Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-10-08 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held at 4:00 P.M. Tuesday, October 8, 1974, in the Directors Room, City Administration Building Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Morton Gitelman, Ernest Jacks, Helen Edmiston, Al Hughes, Rita Davis, Donald Nickell, John Power, John Maguire. MEMBERS ABSENT: Ernest Lancaster OTHERS PRESENT: Larry Wood, David McWethy, Donald Grimes, Bobbie Jones, Dr. Jorge Johnson, B. W. Miller, Mrs. Lonnie Martin, Dorothy Wilkins, George Hamilton, Bob Crisp, Joe Ziegler, R. D. Murray, Mr. Charles Barrett, Loris Stanton, Leo Van Scyoc, Bruce Chambers. Chairman Morton Gitelman called the meeting to order. MINUTES The minutes of the September 24, 1974 Planning Commission Meeting were approved as distributed. REZONING PETITION R74-13 Chairman Gitelman opened the Public Hearing Drs. Coker, Kaylor on Rezoning Petition R74-13, Dr. Tom P. Coker, Kendrick, and Johnson Dr. Coy C. Kaylor, Dr. Carl M. Kendrick, and Township Road Dr. Jorge Johnson, to rezone property located at 649 East Township Road from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to R-0, Residential Office District (for the East one-half) and C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District (for the West one-half) which was tabled from the September 10, 1974 Planning Commission Meeting. Larry Wood gave the Planning Report in which he stated that the recommended land use pattern for this property is medium -density residential. The South- east portion of this property is also subject to low water pressure problems if it is above the 1480 foot contour. He also brought out that the topo- graphic conditions of this piece of property indicated that it should not be used intensively. (There is a lot of tree cover and it is very steep, dropping nearly 180 feet from the Southeast corner to the Northwest corner.) He felt that zoning which would increase density or intensity should not be allowed to extend any further East than it already has until the intersection of Township and Highway 71 could be improved to accommodate left and right turn lanes. Considering the topographic conditions along with the potential low water pressure and traffic problems, Mr. Wood did not recommend a change in zoning. John Maguire arrived at 4:10 P. M. during Mr. Wood's report. Chairman Gitelman read into the record a letter signed by the concerned doctors and a statement signed by B. A. Shamblin which had been submitted to the City Planning Office by Mr. Shamblin. The two letters follow in their entirety and are hereby made a part of these minutes: PLANNING COMMISSION City of Fayetteville, Arkansas After the September 10, 1974 Planning Commission meeting, Planning Commission -2- October 8, 1974 we have investigated the opposition to the construction of a medical clinic on the Township Road, Fayetteville, Arkansas and have reached the conclusion that the opposition is biased and has not been objectively viewed due to inflammatory state- ments and actions on the part of two or three individuals. Their work has spread far beyond the proper bounds of the property involved to bring in people far from the area affected. This opposition is therefore biased and improper and should be mostly disregarded. We will not dwell upon the absurd and ridiculous statements circulated nor speculate as to the reasons behind them. We share the concern of the immediate neighbors and wish at this time to assure them of the quality and beauty of our porposed clinic. We are as ecology minded as the builder that Mr. Don Grimes, Fayetteville City Manager, praised in the Sunday Addition of the Arkansas Gazette (a copy of his state- ment is attached). Mr. Grimes appears to be praising what Planning Consultant Mr. Larry Wood condemns in our case as quoted in Sunday's Northwest Arkansas Times (copy attached). These two statements show the dilemma with which we are faced One official praises what another condemns or is it because we are physicians. If so, what is undesirable about a clinic? Do you prefer to make your office visits to a beautiful, well planned clinic that by its attractiveness makes the unpleasant medical visit easier. Do you prefer to see your doctor in as pleasant and clear minded state as possible and wait less time to do it as his work load is arragned to see more patients as relaxed as possible; or, do you prefer to wait and wait while the doctors and nurses struggle in unpleasant working conditions in gloomy, depressing buildings built to accomodate a work load long made obsolete by our areas rapid growth. Would you wish to lay in the hospital emergency ward waiting on your physician to reach your side while he struggles through several miles of traffic from a remote location forced upon him by totally un- realistic city zoning and planning. These statements are made on behalf of the entire medical