Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-12-11 - Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING A meeting of the Subdivision Committee of the City Planning Commission was held on Monday, December 11, 1978, at 4:15 o'clock P.M., in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: ChairmanErnest Jacks, Newton Hailey, Keith Newhouse, Bill Kisor and Larry Wood. MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OTHERS PRESENT: Bobbie Jones, Gail Biswell, Kent Clement, Mel Milholland, Milby Pickell, Harry Gray, Doug Parr, Linda Childers, and other unidentified members of the audience. Chairman Jacks called the meeting to order. The minutes of the previous regular meeting of November 27, 1978, were approved as mailed. The first item for discussion was the shop- ping center to be located South of Highway 62 West and East of Highway 71 By -Pass; property zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. The shopping center includes three large scale development plans submitted by the Parnell Group. Kent Clement was present to represent. Chairman Jacks commented that he felt the plat could be approved on the condition that the Plat Review requirements be met. He noted that requirements from Clayton Powell, Street Superintendent, were: 1. The two dedicated rights-of-way (one 50' and one 60') should either be closed and barricaded or improved to city street standards. 2. Provisions for an adequate cul-de-sac at the southern end of the service road be made in the event the service road is never developed further south. Mr. Clement stated that the developers intended to open and improve the 50' right-of-way to the south and close the 60' right-of-way to the north. Mr. Jacks noted that John Kehn of Arkansas Western Gas had requested the utility easement along the eastern boundary of the shopping center to be enlarged from 25' to 35'. Bobbie Jones commented that she thought the developers had agreed to enlarge the easement to 30 feet, except at the point where the proposed Builder's Supply encroached into the easement approximately 5'. Mr. Jacks com- mented that the approval of the development would be contingent upon the satis- factory working out of the width of this easement between the gas company and the developers. Mr: Jacks then noted that, according to Plat Review comments made by Mrs. Jones, the total parking spaces were sufficient for the total shopping center, but that in the event certain of the individual businesses were found to have inadequate parking for their separate parcels of land, the agreement signed by all the developers to allow parking of any patron to any business in the shopping center in any parking space therein, would need to be approved. MINUTES THE PARNELL GROUP Large Scale Developments South of Highway 62 West & East of Hwy. 71 By -Pass Subdivision Committee Meeting December 11, 1978 Page 2 Mr. Jacks noted that Mrs. Jones had stated that fencing might be required down to the southeast property line corner instead of stopping at the southern edge of the K -Mart building. Mr. Jacks asked Mrs. Jones what the ordinance re- quirements concerning "view obscuring fences" were, and in response Mrs. Jones read the pertinent part of said ordinance. Keith Newhouse stated that, from the language of the ordinance, the fence would indeed need to be extended to the southern end of the eastern property line. Mr. Jacks then commented that the variance from the 20' setbacks from the centerline of the utility easements would need to be taken up at a Board of Adjustment meeting. He said that any approval of this plat would also be con- tingent upon the Board of Adjustment's action on the matter. Newton Hailey commented that the two entrances to the shopping center were approximately directly across from the entrances to the Wal-Mart store. He stated that he would like the City Traffic Engineer (Perry Franklin) to check the layout of the entrances (possibly with the highway department, also) and give the committee his comments. Mr. Hailey stated that he felt the entrances to the two shopping centers should be in a "T" shape rather than directly across from each other. Mr. Jacks stated that this situation would be brought to Mr. Franklin's attention. Keith Newhouse moved to approve the plat upon the following contingencies: (1) Utility easements being worked out satisfactorily with the gas company; (2) Board of Adjustment approval of the waiver of the 20' easement center- line setback, the Conditional Use for the builder's supply, and waiver of the maximum driveway widths; (3) Planning Commission approval of the off-site parking agreement; (4) Access to the development areas marked "future" on the plat all be- ing from within the shopping center rather than making additional curb cuts on the highway; (5) The City Traffic Engineer checking layout:of:the entrances to the parking area with the highway department; (6) Screening being extended down the entire eastern boundary of the property to the southern edge thereof; (7) Any and all other Plat Review comments being met. Newton Hailey seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The next item for discussion was the preliminary plat of a Planned Unit Development for Northwood Homes, Inc., Milby Pickell, owner; property lying North of Township Road and West of Century Estates and Butterfield Subdivisions; property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Mel Milholland, engineer, and Milby Rickell, owner, were present to represent. Mr. Jacks stated that, according to the Plat Review minutes, a request had been made for an additional 20' right-of-way dedication along the North side of Township Road. He also stated that Clayton Powell, Wally Brt and Larry Poage had all stated they would like the private drive lanes to each be 20' in width instead of the platted 16'. Mrs. Jones stated that the ordinance "calls for NORTHWOOD HOMES, INC. Preliminary Plat North of Township Rd. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting December 11, 1978 Page 3 private streets in PUDs to be 20'." She stated that, although the drive would be "a one-way loop effect street, if traffic were ever blocked at a point on the street and subjected back to two-way traffic on one lane, 16 feet would be inadequate." She stated she had talked to the City Attorney about this and he stated that he felt the 16' platted "meets the ordinance." Mr. Jacks inquired whether the land not included in this plat (being property owned by Mr. Pickell and property adjacent to Mr. Pickell's property) would be landlocked as a result of not being included herein. Mr. Pickell stated that it was his intention to leave this other property of his (approx. 