Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-08-13 - Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, August 13, 1992 at 10:30 a.m., in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT - Jerry Allred, Jana Lynn Britton and Tom Suchecki Don Bunn, Dave Jorgensen, Mel MilhoHand, Leonard Gabbard, Sharon Langley, and others FINAL PLAT - PARK PLACE SUBDIVISION, PHASE VI JIM LINDSEY - S OF VICTORIA, W OF CROSSOVER The first item on the agenda was a request for approval of a final plat for Park Place Subdivision, Phase VI, presented by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Jim Lindsey, for property located south of Victoria and west of Crossover Road. The property consists of 12 acres with 25 proposed lots, and is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Jorgensen pointed out this Phase was directly to the south of Phase V. In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Jorgensen explained there would be drainage down Meandering Way and culverts and curb inlets at the intersection. He pointed out they were also picking up drainage from the property to the south and transferring it to Phase VIII. MOTION Mr. Suchecki moved to recommend approval of the final plat of Park Place Subdivision, Phase VI, subject to staff comments. Ms. Britton stated they could discuss the waiving of the length of the cul-de-sac at the Planning Commission meeting. She seconded the motion. FINAL PLAT - PARK PLACE SUBDIVISION - PHASE VIII JIM LINDSEY - S OF MISSION, W OF CROSSOVER The next item was a request for approval of a final plat for Park Place Subdivision, Phase VIII, presented by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Jim Lindsey for property located south of Mission and west of Crossover Road. The property consists of 19.32 acres with 41 proposed lots, and is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Ms. Britton asked in what order the subdivisions would be completed. Mr. Jorgensen stated they would all be put in together. He explained completion of these three phases would mean all of the property in that area was developed except a small amount of property to the west and north of the rock house on Highway 265. He also noted he had made all changes requested at the plat review meeting. 37 • • Subdivision Committee August 13, 1992 Page 2 In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Jorgensen explained the pond was owned by the Property Owners Association of Park Place and the developer could not alter the pond to retain water. He stated the pond did retain water to a certain extent . Mr. Bunn pointed out there was a 16 -foot emergency access drive between lots 2 and 3 which tied into a cul-de-sac in Phase V. Mr. Jorgensen stated they needed to determine the type of surface for the access drive -- gravel, pavement, etc. He stated that, if the drive were paved, people would use it and the current residents of Park Place did not want egress/ingress into their subdivision. Mr. Bunn suggested 6 inches of base, covered with topsoil and grass. Ms. Britton suggested a grass paving system (grass in between small pieces of concrete). Mr. Allred pointed out that whatever surface was used, the residents of Park Place would use the access since there was only one ingress/egress. He stated he believed the Planning Commission had done a big injustice to the current residents of Park Place by having only one ingress/egress. Mr. Jorgensen agreed but explained the residents had insisted they only wanted one access. He further stated there was sufficient right-of-way to make the emergency access a street. Mr. Bunn stated there needed to be a notation on the plat that they could not install fences or plant trees/shrubs, etc. in the emergency access drive. Mr. Allred stated he believed they needed to make a requirement that, when the emergency access started being utilized by the residents, a street would be installed. Mr. Bunn asked who would pay for the extension of the street. Ms. Britton stated she believed the Property Owners Association should pay for it. Mr. Allred stated he believed the developer should pay for it. Mr. Jorgensen stated the developer had wanted to have access into the new phases but the Property Owners' Association had forced the issue. Mr. Allred pointed out they had to be concerned with the safety and traffic circulation for the entire community, not just one subdivision MOTION • Ms. Britton moved to recommend the subdivision to Planning Commission with the recommendation that a stipulation be made as far as the emergency access that, when • • Subdivision Committee August 13, 1992 Page 3 there was evidence of use of the right -of --way by the public, the access would be brought up to city street standards by the developer of Phase VIII and extended by the property owners. Mr. Suchecki seconded the motion. Mr. Bunn explained they could not make the Property Owners Association of Park Place pay for a street improvement they did not want. He stated there was no legal means to enforce it. He also pointed out some of the property owners might have purchased their lots because they were on a cul-de-sac and there was no through street. He expressed his opinion there would be problems in requiring this at the final plat stage. He further stated there was right-of-way on both sides and, at some future date, the City could install a street, if needed. He stated they could explore a contract with the developer to either connect from this Phase or to do so at a later date but the developer might have some strong objections. Mr. Jorgensen stated he was sure the developer would want to develop the subdivision as shown on the plat. He explained the POA had previously convinced the Planning Commission to go with