Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-04-22 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held at 4:10 P.M., April 22, 1975, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Ernest Jacks, John Power, Helen Edmiston, Bill Kisor, Rita Davis, Jack Ray, John Maguire. Morton Gitelman, Donald Nickell. Larry Wood, Harold Lieberenz, City Manager Don Grimes, Harry Gray, Loris Stanton, Mayor Marion Orton, Kirby Estes, Kerry Schultz, Mr. Bob Duggan, Roger Seratt, Attorney Bob White, John Todd, Russell Purdy, Jim Lindsey. In the absence of Chairman Morton Gitelman, Vice -Chairman Power chaired the meeting. Vice -Chairman Power called the meeting to order. The minutes of the April 8, 1975 Planning Commission meeting were MINUTES approved as mailed. The public hearing was opened on a proposed ordinance to PROPOSED AMENDMENT amend Article 7, Section 12, Subsection B, of To Zoning Ordinance Appendix A --Zoning, Fayetteville Code of Ordinances to Mobile Homes for Caretakers permit the use of mobile homes as housing for caretakers where such housing is permitted under said Appendix A, (Zoning Ordinance 1747 as amended by Ordinance 1869). Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones stated that this had first come up when Mr. Pat Tobin requested an interpretation from the Planning Commission to allow a mobile home for caretakers on property located on Township Road. The Planning Commission scheduled a public hearing to permit this usage under certain circumstances only. However, when the proposed ordinance reached the Board of Directors, they did not applAve of the way it was written and the City Attorney drafted a new proposed ordinance and it was again at this time before the Planning Commission. After a short discussion Ernest Jacks moved to recommend to the Board of Directors that the proposed ordinance be amended to cause the first sentence of paragraph 2 of Subsection (3) of Section 1 to read, "The Planning Commission may approve the use of mobile homes as authorized hereby for periods of one (1) year or less," and to then recommend that the zoning ordinance be amended as proposed. Bill Kisor seconded the motion. Directors Russell Purdy was present and commented that, in his opinion, this should have a limit of three years, or otherwise he felt he would have to vote against it when it came before the Board of Directors. Mr. Purdy stated that he felt that before a property owner would put a mobile home for a purpose like this with a 3 -year limitation he would just go ahead and pay the extra money and put a permanent building on the property. John Maguire arrived at 4:20 P.M. Vice -Chairman Power told Mr. Purdy that the Planning Commission had this amendment drawn up to try to solve a problem but felt that it would be so "watered down" that it would not solve any problems at all. After further discussion the following vote was recorded to approve the motion on the floor by a vote of 5 "Ayes", one "Nay" and one abstaining; "Aye"; Jacks, Power, Edmiston, Kisor, Ray. "Nay"; Davis. Abstaining: Maguire. Planning Commission -2- April 22, 1975 Vice -Chairman Power opened the public hearing on a proposed PROPOSED AMENDMENT • ordinance to amend Subsection (5) of Article IV, Section 1, to Appendix C (Subdivision Regulations) to the Fayetteville Subdivision Regulations Code of Ordinances - Subdivision Ordinance 1750 as amended by Ordinances 1998, 2016,. 2044, 2073, to provide that no Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued for a Large Scale Development until all public improvements installed by the developer are installed in conformity with City specifications, or until a performance bond to guarantee such installation is posted. City Manager Don Grimes was present and said this needed to be specified in the Large Scale Development ordinance to avoid any problems that might arise concerning this. He said the need for this was pointed out recently when Southmont Apartments were completed and they wanted to move people in, but had not completed all their public improvements. No one was present in opposition. Ernest Jacks moved to recommend to the Board of Directors that the proposed amendment be adopted. John Maguire seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. The next item for discussion was the Large Scale Development plan FREEMAN - PALMER for property lying West of Leverett Avenue and South of Sycamore Leverett 4 Sycamore Street, and having street frontage on both streets, to construct Large Scale Development 26 apartment units (29 units exist on the property) submitted by Ralph Freeman and Charles Palmer. Ernest Jacks listed the following items that was found by the Subdivision Committee after reviewing the Plat Review notes: 10 foot of right-of-way is needed on both streets; drainage should be handled on-site rather than on the street; and screening requirements should be shown on the drawing to meet requirements. 411 Ernest Jacks moved to approve the Large Scale Development Plan contingent on (A) 10 feet of right-of-way be given off of each street (Leverett and Sycamore). (B) On-site drainage be handled to the satisfaction of the Street Superintendent. (C) Screening be shown on the plans and installed to meet the zoning requirements. Helen Edmiston seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. Next was the preliminary plat of Shadow Hill Subdivision for SHADOW HILL SUBDIVISION property lying East and South of Old Wire Road, West of Preliminary Plat Colette Avenue, and South of the intersection of Old Missouri Road and Old Wire Road, submitted by Loris Stanton. Ernest Jacks gave the Subdivision Committee Report. He said they needed to cooperate with the City Engineer on the water and sewer. (There is a proposed project to put sewer line in on Colette but the line has not been put in yet.) Water needs to be brought over to serve Lots 1,2, and 3. He said Old Wire Road is shown as a minor arterial on the Master Street Plan. It is presently platted at 40 feet, therefore, the developer needs to dedicate to the City the right of way for a total of 40 feet from the existing center line of Old Wire Road. It was also pointed out that Mr. Stanton wished to waiver the sidewalk requirement and had requested (in the past). to turn Old Wire Road back to a 60 foot right-of-way East of the intersection with Old Missouri Road. Loris Stanton and Harry Gray (McClelland Engineers) were present to represent. Mr. Jacks said that a bond needed to be posted to pay for half of the paving of Colette Street to City street standards. Bobbie Jones (Planning Administrator) said that two more street lights were needed to meet the requirements . . . one at the Southeast corner of the subdivision where the private drive comes out onto Colette and one on Old Wire Road. She also mentioned that Street Superintendent Clayton Powell had objected to changing the classification of Old Wire Road from a minor arterial back to a collector on the Major Street Plan. As pointed out in the Plat Review minutes, Planning Consultant Larry Wood felt the subdivision should be redesigned with a new street to eliminate so many drives onto Old Wire Road. Mr. Stanton said he would be willing to pay for half thepaving of Colette Street along • Planning Commission -3- - April 22, 1975 his property, but that he did object to the sidewalks because of the incline where these would have to be built. Mr. Stanton mentioned two 20 foot utility easements between Lots 4 and 5 and Lots 8 and 9 requested by the power company (SWEPCO) that he felt could be cut down to 15 feet. It was the feeling of the Planning Commission that this should be checked with the power company before reducing the width of the easement. There was no one present in opposition. Ernest Jacks moved to approve the preliminary plat of Shadow Hill Subdivision with the following contengencies: (A) The developer show dedication of total of 40 feet of right-of-way from the existing center line of Old Wire Road. (B) A bond be posted or other arrangements made to pay for 11 the cost of paving Colette the length of the subdivision. (C) That the plat meet present City standards regarding street lights, sidewalks and (D) The conditional use of tandem lots be approved. Helen Edmiston seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously. Mr. Jacks told Mr. Stanton his motion was based on the plat mailed with the agenda and that he was willing to consider (1) a change in the right-of-way requirement for Old Wire Road on the final plat if the Major Street Plan was amended before then; (2) reducing the two 20 foot utility easements between Lots 4 and 5 and Lots 8 and 9 i the utility companies agreed. McILROY BANK The next item to be considered by the Planning Commission was Garland F North the Large Scale Development Plan for property lying Large Scale Development West of Garland Avenue and North of Wedington Drive(Northwest corner of proposed intersection of Garland Avenue and North Street extended) submitted by Mcllroy Bank to build a branch bank. Ernest Jacks reported that the Subdivision Committee found that 10 additional feet of right-of-way was required off this property for each street, anda building setback of 90 feet from the existing centerline of both streets was needed. Also screening was required between this property and the residential property to the West. Kirby Estes (architect) was present to represent. He told the Planning Commission that there was a 15 foot slope along the West property line which created a wall between the bank's property and the residential. Inspection Superintendent Harold Lieberenz said that ordinarily when parking was set back 20 feet from the property line screening was not required. However, this plan would fall under the "drive-in facilities" and screening is required under supplementary regulations. (The bank parking would be 50 to 60 feet from the property line.) Mr. Jacks continued the Subdivision Committee Report stating that there were drainage requirements to satisfy the Street Superintendent. Planning Consultant Larry Wood recommended that a statement be obtained from the property owner saying there would be limited access to North Street and guaranteeing that there never would be any driveway there because of the steepness there. Larry Wood commented that he would like to see this area develop into a shopping center but did not want to see it developed piece by piece where the accesses would not be combined. After some discussion Ernest Jacks moved to approve the Large Scale Development of Mcllroy Bank contingent upon (A) that the setbacks of the building be 90 feet from the center line of both streets;(B) that right-of-way be dedicated to conform with the requirements of the Major Street Plan, (40 feet from centerline of existing right-of-way; (C) the drainage system carry the approval of the Street Superintendent, and (D) that the screening requirement along the West property line be waived. Helen Edmiston seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. • • Planning Commission -4- April 22, 1975 COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES The next item was the proposed replat of Lots 97 through 110 Proposed Replat of and Lots 112 through 117 of Country Club Estates, sub- Lots 97 - 110 Y, 112 - 117 mitted by Jimmie Taylor & Company, Inc. Kerry Schultz (Schultz and Taylor) was present to represent and told the Planning Commission that the R-2 zoning shown on the drawing had been changed to R-1, the correct zoning district. Mr. Jacks pointed out the only difficulty concerning this was whether or not the Planning Commission wanted to waiver the street light and sidewalk requirements. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones explained that the original plat had been filed previous to the existing ordinance, but that there had been a replat or at least a Phase 2 of it filed after the present ordinance came into effect. She said Street Superintendent Clayton Powell had called her to say he was opposed to this waiver since the improvements had been required since 1966. Mr. Powell had commented to her that inadequate storm drainage had contributed to the deterioration of the existing street and as soon as the lots were built upon the strees would have to be repaired at the public's expense. John Maguire felt that a precedent had been set when the original plat was approved without those improvements being required. Inspection Superintendent Harold Lieberenz said sidewalks and street lights were probably required at that time but the City did not enforce its own regulations that strictly. He said at one time the City was not encouraging street lighting because the City had to pay the bill. Rita Davis felt that sidewalks would add to the value of the lots and would benefit the buyers of these lots. Ernest Jacks stated that since they had only shifted the lot lines, he would not be against the waiver. Ernest Jacks moved the Planning Commission accept this replat with the following provisions: (1) Show zoning classification as R-1, (2) the setback along side streets be shown in accordance with present City regulations and (3) that the street light and sidewalk requirements be waived. Bill Kisor seconded the motion. The motion was voted upon and unanimously approved. Next was a request from Bob Duggan of the Housing Authroity REQUEST TO AMEND of Fayetteville, for a public hearing to amend the Major Major Street Plan Street Plan to agree with the Urban Renewal Plan. Mr Duggan Housing Authority was present and stated that the original Urban Renewal Plan showed Center Street between East and Block Street on the square, to be closed (that is Center Street would( be' closed along the North side of the square.) He said he and City: Manager Don Grimes had attended a meeting of the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission and they showed (as part of the Major Street Plan as approved by the Planning Commission) Center Street to be a minor arterial from College to the West, and this was a conflict. He said the Technical Advisory Committee of the Northwest Regional Transportation Study was in agreement that Center Street at this point is not a minor arterial from College because it is difficult to get access off of College. Therefore, the Housing Authority is asking that it be clarified that Center Street be closed so there will be no conflict with Urban Renewal. Mr. Duggan said their concept in presenting this to the public would be to show Center Street as being closed, and that this would probably be presented to the public about June 1. Ernest Jacks felt that a public hearing should be held on this as it might bring out other suggestions concerning the matter. Mr. Duggan pointed out to the Planning Commission that Mcllroy Bank's office plans were based on Urban Renewal Plans and that at least part of the plan should remain the same. Planning Commission -5- April 22, 1975 After some discussion John Maguire moved to table the request. Ernest Jacks seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. The next item was a request to change a non -conforming use from a thrift store (resale items) and garage to automobile sales, service, repair, etc. for property on the Southwest corner of Mountain Street and School Avenue (zoned R-0, Residential Office by Rodger Seratt. Mr. Seratt was present to represent. He told the Planning Commission that he had an automobile repair shop at 5 North West and found that he was in violation of the Zoning Ordinance thereand was before them now trying to change the use so he could move ihto the building located at Mountain and School Avenue. Mr. Seratt is working on automobiles in order to save money to go back to law school. He said he worked at this full time and had two part time employees. Attorney Bob White was present to represent 16 surrounding property ownersaand tenants who were opposed to the request. He submitted a petition which Vice -Chairman Powerrread and requested that -it beentered into the minutes. Said petition follows in full hereafter and is hereby made a part of these minutes: REQUEST TO CHANGE Non -Conforming Use Mountain $ School District), submitted TO PETITION THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE: We the following citizens who live in the immediate area of Mountain Street and School Avenue hereby formerly object to the request Rodger Seratt to change a non -conforming use from a thrift store and garage to automobile sales, services and repairs for