HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-04-03 Minutes•
am
MINUTES .OR.A.FLAT REVIEW, COMMITTEE MEETING
A meeting of the Fayetteville Plat Review Committee was held at 9:20.A. M.
Thursday, April 30 1975, in the Board of Directors- Room, City Administration Building,
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
UTILITY REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT: Roy Hawkins, Randy Schneider, Jack Whitting,
Clyde Terry, Frank O'Donnell
CITY REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT: Wally Brt, Clayton Powell, Bobbie Jones, David McWethy,
Paul Mattke, Janet Bowen.
DEVELOPERS and/or ENGINEERS PRESENT: Harry Gray.
FREEMAN - PALMER
The first item to be discussed by the Plat Review Committee was Leverett & Sycamore
the Large Scale Development Plan for Ralph Freeman and Charles L. S. D.
Palmer for proposed expansion to an apartment complex located at Leverett $ Sycamore
Streets. Mr. Harry Gray (McClelland Engineers) was present to represent. Comments
were as follows:
1. Randy Schneider (SWEPCO): Mr. Schneider asked Mr. Gray if they would want
underground or overhead service; Mr. Gray replied that he didn't think it would
matter. Overhead service already exists. Mr.Schneider.: We would have to set a
pole somewhere in between the 4 units and the 14 units which would be right in front
of the apartments you show on the drawing. Actually it would be about the corner
of the building. This would also make your electrician have to bring all of his
circuits out to the West end of the 14 unit building. Usually they like to be able
to be hit by two or three places in a large building like that. If we decide to go
underground we would have to put a transformer in between the 8 units and the 14
units and try to put it up through the West end. You would have to furnish the
conduits and the transformer pads. We would furnish the primary wire. The electrician
would then come out of that and go to the various metering points. This will be
the cheapest way to do it. We do not need an easement unless you plan on selling
the apartments and dividing it up. Mr. Schneider then asked Mr. Gray what voltage
they would need and whether or not they would need area lighting. He said underground
would be 122-08. Mr. Gray did not know whether they would need the area lighting.
Mr. Schre.der. We can give you temporary construction power real easy
2. Roy Hawkins (SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE): We do not have sufficient cable in
there and are going to have to come from the main feeder route to get there. The only
choice we have is to either come up the South property line or expand this existing
10 foot drainage easement to a 20 foot utility and drainage easement all the way
up through here and change the existing 10 foot drainage easement to a 20 foot utility
and drainage easement all the way acorss the North side of Tract C to the West
property line. On the South side of your property line ask for a 10 foot easement
although part of it may get out into the parking lot I would still like to have it.
(A 7 foot easement the total length of the South property line with an easement running
along the West property line to the 8 unit all the way across to the South wall
of your 8 unit apartments.)
3. Clyde Terry (Warner Cable): The easements asked for by Mr, Hawkins (Southwestern
Bell Telephone) in the existing easements here I believe will be sufficient for
Warner Cable. We will work this thing out together.
4. Frank O'Donnell (Arkansas Western Gas): We can come off of our existing service.
We will have to repair and redesign our existing service. We will work with them
33 j
0
r
Plat Review -2-
April 3, 1975
on the right pipe size and etc. That is.all I have.
•`'' S. Wally Brt (Sanitation Superintendent):. To have room for .the Lodal trucks to
get in, Mr. Brt asked that coming in from-Leverett to the existing apartments
that 2 of the 4 parking spaces (en the South line) be deleted, Continuing North
then, due West 2 more along the West line would be eliminated. Then continuing
on North, we will have to scoot the parking area (the 10 spaces they are showing)
further West and then put the other pad on the North property line (just West of
the existing 7 units); we will have to delete 2 parking spaces there He doesn't
have to build walls around the pads biut'if he wants to do so, the wall should be
around 3 sides and the pads will have to be 15 feet deep and 10 feet wide (width at
the front of the pad.) If walls are not built around the pads an 8' x 10'
pad will be sufficient. That is all I have.
