Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-12-10 MinutesMINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held at 4:07 P.M. Tuesday, December 10, 1974, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Chairman Morton Gitelman, John Power*, Donald Nickell, Helen Edmiston, Ernest Jacks, Ernest Lancaster, Al Hughes. John Maguire. Larry Wood, Bobbie Jones, David McWethy, Jack Wallace, Mayor Purdy, Mr. Miller, Jim McCord, Charles Barrett, Mr. €, Mrs. F. E."Bud" Brown, Mr. William Thurman, Pat Tobin, Marion Orton, Pete Estes, Faye Ramsey, Billie Head, Garland Melton, Paul Lewis. Chairman Gitelman called the meeting to order. MINUTES The minutes of the November 12, 1974 meeting were:approved as distributed. REZONING PETITION R74-19 Chairman Gitelman opened the public hearing on Charles W. f, Maxine McNair Rezoning Petition R74-19, Charles W. McNair 492 W. Lafayette St. and Maxine Baugh McNair, to rezone property located at 492 West Lafayette Street from R-3, HighDDensitySReident•ialfDist:lt, to C-3, Central Commercial District. Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, presented the Planning Report. Mr. Thurman stated that the purchaser wanted this rezoned in order to have a barber shop in the existing building. He said all he wanted was to satisfy the purchaser and if the Planning Commission wanted to treat this as a conditional use request rather than a rezoning it would be alright with him. Mr. Miller was present to represent the Legal Counsel from the University of Arkansas. He said the Legal Counsel would like to have action on this rezoning petition delayed until he could do more research on it. Mr. Thurman requested it not be tabled. Chairman Gitelman stated he felt they could allow the usage for a barber shop opposed to the present use; this would not be a rezoning. Mr. Thurman said that the alterations might come to more than 10% of the purchase price because of the present cost of building materials. Bobbie Jones, Planning Administrator, expalined that this was 10% of the cost of the replacement of the building. There was no further discussion. The public hearing was concluded. Al Hughes moved to deny Rezoning Petition R74-19 but to permit the change of non -conforming use to a barber shop in the building. Helen Edmiston seconded the motion and it was carried unanimously (8-0). PUBLIC HEARING ON Public Hearing was opened on the proposed ordinance to Proposed Ordinance to amend Ordinance 1998(which amended Appendix C -Sub -1 Amend Ordinance 1998 division Regulations, Fayetteville Code of Ordinances and Ordinance 1750) to clarify the requirements for approval of a Large Scale Development. The proposed amendment would eliminate the requirement of utility easement and street dedication and exclude from large scale development approval the following: a.) A single family residence, an addition to a single family residence, or *John Power arrived at 4:13 P.M. • • Planning Commission December 10, 1974 -2- an accessory structure for a single family residence; b.) An addition to an existing non-residential structure if the addition will not (1) exceed 10,000 square feet or 25% of the square footage of the existing structures (2) require more than 25 additional parking spaces under the provisions of Ordinance No. 1747, or (3) require a change in existing ingress or egress; c). A prefabricated, movable accessory building. Jim McCord, City Attorney, was present to comment. He said he had serious reservations about Ordinance 1998 when it was first discussed; there had been complaints. Mr. McCord said in order for someone to make a minor addition to their house they should not be required to dedicate street right-of-way. He said that to him this was clearly taking of property without just compensation. Mr. McCord said it seemed that the City would have a good argument in connection with commercial development that generates traffic and there seemed to be statutory authority for that in Act 186 of 1957. Al Hughes agreed with Mr. McCord on this matter and said he knew someone that wanted to build a garage and could not get a building permit until the street right-of-way was dedicated. Mr. Hughes said he was opposed to this sort of thing. There was no one present to oppose the amendment. The public hearing was closed. Ernest Jacks moved to recommend the approval of this ordinance as written. Donald Nickell seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously by a vote of 8-0. CHARLES E. BARRETT The next item to be discussed was the request Approval of Off -Site Parking for approval of off-site parking submitted by Rock Street and College Avenue Charles E. Barrett to use property on the Southeast corner of Rock Street and College Avenue to meet parking requirements for a proposed building to be erected on property on the Northeast corner of Rock Street and College Avenue. Mr. Barrett told the Commission that the Board of Adjustment had granted some variances from the parking requirements and that the parking lay -out submitted to the Commission was as approved by the Board of Adjustment. Al Hughes moved to approve the off-site