Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-04-12 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held at 5:00 P. M. , Monday, April 12, 1976, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Chairman John Power, Keith Newhouse, Donald Nickell, Ernest Jacks, Peg Anderson, Bill Kisor, Rita Davis, Jack Ray. John Maguire. Mayor Orton, Director Russell Purdy, Larry Wood, David McWethy, Jack Wallace, Bobbie Jones, Janet Bowen, Jim Ogden, Marshall Carlisle, Rodger Seratt, Jewell Reddell, Bill Graue, Bass Trumbo, Jerry Havens, Gene Sauls, Jim Miller, Phil Medcalf, Larry Alderson, J. 0. Surels, William N. Meadows. Chairman Jobn Power called the meeting to order. The minutes of the March 29, 1976 meeting were approved as mailed out. MINUTES The public hearing was opened on Rezoning Petition REZONING PETITION R76-11 R76-11, Villa Mobile Home Park (Holley -Ogden Enter- Villa Mobile. Home Park prises, Inc.) to rezone the existing Villa Mobile Highway 71 North Home Park West of Highway 71 North from A-1, Agricultural District, to R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Attorney Marshall Carlisle and Jim Ogden were present to represent. He said that 6 years ago, when this mobile home park was set up, the A-1 Zone was appropriate; however, since the ordinance had changed, it was now non -conforming and they would like to place the mobile home park in the proper zone. He said that the proposed development to the North of this (Villa North) had perhaps played a part in this rezoning request. (Villa North has been referred back to the Planning Commission in regard to another access to Highway 71.; At this time a plan has not been brought back to the Planning Commission concerning the access for their consideration.) Attorney Bass Trumbo was present to represent Dr. Nettleship, adjoining property owner to the West and the South of the existing mobile home park He said Dr. Nettleship was more concerned about the relief for another access for traffic for this in the development of the overall project. Mr. Trumbo said he understood that this was coming up before the Planning Commission in 2 weeks and that action was being taken to get another access through to Highway 71. He said that, knowing the history of the zoning of that property and the fact that it was made non -conforming by a change in the zoning ordinance, he did not feel that he was in a position to speak out strongly against it. He said he was more concerned with the development of the new area (Villa North) and how it would affect Dr. Nettleship's property. Chairman John Power said that he had met with Commissioner Ernest Jacks and City Manager Don Grimes on several possibilities concerning the access to Highway 71. Jim Ogden (Holley -Ogden Enterprises, Inc.) said that they had an access already drawn out on paper and would be bringing it before the Planning Commission. There was no one else present to speak in opposition. There was no further discussion. Ernest Jacks moved to recommend to the Board of Directors that Petition R76-11 be approved. Keith Newhouse and Peg Anderson seconded the motion which was approved unanimously 8-0. Chairman Power instructed Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones to place the access • • • Planning Commission -2- April 12, 1976 problem on the agenda for the April 26th meeting, and requested that she give Marshall Carlisle and Jim Ogden the necessary information that was needed for them to bring this to the Planning Commission and that Bass Trumbo be mailed notice of the meeting. Chairman Power opened the public hearing on REZONING PETITION R76-12 Rezoning Petition R76-12, First National Bank, First National Bank for executor of the Ethel B. Smith Estate, to rezone Ethel B. Smith Estate property located West of School Avenue and North School $ Mountain Streets of Mountain Street from R-0, Residential Office District, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Chairman Power summarized the Planning Report which had been mailed to the Commissioners and petitioner prior to the meeting. Commissioner Ernest Jacks said some of the Commissioners were concerned with where the C-2 District zoning pattern would be terminated when they considered the last rezoning request in this area. He then recommended that Planning Consultant Larry Wood do a study of this area ( as to what should be commercial and what should be R-0) and table this particular request until after the study was done. Attorney Marshall Carlisle was also present to represent this request. He said Mrs. Smith (who died in early 1975) owned several pieces of property and by her will, ordered that all the property be sold and that her estate be divided in cash. He said they had sold all the property except this one. He said this property had been hard to sell mainly because it was so small. He pointed out that it was too small to do anything with under the Code. He said they had turned this over to Pothast Realty and an offer and acceptance was entered into on the condition that it be rezoned to C-2. He pointed out that there was a time problem involved. He said Rodger Seratt had made the offer on the land and thought that Mr. Seratt wanted to use it primarily for parking vehicles that he would be working on in conjunction with his business at the Southwest corner of Mountain and School. He said he assumed that this rezoning would be