Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-11-08 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The Fayetteville Planning Commission met at 5:00 P. M., Monday, November 8, 1976, in the Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman John Power, Vice -Chairman Ernest Jacks, John Maguire, Donald Nickell, Peg Anderson, Bill Kisor, Jack Ray, Keith Newhouse, Rita Davis. MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: None. Planning Consultant Larry Wood, Administrative Assistant David McWethy, Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones, Elam Denham, Monroe Laner, Suzanne McCrae, Elizabeth Weaver, Carolyn Newbern, Helen Leflar, Jim Hatfield, Richard A. Dean, Pamela L. Taylor (Dean), Charles B. Kirchen, Jess Hawkins, Dick Wommack, Harley Brigham, Gordon Houston, Ervan Wimberly, Ralph Goff, David Carter, Angie Medlock and other unidentified persons. Chairman John Power called the meeting to order. Peg Anderson requested two corrections to the minutes of MINUTES October 11, 1976. On page 8 under "Home Occupations" she requested that the sentence saying that "there must be no objections to the home occupation," be changed to read,"that there must be no objections by the neighbors to the home occupation". She also wanted the minutes to reflect that she objected to the hearing being held on Paul Marinoni's Rezoning after Vice - Chairman Jacks had announced earlier in the meeting that this item would be tabled. (page 4) Following these corrections, the minutes were approved as mailed. Chairman John Power opened the public hearing REZONING PETITION R76-36 on Rezoning Petition R76-36, Laura Baker, to Laura Baker rezone property located at the Northwest corner NW Corner of Mission Blvd. of Mission Boulevard and Maple Street, from R-1, Low Density Residential District to R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Chairman John Power read from the Planning Report, the recommendation of Planning Consultant Larry Wood in which he recommended denial of the rezoning petition for the following reasons: 1. The basic residential character of this area has remained stable for a number of years despite the existance of non-residential uses and the introduction of an R-2 District at this location, without General Plan guidance, could produce a series of rezoning requests, that would sig- nificantly change the character of this area; 2. The property as presently zoned has the potential of 11 or 12 units if developed as duplexes; and 3. The request is not in keeping with the General Plan recommendations. Elam Denham, 2803 South Morlan, Springdale, was present to represent Laura Baker. First, he wanted to clear up the idea that Mrs. Baker wanted to build 34 apartments on the property. He said she would like to build 5 to 8 duplexes or a maximum of 16 garden apartments on the property so the natural character of the property, with trees, would not be jeopardized. She has never wanted to build the maximum allowed in R-2. He said there was some question about the historic • • • Planning Commission Meeting November 8, 1976 -2- value or structural value of an older house located on the property. He stated that the house is. about 65 years old and has no significant historic value, and it would not warrant renewal or preservation. He said this property does not abut any private property, there are two main streets, (Maple and Mission), Gunter Street and then a public alley on the west side. He said an important point is that if they are not allowed to build something else on this property the existing house will deteriorate and if garden apartments were allowed they would help the neighborhood. Vice -Chairman Jacks asked if the alley along the West property line is open and Mr. Denham said it is open in some places. Monroe Laner presented a petition signed by 54 property owners in the area who were against the rezoning. He said he understood that if it is rezoned to R-2, she could build apartments there and if Mrs. Baker decided to sell or were to die, someone else could come in and build apartments there. He said he understood all Mrs. Baker wanted to build is duplexes. Chairman John Power said this is a problem the Planning Commission is faced with but if they rezone to R-2 she may have the intention of building duplexes or nice garden apartments but this is something the Planning Commission would lose control over. Suzanne McCrae, 517 Fallin Avenue, said her main objection is the traffic conges- tion. She said it is already dangerous and almost impossible to try to cross "that street". Elizabeth Weaver, 514 Mission Boulevard, said she is a night worker and already has problems trying to sleep in the daytime with the noise congestion.._ She also objected to any more (traffic). Carolyn Newbern, 734 North Willow, President of the Washington County Historical Society, said she believes there is a potential for the land being redeveloped and saving the land around the house. She believes this should be a consideration. She also stated that their records show the house was built in 1870 so it is more than 65 years old. Helen Leflar, 1717 West Center, wanted to call attention to a booklet of old Fayetteville homes, published years ago, in which this old "Gunter" house is listed. She said the house is a landmark which they don't want destroyed. Mr. Denham said he doesn't believe the garden apartments would materially affect the traffic on Mission Street. He said Mission Street would always be a traffic hazard whether the apartments are built or not. He also disagreed about the historical value of the house Peg Anderson asked for a clarification between R-1 and