Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-11-11 Minutes1 framer R4'/77J MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting,of the Fayetteville Planning Comtlission was.held at'4:.05P. M. Tuesday, November 11, 1915, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville; Arkansas.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Morton Gitelman, John Maguire, John Power, Donald Nickell, Ernest Jacks, Rita Davis, Jack Ray, Bill Kisor, Helen Edmiston. MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OTHERS PRESENT: Ken Lazenby, Charles Cassat, Sam and James Mathias, Rodger Seratt Bill W. Graue, Harry Vandergriff, Don Pitts, -Dale Christy, Larry Wood Warren Segraves, David McWethy, Bobbie Jones, Janet Bowen. Chairman Morton Gitelman called the meeting to order. The minutes of the October 28, 1975, meeting were approved as MINUTES distributed. REZONING PETITION R75-23 Chairman Morton Gitelman opened the Ken Lazenby for Garlen Curry Estate public hearing on Rezoning Petition R75-23, submitted by Ken Lazenby, Realtor, on behalf of the Estate of Garlen E. Curry; Ronald W. Curry; Arlen Curry; 4 Gayle Bader to rezone property located East of Deane Solomon Road, South of Moore Road, and West of Williams' Ford Tractor Sales from A-1, Agricultural District, to R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Planning Consultant Larry Wood gave the Planning Report. He felt the Planning Com- mission should decide whether or not the City wanted to encourage urban development beyond the By-pass at this time before the part of the City inside the By-pass "fills up ", and whether or not urban densities should be encouraged there when services (utilities, streets, schools, etc.) are insufficient. He raised the question of whether or not the density patterns as expressed in the General Plan should be re-evaluated because of the City's financial situation and ever increasing costs and good management practices. Ken Lazenby, Realtor, was present to represent the Currys. He said the location of this property lended itself well to access to Fayetteville, Springdale, the University, and the:Northwest Arkansas Plaza. He said there was a shortage of good building sites and he had found that a lot of people were wanting to move to the Western part of the City. He said there was a sizeable acreage directly to the North that was recently purchased by some investors from Springdale and he felt they had something for housing in mind. In answer to Mr. Jacks' question, Mr. Lazenby said there could be access on Moore Lane but that the best access would be Mount Comfort Road. Rita Davis asked Mr. Lazenby if he had considered R-1 rather than R-2; Mr. Lazenby said this had been considered but felt R-1 was not as appropriate. Mr. Lazenby told Commissioner Nickell that he had not talked personally with the Guysingers but had talked with. Williams', Ford Tractor Sales. Ernest Jacks told Mr. Lazenby that withthis size acreage in a R-2, he could build approximately 516 units and pointed out what Planning Consultant Larry Wood had brought up on how this would be handled. Mr. Lazenby said this was not their intention: He said their intention was to try to find some good lots for tax base for.the City and also for housing-. Rita Davis commented that the road on the front of this property was very narrow. Mr. Lazenby said they were going on theassumption that these roads would be widened as well as the facilities beingextended. Mr. Lazenby felt that extending facilities (at least water) in this direction would. be less costly because of the Planning Commission -2- November 11, 1975 contour of the land. In answer to questions asked by some.o£ the Commissioners; Planning Consultant Larry Wood said he felt that the Awl was; an appropriate.zone.£or property outside the By-pass at the present time. He felt this was a matter of City policy they were getting into and he was also concerned about developingoutside the By-pass. He felt once the precedent was set, they would have to look at water and sewer, arid fire protection. Hefelt they were no yet equipped to handle development outside the By-pass. In answer to Mr. Kisor's- question, Mr., Wood said that the developer does have to bear the cost of the extension of water and sewer and the internal streets, but there were other services such as schools that needed to be considered. Mr. Lazenby said the land was not now being used for the best use. He said this property was not large -enough .to be used agriculturally and that it could be put to better use if it were rezoned. Chairman Gitelman was concerned in that if this rezoning petition were granted they would not be able to deny the same on any property West of the By-pass. He said they were actually being asked to change the Land Use Plan in considering this rezoning request. John Maguire felt that the precedent outside the By-pass had already been set with the Kelly Brothers housing developments (Johnson -Road and Centerbrook and with a 200 and some unit apartment complex