6. David McWethy (Administrative Aide): No comments.
7. Clayton Powell (Street Superintendent): This property intersects both
Sycamore Street and Leverett Avenue which are two collector streets on the Major
Street Plan. Right-of-way for each of these two streets is presently 40 feet.
Collector streets require 60 feet of right-of-way; therefore we will need an
additional 10 feet of right-of-way off this property on both streets. It appears
that the driveways are in existence, however, this entire area from Oakland to
Leverett, and from Sycamore back to Holly Street is a critical drainage area.
I hope that on-site drainage will be taken care of on site rather than being
dumped out onto driveways on Leverett or Sycamore Street. Mr. Powell said the
driveway drainage structures in between Oakland and Leverett are of various
• sizes and none are adequate for the existing drainage. He felt that a drop
inlet located at the North edge of Tract C in the 10 foot drainage easement
would be the most desirable way to handle on-site drainage. I guess we will
have to depend on the developer to control on-site drainage.
8. Paul Mattke (City Engineer): Tract A and C already have water and sewer
service. So assuming that you are going to existing service, I don't see any
problems. If you need increased water sizing for water or increased tapping for
sewer you would comtemplate going to an area where there is a street such as
Sycamore or Leverett, these streets cannot be cut. This might create some problem.
I hope they size their service so there will not be any problems in serving them.
If they do find that they have a problem, then we need to take a look at this in
order to see what we can do.
•
9. Charles McWhorter (Fire Chief): Not present at meeting but submitted the
following comments: It looks as if we could get through from Sycamore all the
way through to Leverett. I would like for it to be so that we could get a 30 foot
long fire truck through. Will there be a fire hydrant in this development? There
is nothing to require one and we can reach ones already on Leverett and Sycamore
but if the lines are large enough inside the,project, I would like.a. fire hydrant
somewhere'>just'West:of the'12•parking:spaces<'sho'wn in Tract. B. City Engineer
Paul Mattke teld Mr. Gray .that on.site water lines were not big enough to handle
a fire hydrant. It would have to be brought in off of Sycamore.
10. Bobbie Jones (Planning Administrator): If the proposed building is over
20 feet in height the 8 foot side setback will not be enough. I can't tell
from the drawing if the existing 20 parking spaces are 10 feet back from Sycamore
or not; they need to be 10 feet from Sycamore and 5 feet from the West property
line with screening or 20 feet back without screening. Mr. Gray told Bobbie
Jones that there was screening there. Mr. Jones: This should be noted on the plans.
There is a question on street dedication on Storer Avenue that I need to research.
•
•
•
Plat Review -3-
April 3, 1975.
If I remember correctly- when the permit was issued for the existing units on Tract C
they had to set back .30.feet from the street right-of-way to allow for the continuation
of Storer Avenue. If there is a 40 foot strip dedicated, it could affect
this development. We need a revision that shows where the parking spaces will be
deleted and where the Lodal containers will be located, etc. ,
Additional comments for Freeman -Palmer after researching street dedication on
Storer Avenue:
I have done some research on the extension of Storer Avenue. In 1965
Richard g Sadie Greer processed a subdivision plat for a subdivision known as
!'Butterfield 8". This plat contained the development of Lawson Street between
Oakland Avenue and Leverett Avenue and the development of Storer Avenue northward
from Lawson Street, but not across this property. However, the Greers did retain
a right-of-way easement lying between the West 90 feet of Tract C and the East
270 feet of Tract C. ,They retained a similar easement across the property to the
South of Tract C when they sold it. There is an unfullfilled contract to construct
Storer Avenue from Lawson Street to a point about 420 feet North of Lawson Street.
I do not think we could issue permits on this large scale development with that
easement in existance. I have written a letter to the City Attorney asking how the
developer should go about getting this easement for a future street released
and whether getting it released would require the approval of the Greers as well
as the City.
