Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-10-28 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING t°t725 A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held at 4:05 P. M, Tuesday, October 28, 1975, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ernest Jacks, Helen Edmiston, Bill Kisor, Rita Davis, Jack Ray, John Maguire, John Power. MEMBERS ABSENT: Donald Nickell, Chairman Morton Gitelman. OTHERS PRESNT: Dr. Robert Kilgore, Mrs. Bill Bowlin, Jamie Jones, Mr. $ Mrs. Simmons, Walter Niblock, Wayne Ball, B. W. Graue, J. B. Hays, Jim Lindsey, Bobbie Jones, Janet Bowen. In the absence of Chairman Morton Gitelman and Vice -Chairman John Power, Ernest Jacks (Commissioner with the longest tenure) called the meeting to order. The minutes of the October 14 meeting were approved as mailed. MINUTES REZONING PETITION R75-21 The first item for consideration was Rezoning Petition Sweetser, Sonnemon, and Sonnemon R75-21, Jerry D. Sweetser, Gladys Sonnemon, and Lawson Street Sarah Sonnemon Schultz to rezone property located on the South side of Lawson Street between Gregg and Vendevender Avenues from R-1, Low Density Residential District to R-2, Medium Density Residential District. The public hearing was originally scheduled for October 14, but was tabled at the request of the petitioners' attorney. There was no one present to represent the petition. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said she had talked with Mr. Storey (the attorney) October 24, and he told her that he was anxious to have the public hearing on it at this meeting if it were possible but thought that it might have to be tabled until the Novemer 11 meeting. She said the Planning Commission must take action within 45 days of October 14 unless a written agreement from all parties concerned is submitted agreeing to leaving the matter on the table for a longer period of time. There were some present in opposition and they stated it was getting hard for them to leave work every time just to have the petition tabled over and over again. Commissioner Helen Edmiston said she was in sympathy with these people attending the meet- ing in opposition but felt they should not have the public hearing on the rezoning petition at this meeting without the petitioner being represented since it could be tabled for 45 days and that maximum amount of time had not yet lapsed. John Power arrived at 4:10 P. M. Those present to oppose asked if there was anything they could do to keep this from being tabled repeatedly. After further discussion, John Power moved that a public hearing on Rezoning Petition R75-21 be held at the November 25th meeting. This would set a specific date and the people opposing the request would know when to be present. Helen Edmiston. seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. The Planning Commission requested Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones to again notify the adjacent property owners. Mrs. Jones said if they received notification of this meeting, they would receive an agenda for that meeting also. Vice -Chairman John Power this point on. Next was a discussion on Libby Commission meeting is a letter DISCUSSION ON LIBBY. SIMMONS chaired, the meeting from 1902 Zion Road Simmons, 1902 Zion Road. In the agenda for this Planning from Dr. Robert L. Kilgore and a copy of a petition bearing • • • Planning Commission -2- October 28, 1975 18 signatures of property owners along Zion Road requesting the Planning Commission to reconsider its action in approving a change of non -conforming usefor Libby Simmons for 1902 Zion Road for an artist's studio and storage. Also in the agenda, is a letter of rebuttal submitted by Libby Simmons on October 14, 1975. At the October 14, 1975, meeting John Power and Jack Ray agreed to study the situation and report back to the Planning Commission on October 28. The Commission must decide whether to re -open the matter. The Planning Commission was also given copies of the following letters and petition, contents of which are hereby made a part of these minutes at the request of Vice -Chairman John Power: "October 26, 1975 Mr. Morton Gitelman Chairman, Fayetteville Planning Commission 1229 W. Lakeridge Dr. Fayetteville, Arkansas Dear Mr. Gitelman: I am writing in response to certain points or question to Mrs. Libby Simmon's request for non -conforming use of property -located at 1902 Zion Road. The first point I would like to touch upon is the survey submitted to you by Mr. Ottis L. Harris and Mr. Turner. There seems to be some question of validity as to the boundaries set forth. The boundaries set by the Washington County surveyor seem to differ from what Mr. Harris and Mr. Turner's indicate; especially the northwest corner marker of my property from which the surveyors started. My neighbor, Mr. Haskell Carnes, personally assisted in the county survey approximately 10 years ago and this point surely should be cleared up. I