HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-01-08 Minutes•
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
FAYETPEVILLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, January
8, 1990 in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain
Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
MINUTES
J. David Ozment, Jerry Allred, J.E. Springborn, Ernie
Jacks, Gerald Klingaman, Gerald Seiff, Jack Cleghorn and
Fred Hanna 4 Kash
John Merrell, Don Bunn, Elaine Cattaneo, members of the
press and others
The Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of December 11, 1989 were approved
as distributed with one correction. Julie Nash was present at this meeting, but
her name was omitted from the "Members Present" list.
WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT 1,1
TERESA ANDERSON - 4771 BRIDGEWATER LANE
The first item is a waiver of the subdivision regulations - lot split #1
submitted by Teresa Anderson for property located at 4771 Bridgewater Lane which
is outside the City Limits.
Teresa Anderson stated that she has gotten the easement rights from Ozarks
Electric for the access back to the new lot.
Chairman Jacks advised that he owns property next to this and from looking at
this survey, there seems to a property dispute. He noted that this wouldn't have
any bearing on the lot split, but he would be abstaining on this.
Gerald Jones who owns property just west of this asked what is planned for that.
Chairman Jacks advised that they are proposing to split off 1.77 acres on the
south edge of this property. Mrs. Anderson noted that she will be retaining the
1.77 acres. Mr. Jones stated that most of the property along there is primarily
seven acre tracts and he is concerned about this lot being so small.
There being no ane else in the audience wanting to speak to this, it was turned
over to the Planning Commissioners. Commissioner Hanna asked how the 1.77 acres
would be accessed. Chairman Jacks noted that it would be a tandem lot situation
with the access going down the east side of the property.
•
•
•
Planning Commission
January 8, 1990
Page 2
Commissioner Nash stated that the Ozarks Electric letter referred to Joe
Garrison. Mrs. Anderson advised that Joe Garrison is her father and was the
original owner of the property.
Don Bunn stated that the County met on this lot split this afternoon. Mrs.
Anderson advised that the County did approve it. Mr. Bunn noted that the staff
recommends approval of this split subject to 1) the County approval and 2) the
granting of any additional easements required by the utility companies. He added
that regarding any property line disputes, the Planning Commission is not
approving the survey but the concept of dividing the property.
Commissioner Hanna asked if there are any covenants on this property. A member
of the audience stated that the covenants only make the provision that the lots
be at least an acre.
Commissioner Seiff stated that he was curious about the nature of the terrain
in this location. The Planning Commission is usually more favorable toward lot
splits where the terrain more or less warrants it. In some cases, the creating
of a tandem lot just for the sake of a lot split is something he isn't very happy
with. Chairman Jacks noted that the terrain is sort of gently rolling and added
that he doesn't think the terrain is a factor in this case. He noted that it
would be one of the provisions of a tandem lot approval, but they are approving
a lot split and not a tandem lot. Commissioner Seiff advised that it becomes
a tandem lot if they approve this lot split.
MOTION
Commissioner Springborn moved to approve the lot split as requested, seconded
by Nash. The motion passed 5-2-2 with Klingaman, Nash, Springborn, Allred &
Ozment voting "yes" and Seiff & Cleghorn voting "no" and Hanna & Jacks
"abstaining".
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING R89-28
CEDARCREST DEVELOPMENT, INC - N OF FERGUSON & W OF CROSSOVER
The third item on the agenda was a rezoning request /IR89-28 submitted by Preston
Ferguson on behalf of Cedarcrest Development, Inc. and represented by Harry Gray
of Northwest Engineers for property located north of Ferguson and west of
Crossover Road containing 18 acres. Request was to rezone from A-1, Agricultural
to R-1, Low Density Residential.
Chairman Jacks advised that this petition has been before them earlier and was
referred back to them by the City Board of Directors. He added that the Planning
Commission had denied the request by a split vote; it was then appealed to the
Board of Directors by the owner. The Board then apparently turned down the
appeal and instead of approving the Planning Commission's actions, sent it back
to the Planning Commission for a rehearing. He advised that the first thing
the Planning Commission has to decide is if they do wish to rehear it. According
to the Planning Commission bylaws, a rehearing should be for the sole purpose
of calling attention to a factual error, omission or oversight in the first
•
•
•
Planning Commission
January 8, 1990
Page 3
consideration. From the information provided to them in the agenda packet,
there seems to be a pretension that there is new information having to do with
restrictions on development within the flood plain.
Commissioner Nash asked if they could limit themselves to rehearing only new
information and comments about that information. Chairman Jacks answered, yes.
NOTION
Commissioner Nash moved to hear the new information and comments, seconded by
Seiff and followed by discussion. Commissioner Klingaman stated that if they
are going to essentially look the whole thing over again, they ought to be able
to hear from both sides. He noted that the objections as he read in the report
are the same that were brought up before and he doesn't see the new information
as being that much different. Chairman Jacks advised that the motion is to
rehear only the new information having to do with certification of the fact that
it would not increase the 100 year flood elevation.
The motion passed 8-1-0 with Hanna, Seiff, Nash, Jacks, Springborn, Allred,
Ozment & Cleghorn voting "yes" and Klingaman voting "no".
John Merrell stated that he would like to emphasize the point that this is a
rezoning item on the agenda, so it is a zoning matter and not one that focuses
on exactly how this property will be developed, where the flood plain lines are
and that type of thing. Presumably, if the rezoning or a version of the rezoning
is ultimately approved by the Board of Directors, the next step would be for the
applicant to come in and submit a preliminary plat whereby they would layout a
proposed development for this property. He added that the discussion on the
boundary of the 100 year flood plain lines, etc. would be appropriate to focus
at that meeting. This evening they are focusing on how this property should be
zoned. He added that, as his report reflects, the staff is again recommending
approval of this rezoning for essentially the same reasons stated in the report
for the earlier meeting in October. This recommendation includes the entire 18
acre tract with the understanding that the applicant does have the prerogative
to come in with a preliminary plat at some future date showing a development
proposal for the property which would be acted upon at that time.
Mr. Merrell stated that he would like to point out a couple of items that were
mentioned by a speaker at the October meeting. First of all, he would like to
advise the Commission in no uncertain terms that there is no dissension on the
city staff as far as this rezoning is concerned. A speaker at the October
meeting inferred that Public Works Director, Bob Kelly, was opposed to this
rezoning. Mr. Kelly has admitted talking to that speaker, but he feels that his
comments were misinterpreted and misrepresented at the Planning Con ission
meeting. There is no dissent either in the past or in the present among the city
staff on this rezoning. Also, the staff does not feel as though this rezoning
is going to create a traffic problem. Chairman Jacks interrupted with the
statement that they are limiting this to new information which in this case would
be having to do with a guarantee of not raising the flood elevation. He asked
that they hold anything other than that. Mr. Merrell noted that the only other
Planning Commission
January 8, 1990
Page 4
thing he would like to add is that the staff has reviewed Mr. Gray's offer on
the part of his client and they feel it is a viable proposal.
