HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-06-10 MinutesMINUTES QF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
as, /97s 1
A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held at 4:06 P..M. Tuesday,
June 10, 1975, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building,
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ernest Jacks, Bill Kisor, Rita Davis, Jack Ray, Donald Nickell,
John Power.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Morton Gitelman, Helen Edmiston, John Maguire.
OTHERS PRESENT: F. H. Martin, Tom Keith, Mr. Bob Duggan, Parker David Rushing,
Mr. $ Mrs. Sam Taylor, Ben Winborn, Vida Drake, Harold Lieberenz,
J. C. Conley, Russell Purdy, Bobbie Jones, Janet Bowen.
In the absence of Chairman Morton Gitelman, Vice -Chairman
charge of the meeting.
Vice -Chairman Power called the meeting to order with only
Donald Nickell not being present.
John Power was in
5 members present,
MINUTES
The minutes of the May 27, 1975 Planning Commission meeting were approved as
submitted.
Vice -Chairman Power opened the public hearing on
Rezoning Petition R75-11, Dr. Anderson Nettleship, to Dr. Anderson Nettleship
rezone property located East of Johnson Road and Johnson Rd. $ Township
North of Township Road from A-1, Agricultural District, to R-0, Residential -
Office District.
Larry Wood presented the Planning Report.
Attorney F. H. Martin was present to represent.
He said Dr. Nettleship was requesting that this be rezoned so he could start
a "medi-park" with Doctor's offices. He told the Planning Commission that
Dr. Nettleship had a prospective purchaser and if the property were rezoned
it would be used for a doctors clinic.
In answer to Vice -Chairman Power's question, Mr. Martin said there was not
an access to Township Road, but the access instead was on Johnson Road and he
felt sure that if this property were rezoned and sold to the prospective
purchaser that a second access on Johnson Road would be provided.
The public hearing was closed.
Donald Nickell arrived at 4:16 P. M.
Bill Kisor questioned Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones as to whether or not
the surrounding property owners had been notified; Mrs. Jones replied that
they had and read the list of,names that material on this item had been sent to.
Mr. Jacks then asked Mrs. Jones why this parcel of land did not extend to the
right-of-way.
Attorney Martin replied that there would be a buffer strip between the roadway
and the building in order that trees, etc. might be planted in this area.
Mrs. Jones stated that Dr. Nettleship would need to be reminded that any
division or subdividing of this property would have to meet the subdivision
and zoning regulations before any building permits could be issued.
There was no further discussion.
Ernest Jacks moved to recommend to the Board of Directors the approval of
Rezoning Petition R75-11, Anderson Nettleship, by a vote of 5-0-1 with
Donald Nickell abstaining.
REZONING PETITION R75-11
Planning Commission -2-
June 10, 1975•
Vice -Chairman Power opened the public hearing AMENDMENTS -TO ZONING ORD. 1747
on two alternate Amendments to Zoning Ordinance "Retail Liquor Stores"
1747 whereby "retail liquor stores" would become a permitted use in the C-2
(Thoroughfare Commercial) and C-3 (Central Commercial) Zoning Districts.
Alternate No
Proposed amendment to Article 6, Appendix A - Zoning,
Fayetteville Code of Ordinances to add Use Unit XXVII-
Retail Liquor Stores; and to amend Article 5, Sections
VI and VII to add Use Unit XXVII to the uses permitted
in C-2 and C-3 Zoning Districts.
Alternate No. 2: Proposed amendment to Article 6, Section XIV, Sub -section
B of Appendix A - Zoning, Fayetteville Code of Ordinances
to provide that a retail liquor store is a permitted use
Under Use Unit XIV.
Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said this had been referred back to the
Planning Commission by the Board of Directors and was the result of the Joint
Meeting of the two Committees. She said this amendment accomplishes putting
liquor stores where the Planning Office has been interpreting them to be in
the Ordinance. The Planning Office has been interpreting retail liquor stores
to be in Use Unit 14 and therfore, permitted only in a C-2 or C-3 District but
she thought anyone who wished to contest this interpretation might have a very
good case. '
Ernest Jacks could not understand why this was not in Use Unit 16 (Shopping Goods).
Vice -Chairman Power felt it had been the Planning Commission's recommendation to
the Board of Directors to have this in Use Unit 16.
