Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-07-28 - MinutesMINUTES OF A SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE FETING A meeting was held of the Subdivision Committee of the Planning Commission at 3:45, P.M., Monday, July 28, 1980, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Keith Newhouse, Newton Hailey. MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Beth Crocker, Don Hunnicutt. Larry Wood, Bobbie Jones, Cynthia Stewart, Gary Carnahan, Jim Lindsey, Chad Kumpe, Jim Vizzier. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 3:55 P.M. The first item of business was the approval of the minutes of the July 14, 1980, Subdivision Committee Meeting. The minutes were approved as mailed. MINUTES The next item of business was the approval of the PRELIMINARY PLAT preliminary plat of Oakland Meadows, located on OAKLAND MEADOWS Highway 156, one half mile East of Oakland Baptist LINDSEY FAMILY TRUST Church ( on Old Wire Road) and one and one half miles •North of Sons Chapel (on Hwy. 45); Lindsey Family Trust - James Lindsey, Trustee and John R. and Rebecca Ann Rutledge, Owners. Jim Lindsey and Gary Carnahan were present to represent. Keith Newhouse asked the Developer if he had gotten perc data on the proposed subdivision. Jim Lindsey stated he was waiting to see if the project would be approved before going ahead with obtaining State Board of Health approval on the perc data. Bobbie Jones said she had spoken with General Bruce Kendall, and he had said the County would not approve any more subdivisions with long private drives leading to tandem lots. Keith Newhouse asked if this was official, Ms. Jones was not sure. She said this subdivision had been approved by the County with one dissenting vote, which had been cast in protest of the long private drives. The General had also stated that he believed the State would be giving Highway 156 back to the County for maintenance, in the near future. She stated she thought this was resulting from the State's inability to obtain sufficient right-of-way to improve it. Keith Newhouse said the Developers had granted right-of-way where applicable in this Development. He asked if the neighboring property owners had dedicated right-of-way, and Jim Lindsey replied that he did not know. Bobbie Jones stated that the road may not be improved if the State gives it back to the County. Jim Lindsey stated that he had spoken with F. H. Martin and he understood that in order to widen the road to improve it, the cost to the County in relocating the utilities alone would equal or exceed the cost of simply paving it as it is. He said that the State had had considerable troubles obtaining right-of-way. Lindsey said he did not believe the State would give the Road back to the County unless there was a specific agreement that the road would be paved. Lindsey said he had been approached by Doctor Ginger, a neighboring property owner, he. had said that the County would be trying to raise $25,000.00 from persons living in the area in the event the County is given back the Road, to pave it from Highway 45. Lindsey said he had indicated to Doctor Ginger, that if the State does give the Road back to the County, he would be agreeable to paying his fair share in order to get the road paved. • Subdivision Committee Meeting July 28, 1980 Page 2 Keith Newhouse asked if the property owners would be bringing the road up to County standards. Lindsey said that was correct, with a chip and oil seal. Lindsey said he was not sure what the County would contribute. Lindsey stated that Mr. Martin had been given an estimate of $70,000.00 to move utilities in order for the State to widen the road. Keith Newhouse stated that if the road reverts back to the County, the 80 ft. right-of-way would not be required. Mr. Lindsey stated that was correct, but that the Developers were assuming that the Highway is a State Highway. Bobbie Jones inquired as to the existing condition of County Road 539, along the North side of Lots 1 and 2. Lindsey replied that it is a gravel road Ms. Jones asked if the County had required any improvements to it. Gary Carnahan replied that they had not. Bobbie Jones stated that the Subdivision Committee could require Road #539 to be surfaced with a double chip and oil seal as it is written into the Ordinance as a requirement unless specifically waived. Jim Lindsey stated that Road #539 was more of a lane than a road, that right-of-way would have to be obtained from the property owners across the street. He said rather than improve the road, he may combine Lots 1 and 2. Newton Hailey stated he would like to know the County's feelings on improvements to County Road #539. Jim Lindsey asked if the County requires paving of Road #539. Bobbie Jones replied that under Ordinance 2570, the Developer would be required to cohtribute his proportionate share of the cost of improvement with the County to determine his proportionate share. Gary Carnahan stated that at the County's Planning Commission level, no improvements to Road #539 had been required. Newton Hailey stated that they had not specifically waived improvement to Road #539. Lindsey said he would be willing to go back before the County Planning Commission and get some type of specific ruling on the improvement of County Road #539. Bobbie Jones said she had received a call from Ozarks Electric Cooperative stating that they would like something clarified on the drawing. She said that there is an easement going across the North end of the private drives serving Lots 14 and 15 that does not extend the proper:distance on the drawing, and that it should be corrected. Newton Hailey moved that the preliminary plat of Oakland Meadows be approved with the following contingencies. 1. The Developer will be required to contribute his proportionate share to improve County Road #539 where it abuts Lots 1 and 2, unless waived by the County Planning Commission. 