Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-07-10 Minutes• L_ The Fayetteville in the Directors Members Present: Members Absent: Others Present: MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, Planning Commission met at 4:00 P.M., Tuesday, July 10, 1973, Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Ernest Jacks, Marvin Murphy, Christine Childress, Donald Nickell, Al Hughes, Helen Edmiston. • Morton Gitelman, John Maguire, Roy Clinton. City Manager Donald Grimes, Administrative Aide McWethy, Larry Wood, Marie Ptak; Sylvia Swartz, City Director and Mayor Russell Purdy, Susan B. Young, Attorney Charles Davis, Attorney Walter Niblock, Faye M. Cosgrove Smith, Gerald Cates, City Director Marion Orton, Dayton Stratton, Wade Bishop, Donald Grisham, Attorney Pete Estes, and others. In the absence of Chairman Roy Clinton and Vice -Chairman Morton Gitelman, and in accordance with the By-laws governing such circumstances, Ernest Jacks served as Acting Chairman and called the meeting to order. The first item on the agenda was the proposed revisions to Fayettevillets Major Street Plan. The matter had been before the Commission since MAJOR STREET PLAN May 14, 1973, when a public hearing was held on the recommendations ofProposed Revisions the Fayetteville -Springdale Transportation Study. A revised map of the Major Street Plan showing the proposed revisions had been prepared and mailed to the Commissioners following the June 26, 1973 meeting. Acting Chairman Jacks said that since the last meeting there had been quite a reaction to one of the proposals acted on at that meeting. He invited comments of the Commissioners of whether Razorback Road from Maple to Cleveland and Cleveland from Razorback Road to Garland should be a major arterial or whether it should follow Maple Street from Razorback Road to Garland Avenue, then continue out Garland Avenue. Al Hughes said he was personally opposed to continuing a major arterial street up Razorback Road to Cleveland and over to Garland. He had had an experience the day before trying to go up Razorback in a little shower. He called it ridiculous to have a major arterial street on Razorback between Maple and Cleveland and said he had been opposed to extending Sang Avenue South over the hill as a collector for the same reason. If Razorback between Maple and Cleveland is to be left on the Major Street Plan, he would propose to put Sang Avenue extended back on the Plan. Donald Nickell said he was not opposed to going over the hill as Fayetteville would not have any streets if they did not goover the hill. He asked for comments from the general public in view of the objections on file. Acting Chairman Jacks asked if there was anything that had not already been given in the form of a petition that should be heard. He said that he felt that ultimately our streets will loop the University of Arkansas; however, he did not think this is the time to do it. Marie Ptak, 1338 West Cleveland, suggested using things the City has without spending money. The By-pass cost an enormous amount of money and the traffic should go there. People going into town should select their streets. Garland Avenue and Maple Street were built on a rock base and were built to carry traffic. Sylvia Swartz, 607 North Razorback Road, said she had been told the hill on Razorback has about an 18° grade. It was her understanding that when the Arkansas Highway Department was talking about Highway 71, they only wanted a 5% grade. There is a 12 -inch water line practically in the middle of Razorback Road, a 6 -inch sewer line in the middle and a gas line also in Razorback Road. If they cut this back, they will have to remove all the utilities at the expense of the Planning Commission 7-10-73 -2- City. If they cut the grade down, they will have to cut about 25 trees. If they widen it, they will be very close to the houses. Considering the utility • lines, trees, and houses, she considered it impractical and suggested a study be made before going ahead with this. Garland and Maple Streets have already been constructed to support heavy traffic and it seems it would be squandering money to try to rebuild Razorback instead of using the ones built for heavy traffic. When they have icy weather the number of cars stuck an Razorback going both ways is unbelieveable. It is also bad when it is wet. If the grade is changed on Razorback, Cardwell would have to be changed also. Cars presently stack up mornings and evenings, as much as 600 ft. Mrs. Swartz said she felt it would be a very bad mistake to put the traffic on Razorback and Cleveland. Al Hughes moved to change the proposal to put the major arterial on Razorback to Maple Street, Maple to Garland, then North on Garland. Helen Edmiston seconded the motion. Christine Childress expressed concern about what this action would do to other approved areas and the grades on those streets. When the vote was taken, the motion was approved unanimously. Acting Chairman Jacks asked Larry Wood if minor arterial is the proposed classi- fication for Cleveland Street from Garland Avenue to Gregg Avenue. Mr. Wood said it is. Acting Chairman Jacks said he had checked the revised map and that all the changes the Commission had requested had been reflected on this map. He asked that before the Board of Directors acts on the map that all the streets that are