Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-05-16 MinutesMINUTES OF A PLAT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING The Fayetteville Plat Review Committee met at 9:30 A.M., Thursday, May 16, 1974, • in the Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Clayton Powell, Paul Mattke, Bobbie Jones. UTILITY REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT: Stuart Thomas, Frank O'Donnell, Randy Schneider, Tommy Fincher, Clyde Terry. DEVELOPERS AND/OR ENGINEERS: Joe Fox, Neal Albright. The first item discussed was a proposed amendment to the preliminary SEQUOYAH WOODS plat for Sequoyah Woods, a subdivision being developed by Multi- Amended Preliminary Properties, Inc. Joe Fox was present to represent the developer. Plat Mr. Fox explained that the amendment represents a change of about 4 lots in Sequoyah Woods. They had originally planned to have Whippoorwill come up and end in a cul de sac at the property line. The owners have how obtained a strip of land about 124 ft. wide and 330 ft. or so long on which they propose to extend Whippoorwill Lane out to Highway 45 as an entrance to the subdivision. This changes the lot configuration on Lots 17, 18, z.;19, 20, 21 and the new Lot 18-A. No easements have changed. We do not plan to extend any utilities into this 125 X 330 strip. It is not large enough to ever be developed. Mr. Fox was not certain what would become of the balance of this piece of property. The streets have already been rough graded according to the original preliminary plat. When the original preliminary plat was approved, the Planning Commission required the owners improve Joe Fred Starr Road all the way from the entrance into this subdivision up to Highway 45. The owners were not happy about this. The owners think this will provide a better entrance. If we do this, we will probably not improve Joe Fred Starr Road. Comments and requirements were as follows: 1. Stuart Thomas: (Ozarks Electric) Requested a 10 ft. easement along this extension of Whippoorwill Lane on the East side of the street to get into the subdivision with a power line. We will need some additional street light easements in the entire subdivision; this we will hold up on until the final plat. We will need to get through that corner where Whippoorwill Lane comes right up to that corner. 2. Clyde Terry: (Warner Cable - TV) Requested the easement along the extension of Whippoorwill Lane be increased to 15 ft. wide. 3. Tommy Fincher: (Southwestern Bell Telephone) No comments. 4. Randy Schneider: (SWEPCO - Electric) We must have utility easements labeled "Utility easements". (Paul Mattke suggested note on plat "All easements are for drainage and/or utility easements".) Requested 10 ft. easement, 5 ft. on either side of the lot lines between Lots 32 and 33 for street lighting, another 10 ft. easement, 5 ft. on either side of the lot line between Lots 43 and 44. Mr. Sohneider-said that they have already gotten approval from Shreveport, La. and will be able to start installing their facilities as soon as the subdivider gets it to final grade. 5. Frank O'Donnell: No problems from Ark. Western Gas. We will more than likely utilize the new easement along Whippoorwill Lane to bring gas • • • Plat Review Committee -2- 5-16-74 services in. Mr. Fox asked if there would be an adjustment in the gas contract price. Mr. O'Donnell stated that it would probably remain the same; they had services on Joe Fred Starr Road and this would actually require the gas service lines into the subdivision to be longer by using Whippoorwill Lane. (Engineering Services, Inc., Springdale is co-ordinating engineering). 6. Clayton Powell: (Street Superintendent) Two weeks ago a preliminary plat was submitted for Dr. Stanberry's property. He was informed that your final plat was not submitted and that the water line which you installed was not yet public property and that there would probably be some negotiations by your investors on the water line if they expected to tie onto it. I think it is wonderful you have this street. You have adequate storm drainage back on Whippoorwill Lane. You have been the lease negative or opposing developer I have dealt with in incorporating storm drainage in your subdivision. This extension of Whippoorwill Lane which will intersect with Highway 45 will have to have a permit obtained from the Arkansas Highway Department District Engineer, Calvin Peevy, in Fort Smith, Ark. It looks pretty flat on this section out to Highway 45. 1 will need engineering plans and profiles on this. I don't know what the Board of Directors will decide on sidewalks on the cul de sacs or on the paving of Joe Fred Starr Road. I was a great advocate of sidewalks, but I do feel the development of Joo Fred Starr Road would be more advantageous to the public than sidewalks on short cul de sacs if that could be worked out with the investors. Mr. Fox said that if Dr. Stanberry and the other owners: r along Joe Fred Starr Road want to talk about sharing the cost of improving Joe Fred Starr Road, the owners of Sequoyah Woods might change their minds. He said he did not think it is the responsibility of the owners of Sequoyah Woods to develop Joe Fred Starr Road outside the half -street improvements which they are required to make on the piece of ground they are platting along Joe Fred Starr Road. He said he thought more than that was unreasonable and they would like to discuss that with the Board of Directors. Mr. Powell agreed and said that all three