HomeMy WebLinkAbout155-04 RESOLUTION•
RESOLUTION NO. 155-04
A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY
PLAT FOR PIPER'S GLEN SUBDIVISION (PPL 04-1148)
APPEALED FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN
RELIANCE UPON THE PROFFERED BILL OF
ASSURANCES BY DAVID AND SHARON WILSON
FILED OCTOBER 4, 2004 IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
WHEREAS, David and Sharon Wilson as owners/developers of Piper's Glen
Subdivision (PPL 04-1148) have offered and filed a Bill of Assurances for Piper's Glen,
a subdivision of Washington County, which has met the complete approval of the
Barrington Parke POA:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby
approves the Preliminary Plat for Piper's Glen Subdivision appealed from the Planning
Commission in reliance upon the proffered Bill of Assurances by David and Sharon
Wilson filed October 4, 2004 in the City Clerk's Office and attached as Exhibit "A".
PASSED and APPROVED this 5th day of October, 2004.
ATTEST:
By:
SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk
By:
APPROVED:
1 .I
D COODY, Mayor V
IF
• _.uiihII� 1111111111111119� EIIIQ�I0 1111111 Q
Doc p 07732460004 Tvoe REL
RECEIVED Rego ded Io/o4/2004 et 09 66:13 An
Fed mt: 817.00 Pane 1 of 4
BILL OF ASSURANCES wedh naton County. AR
OCT O Q ZOth
R PIPER'S GLEN, A SUBDIVISION OF Rett staincircuit Clerk
CITY OF FAYETTEVWASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS File 004-00040918
MAYOR'S OFFICE
KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS, the undersigned, David and Sharon Wilson, are the
owners of a certain tract of land lying and situated in Washington County, Arkansas, more
particularly described as follows:
TRACT A:
Parcel Number. 001-10318-001, Book 1276 page 577
A part of the Frl. SWI/4 of the SW1/4 of Section 6, T -16-N, R -29-W, Washington County,
Arkansas, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point that is North 411.25
feet and N 89°33'48"W, 1943.02 feet from the SE corner of the SWI /4 of said Section 6, and running
thence West 200.00 feet, thence N 00°33130"E, 97.8 feet; thence East 199.00 feet, thence South 97.8
feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.44 acres, more or less.
Also:
A part of the Frl. SW1/4 of the SW1/4 of Section 6, T -16-N, R -29-W, Washington County,
Arkansas, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point that is N 89°33'48"W,
1593.05 feet and North 262.68 feet from the SE corner of the SWI/4 of said Section 6, and running
thence West 350.00 feet; thence North 234.4 feet to a wood rail fence; thence Southeasterly along
said fence the following: S 87°30'E, 57.2 feet; S 79°06E, 54.5 feet; S 67°11E, 96.9 feet; S 46°47'E,
37.7 feet; S 2I °04'E, 23.0 feet; thence leaving said fence and running East 114.3 feet; thence South
136.6 feet to the point of beginning, containing 1 50 acres, more or less.
TRACT B:
Parcel Number: 001-10320-000, Warranty Deed#2001157154
A part of the SWI/4 of the SWI/4 of Section 6, T -16-N, R -29-W, Washington County, Arkansas,
being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the West line of the SWI/4 of
the SWI/4 of said Section 6 that is N 00°35'15"W, 470.03 feet; N 01°45'19"W, 209.15 feet, and N
88°19'58"E, 11.03 feet from the SW corner of said 40 acre tract; running thence N 00°00'59"W,
177.26 feet along said West line; thence leaving said West line N 88°19158"E, 168.62 feet; and S
09°22'29"E, 178.61 feet; thence leaving said West line S 88°19'58"W, 197.68 feet to the point of
beginning, containing 0.75 acres, more or less.
TRACT C:
Parcel Number. 001-10320-001, Book 1294 at page 673
A part of the Fri. SW1/4 of the SWI/4 of Section 6, T -16-N, R -29-W, Washington County,
Arkansas, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the West line of a
25 foot wide access road that is North 732.05 feet and West 2178.81 feet from the SE corner of the
SW 1/4 of said Section 6, and running thence S 07°28'E, 50.43 feet along said West line; thence West
215.64 feet to the West line of said 40 acre tract; thence N 00°13'51"E, 50.0 feet along said West - •
line; thence East 208.9 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.24 acres, more or Tess.
TRACT D:
Parcel Number: 001-10322-000, Book 1066 at page 888
A part of the Frl. SW1/4 of the SW1/4 of Section 6, T -16-N, R -29-W, Washington County,
Arkansas, being more particularly described as beginning at a point that is North 411.25 feet, and
West 2168.02 feet from the SE corner of the SW 1/4 of Section 6, and running thence West 220.92
feet; thence N 00013'51"E, 256.0 feet; thence East 212 feet to a point on the West right-of-way line
of a 25 foot easement granted by David J. Wilson and Sharon A. Wilson; thence following said
easement, S 07°28'E, 48.93 feet; thence S 00°33'30"W, 207.89 feet to the point of beginning.
TRACT E:
Parcel Number: 001-10323-000, Book 1066 at page 888
A part of the Frl. SW1/4 of the SW1/4 of Section 6, T -16-N, R -29-W, Washington County,
Arkansas, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point that is N 89°33'48"W,
1943.05 feet from the SE comer of the SW1/4 of Section 6, and running thence N 89°33'48"W,
447.51 feet; thence N 00°13'51"E, 393.03 feet; thence East 220.92 feet; thence N 00°33'30"E, 207.89
feet; thence N 07°28'W, 386.48 feet to the centerline of a county road, thence along said centerline
S 61°45'20"E, 30.8 feet; thence S 07°28'E, 370.25 feet; thence S 00°33'30"W, 209.4 feet; thence East
200 feet; thence South 396.44 feet to the point of beginning.
TRACT F:
Parcel Number. 001-10324-000, Book 1066 at page 888
A part of the Frl. SW1/4 of the SW1/4 of Section 6, T -16-N, R -29-W, Washington County,
Arkansas, being more particularly described as beginning at a point that is N 89°33'48"W, 1593.05
feet from the SE comer of the SWI/4 of said Section 6, and running thence N 89°33148"W, 350.00
feet; thence North 260.12 feet; thence East 350.00 feet; thence South 260.12 feet to the point of
beginning.
NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned owners do hereby enter the following Bill of
Assurances and do hereby declare that the following Bill of Assurances are imposed on all the land
and shall be binding on David and Sharon Wilson and any entity controlled by them.
1. Lot Subdivision. In the proposed subdivision of Piper's Glen, no Lot under two acres
shall be further subdivided or re -platted. Any Lot exceeding two acres may be subdivided or re -
platted into two Lots.
2. Easements No easements will be allowed on the proposed subdivided Lots to
provide access to other adjoining property.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF ARKANSAS
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
Comes now David and Sharon Wilson, being first duly sworn on oath, and states that he has
signed the foregoing document for the reasons and purposes therein written.
[JILL
David Wilsson
0! j jjainL)
A.
Sharon Wilson
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, this 1.11 day of
OthIbiLL,2004.-;
:
My Commission Expires:
1 1"(C) -1.�i "q °unWno
`�P�IiA HFyS
GaMM. aA,
i SOTAgy -t.
n'
=V): :¢=
3S •N2
. pUBLIG ! r
6,O .7.ot•2oy.°. PQ
a(Al (lt '1Th,f
otary Public 0
4
•
•
3. Commercial Enterprises. No part of any proposed Lot shall ever be used or caused
to be used or allowed or authorized for any commercial, manufacturing, mercantile, storing, vending
or other such nonresidential purpose.
4. Land Use. Only single-family residences and associated improvements and structures
shall be constructed on the proposed Lots.
5. Mobile Homes and Temporary Structures. No structure commonly known as a
"mobile home', "house trailer," "manufactured home," or similar structure may be moved onto,
placed or used on any proposed Lot.
6. Minimum Square Feet Area All residences constructed on any proposed Lot in
Piper's Glen Subdivision shall equal or exceed 3,000 square feet.
7. Existing. Commercial Structure. Owners shall remove the commercial enterprise
currently situated on proposed Lot 1 of the subdivision prior to completion of the subdivision.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF WE HAVE HEREUNTO SET OUR HANDS AND SEALS on
this 1: - day of oc j r , 2004.
3
David Wilson
Sharon Wilson
NAME OF FILE:
CROSS REFERENCE:
Item # Date
Resolution No. 155-04
w/Bill of Assurance
Document
•
1
08/26/04
Letter to Sondra Smith from Brenda Thiel
2
memo to Planning Commission
3
letter to city from Jorgensen & Associates
4
letter to city from Jorgensen & Associates
5
memo to Roy David &
Planning Commission
6
copy of Petition to Stop the Approval of the Piper's Glen
Subdivision
7
memo to Planning Department
8
letter to Jan Gambill
9
letter to Whom It May Concern
10
copy of Resolution 32A-94
11
copy of City Council minutes 3/1/94
12
copy of
Close Up View
13
copy of One Mile View
14
copy of letter from Blake Jorgensen
15
memo to David Wilson
from Blake Jorgensen
16
copy of letter from John Kathol
17
email from Wayne Buescher
18
copy of
Planning
Commission minutes 8/13/04
19
copy of Planning Commission minutes 8/23/04
20
memo to mayor & City Council
21
memo to City Council
22
copy of preliminary plat
23
copy of map
24
copy
of Bill of Assurance
25
memo to Brenda Thiel
• •
August 26, 2004
Sondra Smith
City Clerk
City of Fayetteville
/% 5/4
/S5
!1064 6/4, Subd,ufsr
,qua(
FROM THE DESK OF BRENDA THIEL, WARD 1 ALDERMAN
Re: Planning Commission Appeal
Dear Sondra,
This is notice of my appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the Pipers Glen
Subdivision preliminary plat on August 23, 2004 for the following reasons. Impact to city
residential streets of development projects which are located outside the city limits. Gaston
Drive street extension into this proposed subdivision does not provide a network of connectivity
which the City Council desires. In fact, it does the contrary by providing only one way in and out
of this project.
The Barrington Parke neighborhood is also very concerned about the development possibilities
for the Pipers Glen Subdivision since it is currently outside the city limits. This development
will not be required to follow Fayetteville's building or street standards or parkland and impact
fee requirements.
Sincerely,
Brenda Thiel
172 E. WILLOUGHBYDR ' FAYEIT£VILLE,AR 72701 ' 501-442-3095 E-MAIL: BTHIEL'IPA.NET
MI6 Aid Ve /6/5/eirrn 94*
)0
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
PC Meeting of August 23, 2004
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: 501-575-8264
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission
FROM: Jeremy Pate, Senior Planner
Matt Casey, Staff Engineer
THRU: Dawn Warrick, A.I.C.P., Zoning & Development Administrator
DATE: August 18, 2004
PPL 04-1148: Preliminary Plat (PIPERS GLEN SUBDIVISION): Submitted by DAVE
JORGENSEN for property located at THE EASTERN BOUNDARY OF THE BARRINGTON
PARKE SUBDIVISION. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately
10.49 acres. The request is to approve the preliminary plat for a residential subdivision with 9
single family lots proposed.
Property Owner: DAVID WILSON Planner: JEREMY PATE
Findings:
Property description: The subject property is located east of Barrington Parke Subdivision, south
of Fox Hunter Road The property is in the Planning Area, contiguous to the city limits on the
west. To the east is Fox Hunter Estates S/D, to the north and south are properties residential and
agricultural in nature. To the north of the proposed Lot #9 is a City of Fayetteville Park
(Trammel Park, dedicated as a part of the requirements for Barrington Parke S/D in the mid-
1990s)
Proposal: The 10.49 acres is proposed to be subdivided into nine (9) single family lots, each lot
approximately one acre in size. Lot #9, containing existing development, is proposed to be the
largest lot, containing approximately 2.07 acres. Access to eight (8) lots is proposed from an
existing street stub -out (Caston Drive) constructed with Barrington Parke S/D to the west This
stub -out was a requirement of the developer in order for Barrington Parke S/D to be approved
(see attached). Lot #9 has approximately 27 feet of frontage onto Fox Hunter Road, and the
applicant requests this larger 2 07 -acre lot with existing barn, sheds and pond retain access to
Fox Hunter Road. Lots 8 and 9 currently have access to water and sewer, through prior
arrangements with the City. The developer will be required to extend water to serve Lots 1-7;
septic system approvals have been granted for Lots 1-7 by the Washington County Health Dept.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
Direction
Land Use
Zoning
North
Single family homes, large lots
Planning Area, no zoning
South
Single family home, agricultural
Planning Area, no zoning
East
Fox Hunter Estates S/D .
Planning Area, no zoning)
West
Barrington Parke S/D
RSF-4, Res. Single Family, 4 DU/Acre
K:IReports12004IPC Reports108-23-041PPL 04-1148 (PIPERS GLEN).doc
• •
Right-of-way being dedicated: 50' for the Caston Drive extension onto the subject property,
minimum of 35 feet from centerline along Fox Hunter Road
Street Improvements: 28 -foot wide street with curb, gutter and sidewalks on Caston Drive. The
developer will be extending Caston Drive from where it was stubbed out with Barrington Parke
S/D. Right-of-way was dedicated to the subject property with the Final Plat for Barrington Parke.
Adjacent Master Street Plan Streets: Fox Hunter Road, Collector
Parkland Dedication: N/A, property is outside the city limits
Tree Preservation: N/A, property is outside the city limits
Connectivity: The applicant is proposing to extend Caston Drive, a street that was stubbed out
for future development of the subject property. Lot #9 is proposed to retain the existing private
drive to Fox Hunter Road. Lot #9 currently has only 27.29' of frontage onto Fox Hunter Road,
currently prohibiting the connection of a street in this direction. Staff has not previously
recommended a street connection north to Fox Hunter Road, based on the amount of traffic
generated by (9) single family homes. However, staff is conducting on-going studies to
determine the feasibility of this connection, including site visibility and the use of adjacent
parkland for the purpose of a street connection through. Staff is not recommending connectivity
in other directions, due to the nature of existing development or terrain, particularly to the south.
The applicant has offered to restrict construction traffic to the existing private drive, as opposed
to accessing through Barrington Parke S/D.
Public Comment: Significant public comment has been received regarding the 9 -lot subdivision
proposal. At least (3) letters from concerned citizens have been attached to the staff report. A
petition against the project was also submitted at the Subdivision Committee meeting of August
13. One (1) copy is included in the staff report; 61 signed petitions were received by the Planning
Offices. Most of the comments received to date are from residents of the Barrington Parke
Subdivision, concerned primarily with construction traffic and access through Barrington Park
for the 8 Lots. The property owner to the south has submitted a letter detailing his concerns, listed
as drainage, trash from Barrington Parke residents and potential trash from future Pipers Glen
residents, a request for a fence along the south property line, greater setback and access from his
property to the north. Based on slope determinations provided by the applicant, property to south
exceeds 22% grade in locations, a situation not conducive for a public street.
Background: In 1994, the Preliminary Plat for Barrington Parke S/D was appealed to City
Council, and a resolution approved for the development of this subdivision (see attached),
modifying the Planning Commission's approval. Part of the agreements between the developer
and the City at the time, and stated within the attached resolution, was the additional dedication
of parkland (to the north of the subject property), as well as a dedication of approximately 1,000
ft. of nature trail, then known as Red Wolf Park. The developer was expressly not required to
construct a connection to Fox Hunter Road to the east, and protective covenants established to
protect existing trees along Fox Hunter Road. Additionally, right-of-way was required to be
dedicated at the southeast of the Barrington Parke S/D to allow for future access to the property
of David Wilson, currently under consideration for Pipers' Glen S/D.
K: IReports120041PC Reports108-23-041PPL 04-1148 (PIPERS GLEN).doc
r
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of PPL 04-1148, with the following
conditions of approval:
Conditions of Approval:
1. Planning Commission determination of a waiver request for the creation of a lot in the
Planning Area without adequate frontage. A lot in the Planning Area requires 75 feet of
frontage. Lot #9 currently has 27.29' offrontage onto Fox Hunter Road. The applicant
requests to retain this access to Lot #9 only, allowing for the continued use of the existing
drive to access the existing structures. Staff is in favor of this request.
2. Planning Commission determination of adequate access and connectivity for the
proposed 9 -lot subdivision. Eight lots are proposed to access from Caston Drive; Lot #9
from the existing private drive to Fox Hunter Road. Staff does not recommend additional
street connections to the south and east due to existing platted Fox Hunter Estates and
steep grades to the south.
3. Caston Drive street improvements shall be constructed a minimum of 28 feet in width
including pavement, curb, gutter, and sidewalks to access the project site.
4. Construction traffic shall be limited to access through the existing private drive. A clear
note to this effect shall be included on the final construction drawings. Additionally,
Caston Drive shall be barricaded to construction traffic until street construction is
complete. REVISED PER PLANNING COMMISSION.
5. Four -foot sidewalks shall be constructed on both sides of Caston Drive, located at the
right-of-way. Sidewalks shall extend the entire length of the street improvements and
connect to existing sidewalks in Barrington Park S/D.
6. The existing private water service line to the existing structure on Lot #8 shall be
abandoned and a new water service connection be provided from the public main
extension along Caston Drive.
Should the applicant wish to continue public sewer service to the existing structure on
Lot #8, the private sanitary service line shall be abandoned and a public main extended to
the proposed property line. Private service lines may not cross private property lines.
Standard Conditions of Approval:
8. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to
the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR
Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications)
9. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable)
for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private),
sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat
review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are
K:IReports11004IPC Repons108-13-041PPL 04-1148 (PIPERS GLEN).doc
•
subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's
current requirements.
10. All street names shall be approved by the 911 coordinator.
11. All overhead electric lines 12kv and under shall be relocated underground. All proposed
utilities shall be located underground.
12. Preliminary Plat approval shall be valid for one calendar year.
13. Additional conditions:
a.
b.
c.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: ves Required
JApproved Denied
Date: August 23, 2004
The "CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL", statedin this report, are accepted in total without
exception by the entity requesting approval of this development item.
By
Title
Date
K:IReports120041PC Reports108-23-04IPPL 04-1148 (PIPERS GLENJ.doc
JORGENSEI . ASSOCIATES
CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS
124 WEST SUNBRIDGE, SUITE 5 • FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703 • (479) 442-9127 • FAX (479) 582-4807
DAVID L. JORGENSEN, P.E., P.L.S.
CHRISTOPHER B.BRACKETT, P.E.
•
July 7, 2004.
City of Fayetteville
113 W. Mountain Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Attn: Planning Dept.
Re: Piper's Glen Subdivision
Attached herewith please find the application and information regarding the approval
request of the above referenced property. Barrington Park Subdivision is located to the
West, Fox Hunter Estates is located to the East and various properties lie to the North and
South (agricultural/residential). The proposed subdivision lies on the outskirts of the City
of Fayetteville limits and we wish to keep it within the Washington County limits.
Access will be from extending Caston Drive to the East (located in Barrington Park
Subdivision) and from Fox Hunter Road to the North.
Water will be connected to an existing 6" line located in Barrington Park Subdivision
Lots 1-7 will have individual subsurface sewage disposal systems. Lots 8 and 9 are
currently serviced by city sewer from a previous agreement.
Please call concerning any questions you may have.
Thank you.
Sincerely;
ake Jorg✓n, E.I.
REC IVED
IJUL 1 2 2004
L
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
PLANNING DIVISION
STRUCTURAL DESIGN • LAND DEVELOPMENT • WATER SYSTEMS • WASTEWATER SYSTEMS • LAND SURVEYING •
•
JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES
CIVIL ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS
124 WEST SUNBRIDGE, SUITE 5 • FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703 • (479) 442-9127 • FAX (479) 582-4807
DAVID L. JORGENSEN, P.E., P.L.S.