Commissioner Springborn asked Mr. Merrell if anything has changed about what he
had stated at the last meeting. Mr. Merrell answered, no, except for Mr. Gray's
offer that he is making associated with this rehearing.
The public hearing was opened and Chairman Jacks cautioned again that they are
only hearing new information.
Harry Gray stated that they have requested this rehearing on the basis of not
raising the 100 year flood level with any development on the property which was
the major concern at the earlier meeting. The potential for flooding based upon
the existing city flood ordinance would allow the flood level to be raised up
to one foot with development of the property. What they are proposing is with
any development of this property with the rezoning, a Bill of Assurance or
contract would be executed to ensure that any development would not raise the
100 year flood level on this property at all. To back that up, the plans would
have to be prepared by a professional engineer and be certified and approved by
the city staff. Chairman Jacks asked if the plans would have to be certified
by someone not associated with his firm otherwise he would be approving his own
actions. Mr. Gray stated that wouldn't be the case if.it was approved by the
City.
Commissioner Klingaman asked if he would be guaranteeing that they would not
"fill". Mr. Gray answered, no. Commissioner Klingaman asked what basis they
are going to use for locating the point on the ground where the 100 year flood
line is. Mr. Gray stated that they would go by the existing city flood maps
which is part of the existing flood ordinance. The maps show the elevation at
varying points and outlines the 100 year flood plain in all designated areas.
These maps are the basis of the whole flood plain ordinance and all the
development in the City.
Commissioner Seiff asked if it would be a fair statement to say that the existing
development is much newer than the date of those flood plain maps. Mr. Gray
answered, yes, 1982 is the effective date of the maps. Commissioner Seiff asked
if it is possible then that all the construction and development that has
occurred since those maps were prepared could have altered the flood plain.
Mr. Gray stated that it might have changed it to a very slight degree. He added
that this is covered in the booklet that is a part of the flood information and
states that it will be renewed periodically. For example, the difference between
the 100 year flood and the 500 year flood at this location is only 6" and with
these would be tremendously different rain falls. He advised that there are
1,200 acres that drains to this Ferguson property with the south end of it being
about where the Warner Cable T.V. tower is on Mt. Sequoyah. Since the studies
were made, there probably hasn't been 3% of the area developed.
Commissioner Seiff stated then that in Mr. Gray's opinion, there would be some
modification but nothing major. Mr. Gray noted that at some point in time,
•
•
Planning Commission
January 8, 1990
Page 5
these maps are developed and fifty years from now some of these residential areas
may be gone and commercial buildings put in, etc.
Commissioner Seiff asked how often the City prepares the flood plain maps and
therefore, when would it be prepared next. Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that
the City hasn't prepared but one set, but it would seem to him that they would
be prepared every 10 years or so. He added that he didn't think there were any
flood plains maps before the current ones were prepared.
Mr. Gray noted that as far as the development of this property, they have to look
at the whole 1,200 acres. What he is trying to get across is that if they have
to develop in this flood plain, they will not increase the 100 year flood
elevation.
Commissioner Ozment asked if a federal agency funded the preparation of the flood
plain maps. Chairman Jacks stated that he thought so and noted that they did
have a flood zone with a great deal of restriction built into that zone.
However, at some point the Feds did this in the major drainage areas to
facilitate flood insurance.
Commissioner Nash asked if Mr. Gray is guaranteeing that if there is flooding
because of their development, he would be liable for the damages. Mr. Gray
stated that if any development in there increased the flooding above the
established 100 year flood elevation, they would be liable. He reiterated that
by the existing flood ordinance, they would be allowed to raise this elevation
but they are guaranteeing that they wouldn't raise it above what it is now.
Commissioner Ozment stated that this doesn't mean that they aren't going to do
any "filling". Mr. Gray agreed.
Commissioner Springborn stated that the maps aren't new, so the only thing that
is new is Mr. Gray's guarantee. He added that if there is only 6" difference
between the 100 year flood level and the 500 year flood level, it doesn't seem
to him that Mr. Gray is taking a very big risk in that kind of a guarantee. It
strikes him that what is being guaranteed is something that is almost beyond the
limits of measure. He asked how they would determine that it would not be
changed. He noted that if there is a new flood plain map developed and they
raise the 100 year flood plain level, what happens to this guarantee.
Mr. Gray stated that as far as the frequency of preparing new maps, it takes a
substantial amount of development to really substantially affect that elevation.
They are stating that this development be certified at whatever flood map is in
effect at the time of development. Chairman Jacks asked if there was a new
flood plain map developed, would his guarantee still be in effect. Mr. Gray
answered, yes.
Jerry Sweetser stated that he has property that adjoins this particular piece
of property on the west and it is obvious that a lot of people are not very well
informed on the flood plain. He stated that if they stop development in this
area because this is 200' from the creek, then he will create the same impact
when he develops his property that is 400' or 500' from the creek or anywhere
•
•
•
Planning Commission
January 8, 1990
Page 6
within this flood plain. He added that there are enough rules and regulations
set by the City to protect the property owners when the subdivision plat is
brought through. If the plat doesn't meet the requirements, it should be turned
down. The flood plain should not even be a consideration in the zoning process.
He stated that he thinks this rezoning should be approved.
There being no one else in the audience wanting to speak in favor of this,
discussion was heard from those in opposition.
Ken Edwards stated that the only new information he can see is that the people
are concerned about the extend of the increase in the flood plain in this area
due to development and they have secured the services of Neal Albright who is
an engineer in Fayetteville. Mr. Albright's findings are exactly opposite of
Mr. Gray's. In paragraph A on Page 2 of his report states that any increase
and run-off in the flood elevation which is already critical will increase the
flooding problem in that area He stated that there has been a great deal of
development since 1982 and all of it is going to have an impact on the flood
plain. Mr. Edwards noted that they have limited their discussion to new evidence
that these property owners downstream from this proposed development will not
be affected and he doesn't believe they have heard any new evidence aside from
what he has suggested to them. He added that there has been a good deal of
correspondence back and forth between Mr. Merrell's office and Northwest
Engineers concerning whether or not there has been any new information and in
his opinion, there has not been. The plat that he proposed to the City Board,
which voted to deny the appeal of the Planning Commission, is being forwarded
to the Corp of Engineers. Until the Corp of Engineers reviews what is out there
now, they are running a significant risk and the Bill of Assurances by the
proposed developer is not going to help these people when they are sweeping water
out of their garages and lawns. There is already stress on the drainage system
in the East Oaks area The pumping station in that area when stressed goes out
completely. Until they hear some new information concerning an updating of
those drainage maps, they are putting a great deal of the citizenry at risk.
