HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-05-27 Minutes•
MINUTES OF A PLAT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
The Fayetteville Plat Review Committee met at 9:00 A.M., Thursday,
May 27, 1976, in the Directors Room, City Administration Building,
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
UTILITY REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT: James Crownover, Clyde Terry, Dick Shaw,
Kenneth Wagner.
CITY REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT:
Paul Logue, Steve Brown, Wally Brt, Clayton
Powell, Perry Franklin, David McWethy, Paul
Mattke, Bobbie Jones.
ENGINEERS and/or DEVELOPERS PRESENT: James D. Mickle, Brad White, Neal Albright.
The first item scheduled for review was the
Preliminary Plat of a proposed subdivision
submitted by Developer Associates under the name of
Butterfield Addition. Mickle-Wagner of Fort Smith is
consulting engineer. Mr. James D. Mickle was present
Comments and requirements were as follows:
'RetUt s n\eastr1LJSSUBDIVISI0N
(Developer Associates, Developer)
Preliminary Plat
the
to represent the proposal.
1. Paul Logue (Assistant Fire Chief): No comments.
2. Wally Brt (Sanitation. Superintendent): No comments.
3. James Crownover (Ozarks Electric):. We need 15 ft. wide easements as follows:
Between Lots 64 $ 97; between Lots 65 $ 98; between Lots 68 $ 133; between
Lots 69 $ 70; between Lots 1 6 2; between Lots 108 & 109; and between Lots
122 $ 123. 15 ft. is sufficient for us unless some of the other utilities
are within the easement with us. We would like to put a transformer in the
island on the West end of Furman Street if possible. Mr. Mickle requested
that the existing overhead power line along the existing platted ROW of
Elizabeth Avenue be removed. Mr. Crownover said this line would be retired.
He said they would be using a pole between Lots 80 and 81 for their underground
"dip". The metal conduit is to be provided by the developer and may be
either galvanized, cast iron, or steel.
If you will send us a couple more copies of the plat, we will prepare a layout
and send it back to you. (The electrical service in this subdivision is
split between Ozarks Electric and SWEPCO).
A. Clyde Terry (Warner Cable): We need all easements to be at least 25 ft. wide.
We need the following additional 25 ft. easements:
Between Lots 38 $ 39; between Lots 26 $ 27; between Lots 83 Y, 84; between
Lots 86 $ 87. Increase the easement along the North side of the Subdivision
across the back of Lots 89. through 57 to 25 ft. wide. Increase the easement
along the South side of the Subdivision across the back of Lots 5 through 13
to 35 ft. because of the drainage ditch in there.
Mr. Mickle objected to the width of the easements requested in some cases and
requested to be allowed to provide 20 ft. easements generally between lots and
on corner lots to have only 15 ft. wide easements between lots. He pointed out
that with a corner lot having 115 ft. of width, 25 ft. of that is already
set aside as a building setback and it would be difficult to put a ranch style
house on such a lot if the side lot easement is more than 15 or 20 ft.
Mr. Terry as well as the other utility representatives pointed out to him that
when all the utilities (except water and sewer) are in the same easement and
they are all underground, it is very difficult to get within the easement
and dig without disturbing each others services with easements less than 25 ft.
wide. If water or sewer were to be in the easements, too, they would need still
Plat Review Committee
May 27, 1976
-2- 1
wider easements.
Mr. Mickle asked about the lot lines along the North side of the Rolling
Hills Baptist Church property. Mr. Wagner (Arkansas Western Gas) explainedj'.;;
that the problem was still the same as far as working area is concerned.
Mr. Terry said the utility companies had already agreed that 25 ft. was
needed for all of them to get in and work and that the only way they
could reduce the width of the easement would be for all: of the
utilities to get together again.
Mr. Mickle reluctantly agreed to provide 25 ft. on all utility easements
where 25 ft. had been requested. All perimeter easements are to be '
increased to a minimum of 25 ft. total width, except where requested to
be wider.
5. Dick Shaw (Southwestern Bell Telephone Company): Concurred with Mr.
Terry on easements and widths of easements needed. He said he had
talked to some of the utility people in Fort Smith and they definitely
have a problem there working in smaller easements.
6. Kenneth Wagner (Arkansas Western Gas): Concurred with Mr. Terry on
location and widths of easements needed.