property located at the southwest corner of said intersection. It is our belief that such a use for this property, which is zoned residential -office district, would not be in keeping with the existing zoning and would disrupt our quiet enjoyment and use of the neighborhood. We, therefore, respectfully request that this application be denied. Name Address Kathy Ptak* W. A. Ward Janes A. Powers* Esther Powers* Letha Bohannan* James Perlingiere Julie Perlingiere Doug Tewlin (?) G. L. Hudson Minnie Hudson Joetta Harriman* David W. Copeland Robert Standridge Brady Lowe Steven Buntz (?) E. J. Emerson* Beulah Smith Mrs. W. 0. Omohundro* W. 0. Omohundro* Eva Sue Omohundro R. Lee Swango William Ptak* (* property owners) 415 W. Mountain Address illegible 413 W. Mountain 413 W. Mountain 114 S. School 121 S. School 121 S. Shcool 311 103 103 414 West Mountain S. School S. School W. Mountain 5 S. School 311 W. Mountain 311 W. Mountain 307. W. Mountain 115 S. Shcool 116 S. School Ave. 202 S. School Ave. 202 S. School Ave. 202 S. School Ave. #1, N. School 415 W. Mountain St. • • • Planning Commission -6- April 22,.1975' Mr. Seratt told Mr. White that he was merely asking for a continuation of a usage that was present before the zoning ordinance went into effect. He said he felt that his business would not create any more traffic than Selle's Restaurant or any more noise than Central Tire Company which are Both located in this area. He also said that if he were granted the request he would improve the property. He said he he had remodeled two houses in Fayetteville and he felt the neighbors would be proud he had taken over this place after he improved the looks of the building. John Maguire moved that -the request be granted. Rita Davis seconded the motion. Attorney White said he understood this to come under Use Unit 17 which required certain parking requirements; Mr. Seratt said he had checked this out with Mrs Jones and that the parking did meet the City ordinance. In answer to some questions, Mr. Seratt stated that he would allow the Thrift Store to continue for a while but did not know about later on. He said he might need that part of the building for his work: He also said if the request was not granted, he would not purchase the property and it would remain in a dilapidated condition as it had in the past. Director John Todd asked Mr. Seratt how he would avoid making this a junk yard and Mr. Seratt replied that he would cooperate with the City who, he was sure would inform him if the place became too junky. After considerable discussion the motion on the floor was voted on and was approved by a vote of 6-0-1. (Ernest Jacks abstained.) City Manager Don Grimes raised the question of whether or not Mr. Seratt was aware that the ordinance required that disassembled vehicles must be kept inside the building. Rodger Seratt said if someonebrought a car in to be fixed with a fender off he would want to park it outside until he could get to it; however, he did not plan to make a junk yard out of it. The next item was proposed amendments to Sign Ordinance 1893 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO which was referred to the Planning Commission for r Sign Ordinance 1893 recommendation by the City Board of Directors. Vice -Chairman Power asked City Manager Don Grimes why the amendments were being brought in at this particular time. Mr. Grimes explained that they were having some enforcement problems with the present sign ordinance..He said there were problem areas (1) Shopping centers wanting their own signs and dividing property within a shopping center and selling out individual parcels. (2) Fuel price signs at service stations. Mr. Grimes felt it was a public service to show the current gasoline prices, but said it could get out of control. Vice -Chairman John Power pointed out the last paragraph of a letter from the Planning Administrator stating that City Attorney Jim McCord had told her that a public hearing was not necessary since it was not part of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Power, however, felt that something of this nature should have a public hearing held on it and asked Mr. Grimes if he had any objections to this. He said he would feel better as a Commissioner knowing that people would have a chance to voice their opinions. He asked for opinions from the other Commissioners. Ernest Jacks hoped this would not be a "wateridown".bf the ordinance; he felt a public hearing was in order. After some discussion, the Planning Commission members were in agreement with this. City Manager Don Grimes said he had no objections to holding the public heating. Mr. Power said they as Commissioners would do everything in their power to keep this from becoming a "watering down" of the ordinance. He then requested that Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones schedule this for a public hearing on the 4th Tuesday in May. Planning Commission -7- April 22, 1975 It had been requested from Planning Commission member DISCUSSION ON SETBACKS Helen Edmiston to discuss setbacks, specifically side In I-1 Zoning District • n; setbacks, in the I-1 Zoning District; however, in lieu of the time Mrs. Edmiston was willing to put this matter on the table. Ernest Jacks moved to table this until the next Planning Commission meeting. John Maguire seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. Vice -Chairman Power told Bobbie Jones that any information that she could get to the Commissioners ahead of time would