would be happy to be of any help that I can in pointing out the corner marker the county set up if need be; which is, in fact, approximately 10-12 feet west of their marker thereby crossing the "access road." The second point in question is the allegation of Mrs. Simmons that I have "agreed to let all utilities come over his property with written easements." I have never agreed to allow this although Mrs. Simmons has approached me many times concerning this matter. I still stand firm in my refusal. I am sure this is all a misunderstanding (hopefully) but I feel that these particulars should be dealt with before any decision is made on Mrs. Simmons' request. Sincerely yours, S/ Mr. $ Mrs. Bill Bowlin "October 25, 1975 Mr. Morton Gitelman, Chairman Fayetteville Planning Commission 1229 W. Lakeridge Drive Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Dear Mr. Gitelman: I would like to ask your indulgence one more time to have put into the VIP • • i Planning Commission -3- October 28, 1975 record that I deny -certain statements,about mein a letter from. Mrs. Libby Simmons to you dated October 14, 1975.. This concerns the request for a non -conforming use at 1902 Zion Road. I will admit that, at the time of my original contact with Mrs. Simmons over one year ago, I did not offer any serious objection to her "artist's studio". Like the Planning Commission, I was led to believe that she was straight forward and honest with such statements as ---"I can think of nothing more satisfying than doing my art work with the help of my husband and a few friends on the hill overlooking Fayetteville from 1902 Zion Road? (This is a direct quote from her letter to you.) However, when I investigated the matter and found that she is in the wholesale art business, I changed my mind completely. From then on, I refused either oral or written permission for her to use the road or to have an easement for utilities. The statement she made about Senator Bill Fulbright and Mr. Hal Douglas is completely false and takes me by complete surprise. The only reason I know of why such a statement would be fabricated is that she may have wanted to discredit me in the eyes of Mr. Douglas, an adjacent landowner, when._it was discovered that I was going to solicit his support on the matter. After meeting with Mr. John Power and Mr. Jack Ray last Thursday, the property owners in this area realize that the Planning Commission has an abundance of problems to consider and cannot always investigate every request thoroughly. You must, in most cases, assume that those making requests are telling the truth. I appreciate the consideration you have given me in this matter. Sincerely S/ Robert, L. Kilgore, D.V.M. "PETITION October 24, 1975 TO: THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION In an effort to re-emphasize the possible serious consequences of the granting of a non -conforming use of property at 1902 Zion Road to Mrs. Libby Simmons (of The Libby Simmons Manufacturing Company), we, the property owners in the immediate area, submit a second petition to you requesting reconsideration of the matter. We feel that there is sufficient reason to re -open the case because of the following: 1. The adjacent property owners were not notified of the hearing on . September 23, 1974, where the request was granted. 2. Mrs. Simmons represented her intended studio" when, in fact, she intends to of much greater magnitude. 3. Industrial wastes from this production facility may pollute the well water of adjacent property owners and may possibly be hazardous to Lake Fayetteville. (continued) use as merely an "artist's operate a commercial venture • • • Planning Commission October 28, 1975 Signed: S/ Alan G. Robbins S/ Carol Robbins S/ Beverly J. Jones S/ Virginia L. McPherson S/ H. R. McPherson S/ Marsha R. Ivey S/ Dina Bowlin S/ Bill Bowlin -4- S/ Billie L. Carnes S/ Zelma.C. Ostendorf S/ Leno Cotton S/ Robert L. Kilgore S/ Edward A. Ivey S/ Jamie L. Jones, Jr. S/ Leslie D. Childress S/ Hue C. Douglas" Mr. Power said he and Mr. Ray had taken time to study this matter and that he had called City Attorney Jim McCord about it, at which time Mr. McCord told him he felt the Commission would be on fairly shaky grounds legally to re -open this alto- gether (even in the event of being misrepresented) since the change of non -conforming use had already been approved by them. Mr. McCord did feel, however, the Commission still had the right to place some restrictions on the use. Mr. Power said he felt the Planning Commission could possibly put some further restrictions on what might take place on this property without entirely re -opening the request. He felt (1) the main concern to the surrounding property owners was the expansion of this operation and thought the Planning Commission might want to place that restriction on this and (2) a buffer fence could be placed between this property and the closest property which is to