Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-03-09 - Minutes• • MINUTES OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Subdivision Committee of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Friday, March 9, 1984 at 1:30 at the Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Barbara Crook, Sue Madison and Stan Green. Melanie Stockdell. Robert Whitfield, Earl Ogden, Jr., Harry Gray & Dennis Becker. Chairman Barbara Crook called the meeting to order. Chairman Crook announced that the first order of business was to introduce two new members of the Subdivision Committee, Sue Madison and Stan Green. MINUTES: The first item on the agenda was the approval of the minutes of the Subdivision Committee of February 24, 1984. Due to the fact that there was no one present that took part in the meeting of February 24, 1984, Crook requested that this matter be tabled until the next Subdivision Committee meeting. OAKLAND TOWNHOUSE II 1370 NORTH OAKLAND AVENUE ROBERT G. WHITFIELD, INC.—OWNER/DEVELOPER The second item on the agenda was the approval of the Concurrent Plat for Oakland Townhouse II, located at 1370 North Oakland Avenue. Robert G. Whitfield, Inc., -- owner and developer. Property zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Mr. Robert Whitfield was present to represent this matter. Crook requested to know if Mr. Whitfield had any problems in complying with any of the Plat Review Comments. Whitfield stated that all seemed to be in order. Crook stated that the changes do appear on the revised plat and stated she had some questions about the drainage. Crook advised that Clayton Powell had asked for a drop inlet. Crook stated that she noted on the parking lot to the north, there is a drop inlet. Whitfield advised that the tiles are entered into at an angle to allow better drainage flow. Madison requested to know what would be the status of the large trees at this location. Whitfield advised that a new technique is being implemented for the trees which have been saved, and are placing 7" rock around the base. Whitfield stated they would pour rock around the foundation and then spread chat. This should allow the tree to breath. 28 • • • SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING PAGE 2 MARCH 9, 1984 Crook clarified for the benefit of the new members that for a plat to be considered a concurrent plat, there should be no right-of-way dedications required, etc. However, Crook stated she felt that the adjustments needed for this Oakland Townhouse II plat were minor enough that there should be no problem. MOTION: Madison moved approval of the Concurrent Plat of Oakland Townhouse II, subject to Plat Review Comments. Motion seconded by Stan Green. Motion passed 3-0. Crook also requested to know if Mr. Whitfield had been made aware of the Green Space Ordinance, and advised that this had not been noted on the plat. Whitfield advised he had been informed of this matter and would take care of it. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT 2334 CATO SPRINGS ROAD EARL OGDEN, JR.,--OWNER/DEVELOPER The third item on the agenda was the approval of the Large Scale Devel- opment for Earl Ogden --owner and developer, located at 2334 Cato Springs Road. Property zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Mr. Earl Ogden, Jr., Mr. Dennis Becker, and Mr. Harry Gray were present to represent this matter. Crook requested to know if Mr. Ogden had been made aware of the Green Space Ordinance. Ogden advised he was aware of this. Crook advised that the lot split would need to be taken care of first with Gray advising the the appropriate lot size had been met. Crook requested to know if a waiver was being requested on the 12-1/2' safety zone. Becker advised they would not be requesting a waiver, but instead would meet the City's requirements. Crook advised that this 12-1/2' begins at the radius. Gray advised that the State has to approve this as well, and did not think that the State would waive their require- ments. Gray advised that this developer will obtain the additional access easements as needed to meet the requirements. Becker advised that this developer would like the intersection to be a right angle intersection which would make entrance into the development easier. Crook stated that the matter of whether Treat Drive is a public or private drive would need to be clarified, but for the purposes of this meeting, would assume that it is a private drive. Crook requested to know if Ogden would be willing to supply a Bill of Assurance for the sidewalk to be built at the call of the City, stating that Jones would accept a Bill of Assurance in this area due to the fact that there were no other sidewalks in the area. 2a • • • SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING PAGE 3 MARCH 9, 1984 Crook questioned the correction of the 30' existing drive which appeared in the Plat Review Comments. Gray advised that the existing drive shown is not the existing drive, but the existing drive is, in fact, 150' north of that which is shown as existing. Crook requested that this be corrected on the plat. Crook requested to know if Gray had spoken with Don Bunn regarding the location of the sewer. Gray advised he had not, and this matter would probably be a lengthy item, and he would work with Bunn on this. Crook advised that the City Board is requesting that the Planning Commission look at drainage very carefully. Crook advised that the Planning Commission is trying to handle the collection of storm water on-site for Large Scale Developments. Crook stated that a possibility would be to collect it on-site and place tile under the existing drive, obtaining a drainage easement from the adjoining property owner. Therefore, at the time of development, the natural