Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-10-30 Minutes• MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the City Planning Commission was held on Monday, October 30, 1978, at 5:00 o'clock P.M., in the Board of Directors Room, City Administra- tion Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas, MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Rita Davis, Morton Gitelman, Beth Crocker, Ernest Jacks, Keith Newhouse, Newton Hailey, Windell Cullers (arrived at 5:10), and Bill Kisor. MEMBERS ABSENT: Peg Anderson. OTHERS PRESENT: Bobbie Jones, Gail Biswell, David McWethy, Rick Briggs, Bill Graue, Ervan Wimberly, Kent Clement, Bob Reagan, Charles Combs, Marshall Carlisle, Juanita Fairchild, Mr. and Mrs. David Colclasure, Gerald Jones, Ann Jones, Robert Windham, Don Ward, Wade Bishop, J. W. Eoff, Dr. Donald Stanton, Linda Apperson, Eula Apperson, Dawn Dunnuck, Anna Dotson, and other unidentified members of the audience. Chairman Davis called the meeting to order. Chairman Davis commented that the minutes of MINUTES the meeting of October 9, 1978, were unsatisfactory to several of the Planning Commission members with reference to the rezoning request for South Gregg Street. Ernest Jacks presented a copy of a memo- randum he had mailed to the Board of Directors and which he had sent to all the Planning Commission members which he felt clarified the action the Commission had taken concerning the S. Gregg peti- tions. (A copy of this memorandum is attached hereto to become a part of the minutes of this meeting.) In summary, the memorandum stated that the Commission had, after discussion, decided not to act on either petition submitted (designated Al and A2) and therefore, permitted the petitions to die for lack of action. The commission members encouraged the individual property owners to petition individually for rezoning of their respective properties. He requested the minutes of October 9 reflect this. Newton Hailey stated that on page 5 of the minutes of the said meeting, Mr. Grimes had not personally "indicated to him..." but that he had only heard "rumors". Beth Crocker stated that on page 2 of the minutes the lady referred to as "Nancy Ault" was really "Nancy noted that the lady had signed the petition as "Nancy With these corrections, the minutes were approved The first item for discussion was the approval of the plat of Mildred Lee Estates, Phase II, lo- cated South of Highway 16 West off the end of Michael Cole Drive (outside city), Bill and Mildred Graue, owners. Bill and Mildred Graue were present to rep- resent, of said meeting that Mahler". Bobbie Jones Ault". as mailed. MILDRED LEE ESTATES, PHASE II Plat Approval • • • • October 12, 1978 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Directors FROM: Ernie Jacks, Member Planning Commission This is an effort to clarify the Planning Commission action of 9 October 1978 regarding petitions to rezone South Gregg Avenue. The Commission's action was deliberate and clear but appears to have been clouded somewhat by subsequent conversations and press reports. The Planning Commission had before it two petitions: PETITION I, apparently signed primarily by persons renting property on South Gregg Avenue, West Avenue and University Avenue, asking that a public hearing be called to rezone South Gregg to R1; and PETITION II, apparently signed by owners of property on South Gregg Avenue, asking that a public hearing be called to rezone the South Gregg properties zoned "Industrial" to R2. A motion was offered to refer the matter to Larry Wood for study and recommendation prior to a decision on the petitions. Dis- cussion determined that a study of the area had already been made during the past summer and a revision to the General Plan, indica- ting High Density Residential for the area, was adopted by the Planning Commission on July 24, 1978. In answer to a question from the Commission, Mr. Wood indicated that his recommendation would continue to be High Density Residential for the area. Thereupon, after discussion, the majority of the Commission apparently feeling that additional study would be fruitless, the motion was defeated 6-3. Further discussion among the Commission members indicated a desire to have the previous study stand but, in view of the obvious rift between owners and residents, to wait for individual property owners to petition for High Density rezonings on specific parcels rather than hold a public hearing on a change for the entire area. Since a favorable action on neither petition was desired by the majority of the Commission, it was decided to allow the petitions to die for lack of action. 