
the petitioner was offering to develop one unit per acre or is he
offering to comply with the Flood Plain Ordinance.,
Little stated the agreement was that it. would be limited •to one
unit per acre in accordance with the Flood c Plain Ordinance.
Removing land from: the flood' plain, is very expensive and time
consuming.
Alderman Schaper suggested the Bill of Assurance offered by the
petitioner limit the 19 acres.: to one unit per.acre-in addition to
what they can build on the 38.5 acres which is. approximately 190
units. -
Discussion ensued regarding the original
requests -for rezoning in..thea:event the land
flood plain.
Rose summarized the three items before the
forwarded from the Planning Commission. The
rezone, 38.49 acres from•A-1 to R-1. The sec
acres from A-1 to R' -O. The third item is an
the annexation of 99 acres.
request. and future
was removed from the
Council as they were
first is. a. request to
and is to rezone 8.05
ordinance confirming
Little
explained
that
the only change
was the rezoning of 38.49
acres
from'A-1 to.R-S
rather than R-1.
Discussion ensued regarding the rural character of the area and how
it compares to the Wedington area.
Schaper expressed concern regarding traffic problems, leap frog
development and urban sprawl, and the neighborhood transition
character.
Osborne stated that the traffic was not a severe problem and the
annexation would have a squaring effect on the city's boundaries.
Mayor Hanna stated that he .felt the request was reasonable.
Bassett, seconded by Miller, made a motion to change the request
from R-1 to R -S for the 38.49 acres. Upon roll call, the motion
passed by a 5 to.3 vote, with Parker, Schaper, and Daniel voting
no.
148
April 18,.1995
The City Attorney read the ordinance for rezoning R95-6 for the
first time.
Osborne offered a conservation easement for the 10 acres within. the
flood plain.
Discussion ensued regarding the density of the subject tract.
Osborne responded that subject tract has not been platted but that
the applicant proposed 212 units in the R -S zone.
Elam Denham expressed concern regarding unequal treatment. of'the
applicant. •
Alderman Schaper suggested that the whole thing be' rezoned to •R -L.
Tom Terminella stated, that as a realtor he felt there was a real
need for affordable housing as this development would provide and
he favored the development.
• Andrew Cobra stated that the traffic was a concern to him 'and.h'is
neighbors in the area.
Th Discussion ensued regarding the highway as a corridor Ito. Little
Rock and traffic count on various hours and days.
An unidentified woman stated that she had moved from California to
this area because of the rural character of the area and further
she gave a recount of how this type of development had ruined
California.
Richard Farcus expressed concern' regarding the traffic, other
developments in the area, and the high density of the proposed
rezoning of the subject property.
Alderman Parker expressed concern over the traffic impact of
various developments in the area.
Alderman Bassett made comments regarding the infrastructure' of the
City and the benefits from growth. Bassett stated the City should
raise additional revenue for street improvement and not waitron the
state.
Alderman Daniel stated that she was opposed to the annexation.
Discussion ensued regarding the state and their procedures for
improvement of infrastructure, millages.
Alderman Schaper stated that road improvements have been planned
but that the state did not have the revenue.
149
April 18, 1995
Little stated that they had 5 years to complete the improvements. ti
Alderman Miller stated that it would be possible for the
development to be at county standards which would allow septic.
Tom McKinney stated that he agreed with Bassett that additional
revenue must be provided.
Alderman Hill inquired if the General Use Plan suggested 'in -fill.
Little answered that it did..
Alderman Young requested to. see a•written Bill of. Assurance before
proceeding with additional readings. �aA
9 Z.
Alderman Schaper stated that he.felt...the density should be 1. per tubmi-kd-
acre. 5.1A5
Discussion ensued regarding the 6 acres, 10. acres,. -.and 19 acres
having 1 unit per acre. d�►)��n.
The City Attorney read the ordinance for. rezoning R95-5 for the
first time.
The City Attorney read the Annexation ordinance for the first time.
All matters were left on the first reading.
Osborne stated that he would prepare the Bill of Assurance prior. to
the next meeting at which time the ordinances would be on the
second reading.
CITY COUNCIL RULES OF ORDER AND PROCEDURE
Mayor Ha?aQtated this item was tabled at the April 4, Council
meeting. •
Alderman Young eti.ned his proposed change to the rules
regarding the reading osrdinanc�s and the asofntment of Council
members.
Williams, seconded
by Young,
made motion
to
take the item off the
table. Upon roll
call, the
motio passed
by
a vote of 8 to 0.
Discussion ensued
changes.
Young, seconded by'Wiil-rams, made a motion to ado t the two changes
to the Rules of qpder and Procedure. Upon roll �ail, the motion
passed by a voteof 8 to 0.
(ung explained that he wanted to change the ection
quorums to address an abstaining vote.
157
MINUTES OF A MEETIN/hun
E CITY COUN L
A sting of the Fayettevilleouncil v held•an•Tuesday;rMay
2, S. at 6:30 p.m. Counc 1 Room of the City
Adminis ation Building, 113ntai` Fayetteville, Arkansas.
PRESENT: Ma Fred Hanna; n ephen Miller, Kit Williams,
Cyrus oung, Woody tSteve•Parker, JimmyHill; LenSchaper, and Heathel; City Attorney Jerry Rose;
City Cler reasuri Paul; Planning Director Alett
Little, Admi straervices Director Ben Mayes, and.