the cul-de-sac in Phase V. Mr. Allred suggested taking this matter before the full Planning Commission for discussion. He further recommended notifying the POA that, should this access be used by residents of the existing subdivision, the city would pave it as a street. There were discussions on how to make the access visible to emergency vehicles but not convenient to the residents of the area. Ms. Britton recommended putting a sidewalk through the emergency access. MOTION Ms. Britton withdrew her previous motion and Mr. Suchecki withdrew his second. Ms. Britton moved to forward the plat to the Planning Commission with the recommendation that it be approved with the stipulation that consideration be given to the emergency access may be used by the public and when it becomes evident that it is being used, it would be brought up to city standards as a street. Mr. Suchecki seconded the motion. FINAL PLAT - PARK PLACE SUBDIVISION - PHASE VII JIM LINDSEY - E OF CAMBRIDGE RD., W OF CROSSOVER ROAD The next item was a request for approval of a final plat for Park Place Subdivision, Phase VII, presented by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Jim Lindsey for property located east of Cambridge Road, west of Crossover Road. The property consists of 7 acres with 11 proposed lots and is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. • Mr. Jorgensen stated they had made all corrections requested at the plat review meeting. 35 Subdivision Committee • August 13, 1992 Page 4 • In response to a question from Ms. Britton, Mr. Jorgensen explained there was no through access to the lake because the lake was owned by the POA. Mr. Bunn explained that the new phases of Park Place were not a part of the POA. MOTION Mr. Suchecki moved to approve the final plat for Park Place, Phase VII. Ms. Britton seconded the motion. FINAL PLAT - EMERALD SUBDIVISION J. B. HAYS - W OF TOWNSHIP, OFF WEST VIEW DR. The next item was a request for approval of a final plat for Emerald Subdivision presented by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of J. B . Hays. The property is located west of Township Road, off of West View Drive, contains 5.6 acres with 6 lots proposed. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Jorgensen explained this project was on the side of the hill, north of Township. He further explained they had looked closely at the drainage on this subdivision. He pointed out that, to prevent erosion, they had called for rip rap to be installed adjacent to the back of the curb which should prevent erosion. He also pointed out there would be hydro -mulching and hay out. Ms. Britton pointed out the soil for this area was shale. Mr. Jorgensen pointed out the note on the plat: "A grading plan will be required for each lot prior to obtaining a building permit." He stated that had been put on there to try to police construction on the steep lots. Mr. Bunn explained the preliminary plat on this subdivision had been done prior to the adoption of the grading ordinance. He noted this was Phase I but there was a possibility that, under the grading ordinance, there would not be a Phase II. He further stated the original plan had been to tie into Golden Eagle Drive. He further pointed out that people liked houses built on hills -- there were houses similar to the ones planned all over Fayetteville. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to pass this subdivision on to the Planning Commission with staff comments. Mr. Suchecki seconded the motion. PRELIMINARY PLAT - MISSION HILLS R. J. MERRY -SHIP - E OF MISSION, N OF NORTH ST. • The next item for review was a preliminary plat for Mission Hills Subdivision presented by Mel Milholland on behalf of R. J. Merry -Ship Properties, for property 31 • • • Subdivision Committee August 13, 1992 Page 5 located east of Mission and north of North Street. The property consists of 10 acres with 22 proposed lots and is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Suchecki pointed out that, unless there was a breakaway barricade, people would try to the use the emergency access. Mr. Milholland explained they would have a rolled up, modified curb on the cul-de- sac 30 feet wide, 8 inches of SB2 and 4 inches of topsoil with signs noting it was an emergency access only. He stated they would also put a sign within the subdivision. Ms. Britton stated she did not feel the cul-de-sac was necessary because no one would make a left turn from that access. She further stated there were a number of options: (1) ingress only by having a one -lane entrance with a sign stating "No Exit", or (2) have a normal size street with a sign "No Left Turns". Mr. Allred suggested making the street just one-way. Mr. Milholland stated he had no objections to their suggestions. Mr. Suchecki pointed out that the residents of lots 13, 14 and 15 would not want to go through the entire subdivision if the street were a one-way street. Mr. Milholland stated he would talk to the developer regarding their suggestions. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Bunn explained staff had recommended approval of the original plat. He stated he had also talked with Mr. Milholland regarding not allowing left turns. Ms. Britton suggested not allowing the left turns between 7:00 - 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 - 6:00 p.m. Mr. Suchecki recalled the last time a plat had been presented on the subject property the residents across Mission had expressed concern regarding the drainage. Mr. Milholland explained there were two drainage ditches going through the property -- one at the southwest corner of lot 1 which carried the run-off from the east half of the subdivision, which would divert the water into the inlet at the highway; and the other was on lot 15 which would carry water from the north. He stated they would be improving the drainage. Mr. Bunn stated they would need to look down stream. MOTION Ms. Britton moved to recommend to the Planning Commission the street be constructed as a through street with multiple options to be discussed when presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. Suchecki seconded the motion. Subdivision Committee August 13, 1992 Page 6 Mr. Milholland stated he would modify the plat to show either a one-way street or a full width street with a restricted turn. PRELIMINARY PLAT - OLD WIRE SUBDIVISION MATHIAS/TOMLINSON - S OF OLD WIRE & W OF OAK BAILEY DR. The last item for review as a preliminary plat for Old Wire Subdivision presented by Leonard Gabbard on behalf of Sam Mathias and Bud Tomlinson for property located south of Old Wire Road and west of Oak Bailey Drive. The property contains 7.32 acres with 20 proposed lots and is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Gabbard pointed out the entrance to the subdivision was Old Wire Road and most of the drainage would flow down to the cul-de-sac and be carried across. He stated there was a natural drainage area which would be an improved swale. In response to a question from an adjoining property owner, Mr. Gabbard stated most of the lots would be 80 x 180. Ms. Britton pointed out the adjoining subdivision had moved the utility easement in to avoid damaging the trees. She expressed concern that nothing happen to the trees Ms. Tina Ginger asked the size of homes to be built on the lots. Mr. Allred explained the city had no control over the size of homes that were built as long as the lots met the city ordinance. Mr Gabbard stated there would be protective covenants and he estimated the minimum size home would be 1,800 to 2,000 square feet. Ms. Ginger stated there would be a great deal of traffic on Old Wire Road, directly across from a church. She further stated she lived next to the church and also owned a one -acre lot on the other side of her property. She explained the Planning Commission had refused her a conditional use to construct duplexes on the basis of traffic. Mr. Allred stated he believed they had also considered the integrity of the neighborhood -- not wanting duplexes in a single-family neighborhood. Ms. Ginger stated that, as far as the integrity of the neighborhood, there were small to large homes but they were all on large lots. She expressed her opinion that the smaller lots proposed was not in keeping with the neighborhood. Mr. Bunn noted the lots were all approximately .25 acre. Ms. Ginger stated she was not opposed to houses going in but she did not want a bunch of little houses. Mr. Allred pointed out that, if they had wanted to put small houses on the lots, they would have made smaller lots. NO Subdivision Committee August 13, 1992 Page 7 Ms. Ginger stated she had a hard time accepting the Commission allowing between 20 - 40 cars pouring onto Old Wire when just a few months earlier, they had denied her request because they were unwilling to let 4 cars access Old Wire Road. Mr. Mahan expressed concern the subdivision would create more of a traffic problem. In response to a question from Mr. Allred, Mr. Bunn stated they did have in the C.I.P improvements to Old Wire Road scheduled for the following year to widen the road (but remaining 2 -lanes) and do some shoulder work. He further stated he was not sure how much right-of-way they would require. He further advised there had been some improvements already on Old Wire. He pointed out that widening of the roadway would not help someone get onto Old Wire Road. Mr. Leo Van Scyoc expressed concern regarding the traffic and the water drainage. Mr. Gabbard pointed out on the plat the flow of the drainage. Mr. Suchecki stated the developer would have to submit a drainage plan and have it approved prior to construction. Ms. Britton recommended a right-of-way easement from the cul-de-sac for future connection to adjoining property should that property be developed. Mr. Allred concurred with Ms. Britton's recommendation. There was discussion regarding existing trees with Mr. Van Scyoc pointing out areas of large trees. It was determined the large trees would not be impacted by this development. Mr. Van Scyoc stated he believed having 20 houses next to his property would decrease the value of his property. Ms. Ginger agreed. She again pointed out the lots in the area were all large lots. Mr. Allred explained it was the task of the Planning Commission to ascertain the least amount of impact possible to a neighborhood. He stated under the present city ordinances, the subject development had much less density than ordinance allowed. Mr. Van Scyoc stated a two -acre lot size would be much more consistent with the neighborhood. Ms. Ginger stated she would be happy with one acre lots which would also take care of the extra traffic. Mr. Dave Tackett stated his property was now hemmed in by developments. He further stated that at every meeting the developers had promised him an ingress easement but had never delivered one. Mr. Allred stated he would like an easement from the cul-de-sac on the subject property. • • • Subdivision Committee August 13, 1992 Page 8 It was determined this plat should be forwarded on to the Planning Commission without recommendation. Mr. Suchecki stated they needed to see the adjoining areas in order to make any decisions regarding accesses. Mr. Gabbard suggested that, should they determine there should be right-of-way access, it should be between lots 12 and 13. Mr. Allred recommended Mr. Gabbard get with City staff prior to the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting adjourned at 12:10 p.m.