Apparently Mr. Freeman has forgotten about this easement, but I remember discussing
it with him at the time he got the permit for the 10 units on Tract C.
The next item to be discussed by the Plat Review Committee was the Preliminary Plat
Preliminary Plat of College Market Addition to subdivide property of
lying North of Rolling Hills Drive, West of Trinity Temple, COLLEGE MARKET ADDITION
South of K -Mart, and East of Malco Theatre. Planning Administra- Rolling Hills Drive
tor Bobbie Jones explained to the Plat Review Committee members that this plat was
approved as a preliminary plat by the Planning Commission subject to the approval
of the easements by the Plat Review Committee and the required variances being granted
by the Board of Adjustment.
Harry Gray (McClelland Engineers) was present to represent. Comments were as follows:
1. Harry Gray (McClelland Engineers): It notes a 15 foot easement on Lot 3 that we
would like to eliminate if at all possible. We would like to eliminate the easements
between Lots 1 and 2, 2 and 3, and between 4 and 5 and between 5 and 6. Mr. Gray
explained to the Plat Review Committee members that 4 feet of the 15 foot utility
easement on Rollings Hills Drive would be taken up for a planter; also there would be
a sidewalk along the West property line of Lots 4,5,and 6 with a 4 foot planter and
then another sidewalk along the East side of the planter. He said there would be
paved parking which would in part be on the utility easement.
2. Randy Schneider (SWEPCO): If you are going to have the sidewalk in on the East
side of this utility easement down the West property line and then with the buffer,
this is going to leave our transformer setting in the middle of the parking lot
there. This does not fall under our normal underground service. Of course if the
load justifies it, we can give you underground service but right now as it is we would
probably have to come in with a pole line. We would have to have a 225 KVA load
before we could go to a padmount transformer without charging the developer anything.
If the load is not justified, we have some prices worked up. If we have to put
in 150 you would have to pay the cost difference. I don't believe there would be
any cost to you other than if we do go in here and put in a transformer; of course,
the electrician would have to pay for the transformer. Since you are going to pave
this you need to tell them before you pave. I don't believe any additional easements
would be required at this time.
f
Plat Review
April 3, 1975
-4-
3. Roy Hawkins (Southwestern Hell Telephone): Mr,Hawkins told Mr. Gray that
it was totally unfeasible to use .this as a utility easement along Lots 4,5, and 6
on the West side because of the TaVed parking requirement, He made the following
comments: The only way T can feasiblyrpercieve that T can go with this is if a
3 inchconduit is run across Lots 6,5, and 4 with_ an underground handhold placed
in the center of eachlot in the utility easement. Mr. Hawkins pointed out a place
where the handhold would he set. He said this would be with a metal cover with a
2 inch conduit coming outof each one of these holes to whatever structures are
built on these properties. Mr. Hawkins: I would like to stipulate that the same
system be arranged on the back utility easement lines of Lots 1,2, and 3, that a
3 inch conduit be run from property line to property line with a handhold placed at
the center of each piece of property in the utility easement and a 2 inch conduit
run to the structures that will be built on Lots 1,2, and 3 before any concrete is
poured. The handhold requirements will be a minimum of 2 feet deep with a 3 x3
opening with a cover that can be removed with no problems so we can get to this area.
4. Clyde Terry (Warner Cable): We have the same problem as the telephone. We
usually tie into a main feeder line and come up into a pedestal with a waterproofed
unit. Then from that we feed into the building. We could possibly live with the
same arrangement that Mr. Hawkins (Southwestern Bell Telephone) asked for by trying
to waterproof our units in the manhole. (We would have to waterproof those.) We
are hurt if water stands in those. These units are waterproof in a sense as far
as being out in the rain but if it stands in the water it is not. We can use
the same arrangement as the telephone but would have to have a separate conduit
for T. V. We have an existing cable in the present utility and drainage easement.
