Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-03-04 MinutesMINUTES OF A PLAT REVIEWCOMMITTEE MEETING A meeting,of.the Fayetteville Plat Review Committee was held at 4:.15.A. M, Thursday; March 4?:.1476, in the. Roaxd.,of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. UTILITY REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT: Dick Shaw, Clyde Terry, Kenneth Wagner, John Sloan, CITY REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT) David McWethy, Steve Brown, Perry Franklin, Clayton Powell, Paul Mattke, Wally Brt, Bobbie Jones, Janet Bowen. - DEVELOPERS and/or ENGINEERS PRESENT: Jim Ogden, Lee Taylor, Ervan Wimberly, Greg Dowers. VILLA NORTH The first item for discussion was the revised preliminary Preliminary Plat plat of Villa North for property' located North of Villa Mobile Home Park on Villa Boulevard. Developer Jim Ogden along with Engineer Lee Taylor was present to -.represent. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones read a memo that Inspection Superintendent Harold Lieberenz had written to Mr, Ogden concerning the requirements for this proposed development. The memo reads as follows and is hereby made a part of these minutes: (See Pages 7 and 8 of these minutes.) Comments were as follows: 1. Larry Wood (Planning Consultant): Not present but telephoned the following comments: I feel that we should push for Hacienda (the East-West street) to be extended to Highway 71. The developer should attmept to negotiate that extension. I feel with the filling in they are doing along Highway 71 (with future development, obvious) that we should be working on this. Mr. Ogden commented that he did not feel he should have to do this. Bobbie Jones (Planning Administrator): I do not have the right to require that from you, but it may come up again and you should be made aware of this and keep it in mind. 2. David McWethy (Administrative Assistant): You need to show street lights. You could place them at each intersection and about half way through the block North and South on each street. I don't know if these would be a distance of 300 feet between, but I think it would be close to that. After some discussion, it was determined that there was approximately 485 feet from the intersections of Hacienda to the intersection of Adobe Street. David McWethy felt a street light at each intersection would be sufficient. McWethy told Mr. Ogden that he (Mr. Ogden) would put the lights in and the City would pay the electric bill, David McWethy: The only other question I have concerns the location of Peg Lane to Arroyo Avenue; however, Ithink. the Traffic Superintendent will cover this in his comments, 3. Perry Franklin (Traffic Superintendent): Theordinance requires a minimum jog distance of 150 feet between street intersections which_do not align and anything less than this would have to be waived by the Planning Commission.. (The distance between the intersections .of Peg•Lane'and-Arroyo Avenue with Hacienda Street is about 65 feet, I. think you will have a lot of traffic down Arroyo Avenue. If you plan any plantings, etc, at intersections; they cannot be over 21 feet in height and not within 25 feet each side of the intersection. Lee Taylor indicated they would request a waiver on the jog distance. r 6' • tc•° L Plat Review March 4, 1976, 4. Clayton powell (Street Superintendent).: Mr, Ogden and I. have discussed this previously and I; agree with_.the.current plat (the revised plat from the previous Plat Review Committee meeting,j This relocation of Villa Boulevard eliminates the curve and keepsit;o£f an old water line which.I was not aware of being there before.. I apologize to Mr, Ogden on the relocation of Villa Boulevard. What Planning Consultant Larry Wood brought up in his comments is actually what the Master Street Plan requires, that is, requiring Hacienda Street to be a collector street running East and West from College Avenue to Johnson Road I do not feel that Mr. Ogden should be required to even consider constructing the street beyond the perimeter of his property. We accepted the dedication of 30 feet from Phase I of Bishop Addition without imposing any requirement for the developers to sustain any of the cost. I feel that this is a precedent and that we should be consistent,. and establish a procedure to be followed in all future similar incidences. I think the Subdivision Ordinance should be amended on width of collector streets where it requires 36 feet. All of the collector streets we are now constructing under operating budgets such as Gregg Street or any of the urban systems program streets which will be North Street and the extension of Gregg Street from Ash to Township. are four, 11 -foot lanes plus curb and gutter and sidewalk on each side. This is what I suggested to Mr. Ogden. I think Mr. Ogden should construct half of a street (22 feet with curb, gutter, and sidewalk on one side) and then when Phase 2 and 3 of the Bishop Addition is developed, I think the developer of those two phases should be required to build the other half of the