profession that has too long been the subject of negative thinking in city zoning. It is past time that some very serious soul searching be done about this. Now why are we asking for R-0 zoning on the East half and C-2 commercial on the West half. Insofar as the C-2, that can be dropped right now. It just appeared to fit with the commercial strip on North Highway 71. Now as to the R-0, we care absolutely nothing about this classification except that it permits doctor's clinics without restricting the number of doctors to the building. R-2 zoning would be acceptable but it restricts the number of doctors per building. We could build a building on each acre and have one hundred doctors but we could not construct one building on thirty acres and have no more than four. Do not blame us for this condition, we certainly do not like it. Please give this matter your most careful consideration as it is of the utmost and gravest importance both now and for the future of the growth of medical care in the city of • T U1 i:I -3- Planning Commission October. 8, 1974 Fayetteville, Arkansas. The time is now. The place is here. Please respond to this very serious and potential damaging situation. s/ Jorge Johnson s/ Tom P. Coker s/ Carl M. Kendrick s/ Coy C. Kaylor October 8, 1974 Planning Commission City of Fayetteville Fayetteville, Arkansas Honorable Members: May I make the personal request that the Planning Commission initiate an immediate study in order to bring about a new zoning classification for medical facilities. Perhaps on the order of that given to churches. The need is immediate and urgent. Prospective newcomers to this area are very con- cerned with medical care. It is one of their first questions. Believe me we stand at a crossroad on this and I plead for your immediate attention and action. Respectfully submitted, ,s/ B. A. Shamblin Don Grimes, City Manager, was present and stated that since he had been quoted that he would like to clarify this matter. He stated that he was in favor of the type of subdivision which Mr. David Rose had developed, 10 houses on 20 acres, as this was good for ecology because of the preservation of trees. Dr. Jorge Johnson of the Orthopaedic Clinic was present. He stated that they had problems getting in and out where they were presently located and since there was a stop light at Township Road this proposed location would be ideal for their new clinic and that this new facility would be set up to more adequately handle emergencies and would be handier for people with broken bones to enter the building. He told the Planning Commission that he had been offered property in Springdale and that if the rezoning petition were denied they could (if they have to) move from Fayetteville; that they would have to relocate their clinic somewhere else. He said that the present clinic was set up for two doctors to work in and that there would be two more doctors coming soon to work with them. (There are presently four doctors working in the clinic.) Chairman Gitelman opened the hearing to permit those opposed to Rezoning Petition R74-13 to be heard. Mr. B. W. Miller presented a petition signed by 211 people who opposed this rezoning. Mr. Miller stated that if this property were rezoned it would have a domino effect and all the property all the way to Old Wire Road might as well be rezoned. He felt that people would not be able to get up Township Road Planning Commission October 8, 1974. to reach the clinic in the winter along this road anyway, and that there would be the possibility of Overcrest being opened up for traffic and this would endanger their children. He said that this area was zoned R-1 and that when the people bought and built homes here they thought it would stay R-1, and they had a vested right to try to keep this neighborhood from changing. He added that there are generally one of two reasons why property is rezoned (1) the character of the neighborhood has changed; or (2) the City made a mistake when the area was zoned. He said this is not true and added that rezoning would change the neighborhood and endanger their neighborhood and their children. Mrs. Lonnie Martin, 610 Overcrest, was present and commented on the doctors remark about the petitioners reaching far out in getting names on their petition. Mr. and Mrs. Lonnie Martin own 660 feet of property that adjoins the property in question on the South. Mrs. Martin stated that she felt that what affected one neighbor would also affect another neighbor and that the doctors should not assume that people who do not live near the affected property should not be heard on this matter. Mrs. Martin said they had moved to this area from Wichita putting a life -time of work in on the house and 11 acres they purchased that adjoins this other property and that when they purchased it they were looking for a quiet place to live. She, therefore, hoped that the concerned property would not be rezoned. Dorothy Wilkins, adjoining property owner on Juneway Terrace, was present and stated she did not think the stop light at Township would help in getting to the proposed clinic as she travelled this way every day and it was difficult to turn left at this point. She said it could not be any more difficult turning left at the present clinic than it was to turn left at Township. She also opposed this rezoning and this area becoming commercial. Mr. George Hamilton, 2252 Juneway Terrace, adjoining property owner, was also present, and stated that he didn't like it when people started "throwing a commercial project into his back yard." He questioned whether Mr. Shamblin's interest in this wasn't because he had sold the property to the doctors. Mr. Bob Crisp was present and asked for a show of hands of those that lived within 2 blocks of the area in question to show that the majority of the people who had signed the petition against the rezoning did live close to this area. Many hands were raised. Mr. Joe Ziegler, 828 Overcrest, told the Planning Commission that he was sympathetic with the doctors in trying to re -locate their clinic, but he thinks there is a responsibility upon the petitioner not only to show the benefits derived from the rezoning but also a cost effect to the property owners should be considered. He said that no benefits had been specified in the doctor's statement. He felt that the Planning Commission should recommend against rezoning. Chairman Gitelman closed the Public Hearing on Rezoning Petition R74-13. Chairman Gitelman commented that the location of the cul-de-sac on Overcrest on the two diagrams of the area to be rezoned did not match. At this point in the meeting Mr. R. D. Murray,2006 Austin, stepped forward and pointed out that the document he received showed Austin going through to Township Road when it should stop at Overcrest and that it did not show Juneway Terrace going through. Mrs. Bobbie Jones, Planning Administrator, explained that at one time Juneway Terrace was actually named Austin, and that the street name had been changed by ordinance, and the name on the old map was not changed. She said that the maps that were sent out were taken from land use maps prepared by Jim Vizzier, and these maps show the cul-de-sac extending past the quarter section line and the City Engineer's plat book shows that the edge of the cul-de-sac barely touches the quarter section line. Mrs. Jones said she could not find a copy of the original plat in her files to check which was correct. • Planning Commission -5- October 8, 1974 Donald Nickell stated he thought that it would be an enfringement on the R-ldistrict if this area were rezoned. Mr. Nickell then made a motion that Rezoning Petition R74-13 be denied. Chairman Gitelman seconded the motion. Mr. Ad Hughes questioned why the location of the proposed clinic was shown on the Southeast corner of the property and not more to the West. Mr. Gitelman remarked that this was the most level portion of the property. Mrs. Edmiston stated that if there could be a buffer zone established it would solve the problem but that the terrain was probably too steep. The vote was taken; Gitelman, Jacks, Edmiston, Hughes, Nickell, Power, and Maguire voted "Aye." Mrs. Rita Davis abstained. The petition was denied on a vote of 7 "Ayes," No "Nays", and one abstention. ORTHOPAEDIC CLINIC The next item was the proposed Large Scale Development Large Scale Development plan of the Orthopaedic Clinic to construct a clinic 649 East Township Road at 649 East Township Road which was tabled from September 10, 1974. (Approval of this plan is contingent upon Rezoning Petition R74-13 being approved.) Mr. Ernest Jacks moved that the Large Scale Development plan of Orthopaedic Clinic be tabled indefinitely in view of the action taken on Rezoning Petition R74-13. Donald Nickell seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. REZONING PETITION R74-17 • Chairman Gitelman opened the Public Hearing on Charles E. Barrett College Rezoning Petition R74-17, Charles E. Barrett, to Ave. $ Rock Street rezone property located on the Northeast and Southeast corners of North College Ave. and Rock Street from R-2 Medium Density Residential District, and R-0, Residential Office District, to C-3, Central Commercial District. Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, gave a Planning Report and did not recommend a change in zoning from R-0 District to C-3 District at the Southeast corner of Rock Street because a more intensive use of the property is not advisable South of Rock Street considering the steep grades and access problems on Rock Street, College Ave. and Highway 71 and also the property is too small to adequately provide for a building, off-street parking and safe ingress and egress. However, he did recommend that the portion of the application North of Rock Street could be rezoned to P-1 District (Institutional) because after reviewing the associated land use situation in the area around the application he felt that public use of the property North of Rock Street was a valid recommendation. This would allow continued use of the property as it is, but would not allow new construction which would have to be purchased at greater expense to the public. Mr. Charles Barrett was present to represent the petition. Mr. Barrett agreed with Larry Wood's recommendation in that there was no way that a building could be constructed on two of the lots because they were too small. He stated that the lots to the East and South would be used for parking. He explained that they already had property that was zoned C-3 and that property across the street to the South and property to the East had been acquired for parking purposes. He stated that he did question Mr. Wood's recommendation as to public use as he felt that with public use there would be as much traffic as if it were for private use. He said that the size of the building has been held back from a 4 -story (40,000 sq. ft.) to a 2 -story (20,000 sq. ft.)building because there was a traffic problem. He said that it was in the contract when he purchased the property that these two lots would be used for parking only and no building. Helen Edmiston asked Mr. Barrett if he had to have C-3 zoning for parking. (_) Planning Commission -6- October 8, 1974 Mr. Barrett explained that the setback requirement for parking lots in R-0 was 25 feet from street right-of-way and in C-3 the setback was only 5 feet, and that the lot on the Southeast corner being 65' x 95' there could be only 10 cars parked there in an R-0 Zone. Mrs. Edmiston stated that what he needed then was a variance in setback instead of a re -zoning. Mrs. Bobbie Jones, Planning Administrator, told the Planning Commission that a variance might help him on the lot on the South side of Rock Street as it is presently zoned R-0 but the lots presently zoned R-2 cannot be used for parking for commercial use without rezoning and that there were still some lots that were zoned R-2, and a variance would not cover those. Mr. Jacks stated he hesitated to disrupt the Zoning Pattern and asked Mr. Wood, Planning Consultant, what he thought about changing the R-2 Zone to an R-0 Zone and let Mr. Barrett go before the Board of Adjustment to request a variance. Mr. Wood replied that this would be more compatible with the area and the R-2 to the East than the C-3 Zone would be. There was no one present to oppose the petition. Ernest Jacks moved to deny the petition to rezone the property South of Rock Street and reconnedn rezoning of the portion zoned R-2 on the North side of Rock Street to R-0 and let Mr. Barrett seek a variance before the Board of Adjustment for the parking setbacks. Helen Edmiston seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. The motion was carried by a vote of 8"Ayes." STUDY OF LAND USE PLAN The next item was a report from Larry Wood on a study Report from Larry Wood of Land Use Plan and zoning in the area of Fifteenth Street (Highway 16 By-pass) and Morningside Drive. At the September 24, 1974 Planning Commission Meeting Mr. Wood had reported on the study, but at that time no recommendations were given because of the difficulty of the area. (Rezoning Petition R74-10 and R74-12 were both tabled from August 13, 1974'Planning Commission meeting pending this report.) At this time Mr. Wood told the Planning Commission that the light industrial activity could be drawn North to the 16 By-pass and still have the R-2 (Medium Density Residential) on the North side of the road, particularly if the developers would utilize the newer development techniques such as Planned Unit Development of it leaving some open space on the North side before getting into the development of buffering walls or move in to side -in cul-de-sacs that would keep the property frontages from facing the industrial. On the South side Mr. Wood stated that during the processing of Large Scale Development Plans he hoped that they would be reviewed very carefully so that any unsightly activity could be screened. Mr. Wood recommended that property on the West of Highway 16 By-pass be considered for additional commercial sometime in the future matching East Gate Shopping Center with office category in the triangle which in now a marshy area. He recommended the I-2 zone along the East and West sides of Armstrong Boulevard North of the creek be cut back to I-1 allowing the center of the creek to serve as the zoning break and retaining the I-2 zoning along the North side of Pump Station Road South of the creek. He said the Dresselhaus Petition R74-12 application that was tabled pending this report he would recommend be rezoned I-1. The Witt and Stanton Petition R74-10 he recommended for a split between I-1 and R-2, with the railroad track being the line between the two zones. The North and East side of