R-2. Chairman Power said in R-2 you can build a large number of apartment units. Under R-1 they can come to the Planning Commission and build duplexes. Bobbie Jones said in R-1 they have to have 12,000 square feet for each duplex and in R-2, they have to have 6,000 square feet for each duplex. Peg Anderson noted that Larry Wood had said that the maximum, if the present house was torn down, would be 11 or 12 duplexes. Mr. Denham said he had checked into this and in R-1 there could be a maximum 10 units. He said there is a 40 foot building setback along Mission Boulevard. The public hearing was closed. Vice -Chairman Jacks said that we have an area which has changed character with industrial zoning across the street but on one side of the street we still have a viable single family area. He said the Commission is being pressured to some degree to change that. Rita Davis asked Planning Consultant Larry Wood what the best use for that property would be. Larry Wood said he expects at some point that Mission Boulevard will be expanded to four lanes. He said he could see multi -family on this property. He said the thing that bothered him is that there are quite a few large tracts of land in the area and we could begin a domino effect on the use in that area. • Planning Commission Meeting November 8, 1976 -3- He recommended that we not introduce multi -family potential in that location even though to the south we have industrial use there. He said the area North of Maple Street has stayed "clean" except for the two nonconforming uses which he knows of. Peg Anderson said she is not opposed to mixing apartments in with single family but she believes the duplexes are a gradual step and she likes them. Keith Newhouse made a motion that the Planning Commission deny Petition R76-36 and keep the property zoned R-1. Bill Kisor seconded the motion. Chairman John Power called for the vote on the motion to deny the petition, which motion was approved unanimously, 9-0. Chairman John Power opened the public hearing REZONING PETITION R76-37 on Rezoning Petition R76-37, Jim Hatfield and Jim Hatfield Hatfield Pontiac - Cadillac to rezone property SE Corner of Dickson $ College located at the Southeast corner of Dickson Street and College Avenue, from C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial, and R-0, Residential Office Districts to C-3, Central Commercial District. Jim Hatfield was present to represent. Chairman John Power said he had just received a verbal request from the petitioner to drop the request to change to C-3 and take the back 90 feet of the property, which is zoned R-0, and rezone it to C-2. Chairman Power said he had checked with City Attorney Jim McCord and was told that the Planning Commission does have the authority to modify the request. Chairman Power acknowledged the following letter and petition in opposition to the rezoning submitted by Richard A. Dean, 30S North Washmngton: "To the Zoning Commission: As a concerned citizen and resident in the vicinity of Headquarters House, I wish to make a formal protest concerning the expansion of Mr. Hatfield's car dealership on the corner of College and Dixon. I have no doubt that the type of business in question is wholly incompatible with the types of activity around it. As zoning regulations are intended to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community at large, I should remind the distinguished members of the commission that for several years now, the very same site had once a greater historical value than it now has, since the owner has torn down the old property, and left a vacant lot unweeded and cluttered with debris in its place. Many of my neighbors complained that Mr Hatfield, despite notices from the city, never really managed to clean up that vacant lot, creating an unprecedented eyesore to the residential community adjacent to him. Now that he has already begun construction on that site, even before permission could be granted for the zoning change that would be necessary, the environmental impact of a used car lot, or similar use, promises to be a great deal more devastating. Already a blemish in this important historical district of the city, the site threatens more than visual pollution; there will undoubtedly occur those conditions which require location of car dealerships in more purely commercial areas of the city, where the bright lights, continual noise, and heavy traffic associated with such businesses could not adversely affect the welfare of a residential community. • Planning Commission Meeting November 8, 1976 -4- Already, Mr. Hatfield's business extends to the doorstep of a near -by church. Already, Mr. Hatfield's business provides an unwelcome visual contrast to the city's historical Headquarter's House. Already, the intersection of College and Dixon is far too congested to handle either increased parking or traffic, the latter consisting much in the pedestrian traffic of children going to. and from near -by schools, crossing Dixon both at College Avenue and Washington Avenue. And already, as any of you can see today, the new construction has affected the quality of residential life in the area. Witness the fine old house at 129 East Dixon Street which, owned by people in California, and now rented out to tenants, that is surrounded on two sides by the new development. Who in the world would live there any more, or, ultimately in the houses close by with a full view of a car dealership across from their lawn? Who among you would gladly allow such a business to move next door to your own house? I can reasonably expect that the owners of that house on 129 E. Dixon are not aware of the business expansion, as they could not have suspected such a change possible. In conclusion, there are five good reasons why a community needs zoning regulation; 1. To lessen the congestion on public streets. 