outside the By-pass. He felt the reasons given by Larry Wood might not be valid ones to try to keep development inside the By-pass. Mr. Maguire felt the R-2 would be a good buffer between the C-2 (Williams' Ford Tractor Sales). Helen Edmiston asked Planning Consultant Larry Wood if they would have the same problem if this were zoned R-1; Mr. Wood replied that they would but not with as much impact as with R-2. Donald Nickell said he thought this was the only undeveloped property from Moore Lane South.and is a good piece of property. He said he would be opposed to R-2 because of the traffic burden it would place on the access road but he would not be opposed to R-1. There was no one present.in opposition. The public hearing was concluded. John Maguire moved to recommend to the Board of Directors the approval of Rezoning Petition R75-23, Ken Lazenby. Bill Kisor seconded the motion which was approved 5-4 with Edmiston, Kisor, Ray, Power, Maguire voting "Aye"; Nickell, Jacks, Davis, Gitelman voted "Nay". The public hearing was opened on Rezoning Petition R75-24, REZONING PETITION R75-24 City of Fayetteville, to rezone property located East of City of Fayetteville Shenandoah Mobile Home Park on the North side of - . .Lot 1, Industrial Park 15th Street (Highway 16 By-pass) from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to I-1, Heavy Commercial $ Light Industrial District. This property is Lot 1 of the Industrial Park Larry Wood gave the Planning Report. He said in light of the R-0 District recommendations in the General Plan, the I-1 Zoning could not be recommended. He said using the existing road, (Curtis Ave.) which. splits the property East and West , C-1 District could be approved for the Eastern section and R-0 District for the Western section and still stay within the policies and principles reflected in the plan. Dale Christy (Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce) was present to represent. Mr. Christy.said the Chamber of Commerce had the responsibility.of disposing of the land in the Industrial Parkand the way it was zoned they could not dispose of this property. He said they had had some indications that an I-1 Zone might be more practical. He said he felt they could '"live with!' Mr. Woodts recommendation for C-1 East of Curtis Avenue and R..O.West of Curtis Avenue. He requested the Commission to rezone it as- they saw best but to not.leave it R-1, John Maguire felt that an I-1 usage would create less traffic at the entrance of the apartments than the Neighborhood Commercial would (which is what Mr. Wood recommended,for that corner). Chairman Gitelman said what concerned him was that they did not have a proposal before • • • Planning Commission -3- November 11, 1975 them and that they were putting Uthe cart before the horse..':' Mr. Christy said he would like, for the.Planning Commission to go ahead and rezone this to whatever zone suited it best. Mr. Gitelman said if they went along with:Larry Woodts recommendation,it would give them two parcels of land. Mr. Christy commented that it'wastwo parcels already since the road divided it East and West.' No one was present to oppose; the public hearing was- concluded. Ernest Jacks moved to recommend to the Board of Directors the rezoning.of the Eastern section of Lot 1.of the Industrial Park to C-1 and the Western section to R-0 as Larry Wood recommended. The motion, seconded by Helen Edmiston, was approved unanimously. Chairman Gitelman opened the public hearing on ' REZONING PETITIONR75-25 Rezoning Petition R75-25, Charles Cassat, to rezone Charles Cassat property located at 90 West Township Road from 90 West Township Road A-1, Agricultural District to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Larry Wood gave the Planning Report. He pointed out an error in the report in that the monument company and and parcel delivery service was all a part of the property under application rather than being adjacent to it. Charles Cassat was present to represent. He told the Planning Commission he would like to have the property rezoned so he could construct an additional building on the property. In answer to Chairman Gitelman's question, Mr. Cassat said he would use part of the building for his upholstering shop and he would rent the rest of the building. He said he did not have any particular renter in mind at this time. John Power was concerned about the increase in traffic that the approval of each request along Township Road created. He said something would eventually have to be done. No one was present to oppose and the public hearing was concluded. Donald Nickell moved to recommend to the Board of Directors the approval of Rezoning Petition R75-25, Charles Cassat. Helen Edmiston seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. REZONING PETITION R75-26 The public hearing was opened on Rezoning Petition R75-26, H. L. Mathias H. L. Mathias, to rezone property located at 221 South Block 221 South Block Ave. Avenue, from R-0, Residential Office District, to either