the.South. He said Mr. McCord felt the Planning Commissin wouldbeon sound legal ground where this was concerned. Dr. Kilgore was present and said he was concerned about the possibility of pollution to their wells in the area. He also raised the point that, what was 4 or S employees at the present, might not be typical four or fives years from now. He also said he was concerned about this being a residential area and it seemed unfair for an outsider to come in with something like that to make money. He was also concerned about the septic tank and felt it was the Planning Commission's place to limit the number of people that would be employed by Mrs. Simmons. In answer to Ernest Jacks question, Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said in this case she could not remember whether or not she had asked for adjoining property owners' names and addresses but the adjoining property owners were not notified. • She stated that the ordinance did not require that adjoining property owners be notified on requests for change of non -conforming use She said, however, she usually mentioned this to anyone when they requested the change. Mr. Jacks said he would like to make it a rule that adjoining property owners be notified on changes of non -conforming use just as they are on conditional uses or rezonings. John Power agreed with this. Rita Davis said it was her understanding that the idea for a non -conforming use was that eventually they would get rid of them, and that rather than doing this, they were actually perpetuating them. In: answer to John Power's question, Mrs. Simmons said she would agree to state in writing that the building would not be expanded and that a fence would be put up, if this was what the Planning Commission decided on. Mr. Jamie Jones was present in opposition. He said he did not know Mrs. Simmons at all, but had talked to her on the phone. He said he could appreciate her dilemma • Planning Commission -5- October 28, 1975 and could understand some of the problems of the Planning Commission. He stated he had nothing personal against her or the Commission, but said his concern had to do with anything that would permit or increase business or commercial ventures along Zion Road. He felt there were many reasons why the neighbors would want to preserve the nature and character of the area He said he had understood that the Urology Clinic that had gone in in this area would serve as a buffer zone between any residences and any other commercial businesses. He said he felt the Commission had made a mistake in not hearing the adjoining property owners and also, felt that since other property owners had been definitely notified this put the Commission in an inconsistent position. Mr. Jones said he was on City water but felt that until such time as City sewer was extended out that way that it was foolish to have a septic system which would have to care for as.many people as Mrs. Simmons would have employed. He said he wanted to be fair in this matter, but that he was disappointed that they were not notified so they could have spoken against this before Mrs Simmons had made a financial committment. Commissioner Davis said she wondered why there was no one present in opposition to this request when it came before the Planning Commission stating she was aware that residents along Zion Road were usually concerned about matters such as this. She said she felt at fault for not speaking out then. Attorney Walter Niblock was present representing Mr. and Mrs. Simmons, and presented some pictures of Mrs. Simmons' building and said that the neighbors would probably appreciate the fence that Mrs. Simmons had agreed to put up. He said he had told Mrs. Simmons to cease any activities until after the Planning Commission had made a decision. He said the Simmons were wanting to be good neighbors and they would be willing to enter into whatever reasonable committments the Planning Commission would expect them to. Concerning water pollution, Mr. Niblock said Mrs. Simmons used acrylics (water -base paint) in her painting and that there would not be any heavy metals involved; no lead, mercury, or zinc. He then asked Mrs. Simmons if she would agree life or limb and Mrs. Simmons replied "Yes". Mr. Power said when they looked at this request they were looking at a routine request and they without re -opening the whole case. Helen Edmiston asked if the Commission and Mr. Power felt they could. Mr. Jacks said he thought the Commission at the time was a request for an "artist's (singular) studio. John Maguire: aiskedif restroom facilites there would be employees. John Power felt this was something Mrs. Simmons would within the laws of the County Health, City, etc. Walter Niblock said Mr. and Mrs. Simmons had a number of problems to be worked out like the easements, restroom facilities, etc. Dr. Kilgore said he had checked with Bill Parett's office (County Sanitarian) on this and was told that