Attorney Tom Keith was present representing the Skelton Street residents. He
said his clients do not favor either of the proposals and are opposed to both
alternatives on the basis that this is not a matter that should be approached
through the zoning ordinance
He said his clients felt that the location of liquor stores involved policies
that are not directly related to Land Use considerations, and, therefore, a
different approach should be taken by the City in setting up zones for the liquor
stores. He said they were opposed to making either one of the alternatives part
of the zoning ordinance. He said he had understood what had been referred to
the Planning Commission by the Board of Directors was a list of conditions
concerning the location of liquor stores.
Vice -Chairman Power told Mr. Keith that there were two alternatives before them
and they were trying to establish some area where this could be worked in and still
stay within the present ordinance.
Mr. Keith said his committee preferred over these two alternatives the proposal
that was before the Planning Commission in December to set up a C2L and C3L District
for retail liquor stores. They felt like the two alternatives that was before
them would not be much of a change from the present ordinance and they were not
actually getting at the problem.
Charles Oxford, representing the University of Arkansas, was present in opposition.
He reminded the Commission of the "gentleman's agreement" in which the City and
the University have traditionally opposed liquor stores West of the railroad tracks.
He said the U of A Plan calls for future expansion to the North as far as
Cleveland Street, East maybe aa far as Arkansas Avenue, and to the West, West of
Razorback and to the South they were already almost to Highway 62. He said it
was their feeling that there was a "sort of unwritten agreement" between the
University, the City of Fayetteville, And the Alcoholic Beverage Control concerning
this.
On Rita Davis' suggestion, Vice -Chairman Power read paragraph 301.1 from the
May 20, 1975 Board of Directors minutes which follow:
A
•
•
Planning Commission -3-
June 10, 1975
" The City Attorney had drafted a propos:ed'ordinance that would amend the zoning
ordinance by specifying the areas in which. retail liquor stores may be located
and which would impose the following restrictions:
(a) No retail liquor store shall be located within 600 feet of
any property on which a church, hospital, or school is located.
For the purpose of this section, the term, "school" shall include the
University of Arkansas.
(b) Retail liquor stores shall not be developed on any property which
is abutted by residentially zoned property (R-1, R-2, or R-3) on more
than one side.
(c) A screening wall as provided in Article 8-10 (d) shall be
erected and maintained along the common boundary of any abutting
property in a residential (R-1, R-2, R-3) district."
Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said Alternate Number 1 would establish a
separate Use Unit just for liquor stores and that Alternate Number 2 would add
liquor stores to the existing Use Unit 14.
The public hearing was closed.
Ernest Jacks said he was in favor of the type of alternative #2 but felt that
liquor stores still should be in Use Unit 16 rather than Use Unit 14.
Donald Nickell felt that due to the fact that Chairman Gitelman was not here
to make a report to the Planning Commission and since Chairman Gitelman had
represented the Planning Commission on the Committee that drafted these proposals
it should be tabled.
Donald Nickell moved to table this item until Chairman Gitelman could make a report
back to the Planning Commission.
Ernest Jacks seconded the motion.
The vote to table this item was approved unanimously.
Vice -Chairman Power opened the public hearing on AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORD. 1747
the proposed amendment to Zoning Ordinance 1747, ^t:"riding stable and academy"
whereby "riding stable and academy" would be an included use under Use Unit IV
(Article 6, Section IV (8), Cultural and Recreational Facilities, Appendix A -
Zoning, -Code' of Ordinances of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas.)
This came about as a result of Parker Rushing trying to rezone his property so
he could have a riding stable and riding trails.
Parker Rushing was present and told the Planning Commission that he felt this
addition to include "riding stable and academy" was a good idea. He did comment
however, that the word "academy" did not originate from his proposal. He said
all he wanted to do was to operate a riding stable and have some riding trails.
He said he felt a horse stable business could be operated very economically and
that there are already some closer to residential districts than his would be.
Wanda Yoe was present and said she had not known anything about the "academy "
part of this until she read it in the paper. She stated she was in favor of
the riding stable and the riding trails, but would have to have the "academy"
clarified before she could go along with that. She said there had been a lot
of time and expense spent in this area to keep it like it was and would be against
anything that would generate a lot of traffic. She wanted to know if "academy"
would include horse shows where there would be loud speakers and this type of
• thing.