Chairman Jacks stated that as he understands it, Mr. Gray has offered to have
his guarantee to extend to any future maps which will be developed in the future.
Mr. Edwards stated that he would propose that the proponent of the development
have the Corp of Engineers look at this and say whether or not the flood plain
will increase appreciably when any development takes place,. He added that there
are lots already with flood plain problems in the existing subdivisions around
this. There needs to be some hard and fast facts from an unbiased scientist in
that area Chairman Jacks stated that as he understands it, Mr. Edwards'
position regarding new information is that after it happens, it is too late to
correct it. Mr. Edwards agreed.
Phil Yoakum of 2247 Magnolia stated that he would request that they leave it as
A-1 because of the flooding problem on their lots now. Chairman Jacks cautioned
him that they are only discussing the new information at this time which is the
petitioner's offer to give certification that whatever development they do there
will not increase the level of the flood elevation. Mr. Yoakum stated that he
•
Planning Commission
January 8, 1990
Page 7
would like the City to consider recutting that creek bed before any zoning or
development takes place there.
Lois Fordyce of 2737 Wakefield Place stated that she would like to know what
guarantee Mr. Gray is offering to back up his guarantee. Are they going to
deposit $500,000 in an account so that if something is destroyed, it can be
replaced. She stated that wherever the flood plain has been build on in
Fayetteville, there have been problems so how can Mr. Gray guarantee that there
will not be problems when they are going to fill in a vast area of the flood
plain.
Chairman Jacks asked Mr. Gray if his certification is a matter of liability
insurance. Mr. Gray stated that the owner and he would be responsible. He added
that they will have to come back with development plans before this same Planning
Commission and notify all the same people at that time. They will let the people
know when the detailed plans are ready so they can review them. He added that
they don't propose any insurance of any kind.
Mrs. Fordyce stated that she doesn't see that the submission of Mr. Gray's later
plans has anything to do with his guarantee.
Shay Lastra of 2753 Wakefield Place stated that she would like to defend her
position that Mr. Merrell brought up earlier about Bob Kelly's statements. She
advised that she contacted Mr. Kelly by phone two or three months ago and he
agreed to make a public statement that he was against development in the flood
plain area with a subdivision with only one access. Then approximately a month
after than, she decided to go get a written statement. When she went into his
office, Mr. Kelly told her that she would have to bring new evidence supporting
what she was saying. She provided him with a concept plat done by Neal Albright
which suggested that all the properties would be affected by this development.
Mr. Kelly once again agreed with her that this was a good idea. She advised that
she has a witness, Rita Dukaburger. She submitted some petitions signed by
people from several subdivisions who agree that the rezoning request should be
denied until the Corp of Engineers, an impartial party, conducts a topographical
study of this land and determines the affects of the proposed large scale
development on present day development that is in or adjacent to this flood plain
development. She stated that Marilyn Kilby who is present tonight has spoken
to the Corp of Engineers and was told that there needs to be an update in the
topographical study of the area. The head of Flood Plain Management in Little
Rock is working on determining whether any development at all should occur in
the area. Because flood plain development is allowed does not mean that they
should fill up the flood plain area.
Mr. Gray stated that the petition refers to "proposed large scale development"
and there is not a large scale development being proposed.
Mrs. Lastra read the letter from Neal Albright dated January 6, 1990 regarding
the affects of development in this location. She stated that with this letter,
she is proving that according to another engineer, the flood elevation level will
be raised with development. She noted that Mr. Albright has asked that the
•
•
•
Planning Commission
January 8, 1990
Page 8
Planning Commission consider the following: 1) the increase in runoff will raise
flood elevation, 2) lots in the proposed Ferguson Addition will be hazardous to
build on, 3) there will be potential liability exposure should properties
downstream be flooded and 4) the flow increase from the point of the new sewage
treatment facility will most certainly increase the flow in Mudd Creek.
Commissioner Seiff asked how Mr. Albright could know the affects of post
development. Mrs. Lastra stated that Mr. Albright has seen a preliminary that
the Planning Commission would have gotten had the rezoning been approved the
first time.
Dorothy Maguire of 2672 Ferguson stated that it was her understanding that the
Commission already rezoned all the property in the 18 acre tract above the flood
plain, but they have stated that they are considering a rezoning for the entire
18 acre tract. Chairman Jacks advised that they recoiu'iended to the City Board
a rezoning of all the property outside the flood plain, but the Board did not
approve it. Instead, the Board returned it to the Planning Commission for
consideration.
Marilyn Kilby of 2618 Sharon stated that the flood plain maps are dated 1982 and
there has been a tremendous amount of development there since then. There is
also the Mudd Creek health problem issue with flooding from Mudd Creek and the
sewage problem. The pump station tends to break down during heavy rain periods.
Chairman Jacks clarified that her position is that certification notwithstanding,
if something happened she would be in trouble. She agreed and stated that she
has requested that the head of Flood Plain Management in Little Rock (Conrad
Letrill?) make recommendations to the City regarding what is done here. His
recommendations were that there be some channelization occurring in consideration
for retention problems which would involve a request by the City for that study
to occur. She added that she would like to see that study occur before they
approve anything that would endanger life for profit.
Mrs. Fordyce stated that the residents aren't willing to take Mr. Gray's judgment
on whether or not the flooding will increase with development and they would like
to have an evaluation of the situation before any decision is made.
There being no further opposition, the public hearing was closed and discussion
took place among the Planning Commissioners.
MOTION
Commissioner Klingaman moved to recommend approval of a rezoning from A-1 to R-
1 for the part of this property that is above the 100 year flood plain, seconded
by Nash and followed by discussion.
Commissioner Springborn stated that there has been a lot of discussion and he
feels they need to concentrate only on what is relevant and new. He added that
he hasn't heard anything that is relevant and new.
Commissioner Hanna stated that he considers the guarantee that Mr. Gray's firm
•
•
•
Planning Commission
January 8, 1990
Page 9
as making is new and relevant information. He advised that this is a rezoning
only and all of these concerns need to be considered at the time of development.
Commissioner Klingaman noted that he doesn't think the development on this 18
acres is significantly going to affect whether or not there is flooding in that
particular area. The problem is the 1,200 acre watershed and a lot of that area
is already developed with the East Oaks area being developed since 1982.
Basically, this is the drainage channel for that 1,200 acres and to arbitrarily
say that the flood line was correct in 1982 which was probably made from maps
that were 5 or more years old at that time is pretty risky.
Commissioner Ozment stated that if only a piece of this property is rezoned, what
responsibility if the developer going to have for proper drainage control on the
unzoned area. Are there any assurances that when the R-1 portion is developed,
the drainage problems will be addressed on the A-1 portion. He noted that he
would rather rezone the whole thing and leave these drainage problems to be
worked out. He further stated that he feels that maybe some of the development
in this area has improved the water situation and not made it worst.