necessary because some work would be done on this corner that would violate a zoning ordinance, but said that he was not wanting to build on it. Rodger Seratt was present and told the Planning Commission that he wanted more room to park cars to sell to the public. He said he had been using this space for that since 1971 when he leased it from Clyde Selle and wouldn't be doing anything more than what he had done in the past five or six years on this property, except maybe a little more intense. There was no one present in opposition. Chairman Power said he saw a similarity between this and the Mathias Rezoning (Rezoning Petition R75-26, 221 S. Block) which was approved fairly unanimously by the Board of Directors, putting a lot of the downtown area in the C-2. He said at one time they were moving toward a C-4 District which never came to pass. He said it was his own personal observation, but that they seemed to be moving in the C-2 direction because, as compared to the R-0, it was really not that much more intense. He felt this area did need some study but felt that there was not anything that.:objectionable at this time concerning this request. He said he had no objections.' Mayor Orton said the provisions for a C-4 Zone existed but that so far there had not been any petitions to rezone property to C-4. She said from what she could understand, there would be a C-4 petition submitted soon. Ernest Jacks still felt that a study should be made and a recommendation brought back to them to be put on their land use plan. Donald Nickell said in view of the proximity of Mr. Seratt's property, he did not really see anything wrong with this. He said if they were going to make a comprehensive study of this, he felt they should make it public so people would know not to come in and petition for C-2. Mr. Nickell then moved to recommend approval of Rezoning Petition R76-12. • 141 Planning Commission -3- April 12, 1976 Jack Ray seconded the motion. Peg Anderson said that once they got off the front street (School Street) they were heading for trouble and she would rather see the plan before she approved it. Rita Davis said she felt that had the Planning Commission realized originally what Mr. Seratt's plans had been for the entire area, they might have encouraged him to go somewhere else. She said she did not like the thought of that entire block becoming a parking lot where all of those houses were. Bill Kisor felt that a study should be made and Mr. Jacks agreed. There was no further discussion. The motion which was on the floor failed with Power, Nickell, Ray, and Newhouse voting "Aye" and Jacks, Kisor, Anderson, and Davis voting "Nay". Ernest Jacks then moved that Planning Consultant Larry Wood make a study of the downtown area (the Southern boundary being Archibald Yell and going West to the railroad track and further fixing the limits of the study as Mr. Wood felt necessary) so they would know what should be C-4, C-2, C-3, and R-0. Bill Kisor seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. The public hearing was opened on REZONING PETITION R76-13 Rezoning Petition R76-13, Jewell P, Freda L Reddell Jewell F, Freda L. Reddell, to rezone 3220 East Huntsville Road property located at 3220 East Huntsville Road from A-1, Agricultural District to R-1, Low Density Residential District. The Planning Report recommendation was summarized. Planning Consultant Larry Wood said there was an error in the report since sewer is not available to this property but stated that this did not change his recommendation for approval. Mr. Reddell was present and stated that he would like to have this property rezoned so he could build a residence. There was no one present in opposition. Ernest Jacks moved to recommend approval of Rezoning Petition R76-13, to the Board of Directors. Donald Nickell seconded the motion. In answer to Jack Ray's question, Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said that in order for Mr. Reddell to be able to build a residence, they would have to approve a lot split and to approve that, he would have to have 200 feet of lot width in the A-1 Zone. There was no further discussion. The motion was approved unanimously. The next item was a conditional use request CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST for two tandem lots to be located on Bill Graue Mission Boulevard North of North Street and East Edgehill Drive of Edgehill and Lakeridge Drives, submitted by Bill Graue. In answer to Chairman Power's question, Mr. Jacks said that this did fit what they were looking for basically on tandem lots. He stated that his only reservation was the number of driveways coming out onto the curve. Peg Anderson felt that this was a terrifically dangerous corner, and added that there would be four additional driveways there. Rita Davis said this just was not what she had thought of as a tandem lot (the terrainand they would be back to back with the other houses that had been built off of Edgehill). Chairman Power pointed out that the tandem lot could be approved or denied based on what the ingress and egress was. He felt that any time they had landlocked property they had some obligation to look at it on the basis that it is property that cannot be developed unless they are given an opportunity to do so. Planning Commission -4- April 12, 1976 Mr. Graue said he had tried to buy the triangular piece of property that