Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-03-15 MinutesMINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held at 5:00 P.M., Monday, March 15, 1976, in the Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman John Power, John Maguire, Keith Newhouse, Donald Nickell, Ernest Jacks, Peg Anderson, Bill Kisor, Rita Davis, Jack Ray. MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: None. Planning Consultant Larry Wood, Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones, Administrative Assistant David McWethy, N. Elbert Carson, Mrs. William E. Stevens, Mrs. Helen Edmiston, Hugh Mills, Ervan Wimberly, Mary Hosmer, Mrs. K. C. Taylor, Bill Bequette, James Beard, Larry Froelich, Harlan K. Black, Attorney Marshall Carlisle, Ellis Bogan, Wells Bone, Jerre Van Hoose, James Ogden, Lee Taylor, Wade Bishop, Carl Beard, Barbara Westbrook, William Murphy, Kent L. Tharel, members of the Press, and others. Chairman John Power called the meeting to order. Ernest Jacks asked whether a resolution has been sent to the Board of RESOLUTION TO Directors yet requesting their guidance on future land use and zoning BOARD OF DIRECTORS in the area of Archibald Yell Boulevard. The Commission had voted to send the resolution at its February 24th meeting following the Board's approval of the H. L. Mathias Rezoning Petition for property at 221 South Block Avenue, overruling the Planning Commission's denial of the petition Chairman Power and Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones are to prepare the resolution and forward it to the Board as soon as possible. • Following the above discussion the minutes of the February 24, 1976 MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting were approved as mailed. Chairman Power opened the public hearing on Rezoning Petition R76-3, N. Elbert Carson and William E. Stevens, to rezone property located at 326 Watson Street and 330 North West Avenue (North of Watson Street and East of West Avenue) from R-0, Residential Office District, to I-1, Heavy Commercial $ Light Industrial District, or C-3, Central Commercial District. Mr. Elbert Carson, 520 Rebecca, and Mrs. William Stevens, 1301 Oak, were present to represent the petition. A Planning Report prepared by Planning Consultant Larry Wood had been mailed to the petitioners and Commissioners with the Agenda. Chairman Power noted that the Report listed three reasons why the C-3 District would not appear to significantly violate the General Plan recommendation and why the petition was recommended for approval to C-3. Mr. Carson and Mrs. Stevens indicated that rezoning to C-3 was acceptable to them. There was no one present to oppose the petition. The public hearing was closed. Keith Newhouse moved to recommend to the Board of Directors that Petition R76-3, Carson and Stevens, be approved to rezone the property to C-3, Central Commercial District. Ernest Jacks seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously. PETITION R76-3 N. ELBERT CARSON $ WILLIAM E. STEVENS 326 Watson Street 330 N. West Avenue Chairman Power opened the public hearing on Joan E. Hess, to rezone property located at from R-1, Low Density Residential District, Residential District. Rezoning Petition R76-4, PETITION R76-4 1926 North Gregg Avenue JOAN E. HESS to R-2, Medium Density 1926 N. Gregg Avenue • Planning Commission -2- March 15, 1976 Mrs. Helen Edmiston was present to represent the petition. Chairman Power noted that the Planning Report prepared by Planning Consultant Larry Wood and mailed to the petitioner and the Commissioners with the Agenda had recommended approval of the petition "to provide a buffer and transition strip " and "to aid in stabilizing property values in this area." Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones advised the Commission that the Planning Office had received two telephone calls from area property owners with questions as to what was proposed and that the callers had been advised to contact Mrs. Hess or Mrs. Edmiston's office. Mrs. Edmiston reported that her office was just handling the sale of the property and that it is contingent upon the rezoning being approved. Several area property owners were present. Hugh Mills, 1925 Yates, which property abuts the property requested for rezoning, asked what was proposed on the property and said valuable property bordering this could be affected by the wrong type of construction in this area. Ervan Wimberly stated that they had no definite plans for the property at this time; but said that tentative plans were for 8 to 12 units built with the apartments facing each other toward the center of the lot with 4 to 6 units on each side. He said they tentatively planned setbacks of approximately 75 or 80 feet from the rear (East) property line, and 25 ft. from the side property lines. He added that they plan to put the parking and trash containers in the front and to use the back of the lot for lawn and that there would be no driveway to the back at all. He said that 16 was the maximum number of units that could be put on the property because of setback and parking requirements. Mary Hosmer, 1915 Yates, stated she did not object to duplexes or something desirable, but did not want an apartment complex "in my back door" and that this would not be 50 ft. from her bedroom and den. She acknowledged that the plan outlined by Mr. Wimberly would be better than what is there now, but said that once the property is rezoned, there would be nothing to prevent them from building an apartment complex across the back. Mrs. K. C. Taylor, corner of Yates and Miller Streets, stated that this abuts her property and she was against the rezoning petition. Mrs. Edmiston stated that the property presently has a very run down rental house on it and that she did not believe anybody would build a nice home there. Mr. Wimberly said that this entire strip through there (along Gregg) is rental property now some new, some old. Ernest Jacks said that the area on Yates and where the people present live is a very nice, well -kept area compared to what is on Gregg. Hugh Mills stated that at the corner of Miller and Gregg construction of apartments was an improvement because there was a low area there that a series of apartments has added to, but that the value of the property adjoining it was not commensurate. The Commission discussed other townhouses and apartments along Gregg Avenue. Commissioner Peg Anderson stated that she planned to vote in favor of the rezoning because she feels "we" must look at property that faces each other as keeping on the same (zoning) but, as she had said previously, she is in favor of more dense population toward the center of town for energy and other reasons. Mrs. Anderson then moved to recommend to the Board of Directors that Rezoning Petition R76-4, Joan E. Hess, be approved to rezone the property from R-1 to R-2. Keith Newhouse seconded the motion. John Maguire asked if this would require any screening. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said that it would require screening of the parking area only. Rita Davis indicated she would be in favor of the petition if she knew there would be townhouses or some nice duplexes built there. The motion to recommend approval of the rezoning was approved by a vote of 6 - 3, with Maguire, Newhouse, Jacks, Power, Anderson and Kisor voting "Aye"; and Nickell, Davis and Ray voting "Nay." • i •. L Planning Commission -3- March 15, 1976 Chairman Power opened the public hearing on Rezoning Petition R76-5, Helen Edmiston, to rezone property located on the South side of Ash Street between Birch Avenue and Chestnut Avenue (unopened) from R-3, High Density Residential District, to I-1, Heavy Commercial $ Light Industrial District. Mrs. Helen Edmiston was present to represent the petition. Chairman Power noted that the Planning Report prepared by Planning Consultant Larry Wood and mailed to the petitioner and Commissioners with the Agenda recommended approval for the following three reasons: (1) "the zoning pattern and land use potential is consistent with the surrounding land use;" (2) "the light industrial land use will provide space for relocation of some activities that have been scattered throughout the City on the principal highways;" and (3) "the change to I-1 District will help relieve some of the residential density potential of this area and perhaps take some of the storm water runoff pressure from Skull Creek." Mrs. Anderson asked Mr. Wood to explain his third reason. He stated that what is happening is that they are leaving a lot more grass area with warehousing and industrial uses than the City would have with R-3 (development). Mrs. Anderson said that is a matter