At this time I do not know for sure but I think we will need to go from the
existing North easement to Rolling Hills Drive. This would be on both East and West
property lines or Lots 1,2,3,4,5, $ 6. Otherwise I really don't see how it would be
possible for us to serve those.
5. Jack Whitting (Ozarks Electric): We have the same problem if this is going to
be paved, of getting our underground cable There is the possibility that the
cable will fuse to the conduit and it is hard to pull out. We will have to take
a chance on that. We will come to serve Lots 1,2,3•and probably will probably
install a transformer between Lots 2 and 3 and a pedestal between Lots 1 and 2 and
we would need 4 inch conduit all the way to the property line between 1 and 2 with
a minimum depth of 36 inches.
6. Frank O'Donnell (Arkansas Western Gas): We would utilize the prior easements
and I think it would be safer keeping.. it straight to just stipulate that we have
sufficient time to get our lines in prior to any paving. I need the 10 foot easement
shown from Lot 3 to the easement along the back property line West of Sheryl Avenue.
If gas is the only one in the easement, 10 foot is adequate. Since this will have
to be done in one package there will probably be some cost to the developer, refundable
on a meter basis. I would like to stipulate that there be no planters over the
ti gas line. Requested 25 ft. easement along Rolling Hills Drive.
7. Clayton Powell (Street Superintendent): The existing ordinances do not permit
`3 a temporary cul -d -sac. I would have to insist that the cul-de-sac be constructed
a to current standards and closed in with curb and gutter when the plans and profiles
are submitted. The street is being built over the existing drainage and utility
easement. Since it is a natural drainage ditch for the existing area, I would have
to require on the street plans and profiles an adequate drainage structure being
constructed under the street rather than covering the drainage easement with the
street and leaving an open ditch behind the curb. Mr. Gray asked Mr. Powell if he
would rather have the drainage structure under the proposed street rather than to the
North of it as he had shown on the plan. Mr. Powell said the flood plain study was
•
•
•
Plat Review
April 3, 1975
based on 5Q - 10Q year flood cirteria, and this needed'to he accommodated. He said
if the size.,of the structure and the'drainage area.were computed it might work out
that this could be kept on the street'right-of-way without being underneath the street.
City Enginner Paul Mattke commented that it was not clear on the drawing whether
this was intended to be an open ditch or an -enclosed storm drain parallel to the street.
Mr. Gray said this would be a storm drainage structure up to the property line and
would probably put a paved ditch into it. Clayton Powell: r think it, would be
beneficial to both.K-Mart and Malco Theatre as well as to the developer of this
commercial tract to have a driveway inlet from the existing improved parking lot.
Otherwise, if we get a street across this drainage structure from the parking lot
people will start going across the grass -sodded area which will increase multiple
problems. I would recommend that the developer of this property contact the owners
of the existing commercial areas for financial assistance in making the driveway
across to connect the two properties. Mr. Gray: We have sent copies of the plat to
the surrounding commercial property owners but have not heard anything from them. We
do not feel that we can theoretically or legally show a drive connecting the two
properties.
8. Bobbie Jones (Planning Administrator): I wanted to point out that you show
a street light over the drainage structure at the Northeast corner of the subdivision.
You may have left enough room for both. I did want to point it out to you. You may
have to put the street light on the other side of the proposed street instead of
where it is indicated. Would it be better to shift the street light on the curve
if the access to K -Mart was developed? Maybe Mr. Mattke (City Engineer) could tell
me on this. Also, if access is allowed there,wouldn't the curve itself be a better
place to allow the access, so that there would be visibility from both directions.
