Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-07-30 - Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on July 30, 1998, at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building located at 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS REVIEWED: ACTION TAKEN LS 98-26.00: LOT SPLIT (JOHN & MARY MILLER) FP 98-3.00: FINAL PLAT (SEQUOYAH PRESERVE) FP 98-2.00: FINAL PLAT (STONEBRIDGE MEADOWS I) Approved/No further action Approved/No further action Removed from Agenda by applicant MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Reynolds, Chairman, John Forney, and Lorel Hoffman STAFF PRESENT: Dawn Warrick, Chuck Rutherford, Beth Sandeen, and Debra Humphrey LS 98-26.00: LOT SPLIT (JOHN & MARY MILLER), COUNTY AT 5675 AND 5677 DOT TIPTON ROAD This item was submitted by John and Mary Miller for property located in the County at 5675 and 5677 Dot Tipton Road. The property contains approximately 3.50 acres. The lot split will create two tracts each containing approximately 1 76 acres more or less. This is the second lot split request. John and Mary Miller appeared before the Subdivision Committee meeting. STAFF COMMENTS: Revisions were made as requested at the Plat Review Meeting with the exception for a couple of utility easements. The utility representatives requested easements surrounding the property in order to provide service and will need to be added before filing of record. Miller: There is already an utility easement on the property and there was no other utility easement required. Warrick: Mr. Miller was referring to the utility easement along the County Road 639 which there is an existing 15' utility easement. Other than this requirement, staff request the plat review comments be made a part of the conditions of approval. Hoffman: She inquired if this property was split from another parcel. Miller: He stated the county had requested they go through the Fayetteville City Planning because his property is located in the City's growth area. The County Planning Commission has already approved the split of their 3 acres. Reynolds: He inquired if the County had limited the amount of trailers to be placed on the parcels. Miller: He stated they limited one trailer per each 1.75 acres. He stated they would propose to put in two double -wide mobile homes which would not be considered trailers. Reynolds: He stated double -wide mobile homes would not be considered a trailer once the axles were removed and put on blocks. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting July 30, 1998 Page -2 - PUBLIC COMMENT& Paul Johnson, 5516 Dot Tipton Road, appeared before the committee. He introduced a petition which had been signed by the neighbors. There are several concerns. 1) Depreciation of the surrounding property up to 30%. 2) Whenever you set up a trailer park of this type, there would be an increase in trouble with tenants. His concern is that Mr. and Ms. Miller will be traveling and would not be concerned about the upkeep and control of the area. Mr. Miller had made this statement to the County Planning Board. At the present time, Mr. Miller has 3 trailers on the property consisting of one old trailer, one double -wide and another trailer. None of the trailers were approved by the County. Also, the County is still discussing whether a double -wide is considered a mobile home. According to his understanding anything that is hooked up and can be moved again is considered a mobile home. They would be making this determination later on this month. They request the Subdivision Committee deny the lot split request. Bill Jowers, 452 North 46th Avenue, appeared before the committee. He stated he was not aware the County had approved a lot split and requested some proof to this effect. Warrick: She referred to a letter dated June 5, 1998, concerning preliminary plat approval from Ms. Sarah Riley, County Planner. This grants preliminary plat approval subject to conditions. The City does not accept any applications in the growth area until they have received County approval. Reynolds: He stated this has been approved by the County. The applicants live in the City's growth area and if the lots meet the criteria of the City, there is nothing to prevent a lot split approval. Jowers: He stated he was not aware the lot split was approved because he attended the meeting. The Quorom Court had discussed installing streets and there was not a representative of the Planning Board at the meeting. To his knowledge, it was not approved at this meeting. One of the quorum court members told Mr. Miller to see him after the meeting and he would give him the criteria in order to meet the approval of the lot split. Hoffman: She stated if the citizens were looking for a county appeal process they would need to go back before the County Planning Board. She inquired if the lot split was approved contingent on the septic tanks perking. Warrick: She stated the applicant had informed the Plat Review members that the county health department had approved the proposed septic systems. Miller: He stated one of the neighbors lives one mile away. They complained about the trailers and so the County came out and told him that he would need to apply for a lm split. He noted there was more trailers in this location than houses and did not understand how this could depreciate their property value. Since there were already house trailers in this area he went through the Subdivision Committee Meeting Judy 30, 1998 Page -3 - process. He said this would not be considered a trailer park because there would almost a 3/4 acre with each trailer. He stated he could put in 30 trailers if he wanted, but he does not propose to do so. lowers: If the county approves this, why should the City have to approve the lot split process if they do not have the jurisdiction to deny the request. Reynolds: He stated this property was in the City's growth area and has to be heard by the commission. He stated the only thing the City could address for the lot split was the configuration of the property. If the citizens wanted to stop the use of the property, this should be at the County level. Warrick: She stated the jurisdiction the City has in the growth area is for the configuration of the land area and not the land usage because there are no zoning requirements in the County. The committee has to determine whether the lot configuration is appropriate, whether utilities are accessible, and whether or not it is a good subdivision of land. Forney: He stated it seemed a little strange to him to see a County project with an actual development proposal. Warrick: She stated the applicant presented more information than requested for the lot split approval. Forney: Warrick: Jowers: He reviewed the July 15, 1998, Plat Review Minutes which noted there was not yet county approval at this time. She noted they do have the preliminary County approval and the final approval has not been approved. This lot split cannot be filed until it has been through our process and until the conditions of this approval have been met. He stated at the last County meeting they would not pass anything at that time and it would be tabled to the July meeting. Mr. Miller had told the County