of judgement; there is a serious flood problem there and that there was water standing in Ash Street the other morning when she was over there. Mrs. Edmiston said she did not believe these lots were in the flood plain and that Ash Street is paved all the way across these lots, but acknowledged that Chestnut is not paved. There was no one present to oppose the petition. Donald Nickell commented that he was well pleased with what has gone in the present I-1 there. He then moved to recommend to the Board of Directors that Rezoning Petition R76-5, Helen Edmiston, be approved to rezone the property to I-1. Jack Ray seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously. PETITION R76-5 HELEN EDMISTON S. side Ash St. between Birch F, Chestnut Avenues fp. 4s4 Chairman Power opened the public hearing on Rezoning Petition R76-6, PETITION R76-6 Clyde F. Needham, to rezone property located West of Gregg Avenue, CLYDE F. NEEDHAM East of the S.L.S.F. Railroad, in the vicinity of Stone Street from West of Gregg, East I-1, Heavy Commercial $ Light Industrial District, to R-3, High Density of Railroad, Residential District. near Stone St. There was no one present either to represent the petition or to oppose it. Chairman Power pointed out that the Planning Report prepared by Planning Consultant Larry Wood and mailed to the petitioner and the Commissioners with the Agenda recommended against rezoning the property because, "The area in question lies between the railroad main line and a spur tract, is an older area of town and the homes are reaching the age where they soon will need replacing. Over the years this area has been allowed to develop with mixed land use (mostly industrial) which in "my" opinion no longer makes it a desirable place to live. Most of the area between the two tracks is zoned for industrial purposes even though the General Plan recommends high density residential, open space and public. Because of the industrial intrusion, the railroad tracks and the existing zoning pattern the requested R-3 District is not recommended." Ernest Jacks said that he was prepared to agree with Mr. Wood until he went by and looked at the area. He noted that there are apartments across the railroad tracks from the subject property and also a lot of apartment development North of this. Mr. Wood said that this is already zoned industrial between the two tracks, there is quite a bit of industrial (development) already in there, and that he thought the chances of changing that back to anything except industrial would be difficult. Also, he said he did not like to mix apartments and industrial up and down that corridor. Peg Anderson moved to recommend to the Board of Directors that Rezoning Petition R76-6, Clyde F. Needham, be approved to rezone the property to R-3. Ernest Jacks seconded the motion. Mrs. Anderson stated that this is within walking distance of the University, a nice long walk, and that she could not see industry going in there because it is too steep and too difficult for trucks to get in and out. Planning Commission -4- March 15, 1976 Nickell, Jacks, Anderson $ Kisor voted "Aye"; Maguire, Newhouse, Power, Davis and Ray voted "Nay." The petition was denied. Chairman Power opened the public hearing on Rezoning Petition R76-7, PETITION R76-7 Westark Real Estate $ Development Company, Inc., to rezone WESTARK REAL ESTATE $ property located on the South side of 24th Street (Country Club DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC Road). East of Grandview Apartments, from R-1, Low Density Country Club Rd.(24th St.: Residential District, to R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Bill Bequette was present to represent the petition. Chairman Power noted that the Planning Report prepared by Planning Consultant Larry Wood and mailed to the petitioner and the Commissioners with the Agenda recommended that the petition be approved because of the existing apartment complex to the West, the R-2 District to the East, because the application is consistent with the General Plan recommendation and would serve to provide close -in housing for the nearby industrial plants. Peg Anderson asked what the zoning of the strip that appeared to be between the R-2 to the West and the property in question is. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said that she had not checked it out, but felt sure that this was the result of a drafting error in putting the rezoning for the Grandview Apartments on the map. Mr. Bequette confirmed that they do have a common property line. Mrs. Anderson asked about the property being all dug up. Mr. Bequette said it had been used for fill and. that it will have to be leveled up and that they plan to "dress it down." He said they have had the property for about a year but have no definite plans for what to build on it. He said the terrain would be difficult to work with and they wanted to get the property rezoned before starting to plan what to do with it. He told Mr. Maguire that this property does lie pretty much below the top of the hill. John Maguire moved to recommend to the Board of Directors that Rezoning Petition R76-7, Westark Real Estate and Development Company, Inc., be approved. Bill Kisor seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. Chairman Power opened the public hearing on Rezoning Petition R76-8, PETITION R76-8 James E. Lindsey, to rezone property located on the Southeast corner JAMES E. LINDSEY of Leverett Avenue and North Street from R-3, High Density Residential North $ Leverett District, to R-0, Residential Office District. Chairman Power pointed out that this same property had been the subject of a previous petition to rezone it to C-1 which was denied by the Planning Commission and Board of Directors in 1972, was subsequently appealed by the petitioner all the way to the State Supreme Court where the City's decision was upheld. He also noted that the Planning Report prepared by Planning Consultant Larry Wood and mailed to the petitioner and Commissioners with the Agenda recommended the change from R-3 to R-0 because the uses permitted in the R-0 seem compatible with the existing and potential R-3 uses and because it should aid in stabilizing property values West of Leverett Avenue and discourage the commercial stripping of North Street. There was no one present either to represent the petition or to oppose it. Donald Nickell moved to recommend to the Board of Directors that Rezoning Petition R76-8, James E. Lindsey, be approved. Jack Ray seconded the motion. Chairman Power read into the minutes a memo from Jerry Sweetser who was unable to be present for the meeting. That memo, which follows in its entirety, is hereby made a part of these minutes: "March 15, 1976 "To: Fayetteville Planning Commission "Re: Leverett & North Streets i • Planning Commission -5- March 15, 1976 "As a property owner of property located near Leverett f North Street, I am very much in favor of Item No. 7, property located on the SE corner of Leverett Avenue $ North Street, being rezoned from R-3 to R-0. "I have a large investment in property near this area and would like to see this area upgraded by rezoning. "Please accept this memo in lieu of my presence. Signed• s/ Jerry D. Sweetser " Peg Anderson said that she thought the rezoning was a good idea; but that she did worry, because she had been on that street so many times when it had been flooded, about a lot of paving going in that would cause water to go over into the Church on the Northeast corner. Chairman Power said this could be watched for on the processing of a large scale development plan. The motion to recommend approval of the rezoning petition was approved unanimously. Chairman Power opened the public hearing on Rezoning Petition R76-9, Mrs. Allen Banks $ James Beard, to rezone property located on the Northwest corner of School Avenue and Mountain Street (9 South School Avenue) from R-0, Residential Office District, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Chairman Power pointed out that the Planning Report prepared by Planning Consultant Larry Wood and mailed to the petitioners and the Commissioners with the Agenda noted that this area has been the subject of several rezoning applications in the last six months and in the other applications, an extension from the downtown area along Mountain Street of convenience commercial to serve this residential area was recommended and based on that premise, this petition is also recommended for C-2. Ernest Jacks said that he wondered "where we are going down there." He remarked that the original concept of C-3, rung by R-0 and then high density residential, etc, thinning out gradually seemed to be a workable idea. He