once belonged to Mr. Yoe in order to have access to these lots from Edgehill Drive. (The City quitclaimed it to Mr. Huff, and it is now owned by Mr. Havens.) Mr. Jerry Havens, 1236 Edgehill, said he was concerned about there being at least one 70 foot wide lot, which would not be in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood and also about the additional driveways this would create on Mission Boulevard. He said the neighbors were upset about the density of this. Mr. Graue said if they could have gotten out on Edgehill, they could have had a 95 foot lot, but with the driveway for the tandem lot, it took 25 feet off of that one lot He said he was not for a 70 foot lot, but that under the circumstances, he had no choice. He said he was putting a $6,000 to $7,000 sewer line going through there now to give back to the City, and this was the only way to get his money back. Gene Sauls, 1156 E. Lakefront, was present to support what Mr. Havens had said concerning this. He said it would cause a traffic hazard and increase the density of the area. Jim Miller, Lakeridge Drive, was also present in opposition, and said he would like to support the comments already made by Mr. Havens and Mr. Sauls. He said they had already in a sense felt the effect of the building of the other three houses that Mr. Graue had built in the neighborhood. He felt those houses on the average were of significantly less quality than the existing houses in the area. He said they were outside the subdivision itself, but were in the neighborhood and felt that they detracted significantly from the neighborhood. In answer to:a question asked by one of those present in opposition, Mr. Graue said he was aware of the fact when he bought this that he could not get two lots out of this without a tandem lot unless he went to Edgehill. He said he was also aware that that individual's property did not abut this property. Mr. Graue pointed out that had the City not given Mr. Huff that corner of land where a street had been proposed to go off Edgehill, he might could have stubbed in a street to get access to these lots. Mr. Havens said he had done some checking on this before buying the property. from Mr. Huff. He said he would not have bought the land if he thought the street would ever be put through. Mr. Graue said, in answer to the Commission's question, he would want one tandem lot if he could not get the two tandem lots approved. This would eliminate one access onto Mission Boulevard and would increase the width of the lots. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said the Planning Commission was allowed to place the condition that there be only one tandem lot and could even restrict the size of it. It was then explained to those present in opposition that Mr. Graue couldt. split the 25 foot driveway leading into the tandem lot and make the 70 foot lot into an 85 foot lot. The other 10 feet would be added to the lot to the South of the drive. After some discussion, Ernest Jacks moved to deny the conditional use request for two tandem lots and asked Mr. Graue to come to the next Planning Commission meeting with a new idea. Peg Anderson and Rita Davis seconded the motion which was approved by a vote of 7-0-1 with Donald Nickell abstaining. Mr. Nickell said he felt this was the same concept (concerning tandem lots) that they came out with earlier. He said he was not in favor of this as it stood but felt that landlocked property should not have to stay that way when they had means::... of people utilizing:it. Mr. Graue asked the Planning Commission to approve the one tandem lot at this time if they would not approve two of them. He said if he brought a drawing back in, it would be the same except showing the one tandem lot rather than two and splitting the 25 foot driveway that was shown on this drawing to be added to the two lots to make them wider. Planning Commission -S- April 12, 1976 Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones pointed out that Mr. Graue had the right of a lot split. Mr.. Graue said there were two separate warranty deeds on this property and he could split both of them and make four 70 -foot lots and put residences on them. He said if the Planning Commission did not approve the tandem lot, they would actually be forcing him to do this and they would end up having to give the triangular piece that was left away to someone( Mr. Havens felt that since the property owners involved were sent notice of two tandem lots, they should again be notified of any change in splitting the property. The Planning Commission explained to those present in opposition that Mr. Graue had the right to make four lotsout ofthese(each 70 feet wide) and would not even have to come before them'for approval. Also, that a lot split could be handled in the Planning Office and the adjoining property owners did not have to be notified. In answer to Peg Anderson's question, Mr. Graue said he wanted to submit a request for three lots and one tandem lot. After further discussion, Mrs. Anderson mbved to approve tandem lot #1 as shown and divide the other tandem among two of the other lots as she had sketched it on her drawing. Ernest Jacks seconded the motion. Jack Ray pointed out that some of the members of the audience were still confused about what was being done, at which point Commissioner Jacks drew a sketch of what the Planning Commission had a motion and a second to approve. After a lengthy discussion between the Planning Commission and members df the audience who were present in opposition, Mr. Nickell moved for the question. The motion which was on the floor was approved by a vote of 7-1. Jacks, Ray, Kisor, Anderson, Power, Nickell and Newhouse voted "Aye"; Davis voted "Nay". Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones told the audience that this was a conditional 4111 use and did not go to the Board of Directors for approval and that it could be appealed only through a court of law. The next item was a conditional use request for a duplex CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST in the R-1 Zoning District for property at 3017 Old Farmington Phil Medcalf Road (Southwest corner of Old Farmington Road and One Mile 3017 Old Farmington Road Road) submitted by Phil Medcalf. Mr. Medcalf was present to represent stating he would like to build one duplex on one piece of property. Larry Alderson, 3026 Sandra Drive (adjacent property owner.;to the South) was present and stated that he did not object to Mr. Medcalf building one duplex on the property. However, Mr. Alderson pointed out that the;way it was located on the property, it would leave room for another duplex being put on the property at a later date and he said he would object to another one. Chairman Power said that in order for Mr. Medcalf to put a second duplex on it, he would have to go before the Planning Commission to have it approved, and that the adjoining property owners would again be notified. It was also pointed out that Mr. Medcalf would have to split the lot to place another duplex on it. Bill Kisor moved to approve the conditional use request. Jack Ray seconded the motion. J. 0. Surels, SAndra Drive, pointed out that there was enough room at the other end of the property for another duplex. In answer to Donald Nickell's question, Mr. Medcalf said that the structure would be all -brick and comparable to the neighborhood. He said at this time that he didn't have any plans for the rest of the lot. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said if Mr. Medcalf was granted a conditional use for one duplex to be built on the lot, he would have to have another 12,000 square feet for another duplex to be built on it and would have to come back to the Planning Commission for approval.under the present regulations. She said it would • Planhing Commission -6- April 12, 1976 actually have to be a lot split. She pointed out, however, that the possibility might exist of a single-family dwelling being added. She told the Planning Commission that they could stipulate that this not be done in granting the conditional use if they wanted to do so. Bill Kisor amended his motion to approve the duplex conditional use with the stipulation that only one duplex be built on this entire lot. (This would preclude either a single family or a second duplex building being built on the lot in the future without Planning Commission approval.) Jack Ray seconded the amendment. The motion was approved unanimously. As Chairman Power had to leave for another meeting, Vice -Chairman Jacks chairedd the meeting from this point on. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST William N. Meadows Crossover and Joyce Next was a conditional use request for recreational uses including tennis courts, swimming pool & a clubhouse in the A-1 Zoning District for property at 3800 N. Crossover Road (NE corner of Crossover Road and Joyce Road) submitted by William N. Meadows. Mr. Meadows was present to represent. Mr. Meadows said the drawing on the arrangement of this was drawn up by the contractor and that changes could be made in it if necessary. He said there would be a swimming pool, outdoor tennis courts with vapor lighting, and a clubhouse. The clubhouse being 4,000 square feet with 2,000 square feet above to be just a wide open area overlooking the tennis courts and swimming pool plus 2,000 square feet downstairs which would be used for locker facilities, office, and a pro shop. He said there was also a possibility for handball courts. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said there was a place in the ordinance that inflated the setback for non-residential uses in R Districts. She pointed out that this was only in an R -District and not an A -District therefore, she could not enforce this herself, She said, according to what City Attorney Jim McCord had told them on previous conditional uses, this would be the time to place such inflated setbacks if the Commission wished to do so rather than doing it on the large scale development plan itself when it came before the. Subdivision Committee. She said these inflated setbacks could be reduced by the Planning Commission on review of the large scale development plan. She said the.:ordinance only said "permitted in or abutting an R -District". She pointed out that this property was now zoned Agricultural District but felt that it could become an R -District in the future. Planning Consultant Larry Wood said the land use plan showed multi -family at this corner. In answer to the Vice -Chairman's question, Bobbie Jones explained that this would add a 100 -foot setback from residentially zoned property for outdoor sports areas without spectator facilities which she said she would consider being the swimming pool and the tennis courts. Peg