Mr. Mattke: It would pretty much need to be there and this would actually be changed
into a T intersection. Bobbie Jones: Those are the only comments that I have
other than that you do still need Board of Adjustment approval on the 25 foot building
setback and possibly on the height of whatever is used for screening between Lots
1 and 6 and Rolling Hills Drive. When Lots 1,2, and 3 are developed if any parking
gets within 20 feet of the East property line, there will be a requirement to screen
the parking area with a fence or something. I don't really know what to say on the
cul-de-sac being actually off the property without dedication of right-of-way
out there; and yet if the right-of-way is dedicated there might not be a basis for
denying a building permit on that entire parcel we are trying to get through. The
cul-de-sac needs to be added to the legal description and shown as a dedication
in order to develop it as a cul-de-sac. Clayton Powell (Street Superintendent):
The proposed street does meet the criteria for a dead-end street, but Ordinance 1750
does specifically require a terminal street to terminate in an improved cul-de-sac
with a 50 foot right-of-way radius and 40 foot improved radius; otherwise it has
to be waived by the Board of Directors. I would like the problems that would and could
be encountered without a cul-de-sac recorded. If it were to be waived by the Board of
Directors I would like the end of the street enclosed with a curb and gutter and
an improved barricade at the end to keep vehicles off the sodded areas and use the
turn around on what would be private property.
9. Paul Mattke (City Engineer): I believe that the fact that you sent K -Mart a copy
of this really doesn't satisfy the requirement. I think had you sent them a copy
of this with a proposal that you propose to make an interconnection with their parking
lot and give them an approximate figure of their share of the cost and ask that
they reply, then you would have met the requirement. Then, if they would not accept
the proposal, you have at least tried. Mr. Gray: It is difficult to put a dollar
value on this with the fluctuation -of cost values being what is 1.$0w. I am not sure
this is fair to my client. It requires two specific designs for us to come up with
estimated costs on. Mr. Mattke: I think you could just give them a cost estimate
without a re -design. If K -Mart is willing to participate then I think the design
L 37
•
•
•
Plat Review -6-
April 3, 1975
should he amended enough_to corporate 4-T—intersection there so they can have access
to this from their property, A shopping center that is split in half would look rather
peculiar, 1 don't think.people shopping at one place would want to drive all the
way around the block to get into the other shopping center. I feel we need to take
a positive approach, This will eventually be done so let's solve the problems now
rather than getting a public street out there at one grade and a parking lot at
another grade, miss -matched alignments, miss -matched drainage, etc. You cannot put
the water line under the storm drainage. I would like a 10 foot separation between
the water main and the storm drainage, this is because if there is a .leak it
will go right over into the storm drainage and we never find it. I think there is a
better solution than this. You have a setback across the North edge of Lot 3. Why
not drop over say 15 foot from the sewer line and put a water main in there parallel
to the sewer line (and possibly show an easement if this cannot all be put in the
right-of-way. This area cannot be built upon anyway. Or you could ask for an additional
easement off of K -Mart's property since you are going to be contacting them anyway.
The water main has got to move either North or South. The location of your street
light cannot go over the top of the water lines or sewer lines.
The next item to be considered by the Plat Review Committee was the BASSETT PLACE
Preliminary Plat of Bassett Place to subdivide property lying North Preliminary Plat
of Stearns Road and East of Highway 71.
Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones told the Plat Review Committee that the Planning
Commission had approved the preliminary plat received by the Office of City Planning
on March 6, 1975 with (1) Street A extended to the East property line as proposed at
the 3-11-75 Planning Commission meeting; (2) with no access from Stearns Road to Lot 10;
(3) with access to Lot 11 from Stearns Road restricted to the East 30 or 40 feet of
Lot 11; (4) 20 foot setback from Highway 71 right-of-way to Lots 1 and 3 subject
to Board of Adjustment approval; (5) that the requirement of the By-pass ordinance
(Section 18 - 13 of the Code of Ordinances) be met and the developer agree in writing
that at such time as the service road located on the property to be developed intersects
with a street or highway intersecting the controlled access highway (Highway 71) any
existing direct access into the controlled access highway (Highway 71) will be closed.