Commissioner Springborn stated that he is a little confused because the audience
was limited to new information, but it doesn't seem that the Planning Commission
is following the same procedure. Chairman Jacks agreed.
Commissioner Allred stated that it appears to him that'l-they would be limiting
the City as far as the control of the development if they approve the motion on
the floor. He added that the FHA has a new regulation that they will not fund
a loan on a home where any part of the lot is in the floodplain.
Commissioner Nash stated that she feels the motion is a good compromise.
Commissioner Cleghorn asked if all 18 acres was rezoned and they come in with
a development, could they keep the developers from building in the flood plain.
Chairman Jacks stated that the development would be limited by the federal
regulations, but as long as they met the subdivision regulations, the Planning
Commission can't really turn it down.
Don Bunn advised that the flood plain regulations were adopted by the City as
ordinance. He added that he would like to correct a factual error in Mr.
Albright's letter. The new treatment plant does not discharge into this portion
of Mudd Creek.
The motion was denied 4-5-0 with Klingaman, Nash, Springborn & Cleghorn voting
"yes" and Hanna, Seiff, Jacks, Allred & Ozment voting "no".
MOTION
Commissioner Hanna moved to recommend approval of a rezoning of the entire tract
to R-1 with the new information accepted as Harry Gray's firm offer, seconded
by Allred. The motion passed 5-4-0 with Hanna, Seiff, Jacks, Allred & Ozment
voting "yes" and Klingaman, Nash, Springborn & Cleghorn voting "no".
•
•
•
Planning Commission
January 8, 1990
Page 10
PRffi BINARY PLAT OF PARADISE PLACE
BRYANT DEVELOPMENT CO - W OF CROSSOVER RD, S OF JOYCE ST
The fourth item on the agenda was a preliminary plat of Paradise Place submitted
by Wayne Bryant on behalf of Bryant Development Co. and represented by Tom Hopper
of Crafton, Tull & Associates for property located west of Crossover Road and
south of Joyce Street and zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. The property
contains 18.7 acres with 32 proposed lots.
Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that there was an easement asked for at the Plat
Review meeting on Lot 7. Mr. Hopper stated that it has been added. Mr. Bunn
stated that the staff recommends approval subject to 1) the Plat Review Comments,
2) the payment of parks fees, 3) subsequent approval of water, sewer, streets
and drainage plans and 4) a sidewalk along Highway 265 as required by the Master
Sidewalk Plan.
In answer to a question from Commissioner Klingaman, Mr. Hopper stated that the
gas line that runs through the property is 10 5/8".
Chairman Jacks asked if anyone would like to speak in favor or in opposition to
this. There being no response, it was opened to the Planning Commission.
MOTION
Commissioner Hanna moved to approve the preliminary plat subject to Plat Review
comments and staff's comments, seconded by Ozment. The motion passed 9-0-0.
LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR BRAUN'S ICE CREAM STORE
BRAUM'S - 2511 N COLLEGE AVE
The fifth item on the agenda was a large scale development plan for Braum's Ice
Cream Store submitted by Braum's and represented by Tom Hopper of Crafton, Tull
& Associates for property located at 2511 N. College Avenue. The property is
zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial.
Don Bunn, City Engineer, stated that there were no significant comments at Plat
Review. There was a utility easement requested on the kiagiitide of the
property. The staff recommends approval subject to 1) the Plat Review comments,
2) the construction of a sidewalk along both North College Avenue and Villa Blvd
and 3) a dedication by a separate instrument of that utility easement.
Mr. Hopper stated that they are aware of the requirements and have no further
comments.
There being no one else in the audience wanting to speak to this, it was turned
t
Planning Commission
January 8, 1990
Page 11
over to the Planning Commission.
MOTION
Commissioner Nash moved to approve this large scale development plan subject to
the staff comments, seconded by Seiff. The motion passed 9-0-0.
WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLITS 1 & 2
RAYMOND JOHNSON - N OF HAROLD, E OF LOXLEY
The sixth item on the agenda was a waiver of the subdivision regulations - lot
splits 1 & 2 submitted by Raymond Johnson and represented by Al Hughes of Al
Hughes Agency for property located on the north side of Harold and east of Loxley
and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential containing .99 acres.
Don Bunn stated that these splits will create a total of three lots adjacent to
Spring Hollow Subdivision. The staff recommends approval of the lot splits
subject to 1) a survey of the property which has already been done, 2) a sidewalk
as required by the Master Sidewalk Plan along the south side, 3) the payment of
parks fees for two lots and 4) the subsequent approval of plans to extend the
sewer to serve the far west portion of the property.
• In answer to a question from Commissioner Nash, Mr. Bunn stated that all the lots,
meets the requirements for R-1.
•
Al Hughes stated that what Mr. Johnson is planning to do is divide this property
just like they split the tract to the North of this at an earlier date.
MOTION
Commissioner Hanna moved to grant the lot splits as requested subject to the
staff's comments, seconded by Springborn. The motion passed 9-0-0.
WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLITS 1, 2 & 3
R.J. & G.W. SEATING - N OR TOWNSHIP, E OF OLD WIRE RD
The seventh item on the agenda was a waiver of the subdivision regulations - Lot
Splits 1, 2 & 3 submitted by R.J. & G.W. Keating for property located north of
Township and east of Old Wire Road and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential,
containing approximately 1 acre.
Don Bunn stated that the staff recommends approval of these lot splits subject
to the approval of the plans to extend water and sewer to service the lots and
the granting of any other utility easements required by the utility companies.
Commissioner Hanna stated that he thought with the extension of Township there
had been a stipulation made that there couldn't be anymore driveways onto
•
•
•
Planning Commission
January 8, 1990
Page 12
Township. He stated that he thought this should be researched before they vote
on lot splits here.
R.J. (Dick) Keating stated that he wasn't aware of any limitations with the
driveways.
Mr. Bunn stated that there were definitely some limitations that he hadn't
thought about. He added that he wasn't sure if just a certain part of Township
or the whole stretch of Township had been designated as not having any driveways.
Commissioner Allred stated that if there are driveway limitations here, it would
affect the lot splits. Therefore, they should table this until it is checked
into.
Chairman Jacks asked if there was anyone else in the audience that wanted to
speak to this.
Mr. Sweetser, a member of the audience, stated that he lives across the street
from this and wasn't speaking for or against it. As he recalled, the City did
grant the church one driveway easement other than what is there now. He added
that the he would like the Commission to consider that where all the property
around a lot split is of one caliber, restrictive covenants be filed to require
the minimum square footage of the houses to be compatible with the neighborhood.
MOTION
Commissioner Seiff moved to table this item until the staff can look into the
Township driveways issue, seconded by Hanna. The motion passed 9-0-0.
WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - LOT SPLIT
O.E. LUTRELL - 1745 N RUPPLE RD (outside city limits)
The eighth item was a waiver of the subdivision regulations - lot split submitted
by O.E. Lutrell for property located at 1745 N Rupple Road (outside city limits)
and containing 13.078 acres.
Don Bunn stated that this is located outside the City Limits with the original
tract being about 13.078 acres and the proposal being to split off 1.5 acres.
The County has already approved this. The staff recommends approval subject to
a copy of the survey done by a registered surveyor and the granting of any
easements that might be required by the utility companies. He added that the
piece being split off has an existing house on it.
Mr. Lutrell requested that the Planning Commission approve this.
There being no one else who wanted to speak to this, it was opened to the
Planning Commission for comments.
MOTION
dir
•
•
•
Planning Commission
January 8, 1990
Page 13
Commissioner Springborn moved to grant the lot split as requested subject to
staff's comments, seconded by Ozment. The motion passed 9-0-0.
CONDITIONAL USE FOR HOME OCCUPATION IN R-1 - MASSAGE THERAPY & SCHOOL
MARY BEEDLE - 815 E JACKSON (LOT 19 OF JACKSON HEIGHTS ADDITION)
The ninth item on the agenda was a conditional use request for home occupation
in R-1 - Massage Therapy & School submitted by Mary Beedle. Property located
at 815 E. Jackson (Lot 19 of Jackson Heights Addition).
John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that this is a request to
practice therapeutic massage and to hold massage classes in her home. According
to the information obtained from the applicant, her business hours for the
massage practice itself would basically be 9 a.m. to 5 p.m, Monday thru Friday.
She averages four - one hour appointments per day. According to what Ms. Beedle
has stated to the staff, she would be providing instruction (school) on Saturdays
only and the school would run for a 22 week period. During this 22 week period,
in addition to the Saturday classes, there would be occasional classes of seven
in number which would be scheduled on a week night at three hours per class.
She has stated that she envisions her school enrollment at 6 to 8 students.
The property is zoned R-1 and the Planning Commission does have the prerogative
to approve or deny it. The staff is recommending that this application be
approved for a period of one year and not for any additional period other than
that. Also, that Ms. Beedle be permitted to have classes on Saturday and on
the occasional week nights and that all the other requirements of the Home
Occupation regulations are met.
Mr. Merrell added that there are some parallels between this request and the
conditional use request considered at the last meeting in December from Dr.
Gareth Smith and Joy Fox for property at the corner of Spring and Washington.
Ms. Beedle has the same problem that Dr. Smith and Ms. Fox had because the owner
of the Star Shopper building has indicated that he needs more space in that
building which is why these people including Ms. Beedle are having to vacate the
premises. Other than the fact that her property is zoned R-1, there are some
situational differences that are somewhat significant. During times when her
school would not be in operation, her clients would average 20 trips per week
whereas the traffic generation of the Smith & Fox request was approximately 120
times per week. Also, the Smith & Fox application will utilize about 1,200
square feet of that house, Ms. Beedle is talking about using approximately 350
to 380 square feet of her house. The other difference is that she will be living
on the premises and Ms. Fox did not indicate that they would live at their
location.
In answer to a question from Commissioner Seiff, Mr. Merrell stated as he
interprets the ordinance, it basically says that the Planning Commission hears
the matter at this point and can deny it or approve it up to one year. Then the
ordinance states that the Planning Director has the authority to administratively
renew her conditional use for the same period of time as originally authorized
by the Planning Commission. It states that any complaints that might be received
Planning Commission
January 8, 1990
Page 14
from the neighborhood should be taken under consideration. Furthermore, it
gives the Planning Director the discretion to take it back to the Planning
Commission if he chooses.
Mary Beedle stated that she is a licenced registered nurse and has been licenced
for massage therapy for sixteen years. She added that she is a single mother
with two children. She further stated that the traffic volume to her business
is limited by her physical limitations because she is only capable of doing four
massages per day. The word "massage" seems to dump out in everyone's minds.
However, she is a professional and doctors in town refer clients to her. Also,
her clientele is very local and she doesn't do people traveling through. She
is booked sometimes four weeks in advance. As far as the school, she teaches
on an individual basis so she can only do a small amount. Because of the rent
of an office and a school and being that there is such a low volume of clients,
she would like to do this out of her home. The clients would be coming at four
different times during the day with a 30 minute interval between them and the
neighbors aren't even going to know. As far as the parking, her lot and driveway
would contain the parking. She added that she knows many people in town that
are doing massages at home and have not bothered to get permission. One thing
she has heard from the neighbors is that they want to keep it a residential area.
She noted that she, for her children's sake, certainly wants to keep it
residential. She stated that she is also a professional seamstress and if she
was doing sewing in her home, it wouldn't necessarily mean big business. She
advised that she does not have any employees. For a trial for one year, she
thinks this would enhance the lives of the neighbors.
In answer to a question from Commissioner Klingaman, Ms. Beedle stated that she
just bought her house in August, but she has lived in town for about seven years.
Chairman Jacks asked if anyone else would like to speak in favor of this. There
was no response. He advised that a petition has been submitted with fourteen
signatures in opposition to this request stating that their narrow residential
street is not the proper location for a massage therapy business or school
involving client and student traffic.
Chairman Jacks asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition to this.
Mr. Smart of 858 Woodlawn stated that he and his wife did not have the
opportunity to sign the petition, but would like to go on record as opposing it.
Albert Jenkins of 834 E. Jackson stated that the neighborhood feels that if the
Planning Commission approves this here then the next time someone brings in a
petition for a repair business, they can't logically turn it down. He added
that they do treasure their residential neighborhood.
Chairman Jacks advised that this is a conditional use request and not a rezoning
that is being considered.
Judy Bostian of 844 E. Jackson stated that there is a very steep incline leading
up to her house and sometimes there are cars parked on both sides of the street.
•
•
Planning Commission
January 8, 1990
Page 15
There is already a hazardous situation with traffic on this street.
Deborah Farrell of 817 E. Jackson stated that they have already experienced a
school since August with which there were several cars, so they already know what
problems it can cause.
Wally Cordes of 895 N. Jackson stated that a home occupation could have a very
tremendous impact on the neighborhood with a regular clientele and the holding
of a school on a narrow street with cars parked on both sides. He advised that
they understand that Ms. Beedle is a professional who does professional work,
but they don't feel that this is the proper location for her to work.
Mrs. DeLille of 734 E. Jackson was not present, but she had a member of the
audience submit a letter from her to the Planning Commission. The letter stated
that she would not support any attempt to conduct a business on this street.
She noted that it is a single-family neighborhood and until such time as the
zoning is changed, she expects the City to honor it.
Rose Jenkins stated that very few people on that street have driveways and the
street is packed on Saturdays.