collectors or arterials on this map be identified by name. In the downtown area particularly, this gets to be a problem with the Planning Office. Donald Nickell requested that no action be taken on the revisions to the Major Street Plan until all the Planning Commission members could be present to act on it if they were going to continue in the same way they have in the last two meetings Al Hughes moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of Directors the approval of this Plan with the correction just made and with the request of Mr. Jacks that streets be identified and including the statement, "Street improve- ments resulting from the implementation of the Fayetteville Major Street Plan where accomplished in existing built-up portions of residentially zoned areas will take place on existing rights-of-way. However, in cases of new construction and land use changes, building setbacks will be required to conform with the adopted plan.“ Helen Edmiston seconded the motion. Jacks, Hughes, and Edmiston voted "Aye"; Nickell and Childress voted "Nay"; Murphy abstained from voting. The motion did not pass. Al Hughes said he would notbe present again until the first meeting in September, so if they waited until all the Commission members could be present, they could not act on it until September. City Manager Donald Grimes said that Fayetteville's plan is the only one that remains in the Northwest Arkansas region that has not been adopted. The Highway Department has been asking when it will be adopted. There are quite a few things waiting on this to be adopted. Donald Nickell said that if the Planning Commission is going to make decisions, they can't continuously' change them when they get a little pressure. You will continue to get pressure. We want to go in the best way. We can't continuously give in to pressure. Al Hughes said that 2 of the three members absent at this meeting had voted to make the change in the designation of Razorback and Cleveland at the last meeting. He again reminded the other members that he would not be back until September. Mayor Russell Purdy said he would hate to see the Plan wait that long before it is acted upon. • Acting Chairman Jacks opened the public hearing on Rezoning Petition R73-26, PET. R73-26 Mack S. Young & Susan B. Young, to rezone property located on the east Mack S. Young side of the University of Arkansas Farm and on the West side of Kelley Brothers Planning Commission 7-10-73 -3- Lumber Company and also on the North and West side of Coca Cola Bottling Company, from R-2, Medium Density Residential District, & I-1, Heavy Commercial & Light Industrial District, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Mr. Jacks informed those present that through an error it had been advertised to rezone from C-2 and I-1. The City Attorney had been contacted and felt it could be acted on however because the zoning classification sought was advertised correctly. The I-1 is included in the petition because the creek is the dividing line on the existing zoning and apparently cuts through some of this property slightly. Larry Wood presented the Planning Report. He recommended a zoning classification which would have low traffic and low service demands. He said both R-2 and C-2 classifications are usually high traffic generators and high service users. Al Hughes said there is a low water bridge across the creek and the access across the track has not been used much in years for this reason. Mrs. Young and Attorney Charles Davis were present to represent the petition. He said the property is bordered on the North by an open road that extends from the University Farm to the railroad. There was an attempt years back to close it which failed. They have an access to Drake Street. There is also one that crosses the tracks and the creek with a wet weather bridge. The Major Street Plan proposes one on the South side of the property. A restaurant, steak -house type of business is proposed. They opposed a zoning of commercial for the restaurant and some other zoning for the rest of it. Mrs. Young also requested the same zoning for the entire property, She said they had had to quit using the road across the North side of the property because the pollution in the creek ate up their tires. Marvin Murphy asked if the road mentioned across the South is existing or proposed and whether it has right-of-way dedicated. It is proposed and no right-of-way exists presently. Donald Nickell asked Mrs. Young if she felt that a road to the South would be beneficial to this property. She said it would be beneficial to the whole neighborhood and so would one across the North. There was no one else present to speak in favor of the petition. There was no opposition present. Helen Edmiston asked where the restaurant is proposed to be located on the property. It would be in the present homestead. The public hearing was closed. Marvin Murphy moved to approve Rezoning Petition R73-26 and rezone the property C-2. Donald Nickell seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. PETITION R73-26 Acting Chairman Jacks opened the public hearing on Rezoning Petition PETITION R73-27 R73-27, Faye M. Cosgrove Smith, to rezone property located at 103 FAYE M. COSGROVE SMITH Florene Avenue, from A-1, Agricultural District, to R-2, Medium Density 103 Florene Residential District. Larry Wood