Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-11-13 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FAYKLIEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held Tuesday, November 13, 1984 at 5:00 P.H. in the Board of Director's Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Newton Hailey, Melanie Stockdell, Ernie Jacks, Fred Hanna, Sue Madison, Stan Green, Joe Tarvin and Barbara Crook Dr. David Williams Planning Consultant Larry Wood, Zed Johnson, Donna Caudle, Sterling Anders, Wade Bishop, Viola Jackman, Bobbie Jones, Paula Brandeis, members of the press and others The one -day -postponed regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission (held on this date because of Veteran's Day being observed Monday) was called to order by Chairman Hailey at 5:10 P.M. and the minutes of the Oct. 22 meeting were considered. MINUTES Barbara Crook wished to make the following corrections to the minutes: 1. Pg.10, par.4, 3rd line; acreage should read 0.49. 2. Pg.12, par.3; eliminate the word "onto"...Hughes. Stan Green made the following correction: Pg.19, par.3; should read "...of subdivision streets serving as thoroughfares between major streets..." Sue Madison made the\following correction: Pg.14, par.3; "waived". With these corrections, the minutes stood approved. PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL 84-20 REZONING FOR ZED JOHNSON WEST OF HWY. 265, S. SIDE HWY. 45 The second item on the agenda was a Public Hearing on Appeal 84-20, a rezoning petition submitted by Zed Johnson for property located approximately 450' west of Hwy. 45 on the south side of Hwy. 45. 237 • Planning Commission November 13, 1984 Page 2 Chairman Hailey advised that Commissioners had received a letter from Mr. Johnson prior to this meeting which states that his intention is to request the rezoning be applicable to only the north 450 ft. of the entire 15 acre tract. Consultant Wood reported as follows: It is recommended that this rezoning application be tabled to allow the owner/or buyer to propose a specific development plan. The problems I see are: 1. It appears that the only access to this property will be from Highway 45; 2. It also appears that there is another ownership just to the west with the same situation; 3. Rezoning the entire property C-1 District as C-2 District does not establish a transition to residential; 4. Establishing a residential transition on the south part of the property would force residential access through commercial property which is not a good planning practice; • 5. Access should be coordinated with the property to the west; • 6. Some form of a transition should be established on the west property line implying that not all of the Highway 45 frontage would be commercial. Wood explained that this property is blocked from access to Hwy. 265 by commercial developments that face that highway, and blocked by the developing subdivision on the west. He added that he felt a plan was needed as to the development of the southern portion of this property and it's neighboring property to the immediate west, which has the same access problem. Wood thought a transition of office/residential was necessary around the existing commercially zoned property at the intersection of Hwys. 265 and 45. He said he could see the potential of Johnson's property serving a commercial purpose in that it faces commercial property on the north side of Hwy. 45. He also explained that the properties on the north side of 45 were established all at once in order to identify the commercial, office & residential districts. The Public Hearing was opened and Mr. Johnson spoke for this appeal. He stated that he needed to use this property, which he has owned for 20 years, for something productive. He said that his property was rezoned when it was annexed into the City thereby excluding some means of making a living from it. Johnson said he has a prospective buyer for a portion of the land or the entire parcel. He said the proposed business would require 200 ft. 23; • • • Planning Commission November 13, 1984 Page 3 In answer to Hanna's inquiry regarding the retention of an easement to the southern portion of land, Johnson replied that he intended to place such an easement through the middle of the front portion and he added that he did not have any development plans for the southern portion presently. As there was no one else present to speak either for or against this appeal, the Public Hearing was closed to discussion among Commissioners Crook said it would be difficult to justify additional C-2 and that C-1 seemed more reasonable, particularly because there is currently much C-2 property available and not being used in this area. She advised that, even though a stoplight will be added to the nearby intersection, (which will tend to back the traffic up) another drive might be difficult to exit from onto 265. She inquired if Johnson had consulted with the developer to the east of his property and Johnson replied that said developer has cut a considerably large ravine which empties across Hwy. 265 near the liquor store. Crook asked if Johnson could arrange an exit to 265 and he replied that the land there has been proposed as a car wash by the owner. Johnson stated that he didn't think additional traffic would be a problem as he had worked on Hwy. 71 North for 15-17 years and he had seen that there are always traffic problems on any major thoroughfare. Hanna said he felt his was a reasonable request in light of the zoning of other properties on the north side of Hwy. 45. and because the petitioner was not in favor of tabling