Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-01-12 Minutes• MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at 5:00, P.M., Monday, January 12, 1981, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Ernest Jacks, Mort Gitelman, Elizabeth Crocker, Newton Hailey, Martin Redfern (arrived late), Don Hunnicutt, Joe Wilson. (one position vacant). MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Windell Cullers. Ray Logue, J. Drake, Kim Fugitt, Joseph Candido, Marjorie Rudolph, Mary Nordan, Wayne Ball, Rudy Hatcher, Jocelyn Torbett, R. C. Wray, Mr. $ Mrs. Eugene Lancaster, Pat Donat, Cyrus Sutherland, Jim Lindsey, Loris Stanton, Bryce Davis, J. B. Hays, Frank Farrish, Claude Prewitt, Francis Langham, Jerry Sweetser, Wade Bishop, Larry Wood, Bobbie Jones, Cynthia Stewart. The minutes of the December 22, 1980 meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. The next item of business was the Public Hearing on Rezoning Petition R80-32, The Gardener Company to rezone property located at 956 Ray Avenue from C-1, Neighborhood Commercial District, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. There was no one present to represent. The Chairman stated he had been presented with a letter asking the Planning Commission to table this item for sixty days. He asked if there was anyone present in favor of the rezoning request. There was no one present in favor. Upon a request for comments in opposition to the rezoning petition, Ray Logue, of 1967 Huntsville,: addressedtheCommission. He stated that he did not like the proposal to rezone the property as he felt it would change the nature of the neighborhood, which has been residential all through the years. He said that the one time the neighbors had agreed to a rezoning for a shopping center, it had turned into a chili factory. He stated that he was representing other neighbors who had been unable to attend and are also opposed. J. Drake, Route 10, Box 63, Fayetteville, addressed the Commission in opposition to the request. Mr. Drake wanted to know if the company that would locate on this property would be a local company. Bobbie Jones stated that the applicant requesting the rezoning had requested it be tabled as the buyer who had wanted the property rezoned before purchasing it had decided not to buy this piece of property. The applicant had indicated that they would try to find a buyer that could utilize the property with its present zoning. Beth Crocker moved to table the Rezoning Petition R80-32 as requested, and Don Hunnicutt seconded. The motion passed (6-0). APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES REZONING PETITION R80-32 THE GARDENER COMPANY, INC. 956 RAY AVENUE A Planning Commission Meeting • January 12, 1981 Page 2 • • The third item of business was REZONING PETITION R80-33 the Public Hearing on Rezoning Petition R. J. KEATING R80-33, R. J. Keating for The Stanton HIGHLAND AND MAPLE Company, to rezone property located at the NW corner of Highland and Maple Street, from R-1, Low Density Residential District to R-2, Medium Density Residential District. There was no one present to represent. The Chairman asked for a report from the Planning Consultant, Larry Wood. Mr. Wood stated he is recommending the change from R-1 to R-2 for the following reasons: 1. The subject property is adjacent to other property currently zoned R-2. 2. The subject property is on the periphery of the neighborhood, adjacent to a designated Collector Street and can serve as part of the buffer between residential and commercial 3. Renovation of the existing structure will preserve a part of the existing housing stock. 4. Conversion to a multi -family structure will more fully utilize existiiig••; facilities. Ernest Jacks asked if there was anyone appearing in favor of the rezoning request. There was no one present in favor. Upon a request for comments in opposition to the request, Kim Fugitt, 508 Forrest, addressed the Commission. He stated he is in opposition to the request as he feels the rezoning will lower property values in the existing R-1 neighborhood, and that by moving the R-2 across the street, a precedent may be set for R-2 creeping further into the R-1 neighborhood. Joseph Candido, 15 West Davidson, addressed the Commission in opposition to the rezoning. He asked the Commission what the nature of R-2 is. The Chairman explained that R-2 allows from 16 to 24 families per acre. He further explained that the rezoning is for the corner piece of property only. Marjorie Rudolph, 513 Highland, addressed the Commission. She wondered if another structure could be constructed on the lot. Mort Gitelman replied that only one building would be allowed on the lot. Mary Nordan, 515 Forrest, addressed the Commission. She felt that due to the narrowness of the streets in the neighborhood that a traffic hazard may result from the increased density of the R-2 zoning. She stated she is particularly worried as any increase of traffic may be dangerous to children crossing the street to get to Washington School. Ms. Nordan said that there are several houses in the neighborhood that are up for sale, she was afraid that if this property is rezoned, those properties may be rezoned also, and further contribute to the dangerous traffic conditions. She did not want the nature of the neighborhood changed. Kim Fugitt asked what accomodations for parking would be provided; he wondered if residents of this property would be parking on the street. Loris Stanton stated that in order to obtain a building permit to remodel the house 2 Planning Commission Meeting January 12, 1981 Page 3 and increase the dwelling units, the owner or contractor would have to provide on-site parking. Newton Hailey asked if the applicant could obtain a Conditional Use. Bobbie Jones stated that the lot is not large enough for a duplex in R-1, hence the request for rezoning. The lot contains 11,250 square feet, and 12,000 square feet of lot area is required for a duplex in R-1. Mort Gitelman stated he is opposed to the rezoning if the lot is not large enough to support a duplex. He stated that not only would the R-2 be crossing the street barrier, but moving the R-2 across the street would be detrimental to all property in that block. He stated that it was contradictory to the standards set for duplexes and that he is opposed. Jacks stated that it would be a step across the street into a nice, older area. Newton Hailey moved to deny the rezoning request. Mort Gitelman seconded. Joe Wilson stated he is opposed to the request as it appears to be "spot zoning". The motion to deny passed (6-0). The fourth item of business was REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY DRIVEWAY a request to construct temporary driveways EAST OF WALNUT, WEST OF RAYVIEW on the undeveloped street right-of-way BALL AND HATCHER • of James Way, submitted by Rudy Hatcher and Wayne Ball. Property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Tabled at the December 22, 1980 meeting. Wayne Ball and Rudy Hatcher