presented the Planning Report. Acting Chairman Jacks if it is not true that you cannot get a multi -family system for septic tanks. Helen Edmiston said she thought the State would approve one if the system is designed right. Al Hughes asked where the area recently rezoned by the Thomases and where the area the Board of Directors had sent back to the Planning Commission for consideration on a petition of Calabria and Thomas and represented by Bryce Davis was. Larry Wood showed him on the map. Marvin Murphy asked where the sewer goes to at the present time. Mr. Wood said that he thought Maple Manor has sewer by way of a line under the By-pass. They will probably go the the North when sewer is put in up there because the present route requires a lift station. Mrs. Smith was present to represent the petition. She said the reason for the request is so they can have a home barbershop which is permitted as a home occupation in the R-2 zone. There was no opposition present. The closest house is on the next lot. • Planning Commission 7-10-73 -4- Marie Ptak asked what the Commission planned to do to keep the nice view on the By-pass. Al Hughes moved to continue this and take a closer look at it. He wanted to see the area Bryce Davis had represented on the R-1 rezoning petition and how far it is from this property. He was concerned about traffic in the area. Donald Nickell seconded the motion to continue the petition. The motion was approved unanimously. Acting Chairman Jacks asked the Planning Administrator to update the map and show the surrounding zoning and proposals for the next meeting. Acting Chairman Jacks opened the public hearing on Rezoning Petition PETITION R73-1 R73-1, Carl Duncan, to rezone property located on the North side of Carl Duncan Highway 16 East and east of Wayne Hinkle's Mobile Home Park, from C-1, Highway 16 E. Neighborhood Commercial District, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District Larry Wood presented the Planning Report. Marvin Murphy asked what is permitted in C-2 that is not permitted in the C-1 District. Acting Chairman Jacks said there are a number of things, including liquor stores. Donald Nickell asked if the Commission had not had a request for this zoning from Wayne Hinkle on his property. Mr. Jacks said they did. Attorney Walter Niblock represented the petition. He said they were not requesting stripping of Highway 16, but that there are presently three non- conforming uses on the property ---a residence, apartments, and a liquor store. They want to obtain conformity for the liquor store. The petitioner would be agreeable to cutting the request down in size to the immediate land around the liquor store. They would like to be protected in case they ever need to rebuild it. He said there is an antique store across the street. There was no one present to oppose the petition. Donald Nickell and Marvin Murphy asked questions and were told that this is a non -conforming use which was there when it came into the City, Donald Nickell moved, that in view of the fact that we have tried to hold the line on Highway 16 East, that we treat this individual the same way we have treated others and that we deny the request. The motion died for lack of a second. There was no other motion. Acting Chairman Jacks asked the Planning Administrator if this would automatically go to the Board of Directors as recommended for approval if the Planning Commission did not take any action on it. Bobbie Jones said that the ordinance provides that at the end of 45 days from the public hearing it goes to the Board of Directors as though recommended for approval if no action has been taken before that time. The Commission looked again at the recommendations of the Board Street LAND USE PLAN Committee and Board of Directors for revisions to Land Use Plan for Hwy 62 W. Highway 62 West between Highway 71 By-pass and the City Limits. The Board of Directors had approved the recommendations of the Planning Commission but subsequently had requested the Commission look at certain proposed revisions. This matter had been continued by the Commission. Mr. Jacks said that the essential difference is that the Board's recommendations calls for service roads ---frontage roads on commercial and backage roads on residential. Larry Wood said they had also cut back on some of the commercial. Al Hughes said he could not understand having frontage roads on some and backage roads on others. City Director Marion Orton explained that it had been assumed that commercial property would require a service road to the front and that the residential property would prefer to have it to the rear. That would mean that the front of the residences would face on the service road and their backs would be to the commercial. That is why the areas were blocked off and why the changes in the corner were proposed. Al Hughes said he could not see rotating Planning Commission 7-10-73 -5- the residences. People would like to have more privacy in their back yards. City Manager Donald Grimes said that the idea is that by constructing high fences along the back of this residential area, you screen it from the highway sight and sound. This has worked very well in Tulsa. Mr. Hughes asked if the property owner must bear the expense of the screening. Mr. Grimes said he would assume they would if they want the privacy. City