Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-05-27 Minutes• • M• ril Pym -6"< Fz /»S MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held Tuesday, May 27, 1975, at 4:02 P. M. in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Morton Gitelman, Ernest Jacks, John Maguire, Helen Edmiston, Bill Kisor, Rita Davis, Jack Ray, John Power. MEMBERS ABSENT: Donald Nickell. OTHERS PRESENT: Diamond Garton, Attorney Bob White, Joe Berrymon, Jerome Jansma, Mrs. Western Johnson, Dawn Dunnuck, Betty Fletcher, Ruth Livingston, Evangeline Foldvary, Charles Hoffman, City Attorney Jim McCord, Mayor Marion Orton, Directors Russell Purdy and John Todd, Building Inspector Freeman Wood, Larry Wood, Mrs. Robbin Anderson, Attorney Marshall Carlisle, Ray Gilbrech, Bill Parette, Bobbie Jones, Janet Bowen. Chairman Morton Gitelman called the meeting to order. MINUTES The minutes of the May 13, 1975 Planning Commission Meeting were approved as distributed. REZONING PETITION R75-10 Kenneth $ Diamond Garton The public hearing was opened on Rezoning Petition R75-10, Kenneth L. Garton and Diamond A. Garton, to rezone property located at 938 Rodgers Drive, from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to R-2, Medium Density Residential District. (This item was tabled from the May 13, 1975 Planning Commission Meeting at the request of the petitioner's attorney.) Ernest Jacks moved to take Rezoning Petition R75-10 off the table. The motion which was seconded by Bill Kisor was approved unanimously. Larry Wood (Planning Consultant) gave the Planning Report and stated that sewer was available but very difficult to get to. With the General Plan recommending low density residential, the property involving only two lots, the single-family nature of the area and the large area zoned R-2 District to the West, Mr. Wood did not recommend this rezoning request. Bob White, attorney representing the Gartons, was present. He said in April and May,1974, Truman Smith, attorney for the Gartons at that time,petitioned the Planning Commission to call a public hearing to amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit home occupations in the R-1 Zoning District. kMrs.Garton operates a small beauty salon in her residence.) The petition was denied at that time. Mr. White explained that this time they were requesting a change in the zoning on the two lots involved. (Beauty Shops are allowed under Home Occupations in Use Unit 9 of the Zoning Ordinance in either an R-2 or R-3 District but are prohibited in the R-1.) Mr. White pointed out that if Mrs. Garton could not get the rezoning approved that she would have to completely shut down or move the location of the beauty salon. He said he had checked with Mr. Hoffman, Inspection Department, and that final sewer had been approved and a sewer extension would be going in here. Also he pointed out that Bill Parette had run tests there and that the run-off is not excessive and it met all the standards as far as standards are concerned. Mr. White told the Planning Commission that there would probably be objections from the surrounding property owners on rezoning the property but not to Mrs. Garton's beauty shop operation. He told them Mrs. Garton was present and would answer any questions as far as square footage • i Planning Commission -2- May 27, 1975 and etc. of the beauty salon. Mrs. Dawn Dunnuck, 835 Rodgers Drive, was present and stated that there was an excessive amount of traffic because of the beauty shop. She said there were between 65 and 75 customers there every week, and the shop 'stays open from 7:30:A.M. until 7:30 P.M. 6 days a week. Mrs. Dunnuck alleged that there are other businesses operating in the Garton house. She also stated that in the months of March and April "an excessive number" of pickup trucks were noted going in and out of the Garton's driveway. Several of the trucks without licenses or identification. Mrs.Dunnuck said there was a day care center across the street and she did not object to it as long as there were no more than 4 or 5 cars going there. However, she did object to the excessive amount of traffic going'in and out because of the beauty shop. She said there had been a history of septic tank problems at the Garton property for years and the sewage flowed about 75 feet across her property. Also she said there seemed to be an excessive number of wildlife (birds, etc.) dying in the area and she felt that it was due to chemicals and hair dye solutions used at the beauty salon. Charles Hoffman from the Building Inspection Dept. stated that when this came before the Commission last yearhe requested the Washington County Health Department run a dye test on the private septic system the results of which were negative; their system was not polluting the area. Mrs. Joe Berrymon, 844 Rodgers Drive, was present and said she felt the Gartons were very quiet and considerate neighbors. She said the cars drive slowly going to and from the beauty shop. She felt the Gartons were an asset rather than a drawback to the neighborhood. Mrs. Western Johnson, 824 Rodgers Drive, was present and clarified that she did not run a day care center as Mrs. Dunnuck had suggested. She said she kept two little children in her home and has for 19 years. She said the Gartons were "lovely people" and she personally went to Mrs Garton's beauty shop. She said it takes her around 45 minutes to do her hair and cannot see how there could be as many as 65-75 customers a day. She felt that a lot of