7. Steve Brown (Community Appearance): Asked which phase would be developed
first ---Lots 1 through 69 in Phase 1; Lots 70 through 133. in Phase 2. •
Do they propose anything other than single family dwellings? Bobbie
Jones said the R-1.Zone allows duplexes on appeal to the Planning
Commission if the lot is 80 ft. wide and has 12,000 sq. ft. Mr. Mickle
said he was not aware of this previously and they might want to request
some duplexes in the subdivision.
8. David McWethy (Administrative Assistant): Street light spacing shown
varies up to 450 ft. between; the Ordinance requires a minimum spacing
of 300 ft. between as well as one at each intersection and in each
cul de sac. It was determined that additional street lights would be
needed to comply. Bobbie Jones said that in the case of street lights
310 or maybe even 325 feet apart, the Planning Commission could grant a
waiver if they chose. We already have one Butterfield Addition; you
should change the name of your subdivision.
Since the City will be paying the electrical bill on the street lights,
I would suggest 4,000 lumen, low-pressure sodium lights. They are
cheaper in the long. run, even though they cost more to install.
Mr. Crownover said the ballasts were more expensive to replace and were
not interchangeable with mercury vapor lights. Mr. McWethy said he had
some literature from Norelcohe would forward to Mr. Crownover; they do
have an interchangeable ballast. Mr. Mattke said he thought the operating
life of the low-pressure, sodium lights was considerably longer.
9. Clayton Powell (Street Superintendent): Irregardless of plat presented,
this addition already has platted streets----Loxley, Sheryl, Elizabeth
running North and South, and Jon and Roland going East and West. I am
not concerned with the existing platted East-West streets.
Your plat as presented terminates Loxley Avenue. Iwould prefer it to go
straight through to Stubblefield Road as a collector street having a 60 ft.
right-of-way.
I would prefer Elizabeth to be constructed from the existing terminal
point to Harold Street.
•
•
•
Plat Review Committee -3-
May 27, 1976
The existing platted East-West street (Roland) that connects to Sheryl
Avenue is immaterial to me. .If you .don't want to extend it out to Sheryl,
then whatever the legal ramifications that are decided upon to close it is
okay with me.
Regarding street specifications, concrete surface specifications and
drainage requirements, these are contained in a multitude of City ordinances,
and resolutions, our flood plain study, our Vizzier study (General Plan
1970-1990), and a study.conducted by the Northwest Arkansas Regional
Planning Commission all of which compiles our street specifications. I would be
happy to work with your engineer in drawing the street plans and profiles.
Sheryl Avenue is a chronic drainage problem; there is not an inch of storm
drainage.
Rolling Hills Drive is a chronic drainage problem. Everything from the South
on all the intersecting streets empties into Rolling Hills Drive.
With Sheryl, .the drainage from Stubblefield Road and Harold Street and coming
down Rolling Hills Drive which for the past three days we have had rains and
for the past three days the curbs and gutters on Rolling Hills Drive have
overflowed.
Our specifications for storm drainage.specifies that 700 ft. of any collective
drainage on the surface is the maximum permissible. From that point you begin
storm drainage with the appropriately sized re -enforced concrete tile. If you
have more than 400 ft. of continuous. storm drainage, then 400 ft. is the
maximum length without a drop inlet for clean out with a manhole ring.
In your rechanneiization of -the drainage ditch on the southeast end of your
subdivision where you are showing the installation of a double 3 X 5 box culvert,
according to my computations in this area, that is undersized regardless of
the double 30 -inch re -enforced pipe under the existing Rolling Hills Drive.
I compute a triple, 48 -inch tile or 37.5 square feet of drainage area to
rechannel that drainage area.
I do not permit open ditches behind the curb and gutter on street right-of-way.
or concrete swales;
Any drainage.. easement has to be 25 ft. wide. We cannot go in with a tractor,
backhoe, or dump truck and keep easements clean with less than 25 ft. It was
difficult for me to pick up all the storm drainage you indicated on your plat,
but if you will follow the guidelines I have outlined and that are contained in
the official publications passed and approved by the Board of Directors, you
won't have any problems.
Since the existing topography shows drainage from West to East, I prefer that
no additional drainage from any new streets be .emptied into Rolling Hills Drive
or Harold Street. I do not permit 90° turns on surface drainage. Concrete swales
across intersections are fine if it continues in a straight line, but you cannot
divert 700 ft. of drainage on streets in a 3 -inch rain 90° without it splashing
over the curb and flooding living rooms.