Director Marion Orton said we are continually concerned about what lies along a highway because we do not want it stripped commercially. Also, to keep all that traffic from entering the highway. Mr. Hughes said that as long as you have a highway like that with the service road along the back side of the properties they would have to have access through someone else's property to get into it. If the service road was along the front, they would have access to the service road. You are saying you can't have any development out there because you cannot afford to buy more property for a service road. The only way you can make ends meet is for apartments. Mr. Grimes said that if the service road is put to the back, the cost can be shared by both sides of the service road it will service. I£ it is to the front, the cost would all be on one property. Mr. Wood said that if a developer chose to develop where he was not tied to a service road in the residential areas, you would have to allow him a curb cut until a service road is made available, then sever that curb cut when the service road is made available. The developer would have to understand that eventually the curb cut would be severed at the time the curb cut was issued. Mr. Hughes asked Mr. Grimes if an agreement has been worked out with the Arkansas Highway Department wherein the City can control curb cuts on highways or can people still make application to the Highway Department and get a curb cut every 40 ft? Mr. Grimes said that in a conversation he had had with a Highway Department official he had been told that the fact that people came in with a State curb cut permit did not mean that they could cut a curb without a City curb cut permit. Mr. Hughes asked what depth would be allowed for commercial property with a service road. He thought the depth had been reduced so that you have to build a long, narrow building. Mr. Wood suggested some consideration be given to reducing the setback from the service road to less than 50 ft. because the service road is to serve this development. Ernest Jacks said the whole thing revolves around whether we want to consider a service road for Highway 62. If we don't, it can stand; if we do, we need to ask Mr. Wood to make a study of depth. Donald Nickell said he had seen service roads work in other states and they do a fine job of handling traffic. Mr. Hughes said he was still concerned about depth. If we are going to have commercial, we ought to encourage decent, desirable structures. He would hate to limit them and put somebody in a bind so they would put something on there that would ruin the rest of the area. Helen Edmiston moved that the Commission ask Larry Wood to re-examine the depth in view of having service roads and bring recommendations on it to the Commission. Al Hughes seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. Marvin Murphy said he was in sympathy with this motion, but was concerned about delaying Mr. Cates. The others agreed with him. A large scale development plan had been submitted by Gerald & Marie Cates for property located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Highway 62 West and Old Farmington Road. Gerald Cates and Dayton Stratton GERALD & MARIE CATES were present. Ernest Jacks asked if Mr. Cates is in a hurry or could Highway 62 W he wait until the Commission resolves the question of service roads along L.S.Development Highway 62. Mr. Stratton said that Mr. Cates has indicated he is willing to build a 2 -lane access culvert on the West side of his property across the creek. The culvert on Old Farmington Road is too narrow and the City is not ready to replace it. Mr. Jacks said that if the Commission approves the large scale development plan, part of this approval would require that if the City Planning Commission -6- 7-10-73 puts anything there and he has to remove anything, he would bear the cost. He would have to agree that if the City decides to have service roads there, he would have to dedicate the strip for the service road and construct the service road across his property when the City calls for it to be built Al Hughes moved to approve this plan subject to the things discussed in the Planning Commission meeting and the Plat Review Committee meeting and subject to the Commission's subsequent action on Larry Wood's recommendations for a service road. Marvin Murphy seconded the motion. Bobbie Jones said she felt sure Harold Lieberenz, Inspection Superintendent, would require a letter from the developer agreeing to these terms before he would release the building permit. Ernest Jacks said the developer could furnish this letter. When the vote was taken, the large scale development plan was approved unanimously. Acting Chairman Jacks, in the capacity of Chairman of the Subdivision Committee, reported to the Commission that the Subdivision Committee had voted to SIDEWALKS change the requirements for sidewalks in that we would require them in industrial, commercial, and institutional developments as well as residential. The Committee saw the need for them in any kind of zoning. The Commission would keep the power of waiver in order to control them. The person building a house would be required to build sidewalks. The positions of sidewalks would be shown on the plats submitted by the developers with the note that they.would be constructed by