when it involved 15-20 employees, they had to pass it on Little Rock. He felt the Planning Commission should limit the number of employees as well as the size of the building. John Maguire said he agreed with this philosophy. He also agreed with Mr. Jacks in that he thought this artist- only. He said he personally would like to see a restriction on the number He said he would not have voted in favor of this had he known there employees. Concerning said there to not use any materials that would endanger to start with, the Commission thought were now trying to add some restrictions could review this after of the a certain period of time, request felt that this adequate for the number of the have to make adequate that would need request was for one to of people. would be from 10-15 the limitation of employees because of the septic system, Walter Niblock would have to be a certain area for a drainage field and he didn't feel that the County would allow them to park on the drainage system. • • • Planning Commission -6- October 28, 1975 Bill Kisor felt they definitely needed to limit the number of people. Helen Edmiston felt this should be limited to 10 people at any one time. John Maguire agreed with this. After further discussion, John Maguire moved to adopt three restrictions: (1) a letter from Mrs. Simmons stating she would not enlarge the building. (2). Put a fence between this property and the property to the South (Bill Bowlin property) according to what the Zoning Ordinance requires on screening. (3) Have only 10 employees on the premises at any one time. Helen Edmiston seconded the motion. Dr. Kilgore asked if this would again appear before the Commission if Mrs. Simmons sold the property and someone else wanted to put something else in. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said any changes in the use would have to go before the Planning Commission but not change in. ownership. Mayor Orton was present and asked if signs were placed on the property when there was a request for change of non -conforming use. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said signs were put up only on rezonings, duplex conditional uses, and Board of Adjustment requests. There was no further discussion. The motion passed 6-1. Maguire, Power, Edmiston, Davis, Ray, Kisor voted "Aye". Ernest Jacks voted "Nay". The next item was a petition submitted by FARM SERVICE COOPERATIVE Farm Service Cooperative to close multiple alleys Multiple Alleys 'F, StreetsClosings and street rights-of-way between Government Avenue and School Avenue, (Highway 718) and between Sixth Street (Highway 62) and Eleventh Street. Joining in this petition are: Farm Service Cooperative; Jack and Carol Budd; Marjorie Budd; M. Ray Adams F, Mcllroy Bank, Trustee; Nora B. Adams Estate; Stewart B. Fugitt; Argil $ Emma Bell Bartholomew; and George Davis Jr. $ Joann Davis. Attorney Wayne Ball was present to represent Farm Service Cooperative. He told the Planning Commission that there were some utilities which were presently using the rights-of-way in there. Arkansas Western Gas is one but they have been granted an easement. Ernest Jacks asked if any of these were open as streets or alleys and Mr. Ball replied that they were not. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said Street Superintendent Clayton Powell had commented that he checked the alleys and street rights-of-way in the request and found that none of them have been improved and opened to the public. Mr. Jacks was concerned since they were requesting so many be closed. John Power said it looked as though.they were trying to close a lot of total area. He wanted some assurance that these alleys are not being used at present. In answer to Mr. Power's question, Mr. Ball said there was no traffic. Bobbie Jones said there were buildings located on some of these. Mr. Ball said there was a Certificate of Ownership by an abstractor included in the petition that listed all of these individuals as sole property owners. Mr Jacks asked about the easement that was shown on the railroad property. Mr. Ball said on the plats there was an alley and that this was just to overlap. He said as he understood it that once.the railroad ceased to be used, it would revert back to the adjacent property owners and he wanted to be sure in the event that it was closed, everything was closed and that there would not be an isolated strip. Helen Edmiston moved to approve the petition. Ernest Jacks seconded the motion. Mayor Orton said her concern was that they were giving property back to the property owners and wondered if they could get additional right-of-way for any street widening on the Major Street Plan. However, she stated she did not know what could be done about it. There was no further discussion. The motion was approved unanimously. Planning Commission -7- October 28, 1975 Next was a proposed waiver of subdivision requirements (lot split) B. W. GRAUE submitted by