04-ce:, m tee. 4 ►vv b acrael ec . Sees - . EEJ/tw • • • Planning Commission Meeting October 30, 1978 2 Ernest Jacks noted that this property is located outside the city. He also noted that the Subdivision Committee had determined that the county had approved the septic tanks, and that the plat's layout was somewhat strange in that each lot was divided by the street (Michael Cole Drive) and that the houses were built on the North parts of the lots. He further noted that ori- ginally there were five duplexes built upon this 5 -acre tract and that now Mr. Graue wishes to split the property so that the duplexes can be sold indi- vidually in 1 -acre tracts. He stated that the Subdivision Committee brought this to the Planning Commission without any recommendation because of several reasons: 1) Signatures of adjacent property owners were lacking, 2) There is a good chance this property will someday be annexed to the city and there is a connection between one cul-de-sac and another cul-de-sac which is only 30' wide (less than minimum city street width requirements), and 3) That there is a very good possibility that someday the owners of the individual 1 -acre tracts will want to sell the southern part of their lots, and in that event, the septic tank situation will be substandard to city requirements. Bill Graue noted that the county had accepted his septic tanks "as built" when the duplexes were built. Chairman Davis asked Bobbie Jones to give her views and Mrs. Jones stated that the Board of Directors would have to look at this because each lot is less than 11/2 acre --they are only 1 acre each if you include the county road area which splits the lots in two. She also stated that Bud Allen of the County had said he would approve the plat if the city would. Bill Kisor asked if the road was paved or gravel and Mr. Graue responded that it was gravel. After further discussion upon the oddity of the lots and other problems, Morton Gitelman moved to approve the plat with the requirement that the plat contain a note covenanting that the lots would not be further subdivided and subject to the Plat Review comments being met. Bill Kisor seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The next item for discussion was the approval of the final plat of West Wind Subdivision, a Planned Unit Development, Phase II, located North of Township Road and South of Sheryl Avenue; Dr. Bob Brandon and Jim Younkin, Owners. Property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Ervan Wimberly was present to represent. After a very short discussion, Ernest Jacks made a motion to approve the final plat subject to the following contingencies: 1) 25' frontage re- quired for each tandem lot driveway, 2) Plat Review comments being met, and 3) a contract with the developer being executed which covers improvements not yet completed. Bill Kisor seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. WEST WIND SUBDIVISION, PHASE II Planned Unit Development Final Plat The next item for consideration was the re- quest by Troy Parnell for a lot split, property being located South of Highway 62, West of Holly- wood Avenue, and East of Highway 71 By -Pass, zoned TROY PARNELL Lot Split • Planning Commission Meeting October 30, 1978 - 3 • • C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. This was brought to the Planning Com- mission since Sec. 18-13, Fayetteville Code of Ordinances, requires Planning Commission approval of any "development" of property abutting Highway 71 By - Pass, a controlled access highway. Kent Clement was present to represent. After discussion, Ernest Jacks made a motion that the lot split be ap- proved, subject to dedication of a right-of-way for the service road and execution of a contract with the developer to build a service road (at the developer's expense) upon the city's call. Keith Newhouse seconded the mo- tion, which passed unanimously, The next item for discussion was the approval PINEWOODS SUBDIVISION of the final plat of Pinewoods Subdivision, said Final Plat subdivision being located on the West side of Azalea Terrace (street) between Old Wire Road and Azalea Terrace Subdivision, Bob Reagan, Developer. Prop- erty is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Bob Reagan was present to represent. After a short discussion, Ernest Jacks moved to approve the final plat with the contingencies that 1) the note regarding sidewalks which is printed on the plat be changed to read that "sidewalks will be completed along one side of the street (all same side) and all sidewalks will be completed in full prior to occupancy of any building," and 2) that all other Plat Review comments be met. Newton Hailey seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The next item for discussion was the public REZONING PET. R78-24 hearing held on Rezoning Petition R78-24, Charles Combs Charles Combs, petitioner, to rezone property Highway 16 East