the track would be usable for industrial purposes and possibly a portion on the West side; He recommended that R-1 be retained on Planning Commission -7- October 8, 1974 Country Club Hill and the steeper slopes,butthat R-2 be considered around the sides of the hills keeping the Country Club itself as "green space" and then hoping that the Planned Unit Development concept would be utilized with the steeper portions being left for open space and the flatter parts be used for dwelling purposes. Mr. Wood said he did not want to see an industrial wedge between 2 residential areas so he stopped the study at the section line leaving this open for negotiations in the future. Ernest Jacks moved that a Public Hearing be called to consider amending the land use plan as outlined by Mr. Wood. There was no further discussion. The motion was unanimously approved by a vote of 8 "Ayes." The next item to be discussed was Rezoning Petition R74-10, James 0. Witt, Jr., President of The Hargis Company, and Loris L. Stanton, President of The Stanton Company, to rezone property located on the West side of City Lake Road (Morningside Drive) and South of Pump Station Road from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to R-2, Medium Density Residential District. This was tabled from August 13, 1974 pending the completion of the study of the land use and zoning in the area. Mr. Loris Stanton was present to represent the petition. Mr. Stanton stated that at the last meeting there were a number of people present to object because someone had told them that a low-income apartment complex was proposed on the West side of the railroad tracks. He said that after the meeting this matter was discussed with some of these people and they were informed that this matter would be coming up again before the Planning Commission and that this area would probably be changed to an I-1 or I-2 zone and that this had met with the approval of these people. He said that he would appreciate the Planning Commission taking action on this matter at this time. Chairman Gitelman suggested to the Planning Commission that if they were in favor of rezoning it in accordance with the proposed change of plan a recommendation could be made to the Board of Directors and that Mrs. Bobbie Jones, Planning Administrator, could notify the adjacent property owners of their action and that if these people want to be heard or have an objection to it they can raise it at the Board Meeting and it can be sent back to us for a public hearing if there is any objection. Mr. Nickell stated that he did not like to go around people in a Public Hearing. Mrs. Rita Davis stated that this had been discussed several times. Chairman Gitelman felt that it would be fair if these people were given letter notice of the Commission's action so they would have an opportunity to object before this became final. Mr. Al Hughes made a motion to recommend to the Board of Directors the rezoning of the portion of the property West and South of the railroad tracks to R-2 as requested and the portion North and East of the railroad tracks to I-1 based on the consistency with the proposed change in the comprehensive plan and to request Bobbie Jones, Planning Administrator, to notify the adjacent property owners of the Planning Commission action so that they may appear before the Board of Directors if they have any questions or objections. Mrs. Edmiston seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Jacks, Edmiston, Gitelman, Hughes, Davis, Power, and Maguire said "Aye." Mr. Donald Nickell abstained. The petition was approved by a vote of 7 "Ayes", no "Nays", and one abstention. REZONING PETITION R74-10 James 0. Witt, Jr. Loris L. Stanton Planning Commission October 8, 1974 It was also asked that the opinion of the City Attorney be sought on the question of whether the Commission can recommend rezoning to I-1 property which was proposed for R-2 in the advertising notice. REZONING PETITION R74-12 The next matter to be considered was Rezoning Petition J. Bernard Dresselhaus R74-12, J.,Bernard Dresselhaus, to rezone property located on 15th Street South of Shenandoah Mobile Home Park and West of the Fayetteville Industrial Park from R'-1, Low Density Residential District, to I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial District. This also was tabled from August 13, 1974, pending completion of the study of the land use and zoning in the area. No one was present to represent or oppose the petition. In answer to a question asked by Chairman Gitelman, Mr. Wood, Planning Consultant, stated that this rezoning request was consistent with his recommendation. Don Nickell made a motion to take Rezoning Petition R74-12 off the table and place it before the Planning Commission. Mr. Jacks seconded the motion, which was approved unanimoulsy. Helen Edmiston moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of Directors that Rezoning Petition