HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-06-28 Minutes0
MINUTES OF A PIAT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
The Fayetteville Plat Review Committee met at 3:30 P.M., Wednesday,
�June'28, 1972, in the Directors Room, City Administration Building,
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
12.1'
Present: Clayton Powell, Donald Grimes, David McWethy, Lonnie Farrar
(Fire Department), Paul Mattke,
Utility Representatives: Herbert Holcomb, John Carlon (telephone),
Clyde Terry.
Developers and/or Engineers: J. E. McClelland, Helen Edmiston, Thomas
McNair, Marion Johnson.
The matter for review at this meeting was the Preliminary Plat of
a proposed subdivision to be known as Strawberry Hill, J. E. McClelland,
Engineer, and Developers, Helen Edmiston, Thomas McNair, and Marion
Johnson were present to represent the proposed subdivision. Comments STRAWBERRY HILL
and requirements were as follows: Preliminary Plat
1. Clayton Powell: Currently have 60 ft. of ROW on Old Wire
Road; if it is shown as an arterial street on the Major
Street Plan, we need 80 ft. (Planning Office note: Major
Street Plan shows this portion of Old Wire Road as a minor
street.) No record of any dedication on Oak Bailey Lane;
we need 50 ft. of ROW to construct a City street. If they
can find a dedication it could be left open and maintained
by City as a graveled street as it is now; otherwise, it
should be dedicated and brought up to standard. No record
of a street dedication on other street either. Fifty ft.
radius fine on cul-de-sac, but make paving radius 35 £t.
Construct streets to current City street standards.
The developers indicated some interest has been expressed
by the adjacent property owners to improve the existing
roadways with curb and gutter. They might be willing to
participate in the cost.
2. Herbert Holcomb: There was a 30 ft. roadway up to Mr. Bailey
at one time. He allowed SWEPCO to set a pole line 10 ft.
off the road.
SWEPCO has an existing overhead line approximately to the
Southwest corner of the subdivision. We would have to continue
that line on up and must be guaranteed a right-of-way on it.
We will need continuous easement all the way on the outside
perimeter. They do not have it on Lots 14, 15, 16, and Lot 1
of Block 1. To facilitate the underground electrical service
we would need an easement along the West side of Lot 9, Block 2,
and between Lots 1 and 5. Have to have easement from the
intersections of Lots 1, 5, 9, can go between Lots 5 and 9. .
Must depend on 15 ft. easement between Cox and Dean as being
dedicated. In Block 4, need to have a 15 ft, utility easement
between Lots 10 and 11 and 12, 13, 14, and 15. Also between
Lots 4 and 7 and '5 andc6-and between Lots 14 and 15 of Block 1.
Need easement between Lots 1:in=Block 4 and Lot 2 in Block 3 out
CI
,*
16-28-72 _2_
�C2z
to the street and between Lots 8 and 9 of Block 1 to the
rear property line.
behind Lots 1, 2, and
This will give a chan
to the cul-de-sac for
Need 10 ft. easements
between Lots 5 and 8
When building permits
Need rear lot easement for Block 4
3 (between those three lots and Lot 8)
ce to get out between Lots 3 and 8
a street light.
between Lots 6 and 7, Block 3 and
in Block 2.
are issued all driveways
located off the easements. Problems arise if
located over
Would like t
underground electrical service.
should be
driveways are
o
reservelthe right to designate the width of
these easements on the final plat at the convenience of the owner.
3. Clyde Terry & John Carlon: Both would like to have a 10 ft*
easement on the South side of Lot 2, Block 2, and Lot 1, Block 1.
Also, on Lot 9, Block 2 on the South edge to back up with
easement already shown a 10 ft. easement. Also in Block 3,
a 15 ft. wide easement all the way across the South side
of Lots 7 and 8.
4. Lonnie Farrar: Did not see anything to give the Fire Department
any trouble.
5. Donald Grimes: Suggested relocation of rear lot lines in
Block 4 between Lots 1 and 2 and Lot 8.
6. Paul Mattke: Suggested moving the hydrant protecting Block 4
to the East edge of Block 4 and the hydrant protecting Block 2
to the West edge of Block 2. Check Lot 5 of Block 2; don't
think it will be able to sewer as presently drawn. Lot 9,
Block 2 appears landlocked; suggest clearing up road dedications.
Suggest sewer be extended across the South edge of Lot 9,
Block 2 to provide sewer service for Boyd's property.
Suggest that sewer be extended through the saddle to serve
Lots 5, 6, 7, 81 9, 10, and 11 of Block 1. There is a
possibility that by running midway through the lots with
a sewer line they can serve these lots and not get too
excessive a cut where they have to come through. This is
probably the only way those lots could be reasonably severed.
7. Harold Lieberena: (not present, but had submitted comments.)
Does Lot 9, Block 2 have frontage on a road? Does subdivision
go all the way to Oak Bailey 15ane; a gap is shown on the plat.
Mr. McClelland said they would probably have to put Oak Bailey
into the subdivision and get Mr. Bailey to sign for it.
Mr. Lieberens noted there were no utility easements shown on
the rear of Lots 2 and 3. Block 4; Nor on Lots 516, 12, 130
14 and 15, Block 4; Lots 7 and 8, Block 3; Lots 9 and 1.
Block 2. Adjoining property owners signatures are needed.
8. Larry Wood: (not present but submitted comments.) On Oak
Bailey Lane need at least 25 ft. of dedication from the
centerline. On the unnamed street to Old Wire Road, Lot 11
Block 2 should have 25 ft. dedicated for a street,
6-28-72 -3-
123. )\
Mr. Lieberenz also asked about perc, tests for lots requiring septic tanks.
Mr. McClelland said they were excellent. Mr. McClelland also said they
have eliminated one lot in Block 3 on the Southwest side of the cul-
de-sac. Herbert Holcomb requested that all utility easements be clearly
marked utility easements on the plat.
Marion Johnson requested that the Planning Office contact Mr. Boyd
and advise him how to get the unnamed street dedicated. He said he
thought it was still on Mr. Boyd's taxes.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 P.M.
0