the traffic on the street was people just turning around in the Garton's driveway. Mrs. Betty Fletcher, 904 Rodgers Drive, said she had no objections whatsoever to the beauty shop operation. Mr. Jerome Jansma, 900 Lighton Trail, objected to a zoning ordinance (provision) that would allow a beauty shop there. He said no one had pointed out that these are narrow, dead-end, gravel streets and the cars created dust and disturbances in a residential (in character) area. He felt if the beauty shop was allowed to go in it would bring other businesses to the area and he objected to this. Evangeline Foldvary, 935 Rodgers Drive, stated the Gartons' character is excellent and they had no objections to the beauty shop but that she objected to the rezoning of the 100 feet that would allow it to become business or allow multiple family dwellings to be constructed in the area. She said the Gartons were appreciative when they moved in because it was so secluded but that it was now busy with cars creating dust. She said the street was not wide enough (in places only 16 feet wide) for cars to meet on it. Mrs. Ruth Livingston, 1 Lighton Trail, was opposed to the idea because once it became commercial it would downgrade the area. She said the dust "billowed up" even to their house from this street and she felt this area should not become commercial if they did not have a street that would accommodate commercial traffic. Ray Gilbrech, 858 Rodgers Drive, said he did not object to the Gartons or their business but was against the R-2 zoning because it would open possibilities for apartment complexes to go in and this bothered him. Attorney White pointed out to the Planning Commission that they were not requesting to rezone the whole area, but only this particular property to accommodate this particular type of home occupation. He said, as Mr. Hoffman had pointed out, that the sewage was no longer a problem. He brought out that the objections for the most part were not against the operation of the beauty shop so much as the rezoning. He told the Planning Commission that the Gartons also lived here and ;• Planning Commission May 27, 1975 -3- felt they would want to keep the property neat rather than downgrading it; and he hoped they would consider these points before making any decisions, Rita Davis said when this request came before them last year she thought it was all settled and the place fiad closed. City Attorney Jim McCord said a writ of supersedeas had been issued; therefore, the City cannot enforce the ordinance until they have exhausted all their administrative remedies. After Attorney White pointed out that they were not before the Commission with the same request, Rita Davis expressed the opinion that it really was the same thing because they are seeking to keep the beauty shop and if it were rezoned there could be smallapartments go in the area. Mrs. Garton was present and told the Planning Commission that when they bought the house there was a kitchen in both ends of the house and they felt it would be a good place for a beauty shop. She said the children were younger then and she could help out on the income and still be home with them. They did not make any alterations except to put a door and window and did not get a building permit to do this. She said the state licensed her to operate the beauty shop so they went ahead with it. She stated that she was there 11 years before anybody complained. She said they were not operating another business from their home and there were no unlicensed pickup trucks going in and out of their driveways. She said they had four children and there was a lot of traffic going in and out of their driveway. She said her invalid mother lived with them and she needed to keep the beauty shop open to help out. Bill Kisor asked if there were anyother businesses in the neighborhood. ' Chairman Gitelman remembered at the last request that a Mr.Foldvary was present. (He operates a commercial art business.) Mr. Foldvary was also present at this meeting but made no comments. John Maguire asked about duplexes in the neighborhood. Mrs. Garton said the house where Mrs. Johnson lived was a duplex. John Power moved to recommend to the Board of Directors that Rezoning Petition R75-10 be denied but'that the Commission try to work out something else to approve the beauty shop. The motion died for lack of a second. Ernest Jacks moved to recommend to the Board of Directors the denial of Rezoning Petition R75-10. John Power seconded the motion. The motion to deny was unanimously approved. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS The public hearing was opened on the proposed amendments to to the City Sign Ordinance No. 1893. The Planning City Sign Ordinance No. 1893 Commission discussed each section of the proposed ordinance individually and made recommendations. The first part of the discussion was the proposed amendment to Ordinance Number 1893, Section 1. which added definitions of "Lot", "Mall", and "Shopping Center" for clarification of new type developments. Ernest Jacks commented on the definition of "Lot" that this would not do anything to prevent a sign company from buying a 10' by 12' lot and erecting a sign on it. City Attorney Jim McCord said the way he interpreted it this definition would not prevent something of that nature happening. Mr. Jacks wondered if the Planning Commission should not add something to this proposed amendment to prevent this. Chairman Gitelman said if it were true that