Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-03-11 Minutes995 MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held at 4:00 P.M. Tuesday, March 11, 1975, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: John Maguire, Donald Nickell, Ernest Jacks, Bill Kisor, Helen Edmiston. MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Morton Gitelman, John Power, Rita Davis, John Lineberger. Larry Wood, Ervan Wimberly, Glen Oldham, Deryle Easterling, Ellis Bogan, Mary Campbell Fletcher, Bill Story, Bill McNair, Fred Morton, Dr. F, Mrs. Samuel Hucke, Warren Rose, Jim Gregory, Mrs. Farrell, Bill Cain, Mrs. J. A. Williams, Leland Bryan, Mr. McGehee, Mrs. Jack Redding, Cy Carney, Frances Langham, Lee Boss, Mr. F, Mrs. K. F. Livingston, Paul Mattke, Russell Purdy, Thomas J. Morgan, Bill Harrell, Floyd Conine. In the absence of both the Chairman and Vice -Chairman, Ernest, Jacks, member with the longest tenure on the Planning Commission served as acting Chairman and called the meeting to order. MINUTES The minutes of the February 25, 1975 meeting were approved as mailed. RALPH GOFF, JR. The next item on the agenda was the Rezoning Petition of Huntsville Road Ralph Goff, Jr. (R75-1) to rezone property located on the and Southeast corner of Highway 16 East (Huntsville Road) and Jerry Road Jerry Avenue from R-1, Low Denisty Residential to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District, tabled February 11 and February 25, 1975. (Property owner R. T. Stout has submitted a written statement agreeing to tabling this matter for more than 45 days past the date of the public hearing.) Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said that she did have Mr. Stout's signature (property owner) but did not have Mr. Goff's (petitioner). Acting Chairman Jacks asked if only the property owner's signature wasn't needed; however the matter was left on the table and Acting Chairman Jacks instructed the Planning Administrator to put the matter back on the Planning Commission agenda for March 25, 1975 if no statement was received from Mr. Goff by that time. GLEN OLDHAM The next item to be discussed was the development plan of 2717 Highway 62 West Glen Oldham to construct a residential garage on property at Service Road 2712 Highway 62 West (West Sixth Street). This matter comes before the Planning Commission because the Highway 71 By-pass service road is shown going South from Old Farmington Road to Highway 62 in the area of Mr. Oldham's East property line. This was tabled from February 25, 1975 because no one was present to represent. Mr. Glen Oldham and Deryle Easterling were present to represent. Mr. Oldham wanted to know why the service road was going through his and Mr. Easterling's property. Larry Wood, Planning Consultant, explained that this proposed service road would Planning Commission -2- March 11, 1975 go North from Highway 62 to Old Farmington Road then on North to Highway 16. He explained that this location was fixed during a study of the zoning and land use of Highway 71 By-pass and had been approved by ordinance, because it would not have any usable property had it crossed Mr. Coleman's traingle of property against the By-pass. Mr. Easterling said the drawing he had showed the service road to be between the IGA Store and_Mr. Coleman's property. Mr...Jacks explained that this had been shifted some time ago.and that it was to be the outlet to the by-pass. Mr. Oldham said he could build the garage on skids and then move it when the time came for the servide road to come through his property. Mr. Jacks asked Planning Consultant Larry Wood if he had any objections to working out something for a movable building and Mr. Wood said he did not. There was no further discussion. No one was present in opposition to the request. Helen Edmiston moved to approve the development plan if something could be worked out with the City Attorney that Mr. Oldham would be willing to move the buildings if they needed to be moved for right-of-way for the proposed service road. Bill Kisor seconded the motion. The motion was voted upon and carried unanimously with a vote of 5-0. BASSETT PLACE The next item to be considered by the Planning Commission was the Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat of Bassett Place, to subdivide property lying North of Stearns Road and East of Highway 71 submitted by Johnie Bassett. This item was tabled from February 25, 1975 so adjoining property owners could be advised of development plans, among other reasons. Ernest Jacks gave the Subdivision Committee Report and pointed out the changes that had been made on the plat. (1) He said Frontage Road had been shifted