C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District, or C-3, Central Commercial District. Mr. Wood gave the Planning Report. He recommended that the City re-evaluate the future land use policies related to this area and then this application can be judged against that policy. Sam $ James Mathias, sons of H. L. Mathias, were present to represent. One of them said the land had been used for commercial use all these years (this is a non -conforming use in the R-0 Zone), and in order to get a sign the property must be rezoned commercial. There was no one present to oppose the request. The public hearing was concluded. Ernest Jacks agreed with. Larry Wood in that the use of the land was more of a concern than the sign problem. He felt that it might be worthwhile to have Mr. Wood to make a study of the General Plan in this area, Mr. Wood said he was concerned about traffic safety because of the steep terrain onto Arhcibald Yell. In answer to Chairman Gitelman's question, Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones.said they changed their sign without getting a permit. She stated she did not know if this was one of the cases that could be appealed to the Board.of Directors or not. • Planning Commission November 11, 1975 -4- After further discussions Ernest Jacks -moved to table Rezoning. Petition R75-26, H, L, Mathias, and give them a chance.to go before the Board.of Directors with.a request for a variance on the Sign Ordinances and if they could not.:get it appealed they could -then come backto the`Planning Commission for the rezoning petition to be considered. Donald Nickell seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. The next item on the agenda was the public hearing REZONING PETITION R75-27 on Rezoning Petition R75-27,. Rodger Seratt, to rezone Rodger..Seratt property located at 5 North WestcAvenue from R_0, 5.North West Avenue Residential Office District, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. (This property lies within the Urban Renewal Area.) Rodger Seratt was present and before Larry Wood gave the Planning Report, Mr. Seratt requested to be allowed to withdraw this rezoning request (Petition R75-27) because of the letter from the Housing Authority (contained in this agenda) stating that this property was within the Urban Renewal Area which required that this property remain R-0 for a period of twenty years from the date that the City of Fayetteville adopted the Urban Renewal Plan (October 19, 1975). Ernest Jacks moved to allow the petitioner to withdraw Rezoning Petition R75-27, Rodger Seratt. John Power seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. Chairman Gitelman informed Mr. Seratt that because no public hearing had been held he would be permitted to file another rezoning petition on any portion of this property within 12 months. The public hearing was opened on Rezoning Petition R75-28, REZONING PETITION R75-28 Rodger Seratt on behalf of Mrs. Elsie S. Reed, to Rodger Seratt on behalf rezone property located on the Southeast corner of of School Avenue and Mountain Street (just West of Central Elsie S. Reed Tire Company) from R-0, Residential Office District School Ave. & Mountain St. to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. District. Larry Wood gave the Planning Report. Mr. Wood felt the Planning Commission should restudy their policy for the area surrounding the downtown and clarify which zoning districts would encourage the development of that policy and then the rezoning request could be judged against the policy. Mr. Seratt was present to represent and said he would like to have the 'property rezoned to permit him to park used cars there that he would have for sale. He said he had a service station and repair shop across the street from this property. Mr. Seratt showed the Planning Commission a petition signed by the sourrounding neighbors stating they were not opposed to this use. He said the lot was 75 feet wide and the setbacks required by ordinance amounted to 80 feet. He said this was a level lot and this would be a good usage for the property. There was no one present in opposition. The public hearing was concluded. Ernest Jacks was in favor of a restudy since did not go along with. the City Plan in order with the City's Plan, Mr. Wood said they were piece mealing zoning doing. Chairman Gitelman said this was already mixed usage and felt the Planning Commission should deal with. the properties on an indivudual basis, He said this was an example of a lot that could not be utilized for.the existing zoning classification simply because it was too small a parcel and the location was not suitable. He said he would be in favor of basically approving.this request and authorize. Larry Wood to start a study on this but felt it would be better to wait until a decision was made on where the C-4 (Downtown) Zoning District would go. Urban Renewal contained some things that to get the Urban Renewal Plan working without really knowing what they were • • Planning Commission November 