Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-02-10 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held at'4;OOp,M,.Tuesday, February 10, 1976; in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas-. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Vice -Chairman John Power, John Maguire, Donald Nickell, Keith Newhouse, Ernest Jacks, Peg Anderson, Bill Kisor, Jack Ray, Rita Davis. None. Rodger Seratt, Hugh Kincaid, Loris Stanton, Alvin Neal,Doyle Maguire, Jerry Napier, Ed Jones. Vice -Chairman John Power called the meeting to order. Rita Davis arr ved late. MINUTES The minutes of the January 27, 1976 Planning Commission meeting were approved as distributed with the addition of Commissioner Jack Ray's name under "Members Present". PATRICK J. TOBIN The next item was a request for a Conditional Use Request Conditional Use Request to permit "Housing for watchman $ caretaker" at 50 E. Township 50 E. Township Road, Zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District, submitted by P. J. Tobin. (Use Unit 21 lists "Housing for caretakers" and is a conditional use permitted on appeal to the Planning Commission in the C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District.) This request was tabled January 27, with a request for copies of minutes on a previous request submitted by Mr. Tobin for interpretation on whether housing for caretakers, where permitted, would allow the use of a mobile home. A written request to table this item was submitted by Mr. Tobin to the Planning Office on February 10, 1976, due to the fact that Mr. Tobin's attorney was out of town and could not be present to represent him at the meeting. Ernest Jacks moved to table the conditional use request submitted by P. J. Tobin. Bill Kisor and Donald Nickell seconded the motion. Mr. Nickell said he was in error on some comments that he had made regarding Mr. Tobin's request at the last meeting. He said he had apologized to Mr. Tobin and he would like to apologize to the Planning Commission for any confusion he may have caused on the matter. The motion to table the request was approved unanimously. Proposed Amendment LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE The next item was the proposed amendment to the Large Scale Development Ordinance (Article IV, Section I, Appendix C, Subdivision Regulations, Fayetteville Code of Ordinances) (Ordinance 1750 as amended by Ordinances 1998, 2061,2044, 2073), to simplify the procedure for approving a large scale development plan, and for other purposes. This item was tabled December 9, 1975, and January 13, and January 27; 1976. At its last meeting, the Planning Commission made some revisions and asked at that time to see a revised copy as drafted by the City Attorney before sending it on to the City Board. PAGE 1 4.11 Ernest Jacks said that the third paragraph. under (1), still read "The Subdivision Committee shall consist of three members -,of the Planning Commission appointed by the Chairman of said Commission." • • • Planning Commission February 10, 1976 -2- He said that the Planning Commission By-laws stated only that one of the members,of the Planning Commission had to chair the. Committees, Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said Jim Lindsey (!'Task. Force Study Committee") stated at the last meeting that the Board of Directors felt the Subdivision Committee should consist of at least someone appointed by that elective body. Mr. Jacks felt they should go along with the Planning Commission By-laws. There was also some discussion on the number of members making up the Subdivision Committee. John Power pointed out that with there being only three members it could create a problem if one or more of -the members could not be present and also the Committee would have added responsibility. After some discussion, it was the general concensus of the Planning Commission that the Subdivision Committee should consist of 5 members rather than the stated number of 3 members. Therefore, since they would be recommending 5 members, they felt it would be a good idea to have approximately 2 of the members of the Subdivision Committee to be someone other than Planning Commissioners but that these people be chosen because of their knowledge of and familiarity with planning concepts. Keith Newhouse moved to change the number of members on the Subdivision Committee to 5 rather than 3 and to omit the wording . ."of the Planning Commission" and add "Planning " before the word "Commission" - - -(Last line of paragraph 3). Ernest Jacks seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. PAGE 2 Ernest Jacks felt that in 2 (e), it should be defined which Subdivision Committee meeting they were talking about. He felt that the wording "at which the development is considered" should be added after "Prior to the Subdivision Committee meeting" (first line of that paragraph). The other Commissioners agreed with this. Mr. Jacks then asked Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones if paragraph 2 (3) - - -(last paragraph on Page 2) would work from her standpoint. She said that the 10 days would work out fine except for holidays when the Plat Review Committee might not meet. She said, however, that if she had the material 6 days prior to the meeting (as stated in the first paragraph of Page 3) that they might not need