CHRISTOPHER B. BRACKETT, P.E.
August 3, 2004.
City of Fayetteville
113 W. Mountain Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Attn: Planning Dept.
Re• Piper's Glen Subdivision
This correspondence is in regards to the "in house" plat review comments (July 28, 2004
Tech. Plat Meeting). The necessary revisions have been made including: displaying the
existing water line and proposed connection, water and sewer connections for lots 8 & 9,
extension of a 4' sidewalk along the entire proposed length of the proposed street,
fulfillment of utility requests, and setback portrayal on the plat.
This correspondence is also meant to request a waiver for the frontage on lot 9. The
existing condition of the land yields only 27.29 feet of frontage as opposed to the 75 feet
as required; yet the land is confined to this boundary due to pre-existing conditions,
where the land to the immediate North and West is a dedicated park to the City of
Fayetteville and the land to the East is owned by a separate entity, Harley Brigham. It
should be noted that only lot 9 will be accessed from this area.
Thank you.
Sincerely;
RECEIVED
AUG 0.4 2004
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
PLANNING DIVISION
STRUCTURAL DESIGN • LAND DEVELOI'MENT • WATER SYSTEMS • WASTEWATER SYSTEMS • LAND SURVEYING •
fy
•
Waa&ingtorc Country [la& Meath Centex
3270 Wimberly Drive
Fayetteville, AR 72703
479-521-8181
Memorandum
To: Roy Davis, P.E., Arkansas Department of Health Engineering Division.
Fayetteville Planning Commission
From: Melissa Wonnacott, R.S.
Environmental Health Specialist, Washington County
Re:
The Piper's Glen Subdivision (proposed)
Location:
'Part of the SW 'A SW l/4, of Section 6 Township I6N, Range
29W; Foxhunter Rd Fayetteville
Developer: Dayid Wilson
Designated Rep: Richard Murphree
Date: 06 July 2004
This proposed 7-1ot subdivision is to be serviced by public water. Soil pits were observed
on each lot to determine the suitability of the available soils for the placement of
individual subsurface sewagedisposal systems. I have confirmed the findings of Richard
Murphree, Designated Representative, that all have suitable soils for placement of
standard and/or alternate septic systems.
This -proposed subdivision is hereby approved for development using standard or
alternate sewage disposal systems with the following comments and conditions:
1. This approval is contingent upon approval of the•water lines by the
Division of Engineering -ADH. No development may take place on any lot
until that approval is granted.
2. The appropriate detailed drawings of water lines, plats, and review fees must
be submitted to the Division of Engineering before approval of the
subdivision. These drawings shall include the location and number
designation of the soil pits.
3. Each lot has a septic system designed, but not yet.approved. Any alternating
from said design WILL REQUIRE the individual homeowner to obtain a new
permit for construction. THE HOMES MUST BE LOCATED IN SI -ES
APPROVED. ANY VARIENCE FROM THESE MA
ED
JUL 1 2 2004
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
DI AAIAIIkIf n AticVI\I
UNSUITABLE FOR SEPTIC SYSTEM. ANOTHER FORM OF
TREATMENT MAYBE NEEDED.
4. The disposal system for each lot must be located in the area of
observed and approved soil pit. Any relocation of the system
will require further investigation by the Department and a permit may not be
issued.
5. The areas of the proposed primary and secondary disposal fields must
be protected during the construction of all structures and roads and the
placement of service lines so as not to disturb the natural properties of the
soils. All parts of the systems must meet regulations setbacks to home
and/or property lines.
6. This approval is for Lots 1-7. No lot maybe further subdivided without prior
approval from the Department. Any further subdivision will require prior
approval from the Arkansas Department of Health.
7. Lots4 and 6 will require alternate technology for sewage disposal. These
will be a drip irrigation design.
8. Preliminary Permits for construction, for all Lots except Tots 1-7 have
been submitted to the Washington County Health Department Office
and will be approved for construction once approval for the subdivision
as a whole has been granted. Act 402 of 1977, prohibits a property
owner from obtaining approval of an individual septic system permit
before final approval of said subdivision has been granted.
9. These permits will be issued for FOUR BEDROOM HOMES ONLY.
Any deviation from these permits would require the permits to be
revoked and may require alternate technology to allow for such size
home on these small lots. Our office will be under no obligation to issue
a permit that will not meet regulations.
10. Permits, once issued must be transferred to the individual homeowners and
changed in our records to reflect individual homeowner.
11. This approval of this subdivision is based upon information provided by the
Designated Representative, Richard Murphree and the Local County
Environmental Health Specialist, Melissa A. Wonnacott.
If any of that information is found to be inaccurate, the approval may he
revoked.
Sincerely,
` /t 9.:. G . loot � &c b R.s.
Melissa A. Wonnacott, R.S.
CC: Richard Murphree, DR
David Wilson, Owner
File
)0
PETITION TO STOP THE APPROVAL OF THE
PIPERS GLEN SUBDIVISION
TO: The City of Fayetteville, AR RE: Project Name: PPL00-1148
Pipers Glen Subdivision
To Whom It May Concern:
This petition is directed to the City of Fayetteville, Washington Co., Arkansas, Planning Division.
Its goal is to inform the Planning Division that we ask for the rejection of application for the
Project name: PPL -1148, Pipers Glen Subdivision. Please make this petition a permanent
attachment to this project application.
We the undersigned property owners and residents of Barrington Parke Subdivision, Fayetteville,
Arkansas, Washington Co., Arkansas hereby proclaim the following concerns.
We are concerned by the proposition of attaching the proposed Pipers Glen Subdivision to the
streets in Barrington Parke in any way. Barrington Parke Subdivision is an enclosed subdivision
that holds and maintains jointly owned property for the enhancement and enjoyment of the
subdivision. Adding an adjoining subdivision that will require access from our subdivision will
make mainraining and protecting this property a hardship. In addition, owners from the proposed
Pipers Glen Subdivision will have use of and benefit from some of the Barrington Parke
community property yet not hold any responsibility for its upkeep or liability.
We are concerned that any additional traffic on the streets in the Barrington Parke Subdivision
will constitute a safety hazard and could cause unintended reversal of property values.
We are concerned that safety vehicles, city services and other established utilities will be
negatively effected in their response and services to our subdivision.
We are concerned that any additional traffic added to the flow of traffic on the corner of
Barrington Dr. and Fox Hunter Rd as well as the corner of Starr Rd. and Madison Dr. will make
these intersections unsafe. Without the proposed additional traffic, these and other intersections
in the area are already overtaxed by traffic.
We are concerned that any additional building in the area will add additional drainage problems
to an already taxed street drainage problem.
•
We urge the Planning Division to deny the application for this proposed subdivision unless and/
or until all of these concerns are satisfactorily addressed
Respectfully Yours,
The Undersigned
Signature
Printed Name Address
Page 1
t cMt a Alb n \ \"1 la \1 . fir c r ons/irrn —Dr-.
t�obeS4 Ac\\2t\ -0-�` ��<< AR. --t a-1.6
•
Attention: City of Fayetteville Planning Department
Subject Notice of a proposed Subdivision attached to the Barrington Park Subdivision
8/10/04
This seeks further understanding of the plan. Based on where the notice is placed, it
appears that the desire is connect this proposed subdivision with Barrington Park.
I support planning and growth for our community. That is why I write to provide my
initial thoughts regarding what I am interpreting as your intent.
Barrington Park is a well planned subdivision which is complete. The roads are wide and
easy to navigate due to excellent planning. Each home was required to meet
specifications to ensure the subdivision maintained and grew property values, again
excellent planning. In fact, overtime, the homes exceeded the specifications which
greatly improved everyone's investment and our contribution to property taxes.
The thought of adding additional homes which may not exceed our specifications is a
concern. The added traffic was something not in the subdivision's plan or was not
disclosed when we purchased our home.
The traffic concern provides a significant safety risk to our community. We have well
planned wide roads within the subdivision. They provide a country setting and for those
not living there, appears to be a country road. Before they know.it, they are reaching
speeds of 35+ MPH. The city has placed Radar machines to remind people of the speed.
Our neighborhood is,filled with kids. No parent allows their children to play,in the street
and they remind the children to watch out when around the street. However, kids are kids
and in the heat of the moment of playing they may forget and run out into the street.
Adding additional congestion to our neighborhood would notbe in the best interest of
safety and adds liability to the proposal.
I do not write this without experience. This is not to point fingers at anyone but I have
personal experience with St. Joseph's Catholic Church traffic. Saturday evenings and
Sunday Mornings we have tremendous traffic with speeds that easily reach 40 MPH in
less than onecity block. I have personally run to the street to tell drivers to SLOW
DOWN.
I appreciate the opportunity to contact you and would value you looking for other options
to move forward with this proposal. It is about safety, planning and home values which
n 9 carefirIly measured.
n
2057 N. Hartford Dr.
Barrington Park St»d010of.:
479.443.4880
August 9, 2004.
Fayetteville Planning Department
113 Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Attn: Ms: Jan Gambill
•
Mr. and Mrs. Marshall Moody
3932 E. Chadwick Drive.
Fayetteville, AR 72703
479327.0590
Dear Members of the Fayetteville Planning Commission:
It has been brought to my attention that there is a subdivision planned south of Barrington Paike Subdivision .which
will be accessed via Buckley Street that runs through Ban-ington. We currently live at the comer of Buckley Street and •
•Chadwick at the northeast comer of Barrington.
.1 am not opposed to the subdivision (assuming that it is single -family -residential homes in a similar price range to the
homes in Barrington Parke), but completely disagree with any access through our already established, family and child-
. friendly subdivision. •
My wife, three children (ages '12, 8 and 6), and I just proved to Barrington two months ago from Kantz Lane in
• Fayetteville. The primary reason for moving ,to Barrington was because of the peacefulness and family -friendly
. neighborhood. We wanted our children to be able to walk, skate and ride.their bikes around the neighborhood. Our
family and children do that on a regular basis as do many other families in Barrington. Increased traffic will certainly
increase the chance of an accident and greatly reduce our peace of mind.• •
When we described Barrington to family and friends prior to moving here, the firstthing we told them .was that there
were only two entrances arid exits (the main entrance and the west entrance from Madison Drive to Start Road). Few
people drive through Barrington unless they live here or are visiting. The neighborhood pool is in the middle of the
subdivision and families are asked to walk there to avoid children darting from behind parked cars near the pool. The
sidewalks act excellent, but street crossing and bike riding will become more hazardous with increased traffic. .
One of the strongest selling points of Barrington is the Zack of traffic. It is a KEY factor inresale demand and
increasing property values. More traffic will negatively affect the demand for the homes in this subdivision. Will our
property assessments and the amount of property taxes we pay be reduced because of the negative impact of increased
traffic? ..
All we are asking is for you to please consider another access to this property and let Barrington Parke remain the
. family friendly, low -traffic neighborhood where my neighbors and 1 chose to raise our family. Please do not take the
easier wrong, butFulda different route to the new subdivision. North Fox Hunter Road runs south just to the east of
Barrington Parke. There might also be a way to access it from Starr Road.
Before you makeanydecision, 1 ask each of you to ride through our neighborhood on a nice evening and witness for
yourself the many children and families walking, biking, and playing outside.
Please do what is right and find a different access route instead of negatively affecting the lives of 134 families that
have made Barrington their home.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
infr-ougniariar
Marshall Moody
Mayor Dan Coody
City Council Members
Zed Johnson
• 2181 Dowers Lane
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72704
August 11, 2004
City of Fayetteville
Planning Division
Administration Building
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
To Whom It May Concem:
. This letter is in reference a proposed subdivision" Piper's Glen Subdivision" being developed by Mr.
David Wilson as submitted by Jorgensen and associates. Basically it is an extension of Barrington
Estates. I was informed that a staff review will be held at 8 300 AM on Friday August 13, 2004.
• Unfortunately I will not be in town to personally voice my concems.
I am the owner of the property directly adjacent to the south of this proposed development My family
has owned this property for 50 years. This south facing slope and creek have been one my favorite
places on the property since 1 first played there as a child. Naturally I am very concerned that its beauty -
not be ruined for any reason! I believe this development will adversely affect this land so I ask that my
concerns be addressed before you approve this project.
My concems include the following:
1. Drainage- This development slopes steeply toward the creek on my property. Currently this is very
clean, pristine creek. I am able to wade and swim in it with my seven year old son as 1 did with my
parents over 40 years ago. Septic fields will be very difficult to contain and the introduction of E coli
and other bacteria is likely to contaminate the creek. In addition runoff from lawn irrigation and
fertilizers to maintain those suburban lawns will harm the natural wooded ecosystem and the creek
ecology. Finally construction runoff can add silt to the creek.
I ask that septic systems not be allowed on the southem lots or if there is no option for public sewer that
a very stringent standard be set, and the design contains all runoff both during construction and for the
fife of the project.
2. Trash- Barrington Estates borders my land to the west of the proposed subdivision.
Unfortunately some of the residents do not respect my property which is undeveloped and throw their
trash over their backyard fences. I have a regular' maintenance headache cleaning up after them.
Some of this trash washes down the creek extending the problem. Along with beer and soft drink cans
left behind by trespassers that think 1 apparently am providing a private park for them I am becoming
increasingly frustrated.
I ask that the southem Tots be required to have a uniform attractive and tall fence erected to discourage
trespassing and trash tossing.
3. Proximity to the western end of the creek- The two Southwestern lots are very close to the creek
These are of the greatest concem for issues of trash and drainage.
1 ask that a significant setback on their southem border be set to reduce this impact.
4. Access- Given the relentless tide of "progress" that this development is a part I do not want my
property cut off from access to the north. Though we have not accessed this land vehicular in the
• Page 2 August 11, 2004
relatively recent years Mr. Wilson has owned his property we have with the previous owner in order to
maintain a jointly used fence and so forth. I will continue to need access. An access easement needs to
be part of the design.
I ask that the city's policy of encouraging connectivity be followed by requiring an access easement
Thank you for considering my concerns in my absence I do plan to attend the planning commission
hearing As a matter of housekeeping please address mail to 2181 Dowers Lane,. Fayetteville 72704..
The certified letter was late coming since it was address to my father's address He passed away in
February and mail to that address is forwarded to me. My home phone is 575-9614 and work phone is
442 -5565. -
Sincerely,
Zed Johnson
Owner -1406 North Starr Road
Copies- Mr. David Wilson.
Jorgensen and Associates
• 373
RESOLUTION NO. 32A-94
A RESOLUTION GRANTING THE APPEALS OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S PRELIMINARY PLAT
APPROVAL OF THE BARRINGTON PARKE SUBDIVISION,
AND GRANTING APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CERTAIN
MODIFICATIONS.
WHEREAS, the Fayetteville Planning Commission approved the preliminary plat of the
Barrington Parke Subdivision on or about February 14, 1994 with certain requirements and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission's preliminary plat approval was appealed to the
Fayetteville City Council by Aldermen Kit Williams and Stephen Miller and;
WHEREAS, the City Council by majority vote agreed to hear said appeal and heard all
persons desiring to be heard on the question of whether the decision of the Planning Commission
was in error.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1. That the appeal of the Planning Commission's preliminary plat approval
of the Barrington Parke Subdivision is hereby granted and the decision of the Planning
Commission is hereby affirmed in part and modified in part as follows:
1. Said subdivision shall continue to include a neighborhood park
equipped and maintained by a property owners association located
in the approximate center of the subdivision and of the approximate
size of 2/3 of the an acre, as more accurately set forth on the plat
diagram presented to the City Council and now in the possession
of the City Planning Division.
2: The developer shall purchase from Harley Brigham a contiguous
parcel of land of approximately 0.6 acres and deed such land to the
City as park land, as more accurately set forth on the plat diagram
presented to the City Council and now in the possession of the City
Planning Division.
.43: The developer shall not be required to provide vehicular access to
Fox Hunter Road to the east of the subdivision. Further, in order
to protect the trees thereon, the developer shall not be required to
construct sidewalks nor widen or upgrade said sections of Fox
Hunter Road along the east boundary of Lots 4-14. In addition,
Resolution No. 32A-94
March 1, 1994
the developer, voluntarily has agreed to include a protective
covenant in the deeds to those lots adjoining Fox Hunter Road to.
the east protecting the trees along that section of Fox Hunter Road
and preventing development of any roadway or driveway from said
lots adjoining to that.section of Fox Hunter Road.
4's . The developer shall provide a concrete sidewalk along the north
boundary of Lot 14 for pedestrian and bicycle traffic from the
subdivision to the approximate 0.6 acre park land deeded to the
City as more accurately set forth on the plat diagram presented to
the City Council and now in the possession of the City Planning
Division.
5. The developer shall provide an entrance and exit right-of-way from
the David Wilson property, near the South East corner and West
to the Stanberry property near the South West Comer as more
accurately set forth on the plat diagram presented to the City
Council and now in the possession of the City Planning Division.
6. The Planning Commission's decision to grant preliminary plat
approval is hereby affirmed subject to the above modifications and
all Planning Commission restrictions and/or requirements are also
affirmed so long as such are not in conflict with the modifications
set forth above.
Section 2. The aforementioned decision relied upon the representations of the
developer and the developer's plat diagram referenced above presented at the March 1, 1994
meeting of the City Council. Said plat diagram is to be retained by the City Planning Division
and is incorporated herein.
Section 3. The aforementioned decision also relied upon assurances by Harley
Brigham as follows:
1. Mr. Brigham agreed to sell the aforementioned approximate 0.6
acre (for park land) to the developer for the amount of
$30,000.00.
2. Mr. Brigham agreed to grant to the City by deed approximately
1,000 feet of nature trail currently on his property commonly
known as Red Wolf Park.
Resolution No 32A-94
March 1, 1994
PASSED AND APPROVED this 1st day of March , 1994.
APPROVED:
By:
red Hanna, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
Sherry . Thomas, City Clerk
46 • I.
March 1, 1994
CITY TREASURER/CITY CLERK
Ma or Hanna introduced an ordinance that would combine the offices
of'city Treasurer and City Clerk into the office of City
Cler. Treasurer.
City Ab�orney Rose read the ordinance for the first time.
Williams, seconded by Daniel, made a motion to suspend the rules
and place e ordinance on its second reading. Upon roll call, the
motion pass\d by a vote of 8 to 0. The City Attorney read the
ordinance fo the second time. Miller, seconded by Williams, made
a motion to su end the rules and place the ordinance on its third
and final readin . Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of
8 to 0, and the ty Attorney read the ordinance for the third
time. N.
Alderman Williams aske\Treasurer Bunton his opinion.
Bunton stated it was hI� intention to be involved with the
transition in the change of overnment. He feels the two positions
should be combined. He st ted he has enjoyed serving in this
position, but he believes co ping the two would be the best for
Fayetteville.
Alderman Daniel asked how much mor work this would be for the City
Clerk's office, and perhaps the sal ry for that position should be
considered in light of this merger.
Mayor Hanna stated there
would be no qre
work,
and if the City
Clerk's office needs more help, they w' l
hire
additional help
rather than increase the
pay. for the City
lerk.
Upon roll call, the ordinance passed by a vo'ts of 8 to 0.
ORDINANCE 3766 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE'SOOK
BARRINGTON PARKE APPEAL
Ii Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an appeal filed by Alderman
Kit Williams regarding the Barrington Parke Preliminary Plat.
Williams, seconded by Miller, made a motion for the Council to hear
the Barrington Parke appeal. Upon roll call, the motion passed by
a vote of 8 to 0.
Mayor Harina stated in the appeal letters filed by Aldermen Williams
and Miller, the issues to be addressed have been listed.