Public Works D ectin.Crosson members.of' the staffpress, and audie
1 r� • '4 I
Mayor Hanna called thfi meeting' t order with eight aldermen
present. _
OLD BUSINESS
Mayor Hanna int oduced consideration of it - that have been
brought before' a Council but were tabled or no- ecision._made..to
allow further nformation to be presented.
A. COMMER5ZfLAL DESIGN STANDARDS - An ordinance amend'Iug.Section
160.015, 160.036, 160.037., and 160.038 of. the Ode. of
Bap teville to provide for additional commercial esign
st lards.
Mayor Hanna explained that the item was left on the table at t
Apr9 18 Council meeting.
A44Lwan Williams stated that the Ordinance Review Committee had
q'iscussed the matter and is requesting '' the item beleft on- the
able.
H ANNEXATION AND REZONING 95x0 AND R95-06 - An ordinance
annexing 99.8 acres loca north of Huntsville Road and
V east of Jarnegan Lane and rezoning 38.19 acres of the
property from A-1 Agricultural to R -S Residential Small
Lot, and 8.07 acres of the property from A-i Agricultural
to R -O Residential Office.
Mayor Hanna explained that -the ordinances were left on their first
reading at the April 18 Council meeting.
City Attorney Rose read each ordinance for the second time.
Mayor Hanna stated that the petitioner had been asked to offer
various Bills of Assurance and changes to the request.
May 2, 1995
Rick Osborne, attorney for the pe itioner, stated that the Bill of
Assurance had been signed. !J I _ tB• A .2 — ti
In answer - to a question .;from .Osborne, Rose stated the form of the
Bill of Assurance was acceptable..
Mayor Hanna stated that most of the assurances were made at the
request of the Council.
Alderman Miller asked If the. bill of assurance. restricted the
remaining flood plain to 1 unitper acre.
Alderman Williams stated that the total number of houses on the
subject tract was limited to 212 units.
In answer to a.,question from Alderman Miller,. Schaper. stated, that
this satisfied his question regarding the flood plain development.
Alderman Daniel inquired about a comment made at the last meeting
regarding squaring off the City boundaries.
Osborne stated that the City!s..eastern boundary extended 3 miles
further than the subject property.
Alderman Williams.. stated..,that if property was annexed- to square off
the City -this property would be included.
In answer to a question from Alderman Young, Osborne stated the
Parks Board has required approximately 6 acres be designated as
greenspace. -
In answer to a question from Alderman Young, Osborne suggested a
way to handle. the additional 10 acres being :designated might
possibly be to donate it to the City as. park land.
In answer to a question from Alderman Young, Rose stated that the
assurances and land dedication would be .filed at the County
Courthouse.
Alderman Young requested that the book and page, numbers be noted on
the final plats.
Alderman Hill inquired as to whether the petitioner would still be
interested in annexation if the rezoning was not approved.
Osborne stated that they would not be interested on the grounds
that the property might not be purchased without the rezoning. The
current owner of record does not wish to have the subject property
annexed if it cannot be developed.
E
Y
159
May 2, 1995
Alderman Hill commented that traffic was•the primary concern and
requested that consideration be given -.to making an- :ordinance to
escrow monies for highway development from the developers.
Alderman •Schaper stated that there, was already a. Precedent fore
collections of moniesforoff-site 'improvement and further` inquired
as to whether Hill advocated broader development impact?fees.
Discussion ensued.
Mayor Hanna stated that Highway 16 was a state highway..:and normally-
city monies would not be spent on improvement of state highways.
Discussion ensued.
Mayor Hanna offered to report to Hill the status of various state
highway improvement projects.
AldermanParker inquired as to whether or:not it might speed things.
up to have escrowedmonies to doistudies.,•
PlanningDirector Alett Little responded that:a similar' -proposal'
had been made t0 the State Highway Commission. .:Thiey will -allow
pre -engineering of some projectsizbut if projects:.are'engineered too:::!
far in advance of construction, it must be done again to account
for various changes.
Alderman Miller stated that he felt the issue -before the -Council•
was the annexation and requested. that further discussion of
development impact fees should be brought up at Ordinance Review
Committee.
Alderman Schaper inquired as to the number of adjoining property
owners that were notified of this project.
Little stated that there were eight adjoining property owners which
were notified:
In answer to a question from Alderman Schaper regarding the
regulation dealing with adjoining property owner objection to the
rezoning, • Little stated if a certainpercentage of adjoining
property owners object to the rezoning it takes a two thirds vote
of the City Council to pass the rezoning rather than a majority.
In answer to a question from Alderman Williams, Little stated the
adjoining property owners must state before the vote is taken that
they wish to pursue that regulation.
As requested by Alderman Parker, five people in the audience
motioned as being adjoining property owners to the property in
question.
Mayor Hanna asked if anyone in the audience wanted to address the.
rezonirigs or annexation.
• •
May 2, 1995
Osborne. asked that each person give his name and explain if he is
an adjoining property owner or not.
Mike Keen, owner of property across the highway from the subject
property, statedthat he was against annexation and rezoning of the.
subject property_ on the grounds of the high- density and the impact
on city facilities.