11, 1975 Bill Kisor asked Rodger Seratt if the names, on the petition were property owners or renters, Mr. Seratt said the property owners were indicated on the petition. Helen Edmiston commented that the last time Mr. Seratt appeared.be£ore the Planning Commission he submitted names that were renters rather than property owners. John Power moved to recommend to the Board of Directors the approval ,of Rezoning Petition R75-281 RodgerSeratt and see this on a case by case"basis. Jack Ray seconded the motion whichwas approved 8-1 with Bill Kisor opposing. Next was a request from Bill w; Graue for a rehearing on his Bill W. Graue conditional use request for duplexes in an R-1 Zone on Duplex Conditional Use Elm Street when all of the Planning Commission members Elm'Street could be present to vote for or against the request.-- Individuals previously notified on this case were again mailed copies of this agenda. According to the Planning Commission By-laws, the unanimous consent of all Commissioners present is required to rehear this matter. Mr. Graue was present. He told the Planning Commission that he had talked to the City Attorney and he told him he could request a re -hearing or take it to Court. Mr. Graue said he did not want to take it to Court. If the Planning Commission ,voted not to have a re -hearing this would end it. Denver Hutson and several other people were present to oppose the request if it was decided to be scheduled for a re -hearing. Two of the Planning Commission members, Donald Nickell and John Maguire who were not present at the meeting when Mr. Graue's request was heard, said they had no objections to re -hearing the case. Chairman Gitelman called for a vote. Those voting in favor of a re -hearing were Maguire, Jacks, Nickell, Edmiston, and Kisor. Opposed were Power, Gitelman, and Ray. There was no rehearing. RODGER SERATT Next was a request to change a non -conforming Change of Non -Conforming Use use of property at 545 West Center Street from 545 West Center Street warehouse (formerly occupied by Capitol Tobacco Company) to auto repair $ body shop submitted by Rodger C. Seratt. This was tabled at the October 28th meeting since no one was present to represent. Mr. Seratt was present. Commissioner Kisor asked Rodger Seratt if he was not already using this property for an auto repair $ body shop; Mr. Seratt admitted that he was. Ernest Jacks called attention to the fact that Mr. Seratt had done this once before. He then asked him how he thought an auto repair and body shop would be a.less intensive use than Capitol Tobacco Company. Mr. Jacks felt there would be a lot of noise with the cars being worked on. Rodger Seratt admitted that by his own interpretation of the ordinance he thought this usage was less intense than the warehousing. Chairman Gitelman asked Mr. Seratt where he would be putting the cars that were waiting to be worked on. Rodger Seratt said he would be leasing the land around the building in addition to the building itself. He pointed out on the drawing in the agenda where he could put the cars on the property and pointed out that they would be hidden by trees on one side of Gregg. He said behind the building on the backby the railroad tracks the cars would be hidden. He said there might be about 40 feet of visibility where the cars would be parked. Mr. Paul Sanders (property owner across from the concerned property to the North) was present and stated that there was some noise involved in Mr. Seratt's usage of the property, but that it did not bother him. Bill Kisor asked about the surrounding property owners. Mrs. Edmiston said she was interested in knowing what the property owners thought of this. 1 • Planning Commission -6- November 11, 1975 She said the names on the petition were renters.. John Maguire.said it was his opinion.that this use was amore intense one than the warehousing., He said Mr, Seratt had at one time alleged to be working to get funds to go Back to law school. Mr, Maguire said Rodger Seratt seemed to take the attitude that he could "hop" and them come down and talk to the Planning Commission to have it approved. He felt the Planning Commission should "increase his learning" and suggest that he move out. Donald Nickell agreed with this. He told Mr. Seratt that every citizen had to conform to the regulations. - Rodger Seratt said he realized 'he should have had this approved before occupying the building. He then mentioned rezoning the property, and Mrs. Edmiston felt that the railroad (owners of the property). -might go along with a rezoning and should be the ones to petition to have it rezoned. Mr. Gitelman said this was a matter of the Planning Commission trying to decide if this were a less intensive use than the warehousing. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said automotive services (including body shops) was in Use Unit 17 and is permitted in C-2, and I-1 as a "use by right" and 'on appeal to the Planning Commission in C-3. Warehousing is listed in Use Unit 21 and , is permitted in I-1 and I-2 as a "use by right" and on appeal to the Planning Commission in C-2. John Power felt it would depend on the type of warehousing whether or not the use was more or less intense. Mr. Power said if this request had been in any other part of the City he would have agreed with the feelings expressed by John Maguire and Donald Nickell. He said, however, there had been no complaints in this area. John Power then moved to approve the non -conforming use as requested by Rodger Seratt for property at 545 West Center Street. Rita Davis seconded the motion which failed 5-4. Power, Edmiston, Davis, and'Ray voted "Aye"; Jacks, Nickell voted "Nay". The next item for consideration was the Large Scale Development Plan submitted by Charles Cassat property located at 90 West Township Road. Ernest Jacks gave the Subdivision Committee Report. He said 20 feet of additional right-of-way was needed for Township Road, the Sanitation Department had certain requirements and it was understood that there was a property description problem. Also the City Engineer indicated there might be some trouble getting to the sewer. Mr. Cassat was present to represent. He told the Planning Commission the way he understood it, he had the 24 feet that was being questioned. (There is an overlap in the description of this property and that of Mr. Pennington's to the East Mr. Jacks felt that Mr. Cassat and the other property owner should get a surveyor out there to try to straighten this out, even though it should not have any effect on whether or not this large scale development plan is approved. Mr. Cassat said he thought this was measured from an old fence and he did not know if a survey would help. Ernest Jacks moved to recommend to the Board of Directors the approval of the Large Scale Development Plan contingent on obtaining 20 feet of right-of-way to meet the Major Street Plan; providing whatever is requested by City officials regarding sanitation and utilities._ John Power asked if there was some way that access could be onto Johnson Road (this would be from the rear of the properties along the North side of Township). Bill Kisor said there was a creek there and this would be difficult. Some of the Commissioners felt that this road would be widened eventually. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones..pointed out that this was a State Highway. The motion, seconded by Helen Edmiston, was approved unanimously. Maguire, Gitelman, Kisor, and CHARLES CASSAT 90 West Township Road for Large Scale Development Planning Commission -7- November 11, 1975 Next was a condtiOnal use request and large WOODLAND JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL scale development plan to construct a gymnasium at Conditional Use. Request Woodland Junior High.School, Poplar Street and ; Large Scale Development Woodland Avenue,. Ernest Jacks gave the Subdivision Committee Report. He said there had been some comments made by the Street Superintendent concerning drainage. City Engineer Paul Mattke had said the water and sewer service shown going to Woodland Avenue would not work. Mr. Mattke had said there.was no sewer there and the water line is too small. He suggested that they either plan to tie into the existing water and sewer facilities for the Junior High School or go around the main building to get to the mains in Poplar Street. Mr. Jacks said the only other problem brought up in the Subdivision Committee meeting was the matter of setbacks. He said the plans showed approximately 8 feet to a chain link fence on the South with Washington County School for Traniable Children indicated South of the fence. He pointed out that setback of gymnasiums (non-residential uses in R Districts) requires 100 feet if fully air-conditioned and 200 feet if not fully air-conditioned. (The Planning Commission may vary this requirement on review of a large scale development plan.) Harry Vandergriff (Superintendent of the school) was present to represent. He told the Planning Commission that there was definitely a drainage problem in this area that needed to be corrected. He pointed out, however, that the drainage problem came from a wide area and would not be increased with this building. He felt that this should not be a requirement on their part. He said the water and sewer problem had been'worked out and stated that the 8 feet that was shown on the site plan was correct. In answer to Mr. Jacks' question, Mr. Vandergriff said the activities of this gymnasium would not be within 100 feet of any building except their .own. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said the only other problem on zoning was the parking requirement of one space for every 1200 square feet and a layout for the parking was not shown. Mr. Vandergriff said they would not be increasing their parking needs since they would be making a cafeteria out of the other gymnasium and building a new one. He said they willdhaue:a larger seating5capacityuiftthis-gymnasium than'they had in the other one. Mr. Jacks commented that this is probably what the Planning Administrator based her parking requirements on. Mrs. Jones (Planning Administrator) said she had a parking requirement for a junior high school and also a parking requirement for the gymnasium. She explained that the ordinance required the parking for additions to any existing building or any new building and only the Board of Adjustment could waive the parking requirements. She also pointed out that both. Woodland Avenue and Poplar Street were presently 40 foot widths and they were proposed as 50 foot wide streets on the Major Street Plan. Therefore, 5 feet of additional right-of-way was: needed. Ernest Jacks moved to recommend the approval of the Large Scale Development Plan and to: (1) Waive the setbackfrom this building to the adjacent residential property. (2) Obtain 5 feet of additional right' of -way on Woodland Avenue, but not on Poplar Street. (3) They satisfy the City Ordinance (Zoning) regarding parking requirements. Mr. Vandergriff said he did not mind giving the 5 feet of additional right-of-way but inquired as to why the school adjacent to them was not required to dedicate any additional right-o£.way. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones`said,if she remembered correctly it was approved on the.original plan for two phases';of development and the last construction was the second phase. This was all approved before the right-of-way was added to the ordinance as a requirement. The motion was seconded by Helen Edmiston and approved unanimously. Mrs. Jones said she would need to see a layout on the parking. Planning Commission -8- November 11, 1975 - ASSOCIATED PRODUCE, INC. The next item was a large scale development plan (United-Bilt Homes) submitted by Associated Produce, Inc., for property '.Highway 71'North on the East side of Highway 71 North_just East ,of .the intersection with Johnson Road and West of Lake Fayetteville to he used for model home display. (Highway 71, North of the intersection with. Highway 71 Bytpass,is designated "controlled access" and requires dedication of right-of-way for and provision for construction of a service road ) Mr. Jacks reported that dedication of the access road and a contract was needed. He said they didn't have any comments from SWEPCO, but otherwise everything seemed alright. Don Pitts was present to represent and explained the exact location of the property. Ernest Jacks moved to recommend the approval of the Large'Scale Development subject to the dedication and contract on the access road (to the North property line) and that SWEPCO be satisfied regarding easements needed. The motion,seconded by Chairman Gitelman, was approved unanimously. ORDINANCE 1661 Next was a letter from City Attorney Jim McCord dated Controlled Access Highway September 10, 1975, suggesting an amendment to the Controlled Access Highway Ordinance, (Ordinance 1661, Section 18-13, Fayetteville Code of Ordinances) as well as to the Major Street Plan to place service roads required under Ordinance 1661 on the Major Street Plan. This was tabled September 23, 1975, at the request of Director Morris Collier, and is on this agenda at the request'of City Attorney Jim McCord and City Manager Don Grimes. In answer to Mr. Jacks' question, Planning Consultant Larry Wood said they had a plan showing the access roads but that it needed to be finalized and it also needed to be a part of the Major Street Plan. He explained that this was on the By-pass plan but it was not advertised as an amendment to the Major Street Plan. After further discussion Ernest Jacks moved to schedule for public hearing for December 9, 1975, and to ask Larry Wood to prepare the necessary map. Rita Davis seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS The last item on the agenda was the Board of Directors' referral of recommendations of "task force" back to the Planning Commission for the Commission to schedule a public hearing on the recommended amendment to the procedure for processing a large scale development. Mr. Jacks said he attended the Board of Directors meeting when this was discussed and there was a good deal of concern that if the large scale development process stopped with the Subdivision Committee that it would essentially by-pass the public as far as announcements of the meeting. They felt that if this was done a provision should be put in there for the Subdivision Committee meetings to be publicized in some fashion. He said it would not actually be a public hearing, but the public could attend if they wished to dorso. He said they also felt that all adjacent property owners should be notified and that the petitioner or objector should have the right to ask that it be taken to the Planning Commission. He said the Subdivision Committee would have a greater responsibility to do the right thing and he felt they should start insisting that these things really not be brought in unless every requirement was settled on it. Ernest Jacks moved to schedule a public hearing on the proposed