Loading...
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