Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-05-18 - Minutes• MINUTES OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE OF THE FAYETTRVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Subdivision Committee of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Wednesday, May 18, 1988, at 10:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: B.J. Dow and Julie Nash Butch Robertson John & Mark Mahaffey, Layne Smith, Beth Crocker, Andy Kitsinger and Don Bunn PRffiDINARY PLAT OF QUAIL RIDGE SUBDIVISION GERALD T0MLINSON & BILL BROOKS - WEST SIDE OF PORTER ROAD The first item of consideration was the preliminary plat of Quail Ridge Subdivision submitted by Gerald Tomlinson & Bill Brooks and represented by Mahaffey & Associates. Property located on the west"_side-of 'Porter Road..and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Dow asked if proper notification had been given to the adjoining property owners. John Mahaffey stated that they had sent out certified letters to them and have received part of them back. He stated that he would bring them in before the Planning Commission meeting. Dow referred to Mickey Jackson's comments that they would need two fire hydrants. Mr. Mahaffey stated that they have the fire hydrants shown on the plat. She asked if they had changed the street name from "Leah" to "Megan". Mark Mahaffey answered, yes. Don Bunn noted that he thought Megan would be fine. Nash asked how long the cul-de-sac was. Mark Mahaffey answered that it was 975'. Bunn stated that he had discussed with B.J. Dow that the developer should leave right-of-way across Lot 16 on the west side of Megan Drive so that this could tie in to a future frontage road. Dow stated that the lots were big enough there so that the right-of-way wouldn't cause a problem. This property would probably not abut this frontage road, but it would be very close. Dow stated that there /ci • • • Subdivision Committee May 18, 1988 Page 2 is some possibility that this frontage road will never come to task because there are some problems with the flood plane, but it would be a wise idea to have a right -a -way. John Mahaffey stated that they could put a note stating that the right-of-way could revert back to the lots if this frontage road was never built. Bunn advised that if the frontage road were eliminated from the Master Street Plan, the property owners would have an option to have the right-of-way revert back to them once it was definite that the frontage road wouldn't be put in there. Mark Mahaffey stated that he didn't see any problem with the right-of-way there, those lots would still have plenty of building area. Don Bunn advised that, as he had mentioned in the Plat Review, the EPA requirements on development in a flood plane apply in this case. However, since the sewer is already there, that ordinance would not apply in this case because it is already developed. Mark Mahaffey stated that there is a force main 15' to the west (parellel) to the one shown on the plat. He said that the City had come out and located it on the ground. Bunn advised that he needed to add that on the plat. Nash asked if they had any alternative for the cul-de-sac because the ordinance requires them to be 500' or less. Dow stated that if they give this right-of-way that had been mentioned, it would take care of this problem. Dow added that they would probably need to make a stipulation for a temporary waiver for the length of the cul-de-sac even though it is dedicated to go through to the proposed frontage road. Bunn stated that he thought they should go ahead and build the cul-de-sac as it is shown and it would be termed a temporary cul-de-sac. In his opinion, it would still require a waiver. Nash noted that this cul-de-sac is almost twice as long as is allowed. She stated that if this is termed a temporary cul-de-sac, there probably wouldn't be a problem with waiving it. Mark Mahaffey asked if it should be shown as a temporary cul-de-sac on the plat. Nash answered, yes. Dow asked if they had determined which building setback that the gas company had referred to in their Plat Review comments. Bunn stated that the gas company had wanted the building setback along Porter Road to be an easement. Mark Mahaffey stated that he had shown it on the plat as such. Dow noted that there had been some discussion at the Plat Review about the water line along Porter Road being 4" and they would need to bring in a larger line. Bunn stated that it looks like that a 6" line as far as this development is concerned would give them plenty of water. John Mahaffey asked Bunn if they had a water master plan that would require a larger line at this time. Bunn stated that the ordinances give them the ability to oversize a line, but for this proposed subdivision's purposes, they have shown that a 6" line is sufficient. It will be up to the City to oversize it. 70 • • • Subdivision Committee May 18, 1988 Page 3 Dow noted that they had requested off-site improvements for both sides of Porter Road because of the length of this and the narrow frontage on Porter. John Mahaffey stated that since it is such a long block, they would have to really plan the street grades for the entire block to properly do that. He stated that they were concerned and hoped that some alternative solution might be reached such as paying so much per foot to be used at some time rather than building it now. Bunn asked if he was referring to a Bill of Assurance. Mr. Mahaffey answered, yes. Bunn stated that he wouldn't have any objection to a Bill of Assurance; the Planning Commission would have to decide that. Nash stated that she was not sure they could even require both sides because rational nexus doesn't state that. Bunn stated that the reason he recommended this is because of the way the subdivision is configured. He stated that they have had some of these before where there are a large number of lots that have a narrow frontage on the street and they required only half of it to be built. And they have required other subdivisions that are not so deep that have a large frontage to do the same thing with the same number of lots. They are paying about half per lot that another development is paying. He stated that he feels that this is one of the cases where the fairest thing to do in relation to the number of dollars per lot is request improvements on both sides of the street. Dow suggested that they could state that this would be the maximum and that that maximum could be reduced when and if the City Board ever takes this issue on case by case. Nash stated that the last few they haven't even responded to the off-site improvements and have sent them to the Board with no recommendation. Mark Mahaffey stated that he felt that it was unfair that they should have to do both sides just because they happen to have a narrow piece of property even though the cost may be less per lot. Dow stated that the rationale would be the cost per lot. Bunn stated that he had gotten some indication from some of the Board members that they wonder why developers aren't doing more on off-site improvements than they are. However, that is not a consensus from the whole Board. Nash stated that if they approved it subject to Plat Review comments that would cover the off-site improvements. • • • Subdivision Committee May 18, 1988 Page 4 Dow noted that subject to Plat Review would mean they were required to do off- site improvements on both sides of the road and if they want to appeal that, it can be appealed. Bunn stated that the plat can be appealed to the full Board by the developer as well as a member of the Planning Commission or a member of the Board so they would have that right of appeal assuming that the Planning Commission approves it this way. Dow asked if the additional right-of-way had been squared away for the frontage road. Mr. Mahaffey answered, yes. Bunn advised that on the Parks fee there are two options; either paying the parks fee up front and adding it to the cost of the lots or having each parks fee paid per lot as the building permits are issued. He stated that they would need to submit to him a letter stating what option they will be using before they start selling lots assuming this is approved. MOTION Nash moved to approve the plat subject to complete notification of the adjoining property owners, Plat Review comments, the dedication of right-of-way on lots 15 & 16, and the waiver of the length requirement of the temporary cul-de-sac, seconded by Dow. The motion passed 2-0-0. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF ROLLING HILLS BAPTIST CHURCH LAYNE SMITH - 1400 ROLLING HILLS DRIVE The second item of consideration was the Large Scale Development plan of Rolling Hills Baptist Church for an addition to the church submitted by Layne Smith & Beth Crocker and represented by Andy Kitsinger of Fugitt & Associates. Property located at 1400 Rolling Hills Drive and zoned R-1. Dow noted that Don Bunn had mentioned that if this addition would require additional water service they should get in touch with Don Osburn. Bunn advised that they had decided that additional service probably wouldn't be needed. Dow noted that Tom McElroy had asked if there was not an easement on the north end of this although it isn't shown on the plat. Mr. Kitsinger stated that there is a 25' utility easement there but it is not on this property. 7eZ • • Subdivision Committee May 18, 1988 Page 5 Dow noted that Mickey Jackson had suggested a sprinkler system. She asked if they had made a decision about this. Layne Smith stated that he doubted if they would put a sprinkler system in. MOTION Nash moved to approve this Large Scale Development Plan subject to Plat Review Comments, seconded by Dow. The motion to approve passed 2-0-0. 73