Anderson said she had no objections to the setbacks as they were. Mr. Meadows said if they had to meet those inflated setbacks this property would not be large enough to develop it this way. He said Mr. Lightfoot had a larger tract of property across from this and if they did require the inflated setbacks, he would just nulify this property and bring in a development for the larger tract There was no one present to oppose the request. There was no further discussion. Jack Ray moved to approve the conditional use. Peg Anderson seconded the motion which was:.approved unanimously. The Planning Commission encouraged Mr. Meadows to move this as far South as possible. PARKING AND FENCING REQUIREMENTS The next item was a report by Commissioner Ernest Jacks of a committee meeting held to study parking and fencing requirements as contained in the Zoning Ordinance. -v Planning Commission -7- April 12, 1976 This item was tabled March 15 and March 29. Mr. Jacks briefly outlined the notes he had made from the meeting and which were a part of the agenda for this meeting. In conclusion, he said what they were really trying to do was to encourage plantings rather than the required fencing in cases where the adjoining property owners had no objections to this. Mr. Jacks said these were just notes and they would have to have City Attorney Jim McCord to draft an ordinance and hold a public hearing to make it legal. The Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Jacks that Larry Wood should get with Mr. Jacks on this and make a further study of it. Larry Wood agreed to this and to also check to see if he could find anything in his books on this. DISCUSSION OF LOT SPLIT PROBLEMS Next was a discussion of problems encountered by the County Recorder filing property deeds without checking for approval of lot splits or waivers of the subdivision requirements in the case of property which has been divided. Peg Anderson and Jack Ray had met with the County concerning this and Mrs. Anderson said they had reached the conclusion that a letter should be sent from the City Planning Commission and also from the County concerning this. She also pointed out that she had not been quite clear on what the problem had been. Bobbie Jones said the lot splits that were filed without lot split approvals not only violated the Subdivision Ordinance but it created a problem with her in processing building permits.because sometimes this left a lot that did not meet the zoning requirements. She said another misconception was that many people thought that if the property was 5 acres or more that it was exempt from the subdivision waiver requirement. Planning Consultant Larry Wood said that the State Law required that the County Recorder would not accept any subdivision, deed, or transfer that is not stamped and approved by the Planning Commission whose jurisdiction it is in. He said the Recorder's Office did not pay any attention to this whatsoever. Rita Davis felt that if this was the case, perhaps they needed a ]etter from the City Attorney as well. Vice -Chairman Jacks asked Peg Anderson to see this thing through and try to find a way to handle the situation. REPORT ON STREETS IN THE GROWTH AREA Peg Anderson submitted a copy of the report which she had typed out concerning the streets in the growth area This discussion came about when reviewing two subdivision plats outside the City Limits but inside the Planning Area and at the March 29th Planning Commission meeting, Peg Anderson, Jack Ray and Bill Kisor was asked to meet with Bruce Kendall and the County Planning Board to discuss this and make a recommendation. The recommendation made from that study was that all subdivisions in the growth area will be reviewed by both the County and the City Planning Commission and that the City would have authority in all aspects except streets. At the present time the County would be in supervision of the streets. Mrs. Anderson said it was also suggested that Bruce Kendall should sit in on Plat Review Committee meetings as an ex -officio member for plats outside the City. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones felt the only change that might necessitate City Board approval would be where the City would have authority in all aspects except streets. She said the present Subdivision Ordinance did dictate standards for street improvements which, if she remembered correctly the intent at the time it was adopted, was that they were maximum improvements outside the City but that each one would be reviewed on its individual merit and would be varied according to the location. Peg Anderson suggested that they just state for the time being that all the subdivisions in the growth area will be reviewed by both County and City Planning Commissions. Planning Commission -8- April 12, 1976 Bill Kisor said this was just a temporary answer anyway and would have to come back before them again. Donald Nickell said he objected to paying high taxes and then letting these facilities go out into the country and do the same as inside the City and not come under the same requirements. He felt there would be a problem on paving these streets when these subdivisions were annexed into the City. After further discussion, Peg Anderson moved that for temporary procedures, the Planning Commission suggest that all subdivisions in the growth area would be reviewed by the County and the City Planning Commission and that Bruce Kendall of the County Planning Commission attend Plat Review Committee meetings when subdivisions in the growth area are considered. - The motion, which was seconded by Rita Davis, was approved unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said there were a number of non -conforming uses in the I-1 District, which, under the ordinance,should be in the I-2 zone. She said they had had several requests recently from these non -conforming uses wanting to expand. She said Inspection Superintendent Harold Lieberenz and she had talked about this and decided that they would like to have the Planning Commission to consider adding Use Unit 23 as a "conditional use" in the I-1 Zone. She said a public hearing would have to be held on this if they decided to do this and it would have to be approved by both the Planning Commission and the City Board. She pointed out that this might be a possible way of handling the Washington County S4tles Company which would be coming up for rezoning at the April 26th meeting After some discussion the Planning Commission decided they should hold a public hearing on this item. There was no further discussion. The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 P. M. • • RESOLUTION PC 26-76 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission, Monday, April 12, 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 R76-11, Villa Mobile Home Park, Holley -Ogden Enterprises, Inc. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVIJJF, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That an ordinance be adopted for the purpose of rezoning from A-1, Agricultural District to R-2, Medium Density Residential District, said real estate. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A part of the NE*, SW4, and part of the NW*, SW44, Section 35, T -17-N, R -30-W, more particularly described as follows, Beginning at the SW corner of the NE4, SW4 of said Section 35; and running thence S 89 degrees 58' W 765.87 feet; thence N 4 degrees 32' E 749.75 feet; thence S 79 degrees 20' 20" E 291.12 feet; thence S 88 degrees 33' 40" E 1028.04 feet, thence S 4 degrees 33' W 669.08 feet; thence S 89 degrees 58' W 554.13 feet to the point of beginning and containing in all 20.88 acres, more or less. SECTION 2. That the above described property be rezoned from A-1, Agricultural District to R-2, Medium Density Residential District, so that the petitioner may develope property accordingly. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 1976. APPROVED: John Power, Chairman • RESOLUTION PC 27-76 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Planning Commission, Monday, April 12, 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 a public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to make a recommendation to the Board of Directors on the petition of Ethel B. Smith Estate, R76-12 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 as follows; from R-0, Residential -Office District, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District, be denied. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Seventy-three (73) feet of equal and uniform width off the West side of the SE; of Block Twenty-three (23) in the original plat of the Town (now City) of Fayetteville, Arkansas. SECTION 2. That the rezoning of the above described real estate would not presently be desirable. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 1976. APPROVED: John Power, Chairman • RESOLUTION PC 28-76 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission, Monday, April 12, 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 Commissiion voted to make a recommendation to the Board of Directors on Rezoning Petition R76-13, Jewell & Freda L. Reddell. NCW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That an ordinance be adopted for the purpose of rezoning from A-1, Agricultural District to R-1, Low Density Residential District, said real estate. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SE4, SW-,, Section 13, T -16-N, R -30-W, more particularly described as follows, to -wit: Beginning at a point which is 1787.5 feet East of the NW corner of the Si of the SW4 of said Section 13, and running, thence S 01 degrees, 01' E 889 feet to the centerline of State Highway No. 16, thence N 74 degrees 16' E along said highway centerline 114 feet, thence N 01 degrees 01' W 858 feet to the forty line, thence West 110 feet to the point of beginning, containing 2.20 acres, more or less. SECTION 2. That the above described property be rezoned from A-1, Agricultural District to R-1, Low Density Residential District, so that the petitioner may develope property accordingly. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 1976. APPROVED: John Power, Chairman • • • RESOLUTION PC 29-76 BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, that a public hearing be called for the purpose of adding Use Unit 23 as a "conditional use" in the I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial District. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Administrator is hereby authorized to give notice of said public hearing by having a notice published in a newspaper of general circulation at least 15 days prior to the date of said public hearing. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 1976. APPROVED: John Power, Chairman • 1