to the East some 60 feet at the North end. (2) The plat showed only a 20 foot setback from Highway 71 right-of-way. (3) Lot 6 had been divided into Lots 10 and 11. Ervan Wimberly (McClelland Engineers) was present to represent. He said he had all the adjoining property owners signatures with the exception of Bob Stout. He said Mr. Stout had seen the plat but objected to the frontage road ever going through his property. Mr. Wimberly said one other revision had been made that was not shown on the preliminary plat He showed a composite drawing of all the properties between Stearns Road and Zion Road and said since Mr. Bassett owned a lot of property in this area and Mr. Stout objected to the frontage road going across his property, Mr. Bassett would be willing to go along with dedicating a 50 foot service road off his property to the East of a part of Mr. Stout's even though his property is only 175 feet deep if the Planning Commission and Board of Directors desired this. He added that Mr. Bassett was also willing to dedicate 50 feet through his property North of Mr. Stout's all the way to Zion Road He said it might be a good thing because they could get all the right-of-way now except for where it would have to cross Mr. Stout's property. Mr. Wimberly said the preliminary plat had been revised to show Street A extending all the way to the East property line, instead of having a cul-de-sac in the middle of the property and also with StreetA having access to Highway 71 North of Ozark Windows. He said this access would be like the entrance for Arkansas Western Gas where it comes out to the right-of-way, right turn in and right turn out only. Mr. Jacks said the whole intention of the by-pass ordinance was to hold major street distances apart and he felt that bringing another one this close would go against this. Planning Consultant Larry Wood said the accessthen would be a right turn in-- right turn out only because there were no left turn potentials in there. He did, however, feel that this would be setting a precedence. Mr. Wimberly said Mr. Bassett would agree to no access to Lot 10 from Stearns Road and • • Planning Commission -3- March. 11, 1975 would agree to restrict access to Lot 11 from Stearns Road to the East 30 feet of Lot 11. John Maguire moved to approve the preliminary plat received by the Office of City Planning on March 6, 1975 with (1) Street A extended to the East property line as proposed at this meeting, (2) with no access from Stearns Road to Lot 10, (3) with access to Lot 11 from Stearns Road restricted to the East 30 or 40 feet of Lot 11, (4) setbacks from Highway 71 right-of-way to Lots 1 and 3 subject to Board of Adjustment approval, (5) that the requirement of the By-pass ordinance (Section 18 - 13 of the Code of Ordinances) be met and the developer agree in writing that at such time as the service road located on the property to be developed intersects with a street or highway intersecting the controlled access highway (Highway 71) any existing direct access into the controlled access highway (Highway 71) will be closed. This motion would not approve the proposal at this meeting that Street A be extended to the West to intersect Highway 71 between Lots 2 and 3. Helen Edmiston seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. The next item to be discussed was the proposed revision of COLLEGE MARKET ADDITION the Preliminary Plat of College Market Addition, to sub- Proposed Revision divide property lying North of Rolling Hills Drive, West of of Trinity Temple, South of K -Mart and East of the Malco Theatre, Preliminary Plat submitted by Johnie Bassett. The preliminary Plat was denied by Planning Commission February 25, 1975 because of traffic patterns. The Commission, however, agreed to review any revisions before sending them back to the Plat Review Committee. Ernest Jacks gave the Subdivision Committee Report. He said Market Street, rather than terminating at K -Mart had been taken to the North so it would access into Mr. Bassett's other property behind K -Mart, and they had guaranteed no access onto Rolling Hills Drive from Lots 1 and 6. John Maguire felt this would be better because it would slow the traffic down. Mr. Jacks also said they proposed a planter across the front along Rolling Hills Drive to barricade it from the residential. Ervan Wimberly said if they could not have access he didn't understand why the full 50 feet setbacks are required from right-of-way. Helen Edmiston agreed with this. Planning Consultant Larry Wood said everything looked okay with the exception of two things. (1) The difficulty of leaving the K -Mart parking lot by going North out of