revision of the ordinance as soon as it is drafted. Rita Davis seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. Commissioner Edmiston requested that a.public hearing be scheduled OTHER BUSINESS to delete the 10 foot setback requirement.between dwellings and detached accessory buildings. The motion•,which was seconded by Ernest'Jacks,was approved unanimously. There was no further business. The meeting was adjourned at 6:35 P. M. A • • • RESOLUTION PC 55-75 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission, Tuesday, November 11, 1975, fifteen (15) days after a sign was erected upon the property and after a notice was published in the Northwest Arkansas Times, a newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, after the public hearing the Planning Commission voted to make a recommendation to the Board of Directors on Rezoning Petition R75-23, Ken Lazenby for Estate of Garlen E. Curry; Ronald W. Curry, Arlen Curry; and Gayle Bader. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLF, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That an ordinance be adopted for the purpose of rezoning from A-1, Agricultural District to R-2, Medium Density Residential District, said real estate. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A part of the NW fractional quarter of Section 5, and a part of the NE fractional quarter of Section 6 in T -16-N, R -30-W, described as follows: Beginning at a point 4 chains West of the northeast corner of said Section 6, and running thence East 4 chains and 69 links; thence South 3 chains and 30 links; thence West 4 chains and 69 links; thence North 3 chains and 30 links to the place of beginning; Also an easement of road way 10 feet wide of the north side of said northwest fractional quarter of Section 5, beginning at the northeast corner of the above described tract, and extending east 27.31 chains. Also a part of the Si of the SWk of Section 33, T -17-N, R -30-W, described as follows: Beginning at a point 20 rods east of the southwest corner of said 80 acre tract, and running thence East 80 rods, thence North 40 rods; thence West 80 rods; thence South 40 rods to the place of beginning, containing in all 21.58 acres more or less, subject to a road -way 10 feet wide reserved on the South -side of the last described tract. SECTION 2. That the above described property be rezoned from A-1, Agricultural District to R-2, Medium Density Residential District, so that the petitioner may develope property accordingly. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 1975. APPROVED Morton Gitelman, Chairman • • • RESOLUTION PC 56-75 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission, Tuesday, November 11, 1975, fifteen (15) days after a sign was erected upon the property and after a notice was published in the Northwest Arkansas Times, a newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, after the public hearing the Planning Commission voted to make a recommendation to the Board of Directors on Rezoning Petition R75-24, City of Fayetteville. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1, Industrial Park Plat to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. NM, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That an ordinance be adopted for the purpose of rezoning from R-1, Low Density Residential District to C-1, Neighborhood Commer- cial District, said real estate. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1, of the Industrial Park east of Curtis Avenue, more particularly described as: Beginning at a point 3288.11 feet North 1° 03' East and 55.06 feet South 88° 37' East of the Southeast corner of Section 23, T -16-N, R -30-W, and running thence South 88° 37' East a distance of 1065.55 feet to the North right-of-way line of State Highway 16 Bypass; thence along said right-of-way along a curve to the right having a radius of 666.2 feet, a distance of 147.47 feet; thence South 39° 54' East a distance of 10 feet along said right-of-way; thence right along a curve having a radius of 676.2 feet a distance of 185.07 feet along said right-of-way; thence South 65° 47' West a distance of 593.43 feet more or less along said right-of-way; thence North 24° 13' West a distance of 119 37 feet; thence left along a curve having a radius of 477.50 feet a distance of 61.11 feet; thence North 31° 48' 10" West a distance of 384.43 feet to the point of beginning. SECTION 2. That an ordinance be adopted for the purpose of rezoning from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to R-0, Residential Office District,'said real estate. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1, of the Industrial Park west of Curtis Avenue, more particularly described as: Beginning at a point 3288 11 feet North 10 03' East of the Southwest corner of Section 23, T -16-N, R-30 W, and running South 31° 48' 10" East 407.49 feet; thence along a curve to the right having a radius of 427 50 feet a distance of 56.87 feet; thence South 24° 13' East 119 37 feet to a point on the North right-of-way of State Highway 16 East Bypass; thence South 65° 47' West 80 feet moreor less along the North right-of-way line of State Highway 16 East Bypass; thence along a curve to the right having a radius of 676.2 feet a distance of 227.98 feet along the North right-of-way line of State Highway 16 East Bypass; thence North 1° 03' East 592.80 feet to the point of beginning. • • Page 2. Resolution SECTION 3. That the above described property be rezoned from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District and R -O, Residential Office District, so that the petitioner may develope property accordingly. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 1975. APPROVED Morton Gitelman, Chairman • • • • RESOLUTION PC 57-75 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission, Tuesday, November 11, 1975, fifteen (15) days after a sign was erected upon the property and after a notice was published in the Northwest Arkansas Times, a newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, after the public hearing the Planning Commission voted to make a recommendation to the Board of Directors on Rezoning Petition R75-25, Charles Cassat. NON, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That an ordinance be adopted for the purpose of rezoning from A-1, Agricultural District to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District, said real estate. URAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SEt of the SEt of Section 34, T -17-N, R -30-W, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point which is 105 feet West and 75.8 feet North of the Southeast corner of said Section 34, and running, thence North 358.6 feet; thence North 82° West 188.34 feet; thence South 393.7 feet to the North right-of-way line of Town- ship Street; thence North 87° 15' East along said North right-of-way line 187.7 feet to the point of beginning, containing 1.6 acres, more or less. SECTION 2. That the above described property be rezoned from A-1, Agricultural District to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District, so that the petitioner may develope property accordingly. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 1975. APPROVED'. Morton Gitelman, Chairman No- r \' RESOLUTION PC 58-75 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission, Tuesday, November 11, 1975, fifteen (15) days after a sign was erected upon the property and after a notice was published in the Northwest Arkansas Times, a newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, after the public hearing the Planning Commission voted to make a recommendation to the Board of Directors on Rezoning Petition R75-28, Rodger Seratt. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That an ordinance be adopted for the purpose of rezoning from R-0, Residential Office District, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District, said real estate. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Vacant lot on the SE corner of School Street and Mountain Street, next to Central Tire Co. Part of Block 33, Original Town Plat, City of Fayetteville, more particularly described as, beginning at the NW corner of said Block 33, and running thence East 75 feet, thence South 160 feet, thence West 75 feet, thence North 160 feet, to the point of beginning. SECTION 2. That the above described property be rezoned from R-0, Residential Office District, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District, so that the petitioner may develope property accordingly. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 1975. APPROVED: Morton Gitelman, Chairman RESOLUTION PC 59-75 BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, that a public hearing be called for the purpose of amending Ordinance 1661, Section 18-13, Fayetteville Code of Ordinance (Controlled Access Highway Ordinance), and the Major Street Plan to place service roads required under Ordinance 1661 on the Major Street 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. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the date for said public hearing is hereby set for December 9, 1975, Tuesday. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 1975. APPROVED: Morton Gitelman, Chairman • • • RESOLUTION PC 59.1 BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, that a public hearing be called for the purpose of amending Ordinance 1747 (Appendix C, Subdivision Regulations, Code of Ordinance, City of Fayetteville,..Arkansas). to amend Article 4, Section I, to simplify the procedure for Large Scale Developments. 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 • RESOLUTION PC 60-75 • • BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, that a public hearing be called for the purpose of amending Ordinance 1747 (Appendix A - Zoning, Code of Ordinance, City of Fayetteville) Arkansas) Article 7, Section 1 amended to delete the 10 foot setback requirement between dwellings and detached accessory buildings. 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