prospective developers should meet with the Board of Directors and resolve something because of the congestion and public health and safety factors that would be involved with the subdivisions to the East of Joe Fred Starr Road. The City Limits line on the Vicinity Map is incorrect. They are along Joe Fred Starr Road. Mr. Fox stated that these investors have not purchased the property of Mrs. Clay Yoe on the corner of Highway 265 and Highway 45 and that this is another reason for acquiring this outlet on Whippoorwill. The Planning Commission, in approving the preliminary plat, stipulated that they must have three good accesses before they would approve the final plat of Phase II. They do not propose to intersect with Lovers Lane at this time. 7. Paul Mattke: (City Engineer) Felt that the interconnection of Whippoorwill Lane with Highway 45 now changes its classification from minor residential street to a collector street. Mr. Powell said this is a fair assumption but it is not in the Master Street Plan. Mr. Mattke said that collectors do not have to be. That affects the design considerations on the street. Mr. Mattke suggested Mr. Powell also look into the design considerations on the intersection with Highway 45, need to check the sight distance to the West. Mr. Mattke was told that the replatting of the six lots in no way affects the locations of the utility easements or the utilities in them. /24 Plat Review Committee -3- 5-16-74 There has been considerable construction damage to Joe Fred Starr Road which definitely will have to be repaired. I don't see any way short of paving the road to repair it. Mr. Mattke said he had had quite a few citizens' complaints on this matter. Mr. Fox said the owners will repair through the contractor the paving cuts etc. He said the construction company would take care of it. Mr. Mattke asked that they be sure to note changes in monumentations on the final plat. Street lighting needs to be shown. Mr. Fox said when they started street lights were not a hard and fast rule and they were not told to put them in. Mr. Mattke said the decision should be firm on street lighting since it is going back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Fox said there would be street lights all over the subdivision and asked what the City's policy is when an ordinance changes in the middle of the development. Is the developer bound by the new rules or the ones under which he started? Mr. Powell said that it is not a matter of them not being required since the ordinance has required them since July 6, 1970, just as it has required sidewalks, storm drainage, and adequate base material. Mr. Mattke said he felt that the question just had not come up; therefore it just had not been answered. Bobbie Jones said she felt the confusion lay in the fact that it was required, but because it was something that had never been shown on the plat-- Because it was not being shown on the plat, brought out, and aired, many of the developers thought it was not being enforced. Actually the change in the ordinance was simply a clarification Mr. Fox said that in many subdivision ordinances, there are things that are included in the regulations that are not always required and they felt like because they were not asked about street lights then in effect they were waived. Mzs."Jones said she thought Fayetteville's ordinance could be viewed from the opposite viewpoint; that it is required unless it is specifically waived. Mr. Mattke agreed. Stuart Thomas said that Ozarks Electric has already received a deposit for the additional cost of underground facilities from the developer. All they need to install street lights in their territory is a letter from the City Manager approving it. Mr. Fox asked what a change in designation to collector street for Whippoorwill would mean. Mr. Powell said if the Planning Commission agrees with the change in classification, he would request 5 ft. additional right-of-way on each side of the centerline of Whippoorwill (total of 10 ft. additional right-of-way) and recommended that the additional paving width for collector streets be waived since the rough grading, storm drainage, etc. has already been approved, and curb and gutters are in. 8. Bobbie Jones: (Planning Administrator) What will become of the balance of the property you have obtained to extend Whippoorwill Lane besides the street right-of-way? Mr. Fox said the owner would probably want to control it and would probably dedicate it as an easement. Mr. Fox asked about having the Fire Department "practice " on the old house on the property. She suggested he contact Charles McWhorter, Fire Chief, who had asked her about the old house. David McWethy from the City Manager's office said he would submit his comments later. She said the property owners East and West of the extension of Whippoorwill Lane would not be able to have access to Whippoorwill Lane (for building permit purposes) if the owners retain control of it. Around the cul de sacs, where there is less than 70 ft. of lot width at the street right-of-way line, there should be 70 ft. at the building setback line. • • • Plat Review Committee -4- 5-16-74 Where Whippoorwill Lane extends out to Highway 45, we need a dimension from the centerline of Highway 45 back to the boundary of the subdivision. There should be a minimum of 40 ft. of right-of-way from the centerline; if not additional right-of-way must be dedicated: on the plat. Mr. Grimes, City Manager, and I talked after