it and putting pressure on Harold Street, instead of Rolling Hills Drive, however, he felt nothing could be done about this. (2) He thought it would be nice for Mr. Bassett.to have higher than 30 inch planters along Rolling Hills Drive. He said it would not have the same effect as a masonry wall as he was hoping for visual obstruction from the single-family across the street. This would call for a variance as there is a height restriction involved. Ervan Wimberly said it was proposed for planters of 2 feet high with shrubbery not more than 30 inches unless they get a variance from the Board of Adjustment. Ernest Jacks felt that most of the objections was because it was across the street from residential and this is never a good situation. John Maguire felt, however, that the people were probably aware that it would be commercial across the street when they located on Rolling Hills Drive. There was no further discussion. Helen Edmiston moved to approve this as a preliminary plat subject to approval of the easements by the Plat Review Committee and the required variances being granted by the Board of Adjustment. Donald Nickell seconded the motion. It was voted upon and approved unanimously by a vote of 5-0. Planning Commission -4- March 11, 1975 Acting Chairman Jacks opened the public hearing on Rezoning Petition ELLIS BOGAN R75-3, Ellis Bogan, to rezone property located on the North side Sweetbriar Dr. of Sweetbriar Drive from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to R75-3 R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Planning Consultant Larry Wood gave the Planning Report. He recommended the change from R-1 to R-2 but suggested that the R-2 District be stopped at the creek on the East side. The public hearing was then opened for discussion. Mr. Ellis Bogan was present to represent. He said he had been unaware that this was being subdivided for R-1 and now he was back before the Planning Commission to try for R-2 zoning, so that as many people as possible could live there and enjoy the view. (This is located by the golf course.) He felt that this zoning would not conflict with anything else around in the area. He also said he did not object to the R-2 District stopping at the creek. No one was present to object and the public hearing was concluded. There was no further discussion. John Maguire moved to approve the zoning to R-2, providing it be stopped at the creek on the East. Helen Edmiston seconded the motion. Maguire, Jacks, Kisor and Edmiston voted "Aye"; Nickell voted "Nay". The Planning Commission By-laws required the affirmative vote of the majority of the entire membership of the Commission to effect zoning amendments. Since four of the Commission members were absent and one voted "Nay" Rezoning Petition R75-3 was denied. Acting Chairman Jacks told Mr. Bogan he could appeal this and go directly to the Board of Directors if he did so within 2 weeks. J. K. GREGORY The next item for discussion was the Rezoning Petition Dickson P, Olive Streets R75-4, J. K. Gregory on behalf of Mary Fletcher to rezone R75-4 property located on the Northwest corner of Dickson Street and Olive Avenue from R-1 Low Density Residential District, to R-2 Medium Density Residential District. Larry Wood (Planning Consultant) gave the Planning Report. He said there were two deep drainage ditches which would make a major portion of the property very difficult to develop. Mr. Wood said since the property had development potentialities under the existing R-1 District which is in keeping with the surrounding land use, he did not recommend that the R-2 zoning line be moved North of Dickson Street. Acting Chairman Ernest Jacks opened the public hearing on Rezoning Petition R75-4. Mrs. Mary Campbell Fletcher and J. K. Gregory were present to represent. Mrs. Fletcher said she had acquired this property for a single-family dwelling originally but now lived out-of-state and would like to have it rezoned for -duplexes: -She said she was aware of the drainage ditches and felt that this was much more suitable for high-class low-density duplexes than it was for single-family. She didn't ' regard this as less desirable. She felt there was a real need for a compound way of living since elderly people cannot maintain their own yards and this would also be within walking distance of churches, shopping, and the library. She told the Planning Commission that she planned on maintaining the beauty of the property. Lawyer Bill Storey was present representing the opposition. He said he represented two groups. (1) The citizens that have lived here for many years because it is quiet and (2) The citizens who have recently