Mr. and Mrs. Sam Taylor, Route 5, Fayetteville, were present in opposition. They
also wanted some clarification on this word. Mrs. Taylor also felt that this
would be covered in Animal Husbandry. (Use Unit 7 permitted in A-1 4 I-1 Districts.)
•
•
n
jit
I;
•
6 fi
Planning Commission -4-
June 10, 1975
Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said Animal Husbandry did, besides riding
stables, include guest ranches and rodeo grounds. She explained that if a
usage is listed in one Use Unit and not in another that it cannot be
interpreted as being in another one. Riding stables in Use Unit 4 would not
include the other uses that are included in Animal Husbandry.
It was explained to the Taylors that if riding stables and academy were added
to this Use Unit that it would be permissible only on appeal to the Planning
Commission. Therefore, Mr. Rushing (or anyone else wishing to have riding stables)
would have to come before the Planning Commission before he could get it approved.
Mrs. Jones also explained that she would interpret this to where there would be
a setback of 100 feet from any other surrounding residentially zoned properties
or to a dwelling on the same property and that anyone who disagreed with her
interpretation would be allowed to appeal her decision to the Board of Adjustment.
She also stated that this could be amended to state that it could be no closer
than 100 feet to an R-1 District or no closer than 100 feet to a property line
within an R-1 District, but this would require a public hearing.
Vice -Chairman Power felt the Planning Commission was not in a position to define
the word "academy" and felt that they should seek an opinion from the City Attorney
concerning this.
Director Russell Purdy said, speaking as a public citizen rather than a director,
the whole matter of having a riding stable and academy in R-1 "horrified"
him. He said the way this was written (the way he read it) was that future
Planning Commissions could by a vote of 4 Commissioners (with only 5 to 7
Commissioners present) put one of these riding stables in Rolling Hills (for
example), and to•him this was terrible. He agreed this was an extreme
example, that a grocery store or doctors clinic could not be put in an
R-1 District but that the proposed amendment would allow them to turn around
and put a riding stable in an R-1 District. He said it was naive for him
to think this would be a riding stable. He said it would be a business -
the trading and selling of animals - and the City would not be able to do
anything about it. He felt that any action that came from the Planning Commission
should have a condition in it to the effect that the person should have 40 un-
developed acres because horses needed room for exercise and there would also
need to be room for riding trails. He said just putting an acreage restriction
on it would force it to the outskirts of the City.
Mr. Charles Haroldson was present in opposition. He said just about everyone
in that area had small children and he was opposed to the
traffic this would create through the residential community, and it would
burden the road.
It was still Vice -Chairman Power's opinion that the City Attorney should be
consulted for a definition on "academy".
Ernest Jacks felt this should be tabled until they could get an opinion from
the City Attorney.
Ernest Jacks moved to table this item and requested that the City Attorney
and Planning Consultant Larry Wood get together and give the Planning Commission
a package to define this and Use Condition 3 to place restrictions on it
as to minimum acreage, setbacks, use of loud speakers, ingress and egress, etc.
Bill Kisor seconded the motion which was approved unanimously.
AMENDMENT TO GENERAL LAND USE PLAN
The public hearing was opened on the proposed Amendment to the General Land
Use Plan of the City of Fayetteville for an area in and around the State Highway
265 (Crossover Road) Corridor, extending southward to the lands lying south
of State Highway 16 East and extending northward to the northernmost
Fayetteville City Limits Line; also included is an area bounded on the
West by Highway 71, and extending south to include lands on both sides of
Mud Creek.
•
•
Planning Commission -5-
June 10, 1975
Planning Consultant Larry Wood pointed out that in a couple of areas where
he had recommended light commercialand office previously he would now recommend
that they should be strictly office since he felt there was a strong indication
for this in the future. He said he wanted to make a change between Ray Avenue
and Jerry Avenue on the south side back to light commercial. He said he was
still not sure about the large area of R-2 at the Southwest corner of Zion Road
and Old Missouri Road. He pointed out the change as suggested by Jim Lindsey
to eliminate the two 90 degreecurves on Zion Road and showing Commercial at the
intersection of Zion Road and Highway 265. He said Mr. Lindsey had suggested
this on the feeling that Zion Road exists and it would be some time, before Joyce
Street would be extended through. Mr. Wood said he still preferred the
intersection of Zion Road as he had shown it on the original drawing because
he felt commercial at this intersection would be spacing the Commercial too close.
Mr. Ben Winborn with Fayetteville Public Schools pointed out on the map approximately
where the school district boundary lines were and said he would like for the
Planning Commission to take into consideration the schools when they decided
on this Land Use Plan, since the school gets about 70 per cent of the taxes and
Commercial development in the Fayetteville School District #1 would be very
advantageous to the School District.
Commissioner Bill Kisor .was'in favor of having the intersection at Zion Road
as proposed by Mr. Lindsey. He said he could not see knocking property owners
out of a Commercial usage just because of taxes.
Larry Wood said if the proposal passed that it would still meet planning
criteria.
Bill Kisor moved that the Planning Commission approve the entire proposed
amendment with the alternate plan for Zion Road as proposed by Mr. Jim Lindsey.
Jack Ray seconded the motion.
Ray, Kisor, and Jacks voted "Aye"; Nickell, Power, and Davis voted "Nay".
The motion was denied.
Ernest Jacks moved to approve the proposed amendment in its entirety as drawn
by the Planning Consultant and without the alternate proposed by Mr. Lindsey.
Rita Davis seconded the motion.
Jacks, Nickell, Power, and Davis voted "Aye"; Ray and Kisor voted "Nay".
The motion to amend the Land Use Plan failed to pass.
REZONING PETITION R75-1
Vice -Chairman Power opened the public hearing on Ralph Goff, Jr.
Rezoning Petition R75-1, Ralph Goff, Jr., to rezone Highway.16 E. $ Jerry Ave.
property located on the Southeast corner of Highway 16 East and Jerry Avenue from
R-1, Low Density Residential District, to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District.
This item was tabled from February 11, 1975, and again on February 18, March 11,
and March 25 until after the public hearing on the amendment to the Land Use Plan
(Item 5 on this agenda).
Planning Consultant Larry Wood gave the Planning Report. He handed out a
revised Planning Report and explained that his recommendation was inconsistent
with the Land Use Plan because -the amendment was not approved. However, Mr. Wood
still recommended the approval of the rezoning.
Ernest Jacks moved to recommend to the Board of Directors the approval of Rezoning
Petition R75-1, Ralph Goff, Jr.
Rita Davis seconded the motion.
Ralph Goff, Jr. and F. H. Martin (Attorney representing Mr. Goff) were present
to represent.
Vice -Chairman Power asked if they wished to make any statements before the vote
was taken.
Mr. Martin told the Planning Commission that the rezoning request had been
based on the assumption that the recommendation that the amendment to the
i
•
•
Planning Commission
June 10, 1975
Land Use Plan would be approved.
rezoned to C-1 for a convenience
The motion that was on the floor
-6-
He said Mr. Goff would like to have the property
grocery store,
was approved unanimously.
DISCUSSION ON ZONING SETBACKS
The next item on the agenda was a request from Commission member Helen Edmiston
for a discussion on zoning setbacks, particularly in the I-1 Zoning District.
This item was tabled from .April 22, May 13, and May 27, 1975.
In the absence of Mrs. Edmiston, the Planning Commission members present felt this
item should again be tabled.
Ernest Jacks moved to table this request.
Don Nickell seconded the motion.
The motion to table Item number 7 was approved unanimously.
The next item was correspondence pertaining
Regulations (tabled from May 27, 1975):
CORRESPONDENCE ON
to Subdivision SUBDIVISIONREGULATIONS
A. May 7, 1975, letter from City Attorney Jim McCord to City Manager
Don Grimes on the granting of variances from requirements of
Subdivision Regulations.
B.
May 21, 1975, letter from City Attorney Jim McCord to Planning Administrator
on traffic safety in new subdivisions.
C. May 12, 1975, letter of opinion from City Attorney Jim McCord to
City Manager Don Grimes on the authority of a municipality to
disapprove a subdivision plat for reasons not contained in subdivision
or zoning regulations.
Vice -Chairman Power asked Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones if
a committee to work with the Planning Consultant, City Attorney,
Manager on.this.
Mrs. Jones replied that they could and then if they came up with
they could set up a public hearing on it.
The Vice -Chairman appointed the Subdivision Committee (Jacks, Power, and Edmiston)
to work with Mr. McCord, Mr. Wood, and Mr. Grimes on the matter.
they could appoint
and the City
any proposals
The next item was a Conditional Use Request (Since
this is school property it is a conditional use
in the R -Zone.) to:
A.
CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST
Woodland Junior High School
Fayetteville School, East Campus
Place two temporary, portable classrooms at Woodland Junior High
School, Zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District.
B. Build a new agriculture building at Fayetteville High School, East Campus,
Zoned R-3, High Density Residential District.
•
Ernest Jacks moved to approve the Conditional Uses as requested.
Donald Nickell seconded the motion.
Bill Kisor asked if these were temporary buildings.
Mr. Ben Winborn said the buildings at Woodland Junior High would be two temporary,
portable type buildings (one of which is two buildings tied together) to use until
they got their building built, at which time they would move it to another site.
In answer to John Power's question, Mrs. Jones said they would not have to come
i
Planning Commission -7-
June 10, 1975
back to the Planning Commission at that time if.during that.period of time
all,of the public school properties are rezoned to Prl District (Institutional).
She told the Planning Commission that they were working toward that at this time,
but had run into some probiems-on legal descriptions.
Mr. Winborn told Mr. Kisor that the Agri building would be a.permanent one.
The motion that was on the floor was approved unanimously.
CHANGE OF NON -CONFORMING USE
The next item was a request to change a non -conforming Vida Drake
use of property at 504 East 15th Street from Adam's Car " 504 East 15th Street
Lot to a restaurant which was submitted by Vida Drake. (The Planning Commission
approved a change from a restaurant to a used car sales for Mr Adams on
August 1, 1972.) This property, which is located across the street from
College Club Dairy, is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District.
Mrs. Drake was present and told the Planning Commission that this had been
used for a restaurant before it became a used car lot. She said the people
that built the restaurant did not make a go of it and it was left vacant for
a while, then it was a car lot.
In answer to Mr. Nickell's question, Mrs. Drake stated that she did not have a
license to sell beer.
Donald Nickell moved to approve the request to change the non -conforming use.
Jack Ray seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
The first item under "Other Business" was proposed amendments OTHER BUSINESS
to Sign Ordinance No. 1893:
1. To permit off-site, free-standing signs in I Districts.
2. To limit size of wall signs.
Ernest Jacks said when they first started with the Sign Ordinance they had not
limited the size of wall signs hoping to get the businessmen to go to wall
signs rather than ground (free-standing) signs. He said they also wanted to
discourage someone from leasing a parcel of property for the purpose of erecting
an off-site, free standing sign, and now they were wanting to permit off-site,
free-standing signs in the I Districts, and limit the size of wall signs.
Harold Lieberenz, Inspection Superintendent, was present.
He explained (for those who might not be familiar with the Sign Ordinance) that
the ordinance prohibited the Inspection Office to issue permits for any roof
signs in the City. In the R-0 Zone (from Trenton to North Streetthe west
side of College is R-0 Zone) it prohibited the issuance of any ground signs,
and it limits the size of wall signs.to 16 square feet. Also, he said the
existing Sign. Ordinance would only allow one free-standing sign per lot and
this would create more enforcement problems on the part of the Inspection Office.
He said it would be a problem if two separate buildings were adjacent to each
other on the same lot. He also said when a non -conforming use was changed such
as in Mrs. Drake's case (Item Number 10 on this agenda) that he could not issue
any kind of sign permit., because of the zone. He also told them that the old
sign where Selle's Cafe used to be would have to come down because it was
non -conforming and because it is zoned R-0 he could not clear a ground sign permit.
He felt the Planning Commission should make a recommendation to the Board of Directors
concerning the the review of non -conformities by the Board of Sign Appeals. He
also said he hoped the Planning Commission and the City Board would not "tamper"
with the ordinance and make it more restrictive in terms of wall signs. He said
when someone came in to get a sign permit it helped smooth things over by telling
them they could have as big a wall sign as they wanted even though they could
•
i
Planning Commission -8-
June 10, 1975
not have a free-standing sign, Mr: Lieberenz said he was disturbed by. the 75 square feet
on the wall signs but that he made a study of signpermits issued 1973, 1974, and 1975,
on wall signs and that only 5 had been issued for 100 square feetin area. He
said that presently a business could have more than one wall sign. However,
this amendment would restrict them to only one wall sign and he was strongly against this.