Ruby Williams of 879 N. Jackson stated that she has nothing against Ms. Beedle
and her profession, but this location is not the place for this business because
of the traffic problem and cars being parked on both sides of the street.
Ms. Beedle stated that there is the possibility of just having her office there
and doing her school at another location, although she will only have four
students this year. She added that she doesn't know of any house along there
that doesn't have a driveway and Saturdays seem to be very quiet. If she did
not do a school at her house, she would have only one person at a time. She
stated that she thinks that part of the alarm is that they are worried about a
rezoning and this is not a rezoning. She encouraged all the Commissions to
drive by there and see that this is really a very quiet neighborhood.
Chairman Jacks advised that most of them have gone by this property.
Commissioner Seiff asked Ms. Beedle if she would be willing to do the school
portion at another location and just do the office at her home. Ms. Beedle
answered, yes, but she would like the Planning Commission to consider the school
also. Commissioner Seiff stated that he is curious as to the reactions of the
neighbors on this without the school.
Carolyn Smart of 858 Woodlawn Drive stated that she is opposed to anything that
would make living in their neighborhood less desirable or decrease the value of
their property.
Dorothy Cordes stated that no one made an effort to come by and tell them what
was happening. She added that they hadn't planned on a business in their
neighborhood.
•
•
•
Planning Commission
January 8, 1990
Page 16
Ms. Beedle stated that she thinks the words "massage parlor" implies a sexual
massage and she would like to reiterate that she is a highly professional person.
She noted that there is an osteopathic doctor here in town who has been working
in her home for years in a residential neighborhood and it hasn't caused any
impact on the neighborhood and what she does is very similar to this.
Commissioner Ozment noted that Ms. Beedle has indicated that she might alter her
request. He added that she could consider withdrawing her request and coming
back with a modified version.
Ms. Beedle noted that her school is an accredited school by the State.
Judy Bostian stated that there have been some insinuations that the neighbors
are a lot of uneducated people who don't want something "seedy" in the
neighborhood. However, many of them have college degrees and they do understand
Ms. Beedle's qualifications. They are just opposed to a business in their
neighborhood.
Commissioner Hanna stated that, in his opinion, that particular neighborhood is
totally unsuited for a school. The neighbors might be a little more lenient in
their thinking toward just having an office there with one patient at a time
coming at very sparse intervals.
Don Doudle of 817 E. Jackson stated that he thought this -would carry a lot more
desirability if this was referred to as "physical therapy" rather than "massage
therapy" He added that he is a veterinarian who is in the process of finding
an office in Fayetteville and the cost is quite discouraging. His lawn is big
enough to put in a parking lot at his residence, but he would prefer not to do
that and wouldn't want any kind of business in the neighborhood.
A member of the audience asked what kind of effort has been made on the part of
Ms. Beedle in finding another business location. There are other locations that
would be much more appropriate.
Another member of the audience asked what assurance they would have that if her
business flourished, she wouldn't have any more clients. Ms. Beedle reiterated
that she can only do four massages per day because of her physical strength
limitations so it limits the money she can make and affects the payment of rent
on a new office.
Commissioner Allred stated that with the previous conditional use that was
brought up (Smith & Fax), there was no neighborhood opposition whatsoever. They
need to consider the impact on the neighborhood from her daily practice.
However, he is totally opposed to a school at this location.
In answer to a question from Commissioner Springborn, Mr. Merrell stated that
traffic is not a problem. The staff has been over there virtually every day
several times a day for the last week or so to observe the amount of on -street
parking during the hours at which time Ms. Beedle is proposing to be in
operation. The staff doesn't see a problem now and they don't think that her
•
•
•
Planning Commission
January 8, 1990
Page 17
practice of having four clients per day will add to a problem that is not even
there now. Furthermore, this conditional use as compared to the many
conditional uses the staff has reviewed since he has been with the City has a
very minimal impact on the neighborhood. The staff reiterates their
recommendation that this request be approved subject to the stipulations stated
in the staff report.
MOTION
Commissioner Seiff moved to approve this conditional use as requested subject
to staff comments, seconded by Springborn. The motion was denied 3-6-0 with
Seiff, Nash & Springborn voting "yes" and Hanna, Klingaman, Jacks, Allred, Ozment
& Cleghorn voting "no".
MOTION
Commissioner Ozment moved to approve this conditional use with the exception that
no school will be conducted at this location, seconded by Allred and followed
by discussion.
Commissioner Hanna proposed that the probationary period on this conditional use
be six months. At the end of six months if the neighbors have complained, it
should be brought back to the Planning Commission.
AMENDED MOTION
Commissioner Ozment moved to approve this conditional use with the exception that
no school will be conducted at this location and amended his motion to include
a 6 month probationary period, Allred seconded. The motion passed 5-4-0 with
Hanna, Seiff, Nash, Allred & Ozment voting "yes" and Klingaman, Jacks, Springborn
& Cleghorn voting "no".
Chairman Jacks advised that the motion passes to allow the office function for
a period of six months.
OTHER BUSINESS
Item #1: Three New Appointments
Chairman Jacks advised that there are a total of sixteen applicants including
all the incumbents for the three new appointments to the Planning Commission.
He added that he spoke with Mr. Kelly on the City Board today and they think
action will be taken on this next week.
Item #2: Caroline Parsons Rezoning Appeal
Chairman Jacks advised that when they heard the rezoning appeal for property
located at the corner of Garland & Wedington, he made a statement that Ms.
Parsons mother, Mrs. Hathcock, was very much against the rezoning of that piece
of property when it was presented before. He advised that he had received a
•
•
•
Planning Commission
January 8, 1990
Page 18
letter from Ms. Parsons saying that his statement is not true She acknowledged
that her mother was very much against the other rezoning in that general area.
Apparently, that piece of property had not been up for rezoning before. There
was a piece of property across the street that Mrs. Hathcock was opposed to.
John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that the staff has received
notice of appeal from the attorney for the proponents which is asking that an
appeal on,the Parsons rezoning be heard by the City Board probably at their
second meeting in February.
Item //3: New Associate Planner
John Merrell stated that the staff is going to approach the Board of Directors
at their agenda session on Wednesday morning and hopefully the employment of a
new Associate Planner candidate will be on their agenda for next Tuesday evening.
