Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-10-11 MinutesMINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The Fayetteville Planning Commission met at 5:00 P.M., Monday, October 11, 1976, in the Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice -Chairman Ernest Jacks, John Maguire, Donald Nickell, Peg Anderson, Bill Kisor, Jack Ray. MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman John Power, Keith Newhouse, Rita Davis. OTHERS PRESENT: Planning Consultant Larry Wood, Administrative Assistant David McWethy, Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones, Jim Lindsey, Robert Albertson, Mrs. Willie Carrol, Peter Estes, Chip Wright, Roy Clinton, Sanford A. Berg, Paul Marinoni, Jr., William Lankford, Ervan Wimberly, Frank Lewis, Bertha Lewis, Joyce Sims, Joe Fox, Pat McGetrick, Neal Albright, and other unidentified persons. In the absence of Chairman John Power, Vice -Chairman Ernest Jacks called the meeting to order. Vice -Chairman Jacks informed the audience that the Commission was PETITION R76-34. in receipt of a letter from Petitioner Paul Marinoni, Jr. requesting Letter to table permission to have Petition R76-34 tabled to allow him to consider other possibilities. Peg Anderson requested a correction to the minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of September 27, 1976. On Page 4, no vote was recorded for Rita Davis on the motion to deny Rezoning Petition R76-31, Kenneth C. and Diamond A. Garton. Mrs. Davis was shown as having seconded the motion, and the minutes reflected that 5 Commissioners voted in favor of the motion; however, only 4 names were listed as having voted in favor of the motion to deny the petition. Mrs. Anderson requested that Mrs. Davis' name be added to the four others listed as voting "AYE." Following this correction, the minutes were approved as mailed. MINUTES Vice -Chairman Jacks opened the public hearing on Rezoning REZONING PETIT Petition R76-32, James E. Lindsey, to rezone property located James West of Sang Avenue and North of Stone Street, from R-1, Low NW Corner S ION R76-32 E. Lindsey ang $ Stone Density Residential District, to R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Planning Consultant Larry Wood stated that his basic recommendation is that the be approved for several reasons outlined within the Planning Report included in Agenda. He stated that even though the property to the East is presently zoned the General Plan shows it as future low density residential; and on the subject only the Western portion is shown on the General Plan as future medium density residential, with the Eastern portion low density residential. However, he still recommended approval of the Petition. Mr. Lindsey was present to represent the Petition. He stated that he would like to have the land be available for apartments or some type of housing more than just residential. He thought the tract was large enough and had enough adaptability and could upgrade the neighborhood. He summed up his statement by saying that he thought he could do better things with the property in an R-2 Zone than he could in an R-1 Zone. Robert Albertson, 120 South Sang Avenue, stated that he did not know whether he was in favor of the Petition or in objection to it. He questioned whether Mr. Lindsey had furnished the Planning Office the names of all the adjoining property owners, stating that Mrs. Willie Carrol owns a strip of land between his property and the property in question and it is across this property which he said is Mrs Carrol's Petition the R-2, property Planning Commission Meeting October 11, 1976 -2- that Mr. Albertson has access to his house and property. Mr. Albertson asked what Mr. Lindsey proposes to do with the property ---how many units does he estimate will be put on it; will it be rented to students from the University? Mr. Albertson said if it is rented to University students, they will be passing along by his house on a shortcut to the University rather than going the long way around. Although sewer is now in down the street, both Maine and Stone Streets are dirt at present. Mr. Albertson said that Tri -City had not repaired the road which gives access to his property nor the crossing they made on his property to his satisfaction. Mrs. Willie Carrol, 1713 Maine Street, said that she did not know whether she still owned the property which Mr. Albertson crosses to get to his property; but Mr. Albertson said he had checked at the County Court House and they still have her name on the book as the owner. He said it is a 25 ft. wide strip of land, and that Sang Avenue stops at the bottom of the hill. He has an easement from Mrs. Carrol to get to his property. Mr. Lindsey said that they were requested to give an easement so that Stone Street could be built and they have agreed to do so; they have also agreed to a request to give some additional footage up Sang Avenue; they have agreed to give an easement up Sang Avenue, which was certainly not part of that construction; and have agreed to pay $4200.00 as their part for the paving of Stone Street under the Community Development Program. Mr. Lindsey pointed out