She also called to their attention that frontage road location at the North end of
the subdivision had been shifted approximately 60 feet to the East since they had
seen the plat and that Lot 6 on the original submittal was now Lots 10 and 11 and
that lot numbers had been changed some. Bobbie Jones said at the time this was taken
to the Planning Commission the subdivider's engineer had asked that Street A have
access through Lot 3 to Highway 71 as well as into Transportation Property, Inc. on
the East and that they be permitted to retain the access to Lot 3 and convert it to
a street access. The Planning Commission did not agree to this.
Harry Gray was present to represent. Comments were as follows:
1. Randy Schneider (SWEPCO): We have got a pole line on Stearns from which we
can possibly serve Lots 1, 10 and 11. That would give you underground or overhead
service whichever one you wanted from Stearns Road. This falls where you can have
either electric company to serve them. If you want service from the back, Jack Whitting
(Ozarks Electric) would probably serve you. I am sure there will probably be a
street light requested at Stearns Road and Frontage Road. These will have to meet
the highway specifications of breakaway poles. Don't know if there is one required
on the East property line of Lot 11 or not it depends on how they interpret the
ordinance.
2. Roy Hawkins (Southwestern Bell Telephone): Mr. Hawkins asked about utility
easements on Lots 8 and 9, on the North side of Lot 3, and the easement running
West on Lot 3 and then made the following comments: I believe with the easement
arrangement shown we can serve any lot in the complex. No problems.
38
•
•
•
Plat Review
April 3, 19.75.
-7-
3, Clyde Terry (Warner Cable)( T dont see any problems for the:T..y,
need to put a 3 inch_conduit across: this road on the North. side of Lot 1
to Lot 10. r will work. that out when the time is- right for it.. All the
are sufficient,
I might
connecting
easements
4. Jack Whitting (Ozarks Electric): The easements are adequate for us,
5. Frank O'Donnell (Arkansas Western Gas): I don't anticipate we will have any
problems. We can serve Lots 1 and -3 off the highway pipe line. We would have to come
up between Lots 7 and 8 either around the cul-de-sac or make a street crossing to get
to Lots 4 and 5.
6. Clayton Powell (Street Superintendent): Frontage Road is a continuing ascending
grade, therefore, the drainage area will have to be computed and the storm drainage installed
on this segment to accommodate the future extension of the street rather than leaving it out
and having it further complicated later on by having the utilities installed.
7. Bobbie Jones (Planning Administrator): We do still have the requirement for the
Board of Adjustment approval on setbacks on Lots 1 and 3. I have not checked your street
light spacing; There should be one every 300 feet. I don't believe you show one North
of the intersection of Street A on Frontage Road. You are also getting close on
distance on the East of Lot 11. It is 285 feet and our requirement is one every 300 feet.
She then asked Clayton Powell (Street Superintendent) what his reaction was on the 50 foot
road and utility easement between Lots 6 and 7. Rather than taking the cul-de-sac on out
it will end up with a segment of unimproved street right-of-way. Clayton Powell: The
Planning Commission has already required the street to continue to the East property line,
therefore, I concur in their foresight and in this instance, as on the Frontage Road,
rather than build a permanent cul-de-sac to terminate the streets with a curb and
gutter and a barricade because they are aware that the commercial development will
continue these streets regardless of whether or not the Stout property is ever developed.
(Mr. Bob Stout objects to Frontage Road crossing his property.) Bobbie Jones: If a
cul-de-sac is shown against the East property line a note could be made so that the
radius in excess of a straight 50 foot right-of-way would revert back to the adjoining
lots when the street is extended.
8. Paul Mattke (City Engineer):
the West side of the cul-de-sac.
East property line.
The water line shown up to the cul-de-sac ends on
I request it be extended to within a few feet of the
39
•
•
Plat Review
April 3, 1975
-8-
Preliminary Plat
The last item to he discussed by -the Plat Review Committee of
was the preliminary plat of Shadow Hill Subdivision located SHADOW HILL
on Old Wire Road, submitted by Loris Stanton,
Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones pointed out that there were three tandem lots
on this plat (Lots 12, 13, 8 14) and explained that the Zoning Ordinance permits tandem
lots provided that lot has ownership of a 25 foot strip (minimum) to the public street
and that strip is to be used as a private drive -and utility easement and it is not
to be blocked at any time by a parked vehicle.)