drainage would be to the south side of the road. Gray stated he did not feel that this developer could be responsible for getting drainage easements from adjacent property owners. Gray stated he did not feel this developer could go any farther than placing the tile across the existing drive. Crook stated that the problem is that the development would speed up the run-off. Gray advised that this developer would be accepting the legal liability in this matter. Gray stated that if the City wishes to back the developer with condemnation proceedings, then this request for a drainage easement would not be unreasonable. However, to ask the developer to obtain easements would be essentially impossible. Crook stated that the way she felt about the easement was that it would assure that the flow of water would not be blocked, thus creating a ponding situation. Gray reiterated that if the run-off were to be increased such to damage the adjoining property owner's land, this developer could be sued and vice versa. Crook cited the Red Lobster as an example stating that part of the Planning Commission's approval for this development was an easement from the adjoining property owner that the natural drainage path would not be blocked. Jones suggested an agreement between owners stating that the drainage would not be blocked. Crook stated that there must be some way to protect all parties with regard to drainage problems. Gray stated that in some areas, retention ponds are required to eliminate the possibility of drainage problems. Green stated he did not feel that development could be discouraged by requesting a developer to obtain an easement from the adjoining property owner because the adjoining property owner could either not give the easement or request an enormous amount of money for the said easement. Green stated he did agree that if the City did not have a facility to help the developers with these easements, it would not be feasible to place this request upon a developer. However, if the City did have some means to help the developer in obtaining these 30 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING PAGE 4 MARCH 9, 1984 easements, then it might be more feasible to try to obtain these ease- ments. Crook advised that it had been established that the Planning Commission can require off-site improvements to the extent of need which is created by the development with this development creating the need for off-site improvements. Crook stated that this development is increasing the drainage problem, but to what extent and how much should be borne by the developer becomes the question. Crook stated that if Treat Drive is determined to be a public street, then this developer will have the responsibility of improving his portion or provide a Bill of Assurance. Crook requested to know how this could be handled with regard to finding out if Treat Drive is a public or private drive. Jones advised she would have to research this item. Gray stated that if Treat Drive is not a public street, this developer will work with the adjacent property owners to take care of the drainage. Crook again reiterated that the plat will need to show collection of the water on-site in some manner, taking this drainage from on-site to the natural drainage path. Crook stated that the word easement needed to be added to the plat where it reads 25' utility and building setback, thus reading 25' utility easement and building setback. Jones questioned the location of the property line with Gray stating that the property line shown is 40' off of the centerline. Gray stated that the right-of-way markers are in. Gray stated he would certify this measurement. Jones stated that this measurement does not agree with her plat book. Gray stated that this developer would guarantee the City the 40', again stating that he would certify this measurement. Jones stated the City Code states that if there is not the correct amount of dedicated right-of-way as required by the master street plan, then extra dedication must be made. Jones clarified that this developer's dedication would be 40' from the center of the right-of-way. Gray stated he did not know if the road was in the center of the right- of-way, however, he did measure 40' from the center of the road. Jones stated she does usually go by the plat book which would require an additional 15' dedication of this developer. Crook requested to know if there was a way to determine this; could this information be obtained from the State Highway Department. Gray stated that he felt the City would be sued one day for requiring right-of-way dedication on a State Highway. Crook stated that the City must know that there is at least 80' of right-of-way, with this developer assuring the City that there is 40' from the centerline of the right-of-way back to the property line. Gray advised that it would be impossible to survey a platted right-of-way. 31 J SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING PAGE 5 MARCH 9, 1984 Gray advised he would check for additional right-of-way markers. MOTION Crook moved recommendation of approval of the Large Scale Development subject to Plat Review Comments; that a Bill of Assurance be entered into for construction of the sidewalk at the call of the City; that the storm drainage be handled on-site and be taken to the natural drainage path; that the right-of-way issue along Cato Springs Road be resolved, the requirement being 40' from the center of the right-of- way; that determination be made as to the status of Treat Drive (Public or Private Drive); that either a waiver be requested or the plat be corrected for the 12-1/2' driveway safety zone. Motion seconded by Stan Green. Motion passed 3-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 2:45. 32