that there had been an earlier petition (Berniece Downum, R73-10) which had been denied by the Planning Commission; but that petition had requested R-3 Zoning and sewer had not been available at that time. Mr. Lindsey offered to have the Planning Commission table the Petition until the next meeting so that Mr. Albertson and Mrs. Carrol could be notified of the meeting by mail. Vice -Chairman Jacks confirmed with the Planning Administrator that the City Zoning Ordinance and State Statutes do not require direct mail notice to adjoining property owners; this has simply been done as a matter of policy. What the Ordinance and Statutes do require is that a sign be placed on the property and a "notice" be published in the newspaper at least 15 days before the date of the meeting. Vice -Chairman Jacks also pointed out that the two parties concerned were present at this meeting; therefore, they knew of the Petition and the public hearing. It was also pointed out by one of the Commissioners that both Mrs. Carrol's and Mr. Albertson's properties are presently zoned R-2 themselves. The public hearing was closed. Bill Kisor moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of Directors that Rezoning Petition R76-32, James E. Lindsey, be approved as submitted. Jack Ray seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously by a vote of 6-0. Vice -Chairman Jacks opened the public hearing on Rezoning REZONING PETITION R76-33 Petition R76-33, Peter G. and Louise Estes, to rezone Peter G. & Louise Estes property located West of Highway 265 (Crossover Road) and Crossover Road South of Highway 45 East, from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Planning Consultant Larry Wood reviewed the recommendation contained within the Planning Report which had been mailed with the Agenda. He said that this property does fall within the limits of the commercial shown on the Highway 265 Amendment to the General Plan, and that normally his recommendation would be for approval; however, in the absence of sewer, he was recommending denial until sewer is extended to that area. Mr. Estes was present to represent the Petition. Mr. Estes stated that he had been handed a petition opposing his rezoning petition just a few minutes before. He requested that those persons having signed the petition against his petition and present stand ---5 persons stood. Mr. Estes stated that the Land Use Plan (General Plan) designates his property as commercial; and Mr. Estes alleged that he had been led to believe that all he had to do to get the property rezoned, was to file a petition. The Planning Commission members had each been furnished with a copy of the petition opposing Mr. Estes' rezoning petition. That petition contained in excess of 60 names. • Planning Commission Meeting October 11, 1976 Mr. Estes said that his property begins about 260 ft. South of the intersection of Crossover Road and Highway 45 and then runs an additional 525 ft. to the South. He alleged that the Church to the North of his property has been negotiating with a bank, which he declined to identify, which plans to build a branch office there. He said to the West is a tractor company, garage, and trailer park, although he said he did not know what these were zoned. He pointed out that there is a large tract of commercially zoned property on the Southeast corner of the intersection of Crossover Road and Highway 45. He also pointed out that the streets on which the people who had signed the opposing petition live are to the South of his property, some as much as one-half mile South. Mr. Estes said that he has had the property since before it came into the City and in all that time he has never been contacted by anyone wishing to build a home on it. His prospective buyers have been: (1) buyers interested in investment; (2) buyers hedging against inflation; and (3) persons wanting to use the property to locate a business on it. Mr. Estes said he had been advised by the City Engineer that the sewer which Mr. Wood said is "years away" will be on the plan for next year. He again pointed out that the General Plan, as amended, calls for commercial zoning at major intersections along Crossover Road, and said that it must be around the corners, not all on one corner. He also said that, being 5 acres, a large scale development plan must be processed on this property; and one of the requirements for a large scale development is that sewer be present or extended. Chip Wright, 2930 Inwood Land, was present to oppose the rezoning petition. Mr. Wright pointed out that a land use plan (General Plan) is a guide for future zoning. He argued that the people who live in the area feel that Crossover Road is not a commercial corridor and should not be a commercial corridor. He said there have been some very nice homes erected in the area and others being developed. There is a very large commercially zoned area available on the Southeast corner. Mr. Wright said that Crossover Road is very heavily trafficked just for egress for the people who live in that area. Sanford A. Berg, 2545 Ridgely Drive, was present to oppose the rezoning petition. He stated he