Bill Graue for property lying between Edgehill Drive Lot Split • and Mission Boulevard. Edgehill Dr. Ernest Jacks gave the Subdivision Committee report stating they needed (1) an easement for gas and sewer, (2) 5 feet of additional right-of-way on Edgehill Drive, and (3) Street Superintendent Clayton Powell asked that the street be widened, curbed and guttered, and asphalted, and a sidewalk put in. Mr. Jacks questioned whether or not the Planning Commission had the power to request number 3. Mr. Graue was present to represent and stated he had agreed to all of these stipulations. He did comment that he did not see any reason why he should have to put a curb there when the rest of the street was not curbed. He said he would, however, go along with that part of the request. Ernest Jacks moved to approve the lot split contingent on: (1) He provide an easement for sewer. (2) Dedicate 5 feet of additional right-of-way on Edgehill Drive (East side) and (3) Widen the street. Helen Edmiston seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. Opened for discussion was the proposed Large Scale Development Plan submitted by Dr. J. B. Hays and Jim Lindsey to construct a restaurant (Western Sizzlin' Steak House) at 2890 North College Avenue (between Cook's Paint and Arkansas Best Freight. WESTERN SIZZLIN' STEAK HOUSE J. B. Hays $ Jim Lindsey 2890 North College Ave. L. S. D. Mr. Jacks reported findings from the Subdivision Committee Meeting. (1) Question of a turn around for the garbage trucks which may eliminate about two of their parking spaces. The Sanitation Department does not want to back onto Highway 71. (2) There is not sufficient catch basins for water drainage, and Steve Brown (Community Appearance) requested that the hillside be planted. Dr. Hays and Jim Lindsey were present to represent. Dr. Hays said they could work everything out except for the planted hillside. He said he did not know if there was anything that would grow on it. He said losing the parking spaces would not hurt them any since they had ample parking. Mr. Lindsey said they both realized the drainage problem and would put a drop inlet back to the East of the building since the water could flood the restaurant. Dr. Hays added that they had talked about a retaining wall also. Ernest Jacks moved to recommend to the Board of Directors the approval of the Large Scale Development Plan with contingencies regarding (1) Turn around space regarding the garbage trucks and (2) satisfy the Street Superintendent on catch basins, and (3) stabilize the hillside. Helen Edmiston seconded the motion. She suggested hillside since it would grow almost anywhere. The motion was approved with Jacks, Edmiston, Ray voting in favor and Kisor abstaining. Next was a request to change a non -conforming use CHANGE OF NON -CONFORMING USE of property at 545 West Center Street from warehouse 545 West Center (formerly occupied by Capitol Tobacco Company) to auto Rodger C. Seratt repair and body shop submitted by Rodger C. Seratt. There was no one present to represent. The Planning Commission decided this should be tabled until someone was present to represent the request. Rita Davis moved to table Item 7 on the agenda. Helen Edmiston seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. Next was a "task force" report, submitted for the Planning Commission's consideration and recommendation a proposal to simplify processing of large scale developments. Jim Lindsey, chairman of the "task force" committee was present to report. He said they had come up with a plan whereby large scale developments would go through (3) that they plant kudzu vine on the Maguire, Power, Davis, and "TASK FORCE" REPORT i Planning Commission -8- October 28, 1975 the Plat Review Committee and then after corrections were made they would take their revised plans to the Subdivision Committee for approval or denial. It would then be up to the Inspection Office to see that the work was carried out as planned; or take the almost completed plans to the Planning Commission for approval before allowing occupancy. The only way it would go to the Board of Directors would be to accept required dedications, and easements. He said it was the feeling of the "task force" committee that it was a waste of time in trying to issue building permits when it had to be reviewed by both the Planning Commission and the City Board. He felt a developer would follow the plans closer this way when they realized everything would need to be in order before coming to the Commission. The committee hopes this processing of large scale development. plans will save the developer a lot of time. He said they felt that asbuilt plans should be submitted for this purpose. He invited comments from the Planning Commission. John Power wondered about the problems the Planning Commission would have if the plans came before them and they were not as they should be but it was almost completed, and felt if this were