you and I talked before. We both advised you to take the preliminary plat back to the Planning Commission and then go to the Board of Directors on the question of sidewalks and Joe Fred Starr Road. Mr. Grimes pointed out to me that some lots you have back up to Joe Fred Starr Road that it was his feeling that you should be required to post a bond to at least pay for one-half of the eventual improvement of Joe Fred Starr Road, whether he meant for the full length or only along these lots within your subdivision, I don't know. Your "Bill of Assurances" shows a required 15 ft. rear yard setback; we require 20 ft. The City Attorney has said this will not prevent us from enforcing ours, but it might cause some confusion to the property owners. Requested a revision:, showing the entire subdivision and not just the lots being changed (black line print). To do that, I would show where the sidewalks and street lights will be. Where is the centerline of Joe Fred Starr Road in relation to your property line? Mr. Fox said he knew.. Mrs. Jones asked that that be shown on the revision. She asked Mr. Powell how much right-of-way is required from the centerline on Joe Fred Starr Road. He said it is a minor County road. Mr. Fox said this had been discussed previously. The power line has an easement 50 ft. in width from the centerline of Joe Fred Starr Road. He said the right-of-way could be dedicated, but it would not be usable to anybody (for street purposes) because it has large poles already set there. Mr. Powell said this was true, the power company did condemn the easement and that their engineering had found they could put in a 28 ft. wide street (back of curb to back of curb) on Joe Fred Starr Road and that one property owner (Mr. Broccard) would not yield any property without going to Court. He said the utility poles on the East would give 1 ft. spacing from the utility poles to the back of the curb. Mr. Powell said if the Planning Commission and Board of Directors should elect to require the firm dedication of street right-of-way, they would have to pay the cost of acquiring the additional easement and settingover the poles because SWEPCO did have to pay for the easement. He said he and Mr. Fox had worked on this for two months at one time. Mrs. Jones said she was sure Mr. Grimes had had some definite comments on this, but she could not locate a written record of them at that time. She was not sure that the right-of-way for street purposes would affect the relocation of power lines. The next item discussed was the proposed final plat of Sweetbriar SWEETBRIAR ADDITION Addition (formerly processed as Bogan, Eason, Sweetser Addition). Bogan,Eason, Sweetser Neal Albright was present to represent the subdividers. Comments were Final Plat as follows: 1. Stuart Thomas: (Ozarks Electric) Requested the 10 ft. easement between Lots 10 and 11, Block 5 be changed to a 15 ft. easement between Lots 11 and 12, Block 5. Also the 10 ft. easement between Lots 7 and 8, Block 7 should be increased to a 15 ft. easement. Plat Review Committee -5- 5-16-74 2. Clyde Terry: (Warner Cable - TV) On the North side of Block 2, the width of the easement is not shown; what is its width? It is 15 ft. 3. Tommy Fincher: (Southwestern Bell Telephone) No. comments. 4. Randy Schneider: (SAEPCO) We need all utility easements marked "utility easements" or change the legend to show the easements are utility easements. Need a 10 £t. easement, 5 ft. either side of the property line, between Lots 2 and 3,. Block 2; need a 10 ft. easement down the East side of Lot 5, Block 2. We won't be able to serve the street light at the South end of Block 1 until Block 1 is developed. Increase the easement between Lots 1 and 2, Block 5 from an 8 ft. easement to a;10 ft. easement, 5 ft. on either side of the lot line. 5. Frank O'Donnell: (Ark. Western Gas) We need a 10 ft. easement, 5 ft. either side of the lot line between Lots 14 and 13, Block 4. We will also utilize the easement between Lots 2 and 3, Block 3. - With street lights using the easements between Lots 2 and 3, Block 3, the easement must be increased to a 15 ft. easement, 7i ft. each side of the lot line. 5. Clayton Powell: (Street Superintendent) Suggested storm drainage on the East end of Elaine be carried on out to the East to Mud Creek rather than carrying it back to the North and carrying it to Mud Creek with the drainage from the other street. An off-site easement would have to be provided from the end of Elaine to Mud Creek. Designate the width of the street rights- of-way on both ends of the streets. The annotation of the roadway should indicate flow line to flow line or 31 ft. back of curb to back of curb. I still suggest that Lots 2 through 9, Block 7, be decreased in lot width enough to allow adequate right-of-way to extend a street on to the South on the East side of the subdivision so that would be a square intersection should there be further development. Since. Elaine is a collector street with a 60 ft. right-of-way, I feel the pavement width for a collector street should be specifically waived since it was not brought up before. (We have never required a developer to construct a collector width street). 