would like to see the property remain R-1. Roy Clinton, 2 Lovers Lane, was present to oppose the rezoning petition. He admitted that he had been on the Planning Commission at the time the 40 acres on the Southeast corner of the intersection of Highway 45 and Crossover Road had been rezoned; but said that he had abstained from voting and had tried to get Clay (Yoe) not to do it. He said that C-2 would continue to create a "leap -frog" effect, when in reality the doctors' offices and dance studio would be permitted in R-0. He emphasized that this property has been C-2 for many years, and the only development it has on it is two doctors' offices and a dance studio. Peg Anderson moved that the Planning Commission deny Rezoning Petition R76-33, Peter G. and Louise Estes. Donald Nickell seconded the motion. John Maguire said he is familiar with the property, having lived in the area since 1968 or 1969 and he thinks both sides have good points. He said he thought Mr. Estes was correct when he stated that the best use of the property is not R-1; and he thought the recommendation of the overa llland use plan is that the property be at least C-1. He said he would prefer C-1 instead of a higher density residential type zoning because C-1 tends to service the traffic that is already there, whereas apartments would bring in more traffic. He said the Commission has had figures quoted that eventually there would be 15,000 people living in that corridor. He said there will be a demand for commercial property, but he did not know how much property. He said he thought the property does not lend itself to single family homes, but said it could be used for offices and studios. • • • Planning Commission Meeting October 11, 1976 -4- Planning Comsultant Larry Wood said that the land use plan did show all four corners of the intersection as future commercial. Jack Ray said that he did not agree that lack of sewer was any grounds to refuse to approve the petition. He said that if Mr. Estes wanted to build something on the property he did not think it would be permitted unless the City and State requirements for septic tanks are met. Mrs. Anderson said that the City has such a large area that is already available for commercial at this point, and if they start skipping all over the area and rezoning it before it is developed, they will have another problem ---this was the basis for the motion which she made to deny the Petition. John Maguire raised the question of whether or not Mr. Estes would consider having the petition amended to rezone the North 425 ft. of the property C-1 and the South 100 ft. of the property rezoned to R-0 as a compromise. He did not think the fact that sewer was not there was important to the zoning, and thought that zoning might even encourage some additional sewer being put in that area He also said that then Dr. Andre could request his property be rezoned to R-0 also and his dwelling and the Church to the South of it would be a defensible position for those, including himself, who live out there and have a lot of money invested. He said he did not think they have a defensible position now. After briefly discussing with Mr. Maguire some of the uses permitted in C-1, Mr. Estes indicated he would accept C-1. Peg Anderson and Donald Nickell moved for the previous question which had not yet been voted upon. Mr. Maguire objected because he wished to pursue further the question of amending the petition to C-1 and R-0. Vice -Chairman Jacks called for the vote on the motion to deny the petition. Anderson and Nickell voted "Aye"; Maguire, Jacks, Kisor and Ray voted "Nay", for a vote of 2-4. John Maguire moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Planning Commission that Rezoning Petition R76-33, Peter G. and Louise Estes, be amended to rezone the North 425 ft. of the subject property to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District, and the South 100 ft. of the subject property to R-0, Residential Office District. Bill Kisor seconded the motion. Roy Clinton stated that he did not disagree that the intersections.definitely are commercial, but that the supply of land has been there for ten years and the only demand during that time has been for R-0 type uses. He said the opposing petitions request that the land not be zoned commercially. Jim Lindsey stated that he is the developer of Hyland Park Subdivision and he personally would feel more threatened by the apartments which would be permitted in R-0 than he would by some fine commercial. Vice -Chairman Jacks called for the vote on the motion to amend the petition and to recommend approval of the amended petition. Maguire, Jacks, Kisor and Ray voted "Aye"; Nickell and Anderson voted "Nay", for a vote of 4-2. Jack Ray then moved that Rezoning Petition R76-33, Peter G. and Louise Estes, be recommended to the Board of Directors for approval as submitted. The motion died for lack of a second. Vice -Chairman Jacks opened the public hearing on Rezoning REZONING Petition R76-34, Paul A. Marinoni, to rezone property located South of Highway 16 West (Wedington Drive) and between Aberdeen Avenue and Lonnie