4 acres) out of the plat as he intended to build a private residence on it. He said he had no intentions of bringing his other 4 acres in on this plat and that that property would have access by his constructing a private drive. He said he wanted to build a private home on the remaining property. He said that he did not intend to use the existing right-of-way to build a city street for access since the location was "a horrible place for a street." He stated, however, that he did intend to try to get the right-of-way closed, apply to whomever the property would revert to for permission to build a private drive. He said the drive would be constructed "out of concrete and with retaining walls." Mr. Jacks stated that the platted private drive should be named, and that the common green areas thereon should be noted as "common property." Mr. Jacks questioned wehter the owner had obtained signatures of all the adjoining property owners. Mr. Milholland replied that several attempts had been made to secure the signatures. Mr. Pickell stated that all the parties except three had been contacted. He said those three could not be reached as they did not have telephone numbers listed and he had not been able to find any- one at home. A discussion ensued concerning the desirability of owner/developer giving personal notice to adjoining property owners versus registered/certified mail being used to serve notice. Mr. Jacks noted that procurement of these signatures were only a policy of this committee on subdivisions and planned unit developments, however, it was a requirement when a rezoning of the proposed development property is pending. Bobbie Jones stated that she had always asked that if any person refused to sign after being presented with plans, a note should be made as to who pre- sented the plans, to whom they were presented, and that the person refused to sign. A discussion then ensued concerning whether drainage improvements could be among the requirements for street improvements. Mr. Jacks stated that he had talked to the City Attorney about this and Mr. McCord stated that he did not think they could require drainage improvements, but they could require curbs, cutters and sidewalks. Doug Parr, 2577 Elizabeth, stated he was one of three adjoining property owners who had refused to sign. He stated that they were concerned that a road would be built behind their houses. He said that drainage from the road, as well as the closeness to their homes would be problems for them. Linda Childers, another adjoining property owner, stated she had been concerned about the possibility of a road in back of her house, but otherwise, she had no complaints with the proposed development. Mrs. Jones noted that the right-of-way they were discussing as a possible road in these people's back yards was not the one Mr. Pickell was referring to. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting December 11, 1978 Page 4 Mr. Hailey stated that he was still concerned about not having all the property owners' signatures. He asked whether a reasonable attempt had been made to obtain them, and Mr. Pickell responded that he had tried three times to reach those people and that there were no telephone numbers for those houses and he just could not reach the people. Mr. Hailey asked Mr. Pickell when he had started trying to get in touch with the people, and Mr. Milholland replied "about the middle of last week." Mr. Newhouse inquired whether those houses were even occupied and Mr. Kisor also queried whether they might be rentals. Mr. Pickell replied that he thought two of the three houses might be rentals, and he thought they were all occupied. Mr. Kisor stated:that.he'would personally.like to go ahead and approve the plat. Mr. Newhouse moved to recommend approval to the Planning Commission upon seven contingencies: (1) Private drive lanes to stay 16' in width rather than the 20' asked for by Plat Review members; (2) Signatures of all property owners obtained before submission of final plat; (3) Sidewalks constructed along Township Road; (4) Street lights erected according to ordinance; (5) Protective Covenants submitted according to Plat Review requirements; (6) Other miscellaneous Plat Review comments (other than storm drainage requirements) be met; and (7) Dedication of an additional 20' right-of-way along the North side of Township Road Mr. Pickell stated he had a "very serious objection to off-site improvements being required other than in strict adherence to the ordinance." He further stated: "I just do not see putting the burden of one additional penny on seven individuals for something that is not going to do one of them any good. I do not see what good a 300 -foot section of sidewalk along Township is going to do when there is no other sidewalk along Township. I do not understand, . . someday I assume that the master street plan is going to be brought up, the street is go- ing to be torn up, widened, and the sidewalks will have to be put in again. This is just throwing money down a rat hole." Mr. Jacks questioned Mr. Pickell whether he had discussed this with Mr. McCord. Mr. Pickell responded that it was Mr. McCord's opinion that they could, under the ordinance, "require and enforce a dedication either by condemnation or by my agreement. I'm agreeable, as long as it is imminently and immediately used He (McCord) felt that improvements, particularly improvements required at some unknown date, were not allowed under the ordinance, I certain intend to question this. I do not consider it equitable that 6 or 7 people pay a dispro- portionate share of improvements when they had no control in bringing it about." Mr. Jacks stated that this has come up several times before and that, in this case, all they could do was to proceed under the same premises they have used before, however, he said that this might be the time to change the premise, After a short general discussion, Bill Kisor seconded Mr. Newhouse's motion to approve the plat with the 7 contingencies stated above, which motion passed unanimously. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting December 11, 1978 Page 5 Chairman Jacks suggested that since the meeting had again run over into the time the Planning Commission meeting was scheduled to begin, the last item (consideration of the final plat of Sunset Woods) should be held off and dis- cussed completely during the Planning Commission meeting which would follow imme- diately. There being no dissention to this suggestion, the meeting adjourned at 5:15 o'clock p.m. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ATTENDANCE RECORD 1978 Ernest Jacks Bill Kisor Newton Keith Larry Wood Hailey Newhouse January 9, 1978 X X X X January 10, 1978 X X X X X January 23, 1978 X X X X February 13, 1978 X X X X X February 27, 1978 X X X X X March 13, 1978 X X X X March 27, 1978 X X X X X April 10, 1978 X X X X X April 24, 1978 X X X X May 8, 1978 X X X May 22, 1978 X X X X June 12, 1978 X X X X June 26, 1978 X X X ,X X July 10, 1978 X X X X X July 14, 1978 (Special Meeting) X X X X July 24, 1978 X X X August 14, 1978 X X X X August 28, 1978 X X X X x September 11, 1978 X X X X September 25, 1978 X X X X October ‘9, 1978 X X X X X October 24, 1978 (Spec. Meeting) X X Absent X X October 30, 1978 X X X X X November 13, 1978 X Absent X X X November 27, 1978 X X X X X December 11, 1978 fJo+ fur in n cta. X X X X X