2. To avoid population over -density. 3. To assure sewer and water supply. 4. To provide district character, and finally 5. To protect property values. Of these five reasons, the first, fourth and fifth reasons are clearly in evidence, in particular the two final ones. For this it is imperative that you not only prevent such a zoning change; also you must begin to enforce legislation that requires that vacant lots not become an eyesore and disgrace to the community." Sincerely yours, Mr. Richard A. Dean "Mr. Hatfield, Owner of the car dealership on the corner of Dickson and College Streets, has, for several years, owned the vacant lot across the street from Headquarters House, located between College Avenue and Washington Avenue. He intends to expand his used car operation into that vacant lot. In order to continue his present expansion program in our neighborhood, he must request a zoning change from R-0 to C -2, from the City Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is meeting for that purpose on November 8th, at 5 PM in the City Administration Building. Although construction work has begun, he has not yet obtained the necessary zoning change permit. As residents of the neighborhood, we feel that Mr. Hatfield is violating the historical integrity of the neighbor- hood by expanding a type of business that is incompatable with the finest and best preserved residential area of this historical part of the city. By means of this petition, we wish to voice our opposition to the unsightly presence of a used car lot by opposing the zoning change that would make that possible." October 28, 1976 Sincerely, • Richard A. Dean and Pamela L. Taylor S/Richard A. Dean 305 N. Washington Avenue S/Pamela L. Taylor (Mrs. R. A. Dean) 305 N. Washington Avenue S/ Mrs. Hazel H. Deal 311 N. Washington Avenue • • • Planning Commission Meeting November 8, 1976 S/ S/ S/ S/ S/ S/ S/ S/ S/ S/ S/ S/ S/ S/ S/ S/ S/ S/ S/ S/ S/ S/ S/ S/ Ella N. Thompson Mrs. Hadley H. Hodson Mrs. Euther H. McDonald Mrs. Martha H. Tidwell Kathy Logue Jim R. Logue Lewis Apple Mrs. J. B. Hannah Betty Askew Mrs. Virginia V. (last name Carolyn L. Newbern Betty M. Lewis Grace McClellan M, p. Hoffman Mr. f Mrs. Gearhart Ruth Ellis Lesh P. K. Heerwagen Mrs. Barron Collier (Name illegible) Sue B. Gillman David W. Gillman Mrs. Anna Lauderdale Frank Butts Michael G. Haglewood, M. D. -5- 315 309 309 209 210 210 310 308 339 illegible 734 327 355 409 400 355 338 326 347 N . Washington Avenue N . Washington Avenue N . Washington Avenue N . Washington Avenue E . Dickson E . Dickson N . Washington N . Washington N . Washington , no address) N N N N N N N . N N • • • • Willow Washington Washington Washington Washington Washington Washington Washington Willow 347 N. Willow 347 N. Willow 220 E. Dickson 129 E. Dickson 129 E. Dickson Chairman Power asked Mr. Dean if, based on the petitioner's request to modify this from C-3 to rezone the back 90 feet to C-2, would that alter his opposition; and Mr. Dean said it would not. Mr. Dean said he selected the first, fourth, and fifth reasons contained in the letter as the major objections. Jim Hatfield, 3205 Cato Springs Road, said he would like to expand and complete the facilities and move the dealership off Meadow Street and onto Dickson Street and College. He stated that there is an existing structure on the corner of College and Dickson and an additional structure is necessary in order to have ample amount of mechanics area. On Dickson Street we have designated landscaping and a wall of 6-8 feet to not allow the business to be seen until you get well into the C-2 area. He said the driveways would be on the crest of the hill and would be six feet below the street level which would give 12-14 feet before you could see this area Jim Hatfield said the back (east) 90 feet is necessary in order to turn the building to get the proper traffic flow in and out of it. He said they are going to landscape in front of the wall and then put a fence containing the back of the property. Chairman Power asked Neal Albright about the elevation. He said there seemed to be no problem. Vice -Chairman Jacks asked Mr. Hatfield if he was saying that the building is six feet below Dickson and Mr. Hatfield said it is. Neal Albright said they are planning a series of stepdowns to get down to the building. Keith Newhouse commented that the property has been an eyesore for a number of years and asked what Mr. Hatfield's plans for the existing structure are. Mr. Hatfield said they are going to remodel it for a sales facility. He said there would be a Mansard roof come up from the building six or eight feet. Mr. Newhouse asked if that would be the display area. and Mr. Hatfield said, it would not. 