This is the position that was previously "Planning Clerk" and the staff is,
requesting that the Board approve an upgrading of this position to "Associate
Planner" which is an entry level professional position.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
AARON SUBDIVISION - DUB DUNAWAY (PP) 128
AARON SUBDIVISION - DUB DUNAWAY (FP) 146
AIR PARK IN AN R-1 ZONE - FLOYD HARRIS (CU) 54
AIR STRIP - DR: FLOYD HARRIS (CU) 78
ALDERSON, CECIL (R90-30) 133
AMES, LORINE - 2 TANDEM LOTS (CU) 85
AMES, LORINE (LS #1, 2, & 3) 86
ANDERSON; TERESA (LS #1) 1
ANTIQUE SHOP - MARGARET DITMER (CU) 84
ANTIQUE & FURNITURE STORE - KILGORE (CU) 135
ANTIQUE SHOP - DORWIN KILGORE (CU) 63
ARKANSAS FARM & RANCH SUPPLY - ROBERT VIKES (LSD) 59
ARKANSAS=BOOK SERVICES CORP. (LSD) 111
ARMSTRONG, JEFF (LS #1) 86
ARMSTRONG; JEFF (R90-20) 93
ARMSTRONG, JEFF (LS #1) 93
ASKEW ENTERPRISES (LS #1 & 2) 130
BERRYMAN, JAY (CU) 124
BERRYMAN, JAY (LS #1 & 2) 125
BIO -TECH PHARMACAL - DALE BENEDICT (LSD) 101
• BRAUM'S (LSD) 3
BROOKHOLLOW, PHASE III - JERRY SWEETSER (PP) 140
BROOKHOLLOW FIRST ADDITION - ERC PROPERTIES (FP) 97
CABINET SHOP - DORWIN GILGORE (CU) 98
CAMBRAY SUBDIVISION - JERRY SWEETSER (PP) 40
CAR DETAILING - JOE KELLY (CU) 115
CAUDLE, DALE & DENNIS (R90-14) 79
CEDARCREST DEVELOPMENT, INC. (R89-28) 2
CHRIST ON CAMPUS (CU) 136
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE (R90-7) 27
COKER, MILDRED (CU) 39
COLT SQUARE, PHASE II - DICK & BILL KEATING (LSD) 89
COTNER SUBDIVISION - WARREN COTNER (PP) 110
CREEKSIDE ESTATES - FRANCIS FERGUSON (PP) 57
CTA INDUSTRIAL PROJECT - CHESTER DEAN (LSD) 28
CTA INDUSTRIAL PROJECT - CHESTER DEANE (LSD) 24
DAVENPORT, LARRY (LS #1 & 2) 87
DAVIS, STEPHEN (R90-19) 113
DAVIS, STEPHEN (R90-19) 103
DAVIS, STEPHEN (R90-19) 92
DISCUSSION REGARDING APPEALS OF DENIED REZONING PETITIONS 38
DISCUSSION OF CU REVOCATION - SKELTON 114
•
DISCUSSION OF CU REQUIREMENT FOR MT. COMFORT AIR PARK 33
DISCUSSION OF THE 2010 UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE 23
DISCUSSION OF SALEM RD. CONNECTION VIS-A-VIS MT. COMFORT AIR PARK 32
DISCUSSION OF THE GREENSPACE ORDINANCE 132
DOUBLE SPRINGS ESTATES - COMBS (PP) 134
DOUBLE SPRINGS ESTATES - STEVE COMBS (FP) 146
DOUBLETREE ESTATES - HOWELL (PP) 145
DUNAWAY, DUB (LS #1, 2, & 3) 51
EATON, LINDA (R90-11) 65
EDENS, LEN (CU) 19
EDGE HILL SUBDIVISION - FOSTER & PEOPLES (PP) 109
ELSASS, KIRK (LS #I) 98
EMERALD SUBDIVISION - DAVE JORGENSEN (PP) 45
EOFF, JUDY (CU90-26 & LS) 137
FAYETTEVILLE PARTNERS (LS #1) 21
FAYETTEVILLE CITY HOSP. (CU) 41
FAYETTEVILLE HIGH SCHOOL (LSD) 122
FAYETTEVILLE CITY HOSP. (R90-9) 40
FIESTA PARK ADDITION, PHASE II - BMP DEVELOPMENT (FP) 62
• FIESTA PARK ADDITION, PHASE III - BMP DEVELOPMENT (FP) 95
FORSGREN TRUST (LS #2 & 3) 91
FOX, ERMEL (R90-24) 106
FRITZ, ODETTA (LS #1) 144
FULTON, DAVE (LS #2) 99
GADDY ACRES - BOB GADDY (FP) 106
GARRISON, RANDALL (LS #3) 37
GILBRIDE, GAYLE (LS #1 & 2) 48
GLADNEY, MARY FRANCES (CU90-25 & LS) 129
GLADNEY, MARY FRANCES (LS) 149
GLADNEY, MARY FRANCES (CU90-25) 148
GLEN, TOMMY (R90-29) 126
GOOD SHEPHERD LUTHERN CHURCH - DELVIN NATION (LSD) 53
GOODMAN, LESLIE (LS #1) 143
GOODMAN, LESLIE (LS #1) 22
GREEN MEADOWS ADDITION - HARRIS & SANDERS (PP) 83
GREEN MEADOWS ADDITION - HARRIS & SANDERS (PP) 94
HARMON, HAROLD (LS #1) 50
HATFIELD, KENNETH (LS #1) 50
HATFIELD, KENNETH (LS #1 & 2) 49
•
HEATHCO, CHARLES (LS #1) 26
•
HEATHCO, CHARLES (R90-6) 31
JANZEN, MARVIN & MARIETTA (LS #1) 64
JASON P. KENNEDY ESTATES - BILL KENNEDY (PP) 77
JOHNSON, RAYMOND (LS #1 & 2) 4
JOHNSTON (R90-5) 30
KEATING ESTATES - BILL & DICK KEATING (FP) 91
KEATING ESTATES - RICHARD & GEORGE KEATING (PP) 67
KEETON, MARY ANN (R90-18) 88
KILGORE, DORWIN (CU) 16
KITCHENS, DOUG & CHRISTY (CU) 147
KRUPA & LYNCH (R90-1) 8
KRUPA & LYNCH (R90-1) 139
KRUPA & LYNCH (R90-1) 29
LANGHAM, CLAUDE & FRANCES (LS #1) 117
LARSON, MARY (LS #1) 20
LEVERETT TERRACE TOWNHOUSE DEV. - WHITFIELD (PP) 134
LEWIS, ROB (CU90-31 & LS) 149
LINDSEY FAMILY TRUST (LS #3) 118
LIRELY, CARMEN (LS #1) 36
• LONGWITH, LESTER (R90-2) 13
LUTRELL, 0 E (LS) 5
MARTIN, MARK (R90-15) 76
MASSAGE THERAPY & SCHOOL - MARY BEEDLE (CU) 6
MATHIAS, REBECCA (LS #1) 117
MATHIAS, REBECCA (LS #1) 112