Alderman Williams stated he filed his appeal because he was
concerned with there being over 130 homes in this development and
the only greenspace is 2/3 an acre for a park or playground. He
felt with this large a subdivision, there needs to. .be more
• j• 47
March 1, 1994
greenspace. He stated Fayetteville is rapidly developing, and the
City needs to do something about this. He stated there is a park
being developed by Harley and Ruby Brigham with a 1,000 to 1,200
feet ' walking trail. They have agreed to deed this trail over to
the City. It averages about 20 feet in width and includes a pond
and gatehouse. There needs to be facilities for parking, so they
have agreed to sell .6 acre to the developer to be made into a
parking lot. The developer would then deed this to the City.
Alderman Williams stated he agrees with the compromise that has
been worked out so that the greenspace adjoining the property could
be acquired from the Brighams and keep the 2/3 acre nark in the
subdivision. He stated there is still a problem with preserving
along Fox Hunter Road. If the road is widened to City
standards, the trees will have to be taken down. He recommended a
compromise to not bring the road into compliance with City
standards and keep the trees.
Alderman Miller stated he would discuss this portion of the appeal.
He stated the developer has agreed not to have an access to Fox
Hunter Road at the top of the hill. He has agreed to make this a
bike trail and pedestrian entrance only. He recommended keeping
Fox Hunter Road at. substandard levels and move traffic up the hill
to exit closer to Highway 45.
Mayor Hanna stated the developer has agreed to buy the land from
the Brighams that connects to Red Wolf Park. The Brighams will
deed this to the City, and it will remain a par{{, in perpetuity.
This will give the subdivision well over 2 acres of land now plus
the use of Mr. Brigham's park. Mr. Brigham is also developing a
nature center for people to use. Mayor Hanna stated it had been
proposed to move the entrance to the subdivision over 1 lot which
would be in front of Harold Moore's house. It is now being
proposed to move the entrance back to the original site, not
directly across from Mr. Moore.
Mel Milholland stated the developer has agreed to this compromise
and is willing to buy the .57 acre from the Brighams.
Harley Brigham address the Council in favor of the subdivision and
in favor of the proposed compromise. He stated he began working on
his park in 1985. Mr. Caston will be giving him financial
assistance that will allow him to continue work on the park. He
stated the subdivision will have lots that are about 1/2 acre, and
•the houses will have no less thin 2,000 square feet. He stated
this will be no shanty town, and he is in favor of the development
and is in support of saving the trees.
Cyrus Young asked if the park inside the subdivision would be a
public park.
;•
Alderman Williams
association.
March 1, 1994
stated it will be owned, by the homeowners
Fran Alexander showed the Council pictures she had taken of the
trees lining Fox Hunter Road. She stated she was glad these trees
were going to be saved. She asked if there would be any. access
right-of-way easement at that curve for future use.
Mayor Hanna stated there would not, it was only to be a bike and
hiking trail.
Alexander asked about the equipment to be put into the park within
the subdivision.
Mayor Hanna stated the developer would be responsible for putting
in the equipment, and the homeowners association would continue to
maintain the park.
Alexander asked if the developer would give something to the people
who purchased the lots saying the trees in the right-of-way could
not be cut or damaged.
Ben Caston, the developer, stated that would be handled in the
covenants of the subdivision.
Harold Moore, a resident on the north side of Fox Hunter Road,
stated this development impacts him because of the access situation
to the subdivision. He would like to get the access moved at least
one lot to the west or two lots, if possible;
Milholland stated it would be unsafe to move the entry because of
the hill. By moving the entry, visibility would be by 1/2 of the
current distance. He stated County Road 75 will be widened
according to City ordinances and will have curb and gutters.
Alett Little, Planning Director, asked what was the height
difference between the lots, and how much would have to be cut to
adjust the crest.
Milholland stated it would take cutting down the road several feet.
This would jeopardize the tree roots on the opposite side of the
road.
Rosanne Gonzales asked. if there.would be a• trail from the park in
the center of the subdivision to the edge of the subdivision to the
.6 acre nature park and trail.
Mayor Hanna stated the developer has planned a trail connecting the
two.
Keith
Schultz,
a resident living
past
Harley Brigham on Fox Hunter
Road,
stated he
was disappointed
that
there was 134 homes -approved
•
49
March 1, 19.94
for this. development. He stated the initial plan that went before
the Planning Commission was for 50 or so houses. He stated this
compromise was incredible in that the developer was not being asked
to pay to fix Fox Hunter Road. There will only be one access
across from the Moore property.
Jim Benton, a resident living east of the property, stated he is
glad Fox Hunter Road will not be improved. He stated the entrance
to the subdivision will create a tough situation for Mr. Moore.
However, he does appreciate the compromise.
Laura Logie stated she feels bad for the Moores, but if the access
is moved closer to her house, the road will have to be lowered.
Chris Romine stated she was glad the trees were to be saved. She
asked who the neighbors should call to get the protective covenants
enforced.
Alderman Williams stated the covenants are• to be enforced by the
property owners.
Frank Ranger stated he appreciates the Council saving the road. He
thinks there will still be a problem with the access across from
the Moore property.
Ben Caston stated he has tried to work out the best possible
solution for the development and the surrounding neighbors. They
will improve the entrance onto Highway 45, and it will not be a
straight shot,, which will slow down traffic. They have looked at
every single statement made by the property owners.. He has tried
to follow the ordinances and has exceeded them. He just wants to
be treated as other developers in the area.
Carol Stanberry stated there was about 10 acres that could be
considered a wetland by the Corps of. Engineers located on the
northwest corner of the property.
Larry Long stated Barrington Parke could be a landmark decision for
the City. This is an example of continued abuse of inadequate
ordinances. He feels no one examines the issues until citizens
bring something to the City Council's attention. He suggested
stopping development until the ordinances have been updated, which
should only take one month.
Mayor Hanna stated the City is addressing some of these problems.
He stated Fayetteville does a. pretty good job overall in its
subdivision and development process.
David Wilson stated he owns 10 acres adjoining this property. He
has no plans for developing his property. He has worked with Ben
Caston and has followed the process of this subdivision. He feels
50 •
w
March 1, 1994
it has worked pretty well. He is glad to see the trees will be
saved.
Judy Albritton stated she wants to own.a home in Barrington. Park.
She feels Ben Caston has gone to great lengths to make this a great
subdivision.
Alderman Williams stated he shares a lot of Mr. Long's impatience
about updating the ordinances. He feels the City Council is being
responsible, and that this is a good compromise that has been
worked out.
Alderman Bassett commended all of the people who have worked with
this subdivision and is. glad a compromise has been worked out. He
stated he will vote for this. He agrees the ordinances need to be
re -written as soon as possible. He stated a huge number of cars
will be dumped on Highway 45 everyday. The City has been working
under a pay-as-you-go philosophy. But, with the explosion of
growth, this City will need to seriously consider a bond issue to
catch up the infrastructure needs.
Alderman Miller stated there are workshops every Friday at noon at
City Hall to work on re -writing the ordinances. He stated he is
glad the trees on Fox Hunter Road are to be saved. However, he
still is concerned about only one access into the subdivision.
Alderman Vorsanger stated he wanted to thank Harley Brigham for his
gesture in donating some of his beautiful place to the City.
Williams, seconded by Edens, made a motion to. approve the
compromise. plat as submitted by Mel Milholland for Barrington Parke
subdivision. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 8 to
0.
RESOLUTION 32A-94 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
NOTING.COMMITTEE REPORT
Nominations be made to fill vacancies on the Parks &
Recreation AlAdviso Board and to confirm the decision of the
Fayetteville Housing Aitthrity for an appointment to the Housing
Authority Board of Comm15sThn4ps.
For the Parks and Recreation Adtsqry Board, Alderman Edens,
seconded by Odom, made a motion. to re pint Bill Waite (Youth
Center Board member) and David Savage, to oint,Johnny James
(Youth Center Board member) and Jerry Bell.
Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 8 to 0.
C
I
PPL044148 pORJ RS GLEN S Do UV030ON
Close UUp View
T'--- ` 1Y,.,t, -i,b ti t 1. � i t " q 4� i •al ' rt.'•. !+
Q?4 f"_ y xA serf4w-rW .,- . r l'do-n}�-_
_. �.�_ � ¢5'� r� � s rya- J • rs F'a +� a ✓ .d 4` '+.
t �__I � � 7 .Y Fa r G'.� .s�"r_"4'SA+ e n Na.1i x ♦.a ie �.: SI'rct S i �
— �__-J11�-.b♦�+B fYy� cif „1 y�.l �.yyu.a1. wf.vt y_ i��
�J''1�� ✓ 1 n i1F � t Mme' ^ ♦_ n `l I � Nn r YV-T ^ v 1 S? -���'Y F J ,�0 ♦i4,4c ., fa ,ate 14a�♦ ' r , L rir 4`.xM1Y"^373f�'♦ �.
r•-1 ',.A , ,a'
-I �----- 6l I 1-� _� f rZ' 1a,$` ,-.'i.•� � t r'Y_�a��v+",+3.�� 1'..
!-&-1
-.e 1 �A Y 1 3 o Y — Na�5 i
I 1 -{ ! t °rc +°ice . r• 'yco ..a
I RS -4r q3' RS d :�, 1l'n " „*,en's }, s `1 ,y _
I [L a c�1 A (-2 f S=l .-'t 3i- �{ � _.i
�A,S.V; ¢f'�i^ 4�'.
3r _LL�9 /`i�� 5L-JI • c� w u yRB l a i
I ♦._ 'uy? `C. µ,�..b 1' �♦�.. C .ay. ���1 e.. � L ¢•}[y:. a _�/(��
��.�_i Pf�afr a�FA'a'1•�.v7 }�tN��l1 `J /\fICYI U���Y... Nf[+Sa v♦ 'i!..'�J b11-.'.
Overview
fl
11 L: I
.. ............
t � i � i 1 aSf „ c v •i'�KV �"" . A r�vy , � Fd
v o + u} a rr P x - 4 jTv
'.- + •t. Ira y� 1 aY
�RY'°�'�a'Li�'�M([4�'`�r ���S�+'�
1 t
y C.'. . �C?f}� # Riv I � .C� u„ { � S�ST+F'�'g5.xh +�-a?♦�-�e�il ''f,+�v"h y '�l`ra�1l
000$o..bew—noapwnr
mo _ r.eM Master Street Plan ® Minor Mortal
Master Street Plan — - Collector
- - Freeway/Expressway o o e Historic Collector
® PPL04-1148 e — Principal Merial
I' Fayetteville
1'»r'I-q
0 150 300 600 900 1.200
Feet
4tt11�►1 m1:1I]1Y1F.iIt
08/23/2003 10:56 FAX 47958248
•
JORGENSEN & ASSOC
7AY PLAN/ENGR
Q 002
City of Fayetteville
113 W. Mountain Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Attn: Jeremy Pate.
Re: Piper's Glen Subdivision
Jeremy,
August 23, 2004.
This fax includes a letter that the developer of Piper's Glen (David Wilson), wrote to the
president of the P.O.A of Barrington Subdivision, Arnie Glass. I'm submitting this as
evidence that Mr. Wilson has worked hard to be courteous and considerate to get this
preliminary layout approved. 1 hope that the City as well as any other concerned entities
will find favor in Mr. Wilson's proposal.
Thank you.
Sincerely;
}
Bla JorjIn. E.I.
08/23/2003 10:56 FAX 479582480' JORGENSEN & ASSOC + FAY PLAN/ENGR IA003
• • Page lot 2
Blake Jorgensen
From: David Wilson (djMlson@hurontel.on.caj
Sent: ' Friday, August 20, 2004 3:58 PM
To: Arnie Glass
Cc: Blake Jorgensen; Casey Lawson
Subject: Piper's Glen
Arnie,
Thank you for the conversation the other evening and the a -nail. I had actually been writing something out to
you, but was detained from finishing it. I am finishing it now and will also respond to your e-mail.
My wife and I have owned the property that is under consideration for development for close to thirty years. I built
our house In 1978 and we have been the only owners. We decided to develop the property ourselves, even
though we have had offers to salt/ develop it for us. Although we have never done this type of thing before, we
decided to develop it ourselves so we could determine the end product and be sure the outcome was protective of
the land on which we have raised our family and have loved for many years.. We chose to put in large lots,
limiting the number of sites available which ensures keeping a large amount of green space. If we had wanted to,
we could have put in as many as twenty. We felt this would be unfair to both ourselves, who plan to
continue living there, and to others who might be Impacted by the development. We have watchedand accepted the
row
(including the development of Barrington right along our back fence), lived with the new growth others, the
increased noise, traffic and congestion. Knowing how we felt, we didn't want to unnecessarily impact
but
now that our boys are grown, we felt it was finally time to do something with our property and we wanted to do it In
the most pleasing way possible.
When Barrington was first proposed, there were a number of people in the area who raised their voices against it.
One of the agreements made during that process was that there would be an access road to our property
explicitly for future development —NOT for our personal access. In fad, the site chosen sfor ttis access
would be an ease
done to connect, as efficiently as possible, the Barrington subdivision end our property o
of conductivity when we derided to develop. I worked very hard with the city and the developer of Barrington to
make this happen. I have also worked hard to make the proposed street a cul-de-sac so that there won't be any
additional drive through traffic from the east. This road is no different than the road off nHHartford ects to BDrive mngthaat Well
also connect to a subdivision development Barrington in the future. Madison already
have wanted to keep the road from Foxhunter out of this development because Iwo Id s'll be required by the ctht
to hook up to Caston_Dr. and this would create another through street into Barrington. As it stands now, the low
number of lots (8) and cul-de-sac arrangement lend very little impact to the traffic picture. In addition, Jorgensen
and Associates have informed me that your request to have construction traffic use the access from Foxhunter
Rd. will be compiled with.
I have talked to the engineers, Jorgensen and Associates, and they have assured me that they have followed all
city rules and standards as far as notification.II have checked my a; andhaven't ave ot tied foundo ando aryreason not to that is unethical oieve m. I
can assure you as the owner of the property
r
underhanded.
As you know I am not in Fayetteville, and won't be back until after Labor day. I have called my attorney, Casey
Lawson, to check on the POA Issue. The consensus is that it is not really an issue for our developmmennt My
suggestion is that the attorney you have working on this give Casey a call and present a proposel a
would
make the issue for Barrington residents more agreeable. We would be willing to consider what Is presented,
but this is not something that should delay the development process.
As you might appreciate, we have put a lot of thought, time, and effort into this project along with deep emotion
because this land and house have been our home for nearly 30 years. We also have a large investment at
stake. The current favorable interest rates will not last indefinitely. We feel prolonging this process may
be harmful to our financial future; therefore, we must continue on with the process that has been started. This is
8/23/2004
08/23/2003 10:57 FAX 47958248( )
JORGENSEN & ASSOC 7AY PLAN/ENGR Q004
• Cagtl G Vi �
not to say we don't want to look for solutions as we proceed.
In closing, we must admit we are rather surprised atthe negative reaction from Barrington because we have tried
to present a development plan that is very pleasing and have been told that it will actually increase property
values in your subdivision due to the larger lots and greater minimum sq. ft. requirements. it is our hope that
Pipers Glen will be a lovely place to We and compliment the surrounding area.
Sincerely.
David Wilson
Attorney: Casey Lawson 521-7600
8/23/2004
AUG.23.2004 5:26PM TYSONREFRIG MEATS NO.935 P. 1
8/23/04
Fayetteville City Planning Commission,
Please be advised that my wife and I are against the development of Piper's
Glen going through Barrington Parke. We do not need more traffic on these
busy streets. They should have their own separate access.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jon Kathol
1904 N. Hartford Dr.
Fayetteville, AR
479-521-0891
From: Wayne Buescher <wbuesche_ryang@yahoo.com>
To: <mayor@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 8/24/04 3:49PM
Subject: pipers glen subdivision
Hello Dan Coody,
I am Wayne Buescher a resident of Barrington Parke.
You may be aware that the planning commission on
Monday August 23 approved a subdivision named pipers
glen. This new subdivision would be added at the end
of caston drive in Barrington Parke. This new
subdivision is outside of the city limits but is right
on the boarder. Caston drive now extends as a stub to
the city boarder as I understand. At the planning
commission meeting there was over 40 Barrington Parke
residents hoping to be heard in what the Fayetteville
planning commission decides about approving this
subdivision. The residents present from Barrington
Parke were unanimous in the desire of the Planning
Commission to deny approval. I feel that if the city
does not have a legal obligation to allow a connection
to the city road Caston drive then the voice of the
citizens should have been heard. The commission kept
saying that due to the fact that this subdivision
would be out of the city limits there is very little
that they can say in the approval process so our voice
meant nothing due to this fact. I feel that the
commission could have denied this subdivision approval
and started the process to keep Caston drive as it
presently is, which is a dead end road. The residents
in Barrington Parke voiced they wish that Caston
remain as dead end therefore not connecting to new
subdivision outside of the city limits. A concern
with this approval is the fact that the city will have
little if any say as to what is built and what
activities occur in this new subdivision. An easy
solution to this would have been to deny the developer
from connecting to "OUR" city road and "OUR" city
subdivision. I am not against this development as a
whole, it would be fine if they wish to connect to Fox
Hunter rd and not Caston dr, due to the fact that the
development is not in the Fayetteville City limits.
If you could would you look into this matter and what
needs to be done to appeal the planning commissions
decision and what we could do to get Caston Drive to
be permanent dead end road as it is currently located.
Thank You,
Wayne Buescher
Do you Yahoo!?
Subdivision Committee • •
August 13, 2004
Page 8
PPL 04-1148: Preliminary Plat (PIPERS GLEN SUBDIVISION): Submitted by
DAVE JORGENSEN for property located at THE EASTERN BOUNDARY OF THE
BARRINGTON PARK SUBDIVISION. The property is in the Planning Area and
contains approximately 10.49 acres. The request is to approve the preliminary plat for a
residential subdivision with 9 single family lots proposed.
Anthes: The next item of business is PPL 04-1148, Pipers Glen subdivision. Will
the applicant come forward?
Pate: The subject item, Pipers Glen subdivision, is a nine lot subdivision located
to the east of Barrington Park subdivision south of Fox Hunter Road. It is
located within the Planning Area outside the city limits. It is adjacent to
the city limits on the west along the Barrington Park subdivision. To the
east is Fox Hunter Estates subdivision. To the north and south are
properties that are residential and agricultural in nature. This property
contains 10.49 acres and is proposed to be subdivided into nine single
family lots, each lot being approximately one acre in size. Access to the
subject parcel is proposed from a stub out constructed with the Barrington
Park subdivision to the west. I have included a portion of the minutes
from the City Council meeting on the Barrington Park subdivision. There
was an appeal of the Preliminary Plat when the Barrington Park
subdivision went through in 1994. One of the conditions on the resolution
the City Council placed on this property to Mr. David Wilson's property,
the current developer, was the inclusion of this stub out for future
connections to this property. Access to eight lots are proposed from the
extension of Caston Drive. That extension will occur, as shown on the
plat, from the existing stub outs. Lot 9 to the north is proposed to retain an
access to Fox Hunter Road. It has approximately 27.29 feet of access
along Fox Hunter Road there. The City of Fayetteville property shown is
part of a park system in that area. I believe it is formerly known as Red
Woof park. The proposed access from Lot 9 is from Fox Hunter Road
with the remaining eight being from Caston Drive. The applicant does
request a waiver for that particular lot because it does not have 75' of
frontage and is located within the Planning Area which requires 75'. It
only has 27.29'. That particular lot is larger than the others, being 2.07
acres and it does obviously, have existing structures and water and sewer
lines across the lot. The developer will be required to extend the water to
serve Lots I and 7. Septic system approvals have been granted for Lots I
through 7 by the Washington County Health Department. Street
improvements include a 28' wide street with curb, gutter and sidewalks
along Caston Drive. The applicant is also proposing sidewalks along that
area, which will be required because it is adjacent to the city limits. There
is no additional connectivity proposed with this subdivision, as you can
note to the north to Mr. Johnson's property. The applicants indicated that
portions of that property does have at least a 22% slope in some areas. To
the north is approximately 1 or 2 single family homes there and to the east
Subdivision Committee • •
August 13, 2004
Page 9
is a developed subdivision, Fox Hunter Estates. We have received
significant public comment. I believe that some of those citizens are here
today regarding this subdivision. At least two letters are attached in the
staff report from residents of the Barrington Park subdivision. Most of the
comments received to date are from residents of Barrington Park
concerned primarily with construction traffic through their neighborhood
as well as access through Barrington Park for the eight lots. The property
owner to the south has also submitted a letter detailing his concerns. Those
are listed as drainage, trash from Barrington Park residents and potential
trash from future Pipers Glen residents. Requests for a fence and greater
setback and access from his property to the north. I've included a little
background there with the City Council resolution for this connectivity.
