Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1965-10-05 Minutes• W MINUTES OF A CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The Planning Commission met in a regular meeting on Tuesday, October 5, 19652 at 4:00 p.m., in the City Council Room in the City Administration Building. Members present: J. F. Palmer, Suzanne Lighton, Wade Fincher, Bryan Walker, Ernest Jacks, Henry Shreve, Allan Gilbert and Clark McClinton. Members absent: Bill Dalton. Others present: J. A. Vizzier, planner; Mr. and Mrs. Preston Hathcock; Glen Wing, attorney for the Hathcocks. The meeting was called to order by Chairman J. F. Palmer. The minutes of September 14, 1965, were approved as written aid mailed to the Planning Commission members. Chairman Palmer asked for the report from the Subdivision Committee on two pre- liminary subdivision plats. Suzanne Lighton, Chairman of the Subdivision Committee, reported that the Committee had met Monday, October 4 and had recommended the acceptance of the preliminary subdivision plat of PARKWOOD SUBDIVISION filed by Leo Peel subject to the correction of certain items. On motion by Suzanne • Lighton, seconded by Henry Shreve, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to accept the recommendation of the Subdivision Committee and approve the preliminary subdivision plat of PARKI.700D SUBDIVISION subject to compliance of the following items: 1. Widths of utility easements be shown on the plat; 2. Dimensions of all the lots be noted on the plat; 3. Building setback lines with dimensions be shown; 4. An additional five feet on the west side of the subdivision be dedicated for future widening of Gregg Avenue; and 5. Proposed street be given a name. On the preliminary plat of WOODLAND PARK ADDITION filed by Clyde McClintock, J. A. Vizzier reported that the plat had been given to the engineer and subdivider. A revised sketch of the street and lot layout had been pre- pared by J. A. Vizzier's draftsman and was found to be acceptable by the subdivider and his engineer. A revised preliminary plat.will be submitted to the Planning Commission at a later date. There was discussion had on the petition of Preston and Edna Hathcock for the dedication of an alley. The Hathcocks and their attorney, Glen Wing, were present to discuss their plans with the Planning Commission. The Hathcocks reported that they needed an alley to service existing lots to the west in the Hathcock Addition. They said there was no immediate development planned for the land.to the east fronting Garland Avenue. • After discussion, Suzanne Lighton moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the acceptance of the dedication of the alley on the east side of 15 • Hathcock Addition by a deed acceptable to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. The motion was seconded by Henry Shreve and passed unanimously. iF##iH'c#i.=1f'#'�HH.YEif-If-Y;iHtiFii �Ht-;tiH;-Y.�.HHHH%iHFttiHH;�'.-JH.YFiH'r3t# �'-���"i.-ic=�i-ic�c;.�'(�i"c3'�5�, iHfiHF?F3HF-HiF3Ft;i;-tH'cifSE;f.�-?H(�F RESOLUTION PC 17-65 WHEREAS, more time had been requested by the Planning Commission for study of the petition for dedication of an alley on the east side of lots in Hathcock Addition and on the south side of lots in Read Addition; and WHEREAS, after further study and consideration of the petition for the dedication of an alley by Quitclaim Deed afforded by Preston and Edna Hathcock, husband and wife, the Planning Commission voted to make a recommendation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMISSION TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY.OF FAYETTEVIIJJE, ARKANSAS, SECTION 1. That the Quitclaim Deed afforded by Preston and Edna Hathcock, husband and wife, for the dedication of an alley described as follows be accepted. A 20 foot alley situated in the NE4 of the 514 of Section 8, Township 16 North, Range 30 West, and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the right of way line of Highway 112 (Garland Avenue), said point being 511.5 feet North and 25 feet West of the • Southeast corner of said 40 acre tract; thence West 275 feet; thence North 16.5 feet; thence West 20 feet; thence Northwest to a point 15 feet South of the Northeast corner of Lot 12 of Hathcock Addition to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas; thence North 722.6 feet to the South right of way line of Highway 16; thence East 20 feet; thence South 686.1 .feet; thence South curving to the East 51 feet along a curve having a 65 foot radius; thence reversing said curve East and to the Southeast on a 65 foot radius 51.05 feet; thence East 243.3 feet to the i+rest right of uray line of Highway 112; thence South 20 feet to the point of beginning, said alley also encompassing the East 20 feet of Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 and a portion of the east 20 feet of Lot 12 of said Hathcock Addition, and the South 20 feet of Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, -and 10 and an additional portion off the Southwest corner of Lot 6 of Block 2 of Read Subdivision of part of the NE4 of the SE4 of Section 8, Township 16 North, Range 30 West, as per recorded plats of said Hathcock Addition and Read Subdivision. • PASSED AND APPROVED this ,5'1Vzj day of ©h6ii J,, , 1965 ........... ..... ... .. J. A. dizzier gave copies of an annual report prepared by the Planning Office for the year September 1964 to September 1965• The planning consultant called .is special attention to the section on application for 701 planning funds and asked that a recommendation be made on said section at the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission. Chairman Palmer presented for discussion, study and recommendation several items. 1. Should all efforts be exerted to rake the municipal airport the best possible with the addition of a new runway and perhaps a control tower or should the improvements be the minimum to keep the airport in operation until a regional airport is established? 2. Should all major streets and projects such as runways at the airport be done by contract and city equipment be used to maintain streets? 3. Does the Major Street Plan need to be restudied? 4. Consideration should be given to adopting a plan for financing the streets and airport improvements. The Planning Commission members discussed the problems before the Commission; however they felt more time was needed to study the problems before any recommendations were made. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned: • 0 Respectfully submitted, c etary Date: