Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-01-20 - MinutesMINUTES OF A SPECIAL SUBDIVISION COMMI'1^1'hE MEETING • A special meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, January 20, 1994 at 4:30 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. • MEMBERS PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT; Jerry Allred, Ken Pummill, Bob Reynolds Don Bunn, Tim Conklin, John Redfern, Kurt Jones, Daran Johnson LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - DUPLEXES DARAN JOHNSON - N. OF DOCKERY, E. OF RAY The only item on the agenda was a large scale development for duplexes presented by Kurt Jones, Northwest Engineers, on behalf of Daran Johnson for property located north of Dockery Lane, east of Ray Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains 1.40 acres with 6 proposed units. Mr. Conklin explained a meeting between Planning staff and the developer and engineer of the large scale development had occurred on Thursday, January 20, 1994 - noting Ms. Little had agreed with 40, rather than 50, feet of off-site right-of-way but requested access to the east. He stated he and Mr. Bunn, City Engineer, confirmed for the Subdivision Committee that the road, because it was a private drive, would not be extended at a future time to the north. Mr. Conklin noted Ms. Little, however, did feel the road could be extended east to Cherry Street. Mr. Johnson suggested the best way to provide access for future developments in the area was to connect to the end of Ray Street. In answer to a question from Mr. Bunn, he explained the necessary right-of-way would result in the loss of one duplex. Mr. Conklin it was possible to loop Cherry Street to facilitate the necessary connection. In response to a question from Mr. Conklin, Mr. Jones explained Ms. Little suggested, in order to provide the subject access, providing a zero setback between units. Mr. Johnson confirmed obtaining right-of-way from the school was not feasible. Mr. Allred confirmed the area near the Mhoon Beef site was currently vacant. • Mr. Bunn remarked the units could be repositioned to provide the subject access. In response to a remark from Mr. Pummill, Mr. Conklin advised the staff had recommended waiving the 50 foot right-of-way requirement and approved 40 feet of right-of-way subject to access being provided to the east. In response to a question from Mr, Reynolds, Mr. Johnson stated he was unsure if a sidewalk was required - adding his concern was that - the sidewalk being constructed on his property and not public right-of-way - liability. He explained, in response to a question from Mr. Bunn, the required specifications for the street had not been determined - adding the street would be 24 feet in width, which is wider than the current street. Mr. Johnson remarked Ms. Little had suggested a Bill of Assurance on improvements to the street. Mr. Bunn explained a Bill of Assurance had no specific time whereas an Escrow account had a time limit of five years. Mr. Allred expressed concern that required improvements for Cherry Street developments had not been waived. Mr. Johnson stated Ms. Little advised she would agreed to a 40 foot right-of-way if he would construct a sidewalk. In answer to a question from Mr. Bunn, he remarked the requirements for construction of the street would be the same as for the private drive - double chip -and -seal. limit other Mr. Bunn suggested constructing the subject street to standards - 24 feet wide with 2 inches of asphalt and base - without curb and guttering - adding this would developer from his obligation to a Bill of Assurance. remarked the City could then }mprove the street - i.e. curb and guttering - at a future time. street 6 inches of free the Mr. Bunn adding Mr. Jones confirmed the distance of the subject street would be 220 feet. Mr. Allred confirmed the maintenance of the subject street would be public and therefore the responsibility of the City. Mr. Bunn explained a acceptable and would Mr. Johnson remarked developer. double chip -and -seal private drive would be be the responsibility of the developer. he felt that was fair to him as the Mr. Allred expressed doubt that the area would develop to the extent that the requested access to the east would be necessary. Mr. Pummill remarked the City had not built a street in a number of years and any access would be required of future developers. Mr. Bunn advised the Planning Commission could chose to require or not require the subject access as a recommendation of the • • • Special Subdivision Committee Meeting January 20, 1994 Page 3 staff. In response to a request from Mr. Conklin, Mr. Johnson stated he agreed to a 40 foot right-of-way street, sidewalk and required improvements to the subject street from the end of Dockery Lane to the site - adding he would prefer double chip -and -seal but would agree to 6 and 2 asphalt as required by Mr. Bunn in lieu of a Bill of Assurance. He explained the sidewalk would extend 650 from the end of Dockery Lane to the north property line. Mr. Bunn remarked an easement for the sidewalk could be granted to insure the developer's liability would not exceed liability for a sidewalk constructed in public right-of-way. He stated the developer would still responsible for the maintenance of the sidewalk - adding the easement would be exclusively for a sidewalk. Mr. Pummill confirmed the Subdivision Committee could recommend the Planning Commission accept the sidewalk easement. There was a discussion to determine the width of the necessary sidewalk easement. Mr. Reynolds expressed concern that an easement be provided for future development to the northeast and northwest of the site. Mr. Allred remarked if the Planning Commission chose not to require the subject access, potential development to the east would not be limited. Mr. Conklin confirmed the item would be removed from the consent agenda. Mr. Bunn pointed out one of the staff comments would be a request that the subject access to the east be required. MOTION Mr. Pummill moved to forward the plat to the Planning Commission with the Subdivision Committee recommendation that the Commission accept the plat with the 24 foot wide, 240 foot long portion of the subject street be improved to meet city standards without curb and guttering, the sidewalk easement, and 40 foot of right- of-way subject to staff comments. Mr. Reynolds seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 5:10 a.m.