asked Larry Wood if that concept was still viable and if so where do we stop. Mr. Wood said that his recommendation on the last rezoning petition contained a note that this recommendation to extend C-2 on Mountain Street did not include a stripping of commercial along School, Locust, Block and East Avenues North and South from that point. He said he could see it expanding to include the property where the building was recently destroyed by fire on the Southwest corner of Center Street and School. Ernest Jacks asked why it could not be C-3, or was C-2 better. Mr. Wood said it could be C-3 as the setbacks are scant. He noted that it did not lie within the area which the Commission had recently indicated they could envision as future C-4. James Beard, 1941 West Berry Street, was present to represent the petition. He stated he was a prospective tenant of the building which he wanted to use for two purposes: (1) He wished to use part of it as a real estate office, and (2) They are distributors for windows and doors and do not presently have a showroom. He said the windows and doors come to them already assembled and ready for them to install and they planned to have the showroom upstairs and use the basement for storage of the windows and doors. He said they would use the Mountain Street side of the property for loading and unloading. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones told the Commission that "contract construction service " is listed in Use Unit 21 and is permitted in the I-1 District as a use by right and in the C-2 District on appeal to the Planning Commission, but that it would not be permitted in the C-3 District. Larry Froelich, 320 West Mountain Street, stated he had his home and office at that address and would prefer for the property in question to remain R-0. He added that in the two years he has been there, he has observed the area is going residential. PETITION R76-9 MRS. ALLEN BANKS $ JAMES BEARD 9 S. School Ave. Planning Commission -6- March 15, 1976 He said the "Peoples Inn" has been sold and is being redone and has more children around than he has ever seen before; also, the house next door to his and the two behind them both are residential. He added that down Mountain West of the restaurant (subject property) it is definitely residential. He said he believed changing the zoning to commercial would increase traffic on School which he felt is already too heavy. He said he did not oppose the rezoning across the street (Rodger Seratt) although he did not like the gas station because it had been a pre-existing "contrary" use; but he had "come down hard" on both Mr. Seratt and his attorney because of the noise they generate with squealing tires and racing motors. He said he felt the cafe was more consistent with the other uses such as the laundry, delicatessan, and beauty shop which attended to human needs rather than mechanical needs. Mr. Beard said their business hours would be from 9:00 to 5:00 and he was sure a restaurant would have a lot more traffic than he would have. Peg Anderson said she felt it was bad not to have any more services near the highrise (Hillcrest Towers). She then moved to deny the request of Rezoning Petition R76-9, Banks $ Beard, to rezone the property from R-0 to C-2. Rita Davis seconded the motion. . Anderson, Davis and Ray voted "Aye"; Maguire, Newhouse, Nickell, Jacks, Power and Kisor voted "Nay." The motion to deny the petition failed to pass. Bill Kisor then moved to recommend to the Board of Directors that Rezoning Petition R76-9, Banks $ Beard, be approved. John Maguire seconded the motion. Maguire, Jacks, Power, Kisor, Newhouse and Nickell voted "Aye"; Anderson, Davis and Ray voted "Nay". The motion was approved 6 - 3. Chairman Power opened the public hearing on Rezoning Petition R76-10, PETITION R76-10 City of Fayetteville, to rezone three school properties. CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE Chairman Power asked Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones if there School properties had been any opposition to any of the school rezonings. She said there had been some people in the Office on "Tract_L", Root School. There was no one present on behalf of the Fayetteville Public School District. There was no one present to oppose the rezoning of "Tract M", Woodland Junior TRACT M High School and Richardson Center (Washington County School for Trainable WOODLAND JR HI. Children) located South of Poplar Street, East of Woodland Avenue, North of Ash Street, and East of Green Acres Road, to rezone from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to P-1, Institutional District. There was no one present to oppose the rezoning of "Tract N", Jefferson TRACT N Elementary School, located South of Sixth Street, North of Seventh JEFFERSON ELEM. Street, East of South College Avenue, and West of South Willow Avenue, from R-2, Medium Density Residential District, to P-1, Institutional District. Ernest Jacks moved to recommend to the Board of Directors that "Tract M", Woodland Junior High School and Richardson Center, and "Tract N", Jefferson Elementary School, be rezoned from R-1, Low Density Residential District, and R-2, Medium Density Residential District, respectively, to P-1, Institutional District. Bill Kisor seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously. The last parcel of school owned property to be considered was "Tract L" TRACT L Root Elementary School, located South of Highway 45 (Mission Boulevard) ROOT ELEMENTARY and East of Eastwood Drive, to rezone from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to P-1, Institutional District. Harlan K. Black, 1505 Mission (across Eastwood Avenue from the rezoning proposal), asked what the school plans to do with that property. Larry Wood explained that this process started about a year and a half ago and was an effort of the Planning Commission and Board of Directors to recognize public properties by rezoning them to P-1. Mr. Black said that several months ago, he had obtained copies of drawings proposing two tennis courts across the street from him on the corner of Eastwood and Mission. He said he did not object to tennis courts, but was opposed to lighted tennis courts Planning Commission -7- March 15, 1976 or a parking lot. He also said that every tennis court he had ever seen had wind screens and one at that location would be a safety factor. 411/ Ervan Wimberly, McClelland Consulting Engineers, said that the City's Parks and Recreation Committee had proposed the tennis courts in anticipation of BOR funds, but that those funds were not now available. He said the BOR projects always included more than they expected to get approved and that as funds become available the Committee does plan to do more on those projects. Rita Davis said that she understood that the thinking had been that the City would have its recreational areas in connection with its grade schools.. After some discussion, Peg Anderson moved to recommend to the Board of Directors that "Tract L", Root Elementary School be rezoned from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to P-1, Institutional District. Rita Davis seconded the motion. Some of the other Commissioners expressed a desire to table the matter until March 29 and request someone from the School District attend that meeting to answer the questions of the neighbors. Chairman Power asked Mrs. Anderson and Mrs. Davis if they wished to withdraw their motion and second. Mrs. Anderson stated that she did not want to withdraw her motion. It was pointed out that if a vote were taken on the matter and the motion failed to pass, it would require the unanimous consent of the Planning Commission to consider it again within the next 12 months. Thereupon Mrs. Anderson and Mrs. Davis withdrew their motion and second. Ernest Jacks moved to table "Tract L", Root Elementary School, until March 29, 1976, and to send a request to the School Board that they have a representative attend that meeting. Bill Kisor seconded the motion. Maguire, Newhouse, Nickell, Jacks, Power, Kisor, Davis and Ray voted "Aye". Anderson voted "Nay." The motion to table this tract was approved. 