Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-03-10 - Minutes;12 MINUTES OF A SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING The Subdivision Co 3:30 P.M., Monday, Administration Bui MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: mmittee March 1 lding, F Chairman Crocker, of the City Planning Commission met at 0, 1980, in the Directors' Room, City ayetteville, Arkansas. Keith Newhouse, Don Larry Wood. Newton Hailey, Jr. Hunnicutt, Elizabeth OTHERS PRESENT: Bobbie Jones, Gary Carnahan, Jim Lindsey, Dockery, Alvin Adams, George Dockery. Chairman Newhouse called the meeting to order. The minutes of the February 25, 1980 Subdivision Committee Meeting were approved as mailed. The first item of.business_was the approval of the Concurrent i. Plat to replat A Planned Unit Development, being a Replat of BLOCK C5 Block 3, Sweetbriar Addition, located on the North side of Sweetbriar Drive and East of Greenbriar, A Planned Unit ro, Development. Owners F, Developers of this property are James E. $ Nita V. Lindsey. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Bobby MINUTES REPLAT OF PUD IN 3, SWEETBRIAR ADD. Concurrent Plat James E. (Jim) Lindsey and Gary Carnahan were present to represent the proposal. Bobbie Jones informed the Committee that she expected some people from the neighborhood to be present at the Planning Commission meeting later in the day. Mr. Lindsey said that they had notified all the property owners of the property across Sweetbriar Drive from the proposed PUD. Mr. Lindsey informed the Committee of two additional factors in his development plans: (1) There is .94 of an acre of land lying 271.6 ft. East-West and 150 ft. North- South to the East of the PUD as shown on the drawings submitted. This land is owned by Ellis Bogan and he has offered to sell it to Mr. Lindsey. Part of the additional land lies across the creek from the proposed PUD. Mr. Lindsey said the addition of this .94 acre would increase the open space in the proposed PUD to 34% of the total area of the PUD. (2) Ellis Bogan, owner of the property directly to the North, has furnished Mr. Lindsey with a statement that he agrees and supports the replat of his Planned Unit Development on Sweetbriar Drive by Lindsey & Associates, Inc. Mr. Lindsey said that in giving this letter Mr. Bogan had intended to give his approval of the Planning Commission waiving the required 100 ft. setback from Mr. Bogan's adjoining property. Chairman Newhouse inquired how many more units Mr. Lindsey's PUD would have in it than Mr. Bogan's original PUD had proposed. Bobbie Jones said that, including the four dwelling units which Mr. Bogan has already constructed, the replatted PUD would have a total of 36 units in it. This would be 16 more than the 20 originally planned in Mr. Bogan's PUD. Bobbie Jones asked if the additional .94 acre is in the flood plain. Mr. Lindsey said that he thought the original PUD involved most of the creek. Mrs. Jones informed the Committee that the regulations require that one-half of the open space must be continuous and that land in the 10 -year (or more frequent) flood plain may not be counted as more than 50% of the usable open space. Mr. Carnahan said he had not previously calculated the area or percentage in the flood plain. After some time to make calculations, he advised the Committee that there is 140 feet on the East side of the creek above the 100 -year flood plain and another • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 10, 1980 - Page 2 50 feet above the creek bank which is in the 100 -year flood plain. Mr. Carnahan said that there would be 27% of the total acreage of the PUD in common open space outside the creek banks. He said the original PUD only had 14% of its total area in open space; however, at the time it was platted there was no minimum open space requirement. Elizabeth Crocker asked if the open space on the original PUD was still being shown as open space on the replat. She was advised that it is. Mrs. Crocker said that if this were a new PUD being processed, rather than a replat, she would be opposed to it; but the developer is getting more out of it and is increasing the open space. Bobbie Jones informed the Committee that she had requested an opinion from the City Attorney as to whether or not the four lots on which the existing structure sits could be omitted from this replat since they would otherwise remain as four lots which didnot meet the Zoning Ordinance and were not part of an up-to-date PUD. Jim McCord had advised her that he saw no reason why part of a PUD could not be replatted, just as part of a standard subdivision can be replatted; provided the overall density of the part of the PUD replatted and the part not replatted complies with the PUD regulations and provided other PUD regulations would not be violated, considering the PUD as a whole. Don Hunnicutt inquired about the request for a waiver of the setbacks from the perimeter of the PUD given in the regulations. Mrs. Jones stated that she thought there was an error in the letter from Mr. Lindsey. They are actually requesting a setback of 25 ft. from the North boundary of the PUD as there is a 25 ft. wide easement which they will not be building over. She also stated that if the additional .94 acre to the East is incorporated into the PUD that a waiver of setbacks from the East boundary will not be required. She and Mrs. Crocker discussed the wording in the PUD ordinance and it was determined that the proposed 10 ft. setback from the Greenbriar PUD to the West (which is zoned R-2) complies with the code; therefore no waiver is needed on the setback from the West boundary. With the addition of the .94 acre, no waiver is needed on the percentage of open space. Don Hunnicutt inquired whether the driveway at the East end of Sweetbriar Drive meets the required safety zone from the intersection of a street. Mr. Lindsey said he has discussed this with Street Superintendent Clayton Powell and they have concluded that it cannot be changed, but that some type of sign warning people of a driveway at that location needs to be posted. Elizabeth Crocker moved that the Subdivision Committee recommend to the Planning Commission that the Concurrent Plat to replat A Planned Unit Development in Block 3, Sweetbriar Addition be approved upon the following