'He said it would not be visable from either direction; Dickson Street would be only service customers coming in and out. Jack Ray asked if he was going to build an attractive dealership there and Mr. Hatfield said he would like to make it look nice so it will blend into the • • • Planning Commission Meeting November 8, 1976 -6- area Mr. Maguire questioned how far it goes back on C-2 now and Jim Hatfield said the two lots on the East are R-0. He said if they eventually get the property east of them that is on the west side of the alley, they would like to develop the alley into a two lane street. Pamela L. Taylor (Dean) 305 Washington Avenue said they have to live across from Hatfield Pontiac 365 days a year and it is an eyesore; parking is visable She said she didn't understand where the screened fence would make much difference. She was concerned about the increased traffic flow because of the children who have to cross Dickson Street and Washington to go to school. She also noted that this area is one of the finer historic areas and she thinks we should preserve as much of its integrity as possible. Carolyn Newbern, 734 North Willow, representing the Washington County Historical Society read the following prepared statement from the Society: STATEMENT OF THE WASHINGTON COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY REGARDING PETITION NO. 76-37 FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1976 "The Board of Directors of the Washington County Historical Society, by a unanimous vote, opposes Petition No. 76-37, to rezone the southeast corner of College Avenue and Dickson Street from C-2 and R-0 to C-3. In addition to creating traffic hazards and deviating from the intent of the General Plan, we feel this commercial encroachment would endanger the character of the residential district to the north and east. In the blocks from Dickson to Rebecca, Washington through Willow, stand many old houses with architectural merit. As well as we can now determine, about ten were built between 1850 and 1880, twenty-six between 1880 and 1900. These houses and their surroundings, including large trees, create an atmosphere now unique in Fayetteville, one that attracts much attention from townspeople and tourists. Headquarters House, a beautiful example of Greek Revival architecture built in 1853, is listed on the National Register of Historic Sites. In 1976 almost one thousand people visited this property, owned by the W.C.H.S. We have been very concerned about the neglected appearance of the land directly south of Headquarters House and would like to see it tastefully developed. No matter how a present owner may propose to use the property, further commercial encroachment east of College Avenue will seriously jeopar- dize the fragile character of the residential neighborhood which is the most attractive part of that which remains of old Fayetteville. We who are interested in preservation of historical and/or beautiful older parts of town learned an important lesson from the College Avenue experience. We can never make that street what it once was, but we hope we can convince all concerned citizens of the need to prevent any zoning change which would bring a commercial area closer to that part of Fayetteville which so clearly deserves protection." • • • Planning Commission Meeting November 8, 1976 -7- Mrs. Newbern stated that she had heard the proposed modification, but felt that the Historical Society's objections are substantially the same. C-2 or C-3 would jeopardize the residential area starting at the Washington - Dickson Street intersection and if the present zoning request is granted now, then the rezoning of the land by the alley, if it is acquired, will be asked for and that would put it even with Washington Avenue. She said they heard about the buffer zone between the residential and commercial and understand the R-0 was created as a transitional area. She said she thought this land could be developed more attractively. Charles B. Kirchen, 1157 Columbus Place said he would like to concurr with Mrs. Newbern. He said that if the present view from Headquarters House is typical of what they could expect to be done, then they certainly don't want the changes. Mr. Hatfield stated that the property that they have zoned as C-2 would allow them to build the dealership in this location but in order to create a buffer zone and move it further off the street, they would need the other 90 feet. The building would be 50 feet from the East property line. He said that he could not build the same structure, but he could build a structure without the rezoning. Mr. Maguire asked if the R-0 zone would permit parking. Bobbie Jones said Mr. Hatfield could not park cars for sale in the R-0 zone, but it does allow parking lots. She said they have approved employee parking in R-0 but no customers cars and no cars for sale on another auto dealership adjacent to an R-0 zone. Mr. Hatfield said no cars for sale would be parked there. Keith Newhouse asked how deep the property is. Jim Hatfield said approximately 240 feet. He said there is 255 feet of frontage on College. If the alley is expanded, there would be only about 25 feet of property to go along with what he now has, the City would take the rest to build the street. The public hearing was closed. Bill Kisor said no one likes the looks of the property now and he couldn't understand why the Commission couldn't let Mr. Hatfield improve his property. He said there is no reason why they can't rezone the property and let him build his building and landscape it and improve the property. Jack Ray concurred with Bill Kisor and said it sounds like Hatfield is trying to improve the property. Peg Anderson stated that if they used this area just for parking it would not improve the looks. Chairman Power said that with the modification and the committments before the Commission they were looking at a new picture. One thing that does come out is that we need to look at the traffic on Dickson as it comes down to College. The City Attorney had said to ask the petitioner for a Bill of Assurances that the driveway will be constructed as shown. He asked Bobbie Jones if the Planning Commission needs to look at this as a large scale development. She said they could be permitted a driveway within 50 or 60 feet of the intersection of College Avenue and another one 25 feet east of that one. Peg Anderson