located North of Highway 16 and East of Morning- side Drive from R-1, Low Density Residential District, tabled October 9, 1978, at request of petitioner. Charles Combs and attorney Marshall Carlisle were present to represent. Planning Consultant Larry Wood said he would not recommend the change in zoning for three reasons: 1) It is not consistent with the adopted land use plan (which calls for medium density residential); 2) Rezoning would encourage strip commercial development along the North side of Highway 16; and 3) approval would erode the public's confidence in the adopted general plan. Attorney Marshall Carlisle, representing petitioner Charles Combs, re- called the history of Highway 16 and talked about other recent attempts at developing tracts of land along the highway into commercial property. He stated that everyone was uncertain of 16 Bypass' future. Mr. Carlisle passed around pictures of other structures and developments already present along the highway (Shenandoah Mobile Home Park, College Club Dairy, a construction storage yard and several residences. He further stated that the building Charles Combs proposes to build on 8 of his 15 acres would be considerably more sightly than any of the present buildings along the highway in this area. Mr. Combs also proposes to curb and gutter his entire highway frontage and would find • Planning Commission Meeting October 30, 1978 4 • • good use for the remaining 6 or 7 acres of his land. Mr. Carlisle further stated that he doesn't feel R-1 is practical for the by-pass in that it does not allow for any development, but that Mr. Combs could "live with" an R-2 zoning, even though he would prefer C-2. Chairman Davis commented at this point that Larry Wood's general plan recommends R-2 for this area and that Mr. Combs' proposal to build a cabaret falls into Use Unit 4, which is an allowable use in R-2 on appeal to the Planning Commission. Dawn Dunnuck, a member of the audience, asked if Mr. Combs' property extends clear to Highway 16 (Huntsville Road) and Mr. Carlisle responded that it did not, it only came within a half -mile or so to Huntsville Road. Mr. Carlisle then asked the Planning Commission members if they would consider letting Mr, Combs amend his petition to ask for an R-2 zoning. Chairman Davis said that in the past they have allowed petitioners to change their zoning request if they asked for a lesser use, which this re- quest would be. Linda Apperson, a member of the audience, asked how far back on the property would the building sit, and Mr, Combs responded that he planned to build it on the back part of his property. Mrs. Apperson noted that she felt that it would be much better to build this type of facility on the back part of a large lot, in its own building, than to allow the same type of facility to do business in a public bowling alley, which has been allowed in another area of this City. Keith Newhouse moved to amend the petition to read._"to rezone from R-1 to R-2 and to recommend to the Board of Directors that the amended petition be approved. Bill Kisor seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The next item for discussion was the REZONING PET. R78-25 public hearing held on Rezoning Petition R78-25, Mr. $ Mrs. David Colclasure Mr. and Mrs. David Colclasure, petitioners, N. of Old Farmington Road to rezone property located North of Old Farm- and W. of One Mile Road ington Road and West of One Mile Road from A-1, Agricultural District, to R-1, Low Density Residential District. Mr. and Mrs. David Col- clasure were present to represent. Planning Consultant Larry Wood said he would give a "tongue-in-cheek" recommendation to rezone to R-1 since this would be in keeping with the gen- eral plan and since water and sewer were available, however, he felt that this kind of "spot" or "hit and Miss" rezoning wasn't really appropriate since the land doesn't abut public access. He said he would not recommend any more rezonings of this type. Mrs. Colclasure commented that since there were no other lots up and down their road which could be recommended, she didn't see how this would be a prob- lem. Mrs. Juanita Fairchild, a member of the audience, asked the exact loca- tion of the property and Mrs. Colclasure gave directions. Mrs. Fairchild then asked if the proposed building would be a one -family residence and Mrs. Colclasure said it would be. Mrs. Fairchild then said she was present in • Planning Commission Meeting October 30, 1978 5 opposition to the rezoning since she owned a 76 -acre city lot that had been annexed to the City; and, at the time of annexation, the people pushing for annexation had wanted annexation to insure "controlled development" of the property. Mrs. Fairchild felt the Planning Commission was not giving "con- trolled