We prefer sidewalks be built at the time the streets are; however, the policy
permits sidewalks to be built at the time a house is built upon the lot (or
within 5 years if no house is built within that period of time), which to say
the least is incremental and undesirable. We permit combination curb, gutter,
and sidewalk rather than standard curb and gutter, which on our concrete structure
contract costs 15t per linear foot more than standard curb and gutter.
Whatever is decided through the Planning Office on the closure of the existing
platted East-West streets is okay with me so long as no drainage from this
development is diverted to Sheryl Avenue through the existing street right-of-
way dedication. If they are not going to be used, I prefer some action be taken
to officially close them and the extension of Elizabeth Avenue be a continuous
curb and gutter to keep water from going West into Sheryl Avenue.
Plat Review Committee -4-
May 27, 1976
I want to re-emphasize the continuation of Loxley Avenue on the existing
dedicatedright-of-way all the way to'Stubblefield Road.
As far as concrete swales and ditches in our street right-of-way, this is
fine, but again, 700 ft. is the maximum distance that surface water can
be carried on the streets and that does include street intersections.
When you have a continuous stream of storm drainage exceeding 400 ft,
I want a.drop inlet every 400 ft. with a manhole ring clean out.
These are the same standards that we impose on all local developers. The
northeast section of town is an area where it is more .uncluttered and
virgin land and we would like it to be developed properly.
Mr. Mickle explained their objection to. extending Loxley and Elizabeth Avenues
both through to Harold Street He said this would be a residential
subdivision and their opinion was that they should provide for ready
access for utilities, fire and police protection, and refuse collection,
but to minimize through traffic. He thought it logical that Rolling Hills
Drive, Harold Street, and Stubblefield. Road would continue to be the main
traffic streets in the area because they extend from Old Missouri Road
back to Highway 71; and that Highway 71 and Old Missouri Road would continue
to carry the North-South traffic. .He said they did not feel'it to be
desirable either for the subdivision or for the area to extend Loxley
through because Stubblefield Road as constructed is inadequate in width
and has got a sharp turn at Harold Street and another one nearby. He
also pointed out a jog in the intersection of Loxley Avenue and.Rolling
Hills Drive which does not comply with the existing regulations, but which
cannot be corrected now, and .said this was another reason why they thought
Loxley should not carry a lot of.traffic. .He said they did plan to use
Loxley to go out Furman Street to Butterfield School .and to go out to
Highway 71 and other shopping via Rolling Hills Drive.
Mr. Powell said he was very much aware of the problems in this area and
throughout the City which resulted from not having any standards prior
to 1965.and said it would require another century to correct this, but
he did want the current criteria complied with. He said it not only made
a big difference in fire protection but altogether. He said that with
an average of 1.5 vehicles per household and the total number of lots
proposed, this subdivision would generate more traffic than.currently
exists in the entire area to be emptied into Rolling Hills Drive and
Harold Street.
The minimum size drain tile permitted to be used in the City of Fayetteville
is 15 inch diameter.
City specifications for collector streets are as follows: 60 ft. right-of-
way; 44 ft. paved travel surface (four 11 -ft. lanes), curb and gutter, and
sidewalks on both sides. The developer cannot be required to construct
more than a normal residential street of 31 ft. paving back -of -curb to
back -of -curb and sidewalk on one side. Either the City provides the
additional funds to build the wider street at the initial construction or
it is widened at some future time at the City's expense. This is a
decision of the Planning Commission and Board of Directors.
Old Missouri Road from Stubblefield Road out to Elaine gets 2 ft. under
water when we have a rainy period and the residents mailboxes wash away.
This is why we want this subdivision to meet our current criteria.
There must be 2 ft. of vertical and horizontal clearance between all
storm drainage and utilities.
•
•
•
Plat Review Committee -5-
May 27, 1976
Mr. Mickle inquired about the possibility of leaving Loxley as a cul de sac
as shown on the plat and having Elizabeth Avenue as a collector street
with. a 60 ft. right-of-way and with the developer having the responsibility
of obtaining the additional width where they do not own the property.
Mr. Powell said he did not think it would .be practical to make Elizabeth
a collector street as he thought people will continue to go in the direction
of their destination. He felt that , of the lots in the subdivision would
utilize Elizabeth and the remainder would travel Loxley.