his request, Hanna said he would vote in behalf of the appeal. Madison stated that she had given a great deal of thought to this petition as the property is close to where she lives. She added that she has talked to several of her neighbors as well, and that she did not receive any strong favorable feelings from them in regards to this rezoning. Madison said she thought the traffic at the intersection of Hwys. 265 and 45 is already unbearable, and although she would like to see more commercial and service businesses at this location for convenience, it seemed premature to rezone this parcel when there is clearly no demand for C-2 as demonstrated by vacant C-2 properties which are available and being not used. MOTION Stockdell said she felt apprehensive to rezone even the front 450 ft. of this property because there is no protection, at this point, for the residents of the area to the west and she moved to table this request until there is a more comprehensive plan for the entire area which will protect the residential area from the commercial property. Madison seconded, followed by discussion. V39 • • • Planning Commission November 13, 1984 Page 4 Chairman Hailey advised that a tabled motion supersedes any other motion. He explained that if the vote failed and a subsequent motion to approve the rezoning should be denied, then it would be one year before Johnson could return to the Planning Commission with a request to rezone this property. He added that, if tabled, the appeal could be brought off the table for further discussion at any time. Crook asked to have the responsibility for devising a plan of access clarified as part of the motion and Stockdell said she would follow her motion with a recommendation that the issue of access (other than the current one to Hwy. 45) be addressed shortly. Jones advised that this case could be tabled for 45 days without Johnson's approval and anything longer than that would require his approval. Wood agreed to have a preliminary report within 45 days. Green asked if the proposed 45 days would have any significant effect on Johnson's plans and Johnson replied that it might. Johnson was invited to come up with a plan himself, if he so desired. Jacks said if Johnson devises a plan, it could be heard at the meeting of November 26th and Jones advised that any action would need to take place by December 10th to meet the 45 day requirement as there is no meeting December 24th. Tarvin asked the width of the property between Johnson and the R-2 property. He said it didn't look as though there were room for two lots and a street there. Green asked if Johnson had reason for requesting C-2 instead of C-1 and Johnson replied that there is currently a service garage on the property which C-1 does not allow. Jacks if a C-1 zoning would suit Johnson's potential buyer and Johnson replied that it might because of the nature of the proposed business. Green said he would prefer to vote on a C-1 rezoning if it would fit and if Johnson agreed but he added that he would rather table it than run the risk of delaying it for up to a year. Green said he didn't think the garage would be a problem because it already exists. Crook said she didn't think C-1 zoning would solve the problem with regards to whether or not this issue should be tabled for access plans. The question was called and the motion to table this petition until the December 10th meeting passed 6-2-0, Green and Hanna voting "nay". Chairman Hailey requested Wood to keep in touch with Mr. Johnson and keep him involved in the study of this area. 2110 • • • Planning Commission November 13, 1984 Page 5 POINT WEST LOTS 1 3 2 BLK "C" ON SHILOH DRIVE - BY STERLING ANDERS Green, Chairman of the Subdivision Committee noted that this development had been approved at the Committee meeting of November 9th and needed no further action by the Planning Commission. He proceeded to read the provisions of the motion made on that date: Approved subject to: 1. Plat Review comments; 2. Clayton Powell's approval of the 40 ft. measurement at the northeast drive radii; 3. the right-of-way requirement being met on Shiloh or being waived by the City Board; 4. re -wording of the utility easement on the southwest corner from setback to easement; 5. protective measures being taken on the island beds in the green area; and, 6. double seal and coat on the western apron. REQUEST FOR LOT SPLIT WADE BISHOP MALINDA DRIVE - REGENCY NORTH The fourth item on the agenda was a request for a waiver of the three acre minimum lot size applicable to a first lot split submitted by Wade Bishop for Lots 20 and 21, Block 11, Regency North, Phase II, less and except the southernmost 48 ft. of Lot 20; zoned R-2. Bishop was present to speak for this request. He explained that Lot 21 was originally planned for a triplex and when this met with opposition this plan was changed to accommodate single-family homes. He added that a 20 ft. water easement runs between Lots 20 and 21 further limiting available building space. Bishop said that he would like to build a single-family dwelling on each of these lots. MOTION Jacks moved approval of this lot split, Hanna seconded and the motion to approve passed 8-0-0. REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE FOR CHILD CARE - DONNA CAUDLE NE CORNER OF BERTHA ST. b LEE AVE. The fifth item on the agenda was a request for a Conditional Use for child care submitted by Donna Caudle to be located on the northeast corner of Bertha St. and Lee Ave; zoned R-1. Administrator Jones stated that, because this is being requested in an R-1 zone, the maximum allowable number of children is ten with specific requirements as to lot area, outdoor play area, and screening (if the property if within 50 ft. of any other residential properties). She explained that a "Home Occupation" would allow only 6 children and none of the aforementioned requirements. 