Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-05-24 - Minutes• MINUTES OF A SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING The Subdivision Committee of the Fayetteville Planning Commission met at 4:00 P.M., Monday, May 24, 1976, in the -Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas.' MEMBERS PRESENT:: Chairman Ernest Jacks, Bill Kisor, Keith Newhouse, Larry Wood. MEMBERS ABSENT: Jack Ray. OTHERS PRESENT: David McWethy, Robert Love,' Bobbie Jones. Chairman Ernest Jacks called the meeting to order. " The minutes of the May 10 Subdivision Committee Meeting were mailed.` - The only item for consideration at this meeting was the large scale development plan for Ozark Forest Products, Inc., a Division of Love Box Company, to construct a pallet manufacturing building at 833 South Beechwood Avenue. Robert Love was present to approved as OZARK FOREST PRODUCTS, INC. 833 South Beechwood Avenue Large Scale Development represent the development plan. Chairman Jacks reviewed the minutes of the Plat Review Committee and noted that the only two questions seemed to be notification of adjacent property owners and the dedication for 5.ft. of additional right-of-way along Highway 62 West. Mr. Love presented copies of the development plan signed by the only two property owners adjacent and having a different zoning classification, Baldwin Piano Company and Henry Burnett. It was noted also that Paul Mattke, City Engineer, has pointed out a need for an additional fire hydrant, but it was not specified if this was a requirement. Mr. Love said that as he understood it, Mr. Mattke was not making the fire hydrant a mandatory requirement and that they have not decided whether they wish to install one or not. He planned to discuss the matter with Mr. Mattke. He added that they had told the Plat Review Committee that the building would be fully sprinklered, but after talking to their insurance company found there was no great advantage to having it sprinklered; therefore, they were not sure whether it would be or not. If the building is not sprinklered, they may just go ahead and install the fire hydrant. He said they do not plan to install any toilet facilities in the building at this time, but do wish to put water, telephone, and gas service into the building before the concrete floor is poured. Bill Kisor moved to approve the large scale development Products pending Mr. Love working out the matter of the Mattke and with the dedication of 5 ft. of right-of-way plan of Ozark Forest fire hydrant with Paul along Highway 62. Mr. Love said he had researched the abstract to this property and had not been able to establish that the City has any right-of-way along Highway 62. He asked about this. Mr. Jacks told him that the City is asking for 40 ft. from the existing centerline of what the Arkansas Highway Department has in order to meet the City's Major Street Plan. Mr. Love stated that they were prepared to execute the right-of-way document simply because they need to get their building in progress and he did not know how long it would take for them to go through the appeal procedure through the Planning Commission and Board of Directors to get the requirement waived; but that as a practicing attorney there was some question in his mind about the legality of a City ordinance that requires the dedication of this type of property. He said plenty of cities attempt to do the same thing under the guise of public interest and when you are dealing with a tract where a developer is putting a hundred homes in Subdivision Committee May 24, 1976 • and the people have to get back and forth to their property, the courts in general have held this type of ordinance. He said that he viewed this case as dealing with an individual who happens to own two parcels of property which are adjacent to each other and zoned differently and he is choosing to develop one of the parcels of land. He said the City is using the ordinance to classify both parcels together as a large scale development and cause the developer to dedicate, without compensation, footage around the entire perimeter of the parcels. He said there is some question in his mind about whether this is reasonably required and what reasonable connection there is between the development on their southern half to dedicate some property on their northern half of their property. He said he would rather not make any dedication at this time and wait until a commercial developer comes in and let him face the issue of the additional right-of-way, because they anticipate selling the northern portion. He said he did not know what kind of statement was made to the Board of Directors when they adopted the ordinance, but he felt sure they would want to abide by the U. S. Constitution and not take the property without due process of law and just compensation. Mr. Jacks told Mr. Love that these questions had come up before, but that the ordinance requirement has been in effect for a considerable period of time. Mr. Love asked if it had ever been appealed beyond the Committee. He was told that it had been appealed as far as the Board of Directors before, but no further. Mr. Love stated that they would like to register their objections and if possible to make it known to the Planning Commission and Board of Directors that they do have objections, simply on the principle of the ordinance involved; but that their primary concern is getting their building permit. He asked if his plan could be approved on a conditional basis whereby they could be issued their building permit with the understanding that they planned to appeal the dedication of the right-of-way and if the appeal was not approved, then they would sign the right-of-way easement. Mr. Jacks explained that this Committee did not have that option. It was pointed out that the only option the Committee had is to recommend a lesser dedication, which must then be approved by the Planning Commission and Board of Directors before a building permit can be issued. Larry Wood asked if the deed to their property was all under one deed, or more than one deed. Mr. Love said it was all under one deed. Mr. Love said that Mr. Burnett, from whom they purchased the property, was under the impression that there is already 371/2 feet of right-of-way for Highway 62 from the centerline. Mr. Love also pointed out that the large scale development ordinance requires the notification of adjacent property owners with a different zoning classification, but doesn't seem to contemplate the case of one piece of property zoned with two different classifications and development taking place on only half of the property. He stressed that their basic argument was that the ordinance itself was unconstitutional and said that when a court looks at the constitutionality they say how reasonably related is the ordinance or the application of the ordinance to the purpose it is designed to support. • • • L Subdivision Committee -3- May 24, 1976 He thought it clear that the ordinance was designed to support the casethat development is taking place in an entire area and the City wants to make sure there are streets to support the entire area. He said in their case, the City already has the streets. Mr. Love said he would be glad to sign the right-of-way easement at this meeting and have Bobbie Jones hold it (rather than have it recorded) until they have appealed the matter through the Board of Directors, but he admitted he could not find the justification in the ordinance for doing that. David McWethy said he could see no reason why they could not dedicate the right-of-way, be issued their building permit, then appeal the question to the Planning Commission and Board of Directors. He pointed out that once they dedicate the right-of-way, they have met the requirement; and then if they want to appeal, why should the appeal halt the building of the building. Mr. Love asked on what ground they could appeal; he said he could not see suing the City of Fayetteville for extortion. Mr. McWethy suggested they just dedicate the 5 ft. and forget it because they are never going to miss the 5 ft. Mr. Love indicated it was not a question of the 5 ft., but of the principle involved. Mr. Jacks informed the other Committee members that they should take action on this proposal as they saw fit and throw the question to the City Attorney. Bobbie Jones requested Larry Wood contact the Arkansas Highway Department to confirm the width of right-of-way of Highway 62 at this location. Mr. Love asked that the right-of-way dedication be rephrased to dedicate 40 ft. from the centerline of the existing right-of-way of Highway 62 rather than to dedicate 5 ft. off their property. Bill Kisor amended his motion to approve this development plan provided Ozark Forest Products dedicates 40 ft. of right-of-way from the existing centerline of Highway 62 and work out the fire hydrant question with City Engineer Paul Mattke. Keith Newhouse seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 P.M.