were present to represent. The Chairman asked Bobbie Jones if adjacent property owners had been notified. Ms. Jones replied they had. The Chairman had received a telegram from an adjoining property owner, Steve Williams, who stated he was in opposition to the request due to severe drainage problems in the neighborhood. Wayne Ball addressed the Commission. He wished to apologize for his absence at the December 22, 1980 meeting, and stated that he had been ill. Mr. Ball said he is requesting the temporary drives in order to combine three lots and construct one single family home on those lots for himself. The lots he wishes to combine and build on are Lots 7,11 and 12 and that he wishes to construct one single family home, basically on Lot 11. Mr. Hatcher owns Lots 24 and 25, across the unimproved right-of-way, James Way. Mr. Hatcher also wishes to construct a residence on Lot 25. Mr.Ball said he had discussed the use of James Way as a private or temporary drive with the utility companies and with Clayton Powell, City Street Superintendent. The problem lies in that the outer lots in the McClelland Addition were developed, the interior streets were never expanded. Ball said that due to the slope in the area, the cost of street construction would be prohibitive. He had retained an engineer for an estimate on construction of James Way, and the last proposal had been $17,000.00 to construct the portion abutting his property to City Standards. Martin Redfern arrived at 5:23, P.M. Ball said he would offer to execute a Bill of Assurance stating that Lots 7, 11 and 12 would be combined and only a single family residence would be 3 Planning Commission Meeting January 12, 1981 Page 4 constructed on the tract. Also, he would assure that the owner of those lots would maintain the drive until such time as the City or an improvement district would develop James Way. Jocelyn Torbert, 1747 Rayview, addressed the Commission. She asked how the lots would be served by City Sanitation vehicles. Mr. Ball stated he would provide whatever is required for sanitation pickup. He had considered constructing a permanent, brick container. There is plenty of room and trash pick up would be no problem for the sanitation vehicles. Ms. Torbett stated that there is an erosion problem, that she lives above this property and her home is sliding down the hill. She stated that several people had looked at this property and that nothing should be constructed without the use of a lot of steel. She felt that land locked property could result from building around the remaining interior lots. Also, the owners would be looking into someone's back yard no matter where they constructed their home. Mr. Ball said that there is enough land, and the slope is such that the house would actually be looking over the top of the house below it. He stated that no one's view would be blocked. R. C. Wray, 1719 Rayview, addressed the Commission. He had presented some comments to the Planning Commission, in opposition to the request, at the December 22, 1980 meeting. He asked the Chairman to read the comments from that meeting from the minutes. The Chairman accomodated Mr. Wray. In addition to those comments Mr. Wray stated that he felt Lots 7 and 11 should be served by Linda Lane instead of James Way. Mr. Wray was concerned that if Linda Lane was never opened, that those lots North of Mr. Balls' would never be served. He also wondered how Mr. Hatcher's lots would be served. Mr. Wray was afraid that Mr. Hatcher would build his house, sell it and move. He felt this would depreciate the property. Mr. Wray said he wanted a paved street. He felt it would permanently down grade the neighborhood. Also, he did not want James Way considered a private drive. Ms. Myron Lancaster, 1722 North Walnut, stated she owns a lot behind Mr. Balls', and that she is afraid it would be cut off from access if the request is granted. Mr Ball stated that lots within this subdivision are small, approximately 90 ft. x 100 ft., and that, in fact, most of the persons living in the Subdivision had purchased an additional lot when they constructed their homes. The Lancaster's home is close to the rear lot line of their front lot and perhaps encroaches on to their back lot. The Lancasters stated this is not so. Ball said at any rate, James Way is a dedicated right-of-way, and it is open to the public, and he would maintain it. Ms. Lancaster wondered what would happen if the property is sold. Ball assured her that a bill of assurance would be executed and included in the abstract to the property, that the owner of that property would maintain the drive, that the three lots would be combined, and that nothing other than a single family home would be constructed on the property, as long as the private drive is there. Bruce Loftin, 1732 Rayview, stated he lives across the street from the property and that he has no objection to the applicant's request. He felt it would be an improvement to the neighborhood. Newton Hailey asked what Mr. Ball's options would be if the request is denied. 4 Planning Commission Meeting January 12, 1981 Page 5 Mr. Ball explained that he had been trying to build on these lots for several years, he had explored the idea of closing the right-of-way, but in order to do so, he needed the cooperation ofproperty owners in the neighborhood, which he had been unable to obtain. Rudy Hatcher addressed the Commission. He stated that, originally, Mr. McClelland was to install the streets, but with the number of lots that were sold in the subdivision, it became financially unfeasible to construct them. The street would be unsuitable for a thoroughfare, as it is so steep, but for a private drive, the flat portion of the right-of-way could be utilized. This flat portion would not substantially contribute to the existing drainage problems. Beth Crocker asked if James Way is an important street on the Master Street Plan. Larry Wood said it is not. In that case, Ms. Crocker felt the street should be closed, if it is never going to be developed. Mort Gitelman said that if the street is closed, Lot 8 will be land locked. Wayne Ball stated he had tried to get the lots developed as tandem lots in July of 1978, and he had been opposed in that byClayton Powell. Mort Gitelman said it is obvious that James Way will never be paved, he did not think that Lots 8, 12125 and 24 could sustain the cost of paving the street Ernest Jacks suggested a discussion between the property owners. Mr Ball said that himself as well as Mr. Hatcher had discussed access to these lots with the property owners (Lancasters and Mr. Wray) and that they had gotten no cooperation at all. Wray said he definitely takes exception to the term "private driveway". He was afraid that a gate would be constructed. Mr. Ball assured Mr. Wray that a gate would not be constructed. Mr. Hatcher stated that he and Mr. Ball are interested in upgrading the neighborhood, and not limiting anyone's access. Ball said he would be glad to change his request