Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-01-14 - Minutes13 MINUTES OF A SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING The Subdivision Committee of the City Planning Commission met at 3:30 P.M., Monday, January 14, 1980, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Keith Newhouse, Elizabeth Crocker, and Larry Wood. (one position vacant). MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Newton Hailey. Bobbie Jones, Michelle Hale, Kent Clement, Robert Redfern, Gary Carnahan, and Tom Hopper. The minutes of the November 26, 1979 MINUTES meeting were approved as mailed. The first item for discussion was FAYETTEVILLE CENTER SUBDIVISION the approval of the concurrent plat for Concurrent Plat Fayetteville Center Subdivision to be Hwy. 62 4 Hwy. 71 By-pass located at the Southeast corner of Hwy. 62 and Hwy. 71 By-pass; The Parnell Group, Developer; Zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Kent Clement was present to represent. Chairman Newhouse asked about the comments of Clayton Powell and the Master Street Plan. Mrs. Jones said she had talked to City Attorney Jim McCord and he had advised her that all that the City can require to approve this plat was the Master Street Plan requirement. She said the Arkansas Highway Department was want- ing more than what the Master Street Plan asked for because of the widening of Highway 62. Chairman Newhouse asked about the 60 ft. street stub that goes into Hollywood Avenue. Mrs. Jones said the City could find they no longer need a public right-of- way or the adjoining lot Owners could sign a petition and ask.the City to close it and retain the utility easement. She said Parnell cannot petition to have it closed. She added the Subdivision Committee may want to pass a recommendation on to the City Board of Directors to vacate it. Mrs. Crocker asked if it was a paved street. Mrs. Jones said it wasn't; it has never been opened and Clayton Powell feels if the right-of-way is there, people may begin to drive across it and create a substandard street such as has been done South of Wyatt's. Mrs. Jones said on this plat it is the first case the Planning Commission would have wherein they could waive the street frontage for the lots to have separate own- ership and have other acess across other properties. Lot 2 Block 1 and Lot 3 Block 2 do not have public street frontage, and Lot 4 abuts a street stub. Mrs. Jones asked Kent Clement if Lot 3 Block 1 would be divided. Mr. Clement said it would not, although that had been the original plan. Mrs. Jones repeated that there would be 2 instances where the Planning Commission would waive the requirements under Art. 8, Sec. 6 of the Zoning Ordinance. Chairman Newhouse asked Mrs. Jones if the things she asked for in Plat Review had been taken care of. Mrs. Jones said yes. She said one point to consider on this if you look at the original large scale development plan, they gave a 50 ft. right-of-way and signed the contract agreement on the service road. The Highway Department is constructing the service road and they took about 22 ft. more for fight -of -way. The developer has not agreed with the Highway Department on the add- itional right-of-way wanted on the South side of 62. Mrs. Crocker asked if the plat showed these rights-of-way. Mr. Clement said the plat was revised since and should show the new property lines after the right-of-way. Mrs. Crocker asked if we should require at least the 50 ft. given to the City Subdivision Committee Meeting January 14, 1980 Page 2 to be.shown. Mrs. Jones said he has already given it. Chairman Newhouse recommended: (1) closing the 60 ft. right-of-way street stub that goes into Hollywood Ave. by the City Board and to retain the utility easements, (2) close the 25 ft. wide street stub at the SE corner of the property and retain the utility easement, (3) waive the lot frontage requirements on Lot 2 Block 1 and Lot 3 Block 2, as provided in Art. 8, Sec. 6 of the Zoning Ordinance, and (4) the other problems involved have to do with the Highway Department and the developer must continue his negotiations with the AHTD. Chairman Newhouse asked if they were going to continue the street they are constructing off Hollywood Avenue into K -Mart. Mr. Clement said there would be "access easements" to continue into the parking lot. Mrs. Jones stated a note will be needed on the plat concerning the waiving of the lot frontage requirements. Mrs. Crocker moved to recommend approval of the concurrent plat of Fayetteville Center Subdivision based on Chairman Newhouse's 4vrecommendations. Chairman Newhouse seconded it, which passed 2-0. The next item for discussion was THE PARNELL GROUP the large scale development for