said she would like to insist on a Bill of Assurances about the landscaping. Chairman Power said the Bill of Assurances could be worked out by the Board of Directors. Vice -Chairman Jacks asked if the City can place any restrictions on zoning. He said we have had a long history of what appeared to be encroachments on Washington Avenue and the Planning Commission has been very protective of that situation. Mr. Nickell said he didn't think Jim Hatfield will give up the Planning Commission Meeting November 8, 1976 property and just leave. He thinks he should have the opportunity to update and enhance his property. Bill Kisor made a move to rezone only the East 90 feet of the subject property from R-0 to C-2. Mr. Ray seconded the motion. Chairman Power said only the back 90 feet which is presently R-0 would be rezoned to C-2; the balance would remain C-2. Mr. Newhouse wanted to add that they recommend that the Board of Directors obtain a Bill of Assurances that landscaping will be done, and screening will be done and limiting entrances (location and number) on and off Dickson will be done. Bill Kisor agreed to add this to his motion. Jack Ray seconded the amendment. The motion to amend the previous motion was approved unanimously. Following the amendment, the motion to recommend that the East 90 feet be rezoned from R-0 to C-2 with the Board of Directors to obtain a Bill of Assurances was approved 8-1. Ray, Davis, Kisor, Anderson, Nickell, Newhouse, Maguire and Power voted "Aye". Jacks voted "Nay". Chairman Power opened discussion of the CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST conditional use request by Jess Hawkins for Jess Hawkins a tandem lot in the 2700 block of Wyman Road 2700 Block of Wyman Road zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Vice -Chairman Jacks said there will probably be a drive in the middle and two smaller pieces on the road and this is 330 feet deep, it looks like a good case of what the Ordinance had in mind. Peg Anderson said she had driven out there and the land is flat. Bobbie Jones said the Planning Commission had approved the layout on the back of the sheet (which Mr. Jacks had referred to) once before. She said Mr. Hawkins either wants to build an additional building on this back portion or sell part of the piece of property so someone else can build on it and share the private drive. Rather than having two 25 feet accesses, he would have two 20 feet accesses. Vice -Chairman Jacks said the Tandem Lot Ordinance will only allow one tandem lot behind another one. Each lot has to have 25 feet of frontage on a public street with that 25 feet to be used for a driveway and to get utilities into the lot. Chairman Power asked Bobbie Jones if they could waive that and Bobbie Jones said the Board of Adjustment may be able to waive that part of it. Vice -Chairman Jacks asked if there should be a minimum distance between driveways. Bobbie Jones said there should be a minimum distance of 25 feet between the driveways. Vice -Chairman Jacks said the Planning Commission can't waive the provisions of the Tandem Lot Ordinance which sets up only one tandem lot behind another one. Mr. Hawkins explained the map to the Board. He said the driveway is 41 feet, 6 inches wide. He said he would like to have permission to build another house or sell the lot for someone else to build there and share the driveway. Chairman Power said the Planning Commission can approve the two tandem lots and send it on to the Board of Adjustment to see if they will waive the minimum 25 feet frontage. Bobbie Jones said the Board of Adjustment would have to grant a variance. She said what Mr. Hawkins wants is two tandem lots. Mr. Maguire said you are allowing subdivision with a deed for 21 feet of land and a 7 or 8 foot actual driveway built on the property. Vice -Chairman Jacks said it looks like a good case for two tandem lots but Mr. Hawkins doesn't have enough property. He doesn't think the Planning Commission can vary that. • • • Planning Commission Meeting November 8, 1976 -9- Vice-Chairman Jacks made a motion to approve the concept of two tandem lots on this property if Mr. Hawkins can secure the variance from the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Maguire asked if it is on sewer and water. Mr. Hawkins said they are putting it in now. Peg Anderson seconded the motion, which was approved 7-0, with Maguire and Nickell abstaining. The fifth item for discussion was the conditional use request of Gordon Houston for a building supply center at 2424 North College Avenue. This use is included in Use Unit 21 and is a use Permissible on appeal to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Mr. Houston said this building supply center is related to his carpet business. Some of the things he would sell are categorized into C-2. Bill Kisor asked what portion he was going to use for supplies and Mr. Houston said he is going to use the south end of the building. Vice -Chairman Jacks asked what he meant by building supplies and Gordon Houston said paneling, floor covering, doors, trim, and other things primarily for interior finishing. Vice -Chairman Jacks made a motion to approve this conditional use for a building supply center at 2424 North College. Mr. Maguire seconded the motion which was approved unanimously, 9-0. The discussion was opened on the petition PETITION TO VACATE to vacate and abandon a portion of Garland Forrest and Vanzetta Tennant Avenue between West Center Street and California Garland Avenue Drive. Petitioners are Forrest Tennant and Vanzetta Tennant, and the Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas. Dick Wommack was there