Staff is recommending forwarding this Preliminary Plat to the full
Planning Commission with 10 conditions. 1) Planning Commission
determination of a waiver request for the creation of a lot in the Planning
area without 75' of frontage. Staff is in favor of this request. Item
number 4) The existing private water service line to the existing structure
on Lot 8 shall be abandoned and a new water service connection be
provided from the public main extension along Caston Drive. 5) Should
the applicant wish to continue public sewer service to the existing
structure on Lot 8 the private sanitary service line shall be abandoned and
a public main extended to the proposed property line. Private service lines
shall not cross private property lines. The remaining conditions are
standard conditions of approval.
Anthes: Thank you Jeremy. Were there other staff reports? Would the applicant
introduce yourselves and your project please?
Jorgensen: I'm Justin Jorgensen and we are representing Pipers Glen for David
Wilson. I have addressed the previous comments and questions that were
raised in plat review. The questions that Mr. Johnson has concerning this
project I will be willing to address. I did go out to the property and look at
it when it was raining. Any of these questions I believe everyone has this
particular letter but I'm not sure if I need to address every single one
specifically.
Anthes: We will go through those item by item after we get comments so if you
will just tell us in general about the plan and then we will take comments
and go over each item.
Jorgensen: Lot 9, the northern most lot will have access from Fox Hunter Road. We
have chosen not to have complete access to the whole subdivision from
there because it is kind of a blind corner. We can have construction access
through this road and that would reduce the construction traffic through
Caston Drive. We will be tying into the rest of the eight lots, which most
of them are close to an acre or more.
Subdivision Committee • •
August 13, 2004
Page 10
Jorgensen, D.: We can eliminate construction traffic completely through Barrington, just
block it off and it will be a tough situation turning onto Fox Hunter, as you
all probably realize it is a blind corner. If they put flaggers out there all
construction traffic can go through this private drive and we can just block
off all construction traffic completely through Barrington. That will take
care of that part.
Anthes: Would you like to address these items individually as we go forward?
Jorgensen, J: Sure.
Anthes: That being the case, I will open it to the public for comment. Is there
anyone here who would like to speak on PPL 04-1161? Please come up
and sign in on the sign in sheet.
Glass: My name is Amie Glass. I live in the Barrington Park subdivision. I have
been asked by the residents to come and speak here. Our concerns are
more than just construction traffic. Our subdivision is designed in kind of
a dual circle situation where we have had the opportunity to enjoy mostly
subdivision traffic. Our children are out constantly playing safely. Of
course, children as they do, will not always think safety. I'm concerned
that the additional traffic that is going through is going to add to the
danger, not to mention our streets have had several repairs this year
because they are falling apart in essence. Sewer leaking out onto public
streets. The severe drainage problems on Buckley that has run out onto
the street and sometimes it is sewer waste. Our concern is that any
additional traffic on that street is just going to make it that much worse. I
have with me 91 signed petitions from residents of the subdivision. We
are asking that this be denied and that these petitions be attached to this
project extension. We are also concerned that our subdivision is an active
subdivision, we pay yearly dues for the upkeep of our joint property. We
have spent over $8,200 this year in maintaining the entrance to Barrington
Park including having to redesign what was a fountain because it kept
getting vandalized. We had to put a lot of our personal funds into that.
Our concern is that this new subdivision will not only reap the benefits of
what costs us money every year but that will be adding more traffic and
people who could possibly do more destruction to our property. That is
another legitimate concern of ours. We are also concerned for the safety
vehicles being able to come in and out of that subdivision with the very
small opening that they are proposing even off of Caston. As it is, the
corner there is sloped and not really designed very well for access for
larger vehicles. In addition, we are also concerned about the corners of
Barrington Drive and Fox Hunter Road as well as Starr Road and Madison
Avenue. The traffic on those two entrances and exits, during certain times
of the day it is almost impossible to get in and out. I have, more than
Subdivision Committee • •
August 13, 2004
Page 11
once, sat in my car for 15 minutes trying to turn onto Hwy. 45 to get my
kids to school. Until those problems are addressed I don't see that
anymore traffic needs to be added. Even to the point of I think that they
probably need to consider a stop light out that far. I said we had drainage
problems over there. We are very concerned that this subdivision will add
to the drainage problems. I am not just talking about the sewage. I'm
talking about runoff and I'm talking about trash that gets flushed down
into the street sewer. Just as of yesterday, I spoke to a plumber who has
come to our subdivision and they have been doing the rotorooter thing in
dozens of houses and this plumber is now convinced that it is because of
the way the drainage was put in that subdivision and has backed out into
the city access and is now no longer being addressed at the houses, it is
back into the city. Trucks coming down the street is going to add to the
problem. In addition, I understand that Fox Hunter Road has a blind curve
and that it would be a more difficult situation to put the entrance and exit
there. However, I believe that perhaps Washington County needs to
address that problem before this subdivision puts an entrance there. If
they would fix the problem off Fox Hunter Road then certainly they could
come back and put in a road there that would address that subdivision's
needs. I would ask at this time that anyone from our subdivision who is
here let themselves be known. People have taken off of work to be here.
They are that concerned with our neighborhood. Thank you.
Anthes: Would any other member of the public like to address this Preliminary
Plat?
McClinton: My name is Cathy McClinton. Barrington Park is all young couples with
very small children. My mother and I live there and I think that we are the
only ones who aren't a young couple with very small children. The
children are out playing in the streets and in the yards all the time.
Collins: I'm Bill Collins, 1736 Hartford. First of all, we are one of the original
builders in the subdivision and we feel, and I think a lot of people here
feel, that Barrington Park is probably one of the best subdivisions in
Fayetteville. It wasn't always like that. When we first built we had some
issues, and incidentally, there has been a very good working relationship
with the City of Fayetteville departments. Initially I know we had issues
with the city waste water treatment plant. Every morning we smelled
something not pleasant and we worked with the city on that. The city
helped us with the developer, Mr. Caston, to enforce some of the things
that were originally in the covenants including the sidewalks. The
subdivision had to come together and pull together a homeowner's
association, which we did, so we could enforce our own covenants on
Phase II. We had to fight the developer about the size of the pool. There
is a very interesting history. Again, there is a great history with the City
of Fayetteville working with us on a lot of these things. There is an
Subdivision Committee • •
August 13, 2004
Page 12
attachment, I think to some of the people, certainly myself, about this
subdivision and where we have come from and where we are at. The
couple of questions that I have for the city, I remember when we bought
the lot the concept was the accesses were for Barrington to use for our
subdivision to get out. That was originally how it was put to me. I don't
know the legal issues for the access roads and obviously, that's part of
what we are talking about today. The other question I would have, and
again, this has nothing to do with the legalities, but on a precedent
standpoint with Boardwalk or Park Place or Savanna or any of these other
subdivisions, would you want somebody to come in and put a subdivision
on and attach that into their subdivisions. I would be curious to know if
there is precedent or that has happened in the City of Fayetteville. Again,
I am a neighbor and I respect Mr. Wilson's desire to do something with
his property. He has the right to do it and I just hope that he has done
everything that he possibly could to see if there could be an entrance off of
Fox Hunter Road as opposed to using our access for that. That would give
him his own identity as a subdivision. Thanks.
Kessler: Good morning, I'm a resident of Barrington Park as well. I just want to
know maybe about some of the covenants. There is a subdivision down
the way off of Hwy. 45, I think it may be Washington County, right
outside of Ridgemont View Estates that put a bunch of multi -family
homes. I can't imagine that that is very good for the property value and I
just wanted to see if they were going to be one acre lots with single family
homes or what the covenants were.
Morrison, Jr.: My name is Ed Morrison, I'm a resident of Barrington Park also.
Although my children are grown I have three small grandchildren that are
frequently there in and out. As has been pointed out, we have a lot of
children playing. We don't need anymore traffic. There has been a lot of
publicity in the papers lately of other residential sections that now have
too much traffic and what to do about it. It is certainly easier to do to start
with than it is to rectify afterwards. I encourage the committee to decide
not to allow the access through Barrington Park.
Silvestry: Hi, good morning. My name is Pete Silvestry. I am a Barrington Park
resident. We have lived in our home about two years. One of the things
that impressed us as we came to Fayetteville was Barrington Parks' wide
streets and the planning that has occurred. You can see as you move from
east and west in the development you have basic requirements for housing
square footage and requirements and as you go west people have
improved because of good planning. What has recently happened that I
want to address is some real life examples where I think Fayetteville has
been involved. That is the radar guns that are set up. I think they are
called Watch Dogs. They set those up twice on North Hartford Drive.
The reason is that people looking for a quicker way to Stan Road have
Subdivision Committee • •
August 13, 2004
Page 13
elected to come through there. I know for a fact that people in less than a
block hit 40 miles per hour. We have lost a cat. A cat shouldn't be out but
it happens. If the city has already recognized that they need to put
reminders for people traveling through there to not speed I think if we
open this up to eight more lots, let's just say everybody has two cars so 16
more cars on the street, what happens is that you kind of get sleepy in
Barrington. It is a nice country setting, streets are wide. If you are going
to go from our entrance to the Caston entrance people are just going to
naturally go faster and faster and faster. By the time they get down there
they are going to be at some pretty high speeds. I just want to encourage
you not to consider this option. I'm not saying we shouldn't have the
development, but certainly not through Barrington Park.
Barrett: Good morning, my name is Harry Barrett. I have been a resident of
Arkansas for 18 years and a resident of Barrington Park for 3 V2 years. I
was hoping that we were finally finished with construction and the whole
works. Evidently not. I recommend that you not approve this. I've been
in construction for over 50 years and that is absolutely silly. You have to
take down good size trees and I can see a drainage problem right away.
You don't have to look at it very long. I hope you just turn it down.
Nottenkamper:My name is Paul Nottenkamper, I live at 2109 N. Buckley Drive. Every
bit of traffic in this neighborhood goes past my house. I have to be
extremely careful when I back out of my driveway when they are building
through there with the concrete trucks and the delivery trucks. It is just a
bad situation. I'm not against development. I'm just against the eight lots
they are adding into our subdivision. The entrance to our entire
subdivision is already tore up. The street is going to have to be new
blacktopped at some point in time. I don't know if anybody from the city
has gone out and looked at it or not. I talked to Jeremy the other day about
it. I just don't think it is right. I'm not against David Wilson. I know him
and he is a good guy. I do construction too.
Anthes: Would any other member of the public like to address this item?
Garrison: I'm Michael Garrison. I live at 2064 N. Buckley Drive. My only real
concern is that this is practically right through Mr. Collins' backyard. I
would think that he should at least get a fence or something if this does go
through. It is really kind of evasive on him. Also, the house across the
street is close.
Buescher: My name is Wayne Buescher. I'm a Barrington Park resident. I was just
wondering if you open up our neighborhood to this subdivision could they
then stub out that subdivision further up opening us up to much more
traffic than these nine lots. The further out they grow their neighborhood
into the Washington County. Potentially we could have hundreds of cars
Subdivision Committee • •
August 13, 2004
Page 14
coming to our neighborhood in the future if they ever open that
neighborhood to the Fox Hunter or even more neighborhoods to the north
of that. It may not just be limited to this eight lots in the future. If they
develop this stub out those cars could go through the whole length of our
neighborhood, which is about a half mile that they are cutting through. If
they just go up Fox Hunter it would just be right there. It would be nice if
they could find a way of opening their subdivision through Fox Hunter
and not burdening our neighborhood families. Thank you.
Davidson: I'm James Davidson, also a Barrington Park resident. I want to point out
•there are currently over 115 residents in the Barrington Park division.
There are three streets running parallel already in a close environment.
Right now the only access to the subdivision is Fox Hunter and also on
Starr Road, both of which dump onto Hwy. 45. Again, I know it is a
county issue but it was pointed out earlier that sometimes there is a 15 to
20 minute wait. Part of the reason for that is the speed limit is 50 miles
per hour. All of these exits are dumping onto an area with a 50 mile per
hour speed limit. Obviously, that is a recipe for disaster. It was eluded to
that a traffic light might help alleviate that. Any additional traffic would
compound an existing safety issue. Also, as we pointed out, the
Barrington subdivision is a very close knit community. It also has a
community pool. People who pay dues to the property owner's
association use the pool in the center of the neighborhood. Drive thru
traffic again, is an inviting safety concern. Anytime you have a
community pool you have a lot of foot traffic. As much as we would like
to train our children, obviously, they are moving back and forth across the
road. Not only has the speed limit signs been an issue, we recently last
year had a car that exceeded about 50 miles per hour coming down
Barrington Road and actually tipped over after striking a parked car.
There is more than adequate distance and there is a downhill slope, a nice
straight half mile street here. Speed is an ongoing problem for the area. I
think you are inviting a lot of safety issues and compounding existing
problems here. When we bought our home, which we have only been there
about two years, there was about a half an inch worth of covenants
associated with the Barrington Park addition. How that will be addressed
with the new homes I do not know. I signed a document about a half inch
thick with the rules in which we would live by in the neighborhood.
Obviously, those are designed to preserve the property value. How those
will be associated with the new homes I have no clue. We have all
submitted to the conditions of living in the area and my question would be
with these new homes and new homeowners be subjected to the same
conditions.
Anthes: Would anyone else like to speak? Seeing none, I will close it for public
comment and bring it back to the Commissioners for discussion. I think
what we should do is we have a list of the many items and questions that
Subdivision Committee • •
August 13, 2004
Page 15
the neighborhoods have brought up. Let's start with the easier ones.
Could I ask the applicant what type of homes are proposed here? Are you
going to have subdivision covenants? What do you see the value of these
properties as?
Jorgensen, J: Mr. Wilson thinks about 3,000 sq.ft. of heated space, attached garage, no
carports. Rear or side entrance to garage. All single family. No kennels,
farm animals, breeding animals, etc. Minimal of 80% masonry on the
exterior of building. No cars parked on the street. No campers, RVs,
boats, etc., parked or stored on ground. No metal fences. Masonry
mailboxes. No outbuildings without approval of developer. All front
yards sodded or seeded and landscaped. Roofing material limitations. All
drives poured concrete, no asphalt. This is the general layout for Lots I
through 8 with the exception of Lot 9, since it is a bigger lot and kind of
has it's own flavor of being attached to Fox Hunter Road. This is just the
preliminary layout of what he thinks. It should be a pretty nice
development. Of course being in the growth area of Fayetteville he will
abide by those standards as well.
Anthes: A question of staff about subdivision covenants when they are required to
be filed and when one subdivision is next to another and they share access
if there is any overriding thing that we can look at there.
Warrick: The covenants are not under the control of the city or the county.
Covenants are civil agreements amongst the individuals who live within a
development. They are generally instigated, developed by the person who
is installing the subdivision or development. They are civil, private
agreements amongst the property owners. As the one gentleman stated, he
signed a half inch document which outlined all of the various covenants
for the Barrington Park subdivision. Those covenants transfer with the title
of the property and homeowners are provided copies of them. They are
enforced by the property owners or the property owner's association
within the developments that they are affecting.
Anthes: Let's go to the issue of drainage, trash and the sewer backups. Matt, can
you speak to any of those issues?
Casey: If there are existing problems with the sanitary sewer system, the streets or
the storm sewer system, then those issues need to be brought to the
attention to either the Transportation Division or our Water and Sewer
Maintenance Division for their evaluation and maintenance. The proposed
subdivision, there was concerns about drainage impact. It is outside the
city limits but because it is adjacent to the city limits, the engineering staff
will be required to review the subdivision for minimum street standards
and storm drainage and grading that is proposed for the subdivision.
Looking at the plat, the drainage from the subdivision will go to the south
Subdivision Committee • •
August 13, 2004
Page 16
away from the Barrington Park subdivision. I see no immediate concerns
for storm water runoff from this development impacting the existing
neighborhood to the west.
Anthes: Can you speak to that in terms of the property owner to the south?
Casey: To the south there is a drop, if you will, through here along the south of
this property and that is where all the water is going at this time. That is
where the drainage patterns will not be altered. It appears that they are
going to the same place. We will be looking at final drainage design at the
time of construction. On most subdivisions we see at this point with this
being outside the city limits we are not seeing this at this time but at the
time of construction.
Shackelford: Matt, for clarification, the storm water runoff ordinances, do they apply in
this situation since it is adjacent to the city limits?
Casey: Adjacent to the city limits we have authority to apply some of our
ordinances. Normally what we apply are grading and the street
construction.
Shackelford: Thank you.
Anthes: Perhaps the developer or the applicant could talk about how you are going
to handle grading the site.
Jorgensen, D.: As you probably are aware by reading the paper, Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality has made numerous visits to construction sites here
in the last two to three weeks. They are getting more stringent on storm
water runoff and the impact from erosion. We are being more careful, as
every other contractor and engineer and any other construction site, in the
installation of what we call erosion control measures (silt fences, hay
bails, etc.) For the most part this project really doesn't impact Barrington
because it runs off the south and to the east away from Barrington. There
is a pretty good buffer of trees. The proposed street that stubs out of
Barrington stubs out in a location on Mr. Wilson's property that is a high
point such that the trees that are to the south along with the leafs and the
silt fence and the other erosion control devices are going to at least
minimize any impact from the street construction and the installation of
the street and the water lines. Other than that, there is no other
construction until the houses start. To give you a little more background,
we had the choice of annexing and rezoning, bringing it into the city in
which case we would have like 20 or 25 lots. After much thought and
discussion with the owner, we ended up with this nine lot subdivision and
keeping it in the county with one acre lots. It was his wish to lessen the
impact by the installation of just nine lots instead of maxxing out the deal.
Subdivision Committee • •
August 13, 2004
Page 17
Also, you may know that David Wilson is one of the quality builders in
this area. If you want a house built that is well built he is the one to do it
and he is very much concerned with environmental issues. He has tried to
be a good neighbor. From what I understand, he has owned the property
for thirty years. It is not like he is coming in here and trying to make
money and move out. -
Glass: May I make a comment?
Anthes: I'm sorry, we've closed it to public comment. The next item that I se here
is that we have talked about the sewer line. I know there was an item in
the staff report about that. Can you reiterate about that?
Casey: Currently the house on the property by some previous agreement is
connected to public sewer outside the city limits. I'm not sure the history
on that. In order for that to continue they are going to have to extend the
main to the lot that that goes to. Right now there is a service line shown
across the proposed lot line. City regulations prohibit sanitary sewer
services to cross property lines. Also, the water line would be the same so
we ask that a new tap be made off the proposed Caston Drive extension.
Anthes: Just
to be clear,
all
the lots in this
subdivision will be on sanitary sewer
and
city water or
are
septic systems
proposed?