the case, it might take more (or just as much) time to process them this way as it now takes since the Planning Commission meets second and fourth Tuesday. nights. He felt that something did need to be done to save time, however. .It was pointed out to him that they should only come to the Planning Commission when they had their plans the way they needed to be. John Maguire went along with this idea and felt that the Inspection Office could handle it okay. Ernest Jacks wanted to know if thkity had the financial means to carry out this enforcement. City Manager Don Grimes said he could see no problems. John Maguire said one of the complaints he heard from developers is that they need a check list to go by and asked Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones about this. She said on Large Scale Developments they gave them a check 1st. She said she also wrote the setbacks, parking requirements and any other special requirements down for them when they first contacted her. She said that anyone that came in the Planning Office got this information even if it was just written on a piece of scrap paper. She said she could not tell them where any of the utilities were or where the street right-of-way is. Ernest Jacks felt it was a problem of the interpretation of what was on the check list. Jim Lindsey said the Planning Administrator had a lot of responsibilities but not enough authority and this created a problem. After further discus§iokt was decided to send this to the City Board of Directors for review with deleting the last sentence of the first paragraph of the task force recommendation which is included in the agenda for this meeting. This would mean that a. large scale development would never be seen by the full Planning Commission unless there was a problem with it. Jim Lindsey said there would be other items going through the "task force" committee and inquired as to whether they would want to wait and send it on to the Board of Directors collectively or send them through individually. Mr. Grimes felt they should send each item on to the Board as the task force and Planning Commission got them ready. Mr. Lindsey said he or Mr. Grimes would be present to discuss this with the Board of Directors when they reviewed it. Bill Kisor commented that'if they weregoing to be asked to submit as-builtplans, it should be done after the job is completed. Bill Kisor moved to send the recommendation concerning processing of large scale developments to the Board of Directors as written in Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones' letter included in the agenda for this meeting but deleting the last sentence of the first paragraph of the recommendation. Rita Davis seconded the motion which passed unanimously. a4 • • • Planning Commission -9- October 28, 1975 HARRIET H. JANSMA The last item on the agenda was a letter and article submitted by Letter Regarding Harriet H. Jansma regarding visual quality of streets and Visual Quality of buildings, etc. Streets & Buildings Mrs. Jansma was not present at -the meeting. The Planning Commission recognized receipt of this item but did not discuss it. Under "Other Business", John Power felt there was a definite need to place on the next agenda a discussion to define "adjacent property owners" to avoid another situation like the one they had gone through with on .the request for a change of non -conforming use on Zion Road. Mr. Power and Mr. Ray both stated that it had been very embarrasing to both of them when they talked to the neighbors concerning this. Helen Edmiston also wanted placed on the agenda a discussion of the 10 foot separation requirement between a dwelling and an accessory building. She felt this requirement was "ridiculous". John Maguire agreed with Mrs. Edmiston. Jack Ray said he was concerned about the "Haunted House that the Jaycees were fixing up for Halloween. He said the parking would probably be in the First Federal Building parking lot and this would be a bad intersection for children to be going across. Mr. Ray stated "I would rather have 100 people think I was crazy for bringing this up than I had for one child to get hurt.!' The Planning Commission knew it would be too late to send a resolution to the Board of Directors concerning this. The Planning Administrator told Mr. Ray that she would send a memo on the matter to the Police Chief, and City Manager. There was no further discussion. 