Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-01-06 - MinutesMINUTES OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ' A meeting of the Subdivision Committeeofthe Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on. Friday,.. January 6, 1984 at 9:00 a.m. at the Chamber of Commerce. MEMBERS PRESENT: Barbara Crook and Melanie Stockdell. MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OTHERS PRESENT: Bobbie Jones,. Jeanette Crumpler The meeting was called to order' by Chairman Crook. The first item on the agenda was the minutes of the meeting of December 9, 1983. With no additions or corrections, the minutes were approved as mailed. MINUTES LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT The second item of business for. review LENWYN EDENS by the Subdivision Committee was the SYCAMORE AND CHESTNUT approval of the Large Scale' Development of restaurant and laundry for Lenwyn Edens, located at the NE corner of Chestnut and Sycamore --Lot 7, Block 11, Parker's Plat of Valley View Acres. Zoned as I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial. There was no one present to represent the proposal. Crook stated that this matter could not be approved at this meeting, but could only make a recommendation to the Planning Commission. However, if everything is in order, they can recommend approval. Crook stated that according to the Plat Review Minutes, there are some questions, one being the need for a variance of the west driveway safety zone on Sycamore being less than is required by code; another being that of a question of drainage which has not been answered on the plat. Crook stated that Bobbie Jones had advised that the drainage was to be to the. NW corner, and Crook stated she would raise the question for need of some type of a drainage easement or agreement to maintain the drainage for the entire neighborhood. Crook stated that the major questions are all related to Chest- nut Avenue and whether Chestnut Avenue should be improved before development is allowed as per Clayton Powell's recommendations, or whether a Bill of Assurance or Cash Bond from the owner would be acceptable for his proportionate share. Stockdell questioned the opinion of the cash bond or the Bill of Assurance being carried with the property in the event of a sale. Jones answered that with a cash bond, this would be posted with. the City. At the end of • • Page two Subdivision Committee January 6, 1984 five years, if the improvement has not been made, the Planning Commission would have to hold a public hearing and determine if that improvement should be made. If they feel it should still be made, but it is just not quite the right time to do it, then they would designate a time to hold it further. If they felt that the improvement should not be made now or ever, then they have the option of returning the cash bond with accumulated interest to the present owner or with the agreement of the owner, using it for some other purpose. With a Bill of Assurance, in the event of a sale, the Bill of Assurance would go with the property so that the new property owners have the same obligation as the original owner; however, a Bill of Assurance requires Board of Director's approval. Crook then requested knowledge of the sidewalk requirements of Sycamore. Jones advised she did not think a sidewalk was in, but one is required. Crook questioned the fact that there were no sidewalks in this area. Jones advised that the Board of Directors may need to be notified of this as she did believe that a Bill of Assurance was rendered by the property owner to the east of Mr. Edens, and that the Board may wish to call this Bill of Assurance. Crook then asked about vegetation in this area. Jones advised that if Chestnut were to be vacated, Edens would have a common property line with a residential zone and would have to have some planting. With Chestnut remaining an open street right-of-way, however, he does not have a common property line with any residential zone. He has residentially zoned property to the south across Sycamore and to the west across Chestnut. Crook then questioned right-of-way and wanted to know if an easement description had yet been provided. Jones advised that this had been mailed to Mr. Edens. Crook asked if the 5' right- o f-way dedication was adequate. Jones advised that this was 1/2 o f the difference required. Jones advised there wss an existing 40' right-of-way with 50 required. Crook stated it sounded as if there were two easements off the south side of the lot, one the 20' water and sewer easement and that there was another easement given at the time that Sycamore was widened which should show 10' off of each side of the property line. Jones stated that Mr. Harry Gray had discussed this matter with her and had missed this.on the earlier drawing; that he had picked up the 30' from the centerline of Sycamore for the'street easement because when improvements were made in this area, a dedication for an additional 10' on both sides of Sycamore was obtained. Jones advised there was also a water and sewer easement which was worded to be a 20' easement off the south side o f Lot 7, Block 11. Jones stated that she had discussed this matter with Mr. Gray and did not know if this would be inter- preted as being off the original line so that 10' of the 20' e s ment is actually the same as 10' of the street easement. Jones stated 2 • Page three Subdivision Committee January 6, 1984 she did not remember, however, if this was a right-of-way grant or a street easement. If it is a right-of-way grant, then it, might be shown as Mr. Gray has shown it. Crook stated that her other major concern was to insure that the drainage ditch which extends all the way down the back of the property, is maintained so that run-off from lots that are to the east cannot be blocked as apparently there is no drainage on Sycamore. Crook stated that the City needs to be sure that this is maintained, possibly by requiring a drainage easement which would satisfy the City Engineer; or, that the owner is to maintain his portion of the existing drainage ditch in a way so as to not block anyone else. Stockdell asked what enforcement there would be. Jones advised that if someone were to block the ditch and water backed up on someone else, they could take him to court. Stockdell then asked what the desire of the City would be in this case. Jones advised that this was not mentioned other than the fact that Clayton Powell told him that he would not want the water running out the driveway onto Sycamore.aCrook stated that the drainage matter could, at some point, become critical and the City needed to be sure that provisions were made for getting the water into the creek at a specific point so that streets were not torn up as the water runs across them. Stockdell stated that the only way we could assure that the drainage area is maintained is to have it maintained by the City, that the City would not have enforcement unless this were the case. Crook then asked if the City would incur legal liability if some- one were to become flooded as a result of this drainage ditch? Stockdell stated that to her, it would be preferable for the City to maintain this drainage area. However, if the City does not have the funds to do this, and would incur liability by assuming the responsibility of maintaining this drainage ditch, then the City should look at this closer. Crook then addressed the matter of the Driveway Safety Zone and stated it would be her recommendation to require the Safety Zone as per code due to the feeling that at some point, Chestnut should be developed. Stockdell then moved that the Subdivision MOTION Committee recommend approval of the Large Scale Development subject to Plat Review Comments; additionally and specifically that the:safety zone between the west drive and the right-of-way of Chestnut Avenue be increased so that it meets the City Requirements, because it is the feeling of the Subdivision Committee, that at some future date, Chestnut Avenue should be developed and opened; that we receive a Bill or Assurance from the owner for sidewalk located at Sycamore Street with same being shown on the plat; that we 3 • • • • Page four Subdivision Committee January 6, 1984 receive a Bill of Assurance for the owner's proportionate share of the improvement of Chestnut Avenue; that we secure.a drainage easement off of the north property line, the width of such drainage easement to be determined with the City Engineer, purpose being that the ditch shall be maintained so as not to impede run-off from lots to the east; and in lieu of bumper blocks, that curb be provided on the west and north boundaries of the parking area in order to prevent vehicular traffic trying to access Sycamore Street via the north approach. An opening will be needed in this curb to allow surface water to drain to the NW corner of the lot. Meeting adjourned at 10:20.