Casey: All lots will be on public water. The existing house can remain on public
sewer but through a main extension only. The rest of the lots will be
required to have septic systems.
Anthes: We just had another item come through where there was an acre and a half
minimum lot size I thought for septic systems.
Casey: Any lot
less
than an acre
and a half
does submit
the initial letter of
approval
from
the Arkansas
Department
of Health for
septic systems.
Pate: We have those.
Anthes: I think we are down to streets and traffic. My first question is of staff. I
believe that the streets that are running through the Barrington Park
subdivision are indeed city streets. Can we talk about our policy of
connectivity and anything that we have regarding street development and
connecting neighborhoods?
Warrick: The City Council, through our General Plan has adopted a policy of
connectivity and encouraging developments to connect. There are benefits
and drawbacks to having connections between developments. I think we
have heard examples of both of those things this morning. The city sees
Subdivision Committee . •
August 13, 2004
Page 18
them as more beneficial than negative in that the more means of access
that you have you are able to disburse traffic instead of funneling it into
one specific location. It also encourages vitality and interaction between
developments, which is encouraged and deemed appropriate through the
city's General Plan and our policies with regard to neighborhoods. This
particular development in 1994 there was a specific requirement by our
City Council to provide the access that this project that Pipers Glen is
proposing to connect to. The original proposal for the Barrington Park
project did not have a stub out to the southeast corner. When the project
was appealed one of the specific conditions of approval in order for that
project to be approved at the City Council level was to provide a stub out
for future connectivity to this Wilson property. I think that that is fairly
important because this is directly in response to that. We do have some
mechanisms that the way that the streets are configured within Barrington
is probably not conducive to slowing down traffic. That just happens to be
the way that the developer chose to lay them in. They are straight and
long. The city is bringing on line within the next week or two a traffic
calming program that neighborhoods will be able to submit requests for
solutions to calm and slow down traffic within their developments if the
criteria are met. That is in conjunction with the Engineering and Police
Departments as well as Transportation. That is something that I encourage
any neighborhood who feels that there are traffic problems to avail
themselves of that option. Our Neighborhood Coordinator, Courtney
McDade, in our my office s coordinating that program. It will be available
on the city's website within a couple of weeks. The other thing, with
regard to the speed of traffic, design consists in that to some degree but
people have to be responsible. The Police Department is the enforcement
with regard to traffic slowing and initiatives to enforce speed limits
throughout the city. These are city streets. The city has a policy for
connectivity and we need to look at that whenever we get a new proposal.
It is very appropriate in most situations. There are those instances where
we look at it and see whether or not it is the best thing to do.
Anthes: Another comment that I have about street design is I believe Mr. Silvestri
made a comment about one of the things that he really liked about this
neighborhood is that it had wide streets. The problem is the wider the
street the faster cars move no matter what is posted on that street. The
narrower streets tend to slow cars down. That is something that we all
know. I don't know whether on these streets you are allowing on street
parking or not but I know that I do live in a part of Fayetteville where on
street parking is allowed and •we have actively in our neighborhood
association, are getting people to park their cars on the street because it is
dramatically slowing traffic through the neighborhood by allowing that on
street parking. That is something that I would just throw out there for you
all to consider. That is something mechanically that you all can do at any
time that will effectively narrow the width of your streets and will slow
Subdivision Committee • •
August 13, 2004
Page 19
cars down. Also, you seem to have a very active neighborhood
association and sometimes an educational process about people speeding
through your neighborhood, just notifying your own residents so
everybody is very conscious of the fact that you have children out there
can really help that too. That way you don't have to just say it's the Police
Department enforcing or not enforcing it. There are some things in your
neighborhood that you can do and they have been affective in our
neighborhood and that's why I mentioned it.
Vaught: In regard to the city's policy of connectivity, I understand the concerns of
the neighborhood but the stub outs were put there for a reason. That was
for the connectivity policy. What bothers me more than the Caston
connection is not having an additional connection to Fox Hunter Road
which would allow another connection into the whole development. I
would rather see both. There are also two stub outs to the west and when
developments come through on those sides you will be connected to those
subdivisions and all the way to Starr Road. We don't approve many
neighborhoods that are closed off anymore. We like many connections for
access for cars to disburse the traffic and also for emergency services so if
something happens at one entrance they will have another option to get
into your subdivision, which you guys do not have right now.
Glass: We have Madison to the west.
Shackelford: That is to the west when Phase II was developed. There is a stub out
down here.
Vaught: That will be extended some day. I would rather be see both connections
made. I don't know what the developers have to say to that. The best
option probably, if you are going to have just one connection, is the
Gaston connection because the condition of Fox Hunter Road. I would
like to see a second connection to disburse the traffic from this
neighborhood and also give options.
Glass: Can I have just one point of clarification?
Anthes: Sure.
Glass: You are saying Caston in this new subdivision is a city street?
Anthes: Yes.
Glass: So is this new subdivision in the city limits of Fayetteville?
Vaught: It is a city street to the city limits and then it becomes a county road.
Subdivision Committee • •
August 13, 2004
Page 20
Glass: Caston all through this subdivision is a city street?
Anthes: That is correct.
Pate: In response to the connectivity, that is something that we actually brought
up with the applicant in initial reviews with this. Obviously, this
connection to the west of Caston was stubbed out for that very reason. We
did look at the south. The slopes are really prohibitive. To the east there is
a platted subdivision, Fox Hunter Estates. Obviously, the only other
option was to go north. Currently, the property there shown as the City of
Fayetteville, as I mentioned, is part of the park system. That 27' of
frontage there really doesn't allow for any dedication of right of way or a
street connection through. That is really one of the prohibitive things
about connecting to the north in this area. Additionally, the traffic
generated by eight or nine single family lots is not extensive.
Anthes: One more
clarification, normally
when we
look at a Preliminary Plat
within the
city limits we have a different
set
of criteria of things that we
can look at
as a committee. We are
limited to
the things that we can weigh
when voting on areas outside of
the city limits
and for your benefit I
would like
for staff to review those
items.
Warrick: Considerations for properties that are outside the city limits within our
Planning Area include streets, street grading base and paving must be
according to city standards and specifications, curbs and gutters, grading
and storm drainage system and water supply. All lots must have access to
public water. Because we do not extend sanitary sewer outside the city
limits, we require that any lot less than 1.5 acres in size attain a
conditional approval from the County Health Department prior to being
platted so that we can ensure the Health Department can approve a septic
tank for that site. Those are the criteria that we review with regard to
projects within the Planning Area. Those are projects that are specifically
adjoining the city limits. When properties are further from the city in our
Planning Area jurisdiction there are lesser requirements.
Anthes: As far as I understand it, we have four things that we can review. One is
that the septic and lot area size is met or we have a letter. In this case we
do have a letter on file for each of those lots. The second thing we can
review is water supply. These lots will receive city water and that meets
all Engineering standards. The third thing that we can address at this level
is grading and drainage. I believe that our Staff Engineer, Matt Casey, has
discussed the grading and drainage on this property. He has indicated that
we don't have a full plan at this time but at the time of construction he will
do that. That is normal procedure for a county subdivision. The fourth
thing that we can look at is street construction, that has to do with the curb
and gutter, the width and the engineering of that street, is that correct?
Subdivision Committee • •
August 13, 2004
Page 21
Casey: The sub base for that street also
Warrick: I think it is appropriate that we look at the connectivity and the
configuration of the street, the lots that are being proposed as well. We do
have the ability to look at that. It is not enumerated in this specific listing
but there are criteria and design standards for residential lots and the street
connections that are appropriate and apply to this subdivision.
Anthes: As far as lot size and configuration this seems to be pretty straight forward
as opposed to other subdivisions we do see in the city.
MOTION:
Shackelford: I guess the only comments I would make, we talked about the four issues
that we can review for county development and those four issues have
been addressed. This project hits somewhat close to home. I built a house
on Buckley Drive and I lived in Barrington Park for a while. I understand
the concerns of the neighbors. It is going to get even more fun because the
next one basically we are going to hear the same argument regarding
Stonewood subdivision, where I currently live. I'm going to get to talk to
most of my neighbors. I feel that as Planning Commissioners our basic
job is to apply and interpret the ordinances that are put in place by the
city's elected officials. One of the directions that we have gotten from the
City Council as Planning Commissioners is to address connectivity on all
development going forward. I think that that is something that we have to
look at in this situation. I understand it does have an impact on the
neighborhood but I think it is a direction that our city's elected officials
have directed us to go with neighborhood development going forward.
This obviously, isn't the end all. This is going to be forwarded to the
Planning Commission. I would encourage the neighborhood association
to speak their mind at that meeting as well and it will be heard by the City
Council, who are the elected officials that put these ordinances in place. I
think that we have done our homework to this point in addressing the
issues that we can at this committee level and I am going to make a
motion that we forward PPL 04-1148 to the full Planning Commission for
consideration. One point that I would like to make, a comment was made
very early in this conversation, I do like the idea of having a construction
entrance and keeping the heavy equipment from coming through the
neighborhood. A lot of damage to the infrastructure and that kind of
thing, in these type of developments happen from construction equipment.
I would like to see that addressed between this point and the time that we
talk about it at Planning Commission.
Vaught: I will second.
Subdivision Committee • •
August 13, 2004
Page 22
Anthes: I will concur. I will tell you that all the minutes from today's meeting will
be entered into the record and will be seen by the Planning Commission as
this progresses. Please feel free to encourage your neighbors to come to
those meetings and we will see you in a couple of weeks.
Planning Commission • •
August 23, 2004
Page 1
PPL 04-1148: Preliminary Plat (PIPERS GLEN SUBDIVISION): Submitted by
DAVE JORGENSEN for property located at THE EASTERN BOUNDARY OF THE
BARRINGTON PARK SUBDIVISION. The property is in the Planning Area and
contains approximately 10.49 acres. The request is to approve the preliminary plat for a
residential subdivision with lots proposed.
Ostner: The next item on
our agenda is
the
Preliminary Plat for Piper's Glen
Subdivision. If we
could start with
the
staff report?
Pate: This property is located in the Planning Area for the City of Fayetteville. It
is located at the eastern boundary of the Barrington Park subdivision south
of Fox Hunter Road. The property contains approximately 10.49 acres. It
is contiguous to the city limits on the west. There is no zoning in the
Planning Area. To the east is Fox Hunter Estates subdivision, which is
also in the County. To the north and south are properties that are
residential and agricultural in nature, and those are also within the County.
To the north of the proposed lot number nine, is a City of Fayetteville Park
named Trammel Park.. It was dedicated as part of the requirements for the
Barrington Park subdivision in the mid 1990's. The applicant tonight is
proposing that this 10.49 acres be subdivided into nine single family lots,
each lot approximately one acre in size. Lot number nine containing the
existing developed home, barn and some ponds, is proposed to be the
largest lot, containing approximately 2.07 acres. Access to the eight lots is
proposed from the existing street stub out, Caston Drive, constructed with
the Barrington Park subdivision to the west. This stub out was a
requirement of the developer in order for Barrington Park subdivision to
be approved. I have attached correspondence regarding that subdivision
for your review. Lot nine has approximately 27' of frontage onto Fox
Hunter Road. The applicant requests this larger two acre tract retain
access to Fox Hunter Road. Lots 8 and 9 currently have access to water
and sewer through prior arrangements with the city. The developer will be
required to extend water service to lots I through 7 as well. Septic system
approvals have been granted for lots I through 7 by the Washington
County Health Department. Right of way required is 50' along Caston
Drive extension on the subject property and a minimum 35' from
centerline along Fox Hunter Road along that 27' that is fronts onto Fox
Hunter Road. Street improvements required, staff is recommending a 28'
street with curb, gutter and sidewalks on Caston Drive per City of
Fayetteville standards. The developer will be extending that Caston Drive
from where it was stubbed out with Barrington Park. The applicant is
proposing to extend Caston Drive. That was the primary point of
discussion at the Subdivision Committee meeting, as noted in your
minutes. Lot nine is proposed to retain the existing private drive to Fox
Hunter Road. Staff has not previously recommended a street connection
north to Fox Hunter Road based on the amount of traffic generated by nine
single family homes. I believe the applicant hopefully has the information
Planning Commission • •
August 23, 2004
Page 2
regarding site distance from Fox Hunter Road as well as our first hand
experience in the van on Thursday at the Planning Commission agenda
session. Staff is not recommending connectivity in other directions due to
the nature of existing development or terrain, particularly to the south.
The applicant has offered, and it is part of the conditions of approval now,
to restrict construction traffic to existing private drive off of Fox Hunter
Road as opposed to accessing through the Barrington Park subdivision. As
I mentioned here in your staff report, there has been significant public
comment. I did pass out two more pieces of information for you today.
One is from the developer/owner of the property who also presides on the
subject property, Mr. David Wilson. As well as a'letter from a resident of
Barrington Park. There was a signed petition containing approximately 61
signatures. I included one example of those in your staff reports as well.
Those were in opposition to this subdivision. For a little background, in
1994 the Preliminary Plat for Barrington Park subdivision to the west was
approved by the Planning Commission. It was appealed to the City
Council and a resolution approved the development of this subdivision
modifying the Planning Commission's conditions of approval. Part of the
agreement between the developer and the city at that time, stated in the
attached resolution in your staff report, was the additional dedication of
parkland to the north of the subject property as well as the dedication of
approximately 1,000 feet of nature trail, then known as Red Woof Park
and what is now Trammel Park. The developer was expressly not required
to construct connection to Fox Hunter Road and protective covenants were
established to protect existing trees along Fox Hunter Road. Additionally,
right of way was required to be dedicated at the southeast of the
Barrington Park subdivision to allow for future access to the property of
Mr. Wilson which is currently under consideration for Piper's Glen
Subdivision. I would point you to page 4.20 and Mr. Wilson's comments
from March, 1994 in the City Council meeting. He did state that he owns
10 acres and had no plan at the time for developing that property. Staff is
recommending approval of this Preliminary Plat for a nine lot subdivision
with 12 conditions of approval. Item number one, Planning Commission
determination of a waiver request for a creation of a lot in the Planning
Area without adequate frontage that is lot 9, which as I mentioned, only
has 27.29 feet of frontage on Fox Hunter Road. Item two, Planning
Commission determination of adequate access and connectivity for the
proposed nine lot subdivision. Eight lots are proposed to access from
Caston Drive. Lot nine will access from the existing private drive to Fox
Hunter Road. Items three through twelve are self explanatory. If you
have any questions, please feel free to ask.
Ostner: Thank you Mr. Pate. Is the applicant present?
Jorgensen, B.: I'm Blake
Jorgensen
with Jorgensen
&
Associates
representing David
Wilson on
the project,
Piper's Glen. I
did
inform Mr.
Wilson of the staff
Planning Commission • •
August 23, 2004
Page 3
report and the conditions of approval and he complies with all of these. I
did visit the site today and according to the ASHTO standards green book
I ran some sight distance calculations. As you have all seen the access
that would be onto Fox Hunter Drive. If one was to take a left turn the
required sight distance would be 336'. Currently there is about 115'. If
you were to take a right turn the required is roughly 95' to 100', they have
about 60' to 65'. There is a large oak tree obstructing much of the view
there and as noted in the staff report, there is a tree preservation in the
covenants that was previously established. Any other questions regarding
this development from staff or from the Commission or the audience, I
will be glad to answer. If I can't Chris Brackett from Jorgensen &
Associates will hopefully be able to.
Ostner: Thank
you Mr.
Jorgensen. At this point I will open
it up to the public.
Please
introduce
yourself and give us your comments.
Johnson: My name is Phyllis Johnson. I'm an attorney here in Fayetteville. I have
been asked to represent the residents of Barrington Park who are here
tonight. Several of them I think attended the Subdivision Committee
meeting and they asked that I speak for them tonight. I would ask if you
would permit me that they raise their hands to indicate those folks who
have come tonight in order to be here. Those of you that are with
Barrington, if you would please raise your hands to show the Commission
who you are. Thank you for that. I wanted to see Mr. Chairman, initially,
I started helping these folks a couple of days ago. They have some
general questions that I think staff might best be able to ask if you would
indulge my asking a few general questions to staff it might possibly be
very helpful to them and answer a whole lot of questions that I couldn't
give them anything about.
Ostner: That would be fine if you wouldn't mind if we answered your questions
later and not actually get into a conversation.
Johnson: Let me tell you the kinds of questions. One of the things that they want to
know is what the process would be if Caston, which is now stubbed out,
were amended so that it becomes a cul-de-sac? I have given them my
opinion about that which is that it would be difficult to go back at this
stage and modify their approved plat. But that is something that they want
to know what the process would be.
Ostner: For the Barrington Park to change that stub out to a cul-de-sac. We will
answer that thoroughly. Currently the development is there and there is a
stub out and that is really the issue on the table.
Johnson: Another question is once a subdivision is accepted and approved by the
city what is involved to amend it. Since this subdivision is actually in the
Planning • •
Commission
August 23, 2004
Page 4
county does the county have any authority over the subdivision's streets
once the city approves it? That, I think is a key question that if there could
be an answer to that it would be very helpful at this time.
Warrick: I think to answer that I would need to know in what context you mean
authority over the streets. Is it maintenance of the streets?
Johnson: Two things. First, the configuration and second, the maintenance. Then a
concern is that the construction traffic, which has been recommended to
all come off of Fox Hunter, my clients would request that a barrier be
erected at the end of their subdivision so that Caston could not be used by
construction traffic in the interim and that it then be opened after street
construction has been completed because of the fear that that construction
would cause a great deal of damage to their streets. They want assurance
that once this is approved if the subdivision is not developed as planned
that they would get notice if the developer comes back with suggested
changes in the future. In other words, if there is to be eight residences and
that is it, that is not what they understood at the Subdivision Committee
meeting, so that would change their position considerably if they had that
essentially in concrete. They want to know whether the cabinet business
is in the proposed plats. There is now a house and a cabinet operation that
Mr. Wilson has on this property. If it is a single family subdivision they
would assume that that couldn't continue but they are not sure whether it
really is in the platted property. Once this comes in, if it does, as a city
subdivision, they want to know what control the city then has over any
future changes that he would try to make of the subdivision in terms of
street configuration, Caston then being extended and a lot narrowed so it
could go to a boundary and such. I would request the right to be able to
speak again after the staff has answered these questions or the
Commission because the answer to these questions will affect whether or
not all these folks feel that they need to talk to you or whether I will talk to
you again very briefly. I don't know if you are willing to do that.
Otherwise, I feel like they think that they would need to visit with you.
Ostner: They are of course, welcome to talk to us. The applicant will be the last
party we hear from. Right now is the public comment section and that
will close and we will go to a conversation format with the applicant and
there will be no more public comment after that.
Johnson: Then I guess given the fact that is the way the procedure works that they
must either visit with you now or they lose their right to speak then I think
that their request would be that consideration of this be postponed so that
they could have firm answers to these questions because of the fact that
they know that there could be access to Fox Hunter and because of the fact
that this subdivision is in the county. They do have some particular
concerns with the cabinet business and such. I would request on their
Planning Commission • •
August 23, 2004
Page 5
behalf that this not be decided tonight but that it be put on the next agenda
and in the meantime they will be able to get answers to all of these
questions from staff without having lost their opportunity to oppose it if
they feel like they need to.
Ostner: I appreciate that. Thank you.
Johnson: I'm Zed Johnson. I own all of the land to the south of this development.
My concern is a little bit different than the Barrington Park neighborhood.