be helpful. -r REQUEST FOR JOINT MEETING The next item was a request from the City Board of Location Of Directors for a joint meeting with the City Planning Retail Liquor Stores Commission on May 6, 1975, to discuss how best to regulate the location of retail liquor outlets inside the City. Director John Todd told the Planning Commission that they would like to have a special joint meeting on May 6, 1975 to discuss this matter. He said this would be the first item on the agenda and the Commissioners would not be requested to stay for the rest of the City Board meeting if they wished to leave after the liquor store discussion. This was agreeable with the Planning Commission. The City Board had requested Planning Consultant Larry Wood (NW Arkansas Regional Planning Commission) to prepare some preliminary regulations for a proposed C -2L and C -3L Zoning District and make recommendations as to what portions of the existing C-2 and C-3 Zoning Districts would be best suited for C -2L and C -3L. Mr. Wood said that his recommendations would be delayed until after the joint meeting. Administrative Assistant David McWethy told the Planning Commission members they would be notified of the exact time of the meeting since there is an ordinance setting the time of Board of Directors meetings. POLICY STATEMENT The next item to be discussed was a policy statement recently On Attendance adopted by the City Board of Directors concerning attendance Of of members of various City boards and committees whose Planning Commission Members membership is appointed by the City Board of Directors. Under the adopted policy statement any member absent from 25% or more of the group's regularly scheduled meetings during a 6 month period should be reported by the secretary of each group to the City Manager's Office.(25% for Planning Commission would be 3 meetings.) Director John Todd and Russell Purdy assured the Planning Commission that they were not tying to vacate the Commissioners of their positions. They did, however, want an absentee report filled out by members missing 25% of the regularly scheduled meetings in a 6 month period and this absentee report would then be reviewed by the City Manager. Director Todd told the Planning Commission that one reason for this policy statement was the long list of people wishing to serve on the various boards or committees. (This item was on the agenda primarily for informational purposes. The last item on the agenda was a report from Planning USE LAND STUDY Consultant Larry Wood on a Land Use Study for the North Highway 265 Corridor half of the Highway 265 Corridor (extending northward from the Township Line between T -16-N and T -17-N). Mr. Wood said coming up Highway 265 about 1' miles from Highway 45 the intersection of Old Wire Road with Highway 265 is a bad intersection; however, there appeared to be a need for some convenience shopping for the eventual densities that would build in this area, so he said he pulled over to the higher portion East of the creek and North of Old Wire Road'for a potential piece of C-1 on that corner and surrounded it with R-2 (Medium Density Residential) to buffer this. He said • • Planning Commission -8- April 22, 1975 he had not tried to identify it, but that he saw a potential of some office ( a minor amount) at this intersection. Moving Northfrom there we have Elaine Street which is a proposed collector street on the Major Street Plan and will be extended across the creek to meet"with Highway 265 Low Density Residential would be retained all the way through this portion. Up the 265 corridor to the extension of Stearns -Joyce Street. The Major Street Plan indicated this to stop at 265. Mr. Wood said there was no indication of an extension and he would recommend here the extension of Joyce on the Major Street Plan to tie back in with Old Wire Road which ties to the downtown portion of Highway 68 which would again be extended out to 68 proper. This would tie and make the loop back completely around Springdale if this were added to the Mdjor Street Plan. Mr. Wood said he was holding the West side of 265 for Commercial at this intersection. Highway 265 swung to the West here to avoid the higher topography which starts in this area. He saw here the potential of offices beginning the transition to the East bordered by Medium Density Residential, then back into Low Density Resdiential retaining the creek as the stopping point. Mr. Wood said that Mr. Dale Christy was interested in some potential office in the area at Stearns and Joyce Road and Crossover. Mr. Wood said that basically he did not want to drop South of the creek with office facilities even though it was fairly well cut off from expansion North and South it might have some effect to the East. He said this whole pocket had the potential of a variety of intensities of dwellings (townhouses, duplexes, single family) bordered by the golf course on the West, the creek on the South and moving back into commercial at this corner as far as whatl am recommending to you. So this whole piece could feasibly be commercial or could be a combination of commercial -office or commercial -office and Medium Density (R-2) and still not have the capability of just expanding where it becomes uncontrollable. The Northwest corner is basically open and shows a potential for spread there at the corner of Stearns Road and Highway 265 and its simply recommended wherever this line is eventually drawn that it be matched and buffered with R-2 around it