Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-01-20 - MinutesMINUTES OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A meeting of the Subdivision Committee of the Fayetteville P lanning Commission was held on Friday, January 20, 1984 at 1:30 p.m. at the Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce. Members Present: Members Absent: O thers Present: Barbara Crook & Melanie Stockdell. None. Clayton Powell, Lenwyn Edens, Harry Gray, Jimmy Hill, Mel Millholland, Wade Bishop, Bobbie Jones, Sue Madison, Fred Hanna and Jeanette Crumpler The meeting was called to order by Chairman Barbara Crook. The first item on the agenda was the MINUTES minutes of the January 6, 1984 Subdivision Committee meeting. With no additions or corrections, the minutes were approved as mailed. The order of business was changed OTHER BUSINESS in order to proceed with the comments of Street Superintendent, Clayton Powell in the matter of the Large Scale Development of Lenwyn Edens, located at Sycamore and Chestnut. Mr. Edens wished to discuss the drainage easement which had been required of Mr. Edens for approval of this Large Scale Development. Chairman Crook asked Superintendent Powell to advise of his concerns with this matter. Powell advised that it was generally the responsibility of the Street Department for Drainage and other problems of this nature. Powell advised that this particular plat which is being dealt with, Parker's P lat of Valley View Acres, an old plat, which no improvements were ever made upon. Then a developer came along and wished to use the existing platted lots, but wanted to developed the dedicated street rights-of-way and make the improvements to rezone it as an Industrial Park, same of which was granted. However, other promises were made in regards to development and construction to be done in a Phase II which was never. completed. Powell advised there is now a situation on Lot 7, Block 11 where the drainage has been diverted due to the development of other lots to the east, and at this point, something has to be done about the drainage. Powell advised that the Street Department does not have the capability of going out on private property and maintaining natural drainage ditches or correcting drainage problems that people have created for themselves. The policy if you are going to dedicate a drainage easement, would be that it must be improved before it can be maintained, and Powell advised that he could not maintain one unless it was at least 25' wide to get equipment into. Powell advised that future problems to be faced in a situation like this is, if there is a dedicated easement and no improvements made, the first thing that the property owner will do when the lot and house are sold would be to fill it for mowing; thus, the drainage would be backed 5 • • PAGE TWO SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING JANUARY 20, 1984 up on the neighbor. Powell stated if the dedication of this easement was required without any improvements, the Street Department would then have to try to improve this private property, Powell suggested that possibly the Subdivision Committee could require the dedication of the easement with the understanding that it is not eligible for any public maintenance, but if the property owners, at a later date, wished to form a drainage improvement district to correct the drainage uniformly among themselves with everybody sharing in the responsibility, then this could be accomplished. Crook explained that this all came up with regard to a specific City lot and the Subdivision Committee made the recommendation which was then approved by the Planning Commission just to require dedication of a drainage easement at the rear portion of the lot thinking that they were reserving the possibility of something better for the future by at least getting the easement;;the dimensions, etc., being designed to satisfy the Street Superintendent. Therefore, this particular situation still needs to be handled. Crook asked, for future information, would Powell rather not have a drainage easement than to have one that is unimproved, or possibly should the Commision require initially, with either approval of a large scale development or subdivision, that drainage not be allowed through ditches. Powell advised if the Commission was going to require a drainage easement and it is not improved to carry the volume of drainage that it will need to carry, make the stipulation that it is not eligible for public maintenance, that the easement is still private property, and it will be the responsibility of the property owner to maintain it. Crook requested to know, if the situation were to be described in this manner, would Powell wish to have the easement. Powell advised that he would really rather not have the easement at all because if it is dedicated, there is always the problem of subsequent owners that are not told specifically that the easement is not to be maintained by the City. Crook advised that this matter should be taken back to the Planning Commission with the recommendation that the requirement for the drainage easement be stricken from the Large Scale Development requirement; or keep the drainage easement, but stipulate one of the conditions for approval of the Large Scale Development would be that it be maintained by the owner. Crook stated this could possibly be worded in a manner so as to say that Edens would not impede the drainage along the existing drainage ditch either by allowing growth to take place in the ditch or building anything across it; or The Commission could require that a concrete -lined, or storm drainage ditch, etc. be placed. Crook requested to know if Mr. Edens had any comments. Edens advised even if he were to improve the ditch placing Vor=ethe ditch, etc. there would be nothing 4 A • PAGE THREE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING JANUARY 20, 1984 to say that when Sterling Anders improved his ditch area, he would connect with Mr. Edens' improvements. Therefore, this could cause more of a problem. He also said if he concrete -lined the ditch on his property and the water from the East went around the concrete lining and cut into the property to the North, he could be held liable for damages to the property to the North. 