the. wording "within 10 days". In order to simplify this item, the Planning Commission agreed to change the wording of paragraph 2 (3) to read "Each large scale development plan shall be reviewed by the Plat Review Committee at its next meeting provided it is received at least 6 days before the meeting date." This would omit the wording ". . .within ten (10) days from the date said plan is submitted to the Planning Administrator, provided, if a development plan is not submitted to the Planning Administrator at least six (6) days prior to a scheduled meeting of the Plat Review Committee, the Committee shall review the plan at its next scheduled meeting . . . ." Also, in the same paragraph, Mr. Jacks pointed out that the way it was worded, the Subdivision Committee would either have to approve or disapprove or refer a plan to the Planning Commission when they might actually want or need to table it. He felt there should be some way to extend the time on this if it became necessary. There was also some discussion about the 14 day limit mentioned in this paragraph. Mr. Jacks tended to go along with the "or at its next meeting" aspect. However, Peg Anderson felt that a time limitation should be set in order to achieve what they set out to do in saving the developer processing time. Planning Consultant Larry Wood pointed out that the Plat Review Committee was a voluntary type thing and they could decide not to meet at sometime or another. John Power felt thisshouldbe worded so that it would leave an "out" in case a committee could not meet for some reason or another, or in case of a holiday, • • Planning Commission -3- Feburary 10, 1976 It was suggested to word .this so that a in writing, Peg Anderson said this would be .fine:if would happen if it was not agreeable, After further discussion, the Planning Commission agreed to word paragraph .as-follows:--"The-Subdivision-Committee-shall approve, refer back to the developer for further 'information, or refer to Planning Commission and to add at the end of the paragraph the words" . . . or time extensioncould be placed on this the developer agreed to .it, but asked what that part of the disapprove, the at its next meeting." PAGE 3, Paragraph (4) Mr. Jacks pointed out that there had been an omission of one of the paragraphs which stated that one of the reasons for disapproving a large scale development plan was the fact that City water and sewer service was not available. He said it was not in the discussion at their last meeting to omit this. Bobbie Jones said she felt this was an error on the City Attorney's part since that was not in the note that she had given him concerning the revision. PAGE 3, Paragraph (5) Mr. Jacks pointed out that there were several things omitted in paragraph (5), but felt after reading through and seeing that this referred back to Section 2 (d) (which refers to the Subdivision Ordinance), he felt that the City Attorney was simply trying to cut down on the wording. Also, concerning paragraph (5), Bobbie Jones said under the existing regulations, a Certificate of Occupancy could be obtained before the streets and water and sewer was completed as long as a.. bond was posted. She said City Engineer Paul Mattke felt that occupancy should not be permitted until the water and sewer was completed. Mr. Mattke had also wondered how the "as builts" could be submitted when this was not completed. Mr. Jacks felt Mr. Mattke should be satisfied concerning this and felt that he should be made aware of what had happened at this meeting. Mr. Power said he would discuss this with Bobbie Jones and Paul Mattke before they sent this on to the Board of Directors. PAGE 4 The only change that was discussed on Page 4 was to omit the word "non-residential" from (2) and (3) under paragraph (8)(a). due to the fact that they did not intend to exclude multi -family. Ernest Jacks then moved to send this revised ordinance to the Board of Directors with the comments contained in these minutes. Peg Anderson seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. Public hearing was opened on Rezoning Petition R76-1, Rodger Seratt, to rezone property located at 103 South School Avenue (corner of Mountain and School) District, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Planning Consultant Larry Wood made the following recommendation made a part of these minutes. "The area on both sides -,of Mountain St. contains a.number of -. older commercial uses. It is reasonable to commit the Mountain St. properties to future commercial use as an extension of the down- town commercial activity. A major portion of this property is either zoned commercial or contains commercial uses. This will provide convenience commercial for the increasing number REZONING PETITION R76-1 Rodger Seratt 103 'South School Ave. from R-0, Residential Office which is hereby • Planning Commission February 10, 1976 ,of multi -family units in this area. However, L. would recommend that the Commission make it clear that this. change in previous policy does not include commercial -expansion north_and south on West, School; Locust and.Block.Avenues,N Attorney Hugh Kincaid was present to represent. He said the property had been used in the past approximately for the same use it is being used presently (commercial), as most of the property is between the parcel under