941 • • Planning Commission November 13, 1984 Page 6 Jones said that a number of years ago, a request was made by Educare Center regarding this property and she said she thought it may have been considered, conditional to Lee Street being improved. She stated that, in her opinion, this property has some developmental problems. Crook asked if improving Lee Street the full depth of this property is what is being considered and Jones replied affirmatively and added that she thought it would be reasonable that some of the costs of the improvements be shared by the owners of Lots 1, 2 & 3 opposite subject property, if any improvements are required. Madison inquired if Lee is a public street and Jones replied that it was and that it has a 40 ft. right-of-way dedication but should have one of 50 ft. Caudle was present to speak for this request. She stated that she did not think there would be much traffic at this location. Viola Jackman, 101 Bertha, stated that she was not in opposition to the request but she wished to know if Lee Street would be paved and she added that she needed clarification as to which plan (of two proposed) Caudle would be using. Jackman requested that Caudle place her proposed driveway on Lee Street rather than on Bertha. Hailey explained that the previous petitioner for Conditional Use for commercial child care on this property had been asked to pave Lee Street and Jackman remarked that Educare would have served some 40-50 children as opposed to the ten being planned. She said that all of the neighbors had been opposed to the Educare proposal. Crook said that she thought the petitioner was willing to place her drive on Lee Street if she were not required to pave that street. Caudle verified this fact and added that she was financially unable to pave Lee Street. Stockdell explained that the manner in which a determination is made as to whether off-site improvements are necessary is by rational nexus (or how much of an impact a particular use will have on a situation). She stated that she didn't think the impact would be great in the case of facilities for ten children as per this request. Caudle replied that, because of Wyatt's Cafeteria being located just to the north, she would not be adding much to the existing traffic situation. Green inquired as to the difference between this situation and that of a large scale development with regards to off-site improvements. • Stockdell said she thought it would depend on the "rational nexus" and if sufficient impact was made then it would apply. 242 Planning Commission November 13, 1984 Page 7 MOTION Jacks made a motion to approve the Conditional Use request. Hanna seconded and the motion to approve the Conditional Use passed 8-0-0. Discussion followed regarding off-site improvements. Jones said that, although Lee is a dedicated street, she didn't think the Street Department considered as an opened street. She said she has previously taken agreements with owners to allow the placement of the driveway on an unimproved street with the stipulation that the City will not maintain said street. Hanna commented that the City does not currently maintain Lee Street. Jackman remarked that someone is maintaining Lee Street with applications of gravel and oil. Hailey asked Jones if a driveway would be acceptable on either street frontage and Jones replied that she would probably refer the issue to the Street Department unless this Commission addresses it. Crook suggested that a waiver be given for the requirement that Lee Street be paved as a condition of day care use. Madison said she felt Lee Stree should be paved or closed. Jacks said he didn't think the issue needed to be addressed any further as the petitioner had already been asked to enter into a Bill of Assurance which states that she will join a Street Improvement District in the future. MOTION Stockdell moved that this owner/developer be required to sign a Bill of Assurance which stipulates that they will participate in a Street Improvement District in the event that one should be formed. Jacks seconded, followed by discussion. Stockdell explained to Caudle that this motion meant that if the other property owners who may have an impact on Lee Street should decide to make the street improvements, that Caudle would pay a portion of the total cost of those improvements based on a "rational nexus" basis. Hanna repeated that "rational nexus" meant "how much Caudle and/or her business would use (or impact) the street. Green pointed out that the three lots on the opposite side of Lee Street, if developed, would represent at least 50%, of the value, and the controlling decision, of whether an improvement district was formed. He added that there was also the possibility that the Consumers shopping center might not be required to join. 240 • • • Planning Commission November 13, 1984 Page 8 Madison asked if there were a mechanism to force the shopping center to pay a fair share. Stockdell said she thought there was, on a "rational nexus" basis and Jones added that, if they were included in an improvement district the shopping center would represent the major participant. Green pointed out that, if the shopping center represented one-half of the possible votes and they chose not to enter into an improvement district, the other property owners on the north