HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-07-19 Minutes10
10
12+
MINUTES OF A PLAT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
P
The Fayetteville'Plat Review Committee met at 3:45 PoMo. Wednesday,
4uly 19, 1972, ifithe Directors Room, City Administration Building,
Fayetteville, Arkansas,
Present: Don Bunn (Water & Sewer Depto), David McWethy (Intern), Charles
McWhorter, Clayton Powell, Harold Lieberenz, City Manager Donald
Grimes, Chamber of Commerce Manager Dale Christy,
Utility Representatives Present: David Tucker, Herbert Holcomb,
Developers and/or Engineers: Kenneth Bell, Cy Carney, Jr., R. To
Rogers, Frank Pumm 11, Dayton Stratton.
The
first matter for review was
a proposed large scale
development
KENNETH BELL
plan
submitted by Kennsi-th Bell
for property on Highway
62 West. Mr.
L.S.Development
Bell
was present. Comments and
requirements were as follows:
Highway 62 West
Don Bunn: Requested a 25 ft. easement across the North
property line and down the East property lines Harold
Lieberenz asked if there is not a high pressure gas line
in front of the buildingsand reminded Mr. Bell and Mr.
Bunn of the septic tank lateral lines between the existing
building and the East property line. They did not think
the gas line would be any problem and neither did they
think the septic tank lines would if the buildings were to
be put on sever when it is available, (NOTE: Paul Mattke
was not present at this meeting. His additional comments
were received later and follow the minutes of this meeting.)
2o
David Tucker: Requested the easements Mr. Bunn asked for be
made public utility easements so all utility companies could
use them. Requested easement to continue power and telephone
lines to the West on the South side of the buildings. Mr. Bell
said he gave one when the existing building was built.
3o
1
Herbert Holcomb: Requested a single document be used to record
all the easements requested by Don Bunn and include in this
document the 15 ft. easement on the South side of the buildings,
4.
Charles McWhorter: No problem.
5.
Clayton Powell: Driveway permits seem to indicate a 60 or 70
ft. ROW for Highway 62. Need to insure we have a full So ft*
ROW for Highway 62. Driveway permits must be obtained through
the Arkansas Highway Department,
Any time you start re -channeling creeks, you have trouble. The
entire "ditch" from Highway 62 to where it connects with the
old creek bed should have a positive drop of j of I%*
2.
David Tucker: (additional comments) Expressed concern about
the amount of clearance under the telephone lines in the front.
Mr. Bell said a Jones Truck Lines truck can back under them now,
Mr. Tucker requested that it be measured because this is the
main line to Farmington. Mrs Bell said there will be no fill to
raise the ground level,
J;Z5
7-19�72
-2.
6. Harold Lieberenz: Before this reaches the Planning Commission
Mr. Bell should find out just how wide Highway 62 is. Also the
permit issued last year for the existing building showed a
setback from ROW of 65 feet. This drawing shows a setback of
only 55.55 feet. If the Highway is only 60 ft. wide, then the
setback must be at least 60 ft. Also, before leasing the
buildings to anyone, have them check with the Planning Office
for a Certificate of Occupancy,
7. David McWethy: Asked Mr. Bell what he proposed to do with all
the old car bodies on the property. Mr. Bell said he will just
move them back so the buildings will hide them. He said he has
another 5 acres or more on the next parcel of land where his
main building is,
Mr. MdWethy asked if he was ever bothered with flooding, Mr. Bell
said there was some in the recent flash flood, but he has never
had any beforee He said the size of the proposed channel change
would be about 8 ft. wide and 5 or 6 ft. deep,
The next item for review was a proposed large scalii development plan CY CARNEY, JR.
submitted by Cy Carney, Jr. Mr. Carney and R. T. Rogers were present, L.S.Development
Comments and requirements were as follows: Township Road
1. Don Bunn: No sewer available there now, but requested an
easement for a future(de"-r along the North property line, the
easement to be located off the full width to be required for
the 80 ft. street ROW proposed for Township Road,
2v David Tucker: Asked the nature of the building. It is to be
a multiple warehouse building, but not a public warehouse,
the various spaces will be for lease. Requested a 25 fte
utility easement along the East property line of the entire
parcel of property. Suggested underground utilities. If that
"road easement" shown is only for road purposes, the telephone
company would be isolated from servii� this building,
3* Clayton Powell: Gregg Avenue is in the Major Street Plan as a
collector �treet and under the TOPICS program it is proposed that
we take the jog out of Gregg and put the street all on the East
side of the railroad tracks with a full 60 ft. right of way.
Mr. Powell said he must have a confirence on this with the
City Attorney, City Manager and Board of Directors. This program
would Improve the intersection with Township Road.
Also, Township Road is already a State highway and the Major
Street Plan requires 80 ft. of ROW with only 40 ft. existing.
Requested additional 20 ft. off the North side of this property,
I
Under the TOPICS program the City pays 50% and TOPICS pays 50%.
The City is to return its comments by August 8 then another
meeting will be set to finalize it,
The 40 ft. road easement shown through the middle of the property
should either be a 50 ft, roadway improved to minimum street
standards or should not be dedicated at all,
0
0
7-19-72
40
r\
(73 �
1210
Herbert Holcomb: Proposed easement along South side of property
seems sufficient. Think can work everything else out.
5a Charles McWhorter: No comments,
6* David McWethy: No comments,
7. Harold Lieberenz: Is this on the same tract where a building
permit was issued several years ago for a donut building and
which is now being used for a tavern? It is. Is this all under
the same ownership? It is,
This will go on to the Planning Commission and they will have the
ultimate decision, They may want to defer action until the
Board of Directors acts on the TOPICS program.