Mr. Gray was present to represent. Comments were as follows:
1. Randy Schneider (SWEPCO): I need a 20 foot easement (10 foot each side of the
property line) between Lots 4 and 5. I need the same between Lots 8 and 9. This
is the way we will come in to serve this. Other easements are sufficient. We will
only be going from Lot 1 to Lot 5 and then from Lot 7 to Lot 10. Easements will all
be used. 1 don't know what we will do on street lights. We have a pole line on Old
Wire Road and I guess we will put the street lights on a pole line if they are not
already there. I think some of them are probably already there. There will not be
any charge to the developer. Since these are on an existing pole line the City
handles the costs. Would like to put underground there but we would have to order
extra tall aluminum poles (due to the road being so high) in order to get them far
enough above the street to keep from blinding people.
2. Roy Hawkins ( Southwestern Bell Telephone): On your private drive and utility
easement between Lots 6 and 7 we have an existing utility pole on the right-of-way.
I can't tell for sure, but if this happens to be in the middle of the driveway,
someone is going to have to pay for moving that pole. If it is setting on the corner,
then everything is okay. If the 20 foot along with 20 utility easements that Randy
Schneider (SWEPCO) has specified plus the private drive and utility easement I am
sure that we can get in there to completely serve this. Other than this I don't
thing we will have any problems.
3. Clyde Terry (Warner Cable): I don't see any problems for Warner Cable with the
easement that Mr. Schneider requested and the other easements are sufficient.
4. Frank O'Donnell (Arkansas Western Gas): We can serve Lots 1 through 10 off
Old Wire Road there if that is satisfactory. Then we could come in the private
drive, "t", and pick up Lots 13, 14, $ 12. I would like to stay out of that easement
between those lots since there is a sewer line in there.
5. Clayton Powell (Street Superintendent): Old Wire Road is designated as a minor
arterial street on the Major Street Plan and requires 80 feet of right-of-way.
Old Wire Road as currently platted is a 40 foot right-of-way. I cannot recommend the
down -grading of Old Wire Road to a collector or residential street due to the vast
amount of development in this area of town and also the current construction of
Highway 265 which runs from Highway 16 East all the way to Springdale. The existing
right-of-way for Colette Street (on the East side of this subdivision) is not reflected
in the Plat Book; however, a subdivision has been platted to the South of this which
does connect Colette Street to the drainage ditch to the South. I would recommend that
the developer of this property give some consideration to bringing Colette Street
to current City street standards since at least 5 lots are going to be primarily
served by Colette Street. The developers of this subdivision are also in the process
• of developing in another area and in that area they formed an improvement district.
I receive numerous complaints about Colette-- Avenue and the ascending grade onto
Old Wire Road. It seems impossible to traverse this area without tire spinning
and whipping out of gravel. I have to have a grader on that street at least once
a week or else I am bombarded with complaints about the rutting. When the area is
further developed it will only make the situation worse than it already is.