to represent. Mr. Wommack said this is a unused street now. He said the University of Arkansas owns Lots 600, 601, and 602 to the West of the street right-of-way. Dr. and Mrs. Tennant formerly lived to the East ina house built by Mr. Henry Shreve. He said the road right-of-way is 40 feet by 190 feet which they wish to close and it has no value as far as meeting another street. The utility easements. would be left there. He said there is some construction on these lots anticipated on the north end. Mr Maguire asked if the University is going to build there and Dick Wommack said no; the Tennants may want to build duplexes on it some time in the future. Bill Kisor moved to recommend to the Board of Directors and Vice -Chairman Jacks seconded the motion that the petition to vacate and abandon a portion of Garland Avenue be approved. The vote was unanimous, 9-0. Chairman Power opened discussion on the request HARLEY BRIGHAM for a fourth waiver of the Subdivision South side of Fox Hunters Road Regulations (lot split) submitted by Harley Lot Split Brigham for property located on the South side of Fox Hunters Road, outside the City limits and inside the Planning Area. Vice -Chairman Jacks said the Subdivision Committee recommends to approve the lot split with the stipulation that Mr. Brigham reserve 30 feet from the existing centerline of the road for right-of-way and cooperate with the county in meeting whatever requirements they have. Chairman Power asked Mr. Brigham if he was in agreement with this and he said he was. Vice -Chairman Jacks moved to approve a fourth waiver of Subdivision Regulations with the stipulation that 30 feet from the center line of the existing right-of- way be reserved for road purposes. GORDON HOUSTON 2424 North College Conditional Use Request the Planning Commission in the Planning Commission Meeting November 8, 1976 -10- Mr. Newhouse seconded, and the motion was approved unanimously by a vote of 8-0-1, with Mr. Maguire abstaining. Chairman Power opened discussion on the approval BASSETT PLACE of the revised preliminary Plat of Bassett Place, Highway 71 North located East of U. S. Highway 71 North and North of Revised Preliminary Plat Stearns Road; Johnie Bassett, Developer. Vice -Chairman Jacks reported that the Subdivision Committee had looked at this and moved to approve this with the contingencies that: (1) a letter be provided to Wally Brt for his sanitation trucks to go into Lots 5A, 6A, and 7A; (2) easements along the east side be not less than 25 feet anywhere; (3) waive the street light spacing requirements to allow him to have them 330 feet apart; (4) revise lot dimensions on Lot 6 and 6A; (5) add a graphic scale; and (6) the recommendation that Ozark Windows have access to the Frontage Road Keith Newhouse seconded the motion. Ervan Wimberly, with McClelland Engineers, said he didn't think they could do anything about the recommendation for Ozark Windows. The motion was approved unanimously, by a vote of 9-0. Chairman Power opened discussion on the PERIMETER PLAZA approval of the Final Plat of Perimeter U. S. Highway 71 North Plaza Addition, located East of U. 5. Highway Final Plat 71 North and South of Zion Road; James E. Lindsey; J. B. Hays; J. F. Starr; J. B. Hays, P. S. Trust; J. B. Hays and Frank Grammer, Developers. Vice -Chairman Jacks said the Subdivision Committee had reviewed this.. They said they would need to add one street light between Lots 6 and 7; and on Zion Road they need to be moved into the street right-of-way. He asked if they were going to post a bond or enter into a contract and Mr. Wimberly said to his know- ledge, it would be a contract. Vice -Chairman Jacks made a motion to approve the Final Plat of Perimeter Plaza with (1) the addition of the street light between Lots 6 and 7; (2) the other street lights along Zion be moved into the right-of-way; (3) the City be furnished a contract to guarantee improvements; and (4) the recommendation that Clayton Powell look into the drainage on the Frontage Road where it intersects with Zion Road. Ervan Wimberly said it drains about ten acres now and they are raising Zion Road about three feet. He said there will be a new storm drainage system completely. Vice -Chairman Jacks asked whether they would take care of the water and ice. Mr. Wimberly said he thinks it will. He said Clayton Powell is working with him on this, with the Street Department supplying the labor, and the developers supplying materials. Vice -Chairman Jacks then amended his motion to delete the recommendation on drainage at the intersection of Zion Road and Frontage Road. Keith Newhouse seconded the amended motion. Bill Kisor asked what the name of the street East of Frontage Road is, Mr. Wimberly said it is Gable Drive. The motion was approved unanimously by a vote of 9-0. The next item on the agenda was the approval UNIVERSITY BAPTIST CHURCH of the Large Scale Development Plan, a Conditional 315 West Maple Use Request, and an approval of off-site parking for Large Scale Development University Baptist Church located South of Maple Street and East of West Avenue; University Baptist Church, Developers. Proposed off-site parking lies West of Vandeventer and South of Lafayette. Chairman Power said he had' talked earlier with City Attorney Jim McCord and City Manager Don Grimes and they expressed a great desire to straighten out the jog at Maple and Vandeventer. He suggested that they table the matter, if Pastor • • • Planning Commission Meeting November 8, 1976 -11- Ralph Goff agreed, for two weeks in order to give them time to have a meeting with Chairman John Power, Vice -Chairman Ernest Jacks, City Manager Don Grimes, City