and then back with single family. Then because of the narrowness between the extension of 265 and the creek reduce the intensity coming to the East with either the potential of office or R-2 again on any of the corners in there. With the piece of property where 265 curves around the hill being very attractive and very narrow Mr. Wood saw the potential of large single family in R-1 or some very attractive townhouses in R-2, while retaining single-family on the East side of 265 in this particular area. Then moving to the West of 265 (starting from the South) this is all existing single family as far as zoning, developing in single-family nature and Mr. Wood did not see any need to change this property. He pointed out the portion that was requested and granted for R-2 in Sweetbriar Subdivision, and the Planned Unit Development also in Sweetbriar that was approved and the property rezoned some years ago (before the most recent change in the zoning ordinance.) Mr. Wood extended his study to the West to Highway 71 North of Mud Creek. Mr. Wood felt that there was single-family developing in this area. He said this piece was exposed to the flood. plain to the West but said there was a potential for R-2 (townhouses). The golf course is located to the East of this which the County is trying to negotiate to purchase at this time to keep it in permanent public open space. He pointed out the flood plain along Mud Creek. He said Arkansas Western indicated that they would correct and channelize through this area in order to take advantage of the Planned Unit Development. John Maguire asked if there would not be pressure on the R-2 or office in that area; Mr. Wood replied that there was that possibility. He said it became a matter of • Planning Commission -9- April 22, 1975 density and utility service, Mr. Wood said he did not recommend much. change in this area around Zion Road. On Zion Road there is a 40 foot strip of property which is City owned that gives access to the park around the Lake. Mr. Wood recommended utilizing this as the stopping point for Commercial and office;. He pointed out the Elks Club and Church property on Zion Road recommending the Church as a buffer. Jim Lindsey was present and told the Planning Commission that he was a trustee for a group of people who would grant right-of-way to extend Zion Road to eliminate 2 sharp curves West of Highway 265. He said Zion Road was crooked now and this street would improve access to Zion Road and would help eliminate future pressure created by the commercial in the area Mr. Lindsey felt that some consideration should be given to the improvement of Zion Road There was no further business. There meeting was adjourned at 6:55IP. M. • RESOLUTION PC 17-75 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Planning Commission, Tuesday, April 22, 1975, fifteen (15) days after a notice was published in the Northwest Arkansas Times, a newspaper of general circulation; and A WHEREAS, after the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to make a recommendation to the Board of Directors on a proposed amendment to Article 7, Section 12, Subsection B, of Appendix A - Fayetteville Code of Ordinances (Zoning Ordinance 1747 as amended by Ordinance 1869). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEV'n TE, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That the proposed ordinance, attached hereto and made a part hereof, be amended to cause Paragraph 2 of Subsection (3) of Section 1 to read: "The Planning Commission may approve the use of mobile homes as authorized hereby for periods of one (1) year or less. As a condition of approval, the Planning Commission shall require the mobile home to be set back a distance of 150 feet from existing or proposed street right-of-way lines. The Planning Commission shall not approve the use of more than one (1) mobile home per two -acre tract." SECTION 2. That following the above-mentioned amendment, the proposed ordinance, attached hereto and made a part hereof, be adopted for the purpose of amending Article 7, Section 12, Subsection B, of Appendix A - Fayetteville • Code of Ordinances (Zoning Ordinance 1747 as amended by Ordinance 1869) to permit the use of mobile homes as housing for caretakers where such housing is permitted under said Appendix A. • 0 PASSED AND APPROVED this 22nd day of April , 1975. APPROVED: John Power, Vice -Chairman • 2M &di&-ntPd /715 P ROPO3ED OEDI NA NC E • ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE 7, SECTION 12, SUBSECTION B, OF APPENDIX A TO THE FAYETTEVILLE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO PERMIT THE USE OF MOBILE HOMES AS HOUSING FOR CARETAKEERS WHERE SUCH HOUSING IS PERMITTED UNDER SAID APPENDIX A. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1. That Article 7, Section 12, Subsection B of Appendix A to the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances is hereby amended by adding paragraph (3) to read as follows: (3) On any property consisting of two (2) acres, or more, in a zoning district where housing for care- takers is a use by right, or a conditional use, such housing may consist of a mobile home, if approved by the Planning Commission. Mobile homes may also be placed on property consisting of two (2) acres, or more, in P-1 zoning districts for the purpose of housing caretakers or security personnel, if approved by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission may approve the use of mobile homes as authorized hereby for one (1) year periods. As a condition of approval, the Planning Commission shall re- quire the mobile home to be set back a distance of 150 feet from existing or proposed street right of way lines. The Planning Commission shall not approve the use of more than one (1) mobile home per two -acre tract. Approval of the Planning Commission for the use of a mobile home as authorized hereby shall automatically terminate if the ownership of the property on which the mobile home is located changes, or if the nature of the business conducted on the property changes. Section 2. That all ordinances; or in conflict herewith be, and hereby are, parts of ordinances, repealed. Section 3. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the time provided by law. PASSED AND APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1975. ATTEST: APPROVED: • CITY CLERK MAYOR • FXISTING ORDI\ANC.r. Art 7 12. Mobile Homes FAYETTE.VILLE CODE APPENDIX A—ZONING Art 7 B. Location of Mobile Homes Mobile homes are permitted in mobile home parks and shall not be placed in any other location in the city, except: (1) Temporary occupancy permits may be issued when permitted by the other provisions of this ordinance and the building code. (2) Temporary occupancy permits may be issued for mobile homes subject to the following requirements: (a) The owner of three acres or more of land having no permanent residences and zoned A-1 may install one (1) mobile home on this property for his own personal use or for a use beneficial to the owner but not for rental for money to the general pub- lic. • (b) The owner of three or more acres of land having only one permanent residence on the entire prop- erty, which he uses for his own personal residence, and zoned A-1 may install one (1) mobile home for a use beneficial to the owner but not for rental for money to the general public. Upon application the enforcement officer may, if no nui- sance to neighbors is apparent, issue a temporary occupancy permit for the location of a mobile home under the provisions of this ordinance. Provided, however, that the issuance shall be subject to the following conditions: (1) The applicant shall sign a statement recognizing that: (a) The permit is temporary; (b) The permit is an exception under the Mobile Home Ordinance; and (c) He will abide by the conditions contained in this ordinance. (2) Permits must be renewed annually. (3) The mobile home may not be sold as a part of the con- veyance of the property on which it is located. (4) Permits are not transferable. (6) If, by action of the owner the property is rezoned the temporary permit is automatically revoked and the mobile home must be removed. . (6) If the property is reduced in size to less than three acres the temporary permit is automatically revoked and the mobile home must be removed. (7) 1f a residence or additional r^sidence is located on property where a temporary permit for the location of a mobile home has been issued, the temporary per- mit is automatically revoked and the mobile home must be removed, unless the use meets the standards found In paragraph B(2) (b) above. (8) The mobile home must be located at least 100 feet from any property line. (Ord. No. 1869, § 1, 6-19-72) 1 • f • • RESOLUTION PC 18-75 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Planning Commission, Tuesday, April 22, 1975, 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 (5) of Article IV, Section I, Appendix C - Subdivision Regulations to the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances (Subdivision Ordinance 1750 as amended by Ordinances 1998, 2016, 2044, 2073). Nag, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILIE, ARKANSAS. SECTION.1. That the proposed ordinance, attached hereto and made a part hereof, be adopted for the purpose of amending Subsection (5) of Article IV, of Section I, Appendix C - Subdivision Regulations to the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances (Subdivision Ordinance 1750 as amended by Ordinances 1998, 2016, 2044, 2073) to provide that no Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued for a Large Scale Development until all public improvements which the developer undertakes to install are installed in conformity with City specifications, or until a performance bond in an amount approved by the City Engineer is posted with the City Inspection Superintendent to guarantee such installation. PASSED AND APPROVED this 22nd day of April , 1975. APPROVED: John Power, Vice -Chairman .r 4.901811? d /7-15 P OPO3ED ORDINANCE ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE 7, SECTION 12, SUBSECTION B, OF APPENDIX A TO THE FAYETTEVILLE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO PERMIT THE USE OF MOBILE HOMES AS HOUSING FOR CARETAKEERS WHERE SUCH HOUSING I5 PERMITTED UNDER SAID APPENDIX A. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1. That Article 7, Section 12, Subsection B of Appendix A to the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances is hereby amended by adding paragraph (3) to read as follows: (3) On any property consisting of two (2) acres, or more, in a zoning district where housing for care- takers is a use by right, or a conditional use, such housing may consist of a mobile home, if approved by the Planning Commission. Mobile homes may also be placed on property consisting of two (2) acres, or more, in P-1 zoning districts for the purpose of housing caretakers or security personnel, if approved by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission may approve the use of mobile homes as authorized hereby for one (1) year periods. As a condition of approval, the Planning Commission shall re- quire the mobile home to be set back a distance of 150 feet from existing or proposed street right of way lines. The Planning Commission shall not approve the use of more than one (1) mobile home per two -acre tract. Approval of the Planning Commission for the use of a mobile home as authorized hereby shall automatically terminate if the ownership of the property on which the mobile home is located changes, or if the nature of the business conducted on the property changes. Section 2. That all ordinances, or parts of ordinances, in conflict herewith be, and hereby are, repealed. Section 3. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the time provided by law. 1975. PASSED AND APPROVED THIS DAY OF APPROVED: • MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK • • XISTING 0:01\ANC.F. Art 7 12. Mobile Homes FAYETTEVILLE CODE APPENDIX A—ZONJNO Art. 7 B. Location of Mobile Homes Mobile homes are permitted in mobile home parks and shall not be placed in any other location in the city, except: (1) Temporary occupancy permits may be issued when permitted by the other provisions of this ordinance and the building code. (2) Temporary occupancy permits may be issued for mobile homes subject to the following requirements: (a) The owner of three acres or more of land having no permanent residences and zoned A-1 may install one (1) mobile home on this property for his own personal use or for a use beneficial to the owner but not for rental for money to the general pub- lic. (b) The owner of three or more acres of land having only one permanent residence on the entire prop- erty, which he uses for his own personal residence, and zoned A-1 may install one (1) mobile home for a use beneficial to the owner but not for rental for money to the general public. Upon application the enforcement officer may, if no nui- sance to neighbors is apparent, issue a temporary occupancy permit for the location of a mobile home under the provisions of this ordinance. Provided, however, that the issuance shall be subject to the following conditions: (1) The applicant shall sign a statement recognizing that: (a) The permit is temporary; (b) The permit is an exception under the Mobile Home Ordinance; and (c) He will abide by the conditions contained in this ordinance. (2) Permits must be renewed annually. (3) The mobile home may not be sold as a part of the con- veyance of the property on which it is located. (4) Permits are not transferable. (6) If, by action of the owner the property is rezoned the temporary permit is automatically revoked and the mobile home must be removed. . (6) 1f the property is reduced in size to less than three acres the temporary permit is automatically revoked and the mobile home must be removed. (7) If a residence or additional r^sidence is located on property where a temporary permit for the location of a mobile home has been issued, the temporary per- mit is automatically revoked and the mobile home must be removed, unless the use meets the standards found in paragraph B(2) (b) above. (8) The mobile home must be located at least 100 feet from any property line. (Ord. No. 1869, § 1, 6-19-72) • RESOLUTION PC 19-75 WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on Tuesday, April 22, 1975, the Planning Commission voted to make a recommendation to the Board of Directors on the final subdivision plat known as a Replat of Lots 97- 110 and Lots 112-117 of Country Club Estates, dated March, 1975, and submitted by Jimmie Taylor & Company, Inc. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETth,'VTT.TF, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That the zoning classification on the subdivision plat known as a Replat of Lots 97-110 and Lots 112-117 of Country Club Estates be shown as R-1, Low Density Residential District. SECTION 2. That the minimum building setback from all street rights- of-way on said plat be shown as 25 ft. SECTION 3. That the present City requirements for street lights and sidewalks be waived in full SECTION 4. That the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas accept the final plat along with the land dedicated for streets and other public uses in the Replat of Lots 97-110 and Lots 112-117, Country Club Estates subdivision described as follows: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 97 - 110 and 112 - 117 of the Final Plat of Country Club Estates filed May, 1971, to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. PASSED AND APPROVED this ATTEST: Ernest Jacks, Secretary day of , 1975. APPROVED: Morton Gitelman, Chairman 1 • • RESOLUTION PC 20-75 BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, that a public hearing be called for the purpose of amending Chapter 17B, Signs, Fayetteville Code of Ordinances (Sign Ordinance No. 1893) to clarify the sign regulations provided thereby; to provide a Board of Sign Appeals; and for other purposes; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Administrator is hereby authorized to give notice of said public hearing by having a notice published in a newspaper of general circulation at least 15 days prior to the date of said public hearing; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the date for said public hearing is hereby set for May 27, 1975, Tuesday. PASSED AND APPROVED this 22nd day of April , 1975. APPROVED: John Power, Vice -Chairman