conditions: (1) The additional .94 acre of property to the East of the PUD be obtained (measuring 271.6 ft. by 150 ft.). and added as part of the common open space. This would negate any need for a waiver on the percentage of open space. (2) A waiver of setbacks from the property to the West is not required under the regulations and a waiver of the setback from the East will no longer be required with the purchase of the additional property to the East. (3) The driveway on the East end of Sweetbriar Drive be made satisfactory to the Street Superintendent. (4) The required 100 ft. setback from the North property line be varied to permit a setback of 25 ft. from the North property line. Don Hunnicutt seconded the motion. It was approved unanimously,3-0. The next item on the agenda was the approval of the large scale development plan for Baldwin Church of Christ located at 4399 East Huntsville (South of Highway 16 East and East of Stone Farm Road (County Road No. 170)). The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. BALDWIN CHURCH OF CHRIST 4399 East Huntsville Large Scale Development • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 10, 1980 - Page 3 Bobby Dockery, George Dockery and Alvin Adams were present to represent the proposal. Elizabeth Crocker asked about the dedication of additional right-of-way to comply with the Master Street Plan. Bobbie Jones informed her that she had checked the City Plat Books and that there is from 80 to 100 ft. of right-of-way width across the front of this property; therefore,no additional right-of-way is required. Chairman Newhouse asked why the Church was asking to have the requirement to have screening between the Church property and the abutting R-1 zoned property waived. Bobby Dockery said the Church thinks it is in the best interests of the Church, the neighborhood and the City to have it waived. He explained that they felt they could maintain the grounds of the Church better without a fence. He said the property owner to the East of the Church is a widow and that she had stated that she would prefer not to have anything there that would obstruct vision because she is isolated. He added that the City Sanitation Department trucks come into the Church's driveway, cuts across the Church's property to a little road going up behind the Church. If a fence were put up the trucks would have to go back out onto the Highway to get onto the little road. He said because the little road is so close to the Church's driveway, the trucks could not turn directly into the little road without going down the highway and coming back. He said the neighbors also object very strongly to the Church putting up a fence. Alvin Adams stated that the Church did not wish to be required to construct a sidewalk along Highway 16 because the closest sidewalk to their property is 41 miles away. Chairman Newhouse explained that the City has been trying to get sidewalks put in on all the streets in town because it makes it much easier for people to walk along the streets. Bobby Dockery said that the Highway is about 3 feet higher than the Church's property. He said because all of the Highway right-of-way is not elevated like the roadbed, it would be an engineering problem to put sidewalks in. Don Hunnicutt said that he did not see much sense in requiring sidewalks at this time since there are no other sidewalks in the neighbor- hood. However, if sidewalks are put in along Highway 16 later, Mr. Hunnicutt thought the Church should tie sidewalks in also. Elizabeth Crocker suggested requiring a contract from the Church agreeing to put sidewalks in at a later date when other sidewalks are constructed in the neighborhood. Chairman Newhouse observed that since none of the neighbors wanted a screening fence, that is their problem. Don Hunnicutt moved that the Subdivision Committee approve the large scale development plan for Baldwin Church of Christ and recommend to the Planning Commission the approval of the conditional use conditioned upon: (1) Waiver of the requirement for screening along the East and West property lines of the Church; and (2) the Church enter into a contract with the City to construct a sidewalk along Highway 16 when the adjoining properties have been approved for sidewalks. Elizabeth Crocker seconded the motion. It was approved unanimously, 3-0. The last item of business was the Concurrent Plat TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT of a Townhouse Development Replat of REPLAT OF LOTS 2,3,4, P, 5, BLOCK 3, Lots 2, 3, 4 $ 5, Block 3, Kantz Place. KANTZ PLACE - Concurrent Plat Developers are James E. $ Nita V. Lindsey. The James E. €, Nita V. Lindsey property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District. The Board of Adjustment granted a variance on March 3, 1980, to permit a minimum individual lot width of 18 feet rather than the required 24 feet lot width on 8 lots as shown on the proposed plat. Jim Lindsey and Gary Carnahan were present to represent the proposal. Chairman Newhouse asked Mr. Lindsey why he thought the townhouse development would be a better deal than would apartments. Mr. Lindsey replied that he thought there will be a market in this area for this type housing. He said it would be a quality place in which to live with an estimated cost of $45,000 to $50,000 to the homeowner. He hoped the lower cost would enable purchasers to pay for the increased interest rates. • • Subdivision Committee Meeting March 10, 1980 - Page 4 Don Hunnicutt asked what the zoning across the street isand was told that the property across the street is zoned R-0, Residential Office District. The property to the West behind this replat is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Bobbie Jones told the Committee that this replat is not a PUD, but is a townhouse development under the R-2 provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. She said the only waiver requested was the one in minimum lot width for an individual townhouse lot which was approved by the Board of Adjustment. Don Hunnicutt moved that the Subdivision Committee pass this plat on to the Planning Commission with a recommendation for approval as it is proposed for replatting. Elizabeth Crocker seconded the motion. It was approved unanimously, 3-0. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:30 P.M.