development" to property when they allowed such "spot" or "hit and miss" rezonings. Mr. Don Ward, a member of the audience, noted that one definition of "controlled development" is "rezoning as necessary." He said that such re- zoning simply upgrades property and is not detrimental to development. Bobbie Jones stated that this petition would have to go to the Board of Adjustment because of a lack of frontage before she could her o.k. on the lot split, Ernest Jacks moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of Directors that the rezoning petition be approved as presented. Newton Hailey seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The next item for discussion was the public hearing held on Rezoning Petition R78-26, Whit- field Motor Company, petitioner, to rezone prop- erty located West of Highway 71B (College Avenue) and North of Lewis Ford Motor Company from A-1, Agricultural District, to C-2, Thoroughfare Com- mercial District. Gerald and Ann Jones were present to represent. Planning Consultant Larry Wood stated he would recommend the rezoning for three reasons: 1) T his petition is consistent with a previous case, similar in aspects, which was finally taken to court before being approved (the case mentioned allowed commercial use on the West side of a highway to the existing depth of existing commercial property); 2) All the property which will be used for this commercial development is already zoned C-2, except for this small 1 -acre parcel; and 3) Allowing the rezoning would be consistent with other usage along the South, North and East sides of this highway area. Ernest Jacks moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of Directors that the rezoning petition be approved as presented. Windell Cullers seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. REZONING PET. R78-26 Whitfield Motor Co. The next item for discussion was the Conditional Use Request submitted by Jerry Sweetser to construct a duplex on the South side of Lawson Street and East of Gregg Avenue, property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Robert Windham was present to repre- sent. JERRY SWEETSER Conditional Use Request S. of Lawson Street and E. of Gregg Chairman Davis made a comment directed to Mr. Windham pertaining to the letter he sent to the Planning Commission with his application for this re- quest. Mrs. Davis commented that if she lived next to property which was proposed for construction, she would want to be notified, and that in his letter, Mr. Windham had stated that the adjacent property owners had not been Planning Commission Meeting • October 30, 1978 - 6 • • notified since the lots upon which the duplex is proposed to be built is bound on the North by Lawson Street and on the East, South and West by other property also owned by Jerry D. Sweetser, Inc. In this regard, Mr. Windham had felt that notification of adjoining property owners was not applicable. Mr. Windham also stated that no drawings of the proposed duplex had been submitted for the reason of lack of time to prepare formal drawings, but that if this request was approved, a structure would be built which would be a "neighborhood asset" containing at least 1400 sq. feet per duplex (townhouse type). Newton Hailey moved to table this request for 2 reasons: 1) The adja- cent property owners had not yet been notified, and 2) That no specific plans for development had been submitted. Windell Cullers seconded the motion. Considerable discussion then ensued pertaining to whether "adjacent" or "adjoining" property owners were the correct people to be notified; and dis- cussion was also had concerning the proper definitions of "adjacent" and "adjoining." It was finally determined that "adjoining" property owners were to be notified and that "adjoining" should mean property owners having property "connected to" the property. Morton Gitelman commented that he agreed with Mr. Windham that people "across" the street (Lawson) would not be consid- ered "adjoining" property owners, but that the requirement that "adjoining" property owners be notified could be interpreted to mean that all owners of property adjoining the total parcel of property owned by Jerry D. Sweetser, Inc. (not just the two lots upon which the construction is proposed) were to be notified. After further discussion, Newton Hailey amended his motion to table this request until: 1) All property owners adjoining the total property owned in this area by Jerry D. Sweetser, Inc. are notified; and 2) a specific drawing showing the proposed development plan is submitted. Ernest Jacks seconded the motion, which passed unanimously, The next item for discussion was the Con- DON WARD ditional Use Request submitted by Don Ward to Conditional Use Request have a temporary