Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-06-09 - Minutes• • MINUTES OF A SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING A meeting of the Subdivision Committee of the Planning Commission was held at 4:15 P.M., June 9, 1980, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: The Chairman Chairman Keith Newhouse, Newton Hailey, Elizabeth Crocker, and Don Hunnicutt. None. Cynthia Stewart, Bobbie Jones, Gary Carnahan, Jim Lindsey, General Bruce Kendall, Larry Wood. called the meeting to order at 4:20 P.M. The first item of business was the approval of the minutes of the May 27, 1980 meeting. The minutes were approved as mailed. MINUTES The second item of business was the approval OAKLAND MEADOWS of the Concept Plat of Oakland Meadows, located CONCEPT PLAT Northeast of a curve on State Hwy. 156 and three fourths of LINDSEY & RUTLEDGE a mile East of Oakland Church and Cemetery, James E. Lindsey $ John R. Rutledge, Owner 0 Developer. Gary Carnahan and Jim Lindsey were present to represent. Chairman Newhouse asked if there were any comments on this Concept Plat. Beth Crocker stated that she did not like the 5 tandem lots of this subdivision. Gary Carnahan stated the developers were trying to maintain a rural character in the subdivision, with a small amount of acreage with each lot. He said the more streets that are built the smaller the lots would be, in order to market the property, and make a reasonable profit, they thought they should develop the lots with some acreage. Carnahan said there was a ridge running East and West down the center of the property and the land slopes down on either side of the ridge. They are planning to develop lots on either side of the ridge. Carnahan said if the land was not developed with tandem lots, streets would have to be built back into the subdivision, or the lots sold would have to be 1320 ft. deep. He said he had spoken to some of the surrounding property owners, and they had been relieved to know the land would not be divided up into small lots. Beth Crocker stated she had spoken with Mr. Garrett, an adjoining property owner, and he was extremely distressed with the thought of a subdivision going in next to him, and he had mentioned he would sell his home. Gary Carnahan stated that he had spoken to Mr. Garrett and had told him the lots across from Mr. Garrett's land would be developed with 4-1/2 acre lots which were bigger than Mr. Garrett's lot. Don Hunnicutt asked if it was feasible to put in a cul-de-sac and develop the lots east and west. Carnahan stated they did not want to go to the expense of building a road. Crocker said it seemed the driveways themselves would be an incredible expense due to their length. Carnahan said the expense of the driveways could be incorporated in the market price, but if a road were built that would also have to be incorporated into the selling • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 9, 1980 Page 2 price, and may make the property unmarketable. Bruce Kendall asked if there would be one common drive. Carnahan replied that each Lot owner would own their own 30 ft. strip, but 2 lot owners would probably construct one common driveway. Keith Newhouse said he could foresee several Lot splits, later on. Carnahan said he did not see how a lot split could be performed. Beth Crocker said that the tandem lots might be split by selling an easement back into the tandem lot. Carnahan said the lots would not have any frontage. Crocker stated she thought they would split the Lots whether they had frontage or not. Carnahan stated the way he understood the ordinance on lot splits, each Lot would have to have 25 ft. of frontage per each new Lot. Crocker said the Lot split ordinance is being violated all the time. Bobbie Jones stated the Zoning Ordinance allows the Planning Commission to waive the requirement that a lot have frontage inside the City. She said there was nothing in the Subdivision Ordinance that either allows or prohibits tandem lot development. Carnahan stated it was his understanding when planning this subdivision that the owners of Lots 14, 15, 9 $ 10 would not be able to split them. Bruce Kendall stated that Washington County has a requirement that a lot have frontage on a county road; they are flexible, but that the County would turn down a lot split for not having frontage. Crocker stated that there was nothing to prevent the owners of the tandem lots from simply selling them off, a building permit would not be required for a new structure (outside the City), and the requirements on tandem lots could not be enforced. Bruce Kendall stated that the Lot split would be discovered when the people buying the land went to the bank for a loan, and did not have a proper lot split on their plat. Carnahan said the tandem lots were planned so that the driveways would be side by side to provide a full 60 ft. if the future owners of Lots 14 and 15 could go together and approach the County, and there would be sufficient land to build a street to the back property. Bruce Kendall stated that the problem with develop- ment of lots like these, was that when the adjacent owners decided to build a road back to the back property, they expected the County to maintain them. Keith Newhouse said that if the City ever expanded out to this point, there would be several problems with the subdivision. Don Hunnicutt said he felt the County should have more to say about this subdivision ;than the City. Kendall said this was not necessarily true as this subdivision would be in the City's Planned Growth Area, and the County's main concern would be with the road. Kendall said as long as an ordinance exists that allows tandem lot development, these problems will come up. Kendall said they would either have to be prohibited or dealt.with. Crocker said the Tandem Lot Ordinance does not apply in this case as there are no tandem lot requirements in the Subdivision Ordinance. She said it does not apply because the purpose of the Tandem Lot Ordinance is to develop property that can not be subdivided normally. Crocker said this property could be developed as a subdivision and that was what bothered her about this concept. Carnahan wanted to point out that right across the street from this subdivision there were several very nice homes developed on tandem lots. He said they were back in the woods, and that was what made them attractive, as they were not right on the highway. Bobbie Jones asked how the property owners on the north and east of this subdivision get into their property. Carnahan said those properties on the North back up against a road; he