R74-12 be approved as being consistent with the new land use study Al Hughes seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. The motion was approved unanimously by a vote of 8 "Ayes." REQUEST FOR WAIVER The next item for discussion was a request for waiver of of the Major Street Plan requirements to reduce the Major Street Plan Requirements proposed right-of-way width of Old Wire Road North and East of its intersection with Old Missouri Road from an 80 ft. "minor arterial" street to a 60 ft. "collector street," submitted by Loris L. Stanton and James 0. Witt, Jr. Chairman Gitelman read a letter signed by Mr. Stanton and Mr. Witt which had been sent to Mr. Grimes, City Manager, concerning this matter. Mr. Loris Stanton was present to represent. He stated that he did not see any reason for Old Wire Road being a minor arterial where it goes East to Highway 265. He said he didn't know why Old Missouri Road was only a collector street when it had more traffic than Old Wire Road. Mr. Leo Van Scyoc, Old Wire Road, was present to express himself on this matter. He spoke in support of what Mr. Stanton had stated concerning keeping Old Wire Road at 60 feet. He felt because of the steep terrain that this should not be made a minor arterial and wondered if even the City would want this to be one because of its terrain. He said there was heavy traffic from the North and that there had been considerable accidents at the sharp curve here. Mr. Van Scyoc suggest that they leave Old Wire Road a collector street and work with Old Missouri Road as a minor arterial since it goes down by Butterfield Trail School then crossing over to Crossover Road in the area of Elaine as there are no houses along there. He felt that this street coming from the North making this a feeder was the best idea. He felt strongly about keeping the classification of Old Wire Road down over to Crossover Road Mr. Van Scyoc stated that he owned 660 feet of frontage along this area and he would not like to see this street widened as it would take part of his trees; also the water and gas lines would have to be moved if this street were widened. Mr. Bruce Chambers, Old Wire Road, was,also present at the meeting. Mr. Chambers stated that at least one or two cars a year traveling at an excessive speed missed the curve he lived on and went through his yard, and that if the road were widened vehicles would travel even faster. He said they are quite hesitant to let their children play in the yard as it is now and if the road were widened this would create even more of a hazard for them. Planning Commission October 8; 1974• -9- Chairman Gitelman stated that he saw this as a request for the Planning Commission to hold a Public Hearing to amend the Master Street Plan rather than a waiver of the plan. Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, told the Planning Commission that as a part of the transportation study there was established a Fayetteville -Springdale Technical Advisory Committee which actively looks into any basic changes of the Major Street Plan of both cities. He recommended that they advance this to the Committee in order for them to take a look at it. John Maguire moved that a Public Hearing be scheduled on the possibility of amending the Major Street Plan on Old Wire Road from its juncture with Old Missouri Road North and East to Crossover Road and that it be referred to the Technical Advisory Committee for recommendation. Chairman Gitelman suggested that the date of the Public Hearing be left open and, therefore, their recommendation to the Board of Directors until they received the report from the Technical Advisory Committee. Mr. Don Nickell seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE The Large Scale Development Plan submitted by the Armstrong Boulevard Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce on behalf of a Large Scale Development prospective developer for property on Armstrong Boulevard (in the Industrial Park) was withdrawn until October 22, 1974 at the request of Mr. Dale Christy and City Manager Don Grimes. ASBELL SCHOOL The last item for discussion was the Large Scale Conditional Use Request Development Plan and Conditional Use Request to Large Scale Development construct a library at Asbell School. Ernest Jacks reported that the Subdivision Committee found that there were no problems except that on the plat book the street in front of Asbell School shows a SO to 40 foot jog in the right-of-way, and 50 foot of right-of-way is needed. Mr. Jacks moved that the Conditional Use Request and Large Scale Development Plan for a library at Asbell-School be approved with -the provision that a full 50 feet bf'right-of-way-is obtained on Lewis Street. Helen Edmiston seconded the motion. There was no more discussion. The motion was unanimously approved by 8 "Ayes." Ernest Jacks felt that the Planning Commission should OTHER BUSINESS undertake a study of