6. Paul Mattke: (City Engineer) You need to show the water line easement going over into Block 1. Water and sewer plans have been approved, there is no problem on those. Off-site drainage and utility easements will have to be dedicated by a separate document which we will need a copy of and will have to be shown on the plat. (I wish all engineers would use the wording on the certifications for water and sewer and streets, drainage and easements that is on this one.) 7. Bobbie Jones: (Planning Administrator) Under "zoning classification", you left out Block 2, also show R-1, Low Density Residential in full If Mr. Bogan is still one of the owners and developers, we will need his name and address on the plat as well and he will have to sign the plat also. Sometimes it is also necessary for the wives of the owners to sign the plat. Find out how it is recorded in the Court House and we will check with the City Attorney. The word "are" is omitted from the Certificate of Ownership and Dedication. All easements must be labeled for "utility easements" or "utility and drainage easements" and must be dimensioned as to width. The width has been omitted in Block 2, Block 4, and between Block 1 and 3. Will the developer prefer'to enter into a Subdivider's Contract or to post a bond on the improvements? We will go on and prepare a contract just in case; the City Manager's Office wants that done before it goes to the Planning Commission. No name is shown for the northernmost street. • • • • Plat Review Committee -6- 5-16-74 The last item discussed was the final plat of Hyland Park, Phase 2. There HYLAND PARK was no one present to represent the developer. Comments were as follows: Phase 2 Final Plat 1. Stuart Thomas: (Ozarks Electric) Extend the along -the -street easement across Lot 22 to the North property boundary. The dashed lines between Lots 9 and 10 do not fit the legend for utility easements; clarify this (either change the lines to fit the legend and/or label the easement "utility easement"). 2. Clyde Terry: (Warner Cable - TV) Asked about the easement shown through the middle of Lots 7, 8, 9. Mr. Mattke said that was originally planned for a gravity sewer line, but they are in the process of changing the routing of the sewer and easements. That particular easement will extend to the South and turn and go West clear across the property. 3. Tommy Fincher: (Southwestern Bell Telephone) Clarify easement along front of Lot 2, it is obscured by the bearing and distance references. We requested an easement between Lots 18 and 19, this must be dimensioned and identified. It makes it extremely difficult for me to get the proper sized cable for this with me not knowing what will be placed between Phase 2 and Phase 1. 4. Paul Mattke: (City Engineer) They have a 5 ft. easement shown along all lot lines, request they make that 72 ft. (Bobbie Jones thought the intent might have been to have the easement referred to only along side lot lines; the Committee thought it best to leave it along all lot lines). All utility lines will have to be along the streets except sewer. Sewer will be in back on Boston Mountain View. Water mains will be in front. We will ask them to put the water lines on the West side of Cantebury and on the South side of Boston Mountain View, to allow more room for the other utilities on the other side of the street. Lot 22 will be a water storage site and will be deeded to the City. It will not be a utility easement; it will be public property. The note referenced to it should be changed to say that it is to become the property of the City of Fayetteville, then sketch in whatever easements the utility companies need. With a 25 ft. front setback, they can have a 25 ft. front yard easement. The 7i It. along the other lot lines would apply. Make the note similar to the one used on Rosewood Estates. (That Plat had a note which read, "Lot has been approved by the Planning Commission for construction of a water pump station.") We need an interpretation of the common property designation. I believe this means it goes into their common property association not to the City of Fayetteville. 5. Frank O'Donnell: (Ark. Western Gas) No problem with the water line moved to the West side of Cantebury. We will stay on the streets. 6. Clayton Powell: (Street Superintendent) I have not received the street plans and profiles. The total distance of this street is about 1800 ft. I require water be taken off the street surface at least every 700 ft; 300 ft. is better. There will be at least 2 underdrains on this street and drainage easements will be needed. Along -the -street sidewalks were waived in this subdivision for nature trails, picnic areas, etc. This will have to necessitate lighting off the streets and drainage structures. Additional drainage easements may be required after I have reviewed the street plans and profiles. The maximum length of a dead-end street and the maximum block length were waived by the Planning Commission for Cantebury Road. Plat Review Committee -7- 5-16-74 7. Bobbie Jones: (Planning Administrator) We will need a separate document on the off-site easement at the Northwest corner of the plat. Identify and dimension all utility easements. Show location of street lights and sidewalks. Show location of concrete monuments and iron pins as required by Ordinance 1750. Add words "Low Density Residential" after R-1 in zoning classification. Mr. Lindsey has advised he wishes to post a Performance Bond on the improvements. The right-of-way around the common property at the endo of Cantebury Road still shows 40 ft. (I checked with Mr. Powell later on this and he told me this to agree with the right-of-way at the end of Boston Mountain View. He felt it could be either 40 ft. or 50 ft.) The meeting was adjourned at 11.00 A.M. •