parking as shown on the submitted plan. Ernest Jacks seconded the motion which carried unanimously. F. E."BUD" BROWN Mr. F. E. "Bud" Brown submitted a letter re- Conditional Use Request questing the approval of a conditional use to operate 1400 Harold Street a.real estate business at his residence at 1400 Harold Street. "Real estate sales office" is listed as a temporary conditional use in the R-1 Zoning District. The Planning Commission has previously approved this use for periods of 12 months. There was no one present to oppose the request. Al Hughes moved that this conditional use request be approved. Helen Edmiston seconded the motion. It was unanimously approved. Planning Commission -3- December 10, 1974 PAT TOBIN The next item was a request for a use unit interpretation Use Unit submitted by Pat Tobin to determine if a mobile home would Interpretation be permitted as "housing for caretakers" under Use Unit 21. According to the Zoning Ordinance, mobile homes inside the city limits are allowed only in mobile home parks or in A-1 (Agricultural) Zones.if there is 3 acres.. Mr. Tobin's property is in an I-1 Zone. Mr. Tobin was present to represent and stated that he wanted to set up a mobile home to house a caretaker for security purposes. He said this would be located behind his commercial buildings and West of the golf course. Donald Nickell said this was in a location where it would not be detrimental to any R-1 District and felt that this would be good protection. Helen Edmiston said this was similar to a conditional use request the Planning Commission had approved on the Schools (using mobile homes for security purposes.) Ernest Jacks brought up the question about whether or not the Planning Commission could approve this and how they had approved the conditional use for the Schools. He said according to ordinance concerning mobile homes, this could not really be approved. Bobbie Jones, Planning Administrator, told the Commission she had turned down several situations similar to this involving gas stations wanting to put up mobile homes for caretakers for security purposes. She said when she told Mr. Tobin the same thing he wanted to request a use unit interpretation. Mr. Tobin said the remainder of the property would be developed later on but right now the problem was that after dark, the traffic is low and there are only two residences in the proximity of the buildings and he needed someone there for security. He said it would probably be 2 or 3 years before the rest of this was developed. Jim McCord, City Attorney, felt the only way to handle this situation would be to amend that portion of the Zoning Ordinance to specify under what conditions mobile homes would be permitted for security purposes and in which zoning districts. He said the ordinance should be drafted very carefully. Chairman Gitelman said even if this was a temporary permit, that this property would have to be rezoned A-1. He said there would have to be a public hearing for the rezoning and, therefore, he felt that this was not the way to handle it. Donald Nickell said he was under the impression when the regulations on mobile homes was drawn up that this was to apply to an individual who had, for example, an elderly parent who wanted to live in a mobile home behind their residence. Chairman Gitelman explained that when this zoning ordinance was first proposed there was a provision in it that would have permitted a mobile home to be placed in a residential zone providing it were fastened on a permanent foundation. He said there was a great reaction from the public when the public hearing was held so the ordinance was changed and the recommendation was definitely that mobile homes should be in mobile home parks Mr. Nickell suggested that a study be made on this before taking any action. Mr. Tobin had no objections to this. Jim McCord said he could get this drawn up if the Commission told him how they wanted it restricted. Bobbie Jones suggested that since "housing for care- takers" is a permitted use by right only in the I-1 and I-2 Zones and a conditional use in the C-2 Zones, Article 7, Section 12 might be expanded so that a mobile home could be used where housing for caretakers is a permitted use There was no further discussion. Ernest Jacks moved to table the request for a use unit interpretation, and schedule a public hearing for the next meeting to amend the ordinance to allow mobile homes where housing for caretakers is a permitted use. Al Hughes seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Planning Commission -4- December 10, 1974 STUDY OF LAND USE PLAN The next item was a request from the City Board of for Highway 265 Directors for the Planning Commission to study and amend the Land Use Plan for Highway 265 (Crossover Road) from Highway 16 Northward to the North City Limits. Mayor Purdy was present and stated it was felt by the Board that it was not very well defined as to what was to be done along here, and that it should have a better definition. Al Hughes said when the Board of Directors had a request to rezone the Phillips property on the Northeast corner of Crossover Road and Highway 45 they realized there was no Land Use Plan for Crossover Road extended North to the City Limits. It was them referred back to the Planning Commission for study and recommendation of land use for Highway 265 (Crossover Road) North of Highway 16. Marion Orton, City Board member, said it was felt by the City Board that a number of rezoning requests might be received because of the future improvements of this Highway. Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, said he had put this in the recommendation on the Phillips property and that it needed to be looked at. Mr. Wood pointed the area out on the map and showed that Crossover Road was near the Northeast corner of Fayetteville Lake where it leaves Fayetteville and moves into Springdale. He said there was a spot here where the City Limits cut across, goes North and then cuts back just North of Highway of 45. He told the Commission there was a portion along both sides of Highway 265 at this point that was in the County. In answer to Chairman Gitelman's question, Mr. Wood stated he felt the study should extend approximately < mile from Highway 265 in each direction except for a few special cases where if it got into a major use that might extend past that point that might bear on the plan, it might extend further. The Planning Commission authorized Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, to study the land use and to report back to them before they scheduled a public hearing. There was no further discussion. STUDY TO CONSIDER The next item was a request from the City Possible C -2L $ C -3L Zoning Board of Directors for the Planning Commission to study Districts for the existing C-2 and C-3 Zoning Districts in which Package Liquor Stores package liquor stores vould be permitted with the balance of the C-2 and C-3 Zones not permitting package liquor stores. This originated from a request submitted about a month ago to change use units to include package stores as a permitted use in Use UUnits 15 and 16 (Shopping Goods). Jim Jim McCord, City Attorney, said some of the City Board members wanted to amend the ordinance to have conditional zoning for package liquor stores. He said he had requested the Attorney General's opinion on whether or not this could be a conditional use, but did not have a reply yet. Mayor Purdy said some of the City Board members were discontent because they seemed to have no control over where liquor stores are located. Mr. Jacks stated that going by what the City Attorney said, the State had set it up this way, and it seemed to him that the only way the City could get more control would be with some conditional use situation. Chairman Gitelman agreed with Mr. Jacks on this. Mr. Nickell stated he felt that every individual had the right to object or approve having a liquor store next to their establishment. Marion Orton said several citizens had gone to Little Rock before the:.Aikansas Beverage Control Board with a petition containing 185 signatures opposing a certain liquor store and the ABC Board went ahead and granted a permit for the store. She felt that local objections were not being heard as they should be, and that it would be good if Fayetteville could make these permits a'.little more Planning Commission -5- December 10, 1974 responsive. Mr. Jacks and Chairman Gitelman felt that just because these people went to Little Rock with a petition was no indication that the public was not being heard. Ernest Jacks moved to table this request until they had the Attorney General's opinion. Donald Nickell seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved. Chairman Gitelman said if anyone was present that wanted to be notified of the request to leave their name and address in the Planning Office. Ernest Lancaster said that tabling this request would give them time to come to some decision. He added that he could not conceive of the liquor dealers in the area wanting to be a part of any controversy of whether or not Washington County is "wet" or "dry". He stated that if the liquor dealers do not get together and settle these differences of location the issue would be before the voters of Washington County again. OFF-STREET PARKING GARAGE The last item on the agenda was a referral to the Center St. $ Church Ave. Planning Commission for a recommendation on the formation of an improvei:ent district for the purpose of constructing an off-street parking garage at the intersection of Center Street and Church Avenue. Chairman Gitelman asked Jim McCord, City Attorney, to point out the legal impli- cations of this hearing. Mr. McCord said that in August a petition was filed with the City Clerk's Office requesting the formation of an improvement district for the purpose of constructing an off-street parking garage at the corner of Center Street and Church Avenue. He said this petition was not an initiation by the City; it was initiated strictly by private individuals and an improvement district is not an agent of the mnnicipalitjeslba an agent of the property owners within the district --it's a quasi public corporation and the City's only obligation or duty is to pass the ordinance creating the district if a sufficient petition is filed. He said the statute requires that a petition contains the majority value of the assessed value of the property included within the district. He stated that thecCity:. adopted a Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Master Street Plan pursuant to the Planning Act (Act 186) of 1957. This act further provides that no public improvement or public structure can be constructed until the proposal has been reviewed by the Planning Commission to determine whether the proposal conforms to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Master Street Plan, or any other plan which may have been adopted by the municipality. He said that, in addition, the improvement district statutes specify that if the Planning Commission determines that the proposed improvement will not contribute to public safety, convenience, or to the service and safety of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, that upon recommendation of disapproval by the Planning Commission the governing body of the municipality is not required to adopt the ordinance creating the district although the petitions contain a majority of assessed value of the property owners to be in the proposed district. He said that in the absence of such a recommendation from the Planning Commission the governing body of the municipality has no discretion in the matter; if a sufficient petition is submitted, the governing body is duty-bound to pass an ordinance creating the district, appointing the Commissioners and subsequently the assessors to make the assessments. He said that was the reason -this was before the Planning Commission at this time. He said he thought technically any improvement district should be presented to the Planning Commission; that has not been done, but this was such an important project that the City Manager's Office decided it should be presented to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. A • 11 Planning Commission -6- December 10, 1974 In -answer to a question asked by Chairman Gitelman, Jim McCord,said it was not known to him if there was an insufficiency of the petition. He stated that this would not be an issue before the Planning Commission, but that there would be a public hearing before the Board of Directors on that very issue. Bbbbie Jones, Planning Administrator, had received a letter and stated she had received several telephone calls from people that wanted to withdraw their name from the petition. Mr. McCord stated that the signer of appetition for the formation of an improvement district was not entitled to withdraw their name from the petition once it has been filed with the City Clerk in the absence of fraud or duress. He said that, however, since they had 75 or 80 per cent of the assess valuation on the petition, if the supporters of the group had no objections, he didn't see why they could nothwithdraw their names if they wished to do so. In answer to Mr. Jack's question, Mr. Paul Lewis said he recalled there being 69 per cent of the assess valuation on the petition. Chairman Gitelman said it was not the Planning Commission's place to decide about the percentage, but instead, whether this parking garage was consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the Master Street Plan. Faye Ramsey, adjoining property owner, was present in opposition to the parking garage. She said some of the adjoining property owners doubted the percentage since there was a "lot ofoproper.tytnotsii4thd." She said a large part of the lot where they proposed to build this parking garage was still private property and they could be paying on it for private interest also. She said that (as she understood it) Mr. Brown had not sold this part to the City; the lease had run out and hewwas objecting to the price on which he had once agreed. She said the price of this parking garage would be fantastic not to mention the crime, etc. She said the parking lot that was already there was never full and they were parking along both sides of the street anyway, therefore, she saw no reason to have this parking garage constructed at least not at the price it would cost. JimlMcCord said there would be a public hearing before the Board of Directors. He said there would be two public notices of the hearing;in addition, 1the standard notice in the newspaper of the agenda of the Board of Directors would be published; anyone that wanted to be heard on the issue of sufficiency of the petition could be heard at that time. Chairman Gitelman left at 5:07 P. M. and turned the Chair over to Vice -Chairman Al Hughes. Dr. Garland Melton, Chairman of the Downtown Parking Authority, was present. He said a portion of the square would be turned into a public plaza (park) and there would beva loss of the parking spaces now on the square; these parking spaces would have to be replaced somewhere. He said the Urban Programming Corporation of America did an in-depth study and felt that the present existing public parking lot could be filled out "in toto" with the application of the two pieces of property that now have buildings on them and that this was the most logical place to put a parking deck to replace the parking that would be lost on the square. D'.. Melton explained that this was in conformance with their traffic circulation studies and that this site was their recommendation.Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, said that in looking over the Comprehensive Plan he found no conflict with the parking structure being associated with commercial uses John Power asked if this project would be funded by people paying to get into the parking lot or if it would be funded strictly by the district itself. Dr. Melton said as they envisioned it at present, it would be _fundedby the revenues off the parking lot and if there was a difference betwe.n the revenues and the cost of the revenue bonds, it was the purpose of the improvement district to pick up that cost. Planning Commission -7- December 10, 1974 • Mr. Nickell asked the City Attorney if he felt there should be an advertised public hearing on this matter before the Planning Commission voted on it. Mr. McCord replied it was not legally necessary. Jack Wallace, Northwest Arkansas Times, asked Dr. Melton if this assessment district included families living in one -family housing and if they had to pay part of the assessment,or if it was on commercial or from direct benefit derived from the district. Dr. Melton answered by saying that, as the City Attorney had explained it to him, property is assessed for that purpose based on benefit, and therefore, the benefit to a single-family residence would be extremely small. Therefore, the assessment (to a single-family residence) if any, would be extremely small. Pete Estes, attorney, ( who was present in opposition to the parking garage) asked how the benefit was determined. Jim McCord explained that if the Board of Directors determines that a sufficient petition has been submitted it will adopt an ordinance establishing the district and appointing three property owners within the district as commissioners for the purpose of carrying out the improvements. He said at that time those commissioners would formulate plans and cost estimates for the proposed parking garage and submit them to the Board of Directors and in turn the Board of Directors would appoint three electors from without the district as assessors for assessing the benefits to be derived by the property within the district. He said the assessors then file their assessments with the City Clerk. The notice is published that the assessments have been filed and any property owner has 10 days to appeal to the Board of Directors for a revision of the assessments; • an ordinance is adppted by the Board of Directors assessing the benefits and then any property owner has 30 days to contest the assessments in the Chancery Court. He then went on to say that if anyone decided against choosing these remedies he is then estopped from this point on from contesting the benefits. He said he would also like to add that if the assessed benefits do not equal or exceed the estimated cost of the project then the project cannot proceed unless the City wants to pick up the difference; the cost cannot be assessed, the benefits have to be assessed as determined by the assessors. In answer to Vice -Chairman Hughes' question, Mr. McCord said if the Planning Commission recommends approval, or at least does not recommend disapproval, the Board of Directors has no discretion in the matter if it determines the petitions are sufficient; it is obligated to establish the improvement district. He said on the other hand, in the event the Planning Commission determines the proposed parking structure would not be in conformance with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the Master Street Plan, or would not serve to benefit pedestrian and traffic (upon recommendation of disapproval by the Planning Commission) the Board of Directors is not obligated to establish a district. Even though sufficient petitions are submitted, they would have some discretion in the matter. There was no one else present to speak in support of the improvement district. Mr. Frank W. Lewis, 115 S. Church Avenue was present to oppose. Mr. Lewis said the only thing that worried him was Article 8 on page 868 of the Fayetteville Zoning Oode concerning off-site paiking locations where it read -- "for any new use, structure or building requiring off-street parking which because of the size or location of the parcel, cannot be provided on the same lot with the principal use, may be provided on other property not more than 300 feet distant from such use, structure or building, subject to the approval of the Planning Commission." He said that he was included in this im- provement district and while he felt the parking Structure was a good thing for the City of Fayetteville, he wondered if some consideration shouldn't be given either to changing the 300 feet or changing the district so that the • • • Planning Commission -8- December 10, 1974 people that are paying for it could use it. He said he was in the