moved here and acquired property. He said there was only one other R-2 zoning in the area (4 or 5 blocks from there). He said Dickson (going toward the University of Arkansas) as well as Oliver and Sutton Streets were very narrow and the vehicles traveled very fast. It was the feeling of the people in opposition that 52 more people in the area would really cause a traffic hazard. They felt that the zoning should conform to the comprehensive land use plan. Bill McNair, 342 Olive, was present in opposition. He said he objected to this rezoning petition because of financial loss involved and the mode of living. He IP • • Planning Commission - 5 March 11, 1975 said he just recently purchased property and remodeled his house. He said they purchased their property with their children in mind, it being located where they could walk to school. He did not want this to be commercial. Mr. Floyd Conine, 429 Sutton, wanted to know how Mrs. Campbell planned on main- taining the natural beauty of the property with apartments on it and asked about the terrain problem. Mr. Fred Morton, 441 Sutton was also present in opposition. He said he was delighted when they found their house on Sutton and they now found themselves facing the possibility of having the quietness disturbed. He said the noise and traffic level would be increased as well as a likely increase in vandalism. He felt since the residents in the apartments would be renters rather than property owners, they would not be concerned about the property. Dr. Samuel Hucke, 365 North Olive, said his father-in-law had lived on Lafayette for around 70 years and the house pattern was already there and he felt that the pattern should not be changed now just to allow someone to build an apartment complex. He said the traffic on those streets now made it unsafe and they were not adapted to handle the high density traffic associated with an apartment complex. He also did not understand how it could accommodate elderly people since it is steep in this area. He said he thought it should be denied. Mr. Warren Rose, 622 Crescent Drive, said he was against the rezoning. Mr. J. K. Gregory said he sympathized with the Mortons, but they were not here when there was not anything but "nigger shacks" in the area. He said he owned the most valuable piece of property around and if this was going to down -grade their property, he asked what they thought it would do to his property. He said these apartments would not down -grade their property but instead would up -grade it. He said they did not plan on building student apartments but were wanting to build something for the elderly who could no longer maintain their own places. Mrs. Rita Farrell, 404 East Dickson, was concerned with the traffic problem. Mrs. Hucke, 365 N. Olive, said she did not doubt that Mr. Gregory had the most valuable property. She was, however, concerned with the traffic problem. She told the Planning Commission that it took 20 minutes to get out onto Olive because of the traffic. Mr. Bill Harrell, 220 N. Olive said he had seen cattle here at this location in the past and he also felt they would be dealing with a'tommund'. Mr. Bill Caine, 209 N. Olive, said he would like to endorse everything that Mr. Storey, Mr. Morton and Mr. McNair had said. Mrs. J. A. Williams (corner of Olive and Lafayette) said there was enough incline that it was difficult to get onto Lafayette from Olive in bad weather. Mr. Leland Bryan, 423 E. Lafayette, said he was there representing himself end also his sister, Mrs. Morton, and wished to endorse everything Mr. Morton had said. He felt there was not a need for apartments. He said there were already places in town that were vacant and needed renters. Mr. McGeehee, 308 N. Olive, also opposed any change in zoning. Mrs. Jack Redding (speaking on behalf of her husband, who was out of town) said they were in agreement with the rest of the neighbors. The public hearing was closed. Bill Kisor said he agreed with the majority of these people about traffic and steepness and narrow streets. Mr. Kisor moved to deny Rezoning Petition R75-4, J. K. Gregory, on behalf of Mary Lou Fletcher. Helen Edmiston felt there was a need for this type of dwelling, but the traffic at this location would keep her from voting in favor of this. John Maguire also felt there was a need for this type housing but was against it because the streets were too narrow in this area and he could not see compounding an already bad situation. Donald Nickell seconded the motion. The motion was voted upon and. the petition was unanimously. denied. Planning Commission 6 March 11, 1975 CY CARNEY,JR. The next item was the public hearing