to a temporary drive instead of private. Wilson asked if there is a drainage problem in the area. Mr. Wood replied there is. Wilson asked what the City's position is on Linda Lane and James Way. Mr. Wood said that perhaps a recommendation from Clayton Powell would help in reaching a decision; in Mr. Wood's opinion it is not feasible to build those two streets. Mr. Lancaster asked if Mr. Hatcher would be willing to extend the driveway to his lot (Lot 8). Joe Wilson stated that Mr. Ball and Mr. Hatcher should not have to bear the expense of constructing a drive to the Lancaster's property. Beth Crocker moved to table this item until the next meeting to give the neighbors an opportunity to discuss options amongst themselves. Mort Gitelman stated he was willing to vote in favor of the applicant's request, but that he would go along with the table. Gitelman seconded Crocker's motion. Newton Hailey stated he would be in favor of granting the applicant's use of the undeveloped right-of-way as a temporary drive. Crocker's motion passed (7-0). The next item of business was a request for approval of off-site parking to utilize the public parking lot on the SW corner of Center Street and Church REQUEST FOR OFF-SITE PARKING 230'WEST CENTER STREET "SARAH RIDGE HOUSE" Planning Commission Meeting January 12, 1981 Page 6 Avenue to partially meet the parking requirements for the "Sarah Ridge House" at 230 West Center Street, submitted by the Washington County Historical Society. Property is zoned C-3, Central Commercial District. Pat Donat and Cyrus Sutherland were present to represent. Mr. Sutherland stated that he believed that 7.8 parking spaces were required for the square footage contained in the structure to be used for offices. He is requesting that they be required to furnish only five spaces on site in order to save trees on this historical site. They want to use the public parking lot on the SW corner of Center and Church as off-site parking, for the other three spaces. Newton Hailey moved to grant the request based on the history of other decisions made in the past regarding off-site parking on and around the Square. Beth Crocker seconded. There was no one present in opposition to the request. The motion passed (7-0) The next item of business was public hearings on A) consideration of the General Plan 1970-1990 8) Ordinance requiring the developer of a Large Scale Development to provide for public parks C) Ordinance to require subdividers to provide for public parks. Ernest Jacks, Chairman of the Green Space Committee, stated that the Committee had been working for many years on some way of providing public parks. The Committee and the Board had not been able to come to an agreement on whether to have a mandatory or incentive type ordinance. The Committee had felt that perhaps park lands should come from General Funds, but the Board of Directors had not agreed. The Board asked the Committee to go back into session for the formulation of a mandatory ordinance. The ordinance, as drafted, would require the Developers of Large Scale Developments and Subdividers to contribute land or cash in lieu of land in the process of development, to be used for parks or the acquisition of parks within the City. The ordinance also adopts a study and locates areas where these parks would be inserted. The Chairman stated that this is a public hearing and asked if there was anyone present in the audience wishing to speak in favor of the ordinance. Jim Lindsey addressed the Commission. He stated that at the outset, he had not been in favor of the mandatory type of ordinance. But, having served on the Green Space Committee, he felt that they had exhausted all other options other than a mandatory type ordinance. He stated that he already has existing lots that would not have to be subject to this ordinance, and that may be part of his positive attitude, but he stated he does feel that this ordinance will be a good thing for the City. In exploring the options, it was brought out that the millage was not available for parks. Requiring a fee at the time a building permit is obtained has been ruled unconstitutional. It appears it is this type of mandatory ordinance or nothing. He stated that in view of the overall importance of parks in the City, he was for the ordinance. Ernest Jacks stated that the Parks Study had divided the City into four districts. The Parks Board is supposed to sit in on Plat Review Committee meetings PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDER GENERAL PLAN 1970-1990 ORDINANCE REQUIRING LSD DEVELOPERS AND SUBDIVIDERS TO PROVIDE FOR PUBLIC PARKS A Planning Commission Meeting January 12, 1981 • Page 7 • • so that they may anticipate situations. Loris Stanton stated that he had not read the ordinance. He said that it is his understanding that Developers would be charged $105.00 per unit in a single-family development and $85.00 per unit in a multi -family development in order to finance the parks. He wondered if this money would in fact be enough to purchase parks lands. Ernest Jacks stated those figures are based on $8,500.00 per acre. Loris Stanton stated that developed land is much more expensive than that. Jacks stated that the City has guaranteed that funds will be made available for acquisition. Stanton asked who would pay for maintenance of the parks land. Jacks stated the City would. Stanton asked why no consideration had been given to developers of PUD's when they are already!.required to furnish 30% open space within their developments. Jacks stated that the Developer of a PUD would be required to provide the 30% open space and also participate in the requirement for acquisition of parks lands. The Committee had felt that the incentives for a PUD are there in terms of less utilities, street reduction, and reduced setbacks. The open space within a PUD is considered private, it would not be available for use by the Community. Rudy Hatcher asked at what point in time in the development process the fee would be charged. Jacks stated it would be charged before the final plat is approved. Bryce Davis stated that when a subdivision is set up, the City has a lien on it in the form of a contract, until required improvements are installed, he wondered why a lien could not be placed on the property in the same manner for the parks. He felt that this front end load on the developer or Subdivider was unreasonable. Frank Farrish addressed the Commission. He stated he is not in opposition to park lands, but that there are several provisions of this ordinance that concern him. He stated he is concerned that the land dedicated for open space within a PUD is not taken into consideration in the Ordinance. Also, the City should take into consideration the fact that interest is 20% right now, he felt this would be a tremendous burden. Since this ordinance would not apply to lots already developed, future lots would have that added cost and their prices would not be competitive. Also, he did not like the idea of building