street. The segment between Peg Lane and the Murphy Mobile Home Park, or the East perimeter of Phase I of Biship Addition, where development has already been completed, I feel the City should be (and is) stuck on the City and how can we impose it on Mr. Ogden since it is abutting property? Since you intend to retain ownership of these publicly dedicated residential streets such as Valencia, Arroyo, Sierra,Barcelonia, Villa, and Adobe they must have 4 foot sidewalks on one side. The street specifications do permit curb, gutter and sidewalk combinations if you prefer this. Some of the developers prefer to build the sidewalks under a policy that gives the developer or the owner of record a 5 -year period in which to build sidewalks. In this instance, they go ahead and put curb and gutter on both sides and then as the individual lots are built upon, a 4 foot sidewalk is abutted against the back of the existing curb and usually the top of the curb is the elevation of the sidewalk. The Subdivision Ordinance requires street lights every 300 feet. I feel that the 10 street lights at the intersections would be close enough for a variance. If you put one in the middle, it would be reducing the spacing and increasing the City's cost of maintenance and electricity to operate the lights. However, this is a decision for the Planning Commission to make. I would like 2 -feet vertical and horizontal separation between drainage structures and utilities. That way we can perform maintenance on drainage structures without disrupting utility service. If the Planning Commission requires you to build only half of the collector street, it will need to be 22 feet side as I said earlier. When you tie into Peg Lane, obviously you are going to have to construct the North half of that street for the width. of the radii of the intersection. Peg Lane drains to the Southat this point. This map does not show topography but.700 feet is the maximum allowable surface drainage, Under drain Peg Lane where it intersects. Hacienda, Then Hacienda will have to be cross drained some place to get the water off Hacienda. Drainage is going to be from East to West.. This exceeds the 700 feet minimum but it is possible to build and have the street grade to have a low point at Sierra Avenue or an inverted curve bringing drainage from East and West You can do this- on both Hacienda and Adobe, Depending on which. side the utilities are on and space required, you can even • • • Plat Review -3- March 4, 1976 put the storm drainage under the s:idewalk.along Sierra as long as. the drop, inlets have a 6-inch,opening and a 6-inch_dip.soathat the water can Runnel --into them. So in your construction. in your suligrade, or sub -base; preparation,you are going to have to establish_at least a 1% -grade to insure positive drainage. Your drainage ditch. for the entire area'is on the South side of the lots on Adobe Street so you are going to have to have crossings between these lots for each one of these intersections. We do not allow flattened crowns or swales across the street so you are going to have to underdrain the street at each intersection. If you want an open ditch: between the lots, that is up to you. In the construction phase, there are three tests performed by me or one of my assistants: (1) On subgrades, which must be 90% proctor density and .10 plasticity index. (2) Then, when you get your curb and gutter, sidewalk, and base material in, you still have to meet the same 90% proctor density and :10 plasticity index. (3) This inspection is- when you put the two inches asphalt on the base material. I would like a test, at least one every 300 feet, and if I see a spot that looks like there is a wet weather spring,I would want one there. 5. Wally Brt (Sanitation Superintendent): Mr. Ogden indicated that they would be using the hexagon -shaped concrete can holders and have them located on the side lot lines so two families can share the same location. Wally Brt: This will be fine. Just don't put them underground and you will almost have to put them out in the street or they will be on someone's property. I appreciated the streets being widened on this plat. That is all I have. 6. Steve Brown (Community Appearance): In answer to Steve Brown's question, Mr. Ogden said there were two lot sizes: (1) 55' by 110' and (2) 92' wide by 80' deep. He said the 24'. by 60' homes would be sold on the 92' by 80' lots and would be parallel with the street. He said on the other lots there would be 14' by 70' homes as well as some 12' by 60' and 14' by 65'. Steve Brown: There are several lots on Sierra Avenue that are 80' by 90' and it would seem that you could not put a larger manufactured home on those lots. Mr. Ogden said they were aware of the setback regulations and that they would put what was allowed on those lots. Mr. Ogden told Mr. Brown that on the screening he would like to build some rock corner posts of a low height and plant some low shrubbery for screening. This would probably be scrub holly such as was planted along the existing Villa Mobile Home