In answer to a question from Alderman Schaper, Keen described the
character of the general area�as being low density suburban farms.
-
Alderman Schaper stated the Land Use Plan refers to this as. a rural
transition area.
Jude Keen, owner of six acres across the1 road from Mr. Counce,
stated that she was against annexation and rezoning of the subject
property on the grounds of the high, density, incompatibility, with
existing neighborhood and over crowding of Happy Hollow -School
Nancy Keen,: owner of property in the, area but not adjoining, stated .
that she was ,.against annexation and rezoning of the- subject
property on they grounds of traffic: impact and over, crowding of:..
Happy Hollow School..
William Keen, adjoining property owner, stated that he was against
the annexation_•and rezoning of .the subject property on the•grounds.
of the high density and the other reasons, already mentioned.
Nell Smith, adjoining property owner, stated that she was against
the annexation and rezoning and wanted the property to stay just as
it is.
Kendall Keen, adjoining property owner to the east, stated that he
was against the annexation and rezoning.
Andrew Schimelpfenig, student at the University and a property
owner on Huntsville Road, stated that the Council had a.
responsibility to. be accountable to the public long term for
improvement of the highway and providing schools and provide better
notification.
Alderman Miller stated that the Council was proceeding with caution
and that this matter had_been discussed at four meetings.
Little stated that comparative traffic counts had been presented to
the Council.
Alderman Bassett commented that he had done background work since
he was elected.
Mayor Hanna stated that public notification procedure laws were
followed.
If
161
•
May 2, 1995
Schimelpfenig stated that there must be better property for this
project.
Neal Smith, adjoining property owner, stated that he was against
the annexation and rezoning on the grounds of the complicated
nature.
Alderman Parker requested that names of the property owners be
written down for the City Clerk to be made a part of the record.
Alderman Parker lead the regulation regarding 'the protest of a
rezoning by a certain percentage of adjoining property owners.
City Attorney Rose stated there is a great deal of ambiguity in the
regulation. If there are property owners that wish to evoke this
20% rule, we will need to have there names and review the location
of their property. The determination would need to be made as to
whether or not the properties are immediately adjacent in the rear
thereof. extending 300feet from the street frontage of such
opposite lots.
Little stated the vote required to pass a rezoning being objected
to by 20% of the adjoining property owners is three fourths not two
thirds as stated earlier.
Osborne stated that R-1 zoning would allow moreS houses on the
subject property than what the. petitioner was proposing.
Alderman Bassett expressed concern regarding infrastructure and
stated that he favored a bond issue or temporary sales tax to
provide improvement projects.
Alderman Basset pointed out that throughout the process, the
_. petitioner has negotiated with the City Council.
Alderman Miller stated that the petitioner has compiled with and
met all the requests of the City Council.
Alderman Williams stated that a 100 acre tract with 2 houses per
acre was. not excessive, especially in light of the village concept
and grouping of houses.' The Council should require reasonable
development. If the City does not annex, the project could be
developed to county standards. Many developments in surrounding
communities contribute to Fayetteville traffic.
Alderman Schaper stated that the 2010 plan identified the subject
tract as rural zone and read...
"Community character protection areas should be
designated to control transition from rural to suburban
to urban and undeveloped to developed."
CI
•
May 2, 1995
Alderman Schaper then read staff comments as follows:
2010 Plan identifies the site as a residential area and
is located within rural transition zone. The plan offers
transition guidelines for urban, suburban, and rural,
development. The maximum, density recommended for rural
residential development is 1 unit per 5 acres and
clustering is encouraged."
Alderman Schaper stated that there was clustering but not as much
as implied by. 100 acres with 200 houses because of non -development
of the considerable amount of flood way with the' subject tract.
Schaper continued that there would be limited density in the flood
plain with it becoming uneconomical. With dedication of the park
land the actual area of the subject tract was greatly reduced.
Alderman. Schaper suggested alternative zonings which might provide
more appropriate density. Discussion ensued. regarding., managed
growth and its meaning. Schaper enumerated his. specific objections
regarding the petition concluding that this was the wrong
development at the wrong place at the wrong time.
In answer to a question from Alderman Young regarding the
prevention of urban sprawl, Alderman Schaper stated there should be
a generation of a transition between rural character and urban
character. Houses should be clustered but there should not be so
many of them. The- City should increase the density in the areas
that are served by infrastructure.
Alderman
Bassett
stated
that it, was
natural for any adjoining
property
owner to
resist
change.
Alderman Miller inquired as to the price range of houses within the
proposed development.
1lJwC
Bayari stated that they would sell for $65,000 to $70,000.
Alderman Miller stated that there was a lack of affordable houses
in Fayetteville.
Alderman Parker stated that he did not like the character of
smaller housing units and further expressed his concern regarding
traffic and infrastructure. He stated that he felt like the
clustering resulted from economic feasibility rather than a desire
to provide a village concept development.
Mayor Hanna stated that the Planning staff had recommended approval
of the annexation and rezonings to the Planning Commission who in
turn -recommended approval of same to the Council.
In answer to a question from Alderman Hill, Osborne stated if the
annexation is not approved the petitioner does not wish to rezone.