a subdivision, and having the appropriation taken out of his pocket for the development of a park in another part of town, when his subdivision may not even have the benefit of that park. Mr. Farrish stated that according to his calculations, in a single family development, the developer would be giving up 6% of his developed land, and in a multi -family development,he would be giving up 21.8% of his developed lane, if this ordinance is passed and approved. He felt this was a high fee to extract. Farrish stated he is not in opposition to parks but that an alternate means of financing them should be explored. Farrish questioned the statement that general funding is not available for parks. He felt that perhaps the City had set priorities and parks were not one of them. He asked why, if the City does not want to spend the money for parks, should it be passed to the Developer. He asked that the question be put to a vote of the General Public. Since the parks are for general public use, should it not be up to them to decide if they want themselves taxed. He felt a tax would be a more equitable way of distributing the cost of parks. He said he would have to go on record as stating opposition to the ordinance. Planning Commission Meeting January 12, 1981 Page 8 Morton Gitelman and Frank Farrish discussed how he had come up with his calculations of 6% for single family unit developments and 21% for multi -family unit developments. Beth Crocker took exception to Mr. Farrish's calculations. Also, she took exception to Mr. Farrish's request to come up with a better solution. She said the Committee has been trying to get something together for two years. She also took exception to the statement that parks are not a priority with the City. She said there simply is not enough money to fund parks in the budget. This cost would be passed on to the people who want to develop new areas and to the home owners. Farrish asked if there was some way to put lots that would not have the cost factor of the parks appropriation and those that would on the same plane. Ernest Jacks stated he could not argue with the inequities of the ordinance. He did not feel it was fair, but that there really is no other way to get these park lands. Martin Redfern stated he agrees with Beth Crocker's comments. Farrish stated he may look more favorably on the ordinance if there would be some way of paying the fee out instead of bearing it all up front. Claude Prewitt stated he had kept up with the evolution of the ordinance. He stated he is shocked by the figures, it seems a tremendous amount to have to bear. Francis Langham addressed the Commission. She stated that she would like to speak in opposition to the ordinance. She stated she is in opposition from a consumer standpoint. Housing costs today are extremely high. She stated that the Developer may bear the cost up front, but in the end the consumer will be paying these fees. She stated that by the time the cost reaches the consumer it will not be $105.00 or $85.00. There is no telling how many times the figure will multiply before it finally reaches the consumer. Times are such that a family can't even buy a house anymore. She felt that passing such an ordinance would be undermining the consumer. Also, the persons paying for the park, may not even get the benefit of that park, it may go into another portion of the City. She felt that the issue should be put to a vote or a tax levied to see if people in the community really want these parks. Farrish stated he was against the fact that the Developer could not choose to donate land, that the City could reject that land. Jacks said that is because, the City can't take little pieces of land that are not workable. If the City is going to have a park plan, they have to have the ordinance. J. B. Hays stated that it is very easy to say "pass it on to'the consumer". With the 20% interest rate, it increases the cost of development a great deal. It will probably reduce new developments. Martin Redfern stated that he had heard some suggestions in three areas, that are worthy of consideration: 1) PUD's, 2) When the fee should be paid, or could installments be taken, or a lien imposed, 3) amount of the fee. Redfern wondered if perhaps this input should be considered and the ordinance "fine tuned". Hunnicutt stated he was in favor of Mr. Redfern's suggestion. Hunnicutt stated he would have a problem recommending this ordinance as it is written. 8 Planning Commission Meeting January 12, 1981 • Page 9 • • Newton Hailey agreed. He said he would have problems recommending this ordinance as it is written. He stated in essence this is a growth tax. He is concerned with the parks system that is existing, and with the ramifications of long term maintenance. Jacks stated that there is a resolution from the City Board of Directors that they will maintain the parks. Hailey said he had a problem with singling out a certain sector to bear the cost of the parks. Crocker said that most of these things have already been considered by the Committee and that she was not in favor of sending the ordinance back to Committee. She said she agrees with Jacks in that the Board has said they wanted this type of ordinance. She did not feel it was the Planning Commission's decision. Jacks said that the PUD aspects have been discussed in Committee, but the matter of the fixed contribution has not been discussed. Don Hunnicutt said that actual dollar amounts and the fact that they may not be enough had not been discussed. Jacks said that the Committee wanted to purchase land instead of accept it. Farrish doubted that developed land could be purchased for $8,500.00 per acre. Loris Stanton said that the amount of time it takes to develop and sell a subdivision should be taken into consideration. He cited a situation he had been involved in where the first lot had been sold ten years ago and there are still lots in the subdivision that have not yet been purchased. He stated that money put up in advance would amount to quite a sum at the end of ten years. He wondered how housing was going to be provided. He asked Jim Lindsey how many square feet are in one of his newer townhouses. Lindsey replied 1,230 square feet with two bedrooms, and one and one-half baths. Stanton said these townhouses sell for $40,000.00. It is difficult for a family to make payments on houses today. This ordinance is just adding to the cost of housing and making it more difficult for developers to provide housing at a cost that people can afford. Jerry Sweetser asked if a sales tax could be levied, or if the Planning Commission had encouraged parks to be developed. Jacks stated that the only type of development that would have an incentive to develop a park would be a very large single family development, and that those developments are not necessarily the largest users of the parks system. Jacks said he felt this was the best ordinance the Committee could come up with as far as a mandatory ordinance. J. B. Hays stated he did