if there were billboard companies for example that buy a very small piece of land too close. to the street right-of-way; and they might then be able to attack the ordinance under the grounds that the land is situated so that they could not meet the setback requirements; then this could create a problem. Mayor Orton asked about tandem lots and lots lacking street frontage; Chairman Gitelman pointed out that tandem lots are restricted to residential development. • Planning Commission May 27, 1975 -4- Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said that a lot had to have street frontage in order for her to issue a.permit, Possible changes in the definition of "lot" were discussed by the Commission and the City Attorney, but no changes were agreed upon. Section 2 would amend the Definition of "Sign!. The following wording was inserted in the definition of the word "sign" "in addition, any of the above which is not placed out of doors, but which is illuminated with artificial or reflected light not maintained stationary and constant in intensity and color at all times when in use shall be considered a sign within the meaning of this chapter, when placed near the inside surface of a plate glass window in such a way as to be in view of the general public and used or intended to be used to attract attention or convey information." Mr. McCord explained that this was to help on enforcement of flashing signs. He said the present ordinance stated "out of doors in view of the general public;" and with the definition this would be exempt. The Planning Commission felt that this definition should be so amended. Section 3 of the proposed amendment would allow service station fuel price informational signs erected on self-supporting structures anchored firmly in or below the ground surface if the structures complied with the requirements listed in the amendment. Mr. McCord said this section was drafted in the Inspections Office. Freeman Wood, Building Inspector, pointed out that they were having enforcement problems with signs at service stations. He felt that the price needed to be seen for the benefit of the public and this would allow them to advertise the price of their gasoline since "A" frame signs are prohibiited. John Power objected strongly,to this, feeling that this would be a favoritism toward service stations. He said there were other businesses that were faced with the same problem of prices changing from day to day. Mr. McCord said he could see the rationalizing of it because of the type of business. John Maguire objected for the same reasons as Mr.Power stating that this would not be solving the legality or practicality of whether it is right or wrong but that all it would be doingis to solve the enforcement problem with service stations. He stated it seemed to him that this would be creating a discriminatory situation. Chairman Gitelman said he agreed with City Attorney Jim McCord in that he could see rationalizing a difference between gasoline stations and other types of business because of the nature of the business. Planning Consultant Larry Wood agreed with Chairman Gitelman. Chairman Gitelman suggested giving some guidance to the Board of Directors on the matter and asked for a vote without asking anyone to put this into the form of a motion. Those voting in favor of recommending to the Board of Directors no favoritism were Maguire, Power, Edmiston, Kisor and Ray. Those voting in favor of the special provisions for fuel informational signs were Gitelman, Jacks, and Davis. On Section 4 of the proposed amendment City Attorney McCord said that this section also was at the request of the Inspections Office because some were interpreting the word "obliterate" as being merely the paintingout of all signs and not just wall signs. For example the Gibson's sign that was now Lumberjacks. They contended that all they had to do was paint over the letters and this section would clarify that. In answer to Ernest Jacks' question, Mr. Hoffman of the Inspections Office said this sign (Gibson's) would not be allowed to remain. The Planning Commission found no problems with this section. Section 5 - Fluctuating illumination prohibited. City Attorney Jim McCord explained that this section excluded a revolving barber pole as not being interpreted to be a flashing, blinking, or animated sign and would not, therefore, be a prohibited sign under the provision of this section. John Maguire said he would recognize a barber pole whether it was revolving or not. Mr. Hoffman said a major effort was made by the Inspections. Office to stop all the fluctuating illuminating signs, but it had not been their intention that barber ,n Planning Commission -5- May 27, 1975 poles be included in complaints. He said after the issue was raised to them they took the appropriate steps and told the barber shops to return their re- - volving poles to a revolving condition. Therefore, they felt this ordinance should be made to allow this particular point. Director Russell Purdy felt that barber poles carried a sort of nostalgia with them since he could remember back to when barer poles were hand powered and asked if the fact that they have traditionally revolved for so long a period of time gave them any legal right to continue in spite of ordinances to the contrary David McWethy (Administrative Assistant) said that a barber pole actually did not rotate but the internal part of it rotated. In answer to Rita Davis' question, Mr. Hoffman said that the