'Harry Gray interjected that concrete ditches were not always the best; that at times, a heavy grass would be beneficial in slowing water flow. Gray stated that i'b the ca^e of a heavy grass ditch, if this .were to be removed, flooding problems would be created. Stockdell then moved that the easement MOTION be required as previously stated by the Planning Commission, with the proviso that this easement be maintained by the property owner. Motion seconded by Barbara Crook. Motion passed 2-0. Crook advised that this matter will go before the Planning Commission on Monday, January 23, 1984 at 5:00 p.m. Chairman Crook then advised that there was another very short item and requested that this matter be heard prior to the matter of the Yorktown Subdivision. Mr. Bishop advised this would be fine. An additional item to be heard PRELIMINARY PLAT was the matter of the Preliminary WASHINGTON MOUNTAIN Plat of Washington Mountain Estates. PUD Mr. Jimmy Hill was present to represent this request. Crook requested that Mr. Hill advise what will be asked of the Planning Commission. Hill advised that he would be asking for continuance of a Preliminary Plat approval. Hill stated that he was aware that the approval would only stand for a year at a time. Hill stated that they would not be asking to change anything, except to ask for a year's extension. The reason for this is that they are still in court with the FAA over the tower and stated they do now have a definite court date in March. Crook asked if this was the same reason for the previous extension. Hill advised that this was correct. He advised that they knew they would need to replat, but would not know how this could be done until it is known what the determination with the FAA will be. Stockdell moved that recommendation MOTION be made to the Planning Commission to grant an extension for an additional year. Motion seconded by Barbara Crook. Motion passed 2-0. The next item on the agenda was the Preliminary Plat of Yorktown PRELIMINARY PLAT YORKTOWN SQUARE WADE BISHOP 7 • • PAGE FOUR SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING JANUARY 20, 1984 Square, located on the north side of Stubblefield Road east of Summerhill Subdivision, developer Wade and Peggy Bishop, Engineer Mel Milholland. Crook stated that according to the Plat Review Comments, there were many waivers, etc. being requested. She stated this Committee would go through the plat review comments and pick up issues that were brought up to see if there was any problem with them. Crook advised that Clayton Powell had made many comments about the street specifications and at that point, made note of Mr. Bishop's letter wishing not to be bound by future changes to the City Maintenance Program. Bishop advised that this ordinance has not come about, but requested that this not be made retro- active on him. Jones advised there were other changes as well, and did not know how they would effect Mr. Bishop. Milholland requested to know what other changes would be addressed. Jones advised that the only other thing which she could half way address, and wished tostress that this was just half way address, would be the possibility of requiring french drains on the upslope side in hilly terrains. They would like to adapt the street standards to the terrain in lieu of ,lust having a set of street standards for the entire City of Fayetteville. Crook clarified that what Mr. Bishop's letter would be requesting is to be under the ordinance which was in effect at the time the preliminary plat was filed. Crook addressed the off-site improvements reiterating the Street Superintendent's requirements that it would be necessary for the full length of the subdivision abutting Stubblefield Road to be storm drained, designed and engineered to drain to the east where there is an outlet. Milholland advised there would be no problem. With regard to Stubblefield being widened back from the center- line of the right-of-way 151 feet to the back of the curb; Milholland stated there would be no problem. Crook then addressed the street now proposed as Cambridge asking if this was_now Manchester. Milholland advised this would be constructed in Phase II. Milholland then stated that he would like to include the entire 25' utility easement within the boundary of Phase I. Jones advised that what has usually been done is put the easement along the lot line and do a separate description for that portion of easement outside the subdivision and record as a separate instrument but show it on the plat and put a note that it was dedicated and show the book and page in which it was recorded. Milholland asked if there was any complication in doing this in this manner. Jones advised that she would prefer, a metes and bounds description. Crook asked if • • • PAGE FIVE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING JANUARY 20, 1984 Mr. Milholland could change the boundary between Phases 1 and 2 so that instead of coming behind lots 3, 4, 5 and 6 all the way to the southside of Manchester Drive, that it come to the northside o f Manchester and turn east for the boundary with this dedication o f the street stub being made within Phase I with the note that this would be constructed in Phase II. Jones advised that she had also thought of cutting out•the triangular piece of Manchester Drive. Crook stated it was her feeling that this should be dedicated with Phase I, describing the boundary along the north side of Manchester, that when Phase II is developed, it will be built to City Street Standards as existing during construction of Phase I in 1984. Crook addressed the drainage easement on the northwest corner, advising that Powell stated he wouldlike for the drainage easement to go all the way to the rear property line. Milholland stated he did not understand Powell to request this. Crook reiterated that what she thought Powell was requesting was that the easement go all the way back to the back of the lot line between Lots 25 and 26, Block 1 all the