not think it is fair for the City to require a PUD to provide 30% green space and also contribute to the parks. Sweetser stated that it is very easy for someone who does not have to make his living developing property to put the cost of developing parks on the Developers. He felt that perhaps the people should decide instead of a select group. Jim Lindsey said that after the Committee meetings, he did not feel there was an equitable solution. He thought perhaps the ordinance should be sent back to the City Board. The Board gave the Committee an impossible task. Beth Crocker asked the Commission if they had a problem with the concept of supporting a plan for providing parks for the City. The Commission did not. 1 Planning Commission Meeting • January 12, 1981 Page 10 • • She asked if the Commission had a problem with the approach; putting the cost on new development. Ernest Jacks said that he did. He felt it should be a general measure because of the inequities of having someone pay and someone not pay with everybody using the park. Hunnicutt said that parks are like a service such as fire protection, sanitation or police protection, and it ought to be provided by the general public rather than a certain segment or party Wilson stated he would abstain, but felt the Commission needed to act on the ordinance. Crocker moved to make a favorable recommendation to the Board of Directors for the adoption of the ordinance. Mort Gitelman seconded. Gitelman said that his objection to the ordinance is the cost'of money. He was not in favor of putting this to a vote, because the ordinance is primarily for persons not living in Fayetteville yet. There are presently close in parks that serve the area but in surrounding areas that are presently developing or will develop in the future, the people will be hurt. The ordinance will benefit people in new areas. He said the costs of development and houses bothers him. Ten years ago, the means were available for obtaining park lands through subdivision, with cash in lieu of land. He stated Fayetteville is catching up at the wrong time in terms of inflation. This ordinance will certainly have an effect on housing. He said that Fayetteville has not taken advantage of requiring something that is really needed. It will be expensive to implement this legislation at this time, but the alternative is even more grim. Fayetteville is reaching a point where there will not be any parks. In terms of actual dollars, the cost for providing parks is minimal compared to the cost of providing streets and water and sewer. He stated he approves of the principle, but that the Board needs to know that they may be voting for an "albatross". This will increase housing costs, and reduce the rate of development. Redfern stated that if the Commission votes on the ordinance as it is, it has a chance of being defeated. Redfern said he would like to make a motion that the Planning Commission supports the main points of the ordinance, but that the ordinance should be sent back to the City Board without recommendation. Crocker said she did not want to pass the ordinance without recommendation, that the minutes would reflect the Commission's concern. Crocker said she did not want to change her motion. The Commission voted on Beth Crocker's motion to send the ordinance to the Board with a positive recommendation and Morton Gitelman's second. The motion failed to pass with Crocker, Jacks and Gitelman voting "Aye", Hailey, Redfern and Hunnicutt voting "Nay", and Wilson abstaining, his vote going with the motion (3-3-1). Five affirmative votes are required to pass any motion. Mort Gitelman made a motion to pass the ordinance on to the City Board without recommendation, Don Hunnicutt seconded. Hailey stated that according to a White House study, zoning restrictions and building code requirements contribute to 24% of the cost of a new home. The motion passed (6-0-1) with Wilson abstaining. A petition had been received from some Villa North Subdivision homeowners requesting notification of any upcoming Conditional Use OTHER BUSINESS PETITION FROM VILLA NORTH SUBDIVISION HOME OWNERS 10 • Planning Commission Meeting January 26, 1981 - Page 9 Mrs. Crocker moved to recommend to the Board of Directors that the proposed ordinance be amended by adding, "if the development does not require in excess of 25 additional parking spaces" after the provision for 10,000 sq. ft. of building, and that the Commission recommends to the Board of Directors that the amended ordinance be adopted. Don Hunnicutt pointed out that the proposed ordinance included dwelling units with more than 4 units which would require from 6 to 8 parking spaces and that on commercial development they were talking about omitting development with no more than 25 parking spaces. He said this was not "equal". Elizabeth Crocker withdrew her motion. Elizabeth Crocker then moved that the proposed ordinance be referred back to Committee with the comments of the Planning Commission to be considered by the Committee. Windell Cullers seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously, 6-0. Chairman Jacks appointed Newton Hailey to replace Keith Newhouse on that.Committee and to serve with Morton Gitelman. The next item on the agenda was reconsideration of a TOWNHOUSES 4 CONDOMINIUMS proposed Ordinance ordinance to amend Appendix A Ordinance to Amend (Zoning) of the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances to amend the minimum lot width and area requirements for townhouses, to amend height regulations for buildings in excess of 20 foot in height, to amend definition of townhouse and to define condominium. This was recommended to the Board of Directors for approval by the Planning Commission on January 12, 1981. The matter was referred back to the Planning Commission by agreement of Mayor Todd and Chairman Jacks at the request of Jeff Slaton, property owner in Villa North Subdivision. Jeff Slaton and Rex Taylor were present to discuss the proposed ordinance with the Commission. Mr. Slaton told the Commission that the recommended proposed ordinance would make a great change in the zoning requirements of R-2 and R-3 subdivisions.. He said that people had purchased land in subdivisions and relied on the existing zoning ordinance. He did not think the City was running out of land and did not think the change was needed; however, if the ordinance is to be approved, he requested his amendment be included. He stated that the recent "Green Space" ordinance made certain exemptions for previously platted lands. He said the present regulations make it more difficult for developers to develop townhouses on smaller lots. Mr. Slaton said the study and proposed ordinance came about because of 3 variance requests before the Board of Adjustment and that 2 of those requests were requested by Jim Lindsey who had served on the Committee which recommended the revisions. He questioned several points in City Attorney Jim McCord's memo on the matter and said that it would