Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-12-18 Minutes• • -n -r MINUTES OF A PLAT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Plat Review Committee was held at 9:06 A. M., Thursday, December 18, 1975, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. UTILITY REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT: James Crownover, Clyde Terry, Richard Rutledge. CITY REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT: Clayton Powell, David McWethy, Steve Brown, Paul Mattke, Bobbie Jones, Janet Bowen. DEVELOPERS AND/OR ENGINEERS PRESENT: None. WHITE RIVER HOMESTEAD ESTATES The only item for discussion was the Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat of White River Homestead Estates Subdivision located East of Harvey Owl Road and at the West Fork of the White River; Daniel B. Thomas, Developer. There was no one present to represent. Comments were as follows: 1. Clayton Powell (Street Superintendent): Since this is within the boundary of the new growth area the ordinance requires all streets and other public improvements meet City standards. This does exclude sidewalks and curb and gutter requirements. However, the engineer may want to get with me and compare the _... difference in the cost of curb and gutter and stabilized shoulders and they may prefer the curb and gutter. I'would prefer the curb and gutter. Also, if their consulting engineer would like to contact me, I would be happy to review our specifications with him. He would have to submit his engineering plans and profiles for street construction to me for review. 60 foot right-of-way is required on county streets. We also require storm drainage, and base preparation must meet the standard proctor density and plasticity index, and 2 inch asphalt overlay. As of right now looking at the topo, it is difficult to specify the drainage since they may change the grades and elevations when they submit the engineering plans and profiles for street constrction. It does appear that all the drainage is from the North to the South. There is a natural drainage ditch that cuts across Lots 11, 14, 16, 20, 21, and 25 and then crosses this county road (Harvey Owl Road). They will have to under -drain the intersection of the street on the South side which connects to the cul-de-sac and they will have to have a 25 foot drainage easement from the cul-de-sac running to the East(between Lots 5 and 6) to the back of the lots since the center of the cul-de-sac is the lot line between Lots 5 and 6. I would -want the drop inlets and storm drainage to go to the street right-of-way dedication and from there an improved open ditch with full rip -rap to the back of the property line of Lots 5 and 6 would be fine. Since curb and gutter cannot be required they can put a swale at the end of cul-de- sacs. The maximum distance to carry drainage on the streets would be 700 feet. Since curb and gutter cannot be enforced, they would have to put swales at each 700 feet increment. They will need a drainage easement at Lots 36 and 37 since this is a natural flow of drainage. Then if they wanted to cut diagonally Northwest across Lots 37 and 38 and then drain the County Road on the West side. Specific drainage recommendations I cannot make until I see the engineering plans and profiles for the streets. Public streets may not be built in the flood plain zone. Street elevations must be 10 feet above the flood plain. 2. David McWethy (Administrative Assistant): We have a letter from D. R. Rippey, Chief of Engineering Division, Corps of Engineers indicating that the 100 year Iliflood elevations at mile post 684 is 1165 feet above mean sea level and it drops cb down to 1158 at mile post 681 so they should be able to use that to determine which of these topographical curves would be the 100 year flood. This property is inside the growth area. There will be a 3 -inch PVC pipe coming down Harvey Ovll_Road. a4 I • Plat Review -2- December 18, 1975 Possibility at a later point to tie in with a 2 -inch PVC on Mally Wagnon the total of which would be totally inadequate for fire protection purposes and probably City water purposes. 1 3. Richard Rutledge (Southwestern Bell Telephone): I was concerned about this little spot on the plat (who owns it and how it will affect the plat) South of Lot 10 West of Lots 11 and 14, and North of 15. If possible, we would like to have an easement across it matching all of those that are all along the county road. Also need to know who this belongs to on the West side of Lot 38 between the lot line a the road right-of-way; However, primarily on the first one I mentioned (the area around Lot 10, 11, 14, and 15)since it would present a problem to us because we would have to go out of our easement onto County road right-of-way and back'in the easement again. All the other easements within the subdivision look alright as far as our purposes are concerned. As an alternate to the easement mentioned above, he asked for one across the back of Lots 8,9,10,11,14,15, 16,19,20,21,22,24,25,26, 27,29,30 and 31. 3. Clyde Terry (Warner Cable): At the present time we can not serve this with T. V. Cable. Maybe in the future. We wouldn't know at this time but we do not have cable close to this. 4. James Crownover (Ozarks Electric): The easements are adequate for us. We are not requesting any more easements than what they are showing. 