Avenue, from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Vice -Chairman Jacks read a letter from Paul A. Marinoni, Jr. requesting petition be tabled. Planning Consultant Larry Wood stated that in essence he felt the strip PETITION R76-34 Paul A.Marinoni Wedington Drive that the of property • • • Planning Commission Meeting October 11, 1976 -5- on the East side of the Church is better suited as duplexes, which could be developed under the existing R-1, than to establish now at that location an R-2 pattern. He added that he has now found that perhaps that plat, referred to in his Planning Report, has not ever been filed, so we really don't have single family lots on the map. Peg Anderson asked if Porter Road and Lonnie Avenue are the same street. She was told by Mr. Wood that it is Porter Road on the North side of Wedington Rrive_.and Lonnie Avenue on the South side of Wedington Drive. She and several others stated that the street signs indicate it is Porter Road on the South side of Wedington also. Paul A. Marinoni, Jr. was present to represent the Petition. He stated that he had not anticipated any opposition and would like an opportunity to table for further study and possibly come up with a better alternative. (There was a petition bearing approximately 48 signatures submitted in opposition to the rezoning request.) He said that 11 years ago they had started a development and had extended a street and utilities 1 block South from Wedington Drive. They had sold the West side of that street to the Cumberland Presbyterian Church and had kept the East side. They still planned to retain the East side of that street. He said none of the traffic pattern of any of his property will connect to the streets to the East. John Maguire moved to table Rezoning Petition R76-34, Paul A. Marinoni, as requested by the Petitioner. Donald Nickell seconded the motion. Vice -Chairman Jacks acknowledged that the Commission had received a petition opposing the rezoning of this property. William Lankford, 2372 Ora Drive, opposed the petition. He said he thought the decision of whether streets from Mr. Marinoni's property would tie into the streets in his neighborhood would be up to the City. He also said it would bring in more people and he thought it would lower the value of their houses. The motion to table the rezoning petition as requested by the Petitioner was approved unanimously, 6-0. Vice -Chairman Jacks turned the meeting over to Planning Consultant LAND USE STUDY Larry Wood who had prepared a study of the zoning and land use in Township Rd. Area the Township Road Area between College Avenue and Johnson Road Mr. Wood said that he had been requested to do a study of the land use and zoning along Township Road some time ago; but, in working on it, he found he could not limit himself to that area alone. He presented for comparison the existing General Plan, the existing zoning, the existing land use, and his recommendation. The recent development on the North side of Township and lying South of the creek and East of Johnson Road has been of a commercial nature. There is industrial on both sides of Gregg Avenue and the West side of College Avenue is commercial. The area extending from the North side of Elm Street toward the South is basically single family. Mr. Wood had a prepared summary of the study which he presented to each Commissioner. In that study he stated, "The General Plan as presently adopted does not provide a reasonable guide to the future land use pattern for this area. Uses which existed at the time the Plan was adopted and changes since that time indicate a different development trend. These same factors have caused the study area to be expanded beyond that which the Planning Commission requested." The study indicated the following recommended Plan changes: "(1) Continue industrial development along the West side of the railroad track; (2) Recognize existing industrial development at Township Road and Gregg Avenue: (3) Encourage medium density residential development along Gregg Avenue to provide transition and buffering for the interior single-family development; (4) Encourage medium density residential and office use along Elm Street and Green Acres Road to provide transition and buffering for interior single-family development; Planning Commission Meeting October 11, 1976 -6- (5) Revise Master Street Plan to provide for continuation of minor arterial from Hwy. 112 to Township Road; • (6) Encourage industrial, commercial, and office development in the undeveloped area west of Hwy. 71B and south of Township Road " Regarding the recommendation to continue the minor arterial from Highway 112 to Johnson Road, Ervan Wimberly said he understood that SWEPCO had indicated they might be willing to swap some right-of-way. Peg Anderson moved that the Commission call a public hearing to consider an amendment to the Land Use Plan based on this study and report. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Wood stated that when the developer has options available to him, he would like to see the developer be able to do what he wants to do. He was referring to the rezoning petition of Johnie Bassett for property in this area. He said his recommendation did not agree completely with what Mr. Bassett had requested, but he thought there were options which should be available to Mr. Bassett and would be in favor of the petition. Peg Anderson moved,that the Commission ask Mr. Wood continue this study, work with Mr. Bassett and others involved with property in this area and affected by this plan and come back to the Commission with a recommendation at a later date. Bill Kisor seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously by a vote of 6-0. • Vice -Chairman Jacks opened the public hearing on Rezoning REZONING PETITION R76-35 Petition R76-35, Johnie Bassett, to rezone property located JOHNIE BASSETT West of Highway 71 North (College Avenue) and South of Township Township Road Road, from R-1, Low Density Residential District, and C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District, to C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial District, for all the property. Planning Consultant Larry Wood said that he did not see any trouble with Mr. Bassett's request in view of the study today, except that the Commission would then be "locked in" on C-2. Jim Lindsey was present to represent the Petition. He said that Mr. Bassett was willing to work with Larry Wood and is willing to give right-of-way for Township Road and to work basically toward what is shown on the study. He said the old Highway 71 right- of-way runs from somewhere off the end of Green Acres Road on toward Township Road and cuts through this property. He said Mr. Bassett's idea was to use this right- of-way and to build an "old town" along it. Mr. Lindsey said that Mr. Bassett had asked him to tell the Commission that his idea was "cooperation" with the City. He said that Mr Bassett's petition did not threaten the property of the people on Elm Street Ervan Wimberly also spoke in favor of the petition and said he thought that Mr. Bassett's plans would work closely with Mr. Wood's recommendation except for some industrial shown on the extreme West side. He said they would try to open up the roads one way or another. Frank Lewis, 115 South Church, said he and his sister, Bertha Lewis, each own a parcel of property adjoining this on the South. He had a question as to why the line on the Zoning Map of the industrial area seemed to extend farther South than Mr. Bassett's property line. Vice -Chairman Jacks explained to him that it is very difficult sometimes to get a map drawn to that scale completely accurate. Peg Anderson moved to recommend to the Board of Directors that Rezoning Petition R76-35, Johnie Bassett, be approved as petitioned. Bill Kisor seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously by a vote of 6-0. • Planning Commission Meeting October 11, 1976 -7- Joyce Sims, Space 126, Villa Mobile Home Park, was present to JOYCE SIMS represent a conditional use request she had submitted for a Child Care - C.U. child care center in her mobile home at that location. The Villa Mobile Home Park mobile home park is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Ms. Sims said that she would like to have it approved so that she and one other person would be permitted to care for 10 children in her mobile home. She said that they had discussed their plans with the owner of the mobile home park, Mr. Ogden. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones and Peg Anderson discussed the use conditions contained within the Zoning Ordinance that apply to child care facilities. Mrs. Jones said they presently comply with all the regulations except they propose a chain link fenced play area rather than one surrounded by a view obscuring fence. Jack Ray asked Ms. Sims if this will be in a mobile home. She said it would be. He then asked her if there is more than one way into and out of the mobile home. She said that there are two ways into and out of the mobile home. Bobbie Jones told Mr. Ray that the mobile home will have to be inspected by the Fire Chief and by the Inspection Department. Bill Kisor moved to grant the conditional use request of Joyce Sims to have a child care facility in her home at Space 126, Villa Mobile Home Park. Jack Ray seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously by a vote of 6-0. Vice -Chairman Jacks introduced the amended Preliminary Plat SEQUOYAH WOODS, PHASE II of Sequoyah Woods, Phase II, located South of Sequoyah Woods, Amended Preliminary Plat Phase I and West of Joe Fred Starr Road; Multiproperties, Inc., Developers. Joe Fox and Pat McGetrick were present to represent the proposed plat. Vice -Chairman Jacks said that the Subdivision Committee had reviewed this and recommended approval contingent upon the following items being straightened out: (1) All street names be satisfactory; (2) sewer, water, and fire hydrants meet the approval of the City Engineer; (3) easements' be satisfactory to the utility companies; (4) Planning Commission needs to waive the length of a dead-end street---Lemoncrest Place is close to 600 ft. in length and the Subdivision Ordinance normally allows only 500 ft. in level terrain; (5) street light spacing