medical facilities being built Purpose of R-0 Zone in Fayetteville. Mr. Jadks complained that the Planning Office was recommending to people that they rezone property to R-0 in order to build office space. He said that the R-0 Zoned when the zoning ordinance was passed was intended to be in the down -town area. Helen Edmiston agreed that a study should be made on this matter. Chairman Gitelman commented that medical clinics can sometimes buy land cheaper because of its being a corporation and have less taxes to pay. He didn't feel that a medical clinic should be treated as a special use. Mr. Stanton showed the Planning Commission some plans for either condominiums or other Planned Unit Development. He said that even though these were not considered lots they were minimum lot widths, but the excessive setbacks were really the problem. He suggested that someone set down with Mr. Grimes, City Manager, to go over the ordinance and come up with something more workable than what there is now. There was no further discussion Meeting was adjourned at 6:05 P. M. • • RESOLUTION PC 32-7f WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Planning Commission, Tuesday, October 8, 1974, fifteen (15) days after a sign was erected on the property and after a notice was published in the Northwest Arkansas Times, a newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, after the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to make a recommendation to the Board of Directors on the petition of Drs. Coker, Kaylor, Kendrick, and Johnson, Rezoning Petition No. R74-13; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That the petition requesting the rezoning of property, described as follows, from R-1, Low-Density_Residential District to R-0, Residential -Office /. District for the East z and C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District for the West 2f be denied. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the Frac EA of the NW* of Sec. 3, T -16-N, R -30-W, and being more particularly described as follows, to wit: Beginning at a point which is 186.8 feet East of the SW corner of said fractional subdivision, and running thence North 939.91 feet to a point which is 321.1 feet South of the North line of said fractional subdivision, thence East 200 feet; thence North 321 1 feet to the North line thereof; thence East 99.8 feet to the NW corner of the Donald R. Drake tract, as conveyed in Deed Record 488, at page 449 of the records of Washington County, Arkansas; thence South along the said Drake tract 321.1 feet; thence East 135.6 feet; thence North 321.1 feet to the NE corner of said Drake tract; thence East 699.2 feet to the NE corner of said fractional subdivision; thence South 1265.88 feet to the SE corner thereof; thence West along the South line thereof 1132.74 feet to the point of beginning. SECTION 2. That the rezoning of the above described real estate would not presently be desirable. PASSED AND APPROVED this 4 day of APPROVED: O a lte , 1974. Morton Gitelman, Chairman r RESOLUTION PC 33 'If WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission, Tuesday, October 8, 1974, fifteen (15) days after a sign was erected upon the property and after a notice was published in the Northwest Arkansas Times, a newspaper of general circulation, and WHEREAS, after the public hearing the Planning Commission voted to make a recom- mendation to the Board of Directors on Rezoning Petition R74-17, Mr. Charles E. Barrett, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That an ordinance be adopted for the purpose of rezoning from R-2, Medium Density Residential District to R-0, Residential -Office District said real estate. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 1 of Hicks Addition to the City of Fayetteville, less and except the West 5 feet 9 inches of Lot 1, Block 1, as per plat of said addition on file in the Office of the Circuit Clerk and Ex -Officio Recorder of Washington County, Arkansas. SECTION 2. That the above-described property be rezoned from R-2, Medium Density Residential District to R-0, Residential -Office District so that the petitioner may develop the propertypYaccordingly. PASSED AND APPROVED this b day of 0..tes , 1974. APPROVED: Morton Gitelman, Chairman 1 Is RESOLUTION PC 33.1-74 BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, that a public hearing be called for the purpose of amending the Land Use Plan in the area of Fifteenth Street and Morningside Drive, Willoughby Road, City Lake Road, Armstrong Boulevard, and Happy Hollow Road South of Huntsville Road. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Administrator is hereby ordered to advertise said public hearing for November 12, 1974, by pub- lishing a notice of said public hearing in the Northwest Arkansas Times at least fifteen (15) days in advance. PASSED AND APPROVED this 8th day of October , 1974. APPROVED: MORTON GITELMAN, Chairman