Mr. Carmey asked Don Bunn if a sewer program is planned for this area.
Mr. Bunn said it is not in the budget yet. (NOTE: Paul Mattke's comments
were received at a later date and follow the minutes of this meeting.)
The final matter for review was a large scale development�planraubmitted by
R & P Electroplating for property in the Industrial Park. Di�ton Stratton,
Contractor, and Frank Pummell of R & P were present, City Manager Donald
Grimes and Chamber of Commerce ' Manager Dale Christy both arrived during the
process of this diedussion. �-Th—e:r-d-is-c—us-iic�na6ifitbk.eftprimarily around'�the
question of subdivision of this -property airi--tIve-condition and width'of the
roadway. Comments indluded the following: R & P EIECTROPIATINGG
L.S.Development
1. Clayton Powell: The City has no plans to develop any further Industrial Park
streets in the area. The access to this property is more or
less a path or lane the Water and Sewer Department has used to
get out to the pump station,
The applicant did not know of any road development requirements
for a RmAll business.
2. Don Bunn: Sufficient water and sewer easements on the property.
3. David Tucker: No telephone facilities available. Need definite
ideas of development within the park.
4. Herbert Holcomb: Have use of roadway by usage through the years,
Have a pole line down the North side of Pump Station Road, which
he thought would be adequate to serve the needs at this time;
but in view of this beginning to break up, he requested a dedication
of an easement along the West side of the property. SiEPCO is
presently building a feeder line along the East side of the new
roadway down to Tract J. Easement along the West of subject property
should be 10 ft.
5. Harold Lieberenz: City Board of Directors approved the sale of
this property on July 18, Raised the question of getting streets,
etc. to meet the subdivision requirements. Also raised the question
of whether the "lane" could be considered a public road, If not,
a building permit could not be issued. If we can assvaie�this to
be a public road, a waiver of subdivision requirements can be granted,
However, only three waivers can be granted for the entire parcel
as it was of record on July 6. 1970. In order to do a waiver for
this property, the Planning Office needs the legal description
2r(
7-19-72
.4-
of the property as of July 6, 1970. Also a determination of
of the width of the roadway is needed so the setbacks can be
figured,
64 �)Dale Christy: The Industrial Park had the understanding that
Black Oak Road and Pump Station Road would remain in their
present condition,
7. Donald Grimes: Felt the roadway could be legally considered
an existing public road by virtue of the fact that it has been
open and the public has used it for years. Mr. Grimes said he
would have McClelland Engineers prepare a legal description for
the entire Industrial Park. He would like to avoid having to
go in and build a street to minimum standards. He further
stated he would take the responsibility for the decision that
this is a public road so a waiver can be granted and the road
not have to be improved before a permit can be issued.
Both Mr. Grimes and Mr. Christy guaranteed Mr. Pummell that if something
should go wrong with this location, they would guarantee him another 2 acres
elsewhere in the park for the same price he is paying for this 2 acres.
Mra Lieberenz said that if they could go on and file a subdivision plat
dividing the Park into tracts as shown on the drawing, then they needed
to divide those tracts into smaller parcels later, he could grant a waiver
of the subdivision requirements up to three waivers for each tract so long
as every parcel retained street frontage. (Paul Mattke's comments follow.)
The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 P*M*
0
10
10
rF)
fk
P
1 010
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Bobbye Jones, Planning Administral:or
Paul W. Mattke, City Engineer
Comments for Plat Review Committee Meeting on Kenneth Bell Property
July 12-, 1972
Request a 251 water and sewer easement and a 501 temporary construction
easement across front and east of this property to be used within the
next 18-24 months as sewers are constructed in the HUD project,
Wa+er service is available for 811 water line on the south side of
Highway 62. This should be more than adequate for facilities of this
nature.
If they are going to exert an unusual water demand or sewer loading,
they need to advise us of this now along with their estimated usages so
that we may increase the water and sewer capabilities in this area,
I do not recommend the proposed channel changes. This is approximately
a 600 acre water shed and will require approximately 120 square feet
culvert opening area as it is to be tiled. Due to the steep grades,
I do not feel that these sharp bends would be advisable.
RECEIVE[)
JUL 2 4 1972
OFF)CE 0, C'TY 'Li�r'
FA"MVILL,r, M "ING
"AASAS
10
10
I
lie
TO: Bobbie Jones, Planning Administram
FROM: Paul W. Mattke, City Enginee r I
V
SUBJECT: Comments on Plat Review of the Cy Carney Large -Scale
Development - Township and St. Louis -San Francisco Railroad
Tracks
DATE: July 12, 1972
Dear Bobbie:
Water is available in Township. They will have to use a pressure
regulator as the water pressure is in excess of 100 pounds.
Sewer is not available. It is approximately 1,000 feet to the East,
I would suggest some form of cooperation among the developers to
extend the sewer up to this property,
I do not recommend approval for septic tank installation in this
area.
4
129
EID . I
off %cc of cVN
I -�o
TO: BOBBIE JONES, Planning Administrator
FROM: PAUL W. MATTKE, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Comments for Plat Review Committee on Unnamed Tract in the
Eastern Portion of Tract G of the Fayetteville Industrial Park
DATE: July 12, 1972
Water and sewer are available to this property. If the water consumption
will be in excess of 15 GPM, I would request that they provide us with
estimated quantity and usage patterns,
I question the fact that the only access to this site is through an
unpaved gravel road. I recommend this road be paved if this tract is
to be split from Tract G as proposed.
RECEIVED
JUL 2 4 1972
OFFICE OF CITY PLA,%',%ING
FAYMEVILLEs ARI(ANSAS