consideration and the square. He felt it was consistent with the use it has had historically and now has and that it was logical in terms of what expansion there would be in commercial usage from the square. Mr. Kincaid said it would enhance the stability of the property if it was placed in the proper zone. He said financing would be obtained to improve the property and pointed out that this would be difficult to do as long as the property sits in a limbo posture of being a non -conforming use. He said that on previous appearances before the Planning Commission, Mr. Seratt had indicated that he would make substantial improvements and he submitted "before and after" pictures of the property to show that Mr. Seratt had made those changes. A petition was also submitted bearing the signatures (with the exception of three) pf the property owners in that general area stating they were not opposed to the request. Planning Consultant Larry Wood emphasized that this change in policy along Mountain Street from what was adopted in the plan (which now shows Service Commercial ovelapped by R-0 in zoning) does not include a change in the policy as far as an extension up and down School, Locust, Block and other streets of commercial activity. John Power felt that this would not be setting a precedent that would not be favorable to the rest of the area as long as it was restricted to that one section. Mr. Wood felt there would be a natural tendency for the adjoining property owners to seek rezonings and this would start ''creeping down the street." There was no opposition expressed. Ernest Jacks moved to approve Rezoning Petition R76-1 and to include the following wording from the Planning Report in this recommendation to the Board of Directors: . .the Planning Commission would like to make it clear that this change in previous policy does not include commercial expansionnorth and south on West. School, Locust and Block Avenues." Keith Newhouse seconded the motion which was approved unanimously 8-0. REZONING PETITION R76-2 Vice -Chairman John Power opened the public hearing on City of Fayetteville Rezoning Petition R76-2, City of Fayetteville, to Fayetteville School District rezone the following properties owned by the Fayetteville School District as indicated: TRACT H: Bates Elementary School and Fayetteville High School East Campus located South of Stone Street, West of Buchanan Avenue, North of U. S. Highway 62 (West Sixth Street), and East of Garland Avenue or Stadium Road, to rezone from R-2, Medium Density Residential District, to P-1, Institutional District. TRACT I: School Administration Offices, 1000 West Stone Street, to rezone from R-2, Medium Density Residential District, to P4, Institutional District. TRACT 'J:.Harmon Play Field and surrounding properties located South. of California Boulevard, North.,of Stone. Street, and West ,of Buchanan Avenue, to rezone from R-2, Medium Density Residential District,.to:P-1, Institutional District. • Planning Commission -5- February 10, 1976 TRACT K; 904, 908, 936 $ 938 -West Stone Street to:.rezone from -R-2; Medium Density Residential District, to P.14 Institutional District, In answer to Ernest Jacks -question, Bobbie Jones'said that the "surrounding properties mentioned under Tract J were included in the legal description. Ernest Jacks moved to approve Rezoning Petition:R75-2.. Mr. Alvin Neal, 224 Virginia, (adjacent property.to one of the school properties) asked what this change in zoning meant. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones explained this to did not express opposition to the request. Donald Nickell seconded the motion which was approved him after which Mr. Neal unanimously. Next was the Large Scale Development Plan submitted by Walter S. Robinson, to construct a 10 -unit apartment in the 1500 block of Leverett Avenue. Ernest Jacks gave the Subdivision Committee Report in which he said 10 feet of right-of-way was needed off Leverett (west side of the property), the drainage needed to be controlled, and a 10 foot easement on the north and south sides was needed for SWEPCO and Southwestern Bell Telephone. Mr. Jacks then moved to approve the large scale development with the above mentioned stipulations. Rita Davis arrived at 4:55 P. M. Keith Newhouse seconded the motion -which was approved unanimously by of 8-0. (Mrs. Davis abstained since she only arrived during the the motion.) WALTER S. ROBINSON, JR. North Leverett Avenue Large Scale Development a vote moving of MAGUIRE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY Next was a request from the Inspection Superin- East Gate Shopping Center tendent for instructions from the :. . Conditional Use Request Planning Commission regarding Maguire Distributing Company. A conditional use to park refrigerated dairy trucks on the parking lot at East Gate Shopping Center was first approved February 11, 1975, for a 90 -day period and extended May 27, 1975, for an additional 30 days. The trucks are still being parked there and the Inspection Superintendent has asked the Commission's instructions to either: A: Review and extend the conditional use for additional time, or B: Issue a "violation notice''. Mr. Doyle Maguire was present to represent. Mr. Maguire said that in August of 1975, he sold and liquidated Maguire Distributing Company back to Coleman Dairy. He said