not be as easy as Mr. McCord said to circumvent the existing regulations. He said that to replat a subdivision would require the signatures of all the owners of land within that subdivision. He also did not agree with some of Mr. McCord's statements about the Horizontal Property Act and said it refers to apartments not to townhouses. He said he could not find anything in the minutes since this first came before the Commission that indicated it was in the public interest and asked the Commission to furnish him minutes showing how it was in the public interest. Mr. Jacks called his attention to the fact that the ordinance prohibits cars (in parking areas containing 3 or more cars) from backing into a street. Mr. Jacks said the Committee had not put in any specific width and area requirements for townhouses because they felt the parking and other facets of the ordinance could control it. Jim Lindsey was present and acknowledged that he had taken two appeals to the Board of Adjustment and that he had served on the Committee, but that the Planning Commission had appointed him to serve. He had not requested to do so. He explained how the ordinance could be circumvented even now by either hipping the roof or raising the outside ground level alongside the building. 29 PLanning Commission Meeting January 26, 1981 - Page 10 Larry Wood explained that the ordinance presently has some inconsistencies in it for townhouses. He said the Committee had attempted to amend it so that the • density could be the theoretical density contained in the ordinance. Mr. Slaton asked where in the ordinance it tells you how to figure the density on this "mythical acre." Mr. Slaton said it would only benefit developers and was not in the public interest. Windell Cullers stated that Mr. Slaton was looking at this from a personal standpoint and that the person developing property has a right to develop in some reasonable fashion. Mr. Slaton asked why the proposed ordinance did not include a minimum lot width for townhouses and said this is a major change in the height limitations. Rex Taylor said there would still be a chance under the proposed ordinance to circumvent the regulations. He asked why the new ordinance figures the setbacks from the "boundary line" and the existing one from the "building line". He also pointed out that all lot width and area requirements for townhouses was being deleted. Several Commission members pointed out that the present height regulations make an abrupt jump in setback between the height of 20 ft. and 21 ft. ---from 8 ft. setback to 19 ft. setback. Rex said this would make it possible to build townhouses closer to a single family dwelling than can now be done. Mr. Jacks said it did not seem right to the Commission or the Board of Adjustment that the setback would jump at one particular point. He pointed out that there is no height restriction in R-1 zones. Mr. Taylor said that he objected to multiple family dwellings that close to single family. Joe Wilson asked if this would permit townhouses to be built closer to the street than single family houses. He was advised it would not. Mr. Cullers said he had heard all the arguments and was sympathetic. He said he would like for there to be a requirement that before the sale of a house was finalized, the buyer was advised how his property is zoned and given a copy of the Master Street • Plan. He said he thinks R-2 will be more desirable to put more multi -family dwellings on because of the financial situation and said current information indicates that there are people renting today who would have been homeowners in the past. The proposed ordinance was done in what the Commission considered to be the best interests of the City. Mr. Cullers moved to reaffirm to the Board of Directors the proposed ordinance is in accordance with the wishes of the Zoning Commission and put it back to the Board of Directors with a "do pass" recommendation. Newton Hailey seconded the motion saying that the Commission had carefully considered the density problems and that he thought the policy is gradually growing to try to increase density. He said the Commission does discourage peripheral growth. It costs a lot of money to provide fire and police protection and extend water and sewer services when we have so much land already close in. Elizabeth Crocker said that she agrees with McCord's memo and does not agree with Mr. Slaton's interpretation on the horizontal property act and that everybody has to sign a replat. A vote of 5-0-1 was recorded with Hunnicutt, Crocker, Jacks, Cullers & Hailey voting "Aye" and Wilson abstaining to carry the motion. The next item on the agenda was a request from the Board of ANNEXATION STUDY Directors that the Commission make a study of the area immediately around the City Limits and submit a recommendation of areas that should be annexed. The Board had made this request at its annual "retreat". Chairman Jacks appointed Larry Wood and Newton Hailey to serve as a committee on this matter and present its recommendations back to the Commission. • Chairman Jacks reminded the nomination committee that it was to present its recommendation at the next meeting. There being no corrections, the minutes of the January 12, 1981 meeting MINUTES were approved as mailed. The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 P.M. vi ILA Planning Commission Meeting January 12, 1981 • Page 11 requests, variances, etc. within their subdivision. Crocker asked if this was required on other notices. Jacks said that notification had been sent to adjacent property owners. Jacks asked Bobbie Jones if it was required on Conditional Uses. Bobbie replied only on home occupations and duplexes in R-1. Mort Gitelman said he did not want to accept the petition. Redfern felt the Commission does a good job of advertising notices. He felt the mailing list should be kept down. He said perhaps notice could be sent to a representative or attorney, but not to individual property owners. Beth Crocker said she agreed, she felt that the seven day time limit was unreasonable as the Planning Commission does not even receive their agenda seven days in advance. Newton Hailey made a motion that whenever a Conditional Use or variance is requested in Villa North Subdivision that a representative or attorney, and the immediate, adjoining property owners should be notified. Mort Gitelman seconded. The motion passed (7-0). • • Jacks stated that the Planning Workshop would be held at the Quorum Court Building on Saturday, January 17, 1981, at 9:30, A.M. Redfern stated he would be unable to attend. OTHER BUSINESS PLANNING WORKSHOP Jacks asked Martin Redfern if OTHER BUSINESS he wished to refer the Townhouse TOWNHOUSE ORDINANCE Ordinance back to his Committee to be amended as requested by Mr. Slaton at the Board of Directors meeting. Redfern stated he was happy with the ordinance the way it is written. Redfern moved that the ordinance be resubmitted to the Board of Directors as originally written and recommended by the Planning Commission at its meeting of December 22, 1980, without amendment. Beth Crocker seconded. The motion passed (7-0). The Chairman appointed APPOINTMENTS Martin Redfern as Chairman NOMINATING COMMITTEE with Newton Hailey and Mort Gitelman to a nominating committee to present a slate of recommendations for the annual election of officers (chairman, vice chairman, and secretary) to be presented February 9, 1981. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:05, P.M. PAGE APPLICANT DATE 1 • 2- 3 5 6 10 11 11 . 11 12 13 14 14 15 15 16 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 29 31 34 36 36 37 37 39 40 41 43 45 46 47 48 48 49 51 52 53 54 55 55 56 56 57 58 •59 59 61 The Gardener Company, Inc. (Rez. R80-32'- 956 Ray Ave.) 01-12-81 R.J. Keating (Rez. R80-33 - Highland and Maple) 01-12-81 Ball and Hatcher (Req. for Temporary Driveway - E. of. Walnut, W. of Rayview)01-12-81 Sarah Ridge House (Req. for Off -Site Parking - 230 West Center St.) 01-12-81 Public Parks (Public Hearing - LSD - Consider general plan 1970-1990) 01-12-81 Villa North Subdivision Home Owners Planning Workshop Townhouse Ordinance Appointments Nominating Committee Nettleship Place, A PUD Concept Plat Ed Torbett (Mally Wagnon Road - Lot Split) Clinton Browne (Lot Split - Whitham $ Taylor) Thomas J. Hensen - T -N -T Auto Parts (402 South Locust - Screening Waiver) Paul Richard Bynum (117 W. Rock - Caretaker's Housing) Joanne Robinson (Lot Split - 1556 $ 1560 N. Leverett - St. Frontage Waiver) Rudy Hatcher $ Wayne Ball (Driveways on Undeveloped St. - James Way) Large Scale Developments - Public Hearing to Amend Townhouses $ Condominiums (Ordinance to Amend) Annexation Study Cambridge Place Addition (Final Plat - Phase I, Frank Farrish) Bittle Apartments (LSD - Eastern and Nettleship) Johnson Planning Area Boundary Committee Report (Areas Recommended for Annexation) Bike Way Study Cato Springs Estate (Prel. Plat - Outside City) Starr Children's Trust (Rez. R81-1 - South of Dillons) Gordon Houston (Rez. R81-2) Lloyd Boling (Conditional Use - Home Occupation) Service Road. (Relocation - West side of Hwy 71B at Millsap Rd.) Report on Fayetteville -Johnson Planning Area Report on Planned Unit Development Ordinance Report from the Planned Growth Area Committee Resolution No. PC1-81 Resolution No. PC2-81 Paul Marinoni $ Sons - Camelot Addition (Prel. Plat) O.E. Lutrell (Prel. Plat - Inside Growth Area) West Wind, Phase III - Planned Unit Development (Final Plat) Cato Springs Estates (Prel. Plat - Inside Growth Area) Gardener Company, Inc. (Rez. R80-32 - Watson Addition) Discussion of Group Housing Cencept Report on Planned Unit Development Revisions Report from Planned Growth Area Committee Industrial Park Plus (Prel. Replat - Lots 5 F, 6) Fayetteville Housing Authority (LSD - North of 15th St.) Starr Children's Trust - South of Dillons (Req. to Table R81-1) Ray Rastall (Rez. R81-3 - Hwy 16 West) William Reeves (C.U. Request for Home Occupation - 1655 Mission Blvd.) Brenda Myer (C.U. Request for Home Occupation -1980 Arrowhead) LO Vina Payton (C.U. Request for Home Occupation - 407 Redwing Circle) Study of General Land Use Plan for Prop. Located N.of Wedington,W of Sang) Appointment of Committee to review Commercial Subdivision Regulations O.E. Luttrell (Prel. Plat - Inside Growth Area) GO -HAY Partnership (Final Plat - Appleby Acres) Billy $ Jamie Schneider (Final Plat - East Oaks, Ph. II) Cato Springs Estates (Final Plat - Inside Growth Area) 01-12-81 01-12-81 01-12-81 01-12-81 01-26-81 01-26-81 01-26-81 01-26-81 01-26-81 01-26-81 01-26-81 01-26-81 01-26-81 01-26-81 02-09-81 02-09-81 02-09-81 02-09-81 02-09-81 02-23-81 02-23-81 02-23-81 02-23-81 02-23-81 02-23-81 02-23-81 02-23-81 02-23-81 02-23-81 03-09-81 03-09-81 03-09-81 03-09-81 03-09-81 03-09-81 03-09-81 03-09-81 03-23-81 03-23-81 03-23-81 03-23-81 03-23-81 03-23-81 03-23-81 03-23-81 03-23-81 04-13-81 04-13-81 04-13-81 04-13-81 PAGE APPLICANT DATE 61 •63 65 66 67 67 68 68 68 70 72 73 73 74 76 76 77 78 78 79 81 83 84 85 85 86 86 •86 88 88 89 90 90 92 93 94 95 96 96 97 97 98 99 99 99 100 103 107 108 109 111 111 • 112 J .B. Hays Property (Concept Plat - East of College) Intersection of by-pass & Service Road at Millsap Rd. Starr Children's Trust (Rez. Petition R81-1 - S. of Dillons) John C. Fitzgerald (Variance of Lot Size for a Lot Split) Farmer's Daughter (Waiver of Frontage on Public St.) John F; Ann Sugg (CU - 1955 South School) Vacation of Street Leland Ave. between Berry and Ora Jennings Addition (Vacation of Alley $ Street - Blks 7 F, 8) Amendment to Planning Area Boundary Map Amendment to General Land Use Plan (Public Hearing) Tom Mathias (Happy Hollow Addition - Prel. Plat) N .W.A. Development Co. (Rez. R81-4 - N. of Millsap) Robin Hernreich (Rez. R81-5 - 15 N. Church) Bud Tomlinson (Tomlinson Asphalt Co. - Rez. R81-6) Alton MC Daniel (CU - 850 South Washington) Dr. Brian W. Buell (Waiver of Min. Lot Size - Lot Split) Herbert Hatfield (Waiver of Max. width for Commercial Dr.) Report on Study of Commercial Subdivisions Recommendation form Board of Adjustment Truck Rental Petition to close Alley between Douglas and Taylor Dr. John Andre (LSD - South College Ave.) Dr. John Andre (Lot Split) Robin Hernreich (CU - 15 North Church) Charles Combs (CU - Duplex in R-1) . Carl Robertson (CU - 213 North College Ave.) Jim Stephens (Street Light Spacing - S. Heights, Ph. II) Sweetbriar PUD (Change in Building Design) Report from Commercial Subdivision Committee O .E. Luttrell Addition (Final Plat - Inside Growth Area) I.B.I., Inc. (Meadworidge Subdivision - Final Plat) Vacation of Delaware Avenue Right of Way Northwest Financial Services (LSD - Virginia and Stone) Bryce and Betty Jo Davis (Rez. R81-7 - Betty Jo and 16 West) Rez. R81-8 - East of Hwy 112, South of County Road 898 Charles Combs (CU - Duplexes in R-1) Robin Hernreich (CU - Apts. in R-0) Rick Bashor (CU - Home Occupation - 848 Rockwood Trail) Bill Graue (Lot Split) Clarification (Lot Split Ordinance) Safeway Stores (Bill of Assurances) Skate Place (Parking Requirements) Marshalltown Tools (LSD - Pump Station Rd.) Lindsey, Elsass, Hungerford (Concurrent Plat Lots 11-13 - Blk 3, Kantz P1.) I.B.I. Inc. (Prel. Plat - Meadowridge Subdivision II) Norma Osburn (Happy Hollow Rd. - Rez. R81-9) Frank Farrish (Rez. R81-10 - Hwy 45 E. and Hwy 265) Protest form Adjoining Prop. Owners due to drainage Problem (RE: LSD) E -Z Mart Sotres, Inc. (LSD - Hwy 62 West) Frank Farrish (Planned Unit Development - Cambridge East) Sid $ Judie Noorbakhsh (Rez. R81-11 - Porter Rd.) Hyland Park Assembly of God (Completion of Improvements) Anna Eldridge (CU - Child Care in R-1) Elsie Johnson (CU - Child Care in R-1) 113 Appleby Road (CU Church in R-2) 113 Gary Carnahan (LSD - Hwy 62 West) 114 Report on Commercial Subdivisions Ordinance 04-13-81 04-13-81 04-13-81 04-13-81 04-13-81 04-13-81 04-13-81 04-13-81 04-13-81 04-13-81 04-27-81 04-27-81 04-27-81 04-27-81 04-27-81 04-27-81 04-27-81 04-27-81 04-27-81 04-27-81 05-11-81 05-11-81 05-11-81 