'OTHER BUSINESS The meeting was adjourned at 6:05 P. M. RESOLUTION PC 54-75 WHEREAS, the petition of Farm Service Cooperative for vacating an alley was presented to the City Planning Commission for recommendation; and WHEREAS, at a meeting on Tuesday, October 28, 1975, the City Planning Commission voted to make a recommendation to the City Board of Directors on said petition to vacate an alley. NOI, 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 portion of a 16 foot alley lying West of Lots 1 - 12 inclusive, Block 18, Lots 1 - 16 inclusive, Block 19, and Lots 1 - 6 inclusive, Block 20, etc. beginning at the Southwest corner of Lot 1 in Block 18 in Ferguson's Addition to the City of Fayetteville, then North to the Northwest corner of Lot 1 in Block 20 in Ferguson's Addition, then West 16 feet, thence South to the North line of Eleventh Street, then East• 16 feet to the point of beginning. A portion of West Avenue, beginning at the Southwest corner of Lot 13, in Block 17 in Ferguson's Addition to the City of Fayetteville, thence North to a point where the West line of Block 14, Ferguson's Addition intersects the East line of the St. Louis -San Francisco Railway right of way, then in a Southwesterly direction along said right of way to a point 60 feet West of the Southwest corner of Lot 16 in Block 14 in Ferguson's Addition, then South to the Southeast corner of Lot 12 in Block 18 in Ferguson's Addition, then East, 60 feet to the point of beginning. A portion of Ninth Street beginning at the Southwest corner of Lot 6 in Block 19 in Ferguson's Addition to the City of Fayetteville, thence East 504 feet more or less to the West line of School Avenue, then South along the West line of School Avenue 55 feet, then West 504 feet more or less to the Northwest corner of Lot 1 in Block 18 in Ferguson's Addition, then North 55 feet to the place of beginning. A portion of Eighth Street beginning at the Southwest corner of Lot 6 in Block 20 in Ferguson's Addition to the City of Fayetteville, then 504 feet, more or less, to the West line of School Avenue, then South along the West line of School Avenue 40 feet, then West 504 feet more or less to the Northwest corner of Lot 1 in Block 19 in Ferguson's Addition, thence North 40 feet to the place of beginning. A portion of Seventh Street beginning at the Southeast corner of Lot 15 in Block 14 in Ferguson's Addition to the City of Fayetteville, then West to the Southwest corner of Lot 15 in Block 23 in Ferguson 's Addition, thence South 55 feet, then East to the Northwest corner of Lot 1, Block 15, thence North to the point of beginning. An unnamed 30 foot street beginning at the Northwest corner of Lot 16 in Block 14 of Ferguson's Addition to the City of Fayetteville, thence North to the St. Louis -San Francisco Railway right of way, then in a Resolution PC54-75 Page 2. Northeasterly direction along said right of way to the point where the St. Louis -San Francisco railway right of way intersects the former Great Pacific and Eastern Railway right of way, thence in a Southeasterly direction along said former right of way to the North line of Seventh Street thence West 30 feet, thence in a Northwesterly direction along the East side of Lot 16 in Block 14 of Ferguson's Addition to the point of beginning. A portion of a 12 foot alley beginning at the Northwest corner of Lot 1 in Block 16 of Ferguson's Addition to the City of Fayetteville, thence South to the Southwest corner of said Lot 1, thence West 12 feet to a point on the East line of Lot 6, Block 16, thence North to the Northeast corner of Lot 7 in Block 16 of Ferguson's Addition, thence East to the point of beginning. A portion of a 12 foot alley beginning at the Southeast corner of Lot 2 in Block 15 of Ferguson's Addition to the City of Fayetteville, thence East 12 feet, thence North to the South line of Seventh Street, thence West 12 feet, thende South to the point of beginning. An unnamed 30 foot street starting at the Northwest corner of Lot 6 in Block 15 in Ferguson's Addition to the City of Fayetteville, thence East to a point 30 feet West of the right of way of the former Great Pacific and Eastern Railway for a point of beginning, thence in a Southwesterly direction along a parallel to said right of way to the West line of School Avenue, thence North to said Great Pacific and Eastern Railway right of way, thence in a Northwesterly direction along said right of way to the South line of Seventh Street, thence West to the point of beginning. Beginning at the point of intersection of the South line of Sixth Street (U. S. Highway 62), with the West line of Lot 11 in Block 14 of Ferguson's Addition to the City of Fayetteville, thence South and Southeasterly along the West line of Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 in Block 14 and the West line of Lot 1 in Block 15 in Ferguson's Addition to the West line of School Avenue, thence South to the right of way of the former Great Pacific and Eastern Railway, thence in a Northwesterly direction along said right of way to the South line of Sixth Street, (U. S. Highway 62), thence East to the West line of Lot 17 in Block 14 thence Southwesterly along the West line of Lot 17 to the Southwest corner of said Lot 17, thence North along the East line of Lot 17 to the South line of Sixth Street, (U. S. Highway 62), thence East to the point of beginning. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 1975. APPROVED: Morton Gitelman, Chairman