Mr. Lieberenz said if the business had walls facing more than one street then he
could issue only one free-standing sign. In conclusion, Mr. Lieberenz said that
before this ordinance was presented to the Board of Directors he would like to
suggest that the Planning Commission recommend that the Board of Sign Appeals
review signs that were non -conforming.
After some discussion Ernest Jacks moved that the Planning Commission ask the
City Attorney to draw up some type of amendment to allow signs for non -conforming
uses to be examined by the Board of Sign Appeals.
Bill Kisor seconded the motion which was approved unanimously.
Mr. Jacks stated that he was happy with the ordinance the way it was on off-site,
free-standing signs and on wall signs and felt it should not be
changed. He said he felt that it was proper to prohibit off-site, free-standing
signs in I Districts and that the size of wall signs should not be limited.
Donald Nickell -said he felt off-site, free-standing signs should be permitted in
I Districts but felt that wall signs should not be limited because, in his
opinion,the size of wall signs had not been abused.
The Commission did not entertain a motion on off-site, free-standing signs in
I Districts or limiting size of wall signs and no action was taken on this.
The next item under "Other Business" was the proposed URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR SQUARE
amendments to the Urban Renewal Plan for the Square: Proposed Amendments
(1) Old Post Office Building to remain in square.
(2) To close to vehicular traffic Center Street between Block and
East Avenues.
To close to vehicular traffic Mountain Street between Mock and
East Avenues.
(This would require an amendment to the Major Street Plan.)
Mr. Bob Duggan, Director of the Housing Authority of Fayetteville, was present
and said they needed some type of action by the Planning Commission and the Board
of Directors before they brought this to a public hearing the first of July.
Mr. Duggan said that the Planning Commission in 1970 approved the closing of Mountain,
Block, and Center Streets but that on the present Major Street Plan they were shown
as a minor arterial and this was not discovered until several months ago.
Mr. Nickell felt that perhaps they did not have enough information on this matter
to act on it right now.
Mr. Jacks said he really did not know what more information they would need. He
said all they were trying to do was have the Planning Commission to amend what they
approved sometime ago. This would bring the Major Street Plan in conformity with
the approved Urban Renewal Plan.
After further discussion, Mr. Jacks moved to approve the amendment to the Urban
Renewal Plan as voted upon by the Housing Authority.
Rita Davis seconded the motion which was approved by a vote of 5-0-1.
Donald Nickell abstained.
Ernest Jacks moved to procede with scheduling a public hearing to amend the Major
Street Plan to bring it in agreement with the Urban Renewal Plan.
Bill Kisor seconded the motion which was approved unanimously.
Planning Commission
June 10, 1975.
-9-
The last item on the agenda was a.. Conditional. Use Request CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST
submitted by the Combs- Street Church_ of Christ to build Combs St, Church of Christ
a new Churchat the end of Combs Street between Willow and Washington Avenues.
Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones explained that in 1966 the Center and Locust
Street Church of Christ bought 291' x 330' and has since deeded this part split
off to the Combs Street Church (141' x 330') She said the Combs Street Church of Christ
had just finished paying off their portion. She said they had the deed and this
is what the lot split involved. She told the Planning Commission that the little
driveway shown on the drawing was not shown as a platted street, in the plat book
but that individuals used this drive crossing the church property because a bridge
has never been built across the creek on Washington Avenue. She said the drive
is included in the description of their property. She also said she had
talked to them about the possibility of turning their building so the long portion
goes East and West and they were in agreement with this. This would give them
the required SO foot setback to the South of the building.
Mr. J. C. Conley was present to represent.
Vice -Chairman Power asked Mr. Conley if he was aware of the regulations and if
they were still in agreement to turn the building.
Mr. Conley replied that they were. He said this did not matter to them --they just
needed a new building.
After further discussion Ernest Jacks moved to approve the Conditional Use and
the details of placement of the building and setbacks could be worked out by the
Planning Administrator in the process of issuing the building permits.