•
May 2. 1995
`. fan Miller stated that the 8.07 acre tract is already in the
y. The request is to rezone it:.to R -O. ,
orne pointed out that his client is proposing to spend $1
lion on infrastructure- Required fees have to, bear. a. rational
•
us to the development..; Improving a state highway -is:ynot
ropriate. The development of what is proposed is just a little
r half of what it would be under an R-1 zone. The long term
i for the City projected this area as R-1.
:rman Schaper explained that the guidelines say residential not
:ifically R-1.
tri objected to the "cracker box" home comment made by Alderman
:er. Bayari stated the homes would be affordable::homes but also
!one's dream home. The development would have restrictive
:Hants.
rman Williams stated that the- .Council should„ stick. to the
es and stated that he was against imposing an impact fee.
rman Bassett stated. thathe would vote for the,. project but
ested caution.
assion ensued regarding a motion to place .the _,matter on the
'N eading and procedural interpretation of the law.
Attorney Rose stated that any determination of objection by
:rty owners needed to be checked further.
.man Daniel stated that she was opposed to annexation until
time that the city's boundaries could be squared.
fission ensued regarding annexation and squaring; of boundaries.
'man Miller stated he also was in favor of squaring off the
but nothing was, being done.
man Schaper stated he hoped the new Land Use Plan would
mine how much land is needed in an annexation to accommodate
rowth that is expected in the next 25 years.
stated, referring to the adjoining property owner issue, that
ation regarding a similar matter was pending and requested
more time be allowed to research and consider 'the issue.
rte requested a vote.
ins, seconded by Parker, made a motion to place the ordinance
izoning R95-6 on the third and final reading. Upon roll, the
s passed with a unanimous vote of 8 to 0.
May 2, 1995
-fl
The City Attorney read the ordinance for R95-6 for the third and
final time.
Alderman Williams stated that although he supports a major
annexation to square off :the City, he was not opposed to this
annexation.
Parker stated that the Planning Commission struck down the original
proposal.
Upon roll call, the ordinance passed with a vote of 6 to 2, with
Parker and Schaper voting no.
ORDINANCE APPEARS OF PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK
Williams, seconded by Bassett, made a motion to suspend the rules
and place the ordinance for rezoning R95-5 on the third and final
reading. Upon roll. call, the..motion passed by a vote of 7 to 1,
with Schaper voting no.
The City Attorney read the ordinance for 95- for the third and
final time.
Rose stated both rezonings are contingent upon the annexation.
In answer to a question from Alderman Williams, Little stated that
the bill of assurance does restrict the R -O tract to business
development. �i �\ 4
Upon roll call, the ordinance passed with a vote of 7 to 1, with
Parker voting no.
ORDINANCE APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK
Williams, seconded by Bassett, made a motion to suspend the rules
and place the annexation on its third and final reading. Upon roll
call the motion failed with a vote of S to 3, with Parker, Schaper
and Daniel voting no.
Rose stated that approval of the annexation required 6 affirmative
votes. The annexation will remain on the second reading.
Alderman Dan seconded by Parker, made
Steve Singleton to e Library Board; Gerald
Robert fickle (reappo ent), and Mike
Adjustment; Mike Tramill Board of Ho
Appeals; and Terrel Rohrbach an ar rle:
Commission.
Upon roll call, •the m n passed by a
a motion to npmLnate
Boyd (re ntment),
An4 ews to Board of
±ffg and Construction
to Historic District
8 to 0.
226 •
July 5, 1995
Jurgens said he would need to defer such ' a ecision to his
supervisor: He dM explain that in the G' ly Park area, the:
overflows go down qtLck1y and very lit a debris comes out after
the first flush; Al ugh this over ow should be eliminated
entirely, the..degree of ontaminat' n is very small in that
creek. The public health azar s small.
Alderman Parker continued
issued to. give, parents th
responsible decision. z
Mr. Jurgens agreed 9(t this would
OLD BUSINESS
a stronger warning should be
tion they need to make a
iate.
Mayor Hanna int/oduced consideration of items that have been
brought before the Council but which were tabled or on which no'
decision made to allow further information to be presented.`
A. ANNEXATION CONSIDERATION: An ordinance annexing 99.8 acres'
located north of Huntsville Road and east of Jarnagan�Lane.
City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third time.
Since this matter had been tabled at the request of Mr. Bayyari,
Mayor Hanna asked if Mr. Bayyari had any comment.."
Mr. Bayyari stated that he appreciated Alderman Schaper bringing
this to the Council's attention for the second time. He stated
that he had given a copy of the Bill of Assurance outlining his
plans to City Attorney Rose and that the Council members had now.
been given copies.
In response to a question from Alderman Bassett, City Attorney
Rose stated that this issue was on its third and final reading.
In response to a question from Alderman Miller, Mr. Bayyari
affirmed that he is willing to give a conservation easement on
the entire floodplain consisting of sixty six acres.
Alderman Miller asked ifthis meant that, other than the six
acres intended, for a City park, the remaining acreage would
remain in its natural state.
Alderman Schaper stated that the sixty acres could be used for
agricultural purposes by Mr. Bayyari or. whomever the land was
sold to in the future. The development rights will be separated
from the ownership rights and the property will not be allowed to
be developed. The owner continues to be responsible for the
property, not the City.
a NrrVeY :'-W -:.f.•a -.r+s.F__ __
5,A 1995 _
In. response to a question from Alderman Miller, Alderman Schaper
stated that the owner would indeed be responsible forpaying_the
property. taxes on the easement: - .nniaeL�aib.