half (and west side) of Lee Street could still form an improvement district which excluded the shopping center, and Caudle would be faced with the original situation of paying for approximately half the cost of improvements. He said he did not think a Bill of Assurance from Caudle should be required. Madison asked if the City could take the responsibility of paving Lee Street and assess the residents for part of the cost and Jones replied that it could not. The question was called and the motion to ask the property owner to sign a Bill of Assurance stating that they will participate in a future Street Improvement District for the paving of Lee Street along the portion between this prospective owner's lots and those opposite (being Lots 1, 2 & 3 of Crest Addition passed 5-3-0, Hanna, Green and Hailey voting "nay" Green requested that the clerk read the motion and following that reading, he said he desired to make that same motion for a second time, as Tarvin had indicated that he wished to change his vote from "aye" to "nay". Several Commissioners objected and Chairman Hailey determined that this action would be inappropriate at this time. MOTION After more discussion regarding whether or not the adjoining shopping center could or should be included in the Street Improvement District, Stockdell made a motion to ask the City Attorney to review the motion which required Caudle to become part of a Street Improvement District for further discussion by Commission members at their next meeting. Jacks seconded and the motion passed 7-1-0, Green voted "nay". REPORT FROM THE GENERAL UPDATE COMMITTEE NON -CONFORMING STRUCTURES: In Chairman Williams absence, other members of this Committee and Consultant Wood, gave reports of items discussed at their recent meetings. The first item considered was that of non -conforming structures. Wood said that this included lots that are smaller than the ordinance calls �yy Planning Commission November 13, 1984 Page 9 for or existing structures which violate one or more of the setback requirements, or residential structures zoned other than residential. Wood said a request has been made by the Planning Administrator to allow the expansion of these houses, allow additions to same and allow construction of houses on lots that are non -conforming Another consideration would allow the upward expansion of existing non -conforming residential structures (but no forward expansion) and yet another consideration would allow awnings, porch roofs, and carports in residential zones to extend into the required front -yard setback if (1) the Extension is at least 10 ft. from the Street right-of-way; (2) the roofed area is open on the sides; and (3) the structure does not materially obstruct vision. Wood stated that two ways of obtaining the above objectives would be (1) to gain the approval of neighbors on each side, in the immediate rear and across the street or (2) request subject variances from the Board of Adjustment. Crook advised that it might be safer to word the above "property owners" instead of neighbors. She said this change would apply to isolated lots in subdivisions that were developed before the PUD ordinances were in effect and she felt this issue should be addressed as such (with this wording) and not used where one large lot with an existing house could be subdivided and used for two or more new dwellings. Madison expressed concern regarding the manner in which approval for subject variances could be obtained in that she felt asking all of the surrounding neighbors was akin to "going begging". Wood and Jones clarified that approval could be granted by the Board of Adjustment without approval from neighbor/owners. Wood inquired if this provision should apply in R-2 & R-3 Districts. Madison said if a lot were big enough to support a duplex it could meet the required setbacks for a single-family dwelling. Jones said two or more of these small lots could be purchased together and be considered as one lot if all legal descriptions are included as part of the parcel. Hanna said it could have an effect on a small lot between two duplexes which is too small for another. Jones explained the requirements for lot sizes and setbacks for duplexes in an R-2 District. She advised that many times the problem in this District is finding enough space to meet the parking requirements. Wood said he did not see any problems with relaxing some restrictions in any residential district but he thought in R-2 and R-3 there was v HS Planning Commission November 13, 1984 Page 10 the chance of an heigth or parking to this. unforeseen problems arising, perhaps dealing with requirements. He suggested much thought be given Jones said R-2 and R-3 (with proof furnished that the units will be townhouses or condos) the minimum lot width, lot area and area per dwelling unit is not applicable, but setbacks and overall density requirements would have to be met. With regards to porches, overhangs and carports extending into front yard setbacks, Crook said she thought this restriction would be difficult to enforce and she added that sometimes porches and carports can be filled with furniture or storage units and become a vision impeding hazard. In answer to Jones inquiry, Crook said it might alter her feelings if the requirement were to read something other than the 10 ft. from street right-of-way which has been proposed. Hanna said he thought this proposed change referred mainly to elderly citizens who had no place close to park their cars or overhangs/porches to get under and out of the rain. Jones said it also might apply to a family that