HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-10-10 Minutes•
MINUTES OF A PLAT REVIEW COMMITS' MEETING
(�G
The Fayetteville Plat Review Committee, met at 1:30 P.M., Wednesday, October 10, 1973,
in the Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Present: PauI Mattke, Bobbie Jones, Charles McWhorter, David McWethy, Pat McGetrick.
Utility. Repi.esentatives:' John Parker, Tommy Fincher,
Developers and/or Engineers: Jerre Van Hoose.
The only matter for review at this meeting was' the proposed Final Plat JOHNSON ROAD SUBD.
of Johnson. Road Subdivision. Jerre Van Hoose was present. to represent . Final Plat
the plat. (Bud Allen of'the County Judge's Office was present to observe
the proceedings.) Comments.were as follows:
1:. John Parker: SWEPCO needs a dditional:ea'sements as followsi 15'ft. wide
on the north side of Lot' 40; 15 ft. between Lots 30 and 31; 15 ft. between
Lots 20 and 21; and 15 ft. wide between Lots 10 and 11 We need to extend
these easements all the way out to Johnson Road.' We would like to have a
10 ft. easement.between Lots 16 and 17 and between. Lots 26 and 27 in case
they ever want street lights down in those cul de sacs.
.As far as we are concerned the 10 ft. utility easements going North and;
South'can be eliminated.' These were put in when we wanted to go underground,
but the developer said they do not want to.go underground. The only reason
we would ever need.those would'be for street lights.
•
•
2. Tommy Fincher:' Southwestern Bell Telephone needs the same easements as
SWEPCO. We do not need those two internal easement's running North and South
either.
3. Clyde Terry: Not present, but had contacted' the` Planning Office earlier.
TV Cable:needs the'same easements on Lots 10; 11; 20; 21, 30, 31 and 40
as requested by SWEPCO. (He did not.comment on the North-South easements,
so before deleting, check with him.) .
4. David McWethy:. Request black line print, preferably 14" by 18", and a
vicinity map (on a separate sheet) showing the distances from the By-pass,
the By-pass service'road,'and'Van Asche'Drive also showing Johnson Road
•and the railroad tracks. Would like for it to show flood plain also.
What is contemplated for the property between the.siibdivision.and the'creek?
Is the width of the lots on the cul de sacs sufficient?
5. Charles McWhorter: If the flood plain area ever develops between this
subdivision and Centerbrook, we would like a'. street connecting the two'.
• .subdivisions. .We will try to serve them. -
•
6. Paul Mattke: The location of the monuments and a'description of how it is
to be monumented is to appear on the final plat. This is very important that
we get that information on it. There'should be 4" by 4" concrete monuments
at the corners and all changes in directions and steel pins at each lot corner.
Does the designation of the flood plain area as a drainage and utility easement
make this a piece of public property at this point. I want the City Attorney's
comment on that. If this does convey this to the public and it becomes public
property, this idea should be -pointed out to the Planning Commission and Board
of Directors to see if they approve this. If it does not, then I will need
60
•
61
•
•
an easement 30 ft. wide' across. the nprth.edge of this area. Also;_if the City
does determine th'a't they'do-not wantto'accept this•at°this time, we should
ask for a 50 ft..drainage easement from the centerline of Skull Creek.
6. Pat McGetrick: If the flood plain area is ever. developed, we would like -to
tie this into Centerbrook. 'At the intersection'of the cul'de sacs with`"
Johnson Road, we would like to have the driveways. for, those lots set back.
.50 ft. from the intersection. '(Mr. Mattke`suggested that all these drive
ways should_come in from the cul de sacs rather. than Johnson Road.) .
7.` -Bobbie Jones:' In'the definitions of the zoning ordinance -it permits lots
on the turning`radius of a 'cul de sac.to have less than 70 -ft. street ; '
frontage as long as there is 70 ft. at the buildiing-setback line. Is there
.70 ft. at the building setback line?. Mr. Van Hoose said there is. Mrs. -
'Jones asked -that that be dimensioned or -a note to that.'effect.put;on the
We need'.a-.note'on the plat' as to which side -of the-streetwill.have
sidewalks
- ''The "Resolution".will have to be -signed and needs a, signature block.
Mr.'van Hoose said the whole area',east of the.lbts and `west of the creek is
presently shown as a public easement. He said he'thought .it needed to. have a
• lot number; then if the'City did not accept a deed,to the'lot, the City does not
accept that as public' property. On this basis, ail this area would be Lot 41
and unless or until the City agrees to take it, Kelley Brothers.maintains owner-
ship of it. This Plat' shows that the entire area can be used for flood plain •
or utility easement. If Kelly Brothers owns Lot'41, then this 120'ft. square at -
the end of Swallow Circle is part of the street right-of-way. It will have a
cul de sac (turn around) constructed. on it. :The purpose of this. is, when we
were working on the construction plans we.realiied that if the. City ever did want
to take this' for' playground or -recreational purposes, there really --wasn't any
access into' it. The plat was' revised'so.there really is street right-of-way
touching it and the drive could go out'of the cul de sac. •
Mr. Van Hoose said that taking the floodplain area (possible Lot'41).out of the
'entire this as a drainage_ easement complicates things. There would be,.drainage
easements' running allover the thing'if :the subdivision'is to -be adequately
.protected on drainage. He proposed to,give•it a lot number and make the entire
thing a drainage and utility,easement'but have Kelley Brothers retain' ownership
of it. .
Mr. Van Hoose.wad requested to check -with Arkansas Western Gas on the North='
South -easements before' deleting them.. He was told t� have a corrected black
line plat in the Planning Office'by the 17th if he wanted it'on the Planning
Commission agenda.for October 23.
'The meeting :was adjourned'at 2"35 P.M:"
•