411 The large scale development plan and conditional use request PARADISE VALLEY GOLF COURSE for a new club house for the Paradise Valley Golf Course 3728 Old Missouri Road at 3728 Old Missouri Road submitted by Ellis Bogan, had been Conditional Use 4 tabled February 24, 1976, so that Attorney Marshall, Large Scale Development Plan Planning Commission Chairman John Power, and Planning Commissioner Ernest Jacks could contact the property owners across Old Missouri Road to the West and across Joyce Street to the North in an effort to obtain all of the additional right-of-way needed to bring those streets up to Major Street Plan requirements from the North and West sides of those streets. The Major Street Plan proposes an 80 ft. right-of-way for Joyce Street and a 60 ft. right-of-way for Old Missouri Road. Mr. Carlisle said that as best as could be determined, they both presently have 40 ft. of right-of-way. Mr. Carlisle said that since this is a new building, the City has interpreted this to be a "subdivision". He questioned whether this was a correct interpretation, saying this is a new building on land owned by Mr. Bogan which exceeds one acre, therefore it has to be a large scale development, and that the ordinance requires the giving to the City of right-of-way to comply with the Major Street Plan. He said he had talked to Oscar Wilson whose house is 30 ft. from the pavement of Old Missouri Road about giving right-of-way and had received a very vociferous "No!" He said he had been unable to contact the Baileys, but that one of their houses is as close to Joyce Street as Mr. Wilson's is to Old Missouri Road. He pointed out that there is a high pressure gas line on the East side of Old Missouri Road which would have to be moved if the street were ever widened and it was his understanding the City would have to pay the cost of such relocation. Mr Carlisle, on behalf of Mr. Bogan, requested that the City be authorized to issue his building permit. Chairman Power asked whether any building permit had been issued by the City yet and was told none has been issued. He asked whether Harold Lieberenz, Inspection Superintendent, had issued a violation notice on the storage and maintenance structure which Mr. Lieberenz had requested the Planning Commission to consider as an amendment to Mr. Bogan's large scale development plan. • Planning Commission -8- March 15, 1976 It was acknowledged that Mr. Lieberenz had issued a violation notice to Mr. Bogan for starting construction without a permit. Ernest Jacks said that it was his understanding that they had felt that Mr. Bogan could deed 10 ft. along Joyce Street without disturbing anything and if we could get 10 ft. from the Baileys on the other side, it would bring Joyce Street up to 60 ft. of right-of-way; and if we.could-get 5 ft. of additional right-of-way off each side of Old Missouri Road, it would bring that right-of-way up to 50 ft. which might work. Mr. Carlisle said he could not say at this time that Mr. Bogan is willing to give the 10 ft. Jack Ray moved that this request be approved. He added, "As I sit here and listen to this, I see absolutely no reason why this man should be jeopardized in erecting the club house out there when it is fairly obvious, based on what Mr. Carlisle said, the adjoining property owners to the streets in question across the street certainly don't want to give any right-of-way. Now, this golf course has been in existance for approximately 9 to 10 years. I don't know, really, much more of a traffic problem now than there was at that time. The way I see this, I believe that as far as the widening process is concerned, it is going to be a matter for the courts to decide when the time comes up." Mr. Ray also asked if he was correct in that a large scale development was not considered in the same manner as a subdivision in which right-of-way and easements are required. Ernest Jacks and Chairman Power both agreed that a large scale development also required the right-of-way. Chairman Power said he felt that Larry Wood's comments regarding the fact that Joyce would probably handle some heavy traffic in the future was the critical comment. Larry Wood stated that Joyce Street is actually a principal arterial on the Major Street Plan. Mr. Bogan said that Highway 265 is a 2 -lane highway and he did not feel the State would ever widen it. He asked why bring 4 lanes into a bottleneck and where would all this traffic come from to get onto Joyce Street. Chairman Power explained that the Commission was not looking at today, or a year from now, or necessarily 5 years from now; but that when the City set up the Major Street Plan the way the City saw it, the City had taken the position that some day this street will have enough traffic, but that he did not know whether it warrants a 60 ft. right-of-wayor an 80 ft. right-of-way because he was not an engineer. He admitted that it might have to be decided in the courts, but pointed out that the Planning Commission is set up to attempt to work with the City and with the design set out for the City and for the future. He said he did not have a solution, but could not see letting this go through as a 40 ft. street at this time without any further dedication. He added that he was not opposed to the Old Missouri Road situation as he_now saw some things that the Commission had not realized before, such as the gas line and the tree line; but he was somewhat opposed to the situation on Joyce. He said he was not to say whether the right-of-way should be 50, 60, 70, or 80 ft., but that the City has not had any give or take from the property owners on either side of Joyce Street. Mr. Bogan said that if the City takes 20 ft. off him it will put him out of business and asked who would compensate him for that. Chairman Power admitted he did not know. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said that since this is on the Major Street Plan, only the Board of Directors can waive it; the Planning Commission may recommend that they waive it, but only the Board can waive it. Mr. Bogan stated he was not aware of the proposed Major Street Plan at the time of the public hearings held on it. Mr. Carlisle said this was not the problem; however, the problem is that the City is now forcing the property owner to give his land away. He said to him that is a drastic error on the City's part. Jack Ray said, "To be brutally honest, in my opinion;it is coercion, I think." Mrs. Anderson said that she had noticed that work is continuing on the new club house as well as construction down farther without a permit which she termed questionable procedure. • Planning Commission -9- March 15, 1976 John Maguire seconded the motion made by Jack Ray to approve this request. He expressed his reasons as follows: "Basically I feel the City is in jeopardy asking this man to give right-of-way when we cannot obtain and are not getting free right - of way across the street from him simultaneously with his building proposal. It makes no sense to me whatsoever to ask Mr. Bogan to give 5 feet or 10 feet and then possibly run into a situation where the society as a whole desires to widen Joyce Street; and lo and behold, we find out that we have to go out and: condemn the man's property on the North side, which we certainly could, and pay him damages and in the meantime, due to coercion, we have asked Mr. Bogan to give up his property without any payment whatsoever. If Fayetteville, as a society, desires to build a 15 -lane road out there, then I think the society should pay for the 15 - lane road; I don't think Mr. Bogan should pay for it individually." Peg Anderson stated that she was very sympathetic to it, but she did feel that a Planning Commission has to look for the future and look to things and she did not see any way that the Commission could deny the aspects of the Major Street Plan on this particular one. Chairman Power asked Mr. Ray and Mr. Maguire if their motion and second was basically to approve the conditional use request for the club house at this time. Both Mr. Ray and Mr. Maguire stated that the motion was to approve the large scale development plan with 40 ft. of right-of-way, or whatever exists out there now, and to recommend to the Board a waiver of the additional right-of-way require- ments on Joyce Street and Old Missouri Road. Jack Ray said to let the problem of additional right-of-way,when it comes up be handled however it becomes neccessary, condemnation proceedings It was the opinion of the Planning Administrator and the understanding of the Planning Commission that all the Commission could do on the matter of right-of- way was recommend to the Board of Directors that a waiver be granted. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said that the conditional use request should be addressed in a separate motion and that the Commission's decision on the conditional use request could not be appealed to the Board of Directors and did not have to be approved by the Board of Directors, and also could only be appealed to a court of law. Commissioners voting in favor of approving the large scale development plan and recommending a waiver of the requirements for additional street right-of-way were Maguire, Newhouse, Power, Kisor, Davis and Ray. Those voting against the motion were Nickell, Jacks, and Anderson. Jack Ray moved to approve the conditional use request. Bill Kisor seconded the motion. Chairman Power noted that Harold Lieberenz had requested that this be amended to include approval of the storage and maintenance building which Mr. Bogan had started without a permit. It was agreed to include this in the motion. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones stated that she was aware that Mr. Bogan also plans to relocate the existing club house but she did not know where. She asked if the motion could be amended to allow this to be handled administratively rather than Mr. Bogan having to come back before the Commission. Mr. Bogan indicated that he did not know whether he would move it or tear it down. The motion to approve the conditional use request was approved unanimously. Wells Bone was present to represent his conditional use request for a tandem lot at 1415 Mission Boulevard, zoned R-1. Ernest Jacks said he thought the tandem lot ordinance was designed WELLS BONE 1415 Mission Tandem Lot specifically to handle this type of situation. He advised Mr. Bone that he could not further divide this tandem lot and that it has to be a single lot. Mr. Jacks then moved to approve the conditional use request of Wells Bone for a tandem lot at 1415 Mission Boulevard. Peg Anderson seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously. There was no one present to oppose the request. • • • Planning Commission -10-- March 15, 1976 A conditional use request to place a broadcasting transmitter on the KKEG existing tower at 3033 North. College Avenue had been submitted 3033 N. College by Little Chief Broadcasting Company of Fayetteville, Inc., dba Conditional Use KKEG Radio The property is zoned C-2. There was no one present to represent the request. Administrative Assistant David McWethy said that it was his understanding that the transmitting facilities have been moved to share the facilities of Radio Station KFAY. Jack Ray moved to table the request until March 29; Donald Nickell seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously. A conditional use request to locate a roofing company at PRAIRIE GROVE ROOFING CO., INC. 302 West Sixth Street had been submitted by Prairie 302 W. Sixth Grove Roofing Company, Inc. Roofing contractors are permitted Conditional Use in the C-2 Zone (under Use Unit 21) only on appeal to the Planning Commission. There was no one present either to represent the request or to oppose it. Bill Kisor moved to grant the conditional use request of Prairie Grove Roofing Company, Inc.; Jack Ray seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously. The next item for consideration was the Preliminary Plat of BROOKSIDE EAST Brookside East (Subdivision) to be located North and East of Preliminary Plat Winwood Drive and South of Old Wire Road submitted by Kelley Brothers. A preliminary plat had been approved on August 19, 1971, but under the terms of Article II, Section B, Subdivision Ordinance 1750, that approval had expired one year later. Wells Bone, Kelley Brothers, and Jerre Van Hoose, McGoodwin,Williams 8 Yates; were present to represent the proposed plat. Ernest Jacks gave the Subdivision Committee report. He told the Commission that at the time Brookside East was presented in 1971 the developers had planned two subdivisions, Brookside East on the South side of the creek and Azalea Terrace on the North side of the creek. The developers had, at that time, worked out an agreement with the City in which the City would participate in the cost of bridging the creek and the two subdivisions would have been connected by a street, also known as Azalea Terrace, which would have extended all the way out to Old Wire Road. The development of Brookside East has only one connection back to Winwood Drive by way of Bois de Arc Lane. Jerre Van Hoose said that he thought Azalea Terrace (street) would be built on out to Old Wire Road by the time there was any significant development in Brookside East. Mr. Bone said that Kelley Brothers was prepared to build the bridge across the creek at anytime the City was. He said the cost would amount to $16,000 for Kelley Brothers and $12,000 for the City. He asked whether it would be acceptable for Kelley Brothers to put up a bond for the entire cost of the bridge and let the City pay them back the $12,000 when the City had funds available. David McWethy said that the City does not have the funds available at this time and it will have to be a Board of Directors decision as to when they do have them. A lengthy discussion ensued in which the difficulty of getting fire fighting equipment into this subdivision without an access to Old Wire Road was mentioned, as well as the traffic load another 102 residential lots would put on the already overloaded streets in Winwood Subdivision. Chairman Power and Ernest Jacks indicated they were not willing to approve this subdivision plat with the only access into it being Bois de Arc Lane. Mr. Bone again said they planned to construct the connection to Bois de Arc Lane and were willing to build the bridge and have the City pay them back later. Some of the Commissioners mentioned that if the City never got the funds he "might end up holding the bag." Bill Kisor moved to approve the preliminary plat of Brookside East. David McWethy told Mr. Bone the City would have the funds to participate on the bridge now if the lumber companies had not defeated the sales tax proposal in the election. • • Planning Commission -11- March 15, 1976 Mr. Kisor's motion died for lack of a second. Ernest Jacks stated that the bridge was only one of the primary problems. He told the Commission that City Street Superintendent Clayton Powell has recommended that with this subdivision the portion of the extension of Township Road abutting this property be constructed with one-half of a street (22 ft. of pavement with curb, gutter and sidewalk on one side). Mr. Jacks reported that City Manager Don Grimes had met with the Subdivision Committee and was not in favor of this idea, but would prefer that Kelley Brothers give the City a bond or contract that would contribute half of the cost of the development of Township Road at the call of the City. Mr. Bone said that they had given the land (30 ft. of right-of-way) to the City but were not willing to participate in the cost of building Township Road. He asked how they could figure the cost for a bond for a street to be built ten years from now. Chairman Power said he could recall other instances where the Commission had denied people who wanted access out of Winwood. He said he had received phone calls from the people in the Winwood area expressing concern over this. Bobbie Jones and Ernest Jacks explained to the Commission that the Street Superintendent's recommendation involved a change in policy because of the City's present financial circumstances. Heretofore, the dedication for major streets has been required, but not their improvement. Mr. Powell has recommended that, based on a collector street with four 11 -foot lanes, the developer construct 22 ft. of street with a curb, gutter and sidewalk on one side and the parabolic crown centered in the center of the future street. Mrs. Jones said she did not know what the feeling of the Board of Directors toward this idea would be. The Plat Review Minutes also indicated a need for a waiver of street light spacing in an instance or two; however, it was not determined if that was still applicable. Bill Kisor moved to approve the Preliminary Plat of Brookside East Subdivision provided the bridge is constructed, either with a contract with the City, or by the developer's, prior to the development of the subdivision to provide two accesses to the subdivision. Mr. Kisor explained that his motion did not include any require- ments for the developers to participate in the improvement of Township Road. Ernest Jacks seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously. The next item was the proposed "Villa North", a mobile home park to be located on the 20 acres immediately North of the existing Villa Mobile VILLA NORTH Home Park, West of College Avenue, and South of Bishop Addition and MOBILE HOME PARK Country Lane Mobile Home Park, submitted by Holley -Ogden Conditional Use Enterprises, Inc. This is submitted both as a conditional use Preliminary Plat and as a preliminary plat containing dedication of easements and street rights-of-way. Lee Taylor with Taylor Engineering and James Ogden were present to represent the proposal. Ernest Jacks moved to approve the conditional use request to construct a mobile home park on this R-2 