Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971-01-29 MinutesMINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The Fayetteville Planning Commission met in a special session with City Attorney David Malone at 10:00 A.M., Friday, January 29, 1971s in the Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Members Present: Roy Clinton, Helen Edmiston, Al Donaubauer, Albert Witte. Members Absent: Dr. James Mashburn, Dr. Walter Brown, Ernest Jacks, Byron Boyd, Clark McClinton. Others Present: David Malone, Larry Wood, Wesley Howe, Harold Lieberenz, and L. M. McGoodwin who is to replace Clark McClinton on February 8, 1971. The purpose of this special session was to permit the Planning Commission members to discuss some legal questions which have arisen during past Planning Commission meetings. Harold Lisberenz mentioned different cases soon to be before the Planning Commission which might have legal questions to be solved. The first question was whether the Commission could require dedication of 10 additional ft. on Highway 45 in the platting of Cummings off Subdivision. If so, could the City require improvement? If neither CUMMINGS-DOFF SUBD of the above, could the City require setbacks in addition to the zoning setback? Another question concerns the proposed extension of Township Road as shown on the Major Street Plan. Fayetteville Baptist Church WINWOOD BAPTIST CHURCH wants to build there. Can the City require the Church to dedicate a strip for future extension of a street? If they can, can the City require them to improve this section of street? or, can the City only require them to set back sufficient to comply with the Major Street Plan? The third question concerns the proposed location of the First Church of the Nazarene on Old Missouri Road, Oakcliff Street was platted for 25 ft. on the North aide of this property when the property to the FIRST CHURCH OF North was platted. This street is not involved in the Major Street THE NAZARENE Plan. Can the City require a dedication; and if so, can they require the developer (church) to improve the street? Roy Clinton remarked that the Commission assumes it has the right to require setbacks. David Malone said some of these are subdivisions and some are large scale developments. He felt there was no question on the setbacks, the City could require these. On Cummings -Goff the City could at least require setbacks; the setbacks have nothing to do with dedication. Mr. McGoodwin commented that as far as requiring the Church locating North of Winwood to build a little section of street now would be a waste of money. 1-29-71 -2- David Malone said he thought the City should pass an ordinance rather than a resolution to enforce the Major Street Plan. He suggested that before this is done, harry Wood be asked to do a study on the various setbacks, then revise the Major Street Plan and pass an ordinance. He stated that the Major Street Plan does not now require dedication and improvement; all it requires is a setback. Roy Clinton reviewed the problem with Winwood Estates. Could the City go back since it has already been filed and require a setback from the North boundary of the subdivision even if it is filed? Mr. Malone and Mr. Howe agreed the City could. The same situation exists will all plats filed years ago. He could apply to the Board of Adjustment for a variance from the zoning setback. Mr. Malone said that when the City could, we want to get a dedication, but we can't force this. Mr. Malone further volunteered the services of his office to do the legal work on such dedications. Another problem coming before the Planning Commission concerns the preliminary plat of East Gate No. 2. Sometime in the past when Glen Wood Park Addition was platted, they provided 20 ft. for the extension of Willow Avenue. A plat has been submitted adjacent to this 20 ft. strip. The question is, should dedication and improvement be required to extend Willow Avenue? Also, should a 25 ft. dedication be required to extend 11th Street across the South side of this subdivision? Roy Clinton explained why he thought a 50 ft. requirement was necessary for Willow. He did not agree with the Major Street Plan calling for • 60 ft. ROW. Mrs. Edmiston thought so much street building would make subdivision of the property too expensive. Mr. Lieberenz said there is also a drainage problem which would increase the cost. Mr. Malone said he thought the City could refuse to accept the plat as presented. It was suggested and discussed that an improvement district might be set up to assist in improving the street. Mr. Malone said he felt the Commission should try to assist the developer in designing a better subdivision. If this is improssible, then the Commission must decide whether they want a lousy subdivision or none at all. Mr. Lieberenz introduced a replat of Meadowlark Addition which was platted and recorded prior to coming into the City. They want to divide a portion of it into smaller lots and get some low cost housing. The area property owners are objecting. Mr. Malone said the City has nothing whatsoever to do with that problem. If they have plat covenants, they must hire an attorney and enforce them themselves. A discussion followed concerning the time set for the annual meeting in the by-laws of the Planning Commission. It was considered best to have a short meeting in the Directors Room at 3:30 P.M., February 2, 1971, then adjourn to the Municipal Court Room for the balance of the agenda. The Municipal Court Room will not be available before 4:00 P.M. David Malone explained an alley closing petition he desired to have acted on. The petition filed by Clarice Carney seeks to vacate and ALLEY CLOSING abandon an alley in Block 1, Archias-Bushnell Addition. Mr. Malone Clarice Carney 1-29-71 -3. gave a past history oftheproblemsand saidapparentlyhave settled the location easement andobtained quit claim deeds •111adjoining property owners, RoyClinton 11•':1 that a recommndation be passed on to theBoard of Directors that the alley closed,be Helen Edmistonseconded. All members present Aye, Dr. Mashburn was contacted by phone and voted "Aye." The motion passed* Al Donaubauer suggested inviting the Planning Commission members to attend Plat Review Committee meetings on a rotating basis* Helen Edmiston asked if the Planning Commission had a right to refuse to rezone a piece of property because the Commission knows what use is intended for the property even though the intended use is in keeping with the rest of the area, Mr. Malone said, "Yeson Roy Clinton cited the case where a petitioner had requested rezoning from R-1 to R-2 stating they planned 30 high priced apartment units. He is aware they now plan to submit a large scale development plan for 48 or so units and probably will ask for some commercial also. He felt it is the Planning Commission's duty to keep them to 30 units. Mr. Malone stated that when the Planning Commission rezones property for one permitted use, the petitioner can then go in with any permitted use in the zoning district. It was mentioned, however, that the petitioner could be charged with commiting a fraud. Albert Witte asked that the City Attorney study the power of the Planning Commission. Al Donaubauer asked what are the Planning Commission's responsibilities in legal situations* The meeting was adjourned at 11:25 A.M.