be waived to a maximum of 350 ft. Joe Fox said that this constitutes an amendment to their planned unit development plan for the whole of Sequoyah Woods. John Maguire asked if any consideration had been given to a proposed street that was shown on the Sherwood Forest Estates plat and that was stubbed up to this property. Mr. Maguire said that he was connected with that development and that they had been required to stub that street up there. He said he thought this might be landlocking some property. Bill Kisor moved to approve the amended Preliminary Plat of Sequoyah Woods, Phase II, with the contingencies previously listed by Vice -Chairman Jacks: (1) All street names be satisfactory; (2) sewer, water, and fire hydrants meet the approval of the City Engineer; (3) easements be satisfactory to the utility companies; (4) Planning Commission waive the length of Lemoncrest Place as shown on the plat; (5) street light spacing be waived by the Planning Commission to a maximum of 350 ft. Peg Anderson seconded the motion. Nickell, Jacks, Anderson, Kisor, and Ray voted "Aye"; Maguire abstained from voting; the vote was 5-0-1. Vice -Chairman Jacks opened discussion on the Preliminary Plat of USONIA TERRACE Usonia Terrace (originally submitted as Zion Terrace) located Preliminary Plat South of Old Missouri Road and East of Zion Road intersection. Developer is Ball Family Trust, E. J. Ball, Trustee. Vice -Chairman Jacks reported for the Subdivision Committee. He said that the property is not zoned properly; it is A-1 and should be R-1. Apparently the Commission does have the authority to approve a preliminary plat though, he said. • • • Planning Commission Meeting October 11, 1976 -8- Mr. Kisor stated that because there is one house under construction on the property, Mr. Ball wants to go ahead and get a street started. Vice -Chairman Jacks said that sewer is not available yet. Jack Ray moved that the Planning Commission accept the preliminary plat of Usonia Terrace with the contingency that the rezoning must be taken care of prior to submitting a final plat. Donald Nickell seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously by a vote of 6-0. The next item on the Agenda was a review of a proposal to make HOME OCCUPATIONS • "home occupations" a conditional use, permitted on appeal to Proposed Ordinance the Planning Commission in the R-1 Zoning District. At the September 27, 1976, meeting, Chairman Power had requested that Commissioners Peg Anderson and ERnest Jacks meet with City Attorney Jim McCord and draft a proposal for consideration by the Planning Commission. t Peg Anderson explained that the tentative ordinance included in the Agenda was much simpler than the original proposal considered by the Commission because it makes home occupations a conditional use in R-1 and a use by right in the A-1 Zoning District.v This would be accomplished by adding "home occupations" to Use Unit 8 in the Zoning Ordinance. She said that if the Commission wanted to do so they could write more restrictions, such as that there must be no objections to the home occupation or that it can be brought back up for review again after a period of time, then the Commission could amend the use conditions listed for home occupations. John Maguire said that he was very comfortable with the ordinance as it now stands. He said that if they make it a use permitted on appeal to the Planning Commission, then they have set it up as a legal appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. Peg Anderson said that what concerned her is that there are a lot of home occupations now being carried on in R-1 in violation of the ordinance, and that the City does not have the staff to police them. She hoped for a way that they could be made legal if they would seek approval. It was felt that because the Commission had denied the original proposal to add home occupations to the R-1 Zone, that a new public hearing would have to be advertised before the Commission could take any action on it. Bill Kisor moved to table this matter until the next meeting. Jack Ray seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously by a vote of 6-0. The last item on the Agenda was the Final Plat of Summerhill, SUMMERHILL a Planned Unit Development, located North of Stubblefield A Planned Unit Development Road and East of Masonic Drive, Summerhill Land Company, Inc., Final Plat Developers. After a report from the Subdivision Committee by Vice -Chairman Jacks, Bill Kisor moved to approve the Final Plat of Summerhill, a Planned Unit Development, with the following contingencies: (1) The plat show the easements outside the subdivision, but adjacent to the subdivision; (2) show street lights and sidewalks; (3) dimensions on the plat which are in error be corrected and those omitted be added; (4) street names be checked out for conflict with others. Jack Ray seconded the motion. Vice -Chairman Jacks wanted to be sure that the concrete -lined drainage ditches requested by Street Superintendent Clayton Powell would be installed. Ervan Wimberly objected to showing those on the plat and said it was standard procedure for Mr. Powell to include such requirements in his comments on street and drainage plans, but that they were not usually required to be shown on the plat. The motion to approve with the contingencies listed was approved unanimously by a vote of 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 P.M. • • • RESOLUTION PC 65-76 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission, Monday, October 11, 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 R76-32, James E. Lindsey. 