zoned property. John Maguire seconded the motion. Chairman Power explained to them that it was his understanding that if the Commission wanted to attach any conditions to the approval of this development, it should be done when the conditional use was approved rather than when the plat was approved. He felt the motion premature. Mr. Jacks and Mr. Maguire withdrew their motion and second. Ernest Jacks gave the Subdivision Committeereport. He said this also involves a recommendation by the City Street Superintendent to construct half of a street. He said the access into this is Villa Boulevard from the South and that it will • tie into Peg Lane in Bishop Addition. The original Villa Mobile Home Park has 141 spaces in it and this one proposes 91, for a total of 232. Mr. Jacks said Mr. Bishop objected to bringing traffic through his subdivision. Also, a waiver of the minimum jog distance between street intersections would be needed between where Peg Lane and Arroyo would intersect with Hacienda. There had also been some A Planning Commission -12- March 15, 1976 concern expressed at the number of streets intersecting into Hacienda (a collector) at somewhat closer intervals than usual. The developers were also asking for a waiver on the street light spacing from 300 ft. to something like 480 ft. between lights which would only be at intersections of streets; and they were asking for a waiver of the screening requirements which would require a 5 to 8 foot high view obscuring fence or hedge along Hacienda Street. Mr. Ogden said in his case they have agreed to build the half a street (Hacienda) He told the Commission he had been through Plat Review twice and what they were reviewing was the result of the recommendations of that Committee. He said his lay out would have been different had it not been for the collector street required along the North and the other recommendations of the Plat Review Committee. He emphasized that not only did he plan to build half the street, but also to dedicate a 30 ft. wide right-of-way 1,320 feet long. He said the proposal met not only the new mobile home park ordinance, but also the subdivision ordinance. He said this would be primarily "manufactured housing" with some mobile homes and that he planned to use low shrubbery along Hacienda in lieu of the screening if granted a waiver on that. Chairman Power asked Mr. Ogden if he had ever been able to secure any other outlet to College Avenue. Mr. Ogden said the half a street he was planning to build was part of an East-West collector street that was to eventually tie to both College Avenue and Johnson Road, but that he did not presently have plans for extending it on to College Avenue. It would tie into Peg Lane. Chairman Power indicated that in the past this might have been acceptable, but not now with the development of Bishop Addition. Wade Bishop, Developer of Bishop Addition and Peg Lane, was present and said he opposed putting this high density traffic through his residential street. He said he has built 3 -bedroom, 2 -bath homes in his subdivision selling for around $28,000 to $31,000 and this traffic would ruin his subdivision. He said he had dedicated 30 ft. for the proposed collector street at the time he filed his subdivision. Kent Tharel, 2909 Peg Lane, opposed the proposal. He said he had talked to other families on Peg Lane who were also opposed. He felt that people in the mobile home park who wanted to go North or West to Springdale, the Mall, Johnson Road, and the By-pass would use Peg Lane. He said that Appleby Road is unpaved, there are two very bad corners on it, the intersection of Bishop and Appleby is a blind intersection from 3 ways, and that Appleby Road is inadequate to serve the needs it is now required to serve. Carl Beard, 2922 Peg Lane, also opposed the proposal saying that Appleby Road going toward Johnson Road is so narrow you cannot even pass on it and it also has a very narrow and very poor bridge just before you get to Johnson Road. He also opposed the additional traffic the mobile home park would put on Peg Lane. Mr. Bishop said he had measured the width of Villa Boulevard which is already constructed and it is 231/2 feet between the curbs. He said most of the people in the existing mobile home park have 2 cars and this proposal would put 75% more cars on the street to the South. He said again that they would destroy his area if they used it for access. He said Appleby Road has a one -lane bridge going to College Avenue as well as the one already mentioned going to Johnson Road. He felt the City should take steps to rectify the dangerous conditions on Appleby Road. Barbara Westbrook, 2892 Peg Lane, opposed the proposal for the same general reasons already given by the others. She said it would cause a definite problem. Rita Davis said she was disturbed over being asked to allot a 20 acre tract to a conditional use. She said the size of the tract made a difference to her. John Maguire pointed out the fact that the property is zoned R-2 and raised the question of how many apartment units Mr. Ogden could build on 20 acres. He also said he did not think Mr. Bishop would oppose Mr. Ogden if he were proposing to build single family homes and he could get almost as many single family home on the property as the number of mobile homes he is proposing. He said he doubted if any of the people who had bought out there were aware that a collector street was proposed South of them. • • Planning Commission -13- March 15, 1976 Mr. Ogden said he thoughtHacienda was the answer to the problem and he thought he was the key since he had agreed bothto dedicate and to build his half of the street along his property.. He said he thought the residents of the mobile home park would prefer to go out Villa on a paved street rather than use the unpaved Appleby Road. William Murphy, Owner of Country Lane Mobile Home Park on Appleby Road, said he owned property North of the proposed mobile home park and has 1200 feet running East and West along the proposed collector street. He said he would be happy to dedicate 30 ft. of right-of-way at anytime someone else wants to build the street. He said his property does not extend all the way to Highway 71, but comes within 200 to 300 feet of it. He indicated he was not willing to build half of the street. John Maguire asked Mr. Ogden if he had explored the possibility of getting the right- of-way for the full 60 ft. all the way to College Avenue by working with Mr. Murphy and Mr. Wilkinson to the East of his property. Mr. Ogden said he thought any of them would be willing to give the right-of-way, but having the right-of-way did not get the street built. Mr. Murphy suggested the street might go East-West through his and Mr. Wilkinson's property, then turn South and follow the gas main back out to College Avenue somewhere near the Salvation Army store. Mr. Bishop indicated they would withdraw their objections if there was an access to either College Avenue or Johnson Road, preferably both. Mr. Newhouse and Mr. Wood asked Mr. Ogden about cul de sacing some of the interior streets. Mr. Ogden said he had originally planned cul de sacs, but the Fire Chief and Sanitation Superintendent had requested he eliminate them. Mr. Ogden said there had never been an accident on Villa Boulevard and he thought the turn lane on College Avenue helped the situation there. Mrs. Westbrook pointed out that people in a mobile home park were in a sort of controlled situation. If they were to speed within the park, they would be reported and asked to move, but in subdivisions they were not patrolled constantly. Bobbie Jones pointed out that the proposal also does not meet the minimum 8% recreation area requirement of the mobile home park ordinance. He planned to use the recreation area in the original park for both parks and she said she was not sure how close this came to meeting the requirement. Keith Newhouse moved to approve the conditional use request. Peg Anderson seconded the motion. Chairman Power said he was also in favor of the conditional use, but not until there is an access out to College Avenue besides what is existing (Villa Boulevard) and a small road to the North. He said he was for better access to College Avenue or Johnson Road, or both. Chairman Power requested that Mr. Newhouse amend his motion to read that until we are able to get out onto either Highway 71 or Johnson Road, that the Commission deny any development until this has been worked out Mr. Newhouse stated that he would withdraw his motion in favor of the amended one Chairman Power had voiced. Mr. Newhouse said he thought there should be some solution on the access problem, but he also wanted some