05-11-81 05-11-81 05-11-81 05-11-81 05-11-81 05-26-81 05-26-81 05-26-81 05-26-81 05-26-81 05-26-81 05-26-81 05-26-81 05-26-81 05-26-81 05-26-81 05-26-81 05-26-81 06-08-81 06-08-81 06-08-81 06-08-81 06-08-81 06-08-81 06-22-81 06-22-81 06-22-81 06-22-81 06-22-81 06-22-81 06-22-81 06-22-81 06-22-81 PAGE APPLICANT DATE 115 116 • 116 117 117 121 125 126 126 128 134 136 136 136 138 138 139 139 139 141 144 144 145 146 146 147 148 •149 152 153 153 155 156 156 157 159 161 162 163 163 164 165 166 167 167 169 170 173 174 174 176 177 177 •178 178 181 Straightening Out Zion Road I.B.I. Inc. (Final Plat - Meadworidge Subdivision, PH. II) Virginia Farmer (CU - Home Occupation - Child Care in R-1) Goldich $ Smith (Duplex in R-1 - 660 Whillock St.) Petition to Vacate and Abandon DELAWARE Ave. Amendment to General Land Use Plan (Public Hearing) Sid 8 Judie Noorbakhsh (Rez. R81-11 - Porter 8 Sycamore) Discussion - Future Landscaping Ordinance Joe Terminella (Lot Split - Lot 16, Miller Add.). Mission Boulevard Baptist Church (Clarification of Traditional Church Act) Dr. Brian Buell (LSD - South of Penneys) Clyde Johnson (Lot Split) Wayne Ball (Lot Split) Jim Lindsey (Lot Split) Jim Lindsey (CU - Hospital in C-1) Randall Webb (CU - Plant Nursery) Sid Noorbakhsh (Rez. R81-11) Amendment to Planning Area - Johnson/Fayetteville Admendment to General Land Use Map Mission Blvd. Baptist Church (Clarification of Traditional Church Activity) Wayne Ball (Fat Gully Road (Lot Split) R. Berry Broyles (Lot Split) J.B. Hays (Prel. Plat - Northview Heights) Northwest Engineers, Inc. (250 ft. setback) N.W. Arkansas Mall (CU - Circus Vargas) Steve Simpson for Lindsey (CU - 1540 Huntsville Road) Paul Marinoni $ Sons (Final Plat - Camelot Addition, Ph. I) Potts, Anders, Maguire (Rez. R81-12 - W. of Porter, N. of Bypass) Hanshew & Huey (Rez. R81-13 - N. of Old Farmington Road) Louise Huey (Lot Split) Report on Land Use Study N. of Wedington, W. of Garland, S. of Moore Dale Holland (Lot Split) Larry Robbins (Lot Split) Montessori School (CU - 1642 North Garland) Discussion Landscape Ordinance Committee Report - Commercial PUD Ordinance Service Road (Prel. Plat - 71B-Millsap-Bypass) Kantz Place (Concurrent Plat - Replat Lot 6, Blk 3) Kantz Place (Concurrent Plat - Replat Lot 1, Blk 3) Royal Oaks Estates (Final Plat - Planned Unit Development) Glendale Addition (Concept Plan - Planned Unit Development) Sid G Judie Noorbakhsh (Rez. R81-11 - Porter and Sycamore) Larry Robbins (Lot Split) Kantz Place (Concurrent Plat - Replat Lot 8, Blk 3) Bill Martin (Concept Plat - Stone Gate) Walt Longstreet (Rez. R81-14 - Hwy 265 $ Hwy 16) Steele Investment Co. (Rez. R81-15 - 71 Bypass) Amendment to Article 8, Section 12, Appendix A (Public Hearing) Signalization of Hwy 265 $ Hwy 45 (Letter from Ark. Hwy Dept.) Comprehensive Plan Resolution to the Board of Directors Regarding American Air Filter (LSD - Armstrong Ave.) Fayetteville City Hospital (Lot Split) Planning Commission Retreat Horizontal Property Regime (Revisions to a PUD - Blk 3 Sweetvriar) Report on Landscape Ordinance Paul Martin (Rez. R81-16 - Appleby Road $ Gregg Ave.) 06-22-81 07-13-81 07-13-81 07-13-81 06-13-81 07-13-81 07-13-81 07-13-81 07-13-81 07-27-81 07-27-81 07-27-81 07-27-81 07-27-81 07-27-81 07-27-81 07-27-81 07-27-81 07-27-81 08-10-81 08-10-81 08-10-81 08-10-81 08-10-81 08-10-81 08-10-81 08-24-81 08-24-81 08-24-81 08-24-81 08-24-81 08-24-81 08-24-81 08-24-81 08-24-81 08-24-81 09-14-81 09-14-81 09-14-81 09-14-81 09-14-81 09-14-81 09-14-81 09-28-81 09-28-81 09-28-81 09-28-81 09-28-81 09-28-81 Revision 09-28-81 10-12-81 10-12-81 10-12-81 10-13-81 10-13-81 10-26-81 PAGE APPLICANT DATE 182 David & Jeane Randle (Rez. R81-17 - North St.) 184 Paul a Mary Mrinoni (Rez. R81-18 - Hwy 16 W. and 71 Bypass) •185 New School - Extention on Paving Parking Area (2460 N. Gregg Ave.) 186 Report on Proposed Landscape Ordinance 189 Bill Martin (Prel. Plat - Stone Gate) 189 Sequoyah United Methodist (Addition to Structure - CU) 190 Antique Sales and Repair (CU - 208 North Block) 190 Dale Ward (Lot Split) 191 Murel E. Beaver (Lot Split) 191 Landscape Ordinance 192 Proposed Amendment to Ordinance Concerning Nonconforming Lots 194 Lindsey $ Rutledge (Final Plat - Oakland Meadows) 195 Stone Gate (Mission Blvd. - Prel. Plat) 196 John laTour (CU - Texas Way F, Oklahoma Way) 196 Mission Blvd. Baptist Church (Extension of time for completion of Imp.) 197 Amendment to Article 6 Appendix A, Parking Requirements 198 Committee Report - Study of Nonconforming Structures 198 Commercial Subdivision Ordinance 198 Landscape Ordinance 199 Safeway Stores, Inc. (LSD - North College 8 Lafayette) 200 Steele Addition (Final Plat - 71B and Fulbright Expressway) 200 Happy Acres Subdivision (Prel. Plat - West of Old Wire Rd.) 201 John LaTour (CU - Broadcasting Tower) 202 arker/Westphal (Renewal of Off -Site Parking - 123 West Spring St.) 202 Gordon Wilkins (Safety Zone - 310 East Oakwood St.) 203 Interpretation of Planning Administrator's Determination (RE: Parks Cont.) 20S Betha Barrett (Lot Split) •205 Washington Mountain PUD (Prel. Plat) 206 Report on Proposed Landscape Ordinance 207 John LaTour (Addition Comments - CU) 208 Happy Acres Subdivision (Prel. Plat - Old Wire Road) 209 Sweetbriar Addition (Final Plat - Paradise Gardens Condominium) 209 City Hospital (Rez. R81-19 - School Ave.) 210 Vacation of Alley between Graham $ Razorback 210 Ozark Guidance Center (Off -Site Parking Request - Watson F Thompson) • 10-26-81 10-26-81 10-26-81 10-26-81 11-09-81 11-09-81 11-09-81 11-09-81 11-09-81 11-09-81 11-09-81 11-23-81 11-23-8f 11-23-81 11-23-81 11-23-81 11-23-81 11-23-81 11-23-81 12-14-81 12-14-81 12-14-81 12-14-81 12-14-81 12-14-81 .12-14-81 12-14-81 12-14-81 12-14-81 12-14-81 12-28-81- 12-28-81 12-28-81 12-28-81 12-28-81 =`� ygm '*x1 A . % cey .'779_ y(-4 /, 31 7 14.JAG; ekecoiv Grr?'`21e " wu.E�eS tluAtcvrreilt Iwtsanj "a, II/ X x X- X x X X Pc5,r.cri ' 7k "`g'6,/ t . xV VAtRNr to :. ' i981 .� X x y,11A u: Apy/ori.ad li�X X FPr3,/y_/ X X X X X X 0l1.9, M21 X X X 1 X X X X At/9r 3;1.57) X X X X X X x Aiiiihsfiii X X X. X X X. X X Aollaz19s1 x 1 x X X -x 1 •x X x ;' X X X .4 . x‹ X- ._*.- • m I1 I ay;“9id/1 X X X iX X X, X 10E6 k. /9111 X X X X X X X, K Lie, illicit l X X! X X X ^ •fob /371961 ! X x X H X x !:x X X X X X -X X x! X x X1ja3/ci /o, /,l i X 1 X %� �,a( gil x X x x x X x l x x X' )(• X c-/ /lin x x x H x __ly11.1.1.. L. X X x x l ___ • A,(4//iv�j e6401 »7i`.C.ivA/ wf� - ;,=. ,n •••.Arreiy-4-dce--.{.2Cd%L:v___ - / X/ </'.gyftvcy M --e., • :I g, ,e a i,4 hey 00llet5 -,eyue;e v)r X x! fefr i 1 x X la/So,v x X ///;///.94(5 X • hoc A5 Plit4mtesee Qc rA,19A1 X: X - X X. X X Ng =x4;.10:" X'X • Aini,,A3, 1 1831 X • X X X i x X 1-OPK 141981 .i 'Der AV,19Y1 I i • i I 1 1 - -- -- -- !. — —a---- - - — - • • • PLANNING COMMISSION COMMITItS - Nominating Committee: Appointed Purpose: To present nominations February 9, 1981 meeting. Chairman: Martin Redfern Newton Hailey, Jr. Morton Gitelman 1981 Jan. 12, 1981 for officers to serve during 1981 at the