Mr. Mickle asked about the possibility of closing Elizabeth on one end
because they did not want it to develop into a shortcut.
Mr. Powell said this would force the traffic onto Sheryl which is a substandard
street without any drainage and which had base failure 6 months after it was
paved. Based on the numerous complaints which Mr. Powell had received on
the drainage situation in that area, he felt strongly that both Elizabeth and
Loxley Avenues should go all the way through.
The City requires 3 inspections during the construction of streets and
drainage improvements: (1) Sub -grade --must be compacted to 90% proctor density,
.10 plasticity index, 6 inches of SB2 for base material on residential Streets
(minor) and 8 inches of SB2 base on collector streets; (2) after installation
of base material, curb and gutter; (3) blacktop and on clean up, etc. 2 inches
of asphalt is required.
I will reserve further comments until I receive the plans and specifications
and profiles for streets and drainage.
10. Perry Franklin (Traffic Superintendent): I thought we already had a
Briarcliff Street, but we do not. I would rather see these streets named
the same all the way through the subdivision, rather than having the cul de sac
named a "Circle". It will be confusing and will cause confusion in putting
up the street signs. Agreed with Mr. Powell on the extension of Loxley all
the way through to Harold Street and Stubblefield. As your subdivision is
drawn if the street stub through to Sheryl Avenue is not closed but'is extended,
it will create a jog that does not meet the subdivision requirements.
11. Paul Mattke (City Engineer):- There was some discussion about taking Loxley through
to the North and also about eliminating the easement between Lots 63 and 64.
If there is not a street through there, I will need a 15 ft. easement between
Lots 63 and 64.
Adjust the location of sewer mains on Eton and Cortland Circles so they fall
out from under the pavement as much as possible. I think this can be done.
You are showing a 60 ft. easement along the drainage ditch between Lots 13 F, 14
and Lots 17 & 18; be sure to note that as a drainage easement also.
Mr. Mickle said that he assumed the existing easement which the City has on its
sewer line was 15 ft. in width and he had shown an easement 10 ft. off the side
of the sewer line; but if it needed to be wider, he could make it wider.
Mr. Mattke said this easement was acquired in 1969 and some of those were 25 ft.
in width, but he saw no problem as it was shown because the line is already in
place.
Mr. Mattke said that water and sewer service are both available for extension
into the subdivision and he saw no problems on the subdivision.
He asked Mr. Mickle what yearly reoccurance interval (for floods) he had used in
the design of the box culvert. Mr. Mickle said he had used 10 years and Mr.
Mattke suggested he use 25 years. Mr. Mickle told him Mr. Powell had already
asked for a 3 X 62 or 3711 sq. ft.
12. Bobbie Jones (Planning Administrator): We already have a Butterfield Subdivision;
therefore the name must be changed. Show the zoning district ---R-1, Low
Density Residential District ---as well as the proposed use.
is I
Plat Review Committee -6-
May 27, 1976
Obtain the signatures of the owners of. the adjoining, unsubdivided
property on a copy of the plat. The legal description and the title
block should both contain the portion of Stubblefield Addition that is
contained in this subdivision and is being replatted.
I also. feel that Loxley Avenue should extend through to Harold Avenue.
Do we already have 60 ft. of existing street right-of-way on Old Missouri
Road? If we do not, or if your legal description as it is contained
on your deed includes any part of the right-of-way, show a dedication
on the plat for 30 ft. from the centerline of the existing right-of-way.
The West 180 ft. of Jon Street in the Stubblefield Addition has already
been vacated and abandoned. The balance of Jon Street has not been
vacated or closed. Roland Street right-of-way presently extends West all
the way to Sheryl Avenue. I'll have to check with the City Attorney on the
proper procedure for closing these rights-of-way, whether it can be done
just by the filing of a replat or whether it must be done by ordinance.
(Note: The City Attorney later advised that a replat could be used to
close the previously dedicated street rights-of-way within Stubblefield
Addition. This would not close the dedicated portion of Roland Street
from the West boundary of Stubblefield Addition to Sheryl Avenue. Mr.
McCord said other than a replat, the property owners would themselves have
to petition to vacate street rights-of-way.)'