he was still employed by them and that they still had a branch there and were planning to stay in this area. He said the closest residence was about 300 feet (duplexes) and that the summer months when all the trucks were running, he made a check on the following: 30 steps in front of the trucks (with all the trucks running) it was impossible to hear any noise. Also, 50 steps from the rear of the trucks, he could not hear any noise. He told the Planning Commission that the trucks came to this location and off- loaded onto a trailer truck at approximately 3:00 A. M. three days a week. He said they had 4 trucks and 1 trailer parked there. He felt if there was any noise it would probably be from the trucks belonging to Mexican Original or the noise coming from Brer Frans, a nightclub, Harriet-Jansma, 900 Lighton Trail, confirmed that Brer Frans was noisy and she could hear the band from her home. In answer to questions asked by the Commissioners, Mr. Maguire said they did not plan to expand any more, and if they did expand, they would have to go to a warehouse type facility in the country somewhere. • Planning Commission February 10, 1976 -6- He also said that .most of the debris that Commissioner Anderson had asked about (beer cans, etc on the parking lot) was coming from the nearby Brer Frans. and he felt the Planning Commission should not hold them responsible for this, John Power suggested that the Planning Commission approve another 30 day extension and this would give them time to work things out. Bobbie Jones commented that there had been complaints from the owner and also one of the residents of the nearby duplex last summer but that she was not aware of any recent complaints. She said information concerning this item was mailed out to adjoining property owners. After some discussion, Donald Nickell moved to extend the conditional use for a period of 1 year. Jack Ray seconded the motion Commissioners Kisor and Ray felt that there should not be a time limit set (either of 30 days or 1 year) when this usage was less bothersome than the surrounding uses. They saw no reason for these people to have to keep coming back to have the request approved. Rita Davis said they had given them a 30 day extension to see if there would be any problems. Donald Nickell said the time limitation would give the neighbors time to express objections if there were any. It was the feeling of some of the Commissioners that there was definitely something wrong when a conditional use was actually less intense than some of the permitted uses in the C-2 Zone. The motion on the floor was approved by a vote of 6-0-3 with Power, Maguire, and Anderson abstaining. Proposed Amendment Next was the proposed amendment to Article IV, Section E of Article IV, Section E of Ordinance 1750 Ordinance 1750, Appendix C, (Appendix C to the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances) Fayetteville Code of Ordinances to provide street design standards to be followed by the developers of subdivisions in order to avoid the creation of traffic hazards; and for other purposes, referred back to the Planning Commission by the City Board of Directors on February 3, 1976. A letter from the City Attorney and two alternate proposed ordinances were attached to the agenda for this meeting. Larry Wood felt that the short form that was attached to the agenda would cause some enforcement problems for the Planning Administrator. Loris Stanton felt that both the Board of Directors and Planning Commission had all they could handle and he felt that they should add at the end of paragraph (1) of the short form "and should be approved by the City Traffic Superintendent." He said the Traffic Superintendent could check this and make recommendations to the Planning Commission. After further discussion Ernest Jacks moved to forward to the Board of Directors a recommendation that the latter ordinance drawn up by the City Attorney which amends the Subdivision Regulations and that the words "and shall be approved by the City Traffic Superintendent" be added after paragraph (1). The motion, seconded by Peg Anderson, was approved unanimously. The next item concerned Mobile Home Park MOBILE HOME PARK REGULATIONS Regulations for unincorporated areas in Unincorporated Areas of Washington County, Arkansas. Washington County The County Planning Board recently found that the City was not regulating the development of mobile home parks- outside the City in the Planning Area. Budd Allen with the County Planning Board has requested some direction from the City Planning Commission as to whether they wish these to be regulated by the City or by the County. Vice -Chairman John Power appointed Donald Nickell, Jack Ray, and Peg Anderson to meet with Budd Allen concerning this and report back to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission February 10, 1976 OTHER BUSINESS Under ''Other Business!' was. a request.to maintain a single family residence and establish.a. telephone answering service at.3261 Martin Avenue under the provisions of Article 6, Section 3, Zoning Ordinance, submitted by. Jerry L. Napier. (Use Unit 3 is- a conditional use inthe Rel Zoning District,) Mr. Napier was present to represent. He told the Planning Commission that he was- experienced in radio communications and telephone answering since he did this type