buys a small house and, as the family grows, the quickest way to gain additional needed living space is to enclose an existing carport which sometimes eliminates the option of adding a carport or garage at a later date because there is no way of getting to the rear yard. Hanna said the sides of a carport must be left open and he felt there was a way of enforcing that requirement; Green agreed. Green added that he thought a person would park their car in their carport if one were available and he compared this situation to that of people parking several cars in their driveway, creating a visual obstruction. Crook said she had no objection to a simple cover type porch to shelter from the weather and Jones replied that requests may come in for both kinds of porches. Crook thought the wording of the proposal might clarify what was acceptable. Jones suggested limiting the extension of porch roof or awning to 4-6 ft. for clarification purposes. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND USES: The next item of consideration was that of access structures. Wood advised that the ordinance presently prohibits an accessory structure in a setback. This includes all portable buildings, those larger than 8 X 10 requiring building permits ays • • Planning Commission November 13, 1984 Page 11 The first referral was to television antenna dishes. The Committee felt that no accessory buildings should be allowed in a front setback and if an antenna was erected between the front of the principal structure and the street right-of-way, it should be screened or the base of the dish should be screened by landscaping. Jones said that present requirements include no accessory building being constructed on any lot in the required setback and a second section reads that no accessory building shall be constructed prior to construction of the principal building to which it is an accessory unless such building is approved by the Planning Commission. She reminded Wood that the Committee had discussed the possibility of someone placing an accessory building on a property with no principal structure to house a mower for the purpose of maintaining the lot. Tarvin said he did not approve of accessory buildings at all, let alone one erected prior to a principal structure. Stockdell said she had a recent experience in which an engineer had advised that the best possible location for a (particular) antenna dish was close to the building. She said she didn't think that the an antenna location should be restricted except for setbacks requirements. Jacks expressed his concern about the legality of restricting the placement of such auxiliary equipment. He said they may be considered "auxiliary equipment" and not structures and he added that if the City Attorney felt this proposal was defensible, he would not object. Jones stated that there is a section of code which refers to any structure exceeding 30" above ground level. Crook referred to a recent Little Rock ordinance which requires antenna dishes which are placed between a house and the street to be screened. It was decided to address antenna dishes at the upcoming Public Hearing. Wood advised that the Update Committee members had decided trash containers should be allowed in setbacks and could be screened on three sides and left open on the service (or street) side. Crook advised that these would need to monitored to avoid creating a hazard by impeding vision. Jones replied that there is a section of ordinance covering this possibility. Tarvin asked if this would apply to all zoning districts and Wood replied that it would but that it mainly would deal with large dumpsters utilized by commercial concerns which are required to have 50ft. setbacks. Jones commented that there are some apartment complexes where the • front yard setback is the only place available to place a trash container. ?H7 Planning Commission November 13, 1984 Page 12 Commissioners asked why the Committee has considered not allowing swimming pools in front yard setbacks and Wood replied that the main concern was for the privacy fences erected around pools which may impede vision. ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL USES IN NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS: The following proposal addresses C-1, C-2, I-1 and I-2 Districts; Wood stated that this use has not, previously, been allowed with the exception of C-3 and C-4 which allows multi -family. He said the feeling of the Committee was that attached residentials and some detached residentials in these zones should be allowed as long as code requirements were met and that the owner enter into an agreement that a parcel with both a residence and a commercial building will not be sold separate- ly one from the other. As an example, Wood cited a commercial business on the ground floor of a building with apartments above it. Crook was concerned that the parking and setback requirements remain separate and distinct in the various districts and not overlap. ADDITION OF R-1.5 MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Wood introduced a proposal for a new zoning district (drafted by himself and Jones) to be called R-1.5 (Moderate Density Residentail) which would include twelve families per acre or less. The following uses would be permitted in this district: Units 1, 8, 26 and a "to -be -created" Use Unit (29). Uses permissible on appeal to the Planning Commission would include Units 2, 3 & 4. He advised Commissioners of the proposed bulk and area regulations for the new district and added that Use Unit 29would include single-family, two-family and