I also picked up that the street light spacing varies from 250 ft. to
450 ft. I noticed also that the location of the street lights alternates
from one side of the street to the other. This is the first plat on which
this has been done ---are there any comments from the other Plat Review
Members on this? The other Members indicated that they saw no objection
to this and that it might give a better lighting situation than to have
all the lights on the same side of the street. Mr. Powell did feel strongly
that the. sidewalks should be kept on the same side of the street.
Mrs. Jones asked whether sidewalks would be built by this developer on the
street stubs (Loxley) which are outside the subdivision, but on which the
developer will have to build the streets. Mr. Powell said that since the
street is needed to gain access to the subdivision and since the sidewalk
goes along with the street, he proposed that the developer build the
sidewalk there as well; however, the final decision would rest with the
Planning Commission.
13. Floyd Hornaday (SWEPCO): Not present. No comments submitted.
14. Larry Wood (Planning Consultant): Change name of subdivision. Show as
being a replat of part of Stubblefield Addition. Extend Loxley Avenue
through to Harold Avenue. Change "Circles" to "Streets". Pull Furman
Street back and build a cul de sac. Extend Eton Street all the way to
Old Missouri Road. Vacate stub street West. from Elizabeth Avenue (Roland)
but retain a 10 ft. sidewalk.easement. Close open ditches in subdivision,
provide drop inlets and storm drainage system. If Furman Street is pulled
back and a cul de sac built, we will need an additional fire hydrant in the
area of Furman Street.
In answer to a question as to the proposed time schedule, Mr. Mickle said they
hoped to take bids shortly after the first of July. Water and sewer would be
the first contracts let, along with the grading. He said they wanted to file
the final plat in Novermber or shortly before then.
•
•
•
Plat Review Committee -7-
May 27, 1976
The next item for review was a large scale development
plan submitted by Jacob -Sterns 4 Sons, Inc. to place
some holding tanks for fats on property owned by
St. Louis San Francisco Railroad West of South Garland
Avenue and North of Cato Springs Road.
Brad White with Jacob Sterns and Neal Albright, Engineer, were
the plan. Comments were as follows:
1. Steve Brown (Community Appearance).:. What will be located here? Mr. White
explained that these would be blending tanks for vegetable oils and
animal fats which are to be mixed with feed. There would be boilers to
melt the fats so they could be pumped from the tanks. There would also
be an office.
JACOB.STERNS $ SONS, INC.
.Pettigrew West of Garland
'large Stale Development
present to represent
Clyde Terry (Warner Cable): No comments since they do not want TV cable.
3. Wally Brt (Sanitation Superintendent): How much trash volume will you have?
Very little; can use cans.
4. Perry Franklin (Traffic Superintendent): Is Pettigrew Street platted?
Bobbie Jones said it platted East of Garland, but not West.
5. Clayton Powell (Street Superintendent): .Mr. Albright contacted me regarding
the existance.of that gravel street. It is not in the official plat book;
however, the official page it should be contained on had a revision in
1965. It is reflected as right-of-way on the 1972 revision.
I made a field inspection. In addition to the storage area immediately
southwest of Garland and this gravel street (which presumably is Pettigrew),
there is one dwelling there that is occupied, one dwelling that is not
occupied, the office area as depicted on the new map presented at this
meeting. Immediately West of there, is an existing storage area or
warehouse for Mr. Eoff and someone else. The dashed line shown between
the office area and storage area on this plan is a set of existing ruts
on the ground; it is not a dedicated street.
We may be stuck with Pettigrew (West of Garland) as an existing gravel
street by prescription, since our records indicate we have been blading
it periodically on request, maybe twice a year. If I were going to put a
profitable commercial operation there, I would consider improving it;
otherwise, all the City will do is maintain it as an existing gravel street.
We will blade it to keep the chuck holes out, but there is no drainage there,
and the day I was down there it had not rained for 4 or 5 days and there was
standing water still in the holes. I don't see how we can legally impose
on this developer any requirement to improve the road, but maybe morally
he would want to do so.
Mr. White said that as long as they have ingress and egress out the existing
private drive to the South to Cato Springs Road, they would like to keep
the road as it is. He said it would be a little snug at first to turn the
corner with a semi -truck, but they planned to redesign the intersection of
the private drive with the West extension of Pettigrew and have more of a
radius.