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 R-1, Low Density Residential District to R-2, Medium Density Resi- dential District, said real estate. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The East 4/5ths of the SE* of the NWy of the SW,i-, of Section 17, T -16-N, R -30-W, containing 8 acres, more or less. 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 ma'y/develope property accordingly. PASSED AND APPROVED this /l L day of (V , 1976. APPROVED: Ernest Jacks, Vice -Chairman RESOLUTION PC 66-76 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission, Monday October 11, 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 R76-35, Johnie Bassett. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING CO14MISSION 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 and C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District, said real estate. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SE* of the SEt of Section 34, T -L7 -N, R -30-W, and a part of the SW4 of the SWC of Section 35, T -17-N, R -30-W, and a part of the fractional NEt of Section 4, T -16-N, R -30-W, and a part of the fractional NW* of Section 3, T -16-N, R -30-W, described as beginning at a point on the south line of Township Street which is 35.20 feet North and 27.69 feet West of the SE corner of Section 34 for a point of beginning. From said P.O.B. running thence N 87° 12' 44" W with the south line of Township Street 66.15 feet; thence S 00° 13' 53" E, 1296.59 feet; thence S 89° 38' 47" E with a fence 1093.77 feet;thence N 01° 26' 06" E, 376.38 feet; thence N 89° 49' 14" E, 417.1 feet; thence N 00° 42' 48" W, 543.14 feet; thence N 88° 53' 40" W, 301.55 feet; thence N 01° 35' 53" W, 318 38 feet to the fence along the South line of Township Street; thence following said fence S88° 40' 37" W, 269 feet, and continuing with saidfence N 86° 39' 22" W, 70.41 feet and N 85° 26' 34" W, 601.04 feet; thence S 00° 06' 59" E, 222.05 feet; thence N 87° 07' 15" W, 204.86 feet; thence North 221.06 feet to the point of beginning. The above described tract situated in Fayetteville, Arkansas and containing 36.987 acres. SECTION 2. That the above described property be rezoned from R-1, Low Density Residential and C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial Districts to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District, so that the petitioner may develope property accordingly. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 1976. APPROVED• Ernest Jacks, Vice -Chairman • RESOLUTION FC 67-76 • • WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on Monday, October 11, 1976, the Planning Commission voted to make a recommendation to the Board of Directors on the final subdivision plat dated , 19 , known as Summerhill, a Planned Unit Development submitted by Summerhill Land Company, Inc. and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that because the necessary improvements have not been installed in said subdivision that Summerhill Land Company, Inc. enter into and furnish the City with the necessary subdivision 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 FAYETTEVIJS.F, 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 Summerhill, a Planned Unit Development described as follows: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the Wi of the SWC, of Section 25, T -17-N, R -30-W, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the West line of said 80 acre tract, said point lying S 00 25' 30" E, 693.0 feet from the NW corner of said 80 acre tract, and running thence S 0° 25' 30" E, 1124.48 feet; thence East 210 0 feet; thence S 0° 25' 30!' E, 300.8 feet to a point 15.0 feet North of the center of Stubblefield Road; thence East 402.56 feet; thence N 0° 25' 30" W, 2118.9 feet to the North line of said 80 acre tract; thence West 18.56 feet to the center of a spring branch; thence S 8° 33' 30" W with said branch 304.4 feet, thence S 10 32' 30" W, 223.1 feet with said branch; thence S 25° 24' 30" W, 44.3 feet with said branch; thence S 6° 03' 30" E, 130.3 feet with said branch to a point due East of the point of beginning; thence West 532.3 feet to the point of beginning, situated in the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, and containing 19.59 acres, more or less. SECTION 3. That the plat show the easements outside the subdivision, but adjacent to the subdivision, show street lights and sidewalks, dimensions on the plat which are in error be corrected and those omitted be added, and street names be checked out for conflict with others. PASSED A'ND APPROVED this /14 day of (O et -qt. -be) 1976. ATTEST: Rita Davis, Secretary APPROVED: Ernest Jacks, Vice -Chairman