three-family dwellings. Crook said that she had a problem with the proposed setback which states that side yards may be waived on one side to permit zero lot line development, provided the side yard opposite the zero lot line is at least fifteen feet and no structures on the adjoining property are closer than 15 ft. She said she would see "...and no structures on the adjoining property are closer than 15 ft." omitted. Crook said she felt the best feature of zero lot line was to bring the two structures into sharing a common wall. Jones said the intent of this proposal was that two structures could have zero lot line on their common lot line and 15 ft. on each of their opposite lot lines. Crook inquired as to control of this situation in a commercial zone and Jones suggested that it might be left to the building code. Green asked if this would be limited to two structures and Jones said if three buildings were joined together meeting the yard setbacks, it would be considered a triplex rather than three separate structures on three separate lots. Pyr Planning Commission November 13, 1984 Page 13 Madison said the intent of the Committee was to provide for smaller structures on smaller lots and not have rowhouses result. Mrs. Don Mills, a member of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was present and made the following comments: She agreed with Madison's objection to the requirement that neighbors signatures be obtained to have setback variances granted. Mills said she did not think it was fair to go by the whims of the neighborhood and wondered if guidelines could be constructed for Jones to administer regarding these issues. She also inquired if setbacks from the side property line had been addressed for carports because this is where most of carport problems occur. Mills said this situation very often affects elderly people who have closed in their carport as a bedroom years ago and now need a carport or garage because of (possible) ailments. She requested that the Update Committee address the side property line variance before it comes up at a Public Hearing. Crook said that the proposal would include a side setback of 5 ft. if the other structures in the neighborhood are built with that setback. Green request that the issue of where the measurement for driveway width be taken from be clarified and Crook added that she would like to see lot splits addressed as well. Hailey requested Consultant Wood to put these two items on the list for the Update Committee to pursue as well as the turning circle on culs-de-sac and the 25 ft. safety zone. SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS FOR 1985 MOTION Stockdell moved to approve the schedule of Planning Commission meetings for 1985, as presented by the Planning Office which includes each second and fourth Monday in a given month with the following exceptions: 1. May 27 - the 4th Monday in May is also observed as Memorial Day. The Commission shall meet on Tuesday, May 28th. 2. November 11 - the 2nd Monday in November is also observed as Veteran's Day. The Commission shall meet on Nov. 12th. 3. December 23 - the 4th Monday in December is not a holiday for City employees; however, it is only 2 days before Christmas and the Commission shall omit this meeting. Joe Tarvin seconded and the motion passed 8-0-0. Planning Commission November 13, 1984 Page 14 OTHER BUSINESS Tarvin commented that the Transportation Improvement Program lists several streets that are not in compliance with the Master Street Plan. The streets in question are 1. Township - from Old Wire Road to Hwy. 265 on the Master Street Plan is listed as a Collector Street while on the TIP it is listed as a Principal Arterial; 2. Poplar - from Leverett to Gregg is listed as a local street and is shown to be widened to four lanes; and 3. Sycamore - from Leverett to Garland is listed as a Collector but shown to be widened to four lanes. Jacks advised that North Street is shown as a Minor Arterial while the Street Plan shows it as a Primary Arterial. Crook wished to call this situation to the attention of the City Board. She said she felt changes should not be made to the Master Street Plan without a Public Hearing. NOTION Jacks moved that this Commission pass a resolution to the City Board as described by Crook, Stockdell seconded followed by discussion. Jacks advised that these issues may not be legal until a Public Hearing is held. Jones said that, as per the City Manager's office, the difference on Township Road was an error. She said she had been told, also, that on Poplar Street the minimum standard is what has been listed and it can be improved to four lanes. After some discussion, the question was called and the motion passed 8-0-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:28 P.M. ?5Q • • Resolution 1 — 8 4 BE IT RESOLVED: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has become aware that some street classifications shown on the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) are at variance with the Master Street Plan of the City of Fayetteville and that some proposed improvements indicated on the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) are at variance with the standards contained in the Subdivision Regulations of the City of Fayetteville. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission desires to call to the attention of the Board of Directors that public hearings should be held before making changes of this nature in the Comprehehsive Plan of the City of Fayetteville. PASSED AND APPROVED this 13th day of November, 1984. Attest: Secretary Chairman 95)