The Large Scale Development Parnell Group to be located at the Hwy. 62 $ Hwyci 71. By-pass SE corner of Hwy. 62 and Hwy. 71 By-pass; The Parnell Group, Developer; Zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Kent Clement was present to represent. Chairman Newhouse asked about Mrs. Jones'Plat Review comments. Hequestioned the screening. Mrs. Jones said the screening would have to be view -obscuring within 2 yearsand would have to extend along the entire East property line. Mrs. Crocker stated since this was next to a residential area she felt there should be a fence instead of vegetation. Chairman Newhouse pointed out the parking on the SE corner needs to be at least 5 ft. from the East property line. He asked Mr. Clement if the motel would be 20 ft. from the centerline of the easement between there and the supermarket. Mr. Clement said it would be. Larry Wood asked about the restaurant in the NE corner being part of the large scale development plan but not the subdivision plat. He asked if this was creating an access problem. Mr. Clement said they had signed an agreement allowing them use of the driveway. Mrs. Crocker -asked if it was a separate lot. Mr. Clement said yes. Mr. Clement said when the large scale development plan was drawn the restaurant was going to lease the lot, but they have since decided to buy it so it is a separate lot. Mr. Wood said technically the restaurant could force an access to Hwy. 62 and that is what bothers him. Mr. Wood said he would recommend that "limits of no access" be shown on the development plan except for the two approved driveways shown. Mrs. Crocker moved to recommend approval of the large scale development to the Planning Commission subject to two contingencies: (1) The plan state that there will be no access to Hwy. 62 except as shown on the large scale development plan;. and (2) Compliance with all Plat Review comments. Chairman Newhouse seconded it, which pass- ed 2-0. The next item for discussion was the approval of the preliminary plat of Hazy Heights, a Planned Unit Development, located North of Township Rd. and East of Sherwood Lane; Clark C. $ Marie McClinton and M. N. Graue, Owners Low Density Residential District. Mrs. Jones explained that this item was pulled by put on the agenda in The proper.notification HAZY HEIGHTS PUD Township Rd. not been done. error. and Developers; Zoned R-1, her office due to it being to area property owners has • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting January 14, 1980 Page 3 The next item for discussion was KANTZ PLACE the approval of the final plat of Kantz Final Plat Place located North of Hwy. 45 East and Hwy. 45 East 4 Crossover Rd. West of Crossover Road; E. J. Ball Family Trust, Developer; Zoned: North 50 ft. of Blocks 1 $ 3, R-1, Low Density Residential District; remainder of Blocks 1 $ 3, R-2, Medium Density Residential District; all of Block 2, R-0, Residential -Office District; all 6 Tracts, R-1, Low Density Resident- ial District. Tom Hopper was present to represent. Chairman Newhouse asked Mrs. Jones if all her requirements had been met. Mrs. Jones said the developers have asked that a lien be placed only on Lots 1-12 Block 2, Lots 17-23 Block 2, and Lots 11, 12, and 13 of Block 3. Mr. Hopper said there was $60,000 in street development still to be done and the value of those lots was over that. Chairman Newhouse stated in Section 8, A and B of the proposed covenants, any division would be subject to Planning Commission approval when and if it is further divided. Mrs. Crocker was concerned that someone might feel that the Commission had approved further divisions if this note were not added to the covenants. Mr. Hopper stated the dedication should read "I, E. J. Ball, individually, and as trustee . . . ." He also said on Lot 13 Block 3, the owners asked that the set- back from the North property line be 25 ft. instead of 50 ft., which still complies with the setback in an R-2 Zone. Mrs. Crocker moved to recommend approval to the Planning Commission based on these 4 contingencies: (1) the contract would not be on the entire Subdivision, but only on Lots 1-12 Block 2, Lots 17-23 Block 2, Lots 11, 12, and 13 Block 3 and sub- ject to the approval of the City Engineer and Street Superintendent, (2) amend the wording in Sec. 8, paragraphs A and B in the covenants by adding "subject to the approval of the Planning Commission.", (3) on Lot 13 Block 3, change the setback from the North property line to 25 ft., and (4) change Certificate of Ownership and ded- ication to read "I, E. J. Ball, individually, and as trustee ..Chairman Newhouse seconded the motion, which was approved 2-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:55 P.M.