AldermanParkerfelt it would. be muck better that someone like '-
the Ozark Regional Land Trust.or.the Nature •,y- hold the
conservation easement rather than the city.He: asked for _the -.'--
status of the negotiations that mightresult inone _ofthese_uvo
organizations holding the conservation easement. g_acy�xs
Mr. Bayyari stated that be continues to hold title to the 66m�_
acres. He stated that he would continue to be responsible for..
the upkeep of the land. He pledged to the Council that he'would
never develop the 66 acres.:.:,
Alderman Parker said he would like to see the �eveiTdpiiuE rights
to the., land held by an organization constituted to preserve land
and would feel more comfortable if a vote wasn't' taken until this' -
was finalized.::., ::
Alderman Schaper stated he thought that was the intent in...thi_s-
situation. -He stated that there were benefits to Mr. Bayyari to
do.this. Schaper stated that lie felt comfortable with the Bill
of Assurance. Mr. Bayyari still must go through the entire
development process. - „ a
Mr. Bayyari stated that it was his intent to turn-overrthe.
development rights to the land to a land trust; however, he does
not want that issue to hold up the vote on the issue before the
Council.. The development he has planned will have houses in the
range of $100,000, a City park, and money will be contributed to
improving the intersection of Hwy 265 and Hwy 16. He stated he 'Vi U)-.
has made many concessions to the City over the past 6 months arid
he he hoped that would be considered at this time.
Mayor Hanna asked for comments from the public. -
Paul Justice, representing the Ozark Regional Land Trust, spoke
of his understanding that the only people who could hold a
conservation easement are a government body or a non-profit,.
organization set up for that purpose. He wanted to introduce his
organization to the Council and express the Land Trust's interest
in holding the conservation easement on this property or any. -
property that is of some environmental or agricultural
significance which needs to be preserved.
Mr. Justice had copies of the annual report of the Ozark Regional
Land Trust which he passed out to interested Council members.
Alderman Hill expressed his appreciation to Mr. Bayyari for
addressing some of the concerns of the Council, especially the
traffic -problems, and making concessions to those concerns.
I-
228 • .
July 5, 1995
Mayor Hanna asked for further comments from the publ-ic.. There
being none, he turned the matter back over to the Council for
discussion.
Alderman Parker stated. that he still held the same objections to
the development as he held previously. He stated. that he could
not support another large development in the area. of the.
overcrowded intersection of Hwy. 265 and 16 until that road is
expanded.
Alderman Young stated that he would probably vote forthis.
project because of its dedication ofgreen space. However, he
did not feel that this development, with half acre lots, is.being
built according to the village. concept. He expressed his concern
that continued development of this kind will create urban sprawl.
Alderman Schaper stated that he agreed with Alderman Young in
that this is not the village concept in the fullest extent. He
expressed that.Mr. Bayyari had responded- to the request. for a.
variety in the size of the lots. These are not half re lots
but range in size from 6,000 to 10,000 square feet. This is a
good development where clustering has happened.
Alderman Schaper stated that he agrees with Alderman Parker's.
concerns about the overcrowded intersection and is not totally
happy with further development in this area, but the benefits
outweigh the disadvantages.
In response to a question from Mayor Hanna, City Attorney, Rose
verified that this is the third and final reading of the
proposal.
Alderman Miller stated that he does have some problems with this
development. He stated he was considering voting for the
development but was still working out pros and cons. He stated
his approval of the setting aside of 66 acres to remain
undeveloped.
Alderman Daniel stated that she had been voting against
annexations, waiting for a plan for. drawing up boundaries. She
expressed her appreciation to Mr. Bayyari for his patience and
cooperation and stated that she would vote in favor of this
development.
Upon roll call, the ordinance passed by a vote of 6 to 1, with
Parker voting no.
ORDINANCE 3899 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOR
542 . •
December 5, 1995
Crosson stated the $40,000 is a detail on the. first change order
that was netted out. The last two pages are a detail of. change
order #1.
In answer t� a question from Mayor Hanna, g�ssory stated the.
change ordes presented will satisfy Ba c Construction's.
request. Tk a is a retainage of $3,.50 hick is a part of .the
original cont act. That settles all 'o our claims:
Mr. Combs
Alderman Williams /inresponse
d he wq1.d like to honor Alderman..
Hill's request thaem be/postponed. but, he. stated, there
has been enough sutio to show that the work -has been
done and the City i :
Williams, seconded, made a motion to award the change
order.
Alderman Parker stin response to'Alderman Hill's request,
the City asked Mr.o do the\work. The City cannot very
well turn around aold payment.
Mayor Hanna exp fined that the staff d negotiated quite a bit.
Crosson stat there is also a budget 'ad stment with thisitem
that needs ouncil approval.
Williams tated he would include the budget adjustment in his
motion. Alderman Daniel seconded.
Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 8 to 0.
RESOLUTION 146-95 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.
CONSERVATION EASEMENT - DAVID LYLE VILLAGE
Mayor Hanna stated that Alderman Parker had a concern to bring
before the Council.