No one was present in opposition.
Donald Nickell seconded the motion which was approved unanimously.
• The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 P. M.
•
•
RESOLUTION NO. PC 29-75
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission, Tuesday,
June 10, 1975,•fifteen (15) days after a sign was erected upon the property
and after a notice was published in the Northwest Arkansas Times, a news-
paper 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 R75-11,
F. H. Martin for Anderson Nettleship, Property Owner.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE.IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO
THE BOARD OF. DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF.FAYETTEVIT.TF, ARKANSAS.
• SECTION 1: That an ordinance be adopted for the purpose of rezoning
from A-1, Agricultural District, to R-0, Residential -Office District, said
rral estate.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
A part of the SEI, SE*, Section 34 and a part of the SW*, SW*, Section 35
all being in T-17-N,.R-30-W, being more particularly described as follows,
to -wit: Beginning at a point in the center of an existing road which is
517.69 feet West and North 794.68 feet from the SE corner of said Section
.34 and running thence S 17° 06' E 169.57 feet, to an existing fence;
thence S 42° 26' E, along existing fent „ 262.51 feet; thence S 83° 18' E,
along existing fence, 1007.26 feet to ar existing corner post; thence
N 04° 26' 11 309.3 feet, to the ceuterlirei of an existing road; thence
N 04° 21' 2. to and along an existing fence 303.23 feet; thence N 62°
40' W 1381 53 feet; thence S 26° 50' E 1;9.37 feet; thence S 22° 30' LI
175.87 fee; to the point of beginning. Containing 17.05 acres, more.
or less. To rezone from A-1, Agricultu+al District to R-0, Residential -
Office District. .. -
SECTION 2; That the above- described property be rezoned from A-1,
Agricultural District, to R-0, Residential -Office District, so that the
property owner ::ay develop. a Medi -Park facility.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 10th day of tame , 1975.
^) APPROVED•
•
MORTON GITEIMAN, Chairman
•
•
•
•
•
•
RESOLUTION PC 30-75
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission, Tuesday,
February 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 on-June..10,1975, the Planning
Commission voted to make a recommendation to the Board of Directors on
Rezoning Petition R75-1, Ralph Goff, Jr.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVIJ.TF, ARKANSAS.
SECTION 1. That an ordinance be adopted for the purpose of rezoning
from R-1, Low Density Residential District to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial
District, said real estate.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Part of the NW*, NE4, Section 23, T -16-N, R -30-W, described as follows,
to -wit: Beginning at the NE corner of said 40 acre tract, thence
South 521.5 feet, thence South 84° West 886.5 feet to a point in the
middle of State Highway No. 16 for a point of beginning, thence South
4° East 210 feet, thence South 83° West along said fence 145 feet,
thence North 4° West 210 feet to the center line of State Highway 16,
thence North 83° East 145 feet to the point of beginning, and con-
taining 0.7 of an acre, more or less.
SECTION 2. That the above described property be rezoned from R-1,
Low Density Residential District to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District,
so that the petitioner may develope property accordingly.
PASSED AND APPROVED this
day of , 1975.
APPROVED:
Morton Gitelman, Chairman
•
•
•
RESOLUTION PC 31-75
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on Tuesday, June 10, 1975,
The Planning Commission met to discuss the proposed revisions to
the Urban Renewal Plan for the Square.
WHEREAS, after the discussion, the Planning Commission voted
to make a recommendation to the Board of Directors on the proposed
amendments to the Urban Renewal Plan for the Square;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,
ARKANSAS.
SECTION 1. That the proposed amendments be adopted to amend
the Urban Renewal Plan for the Square as follows: Old Post Office
building to remain in the square, to close to vehicular traffic
Center Street between Block and East Avenues, and to close to
vehicular traffic Mountain Street between Block and East Avenues.
PASSED AND APPROVED this
day of , 1975.
APPROVED:
Morton Gitelman, Chairman
RESOLUTION PC 32-75
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of
Fayetteville, Arkansas that a public hearing be called for the purpose
of amending the Major Street Plan to bring it in agreement with the
Urban Renewal Plan
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
11
day of , 1975.
APPROVED:
Morton Gitelman, Chairman