Park. Bobbie Jones: I hope the Planning Commission will take a look at this requirement for screening since it is along the street. Clayton Powell commented that there were some places in town (along 6th Street) where the ordinance required screening -that was actually a visibility hazard. Engineer Lee Taylor said it would create a hazard .here also. Concerning the recreational facilities, Mr. Ogden told Steve Brown that the existing facilities were built under FHA specifications for the whole 40 acre tract back when they put in Villa Mobile Home Park. He said they would meet FHA specifications for both parks but indicated that he did not know if they would meet the requirements of the City. He felt these facilitieswere adequate for both parks, Steve Brown: I think additional facilities should be provided for the children. The Community Appearance Board is putting together a brochure and when we receive these I would be glad to give you two or three of these, Lee Taylor commented (regarding the facilities for children) that with. these big lots, parents- would tend .to have play facilities in their yards. ISS • • Plat Review March. 4, 1976. 7, Dick. Shaw (Southwestern Bell Telephone):. Everything looks.good except for one little minor problem We can't.get from the.existing section to the new section, Therefore, r would ask for a 20 foot easement in Block 6 between Lots 1 and 2, 4 and 5, 6 and 7, and 9 and 10,to line up with. the North. easements of your other blocks. Mr. Ogden indicated that they -would probably redo the whole drainage ditch between the existing park. and the proposed park and Mr, Taylor said they would be checking with the utilities as to where their existing facilities were located. Dick Shaw: We run directly East and West on the North edge of the existing park. We are right on top :.of it on the East end but we get out of it on the West end. 8. Clyde Terry (Warner Cable): That is sufficient for me, We will go underground with SWEPCO. 9. Kenneth Wagner (Arkansas Western Gas): I think we could probably come across the North side there and run legs down to each section in the backs of the lots down these easements you have shown. For the South leg, we could run a line over from East to the West. On the East side we could tie onto the existing North-South line on the South side of this new part and run West. Then up there at the North, we could come down this North easement and then run legs down. In time to come, we may eventually want to tie back in up here on Peg Lane and have a two-way feed in that area. Lee Taylor. We will need a plat from all the utilities showing where your proposed facilities will go so we can coordinate it. 10. Paul Mattke (City Engineer): I will compliment you. I think you have got a good package here and you have done it right. I would like to ask for basically three things: (1) I would like to have a tee and a crossing since I will have to cross Hacienda to tie in on Peg Lane. I need to check the size of the water main in Peg Lane, but I think it is 6 -inch. (2) I would like to ask to extend that 8 -inch water line all the way to the West property line along Hacienda Street. (3) You talked about tiling the drainage ditch. I think this is a good idea and I want to encourage this. I would like to have you to dedicate this drainage easement as a drainage and utility easement so the City can then maintain it. Mr. Ogden felt that it was not fair for him to have to put in a Butterfly valve at the connection with the 20 inch water line. He said he understood why it needed to be there, but did not know why he should have to put it in. After some discussion, Mr. Mattke said it would be satisfactory to him if they extended a line to connect to the line in Peg Lane and use a 20" by 20" by 8" tapping tee and an 8 -inch gate valve to tie onto the 20" line. Mr. Taylor and Mr. Ogden felt it would be cheaper to do this than it would to put in the butterfly valve. 11. Bobbie Jones (Planning Administrator); Mr. Taylor asked about the topo map. Bobbie Jones: The topo map is of more importance to the Plat Review Committee than it is to the Planning Commission, You do need to get a topo map to the Plat Review Committee as soon as possible so they can see if there are any problems. I would like to know when the topo map goes out, I. would like a black. line print and one copy of the revision. You need to show -on .this the street lights.and sidewalks on one side of residential streets; and they -are required on both sides of the collector street so this will depend on what the Planning Commission does on the collector street, The Planning Commission's.next meeting will fall on Monday before the Board of Directors meeting.on Tuesday night which means that this item might not go before the next Board of Directors meeting or there would be a chance that it would be tabled if it was on the agenda.;since the Board members would not have enough time to look it over before the meeting. Plat Review March. 