Alderman Parker stated that when the City approved. David Lyle
Village on Highway 16E, one of the items approved was the .
donation of a conservation easement on the part of Fadil Bayyari.
One thing often included in conservation easements is the ability
to use the land for agricultural purposes. It is also often
allowed whoever is developing that area to build such structures
as necessary to house equipment. Unless the Council expresses
otherwise, these are likely to appear in the easement. If the
Council feels this is not within what was originally intended, he
needs to be informed.
543-:
• •
December 5, 1995
Alett Little stated she believes there is a bill of assurance
limiting the number of housing units. /<5N'II
Alderman Williams stated his feeling was that there would be'no R
buildings built on that easement. He thought it would be open
space with maybe fences but nothing else..
Alderman Parker asked everyone on the Council to consider these
ideas and get back to him at the next agenda session.
Alderman Schaper stated he would like to hear from a
representative of the land trust as to what the precedent is for
this.
Alderman Parker said it is usual for them to incorporate existing
structures or the, building of structures to. allow agricultural
use of the land.
In response to a question from the Mayor, -Alderman Parker said he
would like this to be an agenda item.at.the next agenda session.
Alderman Parker announced that as a tribute to his late Great
Uncle Ray Adams he would like to plant trees along new roads as
areas are developed. Alderman Schaper is -working' on something
similar to this, and Alderman Parker is mentioning it now to
avoid any duplication of effort and to say he is open to working.
with others who have an interest in this.
Mayor Hanna ad1tnPzledged Aldermen. Miller. and Dani recent
return from the D inican Republic. Alderman iel will give a
Sister City report o this at the next, meet' g.
ENVIRONME RESOURCE - DEFINITION
Fran Alexander, citizen from audience, apologized,. for being
late to the meeting but wa accept the challenge put forth
by Charles Venable to w ' e a deft tion of -the term.
"environmental resou es" for the 20 Plan. She read her
definition and d' ributed copies of th' •.to the Council.
The meetidjourned at 7:00 p.m.
554 • •
December 19, 1995
Alderman Williams stated that should be something that the
Planning Commission has to approve.
Mayor Hannast≥qed they are adding the issy.Vto the review
process. Design for entrances will bepdbmitted along with the.
designs for the se�ets..
Alderman Schaper sugg ted the stn prepare what they think
would be reasonable gui elines. he guideline should be reviewed
and approved by the Counc`
Ms. Little stated the task o ds tremendously difficult but it
is something the staff c wor on.
Alderman Schaper stat d there is ill no street sign posted: to
mark as a regular c' y street.
With the agreem t that the staff wou d'prepare a set of
standards, Aldhnan Schaper withdrew hi objection.
Mayor HannaAsked for any public comment o'n the budget. There
was none.
Upon roll call, the motion.passed'by a'vote of 7 to 0.
RESOLUTION 148-95 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.
D. CONSERVATION EASEMENT: A -discussion of the uses allowed
within the conservation easement in the David Lyle Village.
Alderman Parker stated the Grant of Development Rights and
Conservation Restrictions is a draft. Some members of the
Council asked if Mr. Galbraith, President of the Ozark Regional
Land Trust, would come down and explain what was usual for a
conservation easement.
The proposed grant allows a single farmhouse to be built on the
property retained in the conservation easement. Mr. Bayyari has
requested to build a pond on the land.
Greg Galbraith gave some. brief facts about Ozark Regional Land
Trust. Mr. Galbraith stated the conservation easement is a
document which makes Ozark Regional Land Trust a partner in
ownership of the land. The grant does restrict land owners but
it is not intended to make it impossible to do useful activities
with the land.
Alderman Young asked if the provisions is the grant where written
specifically for the property in the David Lyle village.
/ ; • 555
December 19, 1995
Mr. Galbraith stated other conservation easements were used to create this easement. It. has been modified to the State of _
Arkansas. We have tried to create a standard easement.
Alderman Parker stated there is one particular feature in the
easement that is not found •inmost other conservation easements.
The developer requested that he be allowed to land a small
aircraft on the property. .
In answer to a question from
,Alderman Young;. Mr. Galbraith stated
Silvicultural has to do with growing and harvesting trees. Mr.
Galbraith stated the land should be maintained in some sort of
agriculture or- forestry.
Mayor Hanna asked if a.public park would, be an appropriate use
for the property in question.. .
Mr. Galbraith stated the easement supports recreational
activities such as ball fields, and play grounds.
Alderman Schaper stated when we try to balance 'what we can do .to
encourage land owners like Mr. Bayyari to do a conservation
easement, we have to balance retaining someeconomic use of the
land versus saying no development is permitted.. Agriculture may
be the best and highest •use.of the land in question. Alderman
Schaper suggested keeping any planes at Drake Field.
Alderman Parker stated the occasional landing: of an aircraft is
much less disturbing than operating farm equipment. To. birds, a
.landing area is a big meadow.
In answer to a question from Alderman Schaper,.Mr. Bayyari
explained he has been an aviator for a long time. He stated he
might want to live on the land in the future and. possibly have a
private landing, area.
Alderman Schaper suggested allowing the landing of planes on the
land as long as it is owned by Mr. Bayyari.