Attorney Jim McCord, Pastor Ralph Goff and any other representatives from the Church to discuss straightening out the jog. Pastor Goff said the Church is willing to do whatever is necessary, but they would like to start the new facility no later than January 1, 1977. They agreed to have the meeting and come back to the Planning Commission in two weeks. Bobbie Jones advised the Planning Commission that the Board of Adjustment is to consider a request for a variance on certain parking requirements November 15, 1976. Chairman John Power asked Planning Consultant Larry Wood to table the report on a study of the land use and zoning of the "downtown area" until the next meeting in two weeks. Larry Wood agreed. LAND USE STUDY "Downtown Area" Chairman John Power opened discussion on the last Skating Rinks item under "other business", a proposed roller rink to be in I-1 Zone built by David Carter. Chairman Power acknowledged a letter from David Carter on the proposed construction. Chairman Power said the present zoning of the property is I-1 and he feels that use does fall under commercial recreation, which is permitted in Use Unit 20. However, it is not listed in Use Unit 20 (but is listed in Use Unit 19, which is not -permitted in I-1.) David Carter said he is interested in a building 100 feet by 200 feet on two acres. He said the roller rink would be used strictly for church parties, group parties, and skating; it would not be a gathering place. He said most of the operational hours would be in the afternoons and on weekends, and some night sessions. He pointed out that there are not usually a lot of cars, and said there would hardly ever be 75 cars there at one time. Chairman John Power asked Mr. Carter if he had talked with the people in that area and Mr. Carter said he had not. Rita Davis said she would like to go out and look at the location before she voted on it. Larry Wood said it would take C-2 zoning to get it right. He had suggested he go to the Planning Commission to get Roller Rinks added to that use unit. Discussion followed about whether he should switch the use unit. The general consensus is that it looks like commercial recreation. Chairman Power asked Bobbie Jones what the restrictions of C-1, C-2, and C-3 are. She said C-1 allows neither Use Unit 19 nor Use Unit 20: C-2 allows both 19 and 20, and C-3 allows only Use Unit 19. Chairman Power asked Bobbie Jones to advertise a public hearing to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow Use Units 19 and 20 both as conditional uses in the I-1 zone. The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 P.M. A • • • RESOLUTION PC 68-76 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Planning Commission, Monday, November 8, 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 Laura Baker, R76-36 for rezoning; NCW, 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-1, Low Density Residential District, to R-2, Medium Density Residential District, be denied. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: All of Block 27 of Gunter Addition to the City of Fayetteville, as designated upon the recorded plat of said addition, in the County of Washington and State of Arkansas. Also lots Numbered 7 and 8, Block 12 in the Gunter Addition to the City of Fayetteville, as designated upon the revised plat of Blocks 12 and 27 in said addition, recorded at Page 70 in the Plat Book, in the office of the Circuit clerk and Ex -Officio Recorder of said county, said real estate also being described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of Block 27 of Gunter addition to the City of Fayetteville, and running thence West 35 feet, thence South 300 feet, thence East 35 feet, thence North 300 feet to the place of beginning, being part of Block 12 of Gunter Addition to the City of Fayetteville. 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 69-76 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission, Monday, November 8, 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- 37, Jim Hatfield and Hatfield -Pontiac Cadillac. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 4, Block 2, Van Hoose -Van Winkle Addition to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, except the East 50 feet thereof. Also, Part of Lots 5, 7 and 8, Block 2, Van Hoose -Van Winkle Addition to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, more particularly described as follows, to -wit: Beginning at a point which is 1.5 feet West of the Northwest corner of Lot 7, and running thence South 105 feet, thence East 40 feet, thence North 105 feet to a point which is 1.5 feet West of the Southeast corner of Lot 3, in Block 2, Van Hoose -Van Winkle Addition to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, thence West 40 feet to the point of beginning. Also, Lot 2, Block 2, Van Hoose -Van Winkle Addition to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. Also, Part of Lots 7 and 8, Block 2, of the Van Hoose -Van Winkle Addition to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, described as follows, to -wit: Beginning at the Southeast corner of Lot 2, Block 2 in the said Van Hoose -Van Winkle Addition, and running thence South 77 feet, thence West 50 feet, thence North 77 feet, thence East 50 feet to place of beginning. Also, Lot 3, Block 2, Van Hoose -Van Winkle Addition to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. Also, 50 feet of equal and uniform width off of the East end of Lot 4, Block 2, in the Van Hoose - Van Winkle Addition to the City of Fayetteville. Also, part of Lots 5, 8 and 9, Block 2, of the Van Hoose -Van Winkle Addition to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point