My family has owned that property for 50 some years. I've been out on it
for many, many years and the difference in my view from the other folks
is that certainly there is Not in My Back Yard. I feel the same way. The
reason I feel that way is this is a steeply sloped site that goes right down
into a very pristine creek on my property. What we have got is septic
systems directly draining into the creek with lots I and 2. If there were
two lots instead of four on that side you would have enough room to put a
decent drainage system in. I am an architect and have been around the
block a little bit and know you don't have enough room, especially with
lot 1. Right now these good people up here treat my property in many
ways, as their private park. I go and clean up about two bags of trash
every three months because you throw it over the side, it goes down the
slope, down the creek. We have got kid's balls, pop bottles, beer cans,
you name it. Then you add septic stuff to it. I have a seven year old son
and I like to go down there and play in this beautiful creek with big rocks,
etc. It would be an ideal park in the future. Certainly, it is not a good
place to make a drainage field. If Mr. Wilson would've been in town I
could've talked to him. I got this information relatively late because it
was mailed to my parent's home. They are dead so they can't respond
very well. Once I got it and found out that David was no longer around,
he is up in Canada building or something, there was no opportunity for me
to negotiate or do anything to change what is happening there. I would
have liked to seen if I couldn't have got him to do a few less lots on the
south side and possibly let me buy a piece of land for a private drive so I
could access and maintain my property. Now I'm completely cut off and
I've got essentially a maintenance problem in perpetuity. I just would like
you to consider the drainage issues, the trash issues, and reduce that
density on the south side of the street as a minimum. Thank you.
Ostner: Thank you Mr. Johnson.
Glass: My name is
Aimee Glass, I'm a
property owner in the
Barrington Park
subdivision.
I also
would like to
request a postponement
to any decisions
to be made
here.
I have spent
many hours doing some
research and
legitimately,
every
time I ask a
question I'm getting a
different owner
from the city, from
the property
owner and my concern
is that we don't
have all the answers. It is hard to
make an argument or even to find out if
Planning Commission • •
August 23, 2004
Page 6
we have an argument to make based upon our lack of true and honest
information I think we have. I am asking for a postponement for at least a
month so that we can do better research and find out if there is something
else that we object to or if there is anything that we object to at all. Thank
you.
Ostner: Thank you Ms. Glass.
Harrison: My name is David Harrison. I live in Barrington Park. I'm a lifelong
resident of Fayetteville with the exception of 13 years. I believe I would
like to maybe in lieu of if it is not possible to delay this process in regard
to answering some real questions that I think are still out there that might
be very helpful to the Barrington Park P.O.A. and it's residents but in
addition to that to the applicant. What I would like to try to do is
characterize some of the issues that we are discussing as a P.O.A. First of
all, it is unanimous throughout our resident neighborhood there that no one
is opposed to further development of the City of Fayetteville. This is not
your classic case, I've lived through the incinerator ward and this is not
NIMBY syndrome. I will assure you that. What we have got is we have
got some legitimate concerns in regard to the history of this process as to
whether or not Barrington Park would be appropriate for connectivity to
concern this subdivision and then I guess beyond that a true concern, if it
connects to some other subdivision. I don't know how well rehearsed you
are, perhaps very well rehearsed on the nature of the subdivision. My
thought processes and the information that I've been given is connectivity
works where you have meandering, curving streets that discourage high
volume and high speed traffic through a neighborhood. What we have
that was a result of the passage of this neighborhood in 1994 is in essence,
three streets that service the entire length of this neighborhood and I don't
think I'm wrong in characterizing these three streets and three drag strips.
You have got long straight a ways that the main entrance to Barrington
Park is slightly elevated so not only are they along straight a ways but in
essence, you have a down hill grade through them. In addition to that, as
part of our P.O.A. group we have a swimming pool that services all of the
folks in that subdivision that pay their P.O.A. dues. As one of our
restrictive covenants you are not permitted to drive to that swimming pool.
If you are going to access the swimming pool you have to walk, ride a
bike, a scooter, that type of thing. It is a true neighborhood concept.
You've got children accessing that pool from all parts of the subdivision
with three drag strips. Now you see what our concern is. What we tried to
do is retain Phyllis to answer some questions because the process in all
actuality feels like it is rolling down hill and a lot of the frustration on the
part of the residences is we haven't been able to answer questions to
legitimately input and that could be a positive input as well as a negative
input. That is why we have tried to ask Phyllis to be our spokesperson to
really try to answer questions to see what our next move is. However, as a
Planning Commission
August 23, 2004
Page 7
fall back, as she has indicated, if perhaps you don't see fit to either delay
for additional information that might be helpful on both parties part and if
the train has already left and we have got a stub out that there is legitimate
concern as to the genesis of that stub out as to whether or not that was
retained as the result of a bargain or exactly what the nature of that was in
the original approval of Barrington. Bottom line is if we are forced into a
situation what we are deathly afraid of is we've got three drag strips and
not only is Caston, and thus, our entire subdivision going to access eight
one acre lots, but then the possibility of the next subdivision that Caston
may or may not connect to, which might be 36 more homes or the next
one that might be 40 new homes. That is our main concern if this is the
main artery of ingress and egress then if we are forced into that position
then we are absolutely beseeching the Commission to give us every
assurance possible either through engineering means or potentially
through contractual means to make sure that Gaston can never connect to
the next subdivision down the road. As I said, to reiterate, what we are
truly asking is let's stop. If you are willing to consider that as possibly
beneficial to both parties, and I'm an attorney, but I'm not going to put
form over substance. That is what we are asking you to do. Let's put
substance first. Let's do some fact finding first that might be mutually
beneficial. In the alternative, if we are forced into this situation where we
have to decide now then we are absolutely critically asking you for your
assurances and whatever form that that can take that Gaston will go no
further than these eight one acre lots. We feel like we've got a problem
with our current residents right now and there is no telling the safety
hazards and the special needs that would go into play if we went to the
next subdivision. Thank you very much.
Ostner: Thank you. Are there other members of the audience who would like to
comment if you have anything new? I want you all to know that we have
received a lot of letters from you all and we have read them and we are
aware that you have lots of comments and concerns and that you are all
here obviously.
Collins: I will make it short. I'm Bill Collins at 1736 Buckley. I am right next to
that stub out and Mr. Wilson is right behind me, he is a nice man. He
plays the bagpipes on Sunday night, that is kind of interesting. I would
like, he does, there have been many, many mornings that there was more
than one pick up lined up on Gaston which is now not paved, it is a dirt
road. There are two pick ups waiting to get into his commercial property.
He is a cabinet maker and he is currently doing business as a commercial
property. I would like to emphasize that question that Phyllis asked about,
what assurances are we going to get that this is not going to be commercial
property or that he is not going to take that Lot I and keep the commercial
property and do the rest residential? Thank you.
Planning Commission • •
August 23, 2004
Page 8
Ostner: Thank you Mr. Collins.
Davidson: My name is Jay Davidson, I also live in Barrington. There has been a bit
of reference made to the park that was made part of the Barrington
subdivision plat. Most of the residents do not know it exists. There is no
signage whatsoever to indicate the park is there. It is a nonexistent park.
There is a sidewalk that goes between two houses that ends abruptly and
there is currently a pile of brush at the end of that sidewalk. I presume
that that would've theoretically been our access to what is being referred
to as Trammel Park. Again, the P.O.A. took a straw poll and no one knew
it was there. It is not benefiting the residents of that subdivision as it
currently exists or as it is currently set up. We would ask that that be
considered also.
Ostner: Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak to this issue?
Holloway: I'm Carey Holloway, I also live right next to the stub out. I want to make
sure the question that was asked as I wanted to understand. Today that is a
city street ending on the city line and that transitions onto a County
property. What jurisdiction does this board have to enforce what happens
on that county property so that again, today I also experience the pick ups,
and today Caston, which is actually the street I live on, is accessed and
utilized as a commercial venue where Mr. Wilson can get to his cabinet
making operation. I just want to understand what are the jurisdiction that
this board has once he crosses into the county and whether he chooses to
go with his original plat or chooses to put another commercial operation,
duplexes, or whatever the case may be. That would certainly not benefit
our property and the things that we have done there.
Ostner: Would anyone else like to speak to this issue? I assure you I have a long
list of questions that we are going to talk about. If nobody else would like
to speak, we will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission
for questions and comments. I will just start with Ms. Johnson's
questions. Those are mostly for staff. Let's just start with her first
question. What are the possibilities for a cul-de-sac instead of a stub out?
Warrick: The City Council took action when the Preliminary Plat for Barrington
Park was approved and through resolution required a stub out. Anything
that deviates from that would really need to be revisited by the City
Council. The appeal period for a development proposal such as a
Preliminary Plat is 10 days after the final approval. Final approval is
granted at the Planning Commission level and that appeal may be brought
forward by either an owner of the property or an alderman. That was the
process by which this went on appeal to the City Council back in the mid
1990's when Barrington Park was originally proposed as a Preliminary
Plat. A change in the infrastructure and the conditions of approval to that
Planning Commission • •
August 23, 2004
Page 9
Preliminary Plat should go through that appeal process if that is the desire
of either the owner or an alderman. At this point in time Caston is a public
street. It is stubbed out to the property line, which in this case, is also the
city limits line. If that were to be reconfigured and a cul-de-sac created
property would have to be acquired from adjoining property owners and
somebody would have to build it. Because that is a city street that burden
would very likely fall to the city. That would require an expenditure of
funds, a review by the Street Committee and approval by the City Council.
Ostner: Thank you. The second item I have written down is the controls. Since
this changes from city limits to Washington County the concerns about the
cabinet shop, pickup trucks parked and a future commercial activity
outside the city limits.
Warrick: As far as the jurisdiction over the street goes, this is a property that is
within the Fayetteville Planning Area, however, outside the city limits.
The type of street that will be constructed must meet the city's minimum
street standards. It will be a curb and gutter street, 28' wide with curb and
gutter, storm drain and sidewalks I believe. As far as the configuration of
the street it will look like the city street that it is being connected to.
Maintenance does fall to the county because it is outside the city's
jurisdiction with regard to where we maintain public infrastructure. Land
use is not under the jurisdiction of the city. The county does not have
zoning. The land use would be controlled either through covenants within
the development or it would be at the will of whomever owns the property
as far as what the use would be established on each of the lots. Matt, you
might want to add to that.
Casey: Just to add to what Dawn was saying, we will be reviewing the
construction documents for this project for the street construction, grading,
drainage and the water construction. We don't have all the information at
this time because this is in the county but we will be reviewing those
construction plans for those issues and they will have to comply with all of
our city ordinances because it is adjacent to the city limits.
Ostner: Does each home have to have a building permit?
Casey: No, I'm only talking about the street, drainage, water. The septic systems
will have to be reviewed by the County Health Department. I do want to
add that the inspection of these items will be done by our Public Works
Inspectors through the Engineering Division during the time of
construction. Not only are they required to design it to our standards, we
will oversee the construction and make sure that that is done to our
standards as well.
Planning Commission . •
August 23, 2004
Page 10
Ostner: Since it is outside the city each building does not require our normal
building permit.
Warrick: That is correct.
Ostner: Just
one follow
up, on the septic
systems, I didn't quite understand, they
don't
talk about
a septic field or some different type.
Warrick: Each individual lot will
have it's
own septic system.
Preliminary approval
has been granted by the
County
Health Department
for those systems.
Ostner: Ok. So there is no special system?
Warrick: Not for this project.
Shackelford: Just for clarification purposes, this question as it was asked. I want to
answer it as best as I can for the residents. The authority of the street in
regards to configuration and maintenance. If I'm understanding correctly,
city standards will play towards the configuration of the streets as they are
developed to include drainage, grading, all the size, sidewalk and
everything else. Configuration will fall under street standards.
Maintenance will fall under county, is that correct?
Warrick: Yes.
Shackelford: The other question that was asked was jurisdiction of city standards on the
county property, which I assume to be the development. That is not
within the city's jurisdiction, is that correct?
Warrick: We are looking at the configuration of the lots but not necessarily the land
use because this is not a property that has a zoning designation on it. It is
Washington County.
Shackelford: We look at the configuration of lots as they exist but we do not look at
what is ultimately built on those lots, is that correct?
Jorgensen, B.: I will clarify David Wilson's intended use. The cabinet business he has in
there right now exists on a lot that is going to be sold. He will suspend
that and quit doing that because he is going to sell off the land. I want to
read a couple of things he has mentioned for his covenants he is going to
include. He is wanting the houses to be 3,000 sq.ft. of heated space,
attached garages, no carports, rear side entrance garage, all single family,
no kennels, farm animals, breeding animals, a minimum of 80% masonry
on exterior. No cars parked in the street, no campers, RVs, no metal
fences, no out buildings without approval of the developer, all front yards
sodded and seeded with landscape. Roofing material limitations. All
Planning Commission • •
August 23, 2004
Page 11
drives poured concrete, no asphalt. Basically, he is going to follow any
city standards that would be included for a subdivision. It will fit right in
with the surrounding subdivision. He is not going to continue the use of
the land for commercial purposes.
Allen: I have a question for the applicant. I wondered the nature of your dialogue
that you have had with the neighborhood.
Jorgensen, B.: Most of my conversations have been through David Wilson in response to
Aimee Glass, the President of the P.O.A. of Barrington and the letter that
Zed Johnson has written to Mr. Wilson, mostly from email since he is up
in Canada doing some construction. Everything that I've done has been
strictly email. A few personal conversations after Subdivision Committee
met. I included a fax to Jeremy today and Mr. Wilson's response to
Aimee Glass' request to table this for a month. He is definitely being as
courteous as he can and considerate throughout this whole process. He
doesn't wish to disturb anyone and make the value less than it is. He is
going to try to make a nice subdivision. Any conversations that I have had
has been mostly through email.
Allen: I'm certain that is correct but I was wondering if you have met perhaps
with your neighborhood association or if they had requested a meeting
with you.
Jorgensen, B.: No Ma'am, I haven't.
Allen: Have you had a request?
Jorgensen, B.: I have not. I tried to contact the P.O.A., but they weren't listed as being
registered with the city so it took me a while to acquire the number. I did
make an attempt to try to address the questions that they had at the
Subdivision Committee. Every question that they raised I answered and
replied to Mr. Wilson who included it in the email to Ms. Glass.
Myres: You mentioned some general covenants, are those in a written form that
could be shared with the residents of Barrington?
Jorgensen, B.: He is kind of waiting for this subdivision to get passed before he drafts
covenants. I have a document here and if people want it I can email it to
everyone.
Myres: I think that that would at least give them more information than they
appear to have now. The other general comment I wanted to make, I don't
know how appropriate this is, I would hope that you are aware that the
document that we work from, the request for granting a Preliminary Plat,
is a public document that is available to all of you if you choose to go to
Planning Commission • •
August 23, 2004
Page 12
the Planning Division or look it up on line. The conditions of approval I
think answer several of the questions that were raised by both the residents
and by your attorney. If you would take the opportunity to read this, or
would have taken the opportunity to read this I think some of your
concerns might have been mitigated a little bit by the conditions of
approval that are already in this document in terms of streets and standards
that are going to be exacted. At least, not necessarily on the individual
properties but at least on the build out of Caston Drive into a cul-de-sac,
which ends at two properties at the end of the parcel. It doesn't look like
there will be any opportunity for a stub out to be constructed there so it is
intended to be a dead end with no more connectivity to anything. If you
haven't taken advantage of the opportunity to read this I would urge you
to do so regardless of what we decide to do tonight.
Vaught: I would also like to have the staff address the traffic calming policy. The
city is instituting a new traffic calming policy, or in the process.
Warrick: It is online. It is available on the city's website. There is a procedure by
which a citizen or a resident of the neighborhood can go to the city's
website or contact the city's neighborhood coordinator in the planning
office and request that their neighborhood be studied for the potential of
implementing traffic calming measures. That is certainly a resource to
neighborhoods and that is a process by which a neighborhood can be
reviewed. It includes review from our Transportation Division as well as
the Police Department, depending on how the survey is answered. There
are various steps in the process and we can explain that and walk
somebody through that if they wish to understand it a little bit better to see
whether or not they want to submit a request to have their neighborhood
looked at for traffic calming.
Vaught: I think that is one of your options that can help control traffic in the
neighborhood that is part of the problem and also any additional traffic
that this puts on. It sounds like from the applicant some of the commercial
type traffic will be reduced that is already going through the neighborhood
since the commercial operations will be relocated. I would also like to
have staff or the city attorney address when we are looking at a
neighborhood in the county we are limited on the things that we can take
into consideration for approval.
Warrick: This is a little bit of a hybrid because it is immediately adjoining the city
limits. However, property is located outside in Washington County. The
city will review and require the infrastructure for the water system, as well
as the street system to meet city standards. We do not review for land use.
We do, however, review for lot configuration. We do not have the ability
to enforce our tree preservation and protection ordinance. Nor do we have
the ability to enforce our parkland dedication ordinance. Impact fees will
Planning Commission • •
August 23, 2004
Page 13
only be assessed for water connections as these properties will not be
allowed to connect to the city's sewer system.
Brackett: Just a general comment to let the adjoining property owners know that this
isn't the end of the review process for this development. It will have to go
before the County also. I know that I spoke to many of the people directly
adjoining after we sent out notification and tried to answer all of their
questions. If they would like to organize a meeting we would be more
than happy to try to answer any questions that they might have.
Graves: I think I know the answer to this question. I know that the City Attorney
has previously warned us that we aren't supposed to request any Bill of
Assurance. Assuming that they have put something in writing at this point
making certain promises on how the property was going to be developed,
would the city even have any capability of enforcing anything like that?
Warrick: No Sir.
Ostner: I would just like to point out that condition of approval number four reads
construction traffic shall be limited access to the existing private drive, a
clear note to this affect shall be included on the final construction
drawings. That is the one leading north to Fox Hunter.
Warrick: Staff would not be opposed to including in a different condition that the
existing Caston Drive be barricaded until construction is complete. We
feel that that is something that would be manageable through our
construction review process and would alleviate some of the concerns of
the neighbors with regard to construction traffic coming into the
development prior to Caston Drive being complete.
Anthes: Mr. Shackelford, Mr. Vaught and I were all at Subdivision and I feel like
we didn't answer a couple of your questions well enough because I
understand you are still confused about a few of these things and I hope
that we can be very clear today. Believe us when we say that we are as
frustrated as you are on some of these issues because we have different
things that we can review in a development process if the piece of land is
within the city. What we tried to describe during those meetings is we had
three different items on the agenda that had slightly different
configurations. One was in the city, one adjoining the city and one was in
the county not adjoining the city. We have very different things that we
can look at that we have any control over at all in those three conditions. I
know that may have been confusing if you were sitting through those other
agenda items. We can look at lot configuration and I understand clearly
now that you are very confused about the number of users on the street
and the possibility that there would be future connection to other
subdivisions. What we understand when we look at our plat and with our
Planning Commission. • •
August 23, 2004
Page 14
staff report that clearly indicated no connectivity to the east. These eight
lots would be the only lots that would ever have additional access to your
street. That is something that the Commissioners understand explicitly. I
would like staff to reiterate that so you have that assurance. Is that true?
Warrick: This is proposed to be a cul-de-sac with no future connectivity to the east.
Anthes: So the number of users are only those generated by the houses that are on
those eight lots. I do have another question. I know that to follow up on
Commissioner Vaught's comments, we can look at street construction,
which our City Engineer has talked about tonight, and we can look at
water supply, and septic systems, which we have the letter from the
County and that is what we can look at. We can comment about grading
and drainage and I know that that is a serious concern to the property
owner to the south. Can Mr. Casey talk about the protection for grading
and drainage beyond the street construction and are there any controls or
any mechanisms that we can look at that have to do with runoff to the
adjoining property to the south?
Casey: With the review of the street and drainage plans we have also reviewed the
grading and will make sure on those plans that the proper erosion control
measures are included. That will also be for construction as well. Our
inspector's top priority is to ensure that those erosion control measures are
in place. That will cover the time of construction up until Final Plat. The
individual home constructions we will not have any authority over the
runoff control.
Anthes: I'm unfamiliar with what the County does with respect to that. Can you
enlighten us on this?
Casey: At this time I do not believe that they have any permitting process for
individual home construction.
Ostner: I have a question for staff. I believe the neighbors and Ms. Johnson
understand that this is a cul-de-sac, but my question is what if. What if one
of these homes and the developer is willing to tear down a home and build
a new street, would that ever be possible?
Warrick: It would only be possible through a process such as this where public
infrastructure would be proposed to be installed and it would have to be
reviewed by the city as well as the county. There would be some sort of
public process. It would be similar to the scenario if Caston Drive were
amended to create a cul-de-sac street whereby right of way would have to
be purchased, infrastructure would have to be designed and funds
expended in order to build that street.
Planning Commission ' •
August 23, 2004
Page 15
Brackett: I would just add that this property is isolated because of the topography
that is out there now. That is one of the reasons why we are not showing
connectivity, which is one of the things that we normally show, is because
of the extremes in the topography. The likelihood of anything connecting
to this cul-de-sac is highly unlikely because of the topography surrounding
it. That is one of the reasons for connecting to Caston.
Ostner: Someone brought up the access to the park. Does staff know any
information?
Warrick: I can't speak for the brush pile situation. I've seen in past trips out to the
neighborhood that there is a sidewalk that ends but I don't know that I've
seen the brush pile. We will certainly contact the Parks Division and let
them know that they may want to take a look at that condition and see if it
is something that they may want to apply some maintenance to.
Ostner: This park, even though it is technically outside the city limits.
Warrick: It is property that is owned by the city Parks Division and it is designated
as park property.
Ostner: It is under the city's responsibility?
Warrick: It is.
MOTION:
Vaught: Seeing that I feel like we have answered a lot of questions that we are
allowed to consider when approving this knowing that it is going to go to
the County for their approval as well. I feel like we have answered all the
questions that we can consider for this so I will make a motion to approve
PPL 04-1148 subject to the twelve conditions of approval granting the
waiver for the lot frontage on condition number one and finding that there
is adequate access for the eight lots on Gaston Drive with the addition to
condition number four that Caston be blocked until construction is
complete of the subdivision.
Graves: Second.
Ostner: The motion is for approval with the only addition being condition number
four to add installing a barricade at the intersection of Caston and the stub
out. Is there further discussion? I do have one other question. Since this
is in the County is this going to come through our Final Plat process?
Warrick: It will.
The project
is required
to after
a project
is
approved
at the
Planning
Commission
level at the
city, it is
required
to
go to the
County
Planning Commission • •
August 23, 2004
Page 16
Planning Board for approval. After that, construction drawings are
submitted and actual infrastructure development takes place, construction
happens. Once the infrastructure is installed then the project will come
back through the City and the County processes before the filing of the
Final Plat.
Ostner: At the Final Plat process could we request covenants, is that appropriate?
Warrick: We can certainly request them if the applicant chooses to provide them.
They typically do and we like to have those on file in our office just so if
someone has questions we can reference them. While we can't enforce
them we do try to provide the information as often as we can so we will
certainly make note of that.
Ostner: That is dually noted for the record.
Anthes: Because we can look at lot configuration, normally we look at an acre and
a half or more in the county unless we get Health Department approval for
a smaller.
Warrick: Our design standards call for a lot that is 10,000 sq.ft. in size with a
minimum 75' frontage on an improved street if it is a lot in the Planning
Area. The criteria for an acre and a half is in order to exempt the lot from
having to submit a conditional letter of approval from the County Health
Department for septic installation.
Anthes: We do have that letter now on all of these lots?
Warrick: Yes.
Anthes: Because we can look at lot configuration, is that the only way we can talk
about it, I'm concerned about the size of these lots and the grading and
drainage issue, is that anything we have control over when we look at lot
configuration?
Warrick: The way that it is described in our development regulations is really to
ensure the orderly re -subdivision of lots in the future should lots have
potential to be subdivided and in order to provide reasonable street
connections. The minimum is of course, 10,000 sq.ft. land area and 75'
frontage on an improved street.
Anthes: You've reviewed this and you believe it meets those?
Warrick: Yes.
Planning Commission
August 23, 2004
Page 17
Shackelford: One final thought. By no means do I want to make a political statement.
As somebody who has served on the Annexation Task Force to consider
development in the county, I would like everybody to be aware of the fact
that the City Council and possibly the general public will be considering
the recommendation of a large annexation to add to the city limits in
Fayetteville. This would give us the opportunity to look at a more
conformed, precise development plan going forward. I would encourage
everyone who is listening to take this opportunity to get involved in the
future because there is a lot of this type of development on the outer limits
of our city limits that would be better addressed, or could possibly be
better addressed in the large picture instead of on a piece meal basis. I
would encourage everyone to get involved in that process as it comes
before the City Council. Thank you.
Ostner: Is there further comment? We have a motion. Would you call the roll
please?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve PPL 04-1148 was
approved by a vote of 8-0-0.
Thomas: The motion carries.
am
FAYETTEVI LLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
KIT WILLIAMS, CITY ATTORNEY
DAVID WHITAKER, ASST. CITY ATTORNEY
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDE
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
TO: Dan Coody, Mayor
City Council
iii11III1
FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney
DATE: September 15, 2004
RE: Appeal of Preliminary Plat 04-1148 (Pipers Glen)
SAki 01. U. S. n„
Attached is a two year old memo concerning what the City Council
may consider during an appeal of a Large Scale Development or Preliminary
Plat. In most cases, the only issue that could be argued is whether the
"proposed development would create or compound a dangerous traffic
condition." U.D.C. § 166.05 (C) (7) (d) (iv)
However, in this appeal, the Planning Commission had to grant a
large variance or else one lot of the subdivision could not be developed as it
lacked the required 75 feet of frontage on Fox Hunter Road. The lot had
only 27.3 feet of frontage or about 36% of the frontage required by
ordinance.
The Planning Commission may grant a variance of the development
regulations if the regulations:
(1) "cause undue hardship as they apply to this
proposed development"
(2) "so that substantial justice may be done"
(3) "and the public interest secured." U.D.C. § 156.03 (A) (1)
There is a further caveat in the variance section to require "that the
variance will not have the effect of nullifying the intent and purpose of the
development regulations." Id.
The Code also states "No variance shall be granted for any property
which does not have access to an improved street." Id.
The lot that was granted the variance does have access (frontage) to an
improved street. It simply has only 36% of what is normally required. The
Planning Department recommended approval of this variance request which
was granted by the Planning Commission. Because this variance is required
or else the preliminary plat would violate a city ordinance, I believe the
propriety of the Planning Commission's granting of the variance is a
possible issue during this appeal pursuant to subsection (2). "The proposed
development would violate a City ordinance ...." Id.
In order to grant the appeal and reject or return the preliminary plat to
the Planning Commission, the City Council must determine from reasonable
evidence that the development "would create or compound a dangerous
traffic condition," or the variance allowing less than the normally required
frontage on an improved street should not have been granted. Denying the
variance request would only affect the single lot which lacks sufficient
frontage. The remaining lots to be served off an extension of Caston Drive
will have sufficient frontage on a public, improved street.
• • •
FAYETTEVI LLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
KIT WILLIAMS, CITY ATTORNEY
DAVID WHITAKER, ASST. CITY ATTORNEY
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
TO: City Council
FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney
DATE: June 11, 2002
RE: Appeal of Large Scale Development
(What may be considered by City Council)
Upon the appeal of any Large Scale Development, the City
Council must follow the Unified Development Ordinance (specifically
§166.05 C. 7. d.):
" d. The Subdivision Committee or Planning Commission
may refuse to approve a large scale development for any of
the following reasons:
(1). The development plan is not submitted in accordance
with the requirements of this section.
(2). The proposed development would violate a City
ordinance, a State statute, or a Federal statute.
(3). The developer refuses to dedicate the street right-of-
way, utility easements or drainage easements required by
this chapter.
(4). ' The proposed development would creatte r
compound a dangerous traffic condition. For the purpose
of this section, a "dangerous" traffic condition shall be
construed to mean a traffic condition in which the risk of
accidents involving motor vehicles is significant due to
factors such as, but not limited to, high traffic volume,
topography, or the nature of the traffic pattern.
(5). City water and sewer is not readily available to the
property within the large scale development and the
developer has made no provision for extending such
service to the development.
(6). The developer refuses to comply with subsection 7.b.
and c. pertaining to required on -site and off -site
improvements."
Any objection or reason to deny a Large Scale Development
must be included within those six stated reasons to be valid. If a
proposed Large Scale Development meets the minimum standards of
the Unified Development Ordinance, it must be approved even if every
Alderman believes it is a terrible development unanimously opposed
by the neighbors.
"When a subdivision ordinance specificies minimum
standards to which a preliminary plat must conform,
it is arbitrary as a matter of law to deny approval of a
plat that meets those standards. Richardson v. City
of Little Rock Planning Commission, 295 Ark. 189, 747
S.W. 2d 116,117 (1988).
If a denial is "arbitrary as a matter of law", the City would be
overturned in Court and probably ordered to pay costs and attorney's
fees plus other possible damages.
The Richardson case is not the only Arkansas Supreme Court
case holding that Aldermen and cities must follow the established
ordinances. In Potocki v. City of Fort Smith, The Fort Smith Board of
Directors rezoned land that had been part of a larger parcel in which
the rezoning had been denied two months earlier. Their procedural
ordinance required a one year wait from the earlier denial, but the
Board decided to allow the rezoning anyway. Despite the fact that the
Board of Directors has clear power to repeal or amend the procedural
ordinance, the Arkansas Supreme Court found they were bound to
follow it until it was formally changed.
"A city simply cannot pass procedural ordinances
they expect to be followed by their residents and
then conveniently ignore them themselves. A
legislative body must substantially comply with
its own procedural policies." Potocki v. City of
Fort Smith, 279 Ark. 19, 648 S.W. 2d 462, 464 (1983).
Similarly, the Arkansas Supreme Court agreed with the Pulaski
County Chancery Court that the Little Rock Board of Directors had
acted arbitrarily, capriciously and unreasonably in a rezoning case.
"(N)or does a city have to create a zoning ordinance or a
land use plan or adopt planned use districts or planned commercial
districts, but once it has done so it must follow the ordinance until it is
repealed or altered." City of Little Rock v. Pfeifer, 318 Ark. 679, 887
S.W. 2d 296, 298 (1994).
The Bottom Line
Apply the FACTS presented by City Staff, the Applicant or
public to any of the six factors listed in the Unified Development
Ordinance to justify your decision.
\ ecceSEr wnv /
I \\ \ I Il /
�'tl�\,\;g\ �.I_.\•� i��,�r. \ —• I' �_— F.
M 11
1 1 I r 1 ' 1 t \ o 61FCITY M PAM( wsmnslor, -'' I ��
I1�1`I I I, 1!g
I r ' ! `�\ 1 (CITY CF F4YETTEVILLE) _ -.4____
1 L { Z a /
II
_ -`-'V(COLPYAC1•:LUN .W'lA_MSO.00CO M- -
i
s ;En s i \ ., xif a:«+v _ — — — — — — _ — _. _ — — _ i
'\ _______
I 14, \. s
r.
•
\ 111 \ \\ I g 4 /
III 1 A`1V�1! \�A\\ vv v /// _�
II� I \ \\I. \\\\ \ \ \i \` m
I= xocro:ee�,'�
lII ' :4,' 1 t4 a./ =
i I I i Itl ' > �..- — — -_ . r_ —' _I. /p�' ,\ \ \\
\\\\\ , I I a .004tL iZO.CIJO F' - 'n1 \
{1 Y. Ali \ 1 J •!----
\\\'t\,__�'' 4L' �^\�
\\\ \1\'\iItlJliill'I?1111 A' I
J /J�///---- Y-_� \\
®i uItr111 1 ® k 4, �, — __i4--
/,1 I : , , , I : __- ',./f ,\
1'-'11'Z/1i' 11rI1iIlJ VIII ' JI;r = —iii
I/ t Ii111�1'Il!I1/J/ I I/ / #mll I ( ijl\\'���11.r\ `���
// \'\ 11 I 1 :I I 1' ' /�.
/ u. a. IyI ' ii'`.�'�:.-1
>7
//�ff fma.' a /Jr! Iyw\\..._-�'
. /
/% I Ij r /= Jr(
j/% iiI I II I llea gl� 1/1
_1\ \\ II I I �' �I+l
//r/ \\ 1 i III III
]11 if�; •1 / /�
/(lJl1/fl(li/ �I l�ll)t
III I \` ILIIIjI,
IIIrI�,I'I 1 r�r fl /'Iqd
fill ! ICI h1' /1 11,I III
1111I1�1i 1 11 I I'', �Ilii�.
/�i lil! A\vt A I
. \11\ \ \ \ \r
/J;I111111•I \\\\\\\\\\ a\\\\
;4l/c\\ \ '\\\\\\
\\\ \\\\\\ \\ \\\\
\\\ \111\1\\\ \\\\ \\\ \ \\
/ / ,, ,/ efi�
/J/1tII 1, l,ril a / / \ I 1 I
Allll l/lll"4
Il1;;111;n'r ( /` 1 I ''�i�///ry1/ It
` ( i JIIIII'1(I�:
I / 1 l I It
� I(/ (/ !'/
l 1/ 1 e' ' J/Ili/�i1111!�1\rll1j1 \\h
/®
I}1 itfel1i1111( IJ= // —d ®1 r7 $ JJ,'/'JJI////illlJ, '!/1 \\\S.
JI',l�',''lliiv x 1 I K/f/i'////f/''/11///�J
` / !
ilf,l,r1 /r1 /� /� / I °' m /J 'l JJ;�'! l rl!/j////t/l� J ) I I/
11lri,
t IIIrI-sI ( ` J 1 ./JIJi%//////%/�� %l/ /j//
/
II 11' I , n I 1 // /'2///,
4YK
/'ljl�i
/ /{' f
i —r. /f V/A) / If //JI t %•/J LJ JI•'4. ///f �f//�
t'I1i\\\1 '1 \/ `® Xrn � /jfjf/ /// {bJi
r'"io. '°'/'. ///p$v'fz/ $ �////(/%f/i fjf //%rlf ;;
\ // �i�/�/fff�i///
._ // / // j/'//,4h1 �/ // //�
\\ C / /4///////k2"'// ce/ ////// fi /�
\J\\\* _- ��///�%/i! //ffi�i/iii/ifL,//r// / t
\ \\\\\\ \\�`\ —�ji . / / //// if
\\ �'_ % // ///////// l/// /,/%/iiiii ^ %j j % - f •/// 1 111
�\ \\ \\ \ �� /i/ Al//////// ///,' f' / !
\\\ \\\\ / //
\\\ � //iii /// / i %/ %/ //l l / l// l/
•
\ \\\\ -\� ! rr //// /// / / 1/7/ '//////1
l�f////I///f// / /f f// /////; ,
-- C - — -- /9>/C// ///////f/////h///I
----.\�._.."--"C.--i-%/i,/i. ,,.All '. //. /. ..v///l, J%1J. 111\
S r.�u Qumny2u ➢Sr- o v000000 `t S
d .. �n i0 Ye a A
°amine do Nmmo°cy�Pae...-r -r-i $ „ �q .. ^g
minn a22nu`'•i22p-`per ,. r�o,oe ve '" ,Y.� °,s4 •°� F� M )p
o mom^�em .F n �1
m1n n ^ °.
'�TNMy NTm�O Fy N NHNNMu2 raA 0 a0 n
N� e2 .ap y,Cnnpp DTmA dp0040T�y 6
N2„�TNOM4P'a 22 F ! i/.,�N�po.ap .n t 5 U '°
pp
0.2
m ,Yy M,mT ,nr, a. {. �l•pA pyNOZ 000 Oga s S o n '�CR +� r •M
-IYN�Y42 ooT 11 ^1 raT mnp<T2 " +� 'gin , iM1i So '
. .'o4i�oim���9mm mR4F 6i $ --.l �• ^K' fl
°r.°mi�a,nn -mini➢-m �"'m a"'mom'^ m ° `y5 ,N a r
F v"urnmoiyaziF (n-{m/�'F (s}•�a?�zm �₹, =
D VOU YYT. tins. 'rl° TI-Tm21m-➢ N Mr
M
2 2¢„ 02220 yn <I yy�yr�(q eqy 8 >4 $9 a a�3, 9n R.-
m?YYa2 m:,nm <C Yi'i �3a<g22 c A 5<m w^V a j•
aNmc„ioo o➢i °Y _ ao .-°�� 9 A $ y8 r, ?
mu amn um m- "--ao ., < •m -.
TY mma'�dY N O !`pu Nmu2 " F, ns S_
,=„m OM�m�NN,-Vi n�rY I-40oNY< i^ ,h <
yYPPY≥N'v¢2M�pa nmD 22my $e '
u�6am mOa VOyT, O'}•O oFFmm}5 {h;n � R£ �
�y mT,nNNm 00➢N'y2 Fm��1�Tp P^ Fm 5
A im i.m M ma_m0 <Olnm<C r� m m
.miv vin=—kkml9A1 t°REo Ca a `,
°mm Z'o inn\+-miiop'p NR o Rr�esm E o m
�"mMmay 2Y202y m-lc-.i-i
�Fmmp a �,
2 t2tnNT'�riTm�`T 23 yrn„rr,'-r<_-T o
mom^ib"��n YY o mii TIME
no NmmrrlC$OT �y "' v.a v>s O o
n4 r.~0m m GaO`r2a ≤NrDAN M1 N
➢�N2,VDF,a 2TC o, !po oeO
Am Tn.pc9n➢ 0 2-r pu
TmT:1
SC
JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES a
CIVIL ENGINEERS •SURVEYORS F
ra .Cncwmrcaartr .r,rtn,.w..uuxur a♦r .n•..r+nr .,.i.mvr.a
4
�
rna
r
n
N
A
000s
k
m
C
D
a
4
u
N
u
y
z
o_
va
u
n,
i
IIGI
y
in . t
U
n
o
e.
Q
m
V
'v
M
o
M
M
[zi
Y
y
a
p
•.
O
U
n
1.
N
�
°
u
V
n
a
n
i.
N
a
u,.
muo
00
:§:zgg§
ma_
B
U�O00°<
��g
000�a
I I® {goon 'I II
IIIIZ
A in
A I m V Z
b ss <tl; Cl
II A 0
I -'
•°
�ao>F° �' n•.c _—J'. t'
CO A • ezT ••y f -........ r n
RY y ___
e m Z'pp- TAD m x Yb ^, F -H -V M
-C
<
—S v v NLIAr�
Y u
NAN
GLEN
"iln, w`\_w `� /- �.(t i -I \ \.l''.. 1 _ tJ...� \ ..f� 111 Il> 11111ri\1x \ l..\\ \ \ / //If / \c\\_._rlln J. tJi// / r/. ri //,/!i^'I j;>>•ii i/.
'— _-_ a 4 a `^ ,.w ....-. \ r i f I 511 ...1- ... .Isv. =/.lc •-r_ .+....�_ .a \i / �.v ^— h f \ / / // / //I /^/r/ I i /.
\ \-I �\ .=r•/ I .,.—A= \._._\ Y \\ x -.f .. 'i �a..a. �'\'l,P'.'t\xl-f y ^ _- \ �.\....�{ S /Y S t rlrY "...^+s0'``i>'r/ // J/life f // �/ I/ �.