4, 1976 -5- • Mr, Ogden and Mx, Taylor indicated that.they could not, 1,04: the revision in on time. for this anyway-, so this. would not be a'problem, Screening is required along public streets or where the property abuts "R" zoned property. This would apply only along Hacienda Street; but as- T. said; I hope the Planning Commission will take a second look at that requirement, • • WOODED HOLLOW ESTATES The next item for discussion was Wooded Hollow Estates. ' Greg Dowers This preliminary plat has been through. the Planning Commission and Mr. Dowers had originally planned to pave, curb and gutter the streets in the subdivision. Mr. Dowers was present and indicated that in order to do this, he would have to ask approximately $10,000 per lot. He said that interested parties had indicated that they would give as much as $7,000 per lot. He indicated that, rather than pave, curb and gutter, he would like to use double bituminous on everything and leave the streets under private ownership. He asked if they could form a Landowners Association which would own and maintain all the streets there and dedicate them as public utility easements. The other alternative Mr. Dowers indicated would be to ask for a public dedication but build to County standards. Mr. Dowers said the County Judge and Budd Allen liked this but that Bruce Kendall of the County Planning Board had said he did not approve of it. 1. Bobbie Jones (Planning Administrator): You need to ask the City Attorney about the type of ownership and maintenance contract that should be drawn up since this is a legal question and I am not qualified to answer it. I think you should see to it that some access is retained to your own property and to that parcel to the North which you own but is not included in the subdivision. I need a copy of the letter from the County before going to Planning Commission. 2. Clayton Powell (Street Superintendent): There are several other subdivisions located in the Planning Area which are in the preliminary stages. Since Mr. Dowers is the first, I would recommend that the land owners dedicate 60 foot wide street easements. In an easement, land ownership does not change. However, building the streets (either leaving it gravel or a double bituminous chip and oil seal or macadam) they would still be within the landowner corporation to maintain as private streets until such time as they desire to bring them up to City street standards. Then if they desire to do that, they could do it through an improvement district procedure whereby each landowner pays a proportionate share. This would satisfy not only the street requirement but also the utility requirement within the streets and reduce the cost of these exceptionally large lots. I think this would be more than satisfactory as long as the developer and each individual lot owner was aware of the fact that there is no public maintenance to.bs; erformed on„the-street and he could be assessed for any maintenance performed for his benefit, which would be in the covenants and Mr. Dowers being a contractor he could contract to the corporate similar to what we have already in existance. We have condominiums built with private streets within the development out in Sweetbriar Addition and another one in Clover Creek and also the PUD developments. I think this type of development would fall into that criteria and be perfectly acceptable to everyone concerned. Bobbie Jones commented that if Mr. Dowers did this, he might want to assign lot numbers to the tracts that he had excluded from the subdivision 3. Wally Brt (Sanitation Superintendent):' We are not serving that area, but;af;we ever do extend service.. we will need written approval to use that street if it does go to a property owners' association. (0 • • Plat Review Marchi4, 7'976 -6- 4. Paul Mattke (City Engineer): As faros utility operation, it doesn't make a lot of difference if the easements are provided for by streets- or easements since it accomplishes the same function.. I think the question is from a planning point of view. This area is going to be incorporated (annexed) within 40.years, and keeping this in mind) Idon't think private roads really fit in with the concept of municipal urban function. 5. Kenneth Wagner (Arkansas Western Gas): I have already met with Mr. Dowers and either arrangement would be okay with mer._ 6. Clyde Terry (Warner Cable): .If and when we ever get that far out in the future, we will follow either SWEPCO or Bell. Telephone: 7. Dick Shaw (Southwestern Bell Telephone): No comments. Ervan Wimberly (McClelland Engineers) was present and out a revised plat of College Market Addition showing He said if there were any problems to contact him and for the next Plat Review Committee meeting (March 11). COLLEGE MARKET Revised Preliminary Plat passed the location of easements. that this would be on the agenda CONSTRUCTION AT GARLAND 4 NORTH City Engineer Paul Mattke told the utility companies that his office did not yet have the legal descriptions back on the rights-of-way to be acquired but that he needed the three following items: (1) A letter from each utility company stating they would re -locate their utilities without charge. (2) The date when they think they can begin relocation of the utilities and the length of time required to complete the relocation.