Real Estate Sales Office located 2195 Country Way at 2195 Country Way, property zoned R1, Low Density Residential District. Don Ward was present to represent. Don Ward stated that he had contacted his adjoining neighbors and that none of them had objected to his establishing a temporary office in his home. Bobbie Jones also stated that her office had notified each of the adjoin- ing property owners listed on Mr. Ward's application and that none of them had contacted her office with any objections. Mr. Ward said that he would be happy with a year-to-year renewable permit as he only planned to have this office in his home until sometime next summer. Ernest Jacks moved to approve the request for a period of one year. Keith Newhouse seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. • Planning Commission Meeting October 30, 1978 - 7 The next item which appeared on the agenda JULIA ROGERS was a Conditional Use Request submitted by Julia Conditional Use Request Rogers for a tandem lot behind 524 Sequoyah Drive, 524 Sequoyah Drive property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Wade Bishop was present as an inter- ested party. Chairman Davis informed the Planning Commission that she had been noti- fied by Bobbie Jones that Mrs. Rogers had called in a request to cancel this C.U. request for the time being due to some water line and legal description problems. Keith Newhouse moved to table the request until further notice. Ernest Jacks seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Wade Bishop requested that in the future, anyone who has notified the Planning Office of their interest in an item on the agenda be notified when and if such item is cancelled. Bobbie Jones responded that someone from her office had tried to reach him and as he was out, had left word either with his office or at his home that the Conditional Use Request had been cancelled. The next item for discussion was the re- PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST quest of Dr. Donald Stanton, Veterinarian, Dr. Donald Stanton requesting the Planning Commission to call a public hearing to consider placing a "Vet- erinary Small Animal Out -Patient Clinic" in Use Units 12 and 25. Dr. Donald Stanton was present to represent. Bobbie Jones noted that Use Unit 12 is permitted in zones C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, I-1, I-2, and R-0; and that Use Unit 25 is permitted in the above zones and on approval of the Planning Commission, with 1 acre or more in zones R-2 and R-3. Dr. Stanton explained to the Commission the difference in a veterinary out-patient clinic and a veterinary hospital and informed the Commission that he was simply requesting a Use Unit for outpatient veterinary clinics: Morton Gitelman moved to schedule a public hearing to allow out-patient veterinary clinics in Use Units 12 and 25, Ernest Jacks seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The last item on the agenda was the PUBLIC HEARING " oESOP- public hearing to amend Appendix A -Zoning to allow home occupations in R-1, Low Density Residential District, on appeal to the Plan- ning Commission. Linda Apperson, Eula Apperson, and Anna Dotson were present as inter- ested parties. Dawn Dunnuck was present in opposition. Bobbie Jones noted that, if allowed, Home Occupations would be included in Use Unit 8 (Single Family and Two.Family Dwellings) in section (B) Included Uses. Planning Consultant Larry Wood commented that he had always been opposed to allowing Home Occupations on appeal in R-1 for 2 reasons: 1) this would Home Occupations a4 • • Planning Commission Meeting October 30, 1978 8 encourage uses not normally allowed in R-1, and 2) this would encourage traf- fic in R-1 zones, However, Mr. Wood felt that with the use allowed only on appeal to the PC, the Planning Commission would have control over noisy, ob- noxious occupations, Linda Apperson commented that she felt this should be allowed as many people have no other means of supporting themselves and people who live in R-2 and R-3 zones have this opportunity to conduct home occupations in their homes, She felt the discrimination against people living in R-1 zones to be totally unfair. Mrs. Dawn Dunnuck commented that if a home occupation is good it grows and once you get a home occupation in, how do you get it out? She felt that to allow home occupations would be "robbing a dozen Peters to benefit one Paul." She said that where there are home occupations there is always heavier traffic and a problem with adequate waste disposal. She said that if allowed in areas where septic tanks are used, they would be totally undesirable. She also commented about a television news story she had seen on home occupations which called them "subterranean occupations which collect