5. Bobbie Jones (Planning Administrator): Lot 37 shows width at the street line of 100.93 feet; the ordinance calls for lot width of 125 feet where no zoning applies. I think he can shift his lot line a little bit and meet that requirement. I want to know the right-of-way of the existing County road. I want to know if any of that right-of-way is included in the legal description of this property. If it is, I want it to be shown as a dedication. If the existing County road has less than 60 feet of right-of-way, I want the dedication to be 30 feet from the centerline of the existing right-of-way. He still has some supplementary information that he was supposed to bring to me this morning. - - the signatures of the adjoining property owners, an applicationand a letter, the preliminary plat fee, and the legal description. 6. Steve Brown (Community Appearance): No comments. 7. Frank O'Donnell (Arkansas Western Gas)• Not present but telephoned the following comments: The closest gas service is about 2500 feet away back to the Southeast. We would have to make a river crossing and everything else. Any extension of gas service would have to be negotiated with the developer. 8. Paul Mattke (City Engineer): I talked with Mr. Thomas 4 to 6 months ago and advised him that the water proposed for the construction of this area would not serve this subdivision. I gave him a price at that time of what it would cost to increase the water line size to serve the properties. At this time I have received no response from Mr. Thomas. Therefore, our construction plans are to proceed as originally designed and install a water main that will not serve this whole subdivision. I am quite certain that our contractor has already purchased the materials. I am also certain that we will now have to negotiate a higher price than I originally quoted him for the enlargement of this line. Since our contractor started at the Wyman Road line and he has probably .between z and 1 mile of line under construction, he has about 2 miles before he gets to the line that will branch off and come down to serve this area Until I have assurances from Mr. Thomas that he is going to pay the increased cost I am unable to take any further action. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones asked Mr. Mattke what his recommendation on wells would be. n J ql� 1 • • Plat Review -3- December 18, 1975 Mr. Mattke: It is Mr. Thomas' land and if wants to "punch holes in it" that is his problem. I have a well about 11 mile from this at our disposal plant that our contractor constructed to use for water during the construction phase of our treatment plant and the water that we obtained from that well was black and had a predominantly hydrogen sulphide odor. Assuming they get perculation data on the side lots there at the location and with the distance from public sewer I would say that septic tanks is a feasible route at this time. I did ask Frank Blew to include a 15 foot utility easement along the back of Lots 15 through 31 between them (all along the rear lot lines between Lots 15 and 16 and between Lots 29, 30, and 31. Also across 11 and 14 and between Lots 9 and 10 so that sewer could be brought up through there some time in the future. Richard Rutledge: In the event we cannot get an easement across the vacant parcel that I mentioned earlier, I would like to go in this easement Mr. Mattke lust asked for on up through Lots 15 through 31 and along the back of Lots 8,9, and 10. Paul Mattke: I would also ask that they indicate on the plat the approximate location of the flood plain. There has been talk about Lot 38 of straightening that sag out of the road there and taking it straight through. I haven't seen any dedication and this plat does not reflect it. I would also like to point out to the utility companies that Lot 38 appears to be a natural lot for future splitting since there is road frontage. Clayton Powell(Street Superintendent): There is a natural drainage ditch which appears (according to the topo map) to be very deep on Lot 38 which cannot be filled unless they make drainage re-channelization or storm drain it. Paul Mattke: I have given them the design standard for subdivisions and they know these. The only deviation from inside the City limits and outside is that we do not require the installation of fire hydrants at the time of dedications and acceptances. We are not putting anyfire hydrants in in the growth area. I cannot certify water system if it is going to be wells and cannot certify septic system without perculation data. 9. Charles McWhorter (Fire Chief): Not present but telephoned the following comments: This is outside the City Limit boundary. There is no fire protection very close to it at all at this point, with no plans in the near future to build a station East at all due to our financial structure at this time. In the future this will probably be in our fire protection area but for the time being and immediate time being they are not guaranteed fire protection. We do make runs outside the City to extinguish fires but we are not obligated to. Bobbie Jones said sh'e had talked to Bud Allen with County Planning Board and he said the County Planning Board and County Judge had already reviewed this and were ready to accept the plat. He told her that their action was not intended to waive or vary any City regulations. There was no further discussion. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 A. M.