that is South 176 feet and North 89° 17' 30" East 30 feet from the Northwest corner of the SWk of the NWt of Section 15, T -16-N, R -30-W, thence North 89° 17' 30" East 282.50 feet, thence South 105 feet, thence North 89° 17' 30" East 40 feet, thence North 28 feet, thence North 89° 17' 30" East 50 feet, thence South 28 feet, thence North 89° 17' 30" East 60 feet, thence South 28.65 feet, thence West 250.50 feet, thence North 23.30 feet, thence West 182 feet, thence North 105 feet to the point of beginning. NCW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVIJ.IF, 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: All of Lot 2, Block 2, Van Hoose -Van Winkle Addition to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. Also, the East 40 feet of equal and uniform width of Lots 3 and 5, Block 2; the West 50 feet of equal and uniform PC 69-76 • Page 2. • • width of Lots 7 and 8, Block 2; and the West 90 feet of the North 28.65 feet of Lot 9, Block 2, of the Van -Hoose -Van Winkle Addition to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. 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 8th day of November , 1976. Approved: John Power, Chairman • • OE .. I ' $9•8Z S -0 I • to 1 • o 0 0j a3 3 inO 2a P- N. 2 3b y - . 3w 2N ,9ZZ • •CWS0doad O O roa ,911 s 3ntl 3037703 N J -: c zC. C r Lv_ c U.:_ l ! > J • 1_ IC_ C ▪ L f. U - c I.- a` • . ▪ ,_- -. __' C > Lc ▪ cis_ — . _ = J0_`cc j ▪ c•- C$ Cr C Lr mg :C 0 Crc 4 ▪ 2..."-- - E• C C =C`E 74_ _ J L 2 C `<vz-v CC _2_LI L. -C :=c --PCa4 ; 2 2 • • Z' L:CCC- Jc r , z . < ucc u .L .v• c c = �acc<_ X « L • • • • RESOLUTION PC 70-76 WHEREAS, the petition of Forrest and Vanzetta Tennant and the Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas for vacating a street was presented to the City Planning Commission for recommendation; and WHEREAS, at a meeting on Monday, November 8, 1976, the City Planning Commission voted to make a recommendation to the City Board of Directors on said petition to vacate a street. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILT,F, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That after the public hearing an ordinance be adopted for the purpose of vacating the public street, described as follows: A rectangular section of Garland Avenue immediately South of Maryland Street a/k/a West Center Street as that street is originally platted and immediately North of California Drive as that street is also platted on the official plats and records, being more adequately described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of Lots 600, Oak Park Place Addition to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, and running thence South to where the East boundary of Stadium Drive intersects Garland Avenue, then East to the Southwest corner of Lot 116 of Oak Park Place Addition, thence North along the East boundary line of Garland Avenue as platted, to a point opposite the beginning point as hereinabove set forth, thence West 40 feet to the point of beginning. PASSED AND APPROVED this 8th day of November , 1976. APPROVED: • John Power, Chairman RESOLUTION PC 71-76 WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on Monday, November 8, 1976, the Planning Commission voted to make a recommendation to the Board of Directors on the final subdivision plat dated , 1976, known as Perimeter Plaza Addition submitted by James E. Lindsey, J. B. Hays, J. F. Starr, and J. B. Hays, P. S. Trust, J. B. Hays and Frank Grommer and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that because the necessary improvements have not been installed in said subdivision that James E. Lindsey, J. B. Hays, J. F. Starr, and J. B. Hays, P. S. Trust, J. B. Hays and Frank Grommer 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 FAYETTEVILIF, 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 Perimeter Plaza Addition described as follows: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A part of the Ni of the SE4 of Section 23, T -17-N, R -30 -W of the 5th P. M., in the City of Fayetteville, Washington County, Arkansas, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the South line of said 80 acre tract which is N 89° 38' W 300 feet from the SE corner of said 80 acre tract; thence N 89 58' W 905.96 feet to the East right of way line of U. S. Highway 71; thence N O° 23' W with said East line 61 feet; thence N 13° 26' W with said East line 473.3 feet; thence N 12° 45' E with said East line 50.5 feet; thence N 71 53' E with said East line 158.8 feet; thence N 0° 19' E with said East line 19.80 feet to the South right of way line of Zion Road; thence East with said South line 851.70 feet; thence S 0° 13' 35" E 640.70 feet to the point of beginning. SECTION 3. That the developer add another street light between Lots 6 and 7; and on Zion Road they need to be moved into the street right of way. PASSED AND APPROVED this 8th day of November ATTEST: Rita Davis, Secretary , 1976. APPROVED: John Power, Chairman • • • RESOLUTION PC 72-76 BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, that a public hearing be called for the prupose of amending Zoning Ordinance 1747 (Appendix A - Zoning, Fayetteville Code of Ordinances) Article 5, Section VIII (C), to permit Use Unit 19, Commercial Recreation in the I-1 Zoning District on appeal to the Planning Commission. Also, to amend Article 5, Section VIII (B) and (C), to delete Use Unit 20, Commercial Recreation - Large Sites, as a use by right and to permit Use Unit 20 in the I-1 Zoning District on appeal to the Planning Commission. 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 8th day of November , 1976. APPROVED: John Power, Chairman