and pay no taxes" and that this was a growing national problem. Newton Hailey commented that most home occupations he knew of had been assessed for occupation taxes. Robert Windham, a member of the audience, commented that he felt no harm would be done to allow Home Occupations on a year-to-year renewable basis and if done this way the PC would have control over undesirable occupations. Bobbie Jones read Article 7, Section 10 of the zoning regulations which spells out the conditions for allowing Home Occupations. She also read the definition of a "home occupation" as defined by the zoning ordinance. Morton Gitelman commented that allowing Home Occupations in R-1 upon request to the PC would be like opening a "can of worms" and would cause the PC a multitude of administrative problems, Anna Dotson, an interested party,. commented she felt there was no good reason for not allowing this as a Conditional Use, After considerable discussion, Newton Hailey moved to recommend to the Board of Directors that the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to permit home occupations in R-1 zones on appeal to the Planning Commission be approved. Bill Kisor seconded the motion. After a vote being taken, the motion failed for lack of a majority vote. The voting was 4-4 with Kisor, Hailey, Crocker and Newhouse voting for the motion and Cullers, Gitelman, Davis and Jacks voting against the motion. The meeting adjourned at 7:26 p.m. • • • RESOLUTION 48-78 WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on Monday, October 30, 1978, the Fayetteville Planning Commission voted to approve the final subdivision plat dated , 19 , known as MILDRED LEE ESTATES and submitted by Bill and Mildred Graue; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that the final plat bear a covenant prohibiting further division of the lots of this subdivision; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: SECTION 1. The final plat is hereby required to bear a covenant prohibiting further division of the lots of this subdivision prior to filing of said final subdivision plat with the Washington County Circuit Clerk's office. SECTION 2. That the City Planning Commission of Fayetteville, Arkansas, hereby approves the final plat, along with the land dedicated for streets and other public uses in the MILDRED LEE ESTATES subdivision described as follows: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PASSED AND APPROVED this 30th day of October, 1978. ATTEST: Morton Gitelman, Secretary APPROVED: Rita Davis, Chairman • • • RESOLUTION PC 49-78 WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on Monday, October 30, 1978, the Fayetteville Planning Commission voted to approve the final subdivision plat dated October 18 , 19 78 , known as WEST WIND, PHASE II, a Planned Unit Development submitted by Dr. Bob Brandon, Jim Younkin, Johnie Bassett and Dr. Charles Cale; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that because the neces- sary improvements have not been installed in said subdivision that Dr. Bob Brandon, Jim Younkin, Johnie Bassett and Dr. Charles Cale enter into and fur- nish the city with the necessary subdivision contract covering these improve- ments; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: SECTION 1. The necessary subdivision contract be executed with the City of Fayetteville prior to filing of the final subdivision plat with the Washington County Circuit Clerk's office. SECTION 2. That the City Planning Commission of Fayetteville, Ark- ansas, hereby approves the final plat, along with the land dedicated for streets and other public uses in the WEST WIND, PHASE II, Planned Unit Devel- opment described as follows: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A part of the Ell of the SE' of Section 35, Township 17 North, Range 30 West in the City of Fayetteville, Washington County, Arkansas, described as follows: Beginning at a point which is N89 degrees 59'E 20.0 feet from the SW Corner of the NE4 of the SE; of said Section; thence N 0 degrees 18' W 360.0 feet; thence S 89 degrees 59'W 70.0 feet; thence N 0 degrees 36'W 278.1 feet; thence N 45 degrees 36'W 40.0 feet; thence N 41 degrees 54'E 41.8 feet; thence N 89 degrees 24'E 50.0 feet; thence N 0 degrees 36'W 424.2 feet to the SW Corner of Lot 10 of Rosewood Estates Addition; thence S 89 degrees 51'E with said South line 426.95 feet to the right-of-way of Sheryl Avenue; thence Southerly and Easterly with the curve of said right-of-way, the radius of said curve being 50.0 feet, a distance of 163.6 feet; thence Easterly with the curve of'said right-of-way on a radius of 275.0 feet a distance of 75.79 feet to the NW Corner of Lot 7 of the Rosewood Estates Addi- tion; thence S 0 degrees 28'E 329.96 feet; thence S 73 degrees 3S' W 128.97 