way to the west edge and then to go all the way to the north edge of the property. However, this would need to be worked out with Powell. Bishop added that Powell had commented that he had not visited the site and was not aware o f the natural drainage in the location. Milholland and Bishop advised that they would be happy to satisfy Mr. Powell's wishes upon Powell's visit to the site. Crook addressed the street light requests of Assistant City Manager, David McWethy, except the possibility of a street light at the east end of Manchester Drive. Milholland stated he had discussed this with McWethy and received his approval. Crook advised this would leave 250' from the light at the street intersection to the subdivision edge with the requirement being every 300'. Jones stated that she had informed Milholland that the Planning Commission might feel that a stmt light should be there because there was about a 250' spacing. Crook read Perry Franklin's comments with regard to the fact that there was only one way out of the subdivision and questioned the possibility of providing for connection to Masonic Drive which had also occurred to her, advising there is not currently a street easement to the boundary. Crook stated that her own personal feeling is that it would still be a good idea to have the''connection through there. She advised if the Commission decided to ask for this, they would be asking for a dedication which would be difficult to enforce. Crook stated that if there were to be a dedication off of the Summerhill property, it would probably have to be across Lot 8, Summerhill Addition. Crook addressed the tandem lot situation and stated the only way that a tandem lot could be justified is by saying that the topography makes any other arrangement impossible. Crook stated she did not see where this was the case, and the property 1 • • PAGE SIX SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING JANUARY 20, 1984 could be used without a tandem lot. Crook stated that she was not bound by the current layout as submitted, but is bound by the Fayetteville City Code, that being Article 7, Section 22, and stated that in conjunction with this ordinance, the tandem lot would not be necessary. Crook explained that this tandem lot would be a request for conditional use and advised Bishop that he would need a request for conditional use. Bishop and Milholland advised that they were not aware that this conditional use request had to be filed. Jones advised that if the Planning Commission denies the Conditional Use.of the tandem lot, the appeal would be DeNovo to Circuit Court. Jones stated that this conditional use should be heard at the Planning Commission meeting on the 23rd if Mr. Bishop files a request due to the fact that it is completely internal to the subdivision and there are no immediate property owners to notify. Jones stated, however, that Mr. Bishop must supply notification to the porperty owners around the subdivision. Jones advised that proof that this has been done must be submitted to the Planning Office by the Planning Commission meeting, or approval would have to be tabled. Milholland advised that Ozark Electric had advised that they would move their poles to the east and allow a 25' easement down the east side of the subdivision. Stockdell requested confirmation of this be submitted in writing from Ozarks Electric. Crook addressed the request for waiver of block length. This waiver request was withdrawn after discussion of interpretation, with Crook feeling like the lots met the requirements. Crook addressed the offset between the centerlines of Loxley Avenue and the entrance. Powell had stated that he did not have a problem with a__90' offset. Crook stated she did have a problem with it and thought most of the Planning Commission will also. Crook stated that the Planning Commission has tried to stay with the 150' requirement between centerlines instead of having the small jog. Crook stated that the only other thing which needed to be addressed was lot frontages naming Lot 22, Block 1 and Lot 2, Block 4. Crook stated that by bending the lot line between 2 and 3, this could be met. Milholland advised they could take care of Lot 2 without any problem. Crook requested to know if Milholland could take care of Lot 22, Block 1. Milholland stated he could take care of this as well, being 56' at the street right-of-way. Jones stated she would ask for a statement where the setback lines will be on these specific lots. Jones advised that she has had occasions where people have requested 10 re PAGE SEVEN SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING JANUARY 20, 1984 that the setback line be moved beyond 25', and the only way she would accept this would be if the Board of Adjustment grants a variance on the lot width upon condition of the increased setbacks. Otherwise, Jones advised that if a 30' setback were to be made, this would be up to the developer to enforce as this would be considered a covenant. Melanie Stockdell then moved approval o f the Yorktown Subdivision, subject to the Plat Review Comments and; MOTION a) That the drainage will be worked out to the satisfaction o f the Street Superintendent. b) That there will be a street light at the east end of Manchester Drive; Waiver of street light spacing as shown otherwise. c) That the tandem lot request be subject to the approval of conditional use and waiver of tandem lot requirements by the Planning Commission; d) That the minimum block lengths not be waived due to un - necessity. e) That Phase I boundary be located along the north boundary o f Manchester Drive with note that it will be built to the Standards applicable at the time of building; and f) That the waiver of the offset between centerlines of Loxley Avenue and the entrance be subject to approval.by.the Planning Commission; that the jog distance between Loxley and the proposed entrance along Stubblefield Road be at least 150'. Motion seconded by Barbara Crook. Motion passed 2-0. Jones requested that Mr. Bishop pick out some street names which w ill not conflict with any currently in effect. Meeting adjourned at 3:15 p.m. 11