\ \\ \ LF !��/ / 1 I / -\\ ♦ J / f 1pp\ \j\\) r / = ` _yr il.i 0 - f i f/ // / !/ //•/ //i/
//-"�- \tV�\1\i\:�� JlVI.f/ %l/// J/il 1 l( Iw\ /_i�/I ♦.."//
�1�w ,\f -!Y• rL / /1' !l / IJ Irr\`.� ,\ f 1 Y5l'\t`,\\t\1\ a\\l tl✓ V\w\11-�'\`_..w J,"......./ / '^ r' i�!/!i/j�%I;///, //�/
\\. i 1:11t
w'/.. _../ \....r J ._ •/ // // / J I r r \ / I t \ \� ..r Y -nr / , / `I / J \
I' \ Lr .. / ' y/ / /\ _^ L\�- /\ / / /r ./ 1 1 /\ \ -'v_/ / / \`\V \ \♦l\'\ livll ``. 1 /f b / w / !♦. A/ ///!// / / ,
_ \ l 1 `\\l\\� 1\ l~IY \\ v),rs�\\._//•/ !w/r..• /`._t FLI�f!/� I 1 x iI/Y/j /� Y}`V
/ / .`w/._�.. / / / / ! .. / \.\\.n\\\\V..\ 111 \ / //. �/ /\ / l \. x111// I \\ \ I/ /!�/ •+'(r!v
__.\1 \..+-�^\• ___ f / / /\ `. '\ ✓` J 1 \ \ \ \\\....\\\\1a _.♦ I1j I /f. \ / T
i ^ ._ _/1 ... '"` ^ / / / J r^ t \ ,__J
/ r \ \ \. \\\ \\'a-.._ _1 \/\ / / r i/ \\ I}l\ 1 1 I/Yell )/'>`rv✓
/.\/ //\•• / ( /' > r ♦ \\ \ ♦\ \."_-IlV1\i \ i ../ r' a //' l, \d \ \I O: /
/ -/� _ !-// \/ •.,n/�`'_w .... ... r'' / / 1 f \ �.^../ r \ t` I ( / t'� 1 t\ I IN
r " \ ♦ // � _Y.+\/Y/..../...f'.!/. i\� \\ \\ "/\ // 1 \ ttt \\ INS \ M1l�I\ (r f/ `n4i ' i q\t\\"t /lI /1�,/I l;\ 1 f.11r
' C">'
}
',\ 1 I / ("_ _ `._-.. r..... /'_ > I 1•k q \J 1 1 I. r i i y JY v / 1
/ ' x ( C_.w 'I:"i+'a/\Ij(:1\ ♦,♦'
/\,. _/\//-_ // r/ • J 1. !i li/ \\ , / Y.
/ /\ Ir \ f /`1// ,I a: ..C` t i i\i t(
..w'/ �/ r/, < r -/ t \ J / /I p I 9\ / /�'r 1 a _
/ -! f _ ,i/ )Il .ar'_.. _] I ('.//J ,\\\V\\'i /, '. ,.t'
\ 1411 I1 t . _ Y!'. > r!\/ , t \ i r \ ! / J. nl�\\ Ifr\\ \\t JJ Y \\
f INI �1 1 \ /_.../ \-� \ r _"'\ ..^'/' a/I //!' ./ /..// 14'�I/I
1111 I - A / /v_/' l_/ /^ v// v_. _.J' / L11/` // ' /rr :rl fll lw_ /v�AA ✓`.-J'" :J
i 11 JI%f/ 1 tJ I i \/ / /\.. !.. I /...... I/ \ I / IJ I ll r 1 // c r \ ^Jf \\
15!!44 ♦' 11 \ (._. // l___...... / \� / I tP \:%_.:_j:!:/` r/.� / \- \ I:
1414 P viv i v vt `/ / -_- i IIII v q.. ! / i i/ n
vv IBfl /l`� v I v v / v//i/ r 1 1/ II / y/ ` yy11+ v v r
:` w i° tl \� ` I \\ :J ;,\ r U tl'l .) 1 cJ /,;,r '\._ ;f/'rl i ^ ♦ d
l \ •\ \ \ \ t li / / I .. . /./ ..r///.4 / / Q / (
1 \ 1i�14 "\ \ \ \ IG. n / \T \y \.. "J.
/I // 1Ii'^/L'\JJlMt-, '�_=r �r \I `\ II 1�: /{ •/,---':-7 i \\/i
11 y A 1a !.r A '
i / _ . _ , , \: `♦ 111 j^,;-� _ 3/{.pt ' - �..- \\` • ;
J /_ [� _ �\ \\`. .. \._w.. \\ \ \ \ t" -may \ 1 i11l� / 1 c_\/\ \� .� 'r^ \` a\
.w__ is y
\ \ \ \ _....\ \ /J / / 1//i
/ l y{jly•ll./
\ \ \ \ Y / t / / (/ I / I / l ll'
i \ 1 \ \ 1 l I /
1' f e \__\•`y\.\ \\ \ \ r l( fl ! 11 %
/ !
\ / a / w„_/ \ / / / I ,TTTTT!
/.i ... I` 1 J t! I I ir> 1 I_ i
Y \ ! ,/1r2'/
% I / /'" r i \ /
I t. � ; III ♦_. / l tt \ \t / / // \ \l � \t \\ � -\ i ♦ / '!! /// / / III
\ \t , t.. :r I, I. , \..... \". r, � ;
\ \\ w J \ 1 1 14 : \ ; l / / / /// / 'r._ / / i•/ r/r \` 1`
1 r , J JJJ/I n / I \ ♦ � \ \ \\ \ _\ \ \\...\
a_ \ ..�♦ \ ♦ /O/ 1 \1 \
,l+ r' / x< - f '\.. / t.. '• l._ ••I t II \ F \ ' ..\ i r \ \ ,\: 1 ! f
" v 7 / �' IJ _ A V A v A ___ A A -.---..--- / 1 1 1 1
I% % J -'r ^../ ')'�I-1 '----- � \ \ w.. ` \ -. _ \ 111..._ _ / / \ I _l \ 1 1\
!( / / 1. / / I _r Vr v ' IIII v\ Y\\\ \ f rl ti' \ w 1 'v 1/� 1 1 r I/ r ---- i `V 1 1 /
; 1 \ 1 \ � i -"\ 1/ -\..- � \ r � ! //-,_----;
i re 1 i i;P ! i
' 1 � \ I•f � .. I r �l _ �_ e \ ♦t `\ `\ 1 I t ` t / .\ \ _ e \ 1 1 I / f" I i / � , � ✓ 1
\. J / \ \ `\ � ter, t y / /- • \ 1 l Ix r, )1 NI Q
'/+!!r ' �'�✓,�I /�i rl �\t I Li .. . LT
/ i JI; /1 / ^\/ \\ \~ + .\ !h
.......... 1 \ VI / ;_.r If \\'\ I / 1\\ rl /.r y/i r (Ij t.. / \ -• \ 1 / wI
t I
/ J
1 / / t
�\M...-:xal/J[-//J ' a♦ • ] T% / \..' X I / e
/` /i .�/!'_ �.__ i/�1 \\\'V\ \\I\lL\_\\\I /• // •'/M '.' I`Y\^\\\\\\\ 1 {�.\♦ 1'\ \\ / `\...rl rl. '.y I/.. / // tlJ l.l• J/'• i�/� /L\ •/
\\1\t `\\r ! /l\V\l \.1:1 a ,... / 1 11. t \I \\_.!''-/ Ll Ir / r Y.I� 11/r / \•
li I \\' aI ! i 1 1 '�f �.._ 1'. .`\ ...v-...._ —/ I�' 1 { \ r� / n J \. f...f ♦ll /\
i` V l A /. I v/ ``` 1 1 V 11
a\fix \ / I _/ •/ / ...._..../ \ / / e
^\ 1 _ l
p�\\ 1\ \\I 'A>! ^ / /^ -\..Yew\\..''� a..... 11
t `I \ •I .! i'__% _\ � w_\ "__/ \\ \I tf \ ' jl t ..-` \\...
1 A A A AAAA`VAII 1?L AAAA�I{ A V t A A i �1 A A_I
t 1 A A pAQVU v AA AA AU I` tl' v ti > v I r a __ 1:1 • .._.
tAAtAdq\1A� VA, 1 v v 1 -_1 rr .'
VAAAAVLvht lv4.jjaVAh \ail AA{\AV` ` -� ..i'i .. �...
—'.
-- V
! 45 V v'v.
`:}
1.,94 4
\r
\:-\\\ /h`. r J'• .'F.//9 //A /rl Ir\\ 1 (pp. L- ' nr p/ //ll/
/
--r-;:' 33
iii'/= '—_=J i(III :..j r r/ /ra--
-K " 1 III //'75t—;
/ II I
(J1 4 �
` q lu ]3 f 1/ '/fill/ / //J//# ^'".,w"I rt I /a/r 11 III t I 1'
C 2.T34/'aP s d�/ /r'_j�%Ij //'r'/fir n__�.n..__Py' I/ / ICI%I /l i I,
T-. 1r/Li ///i///r /ir//,,, rr /• ///A/ .. fir/ /^ I/if •: i/!
:.. /// /"fill/ /rj%r. i/i%/!'/ir;rv'io/ /^. 1 i //I// 1l �i//• ..' ; \ //.. /
Y. r_ Ill «I�!WL.'�••�//i r�/// ////////'/'N / " /' / /1�..��L//- >^r /'.' I /;
/ N/N}NII .��v/yT,�� / /y //// //`r /'•4414 (l/. 1 / r i / 1 / I :i�/1
%p%I�/�!"�/i/�/////1//% i /I•�r/lr•i/1//!I ��1'\//^ /r/ 1 i VII!/I
tIr! ! //
&(I*x*4Rfni111 JeffIia �r�fi I/I i ///•'- i�frl�r/ //VII/ /_I
/1 1AA /A II/1 /r/IiW •'4// I/1/I/f / /`J / / / / `
Qlhf x'I/ i/� IllrrJll/ p.p/ii l/IIJ ' ' ! / /I / i A/ f I' i If ir_/ 1 I'
41EI II: Itf/fl i 'iblR/)ill M1 / (/ ! / J. / r / / / ............. .. /^V
1 >tlraNJ /P gil�ul irl 111 / /r I / r : Ar ) r / / w/1 --• --y/ / lj /
N' fflll(jN�IpNM1�uy�l�ltl(Sdlll/! ill / I (\' / '/ /r '.1.'/-, t I ! 1 e t
N II 1!51111$�1 I101I 1I4111I I I I j.; V I (� f / ` / I i. I IS
) I 5 1 ' .IC I\ -
litIlL,
iiiM,1rI•f- yVA111* 11iIn 11 !l\\t 4x4 2 w e-' \p /\ "r \. w w -\/\c
Ill fll O.1 i14!4111l/I AA+\ll VAVA aVAO �A N5.<14
A(1vv '+�I ��A^TyY.. v�1
f'T\ � — — t- i ¢'•.-� YH\\f� '. -' \ i / 'I/'I 1 J
_. _ _ _..� ._ ` \ 1 I 1 III r I /
\
'I,, 11/F/////lI // I(
I / / f /(
eif L.. 4..111 f :/'
It •<.I!'11114 Ji 111
\\14 III 11' 41
wy vyvI,vvvy 1x1 Ilt 111 vv
AAN A Av\
�1/\/111\\\11111115\i 1114 .
IIII \ I� II I H 1 11 li l 111 \l lj�l
11.11 11111111 1.11\
)l//u•
ll
'ir/i I J/
f /f/ ill l
/j pI 1 Ili \
IJf//A-'v111 11 ---
Ill /111 ''\ l\\ tl\ w_
Ill lle_.• -'�\\�'.
\\ \ f\\1 \ fll n' ia: T \J\,\\C.t i.\\t•\\ \C \ d\ \ \\ \ L \\: rl \\-:.♦ l I ___ __
{{�
, III tll! § 4' tl \ U\1pI .� \t�.\YP\\ \�\ \� t\:\Z �C ��\CIt JIC\\3Zd��____
\•
t\\\1 t1. \1U1\ T/: ♦ J^%.. \\\ ( IfI I`\� '1\a\\tUV\U\Li�=CJ_..:-_
I II\ 4 r 11 eMWi\dnx.\\\t a.\\\It, ll\ I•N' S\I\\a\ \ \. N'S \\\tO t\ •*' �\.\ \ /.. - _
• T 1AII1ll111III11111 IIlI lUll 1111 ff11 I@11111MW 11W1111W1%(lll
Doo 11: 111111480004 Tvoe: REL
Recotded: 10/04/2004 at 09:58:13 All
Fse Amt: 817.00 Peae I of 4
BILL OF ASSURANCES uaihinaton,County. AR
FOR PIPER'S GLEN, A SUBDIVISION OF Bett stamps circuit clerk p
WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS File Od4-OOO4091 B
KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS, the undersigned, David and Sharon Wilson, are the
owners of a certain tract of IAnd lying and situated in Washington County, Arkansas, more
particularly described as follows:
TRACT A:
Parcel Number: 001-10318J001, Book 1276 page 577
A part of the Frl. SW 1/4 of the SW1/4 of Section 6, T -16-N, R -29-W, Washington County,
Arkansas, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point that is North 411.25
feet and N 89°3348W, 1943.02 feet from the SE comer of the SW I/4 of said Section 6, and running
thence West 200.00 feet; thence N 00°33'30"E, 97.8 feet; thence East 199.00 feet; thence South 97.8
feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.44 acres, more or less. _
Also:
A part of the Frl. SWI/4 of the SWI/4 of Section 6, T -16-N, R -29-W, Washington County,
Arkansas, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point that is N 89°33'48"W,
1593.05 feet and North 262.68 feet from the SE comer of the SW 1/4 of said Section 6, and running
thence West 350.00 feet; thence North 234.4 feet to a wood rail fence; thence Southeasterly along
said fence the following: S 87°30'E, 57.2 feet; S 79°06'E, 54.5 feet; S 67° 11E, 96.9 feet; S 46°47'E,
37.7 feet; S 21°04'E, 23.0 feet; thence leaving said fence and running East 114.3 feet; thence South
136.6 feet to the point of beginning, containing 1.50 acres, more or less.
TRACT B:
Parcel Number: 001-10320-000, Warranty Deed #2001157154
A part of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 6, T -I6 -N, R -29-W, Washington County, Arkansas,
being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the West line of the SW 1/4 of
the SW 1/4 of said Section 6 that is N 00°3515"W, 470.03 feet; N 01°45'19"W, 209.15 feet, and N
88°19'58"E, 11.03 feet from the SW corner of said 40 acre tract; running thence N 00°0059"W,
177.26 feet along said West line; thence leaving said West line N 88°19'58"E, 168.62 feet; and S
09°22'29"E, 178.61 feet; thence leaving said West line S 88°19'58"W, 197.68 feet to the point of
beginning, containing 0.75 acres, more or less.
TRACT C:
Parcel Number: 001-10320-001, Book 1294 at page 673
A part of the FrI. SWI/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 6, T -16-N, R -29-W, Washington County,
Arkansas, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the West line of a
25 foot wide access road that is North 732.05 feet and West 2178.81 feet from the SE comer of the
SWI/4 of said Section 6, and running thence S 07°28'E, 50.43 feet along said West line; thence West
215.64 feet
to the West
line of said 40
acre tract; thence N 00°13'51 "E, 50.0 feet
along said West
line; thence
East 208.9
feet to the point
of beginning, containing 0.24 acres, more
or less.
TRACT D:
Parcel Number: 001-10322-000, Book 1066 at page 888
A part of the Fri. SW1/4 of the SWI/4 of Section 6, T -16-N, R -29-W, Washington County,
Arkansas, being more particularly described as beginning at a point that is North 411.25 feet, and
West 2168.02 feet from the SE corner of the SW 1/4 of Section 6, and running thence West 220.92
feet; thence N 00°135 I "E, 256.0 feet; thence East 212 feet to a point on the West right-of-way line
of a 25 foot easement granted by David J. Wilson and Sharon A. Wilson; thence following said
easement, S 07°28E, 48.93 feet; thence S 00°33'30"W, 207.89 feet to the point of beginning.
TRACT E:
Parcel Number: 001-10323-000, Book 1066 at page 888
A part of the Fri. SWI/4 of the SWI/4 of Section 6, T -16-N, R -29-W, Washington County,
Arkansas, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point that is N 89°3348"W,
1943.05 feet from the SE comer of the SW 1/4 of Section 6, and running thence N 89°3348"W,
447.51 feet; thence N 00° 1351 "E, 393.03 feet; thence East 220.92 feet; thenceN 00°33'30"E, 207.89
feet; thence N 07°28'W, 386.48 feet to the centerline of a county road, thence along said centerline
S 61°45'20"E, 30.8 feet; thence S 07°28'E, 370.25 feet; thence S 00°33'30"W, 209.4 feet; thence East
200 feet; thence South 396.44 feet to the point of beginning.
TRACT F:
Parcel Number: 001-10324-000, Book 1066 at page 888
A part of the Frl. SWI/4 of the SW1/4 of Section 6, T -16-N, R -29-W, Washington County,
Arkansas, being more particularly described as beginning at a point that is N 89°3348W, 1593.05
feet from the SE corner of the SW 1/4 of said Section 6, and running thence N 89°33'48"W, 350.00
feet; thence North 260.12 feet; thence East 350.00 feet; thence South 260.12 feet to the point of
beginning.
NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned owners do hereby enter the following Bill of
Assurances and do hereby declare that the following Bill of Assurances are imposed on all the land
and shall be binding on David and Sharon Wilson and any entity controlled by them:
I. Lot Subdivision. In the proposed subdivision of Piper's Glen, no Lot under two acres
shall be further subdivided or re -platted. Any Lot exceeding two acres may be subdivided or re -
platted into two Lots.
2. Easements. No easements will be allowed on the proposed subdivided Lots to
provide access to other adjoining property.
3. Commercial Enterprises. No part of any proposed Lot shall ever be used or caused
to be used or allowed or authorized for any commercial, manufacturing, mercantile, storing, vending
or other such nonresidential purpose.
4. Land Use. Only single-family residences and associated improvements and structures
shall be constructed on the proposed Lots.
5. Mobile Homes and Temporary Structures. No structure commonly known as a
"mobile home", "house trailer," "manufactured home," or similar structure may be moved onto,
placed or used on any proposed Lot.
6.
Minimum
Square Feet
Area. All residences
constructed on any proposed Lot in
Piper's Glen
Subdivision
shall equal or
exceed 3,000 square
feet.
7. Existing Commercial Structure. Owners shall remove the commercial enterprise
currently situated on proposed Lot I of the subdivision prior to completion of the subdivision.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF WE HAVE HEREUNTO SET OUR HANDS AND SEALS on
this Iv' day of ,2004.
David Wilson
♦ J
Sharon Wilson
C
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF ARKANSAS
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
Comes now David and Sharon Wilson, being first duly sworn on oath, and states that he has
signed the foregoing document for the reasons and purposes therein written.
1 ^
___ Lt:L
David Wilson
Sharon Wilson
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN t
2004.
My Commission Expires:
o
before me, a Notary Public, this day of
''-rotary Public
FAYETTE\ILLE �
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
City Clerk Division
113 West Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (479) 575-8323
Fax: (479) 718-7695
city_clerk@ci.fayetteville.ar.us
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
To: Brenda Thiel
Alderman
From: Clarice Buffalohead-Pearmar
City Clerk Division
Date: October 11, 2004
Re: Resolution No. 155-04
The City Council passed the above resolution October 5, 2004, approving the
appeal of David and Sharon Wilson regarding Piper's Glen Subdivision. I have
attached a copy of the resolution with attached Bill of Assurance.
This resolution
will be
recorded
in the city
clerk's office and microfilmed. If
anything else
is
needed
please
let
the
clerk's
office
know.
Attachment(s)
cc: Nancy Smith, Internal Auditor