barbers objected strongly to having the poles turned off. After considerable discussion the Planning Commission suggested that barber poles should not be excluded from the revolving sign provisions and revolving signs should be prohibited. Section 6 -- This section stated that only one on-site,free-standing sign shall be permitted on a lot, at a shopping center, or at a mall. This is proposed because it has been found that sometimes there are separate owners for different buildings inside a shopping center or mall. John Maguire asked about the Northwest Arkansas Plaza. Jim McCord said they would be allowed only the one free-standing sign. Section 7--- This section would set up a Board of Sign Appeals which would be the Board of Directors. The Planning Commission asked if the Board of Directors wanted to take this responsibility upon themselves. Mayor Orton said the Board felt they would try this out to let the people know they were not "softies." Chairman Gitelman stated he felt that putting any kind of variance procedure in the Sign Ordinance would basically give more importance to signs than should be given. It has been his feeling that a business could operate and compete if we eventually get into a system where we can do away with more and more signs. He said businessmen would soon learn that they could go ahead and operate without having to have a big sign up by the highway. He repeated that he felt that a variance would legitimate the importance of signs. He felt that ultimately the Board would not like this provision (safety valve). John Power said he felt there should be a separate board for this. He did, however, have mixed emotions because there was no other board set up that is elected ° by the citizens or•anything that basically has a backing by the citizens in the community besides the Board of Directors. He felt, from a businessman's standpoint, that without a'separate means of appeal there could be some strong attack against the overallsign ordinance and then dilute some of what has been done. He also felt thatin years to come (if City revenues are as they are presently) increased revenues would be needed and that one of the easiest revenues was the City sales..tax. He felt it would be hard to get businessmen to go along with an increase in City sales tax if they did not have any means of appealing an ordinance that they basically had very little "say so" in. John Todd said the Board that would be involved with this would not claim ownership of this ordinance since they were not involved in it. He said they were trying to tie up some loose ends. He said he felt they would be held in check somewhat from being arbitrary. • Chairman Gitelman felt that some businessmen would not be able to understand why their sign is being prohibited because they would feel it is more attractive than someone else's. John Power commented he felt there was no easy answer to this. Helen Edmiston felt there would be hardship cases and this Board of Sign Appeals would be good. The general opinion of the Planning Commission was that there should be some appeal board. Planning Commission -6- May 27, 1975 DIRECTOR TODD'S PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SIGN ORD. There were a number of suggested amendments to the Sign Ordinance whichhad been submitted by Director John Todd.. The first of these suggested that "wall signs on any face area of a building shall be restricted to a maximum area of 10% of the face area on which the sign is mounted." Those Commissioners that felt that the maximum area should be restricted, felt that it should be restricted to a given square footage rather than to a certain percentage of the face area. They pointed out the difficulty of figuring the percentages and felt the given square footage would also be more equitable. They pointed out that there are already certain restrictions on wall signs in that they cannot extend above or beyond the wall on which they are mounted. Mr Maguire stated that he felt that if the City were going to restrict anything, it should just do away with signs painted directly on the building. He said there was nothing any worse to look at than an old painted sign that was partially peeled off. After a lengthy discussion, the Planning Commission decided to hold off any recommendation on a restriction on the size of wall signs. The next recommendation that was discussed was "Non -conforming on -premise signs shall be removed or made. to conform within two years. All non -conforming, on - premise signs that are within 30% compliance with the sign standards of this ordinance shall be allowed to remain. All other non -conforming, on -premise signs shall be removed or made to conform within two years." Director Todd told the Planning Commission that there is a need to bring non -conforming signs down within a certain definite amount of time. The Commissioners discussed this matter and it was agreed that there was a need for this, but they felt that two years was not a long enough time period. They felt that a longer period of time (such as until 1980) would be better and stated that the sign owners should be notified in writing as soon as the ordinance is passed they they have a non -conforming sign and that it must be removed after a certain period of time. Director Todd said the time was arbitrary with him and that he had gotten.the example for this from the Little Rock sign ordinance. Mayor Orton said if there was going to be a certain date set, she would prefer it to be three years because that was what the time period presently is for off-site signs. She pointed out that right now all non -conforming signs have been up a minimum of from three to five years because the present sign ordinance was passed three years ago and the zoning ordinance was passed five years ago. The Planning Commission did not discuss Director Todd's recommendations for a change in permit fees for signs, nor for prohibiting the use of "banners, pennants, streamers, and strings of light bulbs." The Commission took no action on any of Director Todd's recommendations at this time. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones had included a letter : •CONFLICTS BETWEEN ZONING in the Planning Commission Agenda concerning a problem 4 SIGN ORDINANCES with the Zoning Ordinance and signs for non -conforming uses. Chairman Gitelman said this was not a public hearing on that matter, but he would like to hear a motion to set up a public hearing concerning the matter. City Attorney McCord had also written a letter to City Manager Don Grimes concerning conflicts between the Zoning and Sign Ordinances. The Commission had been furnished a copy of this letter which dealt with: (1) zoning districts in which "outdoor advertising" and "off-site, free-standing signs" (considered to be one and the same) are permitted; (2) overall height and size of "outdooradvertising" and "off-site, free-standing signs"; (3) the effect of a lease upon the amortization period of off-site signs; and (4) (off-site) directional, real-estate sales signs. Planning Commission -7- May 27, 1975 Ernest Jacks and Building Inspector Freeman Wood stated they felt that the Sign Ordinance was written in a prohibitive mood rather than a permissive one. City Attorney McCord disagreed and said that if something was not stated as being expressly prohibited in the ordinance, then a court of law would consider it as permissible. Ernest Jacks moved to pass the proposed ordinance to amend Ordinance 1893 (Sign Ordinance) on to the Board of Directors with the Planning Commission's comments on its various sections and to recommend to the Board of Directors that the proposed ordinance be adopted. Helen Edmiston seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 8-0-1..with John Power abstaining. John Power moved to call a public hearing for the purpose of removing the conflicts (on signs) between the Zoning and Sign Ordinances, including the restrictions on signs for non -conforming uses. Ernest Jacks seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. RENEWAL OF CONDITIONAL USE The next item on the agenda was a request for renewal of a Maguire Distributing Co. Conditional Use to park refrigerated dairy trucks on the parking lot at East Gate Shopping Center, submitted by Maguire Distributing Company. The Planning Commission had approved a conditional use for a period of 90 days on February 11, 1975. Chairman Gitelman read a memo from the Planning Administrator concerning phone calls she had received from Mrs. Lillie Patterson, owner of a duplex, and her tenant objecting to the trucks. John Maguire said he would have to abstain from voting on this item because the trucks belonged to his brother. However, he said he would like to point out that Mexican Original was now located there and they parked their refrigerated trucks there close by. He said the milk trucks were operated by anelectrically powered cold plate inside and the Mexican Original trucks refrigeration units were operated by diesel power. He felt it was probably those that were making all the noise. He said he could not go along with the complaints of the neighbors. He felt that it would not be right to differentiate between the two. John Power moved to extend the renewal for 30 days and then the Planning Commission could go out and take a look at that situation. Jack Ray seconded the motion. Mr. Ray said he had heard complaints about noise on the parking lot from a nightclub out in the shopping center. It was his opinion that this noise would distrub the neighbors more than the milk trucks. The motion was voted upon and a 30 day extension was approved by a vote of 8 "Ayes" with John Maguire abstaining. DISCUSSION OF ZONING SETBACKS The next item was the request from Commission Member Helen Edmiston for a discussion on zoning setbacks which was tabled from April 22 and also May 13, 1975 because of the time factor involved. Mrs. Edmiston again allowed the discussion to be placed on the next Planning Commission agenda because of the lack of time in which they had to discuss it at this meeting. ALLEY CLOSING Next was a petition to close an alley in Block 5 of I. W. I. W. Duncan Addition Duncan's Addition, Kerr Investments, Petitioner. Kerr Investments Attorney Marshall Carlisle was present to represent the petitioner. He said that the petitioner owned the property surrounding the alley and that he had worked out easements for SWEPCO and theft: kansas' Western- Gas •Company: that was suitable to them. He said that Kerr Investments did not plan to block the alley or build on it in anyway. They would in fact be taking over the maintenance of the alley and use it for a parking lot. Mr. Carlisle said they could give Sanitation Superintendent Wally Brt a letter or whatever other.. assurance he would need to the effect,that they could reserve the use of the alley for sanitation services. Helen Edmiston moved to recommend to the Board of Directors the approval of the Planning Commission May 27, 1975 -8- request to close the alley, • John Maguire seconded the motion which_was.approved unanimously. • • FAYETTEVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS The next item was a request to construct a concession Concession Stand stand on Fayetteville Public School Property at Harmon Harmon Playfield Playfield, Zoning District R-3. Additional setbacks(over and above the R-3 setbacks and which apply to non-residential uses in an R District) need to be varied by the Planning Commission in accordance with Article 7, Section 14, Zoning Ordinance 1747. Bill Parette was present to represent. He said they wanted to put in a decent concession stand and rest rooms but could not get on the sewer if this were set back the required 100 feet from other R zoned property. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones explained to the Planning Commission and the audience that this was in an R- Zone even though it was school property. (Schools should be in a P -Zone which is Institutional.) Mrs. Jones said they had all the Fayetteville public school property descriptions and were in the process of setting public hearings to rezone these properties P-1 if they were not already. However, there were some discrepancies in some of the legaldescriptions that they were trying to work out before this could be completed. Mayor Orton questioned whether or not all the traffic created by this concession stand would disturb the houses around this. It was the feeling of some of the Commissioners that this would probably not disturb these residences since there would be traffic from the football games when they have them. Ernest Jacks moved to approve the concession stand (property qualifies as exempt large scale development but requires conditional use) and to vary the additional setbacks to allow the concession stand facility to be built as planned: Helen Edmiston seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS The Planning Commission decided the last item on the agenda Correspondence (which was correspondence pertaining to Subdivision Regulations)should be deferred until the next meeting. They felt that this item would involve a lengthy discussion and a probable public hearing. There was no further business. The meeting was adjourned at 6:51 P. M. • • RESOLUTION PC 25-75 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission, Tuesday, May 27, 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 Rezoning Petition R75-10, Kenneth C. & Diamond A. Garton. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That the petition requesting the rezoning of property, described as follows, from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to R-2, Medium Density Residential District, be denied. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots Numbered Eleven (11) and Twelve (12), Block Numbered Three (3) of Rodger's Place Addition to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, as per plat of said addition on file in the Office of the Circuit Clerk and Ex - Officio Recorder of Washington County, Arkansas. SECTION 2. That the rezoning of the above described real estate would not be presently desirable. PASSED AND APPROVED this 27th day of May , 1975. APPROVED: Morton Gitelman, Chairman RESOLUTION PC 26-75 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Fayetteville Planning Commission, Tuesday, May 27, 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 Ordinance No. 1893 (Chapter 17B, Code of Ordinances, City of Fayetteville, Arkansas) to amend the City Sign Ordinance; N(M, 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 No. 1893 to amend the City Sign Ordinance. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 1975. APPROVED: Morton _Gitelman, Chairman • RESOLUTION PC 27-75 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 regu- lations provided thereby; and_for otherpurposes;. 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. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 1975. APPROVED: Morton Gitelman, Chairman fit RESOLUTION PC 28-75 WHEREAS, the petition of Kerr Investment Company, Inc. of Missouri for vacating an alley was presented to the City Planning Commission for recommendation; and WHEREAS, at a meeting on Tuesday, May 27, 1975, the City Planning Commission voted to make a recommendation to the City Board of Directors on said petition to vacate an alley. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That after the public hearing an ordinance be adopted for the purpose of vacating the public alley, described as follows: A 20 ft. alley running North-South in Block 5 of I. W. Duncan's Addition to the City of Fayetteville, bounded on the East by Lots 1 through 6 inclusive of Block 5 and bounded on the West by Lots 7 through 12 inclusive of Block 5, and more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Lot 1, Block 5 at a point on the South right-of-way line of Treadwell Street, and running thence South.310 feet_to_the-.Southwest corner of said Lot 6, Block 5 to a point on the North right-of-way line of Putman Street, thence West along the North right-of-way line of Putman 20 ft. to the Southeast corner of said Lot 7, Block 5, thence North 310 ft. to the Northeast corner of said Lot 12, Block 5 to a point on the South right-of-way line of Treadwell Sti•eet,..thence East along the South right-of_way line of Treadwell Street 20 ft. to the point of beginning. PASSED AND APPROVED this 27th day of May , 1975• APPROVED: Morton Gitelman, Chairman