on Rezoning Petition R75-5, Gregg & Townshi Cy Carney, Jr. to rezone property located on the Southeast corner of Gregg Avenue and Township Road from I-1, Heavy Commercial $ Light Industrial, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Larry Wood presented the Planning Report in which he recommended the petition be deniedand the land use reviewed because of a conflict he saw in the plan. Cy Carney and Frances Langham (agent for the sale of the property) were present to represent. Mrs. Langham said there is a problem on setbacks in I-1 and that while the property description gives a north -south dimension of 382 feet this is to the centerline of Township Road and the right-of-way needed for the Major Street Plan plus the setback would put a building back 90 feet. She said the City has already acquired the West 80 feet of the 300 to 352 feet east -west dimension and a setback of SO feet from that is also required. She said also that some of the people who have been interested in the property could not get their desired use approved in I-1. Mr Carney and Lee Boss, real estate dealer, also spoke in favor of the petition. Mrs. Langham said many of her clients have a type of business requiring C-2 zoning but do not require the heavy traffic along a street such as College Avenue. Bill Kisor said he had received a call from Dr. Murray who had had problems with the night club when it was there. There was no one present to oppose the petition. The public hearing was closed. Helen Edmiston moved to recommend to the Board of Directors that Rezoning Petition R-75-5, Cy Carney, Jr. be approved. Donald Nickell seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE The next item was a Conditional Use Request for the Conditional Use Request City of Fayetteville. The following water facilities are listed as "City wide uses by conditional use permit", or uses permitted on appeal to the Planning Commission in all zoning districts throughout the City: A. Elevated water storage tank to be located on the North side of Township Road. B. Two ground level water storage tanks on the South side of Rogers Drive. City Engineer Paul Mattke was present to represent and said they would like to table part A of the request. John Maguire moved to table 9A of the Conditional Use Request. Donald Nickell seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. Mr. Mattke showed the Planning Commission plans of the two ground level water storage tanks to be located on the South side of Rogers Drive. He said these would be painted green similar to their other tanks. Bill Kisor asked if there was an alternative and Mr. Mattke answered there was not. He said the land was vacant and the pipe was already in. He said they would be about 8 feet above ground level. Mr. and Mrs. K. F. Livingston were present and asked Mr. Mattke to point out where the two storage tanks would be. They felt there was an error in the legal description and that part of this description took in a portion of their property. They said they would have no objections to the two water storage tanks being in the location that Mr. Mattke pointed out. Mr. Mattke told Mr. and Mrs. Livingston that he would be glad to go over the legal description with them and work it out. Helen Edmiston moved to approve 9B of the Conditional Use Request submitted by the City of Fayetteville to locate two ground level water storage tanks on the South side of Rogers Drive. Bill Kisor seconded the motion. It was voted upon and approved unanimously by a vote of 5-0. • • • i Planning Commission -7- March. 11, 1975 Director Russell Purdy was present and commented that the City had been working on this project for approximately 4 years. THOMAS J. MORGAN The next item was a Highway 71 By-pass service road contract Highway 71 By-pass and tandem lot request for property on the South side of Highway and '71 By-pass and on the East side of Highway 265 (Cato Springs Road), Highway 265 which was submitted by Thomas J. Morgan. Mr. Morgan was present to represent. Acting Chairman Ernest Jacks asked Mr. Morgan if he was aware that he could only have a tandem lot situation once, and Mr. Morgan said that he was. Mr. Jacks also commented that the ordinance required the topography of the land to be a consideration. Mr. Morgan said he wanted to sell the 30 acres and keep the 400' by 500' as indicated on the drawing. Bobbie Jones said the contract for the future development of the service road had been drawn up by the City Attorney but that the dedication for the right-of-way has not been drawn up. There was no further discussion. Donald Nickell moved that the reqeust be approved if Mr. Morgan conforms with the requirements of the by-pass ordinance and the tandem lot provisions. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said Mr. Morgan plans to:retain a 25 foot strip along the property and out to Highway 265. Helen Edmiston seconded the motion. It was voted upon and approved by a vote of 5-0. FINAL PLAT OF CLOVER CREEK II The last item for discussion was the Final Plat Planned Unit Development of Clover Creek II, a Planned Unit Development, and a replat of Lots 24 through 38 of Clover Creek Subdivision (a replat of part of Meadowlark Addition)'and part of the NMI, NW;, Sec.28, T -16-N, R -30-W, submitted by E and J Development Company, Inc. (located South of Cato Springs Road). Ernest Jacks gave the Subdivision Committee Report. He said there was a mention of an easement that was in error and some easements needed to be dimensioned. Between Lots 59 and 60 it was requested to be only 10 feet rather than the 15 feet that was shown. He also said the way this was set up it left Lot 50 with less than what is required for minimum lot width and the width of the opening needed to be considered and possibly have the requirement waived by the Planning Commission. Helen Edmiston said if this is not developed as a Planned Unit Development that it will be made into a public street with a cul-de-sac in the future. John Maguire moved to recommend to the Board of Directors the approval of the final plat of Clover Creek II contingent to the easement changes and with the provision that the Planning Commission waive the minimum lot width requirement for Lot 50. Donald Nickell seconded the motion. In the discussion Engineer Ervan Wimberly said one other easement needed to be added (15 foot easement --7Z feet either side). This would be within the 8 foot setback. He said Mr. Mattke had discussed this with him. Mr. Mattke wanted him to buy a loop to feed the water. Mr. Wimberly said this easement would not affect anything. John Maguire and Donald Nickell agreed to amend the motion and second to include this. There was no further discussion. The meeting was adjourned at 6:20 P..M. RESOLUTION PC 9-75 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Planning Commission, Tuesday, March 11, 1975, 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 Mr. Ellis Bogan, R75-3 for rezoning; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMBhIDED 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-2, Medium Density Residential District, be denied. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NE,i-,, SE*, Section 25, T -17-N, R -30-W, 5th P.M., Washington County, Arkansas, more particularly described as follows, to wit: Beginning at a point N 00 08' 42" E 150 feet from the SE corner of said 40 acre tract, thence N 89° 51' 18" W 1321.60 feet, thence N 0° 18' 42" E 150 feet, thence S 89° 51' 18" E 1321.60 feet, thence S 0° 08' 42" W 150 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 4.55 acres, more or less. SECTION 2. That the rezoning of the above described real estate would not be presently be desirable. PASSED AND APPROVED this llth day of March , 1975. APPROVED: Morton Gitelman, Chairman • • • RESOLUTION PC 10-75 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Planning Commission, Tuesday, March 11, 1975, 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 recommendation to the Board of Directors on the petition of Mr. J. K. Gregory on behalf of Mary Fletcher, R75-4 for rezoning; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVIJTF, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That the petition requesting the rezoning of property, described as follows, from R-1, Low Density Residential District to R-2, Medium Density Residential Dist., be denied. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NEy, NW*, Section 15, T -16-N, R -30-W, described as follows: Beginning 22 feet North and 134 feet and 8 in. East of the SW corner of said 40 acre tract for a beginning point, and running, thence East 261 feet and 4 in. to the West side of the Tabitha Taylor lot; thence North 175 feet; thence West 261 feet and 4 in, or to a point due North of the place of beginning; thence South 175 feet to the place of beginning, being a part of Block 15 (Old Block 6) Masonic Addition to the City of Fayetteville, as designated upon the recorded plat of said addition. ALSO Part of Lot 4, Block 22, in the Masonic Addition to the City of Fayetteville, described as beginning at the NW corner of said lot (said point being 190 feet North and 945 feet West of the SE corner of the NE*, NWk of Sec. 15, T -16-N, R -30-W, and running, thence South 65 feet; thence East 110 feet to Olive Street; thence North 65 