Mr. Bayyari stated he did not support Alderman Schaper's
suggestion. Mr. .Bayyari stated there is only one item that
requires the Council's permission. The soil in some areas of the
land is four feet deep. The area that is. being developed is very
rocky. There is a need for top soil in this area. Mr. Bayyari
stated he would like to haul top soil to the development area.
It would be a way to recover the cost of not developing the land.
Alderman Parker stated the reason Mr. Bayyari is bringing this
issue up is because the easement forbids the removal of top soil
from the land.
Mn Bayyari explained that he needs the top soil.
556 • .
December 19, 1995
Ms. Little stated this area is zoned A-1, Agricultural. An
airstrip is not a use by right. It. requires a.Conditional:Use in
A-1.• It could be granted by the Planning Commission.'Lt would
not be presented to the Council. Ms. Little pointed out to the
Council that the use of the land as an airstrip was not
considered when the property was rezoned.
In answer to a question from Alderman Williams, Ms. Little stated
a conditional use is a zoning approval that runs with the use of
the land. As long as it runs within that use category, the
conditional use is' approved.
Alderman Williams expressed concern that poultry raising is not
allowed but that there is no restriction of hog farms. Alderman
Williams stated he was also concerned about the plural
designation to the property owner's right to build barns, out
buildings, and similar structures.
Mr. Bayyari stated there will be no chicken houses or hog farms
on the property. Mr. Bayyari stated he planned to build one
house and one.barn in addition to the.existing barn.
In answer to a"question from Mr. Galbraith, Mr. Little stated the
easement property is inside the city limits. The property is
zoned A-i and a single family home with out buildings needed for
a farm would be allowed.
Mr. Galbraith explained that conservation easements generally
allow farm residences. He. stated a grass landing strip is not
inappropriate. A hanger is more of an issue. The hanger is
required to be a minimal size. Speaking to the soil issue, Mr.
Galbraith stated there is a substantial amount of soil on the
property. Some type of carefully managed use of top soil could
be done without having any detrimental affect to the property. A
waiver would have to be granted for this project to allow the use
of the top soil.
Ms. Little stated the Council. approved the zoning subject to a
conservation easement. The City is not a party to the easement.
The easement is between Mr. Bayyari and the Ozark Land Trust.
Ms. Little questioned the reason for any Council action.
Alderman Parker stated this was presented- to the Council because
one of the Alderman asked why a farm house was being allowed on
the property.
Alderman Williams stated it is appropriate for the Council to be
listening to this. .The reason we voted to allow the rezoning was
because of the conservation easement. Without any input on the
easement, we are giving someone a blank check.
December 19, 1995
iris . Little compared a conservation easement to a bill of
assurance. Bills of assurances are submitted. before a decision
is made. A conservation easement represents the same type of
agreement that a:bill of assurance would be....
In response to a comment from Alderman Parker, Ms. Little stated
the Council possibly should have looked at theconservation
easement before the rezoning decision was made. Ms. Little
explained that she was concerned that the Council was about to
make a decision aboutsomething the City is not a party to.
Alderman Schaper agreed that the easement should have been
discussed in advance.
In answer to a question from Mayor Hanna, City Attorney Jerry
Rose stated the Council does not have any authority over the
conservation. easement.
City Attorney Rose stated the Ozark Regional Land Trust has some
responsibilities under the agreement as the land trust. Rose
questioned that there is no signature line on the agreement and
asked Mr. Galbraith if he formally accepts his responsibilities
under the land trust.
Mr..Galbraith stated the reason there is no signature is that it
would represent more of a contract than an interestin the land.
City Attorney Rose stated we take it on good faith that you will
accept your responsibilities. City Attorney Rose asked if it was.
commonrto make another entity a third party beneficiary to the
agreement.
Mr. Galbraith stated the conservation easement statute enacted in
the state of Arkansas specifically awards third party rights of
enforcement. The City would receive the right by statute.
In answer to a question from Alderman. Williams regarding the bill
of assurance submitted during the rezoning process limiting the
number of units, Mr. Bayyari stated the number of units being,
developed is less than the number stated in the bill of assurance. In answer a explained aosection tinnthe oagreement m nl
thatpreventtser, rclearacuts.
The Council took a five minute break.
Alderman Parker left the meeting.
1:
FILED FOR RECORD
'SSJIZl flm 950
ORDINANCE NO. 3912 WASHINGTON CO AR
K..HARNESS
AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED
IN REZONING PETITION R95-06 FOR A• PARCEL
CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 38.49 ACRES LOCATED
AT 4240 HUNTSVILLE, REQUESTED BY WAYNE AND -
DARLENE COUNTS, HUSBAND AND WIFE, LARRY AND
DIANE OMOHUNDRO, HUSBAND AND WIFE, AND FADIL.
AND GERALDINE . BAYYARI, HUSBAND AND. WIFE;
REZONING SHALL BE CONTINGENT UPON APPROVAL OF•
ANNEXATION OF THE SUBJECT REAL PROPERTY.
BE ITORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section I. That the zone classification of the following described property is hereby
changed as follows:
R95-06 for the real property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made
a part hereof.
From A-1, Agricultural District to R -S, Residential -Small Lot.
Section 2. That such rezoning shall be contigent upon Council approval of annexation t
of the subject real property.
Section 3.