the person obtaining the building permit. A bond could be posted if they could not be built at that particular time. If the sidewalks had not been built on a vacant lot within 5 years of the date the plat was Filed, the owner of the lot at that time would be required to build the sidewalks. Mr. Jacks said he has instructed the City Attorney to draft an ordinance on this matter and he would like to know if the Commission agreed with the Subdivision Committee on the matter of sidewalks. Helen Edmiston said the sidewalks would have to be built to the City's minimum requirements. Al Hughes said the ordinance would not specify whether the sidewalk would have to be against the curb or back of it. Mr. Jacks said he had talked to Mr. Mayes at the Post Office. There have been problems with sidewalks against the curb. Mr. Jacks thought the Commission ought to look at the ordinance before setting a public hearing on it. City Manager Donald Grimes had written a letter to the Chairman of the Planning Commission requesting a study of the subdivision requirements regarding STREET LIGHTS street lighting standards. Mr. Grimes said that in many of the subdivisions the developer installs street lights. Where they are going underground, the City tries to pay the cost of wood poles and the developer pays the difference between wood and metal poles. If this is not done, Mr. Grimes' office receives calls from the residents wanting street lights. Neighbors object to wood poles. Sometimes the utility companies cannot get easements necessary to put up wood poles. In most cases the developers want ornamental standards. Mr. Grimes suggested that where they install underground utilities in a development, that the developer pay the difference in cost between the wood pole and the ornamental standard. Mr. Grimes requested the Commission call a public hearing to amend the subdivision ordinance. Helen Edmiston moved to call a public hearing to amend the subdivision ordinance and to instruct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance. Al Hughes seconded the motion. Mr. Grimes told Donald Nickell that his office has worked out the spacing and lumens with the two power comapnies. Marvin Murphy told Mr. Grimes that there is such a thing as an ornamental wood standard. When the vote was taken, the motion to call a public hearing was approved unanimously. The Preliminary Plat of Azalea Terrace was deferred until the next meeting. Planning Commission -7- 7-10-73 Acting Chairman Jacks introduced the Final Plat of Bishop Addition, BISHOP ADDITION Unit 1, a subdivision submitted by Wade Bishop for property located Final Plat; Unit 1 off Appleby Road. Wade Bishop and Mr. Grisham with Crafton, Tull & Associates were present. Mr. Grisham said that all corrections had been made as requested by the Plat Review Committee. Mr. Jacks reported that it will be necessary for the Planning Commission to waive the length of the cul de sac until such time as the future street along the South of the Subdivision is opened. Helen Edmiston moved to accept the Final Plat of Bishop Addition subject to the requirements of the City discussed and to waive the minimum distance of a dead-end street on the cul de sac until such time as the street across the South is improved and opened. Marvin Murphy seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously. A street closing petition to vacate a portion of Waunetta Avenue had STREET CLOSING been filed by Guthrie, Banks, Caudle, Smith and the St. Louis & San WAUNETTA AVE. Francisco Railroad. Attorney Pete Estes was present to represent the Guthrie, Banks, petition. He said he was actually representing Mr. Banks; the others names Caudle,Smith, appear on the petition because the Abstractor's Certificate shows they are SLSF RR property owners. He said that street is not there; it is on the side of a bluff. The Commission had some questions of Mr. Estes about the owner of various lots. Bobbie Jones read the comments of the various utility companies and reported that Street Superintendent Clayton Powell had asked the Commission to refer to the Major Street Plan in considering this petition. Helen Edmiston moved to approve the petition subject to the request of the electric and telephone companies for easements. Al Hughes seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. The Commission continued the study of the area bounded by Highway 71-B CATO SPRINGS AREA on the East; Highway 16 By-pass on the North and Highway 71 By-pass on Study the West and South. The previous discussion and presentation was reviewed. It was noted that this had been continued at the request of Morton Gitelman who wanted to look at the area again. Marvin Murphy said he had looked at that area and the area would be suitable for about anything you want to put on it. Mr. Murphy said he thought it would be very unwise to revert it back from industrial. Donald Nickell agreed. He said he thought we should keep all the industrial property we have. Not everyone wants to locate in the Industrial Park. Helen Edmiston asked if Mr. Wood's is recommending a plan or is he recommending that it be zoned. Mr. Wood said he recommended that if the Commission adopts this that they go on and rezone the area. Acting Chairman Jacks asked that the Commission wait until the next meeting so Morton Gitelman could be present since he had wanted