feet; thence West 110 feet to the beginning point, and being further known and described as a part of Lot 6, Block 16, in the Masonic Addition to the City of Fayetteville, as shown by the Burns and McDonal Map of the City of Fayetteville. ALSO Part of Lot 4, Block 22, in the Masonic Addition to the Town (NowCity) of Fayetteville, Arkansas, and described as beginning at a point which is 65 feet South of the NW corner of said Lot 4 and running thence South 105 feet to the North line of Dickson Street; thence East 110 feet; thence North 105 feet thence West 110 feet to the point of beginning; being further described at a point 835 feet West and 20 feet North of the SE corner of the NE,i, NW*, Section 15, T -16-N, R -30-W, thence North 105 feet; thence West 101.5 feet; thence South 105 feet; thence East 101.5 feet to the point of beginning. SECTION 2. That the rezoning of the above described real estate would not be presently be desireable. %SED!•i AND APPROVED this llth day of March , 1975. APPROVED: MORTON GITELMAN, CHAIRMAN • J (e :n RESOLUTION PC 11-75 WHEREAS, A PUBLIC HEARING WAS HELD March 11, 1975, fifteen (15) days after and after a notice was published in the paper of general circulation; and BY THE Planning Commission, Tuesday, a sign was erected upon the property Northwest Arkansas Times, a news - WHEREAS, after the public hearing the Planning Commission voted to make a recommendation to the Board of Directors on Rezoning Petition R75-5, Mr. Cy Carney Jr. NOW TL EREFORE, 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 I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial Dist. to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial Dist. said real estate. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SEt, 5E4, Section 34, T -17-N, R -30-W, 5th P.M., all bounded and described as follows: Beginnint at an iron pin at the point where the centerline of the Public Road which intersects the East line of the right-o€=yay of the St. Louis -San Francisco Railroad, which point is 33 rods and 10 feet West and 34.35 feet North of the SE corner of said Section 34, and running thence N 87° 41, E with the center of the public road, 300 feet to an iron pin set in the center of said Public Road; thence South 382.31 feet; thence West 352 feet, to the East line of the aforesaid railway right of way thence in a northerly direction with the East line of said railway right -of way to the point of beginning, containing 2.79 acres more or less. LESS AND EXCEPT the west 80 feet of the above described property deeded to the city of Fayetteville, Arkansas. SECTION 2. That the above-described property be rezoned from I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial Dist. to C-2, Thoroughfare Commer- cial District, so that the petitioner may develop the property accordingly. PASSED AND APPROVED this 11th; day o2 March , 1975. APPROVED: MORTON GITELMAN, Chairman • • • RESOLUTION PC 12-75 WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on Tuesday, March 11, 1975, the Planning Commission voted to make a recommendation to the Board of Directors on the Pira 1 subdivision plat known as Clover Creek II submitted by E. and J Development Company and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVIIJF, ARKANSAS: SECTION 1. The necessary subdivision contract be executed with the City prior to the Board of Directors accepting the final subdivision plat. SECTION 2. That the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas accept the final plat along with the land dedicated for streets and other public uses in the Clover Creek II Subidivison described as follows: Lots 24 and 38, Clover Creek Subdivision and part of the NW4, NW,i-,, Section 28, T -16-N, R -3o W, City of Fayetteville, Washington County, Arkansas, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point which lies 295 feet West and S 0° 09' E 529.92 feet of the NE corner of said 40 acre tract; thence 0° 09' E 675 feet; thence West 617.3 feet to centerline of a creek; thence N 6 41' 30" E with said centerline 49.21 feet; thence N 89° 49' W with said centerline 71 feet; thence N 21° 19' W with said centerline 162 feet; thence S 79° 41' W with said centerline 105 feet; thence N 51° 32e4 with said centerline 95 feet; thence N 13° 17' W with said centerline 110 feet; thence N 48° 03' E with said centerline101 feet; thence N 36° 27' W with said centerline 165 feet; thence S 30° 01' E with said centerline 80 feet; thence N 21° 14' E with said centerline 150.40 feet; thence East 709.01 feet to the point of beginning. PASSED :AND APPROVED this llth day of March , 1975. APPROVED* ATTEST: Ernest Jacks, Secretary Morton Gitelman, Chairman