MAXIE'S RESTAURANT (LS #2) 118
MCCANDLESS, GEORGE LEONARD (R90-16) 80
MCLEARAN, GARY (R90-13) 71
MEADOWRIDGE SUBDIVISION - J. B. HAYS (FP) 96
MERRY -SHIP, ROBERT (LS #1) 138
MINI -STORAGE - CAUDLE (LSD) 123
MOBILE HOME/RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK - STEVENS (CU) 121
MOORE, BOB (LS #1) 112
MT. COMFORT AIR PARK - FLOYD HARRIS (CU & PP) 52
MT. COMFORT MEADOWS - HOWARD SANDERS (PP) 47
MT. COMFORT MEADOWS - HOWARD SANDERS (FP) 73
MT. COMFORT AIR PARK 43
MT. COMFORT AIR PARK - FLOYD HARRIS (PP) 34
MUDD CREEK FARM - FRANCIS FERGUSON (LSD) 58
•
•
NORTH POINT SUBDIVISION - MCILROY BANK (PP) 127
PARADISE PLACE - BRYANT DEVELOPMENT CO. (PP) 3
PARK PLACE ADDITION, PHASE V - JIM LINDSEY (PP) 60
PARK PLACE ADDITION, PHASE IV - JIM LINDSEY (FP) 108
PARK PLACE, PHASE IV - JIM LINDSEY (PP) 59
PARK PLACE, PHASE V - JIM LINDSEY (FP) 108
PARK PLACE ADDITION - JIM LINDSEY (PP) 46
PARK PLACE ADDITION, PHASE VIII - JIM LINDSEY (PP) 61
PARSONS, CAROLINE (R89-35) 55
PARSONS, CAROLINE (R89-35) 44
PARSONS, CAROLINE (R89-35) 70
PET GROOMING - KATHLEEN MCCLAIN (CU) 98
PINKERT, J. PAUL (CU) 18
PINNEL, PAT (LSD) 141
POWERS & SLOAN (LS #3) 125
PRATT WOODS ADDITION - JULIAN ARCHER (PP) 73
PROCESSING & WHOLESALE OF HEALTH PRODUCTS - DALE BENEDICT (CU) 52
PROCTOR & GAMBLE SALES OFFICES - RON TABOR (LSD) 58
PROPOSED RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF INFORMATIONAL LOGO SIGNS 11
R.J.&G. W.KEATING(LS#1,2,&3) 4
• REGENCY ESTATES & SPRING CREEK ADDITION II (PP) 15
REGENCY ESTATES - PARKS & RUSSELL LTD. (FP) 61
REZONING PETITION (R90-22) 104
ROTRAMEL, GARTH (LS #I) 51
RUBLE, DON (R90-10) 75
RUBLE, DON (R90-10) 56
SELF -STORAGE UNITS - DALE CAUDLE (CU) 97
SEQUOYAH UNITED METHODIST CHURCH - WAIVER OF SCREENING REQ 131
SEQUOYAH UNITED METHODIST CHURCH (LSD) 10
SEXTON POINT SUBDIVISION - JIM LINDSEY (PP) 56
SEXTON POINT SUBDIVISION - JIM LINDSEY (FP) 72
SHEEHAN, MIKE (CU) 17
SHERWOOD, WILLIAM (R90-12) 66
SKELTON, MADELYN (CU REVOCATION) 102
SKYLINE ESTATES - DALLAS & DEE WRIGHT (FP) 96
SKYLINE ESTATES - DALLAS & DEE WRIGHT (PP) 25
SOUTHERLAND, FAYE (R90-27) 106
SOUTHERLAND, FAYE (R90-23) 105
ST. JOSEPH CATHOLIC SCHOOL - ANN WILSON (CU) 74
STEVENS, DAVE & JUDY (R90-28) 120
STONEBRIDGE SUBDIVISION - LARRY ROBBINS (PP) 35
.
STONEBRIDGE SUBDIVISION - LARRY ROBBINS (FP) 95
• STURM, STEVE & TERRI (R90-3) 14
SWANEY, BILLIE (R90-26) 106
THOMAS ADDITION - RICHARD KEATING (FP) 107
TRANSITIONAL HOME - ST. FRANCIS HOUSE INC. (CU) 116
TRIBBLE, MADELINE (R90-22) 105
TYSON'S FOODS ADDITIONAL PARKING (LSD) 124
UNIVERSITY BAPTIST CHURCH (LSD & CU) 142
WAIVER OF ON-SITE PARKING REQUIREMENTS - ZETA GAMMA SORORITY 42
WAIVER OF STREET STANDARDS - DEE WRIGHT 9
WALKER, SUSAN (CU) 62
WALLPAPER STORE - LINDA EATON (CU) 54
WALNUT HEIGHTS ADDITION - SAM ROGERS (PP) 68
WALNUT HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION - SAM ROGERS (FP) 83
WALTON ARTS CENTER - CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE & U OF A (LSD) 82
WARFORD, THOMAS (LS #1) 69
WASHINGTON COUNTY FARM BUREAU (R90-17) 81
WASHINGTON COUNTY FARM BUREAU (R90-17) 100
WATERMAN WOODS SUBDIVISION - TOMLINSON & BROOKS (PP) 90
WESTERN funs BAPTIST CHURCH - FRANK TERRY (CU) 129
• WINKLE, WADE (R90-25) 106
WOODVIEW HEIGHTS ADDITION - GEORGE FAUCETTE (PP) 111
•
ZION PLACE - JOHN LARGENT (PP) 145
FAYETTEVI LLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
'PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE
(October 23,•1989 - October 22, 1990)
Name
David Ozmentf
Jerry -Allied
J.E. Springporn.;
Gerald Klingaman•�-:
Jack'Cleghorn.
Fred'Hanna'*..
Charles Nickle
Joe Tarvin•
Jett Cato
Total Meetings . #Absentees
22 9
26 3
26 1
26 3
26 6
26 1
13 1
21 7
21 2
• 1
r 1,1..L>
h
v.
•
1
l0
N
lD
\ '
r
07
\
N
J
W
\
r
W
J
\
N
W
J
\ ' 1
'0
16/25
0l
\
r
r
U�
\
N
i0
01
\
r
.P
.P
\
N
W
.P
\
l0
W
\
N
01
W
N
w
���� �N
\
��FF--''O
r
\
`__—i David Ozment Jerry Allred
r \
N.
\ -,L
�' N
IsF17
X
\X
\
X
x.x`
>ck\\'
74D:
L
\
\\
><
0
\
\\.\
\\\"\\\\
\\\\
\\\\Vc
\\\\s\C\.\\
_
\5<>C\\\\\11);
`
X
C
>C \
C
C
\
v n
77N\\:-
i t
C
Ix
\\
\XX
\xx\X\.
\`
V
i
\
\
\
X
\><\\Y"\\\\:11jc:1
\\\\
1
D
•
\
\
\\
\
\
\\\\\\
1
\\
\><
\
\
\
\
VC
\
\\\\S\\
4
D
X'
7
\1
3
•
-r