Planning Commission he would be out of town and this was postponed to the August meeting. At the August meeting the County would approve the final lot split request. The Health Department and Sarah Riley were to review this request and information by Mr. Miller as to what he would be proposing prior to going back before the County Planning Commission for the final approval. Miller: He stated nothing has been approved regarding the trailers, but the lot split had been approved. Reynolds: He inquired how many double -wide trailers would be placed per parcel. Miller: He stated he had one double -wide, one single -wide, and another older trailer which has been on the property for ten years Once the tenant of the older trailer moves, he would remove this trailer and move in a double -wide. This would give almost one acre for each trailer. Hoffman: She stated the City's concern would not want to annex a trailer park in the future. Therefore, the committee wants to ensure they have met the lot configuration and would not be in support of substandard growth. She inquired if there would be anything to limit the amount of trailers they would be putting on this parcel. Subdivision Committee Meeting July 30, 1998 Page -4 - Warrick: She stated the City does not have the jurisdiction requiring the land use. The County would have to require any limitations on the trailers. Forney: He wanted to clarify the preliminary approval at County level has been approved and wanted to ensure that the perk tests have been done for the density proposed. Warrick: She noted the requirement had been met. Hoffman: She stated the commission is bound to approve a project based on whether it complies with the ordinances. She noted to the citizens that they do have an appeal process to the County Planning Board. Commissioner Forney moved to approve LS 98-26.00. Commissioner Hoffman seconded said motion. This item was approved on a vote of 3-0-0. This item is approved at this level. Hoffman: She inquired if the County did turn down the lot split at final approval, would the City be notified. Warrick: She noted the Circuit Clerk is not supposed to file these documents until our approval and the County Planning Board approval has been stamped on the documents. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting July 30, 1998 Page -5 - FP 98-3.00; FINAL PLAT (SEOUOYAH PRESERVE. P.U.D.) EAST OF RODGERS DRIVE AND WEST OF HAPPY HOLLOW ROAD This item was submitted by Dan Coody for property located east of Rodgers Drive and west of Happy Hollow Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 7 17 acres with II lots proposed. Dan Coody and Deborah Coody appeared before the commission. STAFF COMMENTS: This is a Planned Unit Development and provided a greenspace map for review. There are parks fees associated with this project in the amount of $3,300 prior to sign off on the final plat. Any items required by Engineering would need to be met prior to sign off on the final plat. Coody: He stated there were some punch list items still pending, but they were working on this. Rutherford: In the minutes of the preliminary plat he referred to Item No. 4 "construction of a trail in lieu of a sidewalk". He referred to the plat under Lot 1 which shows a park bench area with a sidewalk that would run to the street in front of Lot 1. He just wanted the commission to make sure this satisfied the original intent of their requirements. Hoffman: She stated she drove out at this site and there are trails that do run through the property. Coody: He stated when this project began, Ms. Little was asked if they would be required to put in sidewalks. She had stated no, since this was a private development with a private street, they would not be required to have sidewalks. He stated since then they were required to put in paths in lieu of sidewalks. As they built, they noticed they had a scenic overlook in part of the greenspace. Therefore, they built the sitting area at this overlook site which would be amenable to the development. He noted the Fayetteville Bicycle Club uses the pasture which comes up through the bottom of their property and ties into the road and goes to Mt. Sequoyah Assembly with 70 acres with trails They would allow them to continue to use the trail through Lot 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Richard Covey, who lives off the development, addressed the committee. He wanted to know what would be a good street marker for emergency vehicles, meter readers, and post office since their mailbox is out on Rodgers Drive. Coody: He stated they have covenants for mailbox design and they have discussed this with the Coveys. The covenants allow for mailboxes with a uniform design. Once the mailboxes are designed and installed then the numbers would be able to be put on the mailboxes. The post office put the mailbox at the end of Rodgers until the mailboxes were installed. There was some discussion of a 4x4 post at the corner of the driveway. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting July 30, 1998 Page -6 - Forney: He stated if the mailbox could be moved once the other mailboxes are installed, this could alleviate this problem. Covey: He stated when the meter readers came they read the wrong meter and could not find his meter. Warrick: Forney: Reynolds: Coody: Hoffman: Coody: Sandeen: Covey: Coody: She suggested that Mr. Covey work with Mr. Coody regarding the design of the post and then get approval through Jim Johnson (911 Coordinator). He inquired about the access easement. It was noted the access easement was also to the Tucker property. He inquired when the Coody's had begun this project. He stated they began in 1996. He also noted that people had been out to see the development. She stated she thought the development was very nicely developed and hoped that they could preserve the trees once they start building. He stated they were trying to preserve the trees currently there and had brought in trees to be planted. His hope is that other people can see this and know that something nice could be done. She noted this was an exceptional subdivision with regard to trees. The best so far since she had been hired. He inquired about what kind of concrete monuments would be installed. He stated they started digging these out yesterday and has been working with Jim Petty. He would be putting in a piece of 4" PVC and filling it with concrete. Commissioner Hoffman moved to approve FP 98-3.00. Commissioner Forney seconded said motion. Upon roll call the motion was approved on a vote of 3-0-0. This project was approved at this level subject to staff comments. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting July 30, 1998 Page -7 - FP 98-2.00: FINAL PLAT (STONEBRIDGE MEADOWS. PHASE 1) SOUTH OF HWY 16 E AND WEST OF ROBERTS ROAD This item was submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Meadows Enterprises for property located south of Hwy 16E and west of Roberts Road. The property is zoned R -I, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 37.97 acres with 78 lots proposed. The preliminary plat for this subdivision (pp 96.9.00) was approved by Planning Commission 1/27/97. This item was removed from the agenda.