feet; thence S 0 degrees 28' E 197.0 feet; thence S 45 degrees 28'E 175.36 feet; thence S 0 degrees 30'E 885.1 feet; thence S 89 degrees 59'W 573.9 feet; thence N 0 degrees 18'W 496.8 feet to the point of beginning, containing 21.09 acres, more or less. J • RESOLUTION PC 49-78 October 30, 1978 Page 2 PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 30th day of October, 1978. ATTEST: Morton Gitelman, Secretary APPROVED: Rita Davis, Chairman • • • RESOLUTION PC 50-78 WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on Monday, October 30, 1978, the Fayetteville Planning Commission voted to approve the final subdivision plat dated September 29, 1978, known as PINEWOODS SUBDIVISION, submitted by Bob Reagan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that because all the necessary improvements have not been installed in said subdivision that Bob Reagan be required to enter into and furnish the city with the necessary sub- division contract covering these improvements; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: SECTION 1. The necessary subdivision contract be executed with the City of Fayetteville prior to filing of the final subdivision plat with the Washington County Circuit Clerk's office. SECTION 2. That the City Planning Commission of Fayetteville, Arkansas, hereby approves the final plat, along with the land dedicated for streets and other public uses in the PINEWOODS SUBDIVISION (contingent upon all Plat Review, Subdivision and Planning Commission recommendations being fulfilled) described as follows: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A part of the NW; of the SE; of Section 36, Township 17 North, Range 30 West of the 5th Principal Meridian located in Washington County, Arkansas, and being more particu- larly described as follows, to -wit: Beginning at a point which is East 1163.00 feet and South 323.43 feet from the NW corner of said 40 acre tract and running thence S 13 degrees 20'E 400.00 feet, thence South 60 degrees 49'W 117.40 feet, thence N 13 degrees 26'W 400.00 feet, thence North 60 degrees 54'E 118.08 feet to the point of begin- ning. Containing 1.06 acres, more or less; also known as Lots Numbered One through Five (1-5) in Pinewoods Subdivi- sion, an addition to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, as per plat on file in the Office of the Circuit Clerk and Ex -Officio Recorder of Washington County, Arkansas. PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 30th day of October, 1978. ATTEST; Morton Gitelman? Secretary APPROVED: Rita Davis, Chairman • RESOLUTION PC 51-78 WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on Monday, October 30, 1978, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission 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 R78-24, Charles Combs. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: SECTION 1. That an ordinance be adopted for the purpose of rezoning said real estate from R-1, Low Density Residential District to R-2, Medium Density Residential District, said real estate being described as follows: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A part of the South Half of the NE; of Section 22, T -16-N, R -30-W, of the 5th P.M., County of Washington, State of Arkansas, being more particularly described as follows, to - wit: Beginning at a point on the North right-of-way of Hwy. No. 16 By -Pass which is forty (40) feet North of the SW corner of the SE; of the NE' of said Section 22; thence along said right-of-way S 88 degrees 49'E 524 feet to an existing fence which is the West boundary line of Shenan- doah Mobile Home Park which is 796 feet West of the East line of the SE; of the NE; of said Section 22; thence North along said existing fence line North 645 feet, more or less, to the center of the Old Pacific Great Eastern Rail- road (abandoned RW) said point being 796 feet West of the said East line of the SE; of the NE; of Section 22; thence along said abandoned railroad Westerly 994.25 feet more or less to a point which is 470.25 feet West of the East line of the SWa of the NE; of said Section 22; thence South 680 feet more or less to the North right-of-way line of Hwy. No. 16 By -Pass; thence along the North right-of-way line of said Hwy. S 88 degrees 49'E 470.25 feet to the point of be- ginning and containing in all 15 acres, more or less. SECTION 2. That the above described Low Density Residential District, to District, so that the petitioner may PASSED AND APPROVED this 30th day of property be rezoned from R-1, R-2, Medium Density Residential develop said property accordingly. October, 1978. APPROVED: Rita Davis, Chairman • • RESOLUTION PC 52-78 WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on Monday, October 30, 1978, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission fifteen (15) days after a sign was erected upon the property and after a notice was published in the North- west 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 R78-25, Mr. and Mrs. David Colclasure. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: • SECTION 1. That an ordinance be adopted for the purpose of rezoning said real estate from A-1, Agricultural District, to R-1, Low Density Resi- dential District, said real estate being described as follows: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A part of the NE; of the NW4, Section 19, T -16-N, R -30-W, described as beginning at a point which is N 88 degrees 36'29"W,_.1210.35 feet and S 00 degrees 55'40"W, 840.02 feet from the Northeast Corner of said 40 acre tract; thence South 89 degrees 09'16"E, 63.92 feet; thence South 11 degrees 44'32"E, 151.44 feet; thence South 85 degrees 20'50"W, 95.69 feet; thence North 00 degrees 14'06" East, 156.98 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.28 acres, more or less. SECTION 2. That the above described property Agricultural District, to R-1, Low Density Residential petitioner may build a home on said property. ATTEST: be rezoned from A-1, District, so that PASSED AND APPROVED this 30th day of October, 1978. • Morton Gitelman, Secretary APPROVED• Rita Davis, Chairman • • RESOLUTION PC 53-78 WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on Monday, October 30, 1978, a pub- lic hearing was held by the Planning Commission 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 R78-26, Whitfield Motor Company. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: SECTION 1. That an ordinance be adopted for the purpose of rezoning that portion of the following described property not already zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, from A-1, Agriculturual District, to C-2, Thorough- fare Commercial (being approximately a one-half acre parcel): LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the.W1/4 of the SE; of Section 26, T -17-N, R -30-W, Washington County, Arkansas, being more particularly de- scribed as follows, to -wit: Beginning at the Northeast corner of the SW1 of the SE; of said Section 26, and run- ning thence South 00 degrees 31'19" West 165.0 feet; thence North 89 degrees 42'15" West 192.0 feet; thence South 89 degrees 25'13" West 333.10 feet; thence North 01 degrees 25'41" East 173.42 feet; thence North 89 degrees 22'20" West 135.0 feet; thence North 00 degrees 03'12" East 330.0 feet; thence South 89 degrees 19'40" East 660.0 feet; thence South 00 degrees 31'19" West 330.0 feet to the point of beginning, containing 7.01 acres, more or less. SECTION 2. That the above described property be rezoned from A-1, Agricultural District, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial in its entirety so that this total tract of land will be zoned C-2. PASSED AND APPROVED this 30th day of October, 1978. ATTEST: Morton Gitelman, Secretary APPROVED: Rita Davis, Chairman • • • RESOLUTION PC 54-78 WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on Monday, October 30, 1978, the Planning Commission voted to call a public hearing to consider the request of Dr. Donald Stanton for placing a "Veterinary Small Animal Out -Patient Clinic" in Use Units 12 and 25 of Article 6, Appendix A -Zoning, to the City of Fayetteville Code of Ordinances; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMIS - SION: SECTION 1: That a public hearing be held on Monday, November 13, 1978, at 5:00 P.M. in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas, to consider this request. SECTION 2: That the Planning Administrator is hereby ordered to publish notice of said public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation 15 days prior to the date of said public hearing. PASSED AND APPROVED this 30th day of October, 1978. ATTEST: Morton Gitelman, Secretary APPROVED: Rita Davis, Chairman • • • RESOLUTION PC 55-78 WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on Monday, October 30, 1978, the Planning Commission held a public hearing fifteen (15) days after a notice was published in the Northwest Arkansas Times, a newspaper of general circu- lation; and WHEREAS, after the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to deny the proposed ordinance to amend Ordinance 1747, Article 6, Section (8) (B), Appendix A to the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances, to permit home occupations in the R-1, Low Density Residential Zoning District, on appeal to the Planning Commission; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: SECTION 1: That the proposed ordinance to amend Ordinance 1747 as requested be denied. PASSED AND APPROVED this 30th day of October, 1978. ATTEST: Morton Gitelman, Secretary APPROVED: Rita Davis, Chairman