of workat the University of Arkansas and he would like to go into_ business for himself, He did not think there would be a traffic problem from this usage and said there would be ample parking on the parking lot at Wyatt's Cafeteria and Consumers Discount Grocery if additional parking was needed. In answer to Mr. Napier's question, some of the Commissioners explained that if this conditional use were approved for him, anyone else that might later buy his house along with the business would have to come before the Planning Commission for approval. Bobbie Jones said she explained to Mr. Napier that he could go before the Planning Commission with a conditional use request under Use Unit 3 in this zone or he could petition for a rezoning to R-0. She said they had some problems with a telephone answering service in a residence on Fritz Street, but she was not familiar with all of them. Mr. Napier stated that he was not interested in a rezoning since he lived in the area and would not want to see it change from the residential zoning. Donald Nickell told Mr. Napier that the Planning Commission could make a study of this and asked him if he would be interested in pursuing this business at another location if they could place it under a use unit. Mr. Napier replied that he would not be. He said the. purpose of having this business in his residence was to keep from having to call in a babysitter. Mr. Ed Jones, 101 Alice, (owns rental property immediately to the North of 3261 Martin) stated that he was opposed to this request since he felt it would open up the door to other businesses in that area. He said he wanted to see the area stay residential. It was the general concensus of the Planning Commission that this should not be allowed in the R-1 Zone regardless of being in favor of family type operations. Donald Nickell moved to deny the conditional use request, and it was seconded by Keith Newhouse. The motion to deny was unanimously approved. Mr. Nickell recommended that the Planning Commission put it on a later agenda to list this in a specific use unit. ELECTION OF OFFICERS The Planning Commission then took up the election of the following Planning Commission Officers: Chairman, Vice -Chairman, Secretary. At the January 27 meeting, the Nominating Committee nominated John Power as Chairman, Ernest Jacks as Vice -Chairman, and Rita Davis as Secretary. There being no other nominations heard, Donald Nickell moved that these members be approved by acclamation. The motion seconded by John Maguire was approved unanimously. APPOINTMENT'OF SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE John Power said the recommendation for the change in the number of members on the Subdivision Committee to 5 people rather than 3 would have to be approved by the Board of Directors, He did, however, appoint Ernest Jacks.as Chairman with -Bill Kisor and Keith Newhouse as two other members from the Planning Commission, Mr. Power suggested that they change the dates of the . MEETING DATES FOR MARCH Planning Commission meetings in March to thell5th and 29th because of the spring break at the University as well as the -,public schools. He felt they would have a better turn out at the meetings if this were done. Planning Commission February 10, 1976 -8- The rest of the Planning Commission agreed with_this decision. There was no further discussion, The meeting was adjourned at 5;54 P. M, • • RESOLUTION PC 9-76 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Fayetteville Planning Commission, Tuesday, February 10, 1976, fifteen (15) days after a notice was published in the Northwest Arkansas Times, a newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, after the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to make a recommendation to the Board of Directors on a proposed ordinance to amend Article IV, Section I, Appendix C, Subdivision Regulations, Fayetteville Code of Ordinances (Ordinance 1750 as amended by Ordinances 1998, 2061, 2044, 2073) to amend requirements for large scale development plans; 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 ordinance, attached hereto and made a part hereof, be adopted to amend Ordinance 1750 to amend requirements for large scale development plans. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 1976. APPROVED: John Power, Vice -Chairman • RESOLUTION PC 10-76 • • WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission, Tuesday, February 10, 1976, 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 R76-1, 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: 103 S. School, more particularly described as follows: A part of Block Number 34 of the original plat of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, described as beginning at a point which is 212 feet East of the Northwest corner of said block and running thence South 113 feet, thence East to the East line of the aforesaid block, thence North to the Northeast corner of said block, thence west to the place 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 , 1976. APPROVED: John Power, Vice -Chairman • • • RESOLUTION PC 11-76 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission, Tuesday, February 10, 1976, 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 R76-2, City of Fayetteville, Fayetteville School District. 