That
the
official zoning map of
the City
of
Fayetteville, Arkansas, is
hereby amended to
reflect
the
zoning change provided
in Section
I
above.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 2nd of May , 1995.
APPROVED:
By: //G7.•��I 2Yt�}�
red Hanna, Mayor
ATTEST: O
By: (in,iL
Traci Paul, City Clerk
II
95036404
ORDINANCE NO. 3911
FILED FOR RECORD
•JUL 21 RIB 9 50
*ASH!NGTON CO AR
K. HARNESS
AN ORDINANCE REZONING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED
IN REZONING PETITION R95-05 FOR A PARCEL
CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 8.05 ACRES LOCATED AT
4240 HUNTSVILLE REQUESTED. ..BY WAYNE AND
DARLENE COUNTS, HUSBAND AND WIFE, LARRY AND
DIANE•.OMOHUNDRO, HUSBAND AND WIFE, AND FADIL
AND: GERALDINE- - BAYYARI, , HUSBAND. AND WIFE;
REZONING SHALL BE CONTINGENT UPON APPROVAL OF
ANNEXATION OF THE: SUBJECT• REAL PROPERTY OF
APPROXIMATELY 99.8 ACRES.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section l . That the zone classification of the following described property is hereby
changed as follows:
R95 -O5 for the real property described in Exhibit.'A" attached hereto and made
a part hereof.
From A -I, Agricultural District to R -O, Residential -Office District.
. eccion 2. That such rezoning shall be contigent upon Council approval of annexation
of the subject realproperty.of approximately 99.8 acres.
5=11Q111. That the official zoning map. of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, is
hereby amended to reflect the zoning change provided in Section I above.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 2nd day of May , 1995.
APPROVED:
By: //lGLY14—
red Hanna, Mayor
ATTEST:
By: / l
Traci Paul, City Clerk
95036406
a
FILED
'9S NOJ 7 FR 10 20
FILED FOR RECORD
SS 20 PM 3 .58
1Sh'I;IGTOr1 CO . AR 11),:111 CVS
MAR;!.:., _..
ORDINANCE NO. 3399 i4LCROFJLMEL
AN ORDINANCE, CONFIRMING THE ANNEXATION TO
THE "CITY OFFAYETTEVILLE,• ARKANSAS, OF CERTAIN
PROPERTY OWNED BY WAYNE COUNTS AND DARLENE
COUNTS, HUSBAND AND WIFE, LARRY OMOHUNDRO
AND DIANE OMOHUNDRO, HUSBAND AND WIFE; AND
FADIL BAYYARI AND GERALDINE BAYYARI, HUSBAND
AND WIFE.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
` FAYEITEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby confirms the annexation to the City of
Fayetteville, Arkansas, of that property described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part
hereof.
Section 2. The official map'of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, is hereby amended
to reflect the change provided in Section 1 above.
Section 3. That the above -described property is hereby assigned to Ward No. L.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 5th" day of July , 1995.
APPROVED:
Fred Hanna, Mayor
ATTEST:
i2jy: .
Traci Paul, City Clerk
i•:
•
0' ' 95036370
a 7•
o•.
CL
STAFF REVIEW FORM - NON -FINANCIAL OBLI� IETION
Department Director
x AGENDA REQUEST
For the Fayetteville City Council Meeting of: September 21, 2004
FROM:
Dawn T. Warrick Planning CP&E
Name Division Department
ACTION REQUIRED: Resolution Approval.
SUMMARY EXPLANATION
A resolution amending the Bill of Assurance submitted with R 95-05 for property located between the David
Lyle subdivision and Hwy. 16 East to allow single family residential structures on the subject property which
is currently zoned R -O, Residential Office.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval
en
Date
Finance & Internal Services Dir. Date
D e
Date
Received in Mayor's Office
Cross Reference:
Previous Ord/Res#:
Orig. Contract Date:
Orig. Contract Number:
New Item:
Date �r
Yes No
ENTER
FAYETTE\&LE �
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
City Clerk Division
113 West Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (479) 575-8323
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
To: Dawn Warrick
Planning Division
From: Clarice Buffalohead-Pearman S
City Clerk Division
Date: September 27, 2004
Re: Resolution No. 148-04
The City Council passed a resolution, September 21, 2004, approving the amendment to
the Bill of Assurance for the David Lyle Subdivision revising the previous one offered
with Ord. 39 11. I have attached a copy of the resolution and addendum.
The resolution will be recorded in the city clerk's office and microfilmed. If anything
else is needed please let the clerk's office know.
/cbp
attachments
cc: Nancy Smith, Internal Auditor
RESOLUTION NO.148-04
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO
THE BILL OF ASSURANCE SUBMITTED FOR
R95-05 SUBMITTED WITH ORDINANCE NO. 3911,
AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON
MAY 2, 1995
BE IT ORDAINED 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.
3911, passed and approved by the City Council on May 2, 1995 and revised by the Planning
Commission in 1996. A copy of the revised Bill of Assurance, marked Exhibit "A" is
attached hereto and made a part hereof.
PASSED and APPROVED this 21st Day of September, 2004.
By:
COODY, Mayor
ATTEST: �..`��(tK/TR s'#
By: rite ;FAYETTEVILLE;
SO DRA SMITH, City Clerk �z•, G ./,