Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1963-08-27 Minutes• MINUTES OF A CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The Fayetteville City Planning Commission met in a special meeting at 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday, August 27, 1963, in the City Council Room in the City Administration Building. Members present: Suzanne Lighton, George Caudle, Hugh Stubblefield and Paul Young. A quorum was not present; therefore no action could be taken on the petitions. Members absent: J. F. Palmer, Bryan Walker, Bill Dalton, Henry Shreve and Clark McClinton. The meeting was called to order by Vice-chairman Suzanne Lighton who presided at the meeting in the absence of Chairman J. F. Palmer. Miss Lighton reported that the purpose of the meeting was to hold a public hearing to hear and consider three.rezoning petitions. First to be heard was the rezoning petition of the Board of Trustees, Calvary Assemblies of God Church, in which a request was made to rezone property several hundred feet north of Oakland Avenue and east of Garland Avenue (Highway No. 112) from R-lA Single Family Residential District to P-lA Special Church District. The hearing was declared open for discussion and the Vice-chairman reported that those who were in favor of the petition would be heard. David Burleson, attorney for the petitioner, and two church representatives were present. Mr. Burleson presented his case. He said that the property was purchased on the condition that it could be used for church purposes. Mr. Burleson said there was • some question as to whether this petition could be heard, but he interpreted the zon- ing ordinance to permit P-lA Special Church Districts any where within the city regard- less of the surrounding land uses and zones. Also, he said that ARTICLE IX AMENDMENT 1. Amendment Procedure for Private Parties (g) did not, in his opinion, apply to the petition of the Calvary Assemblies of God Church because a different area was being petitioned for rezoning, a different.zone was being petitioned for and the petitioners were different parties. It was called to the attention of the Planning Commission that the Church was in the process of purchasing more property than given in the legal description and shown on the drawings presented at the public hearing. Mr. Burleson said the portion of real estate not mentioned in the legal description is 120 feet by 105 feet south and west of the described real estate and east of Garland Avenue, Miss Lighton stated that the Planning Commission could not consider this portion of property as it was not published in the newspaper, etc. She said that the small portion which was omitted would, if the property owners wanted it rezoned for church use, have to be considered in another public hearing after following the procedures for zoning amendment as set out in the zoning ordinance. Suzanne Lighton asked if there were anyone present who objected to the petition. There were no objectors to be heard. The petition of S & H. Inc., was heard next. Suzanne Lighton declared the hearing of the petition of S & H, Inc., open for discussion and that those in favor of the petition would now be given an opportunity to be heard. Attorney A. D. McAllister was at the hearing to represent the petitioners. Mr. Lloyd Hobbs, president of S & H, Inc., also was present. 28 George Caudle inquired as to whether or not Shiley Drive had been vacated. A. D. McAllister said the street had been vacated. A certified copy of order of the Washington County Court entered April 28, 1961, reflecting the vacation of Shiley 46 Drive in the B. A. Shiley Subdivision was submitted for the Planning'Commi.ssion files. Also a petition with the signatures of all the owners of the real estate immediately adjoining real estate owned by S & H. Inc., was filed with the Planning Commission. An error was made in the drawing presented to the Planning Commission members. Mr. McAllister said the northeast part of the property would go 15 feet farther east t}ian shown on the drawing. Mr. McAllister said that the 300 foot commercial strip was not sufficient. He said that several property owners sharea this opinion. The purpose of the rezoning was to zone to C-2 that property which was not already zoned C-2. The land will be used for the construction of additional units for the motel. Harold Lieberenz pointed out that Mr. Arthur Skelton and Mr. Johnnie Bassett have given an option to an oil company for the purchase of land north of the Holiday Inn. The residences located in the area north of the Holiday Inn would be moved and the vicinity would predominantly be commercial. Anthony'Latrecchia and B. E. House appeared at the hearing. Mr. Latrecchia made known his approval of the rezoning. He sai& that he was interested in the outcome of this hearing because'in the future he would like to petition for the extension of the C-2 zone on property south of Township Road. Mr. Latrecchia remarked that the 300 foot commercial strip was not adequate enough. There were no.more.comments..to be made by those in favor of the rezoning; Suzanne • Lighton, therefore, asked those who objected to state their reasons for objecting. No opposition was present. The rezoning petition of Roy and Vera Guinn, husband and wife, was heard. Their petition made known their request for the rezoning of property west off Duncan Avenue from R-2 Two Family Residential District to C-1 Open Land District. The rezoning was requested inorder that the Guinns may extend their existing trailer park. Along with the petition for rezoning was a petition signed by owners of real estate lying within the immediate area. Vice-chairman Lighton asked that those in favor of the petition to be heard; there was no one. Those who objected were asked to state their objections; there were no objectors present. There being no more petitions to be heard, the Vice-chairman declared that the purpose of the public hearing having been accomplished, the public hearing was adjourned. Miss Lighton stated that a quorum was not present, so no action could be taken at this meeting. The meeting -bras adjourned. i Correction to the Minutes of August 27, 1963 • "- Also a petition with the signatures of all the owners of the real estate mediately adjoining real estate owned by S & H, Inc., was filed with the Planning Commission. This petition contained a statement which made known that said property owners had no objection to the zoning change requested." DATE• Eighth paragraph, Mage 28=2 "Along with the petition for rezoning was a petition signed by owners of real estate lying within the mediate area. .These owners stated in the petition they did not have any objections to the zoning change from Rr2 to I-lA of Roy and Vera Glints property." APPROVED: DATE