did not know how the owner to the East has access. Newton Hailey said he did not like this concept because it was encouraging more sprawl further away from downtown. He said if the back lots were split off and • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 9, 1980 Page 3 sold and a road built, he was not sure the City would have the authority to require the land owners to pave the road back to the lots. Bruce Kendall stated that the City does have the authority to require paving of the road at this time. He said the City could require any road in the Growth Area to be paved. Jim Lindsey asked if the project complied with County requirements. Bruce Kendall replied that it did comply with tandem lot requirements. Lindsey asked if there was a difference between the City's and the County's tandem lot requirements. Elizabeth Crocker said that there was a difference in the two ordinances in that the City's ordinance was directed towards developing land where a normal subdivision could not be developed. Lindsey stated it was his understanding that at some point, State Hwy. 156 would be paved, and he would like this land to be available to be marketed at that time. Crocker stated that if State Highway 156 were developed and paved, she felt this would not be a good and orderly subdivision. Lindsey stated that he would have a condition put into the covenants stating that the lots could not be subdivided. Bobbie Jones said the covenants can only be enforced by the owners of property within the subdivision. Keith Newhouse asked Jim Lindsey if it would be prohibitively expensive to develop this area as a normal subdivision with street systems. Lindsey said that it would not be inconceivable to get their money back, but that a normal subdivision may not be what people would want at the edge of town, and that was the reason for the larger lots. He said he would be willing to 1) build a gravel drive back between lots 14 and 15 and lots 9 and 10 to a point where these lots would have driveway access and 2) he would put into the covenants that it is understood that these are tandem lots and that they cannot be split or divided. Newhouse felt that the lot splits would occur due to the narrow width, along with the long depth of the lots. Larry Wood stated that he did not have a problem with this concept, he felt the tandem lot technique was a perfectly acceptable way to subdivide this property. He stated that he would have trouble accepting any future dividing of the property. He said he would recommend to Mr. Lindsey that if a condition was put in the covenants as to no future division of the lots, that it could be nullified if the property were resold by resubdividing. Newton Hailey stated that he did not feel the Committee should condone the spreading of the City all over the County. Mr. Hailey felt that if this subdivision came into the City, there would be several problems. He felt that there were many tracts of land nearer to town with water and sewer that should be subdivided before leapfrogging all over the County with subdivisions. Lindsey said, from an economic standpoint, this would be the best division situation for this piece of land. He said they had tried to apply the ordinance to this particular piece of land, and that they did not want to cause problems. Elizabeth Crocker asked Bruce Kendall if State Hwy. 156 would be paved. Kendall replied that it depended upon whether some of the property owners along the highway would give the County right-of-way. Lindsey stated that F. H. Martin had told him that the Arkansas Highway Department intended to pave the highway this paving season; that they would like to have more right-of-way, but that if they did not get additional right-of-way the highway would be paved within the structure of the existing right-of-way. He had also told Mr. Lindsey that the only thing that would prevent them from paving the highway would be the drastic cutback in funds. He said the City's Off-site Improvements Ordinance precludes requiring a person to put in off-site improvements on a State Highway, and that 156 is a State Highway. Mr. Lindsey said he did not feel he would have a very good • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting June 9, 1980 Page 4 market until such time as the highway was paved. Bobbie Jones stated that she was as concerned about the deep lots that were narrow as she was about the tandem lots, unless a street is put in. Crocker felt that the condition in the covenants on resubdivision should be included for all the lots. Bobbie Jones stated that covenants could only be enforced by property owners within the subdivision and that the conditions should be laid out on the plat itself in a covenant between the subdivider and the City. Don Hunnicutt made a motion to recommend to the Planning Commission that it approve the Oakland Meadows Concept Plat with the following conditions: 1) Subdividers must covenant with the City that any further division of the property will be by filing an approved plat, rather than through lot splits. Elizabeth Crocker seconded. The motion was unanimous (4-0). The next item for consideration was the LEWIS ESTATES approval of the Concept Plat to Replat Lots CONCEPT PLAT 2,3,4,5,6 $ 8 of Lewis Estates located South REPLAT of Howard Nickle Road and East of Salem Road, James E. Lindsey $ John R. Rutledge, Owner and Developer. Jim Lindsey and Gary Carnahan were present to represent. Bruce Kendall stated that the Subdivision had a paved road on three sides. He said from the County's point of view this replat would be acceptable. Gary Carnahan stated the Lewis Estates was a recorded plat. He said they were trying to cut some of the lots in half in order to better market the property. Keith Newhouse said the same covenants should apply to this as to Oakland Meadows. Newton Hailey said he felt the same way about this concept plat as he did about Oakland Meadows. Bobbie Jones asked what had happened to lot 7. Bruce Kendall said he owned it. Lindsey stated that Lot 8 was not in the original plat, that he wanted to add it. Elizabeth Crocker moved to recommend to the Planning Commission to approve the replat of Lewis Estates with the same covenants as recommended for Oakland Meadows; the subdividers must covenant with the City that any further division of the property would be by filing an approved plat, rather than thru lot split. Hunnicutt seconded Crocker's motion to approve and the motion was approved with Crocker, Newhouse and Hunnicutt voting "Aye" and Hailey abstaining. (3-0-1) There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:10 P.M.