= (3) Where they propose to relocate so they can coordinate and work together. Clyde Terry (Warner Cable) said T. V. cable service would be dependent on SWEPCO and/or the telephone and that their re -location would have to coincide. (SWEPCO was not present at this meeting.) Mr. Terry said he would write a letter stating this. Mr. Mattke told the utilities that he would like a copy of the letters that they send to the State Highway Department. John Sloan (with Southwestern Bell Telephone) Fort Smith office) entered the meeting at this point and said he had been in town for the last two days working on the relocation. of their service.. He said he felt sure there would be no relocation embursement cost. He also told Mr. Mattke that it would probably take about 3 months to start and 3 months to adjust. He told the utilities that they could get in contact with his office at Fort Smith at the following address: Southwestern Bell Telephone 2120 South Waldron Road Room 120 C Fort Smith, Arkansas 72901 Telephone Number: 452-2687 indicated that they wanted to be notified before also emphasized this.. Eachof the utilities represented any digging was done., Mr. Mattke There was no further discussion. The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 A. M. ��8 Plat Review March 4, 1976 CITY INSPECTION SUPERINTENDENT'S REVIEW OF THE REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT OF AN ADDITION TO A MOBILE HOME PARK (VILLA NORTH) DATED 3-1-76 41 MARCH 2, 1976 1. The owner stated in the Plat Review Meeting of February 26, 1976, that the project would be classed as a Mobile Home Park development. 2. The development would be required to comply with Chapter 13B of the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances (Mobile homes and mobile home parks opened or expanded after April 20, 1972). 3. SECTION 13B-2 DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR MOBILE HOME PAR'CS Official Plat - The ordinance, in my opinion,gives the City Planning Commission the authority to approve the size of lots, separation of structures, street layouts, and etc. 4. SECTION 13B-3 SUB -SECTION (5) RECREATION AREA The plat does not indicate where the required eight percent (80) of the gross park site area that will be devoted to recreational facilities. 5. SECTION 13B-3 SUB -SECTION (7) MOBILE HOME SUPPORT AND MANNER OF TIEDOWN The "manufactured home" placed on each space will need to be anchored to a permanent footing and foundation or anchored with adequate tiedown facilities. • SECTION 13B-3 SUB -SECTION (8) REQUIRED SCREENING The tract where proposed mobile home park addition is located, is surrounded on the North and East sides by City streets and/or .R-2,.Medium Density Residential District. A view obscuring screening fence is therefore required along the North and East boundaries of the proposed project. The Planning Commission should decide whether the North screening would be placed along the North boundary of the site or along the North lot lines of lots on the South side of Hacienda Street. 7. SECTION 13B-3 SUB -SECTION (11) ELECTRICITY; EXTERIOR LIGHTING Paragraph (d) "Exterior lighting" requires that adequate public lighting shall be provided for all streets, walkways, buildings, and other facilities subject to nighttime use in all mobile home parks. The plan submitted is not clear as to what the owner had in mind regarding exterior lighting. 8 SECTION 13B-4 MOBILE HOME PARK OPERATOR'S PERMIT No mobile home park may be operated unless an operator's permit has been issued by the City and is in effect at all times during the operation of the mobile home park. 9. SECTION 13B -S SUB -SECTION (3) RQUIREMENT OF PLAN APPROVAL BY CITY • This section requires approval of the City Planning Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit and prior to starting construction. Plat Review March 4, 1976 Page Z. APPEAL PROCEDURE Any person affected by any notice which has been issued in connection with the enforcement of the Mobile home park provisions may request a hearing before the City Housing Board. BUILDING CODE Structures placed in a development classed as a mobile home park would, in my opinion, permit the locating of any mobile home that had been cleared and certified by the State of Arkansas as a mobile home. Structures other than "certified mobile homes" placed in a, mobile home park would, in my opinion, have to comply with Chapter XXV of the Standard Building Code (prefabricated construction). The owner could appeal decisions and interpretations regarding the Standard Building Code to the City Board of Appeals (Section III of the Building Code and Section 6 - 35 of the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances). MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION The street name "Arroyo" nay be confused with Arrow Street, and maybe should. be changed. JV IDOA