clarification on the half of a street. He said with no idea on when the other half would be built, he thought it would just be an eyesore and a tough problem to maintain. Mrs. Anderson also withdrew her second to Mr. Newhouse's motion. John Maguire asked whether it is possible for Mr. Ogden and Mr. Murphy to agree on building Villa Boulevard due North to intersect with Appleby Road. Mr. Ogden said he would be happy to do that, but it would just be another Bishop Lane. He said he could do that and not build Hacienda, but just dedicate the easement for it. Mr. Maguire said he could build Villa and also tie into Peg Lane. Mr. Ogden said he still thought Clayton Powell had the right idea. Chairman Power moved that the conditional use request be approved, but only on condition that additional ingress and egress to Highway 71 can be obtained over and above what has been proposed here today. Donald Nickell seconded the motion. Those voting in favor of the motion were Jacks, Davis, Kisor, Power, Ray, Maguire and Newhouse. Planning Commission -14- March 15, 1976 Those voting against the motion were Anderson and Nickell. The conditional use request was approved. John Maguire stated he would vote in favor of the preliminary plat with an adequate road such as Villa Boulevard extended on to Appleby Road. Mr. Ogden said if he comes back to the Commission with Villa extended on to Appleby Road, he would not build the one half of a street on Hacienda. Ernest Jacks moved to approve the preliminary plat and to waive the minimum street light spacing from 300 ft. to around 500 ft. as shown, to waive the minimum jog distance between street intersections from 150 ft. to 65 ft. Rita Davis seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously. After checking the mobile home park ordinance, Larry Wood told the Commission that he thought the 8% minimum recreation area and the screening requirement could only be waived by the Housing Board, although the Commission could make a recommendation to them if they wished. The Commission did not choose to make such a recommendation. The next item was the proposed Final Plat of College Market COLLEGE MARKET ADDITION Addition, a commercial subdivision, to be located West of Final Plat Trinity Temple, East of Malco Theatre, and North of Rolling Hills Drive, submitted by Johnie Bassett. Ervan Wimberly of McClelland Engineers was present to represent the proposal. Ernest Jacks reported that everything on the plat was in order except that Mr. Wimberly needed to remove the rear yard setback shown on Lots 1, 2, 3 4 4 because there is an easement there of greater width. Mr. Jacks moved that the Final Plat of College Market Addition be recommended to the Board of Directors for approval. Jack Ray seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. At the request of Chairman Power, the report by Commissioner Jacks of a COMMITTEE committee meeting held to study parking and fencing requirements as contained REPORTS in the Zoning Ordinance and a report from the committee appointed to meet with the County Planning Board on mobile home park regulations outside the City but inside the Planning Area were both tabled until March 29, 1976. Chairman Power also asked that the March 29 Agenda have on it a letter he CITY -COUNTY had received from City Manager Don Grimes regarding a conflict between the ROAD City and County road standards within the Planning Area jurisdiction. STANDARDS There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 P.M. • • RESOLUTION PC 14-76 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission, Monday, March 15, 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 R76-3, N. Elbert Carson and William E. Stevens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVIJJE, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That an ordinance be adopted for the purpose of rezoning from R-0, Residential -Office District to C-3, Central Business Commercial District, said real estate. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 326 Watson and 330 North West Avenue, more particularly described as follows: Part of Lot 4, Block 6, County Court Addition, City of Fayetteville, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point which is 407.56 feet East and 917.52 feet South of NW corner of NWt of NEk of Sec. 16, T -16-N, R -30-W, which point is 1 foot North and 1 foot East of the intersection of the East edge of present sidewalk on the East side of West Street and North edge of present sidewalk on North side of Watson Street and running thence East 100 ft, thence N 60 ft, thence West 100 ft, thence South 60 ft, to the place of beginning. Also, beginning ata point on the North line of Watson Street which is 92 feet West and 64.75 feet South of the Northeast corner of said Lot 4, running thence West 67.71 feet, thence North 60 feet, thence East 67.71 feet, thence South 60 feet to the place of beginning. SECTION 2. That the above described property be rezoned from R-0, Residential -Office District to C-3, Central Business Commercial District, so that the petitioner may develope property accordingly. PASSED AND APPROVED this APPROVED: day of , 1976. John Power, "' -1 Chairman • • 1 RESOLUTION PC 15-76 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission, Monday, March 15, 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 R76-4, Joan E. Hess. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVIJ.TF, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That an ordinance be adopted for the purpose of rezoning from R-1, Low Density Residential District to R-2, Medium Density Resi- dential District, said real estate. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 1926 Gregg, more particularly described as follows: Lot five (5) and the South forty-one and two tenths (41.2) feet of Lot six (6) in Block two (2) of the revised plat of Lots three (3) to nine (9), inclusive of Block six (6), in Parker's Plat of Valley View Acres, as per plat on file in the office of the Circuit Clerk and Ex -Officio Recorder of Washington County, Arkansas. SECTION 2. That the above described property be rezoned from R-1, Low Density Residential District to R-2, Medium Density Residential District, so that the petitioner may develope property accordingly. PASSED AND APPROVED this APPROVED - day of , 1976. John Power, Chairman RESOLUTION PC 16-76 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission, Monday, March 15, 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 R76-5, Helen Edmiston. 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-3, High Density Residential District to I-1, Heavy Commercial and Tight Industrial District, said real estate. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 1 - 6, Block 11, Parker's Plat of Valley View Acres SECTION 2. That the above described property be rezoned from R-3, High Density Residential District to I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial District, so that the petitioner may develope property accordingly. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 1976. APPROVED: John Power, Chairman RESOLUTION PC 17-76 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Planning Commission, Monday, March 15, 1976, fifteen (15) days after a sign was erected on 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 the petition of Clyde F. Needham, R76-6 for rezoning; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That the petition requesting the rezoning of property described below, from I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial District to R-3, High Density Residential District, be denied. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: • Lands in Lot 3, County Court Plat of the SE, SW of Section 16, T -16-N, R -30-W, County of Washington, State of Arkansas. SECTION 2. That the rezoning of the above described real estate would not presently be desirable. PASSED AND APPROVED this APPROVED: day of , 1976. John Power, Chairman • • • RESOLUTION PC 18-76 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission, Monday, March 15, 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 R76-7, Westark Real Estate and Dev. Co, 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-1, Low Density Residential District to R-2, Medium Density Resi- dential District, said real estate. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SW4 of the NEI of Section 28, in T -16-N, R -30-W, in the City of Fayetteville, Washington County, Arkansas, more parti- cularly described as follows; to -wit: Beginning at a point which lies South 2° 51' 30" West 60 feet from the NE corner of said forty acre tract, said point of beginning being on the East line of said forty acre tract and on the South right-of-way line of 24th Street; thence South 2° 51' 30" West with the East line of said forty acre tract 930 feet; thence South 72° 04' West 298.45 feet; thence South 2° 51' 30" West 220 feet to the South line of said forty acre tract; thence North 86° 18' West with said South line 1041.5 feet to the Southwest corner of said forty acre tract; thence North 20 52' 30" East with the West line of said forty acre tract 224.04 feet; thence North 76° 32' 13" East 270.06 feet; thence North 130 37' 12" East 151.35 feet; thence North 53° 58' 58" East 626.12 feet; thence North 5° 00' 35" East 415.02 feet to the South right-of-way line of 24th Street; thence Easterly with said South line approxi- mately 530 feet to the point of beginning, containing 23.12 acres, more or less. =ION 2. That the above described property be rezoned from R-1, Low Density Residential District to R-2, Medium Density Residential District, so that the petitioner may develope property accordingly. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 1976. APPROVED: John Power, Chairman RESOLUTION PC 19-76 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission, Monday, March 15, 1976, fifteen (15) days after a sign was erected upon the property and after a notice wes 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 R76-8, James E. Lindsey. 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-3, High Density Residential to R-0, Residential -Office District, said real estate. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Leverett and North Streets, described as follows: Part of the NE4 of the SWy of Section 9, T -16-N, R -30-W, described as beginning at the NW corner of said 40 acre tract, and running, thence South 500 feet, thence East 420 feet; thence in a Northwesterly direction 570 feet to a point on the North line of said 40 acre tract which is 260 feet East of the Northwest corner of said 40 acre tract, thence West 260 feet to the point of beginning. Subject to easements for roads, drains and utilities. SECTION 2. That the above described property be rezoned from R-3, High Density Residential District to R-0, Residential -Office District, so that the petitioner may develope property accordingly. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 1976. APPROVED: John Power, Chairman RESOLUTION PC 20-76 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission, Monday, March 15, 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 R76-9, Mrs. Allen Banks and James Beard. 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: 9 S. School Street, described as follows: Part of Block 23, Original Town Plat, City of Fayetteville, more particularly described as: Beginning at the SE corner of said Block 23, and running thence North 108 feet along the West right-of-way line of School Avenue, thence West 90 feet, thence South 108 feet to the North right-of-way line of Mountain Street, thence East 90 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 , 1976. APPROVED: John Power, Chairman • RESOLUTION PC 21-76 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission, Monday, March 15, 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 R76-10, Fayetteville School District, City of Fayetteville. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVIT.TF, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That an ordinance be adopted for the purpose of rezoning from R-1, Low Density Residential District and R-2, Medium Density Resi- dential District to P-1, Institutional District, said real estate. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Tract M: Woodland Junior High School and Richardson Center (Washington County School for Trainable Children) described as follows: Part of the WA, SW4 Section 3, and part of EA, SEtt, Section 4, all in T -16-N, R -30-W, described as: Beginning at a point which is 163.64 feet North and 291.24 feet East of the NW corner of the SW4, SW4, of said Section 3, and running thence West 766 feet to thelEast right-of-way line of Woodland Avenue, thence South 1,074.08 feet to Ash Street, thence East 328.01 feet, thence South 119.72 feet, thence East 362.09 feet, thence North 676.04 feet, thence East 75.00 feet, thence North 517.92 feet to the place of beginning. (Above described property includes Lots 1 through 12, inclusive, Block 6, Greenvalley Addition.) To rezone from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to P-1, Institutional District. Tract N: Jefferson Elementary School more particularly described as follows: Part of the SW4, SW,i-,, Section 15, T -16-N, R -30-W, described as follows: Beginning at a point 15 feet North and 25 feet East of the SW corner of said 40 acre tract, and running, thence North along the East line of College Avenue to the NW corner of Lot 5, Deahlis Addition to the City of Fayetteville, thence East along the South line of Third Street (now Sixth Street) to the NE corner of Lot 6, Deahl's Addition to the City of Fayetteville, thence South to the North line of Fourth Street (now Seventh Street) thence West to the point of beginning, Also, part of the SW4, SW4, Section 15, T -16-N, R -30-W of the 5th P.M., more particularly described as beginning at a point 477 feet East of the SW corner of said 40 acre tract, running thence North 150 feet, thence East 100 feet, thence South 150 feet, thence West 100 feet to the point of beginning, less and except 15 feet off of the South side of said lot which is set aside for street purposes. Part of SW,i-,, SW,i-,, Section 15, T -16-N, R -30-W, described as beginning at a point which is 314 feet North and 477.51 feet East of the SW corner of said 40 acre tract on the South side of Sixth Street in the City of Fayetteville, and running thence East 100 feet, thence South 147 feet, more or less to the NE corner of a lot conveyed by T. J. Rogers to Ethel M. Smith, thence West 100 feet, thence North 147 feet, more or less, to the Place of • Page 2. PC 21-76 • beginning. Also part of SW*, SW*, Section 15, T -16-N, R -30-W, of the 5th P.M., described as follows, to wit: Beginning at a point which is 15 feet North and 330 feet East of the SW corner of said Saction 15, and running thence East 147 feet, thence North 193.5 feet, thence West 147 feet, thence South 193.5 feet to the place of beginning (said lot also known as Lot 49, County Court Plat of the SWri,, Section 15, T -16-N, R -30-W). All of the above described lands being located in the City of Fayetteville, Washington County, Arkansas. To rezone from R-2, Medium Density Residential District to P-1, Institutional District. SECTION 2. That the above described property be rezoned from R-1, Low Density Residential District and R-2, Medium Density Residential District to P-1, Institutional District, so that the petitioner may develope property accordingly. PASSED AND APPROVED this APPROVED: day of , 1976. John Power, Chairman RESOLUTION PC 23-76 WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on Monday, March 15, 1976, the Planning Commission voted to make a recommendation to the Board of Directors on the final subdivision plat dated , 19 known as College Market Addition submitted by Johnie Bassett; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that because the necessary improvements have not been installed in said subdivision that Johnie Bassett enter into and furnish the City with the necessary sub- division contract before the Board of Directors accepts this final subdivision plat. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: SECTION 1. The necessary subdivision contract be executed with the City prior to the Board of Directors accepting the final subdivision plat. SECTION 2. That the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas accept the final plat along with the land dedicated for streets and other public uses in the College Market Addition described as follows: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the Nz of the NE; of Section 35, T=17 -N, R -30-W, Washington County, Arkansas, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point 741.5 feet South and 639.7 feet East of the NW corner of the NE; of the NE; of Said Section 35; thence South 544.07 feet to the northerly right of way line of Rolling Hills Drive, thence N 750 32' W 507 feet along said right of way line; thence North 324 feet; thence West 100 feet; thence North 47 feet; thence West 159.05 feet to the Easterly right of way line of College Avenue (U. S. Highway 71B); thence N 250 03' E 50.87 feet along said right of way; thence East 728.3 feet to the point of beginning and containing 5.79 acres, more or less. PASSED AND APPROVED this ATTEST: day of , 1976. APPROVED: John Power, Chairman Peg Anderson, Secretary