2. Final Plat will indicate perc data. 3. The utility easement crossing the North end of the private drives serving Lots 14 and 15 will be properly designated on the drawing. Keith Newhouse seconded Newton Hailey's motion to approve and the motion passed (2-0). Subdivision Committee Meeting • July 28, 1980 Page 3 • The next item of business was the LEWIS ESTATES approval of the concurrent plat of Replat of Lots CONCURRENT PLAT OF REPLAT 2, 3, 4, 5, $ 6, Lewis Estates, bounded on the LINDSEY g RUTLEDGE North by Howard Nickel Road and bounded on the West by North/South Salem Road and on the South by East/West Salem Road; James E. Lindsey & Nita V. Lindsey and John R. F, Rebecca Ann Rutledge, Owners. James Lindsey and Gary Carnahan were present to represent. Keith Newhouse asked what Clayton Powell's comments about variation of fence lines and easements meant. Gary Carnahan stated that Clayton Powell had been concerned about whether or not there had been sufficient right-of-way dedicated. Carnahan said he had checked and the right-of-way was 60 ft. on all three roads, as required by the County. He stated that had been designated on the plat. Newhouse asked what the varying distances were. Gary Carnahan stated the property line actually falls into the road. He said the road had been surveyed, and pins placed outside the road at varying distances from the centerline to determine the property line after dedication of the right-of-way. Carnahan stated that there is 60 ft. of existing right-of-way dedicated. He said that, however, the centerline of the road is not equal distant from property lines on either side of the road. In any case, the 60 ft. of right-of-way had been granted and dedicated. Bobbie Jones asked that there be a notation on the plat showing the distance of the off -set of each of the pins from the road easement. Newton Hailey made a motion to approve the concurrent plat of Replat of Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, F 6, Lewis Estates with two contingencies: 1. The plat will show right-of-way designations, and, also the off -set at each of the surveyor's pins. 2. The Developer will obtain State Board of Health approval on the perc data for the Subdivision. Keith Newhouse seconded Newton Hailey's motion (2-0). to approve and the motion passed By edict of the Chairman, the next two items were considered at the same time. Approval of the concept plat of Garland Court, a Planned Unit Development, located at the Northeast corner of Garland and Sycamore Streets; Fayetteville Housing Authority, Developer. Developer is requesting a waiver of the requirement that a public hearing be held for approval of the concept plat. Also, the approval of the concept plat of Happy Hollow Court, a Planned Unit Development located on the West side of Happy Hollow Road and North of 4th Street, Fayetteville Housing Authority, Developer Developer is requesting a waiver of the requirement that a public hearing be held for approval of the concept plat. Jim Vizzier and Chad Kumpe were present to represent. Jim Vizzier stated that they were trying to develop a scattered type of housing CONCEPT PLAT GARLAND COURT CONCEPT PLAT HAPPY HOLLOW COURT • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting July 28, 1980 Page 4 that would blend into the surrounding neighborhood and get away from a "project" type feeling. He stated that Happy Hollow Court and Garland Court were a bit larger, and were therefore, being submitted as Planned Unit Developments.. He said that duplexes and four-plexes would be setback, parking would be diffused, and trees and landscaping would be implemented to better help the PUD blend in with the surrounding properties. He stated the PUD's would be low density and comparable to the areas around them. He said that at the Garland site, the density would be about 7.7 dwelling units per acre, or ten bedrooms per acre. He stated this was the same density as the surrounding neighborhood. (bedroom density). The Happy Hollow site would be a three acre development, with three and one third dwelling units per acre, he said the zoning would allow four dwelling units per acre, and this site also comes out to about ten bedrooms per acre. The total development of the Garland site would consist of eight one -bedroom units; four two-bedroom units, for a total of twelve units. There would be four buildings consisting of two -duplexes and two four-plexes. The development of the Happy Hollow site would consist of five buildings: one two story walk-up with four, three-bedroom apartments, two four-bedroom, single family homes; one two-bedroom duplex; one three-bedroom duplex. Keith Newhouse asked about sidewalks. Vizzier stated that the Developer would be required to place sidewalks between parking areas and buildings, and also, along the street. Vizzier said this had been incorporated into the site development costs. Keith Newhouse addressed the request to waive the public hearing. He said he understood that the Developer had hand delivered letters informing surrounding property owners of this meeting. Chad Kumpe stated that several property owners had been sent registered mail notification, and that one hundred and sixty-five letters had been hand delivered to people in areas surrounding the proposed PUD's. Keith Newhouse asked if the letters had mentioned the Subdivision Committee meeting. Bobbie Jones replied they had not, they had informed the persons of the Planning Commission meeting to commence at 5:00. . Keith Newhouse stated he felt the concept was very good. He said he would pass judgement on whether or not to waive the requirement of a public hearing on to the Planning Commission, since the persons who might wish to comment would be present at that meeting. He said he felt that the Developer had conformed in notifying the property owners. Keith Newhouse moved that the concepts be passed on to the Planning Commission and Newton Hailey seconded. The motion passed (2-0). There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:45 P.M.