Plat Review
April 3, 1975,
6. Bobbie Jones (Planning Administrator): Your drawing needs to show more clearly
what the existing right,of-way is and what is being dedicated, The Major Street Plan
calls for 40 feet from the center line of the existing right-of-way of Old Wire Road
and 25 feet from the center line of Colette. Mr. Stanton requested that the Major
Street Plan be amended to reflect 60 feet ofright-of-way on Old Wire Road (I believe
it was past the intersection'bf Old Missouri'Road) and the Planning Commission voted
to schedule a public hearing and that they had wanted the recommendation of the
Technical Advisory Committee first and I don't think this was ever done. You need
to show where the street lights will be and you need to show sidewalks. I feel
that sidewalks will be required since sidewalks were required in Strawberry Hill
Subdivision and it had only two or three lots fronting on Old Wire Road. The ordinance
require sidewalks on both sides of the the street but since the development is only
on one side I believe they would be required on only one side. On Lots 12, 13, and
14 I need the property line dimensioned.along the North side. When you get into the
final plat we are going to need the bearings on these lines. Bobbie Jones asked
Clayton Powell(Street Superintendent): if he was going to offer them the same proposal
as he did on Strawberry Hill; that is, that if they put in the curb he would widen
the street to the curb. Clayton Powell: The current street standards require 31 feet back
to back of curb street width. We would provide the labor and equipment operation for
the perimeter of the subdivision from the South point.on Old Wire Road to the West
side of Colette Avenue if they would pay the cost of materials. We have a bid con-
tract for concrete structures; we could easily get Old Wire Road widened through this
method and incorporate a sidewalk and gutter to meet all the requirements. It
would add to the attractiveness of possible buyers of these lots with a curb and
gutter street even though it would be only on one side to control the drainage.
Bobbie Jones: That is all that I have at this point.
7. Paul Mattke (City Engineer): Have you run., a property survey on this and checked
the title? The reason I ask is when we built that water line the intersection of
Old Missouri Road and to the East, the property ownership across the road acutally
came South of the existing road I am concerned about water service to Lots 1,2,
and 3. The water main that comes in from Beaver is actually on the opposite side of
the road and then it bends out and actually crosses the road as it gets down toward
the South end of Lot 1. I don't think I can get under the road anyway and I sure
can't tap it if the main is under it and I don't have anything else available. So
the developer is probably going to have to extend a short section to about where the
fire hydrant is to feed Lots 1 and 2 so that we can serve water back to those
lots there. The balance of the water service is no problem. We are assuming the
water meters will be set along Old Wire Road even for Lots 13 and 14 to run their
private services out there. They will come from the existing public roads. The
private drive going'into Lot 14 shows a sewer line crossing there. I want to make
sure the road isn't going on this sewer line and the same thing goes on Lot 12. Be
sure the driveways are not built on sewer lines. You have a note -- proposed
sewer line by others; Mr. Gray: The development of Lots 7,8,9,10, 11, and 12
are contingent upon this sewer being constructed either through an improvement
district or by the City, or however it is done. I understand there is a proposed
sewer to be put in out there; I don't know how it is to be constructed, or how it is
to be financed. Mr. Mattke: There is a proposed sewer to be constructed in the area.
We don't have a design on it yet so I really don't know where it is going to go. I
know it will not come into the property. If it comes to the property that will be
as far as it could possibly go. At this time I am not really sure what is going to
happen on Lots 7,8,9,10,11, and 12. We won't know until we get the final designs.
8. Larry Wood (Planning Consultant): Not present at meeting but telephoned the
following comments: I recommend that they re -design the subdivision to eliminate
numerous driveways to the minor arterial street and lots being served by private
driveways be re -designed so as to be provided public access.
4;
•
;i
Plat Review -10-
April 3, 1975
..Plat -.on -Easements
Larry Gage called. the Planning.0£fice and asked to postpone " -NW:Arkansas Plaza
the plat on the easements at the Mall; However; some members.o£ the Plat Review
Committee made comments which_follow:
1. Roy Hawkins (Southwestern Bell Telephone): We have a great -deal of stuff that
is not in the easements.
2. Clayton Powell (Street Superintendent): I agree with this in that if this
is the final plat of all'.dedicated right-of-way .and easements, they have not
extended the Frontage Road all the way to the North property line that was required
when Shoney's plats were submitted. I am not clear as to where the Frontage Road
terminates now. I think right-of-way exists to the South property line which
abuts the Nelson property and any final plat should contain all ofthe street
rights-of-way and all of the drives and so forth on the property itself are
private. The only way to control the drainage is to not empty it out through
driveways, etc.
There was no further discussion.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:06 P. M.