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-2, Medium Density Residential District to P-1, Institutional District, said real estate. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: TRACT H: Bates Elementary School and Fayetteville High School East Campus located South of Stone Street, West of Buchanan Avenue, North of U. S. Highway 62 (West Sixth Street), and East of Garland Avenue or Stadium Road, more particularly described as follows: Part of SWk, SW44, Section 16, T -16-N, R -30-W, described as follows: Beginning at the NW corner of said 40 acre tract, and running, thence East 15 chains (990 ft); thence South 15 chains (990 ft); thence West 814 feet, more or less, to the centerline of Garland Avenue (also known as East Stadium Road); thence with the centerline of said road in a Northerly direction to the place of beginning, containing 20 acres, more or less, situate in the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. Also, part of the NW*, SWw, Section 16, T -16-N, R -30-W, more particularly described as beginning at the SW corner of said 40 acre tract and running thence North along the East right-of-way line of Garland Avenue to the South right-of-way line of Stone Street, thence Southeasterly along the South right-of-way line of Stone Street to the South line of said 40 acre tract, thence West along said South line of the We, SWw, Section 16 to the point of beginning, situate in the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. TRACT I: School Administration Offices, 1000 West Stone Street, more particularly described as follows: Part of the NW , SWt, Section 16, T -16-N, R -30-W described as follows: Beginning at a point 40 ft. North and 360 ft. East of the SW corner of said 40 acre tract, and running, thence North 420 feet; thence East 300 feet; thence South 420 feet; thence West 300 feet to the place of beginning, situate in the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. TRACT J: Harmon Play Field and surrounding properties, more particularly described as follows: Lots 7 through 12, inclusive, Block 6; Lots 7 through 11, inclusive, Block 7; All of Block 8; and all of Block 9, I.W. Duncan's Addition to the City of Fayetteville; Also, all of that part of Treadwell Street and Buchanan Avenue abutting upon the above described lots; Also, part of the NWy, SW4, Section 16, T -16-N, R -30-W, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point which is 660 feet East and 464 feet South of the NW corner of said 40 acre tract, and running, thence South 396 feet; thence West 4232 feet; thence North 396 feet; thence East 4232 feet to the place i rk Page 2. PC 11-76 of beginning. Also, Part of the NWt, SW44, Section 16, T -16-N, R -30-W, described as beginning at a point 40 poles (660 feet) South and 220 feet West of the NE corner of said 40 acre tract; thence West 380 feet; thence South 200 feet; thence East 380 feet; thence North 200 feet to the point of beginning, situate in the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. Also, Lots 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, and part of Lot 509 described as follows; to -wit: Beginning at the NE corner of Lot 510, and running, thence North to the North line of Lot 509, thence East to the NE corner of Lot 509, thence South to the SE corner of said Lot 509, thence West to the place of beginning, all in Oak Park Place, and Addition to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. Also, part of the NWw, SWt, Section 16, T -16-N, R -30-W, more particularly described as follows, to -wit: Beginning at a point 140 feet North and 330 feet West of the SE corner of said 40 acre tract, and running, thence North 320 feet, thence West 270 feet, thence North 200 feet, thence West 60 feet, thence South 520 feet, thence East 330 feet to the point of beginning. TRACT K: 904, 908, 936 & 938 West Stone Street, more particularly described as follows: Part of the NW,i, SWI, Section 16, T -16-N, R -30-W, described as, beginning at a point which is 660 feet East and 40 ft. North of the SW corner of said 40 acre tract, and running, thence North 100 feet; thence East 330 feet; thence South 100 feet; thence West 330 feet to the point of beginning, situate in the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. SECTION 2. That the above described property be rezoned from R-2, Medium Density Residential District to P-1, Institutional District, so that the petitioner may develope property accordingly. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 1976. APPROVED: John Power, Vice -Chairman RESOLUTION PC 12-76 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Planning Commission, Tuesday, February 10, 1976, fifteen (15) days after a notice was published in the Northwest Arkansas Times, a newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, after the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to make a recommendation to the Board of Directors on a proposed ordinance to amend Article IV, Section E, of Ordinance 1750, Appendix C to the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances. 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 ordinance, attached hereto and made a part hereof, be adopted for the purpose of amending Article IV, Section E, of Ordinance 1750, Appendix C to the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 1976. APPROVED: John Power, Vice -Chairman