to look at the area again. The Commission was agreeable to this. The Commission discussed again the proposed changes to the Major Street MAJOR STREET PLAN Plan. Acting Chairman Jacks said that the two people who had felt strongly about and voted in favor of the change made today at the last meeting were two of the ones not present. He invited a motion to either approve the Plan or to defer it until the next meeting. Al Hughes said someone is going to be killed on Cleveland Street just West of Garland if something is not done. They have talked to the Police and in some cases fines of as much as $75.00 have been given. After discussion of his reasons for wishing to postpone action on the Plan, Donald Nickell made a motion to send the proposed revisions to the Major Street Plan to the City Board of Directors with a recommendation for approval with the correction to put the major arterial on Razorback to Maple Street, Maple to Garlaind, then North on Garland, that the streets be identified on the map, Planning Commission -8- 7-10-73 and that the following statement be included in its adoption: "Street improvements resulting from the implementation of the Fayetteville Major Street Plan where accomplished in existing built-up portions of residentially zoned areas will take place on existing rights-of-way. However, in cases of new construction and land use changes, building setbacks will be required to conform with the adopted plan." Al Hughes seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 P.M. • • • RESOLUTION PC 24-73 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission, Tuesday, July 10, 1973, fifteen (15) days after a sign was erected upon the property and after a notice was published in the Northwest Arkansas Times, a newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, after the public hearing the Planning Commission voted to make a recommendation to the Board of Directors on Rezoning Petition R73-26, Mack S. and Susan B. Young. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That an ordinance be adopted for the purpose of rezoning from A-1, Agricultural District and I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial District to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District said real estate. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the West of the NE frac. of Sec. 4, T -16-N, R -30-W, and a part of the South i of the SEI of Sec. 34 in T -17-N, R -30-W, more particularly described as beginning at a point 2747.91 feet East of the NW corner of the NW Frac. 4 of Section 4 in T -16-N, R -30-W, and running thence South 1261.128 feet; thence East 140.91 feet; thence North 29°35' East 293.898 feet; thence N 5°10' East 400 feet, more or less, to a point which is 582.15 feet North and 798.84 feet West of the SE corner of the West z of the NE Frac. of said Section 4, the same being the SW corner of the present;Mack S. Young et Ux property in the £ollovring courses and-distanees __- North 325 feet, N 22°13' East 88.95 feet, N 55°43' E 103.88 feet, North 14°10' West 36 feet, N 63°33' East 107 feet, N 26°06' East 83.95 feet, North 12°42' East 323 feet, N 5°15' East 479.24 feet, North 83°13' East 58.19 feet, N 18°42' West 81.46 feet, N 60047' East 233.09 feet, N 40°02' West 30.87 feet, N 62°31' East 141.15 feet, more or less, to the West ROW line of the St. Louis and San Francisco Railroad; thence with the said RCM line of the St.Louis Railroad N 31° 35' West 188 feet; thence N 60° 30' West 116.16 feet, more or less, to the South side of the Old Public Road; thence with the South line of said road S84° 30' West 823.746 feet, more or less to a point in the SW* of the SEt of Said Section 34, which is due North of the point of beginning, thence South 1208.724 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning, containing 30.31 acres, more or less, all in Washington County, Arkansas. SECTION 2. That the above-described property be rezoned from A-1, Agri- cultural District to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District, so that the prospective buyers may erect a restaurant. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 1973. APPROVED: ROY CLINTON, Chairman r • • •4y RESOLUTION PC 24.1-73 WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on Tuesday, July 10, 1973, the Planning Commission met to discuss the proposed revisions to the Major Street Plan. WHEREAS, after the discussion, the Planning Commission voted to make a recommendation to the Board of Directors on proposed revisions to the Major Street Plan; ?KM THEREFORE, BE IT RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That the proposed revisions, attached hereto and made a part hereof, be adopted to amend the Major Street Plan as follows: put the major arterial on Razorback to Maple Street, Maple to Garland, then North on Garland, that the streets be identified on the map, and that the following statement be indluded in its adoption: "Street improvements resulting from the implementation of the Fayetteville Major Street Plan where accomplished in existing built-up portions of residentially zoned areas will take place on existing rights-of-way. However, in cases of new construction and land use changes, building setbacks will be required to conform with the adopted plan." PASSED AND APPROVED this 10th day of July , 1973. APPROVED ROY CLINTON, Chairman