position of having to pay for it,(if they were assessed anything), and it could not be counted against any of their property if they tried to make use of this for off-street parking. Mr. McCord said this 300 feet had been changed by ordinance to require the parking to be on property owned or leased, and Rita Davis reminded him that this was tabled instead and that Zoning Ordinance 1747 has not been amended. She added that she felt the 300 feet should be changed. Mr. Pete Estes said he owned an apartment in the concerned area and when he needed parking for it he didn't expect the City or his neighbors to furnish parking facilities for his tenants and that he instead bought property for parking purposes. He said he felt the same way about the proposed parking garage and he didn't know how the Planning Commission could intelligently vote when they didn't know the assess valuation of this property, the people that had signed the petition, what the millage was on it, or anything else about it. He said he had nothing against Fayetteville, but that it was a "country town" and needed "a country parking lot" and that this parking garage that was proposed should be for big cities where the price of land was inflated and where there was no place for parking lots. He said if the Planning Commission recommended the approval of this parking garage then the Board of Directors had no alternative but to go ahead and pass the ordinance; but, if on the other hand, the Planning Commission felt there was not information available on this and recommended the disapproval of the parking garage, then it would have to stand on its own merits. John Power pointed out to Mr. Estes that Mr. McCord had already stated alternatives which the property owners could take if they were not satisfied with the assessment. Vice- Chairman Hughes agreed with Mr. Estessin that the City Board had no alternative but to pass the ordinance for the formation of an improvement district if the Planning Commission recommended approval to them; BUT there would be several stopping points after it reached the City Board. He explained ghat this was just more or less to get the project started and that when the ground work was laid and after the assessors from outside the district came in with the assessments the City Board could approve or disapprove. Billie Head was also present in opposition to the parking garage. She agreed with Mr. Estes and said that the Planning Commission had not taken into consideration the crime that could take place there and the policing of it. She said when the petition was passed around to be signed, they were not asked whether or not they objected to this proposed parking garage. She said that when some of the people signed the petition they had no idea that they would be assessed. She stated as a last commenttthat she was opposed to it in every way. Marion Orton asked why this situation could not be handled similar to street improvement districts where one petition was signed to go ahead and get the engineer's estimate, and a secondppetition after everyone knew what the cost would be. Jim McCord said that that procedure was under a supplemental act of municipal improvement districts dealing only with street improvementsdistricts and was the procedure authorized by that act. He said the parking deck would have to proceed under general statutes of municipal improvementsdistricts which did not set forth that type of procedure. Mayor Purdy asked Mr. McCord if he understood this matter in that this was not a matter for the Planning Commission's approving, disapproving, or recommending it,but to decide whether or not it met the requirements of the Land Use Plan and Master Street Plan, etc. Jim McCord said they would be approving a concept, not a detailed plan. a. Planning Commission -9- December 10, 1974 • itr Mr. Jacks agreed with this and said as he saw it a petition had been submitted to them to see if it was okay from a planning standpoint and that this was all they were being asked to do. John Power moved that the Planning Commission recommend that the improvement district for the purpose of constructing an off-street parking garage be approved in conformance with the Master Street Plan, Comprehensive Land Use Plan and other plans. Rita Davis seconded the motion. The motion was carried unanimously. LETTER FROM CITY MANAGER There were two items discussed under Property West of Razorback Rd. "other business." Vice_Chairman Hughes read a letter from Mr. Grimes, City Manager, concerning property located west of Razorback Road.which was rezoned from R-3 to R-1 about a year ago. The City's General Use Plan still shows the projected land use for this area as R-3. Mr. Grimes requested the Planning Commission to review the General Land Use Plan for the area immediately West of Razorback Road adjacent to the University of Arkansas property. Mr. Grimes recommended that the proposed R-3 area be reduced at least to the extent that only the property fronting on Razorback be shown as future R-3. Vice -Chairman Hughes told Mrs. Jones to schedule a public hearing for this at the earliest convenience. STUDY ON LOCATION Of Medical Offices The last item was another request from the City Manager, explAihed by Bobbie Jones, concerning a number of contacts regarding available space for medical offices. He requested the Planning Commission to study areas in the City where medical offices could locate. Larry Wood was requested by the Planning Commission to make a study of this and come before them with aarecommendation concerning this. There was no furtherrdiscussion. The meeting was adjourned at 5:55 P. M. RESOLUTION 3.7- 74 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Planning Commission, Tuesday, December 10, 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 Charles W. McNair and Maxine Baugh McNair (R74-19) for rezoning; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That Rezoning Petition R74-19, Charles W. McNair and Maxine Baugh McNair, requesting the rezoning of property, described as follows, from R-3, High Density Residential District, to C-3, Central Commercial District, be denied. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A part of Lot 2, Block 5, County Court Addition to the City of Fayetteville, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point immediately inside the present cement sidewalk on West Street at the SW corner of said lot, and running, thence East 60 feet; thence North 60 feet; thence West 60 feet; thence South 60 feet to the place of beginning. SECTION 2. That the rezoning of the above described real estate would not presently be desirable. PASSED AND APPROVED this 10th day of December , 1974. APPROVED: Morton Gitelman, Chairman • • • RESOLUTION 39- 74 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Fayetteville Planning Commission, Tuesday, December 10, 1974, fifteen (15) days 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 a proposed ordinance to amend Subsection 8 of Section 2 of Ordinance No. 1998 (Article IV, Section I, Large Scale Development, Appendix C - Subdivision Regulations, Fayetteville Code of Ordinances) to clarify the requirements for approval of a large scale development; 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 proposed ordinance, attached hereto and made a part hereof, be adopted to amend Ordinance 1998 to clarify the requirements for approval of a large scale development. PASSED AND APPROVED this 10th day of December , 1974. APPROVED: Morton Gitelman, Chairman • • RESOLUTION 317- 79 BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, that a public hearing be called for the purpose of amending Article 7, Section 12, Subsection B of Ordinance No. 1747 (Appendix A - Zoning- Fayetteville Code of Ordinances) as amended by Ordinance No. 1869 to permit the location of mobile homes where housing for caretakers is permitted under Ordinance No. 1747. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Administrator is hereby ordered to advertise said public hearing for January 14, 1975, by publishing a notice of said public hearing in the Northwest Arkansas Times at least fifteen (15) days in advance. PASSED AND APPROVED this 10th day of December , 1974. APPROVED*) MORTON GITELMAN, CHAIRMAN RESOLUTION 40- 7¢ WHEREAS, the owners of certain real property within the City of Fayetteville did petition the Fayetteville Board of Directors that all of the real properties situated within the limits as set out in the petition be formed into a local improvement district for the purpose of constructing an off-street parking garage; said garage to be constructed at the corner of Church Avenue and Meadow Street; and WHEREAS, the Fayetteville Board of Directors did on September 3, 1974, refer said petition to the Fayetteville Planning Commission for review, recommendation, and approval as to its conformity with the City's adopted Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Major Street Plan; and WHEREAS, on December 10, 1974, the Fayetteville Planning Commission did vote to make a recommendation on said petition: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE FAYETTEVILLE BOARD OF DIRECTORS: SECTION 1: The Fayetteville Planning Commission finds that the proposed off-street parking garage is in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan, City Zoning Regulations, and Major Street Plan. SECTION 2: The Fayetteville Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Fayetteville Board of Directors that an ordinance be adopted for the purpose of forming a local improvement district for the purpose of constructing an off-street parking garage as petitioned. APPROVED: Claude A. "Al" Hughes, Vice -Chairman • RESOLUTION 4/-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 General Land Use Plan for the area lying West of Razorback Road, North of Hotz Drive, and South of Cleveland Street. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Administrator is hereby ordered to advertise said public hearing for January 14, 1975, by publishing a notice of said public hearing in the Northwest Arkansas Times at least fifteen (15) days in advance. PASSED AND APPROVED this 10th day of December , 1974. APPROVED: Claude A. "Al" Hughes, Vice -Chairman