Mr. Powell said that the 1972 revision of the City Plat Book did show a
street going West off Garland (Pettigrew) but did not have a name on it
and did not have a right-of-way dimension. He doubted it would scale to be
more than 40 ft. He requested a dedication for 25 ft. from the centerline
of the existing roadway, so the City would have a record of the right-of-way.
154
O
•
•
Plat Review Committee -8-
May 27, 1976
Mr. Albright said that the SLSF Railroad owns the property on each side
of the street and apparently the street is included in their
description. The Railroad is in process of putting on record a dedication
of that street.
•
Mr. Powell said that depending on the answer to the old legal question
of what is adverse possession, or prescriptive easement, and what is
right-of-way; it could be that that is a private drive; therefore, the
City does not have any responsibility for maintenance of the gravel road,
even though the City has record of having bladed it in the past.
If that road belongs to the Railroad, we will let them grade it next time.
If they want to dedicate a right-of-way they can build the street to
current City street standards (pavement, curb, gutter, drainage, 4 sidewalk).
6. Dick Shaw (Southwestern Bell Telephone): When will they dedicate that
right-of-way? (Mr. Albright said they are in progress of preparing
that now. It will be submitted to the City and he did not know who
was preparing the description.)
Mr. Shaw.said his question is how to legally get in to provide phone
service to Jacob Sterns. He said the only way he can get in presently
is on the existing gravel road; they would put the phone service there,
but if anyone objected, they would have to remove it until they either
.had an easement or the road was dedicated. The only other way we have of
providing service is to come across the railroad tracks and that is
a big problem.
Mr. Albright asked how the use of that road could be contested since
it has been open for more than seven years.
7. Kenneth Wagner (Arkansas Western Gas): We have gas on the North side
of the private road (Pettigrew). What will be the total load on the
boilers? Mr. White said the maximum load would be 20,000 cubit feet
per hour. Arkansas Western's engineer had told him they could convert
to more efficient boilers and reduce the maximum to 13,000 cubit feet
per hour. Mr. White said he had.been told that they could not assure
him of uninterrupted service, but that.they had told him that they had
only been down one time within the last three years and that was
acceptable.
Mr. Wagner said there should be no problem serving this; there is a 3 -
inch gas line which ends just about North of the storage tank and then
there is a 2 -inch line which only feeds one house, so there is plenty
of gas. They will have to cross the.road (Pettigrew).
8. David McWethy (Administrative Assistant): I would like an area or
vicinity map showing the streets between 15th Street and Cato Springs
Road.
9. Paul Mattke (City Engineer): We have a water main running East and West.
It doesn't exactly coincide with the street as presently shown; we don't
really want it under the street. What type of water service will you
need? Mr. White said their water needs would be minimal. The main
problem they would have would be getting rid of water.
Mr. Mattke said there are no fire hydrants there and suggested they
invest in a fire hydrant to give them some fire protection. He estimated
the cost of a fire hydrant at %550.00. He suggested putting one where
it would be accessible from the road and where it will protect the rear
of their property.
•
O
•
Plat Review Committee -9-
May 27, 1976
Mr. Mattke said he was not sure how the City could provide sewer
service. Mr. Albright said he had checked with Frank Blew and
McGoodwin, Williams $ Yates 'and there is'a new sewer line just North
of there going down the creek which they estimated to be in service
within 30 days. It will be located just North of this property, pretty
close to the edge of the Railroad' property. Mr. Albright said he thought
they had enough fall to get into the sewer line, but would have one
problem ---crossing the creek. Mr. White explained that water is used
in the shipping vehicles (the fats come in by rail cars) and in the
processing this water is drawn off. He said it is not pure water, but
he felt sure they could meet the standards for effluent, whatever they
are.
Mr. Mattke said he did not see any way the City could accept their processed
water into the public sewer. The sewer rates are customarily based on
water consumption. There would have to be some manner of measuring
volume of water discharged into the sewer. I would need to know not
only the quantity, but also the quality, of the water. What are the
constituents of the material? For our sewer treatment B.O.D. is not
a problem; I am worried about other things. Fats have some peculiar
properties for absorbing pesticides. I think we can work out some method
of metering the discharge into the sewer.
Mr. White said that the company's engineer will be back in Fayetteville
before June 14 and he would have him contact Mr. Mattke about the
questions he had raised. He said they purchase these fats from renderers,
but they are not renderers, they are blenders. It was mentioned during
the conversation that if they could get approval from the State Pollution
Control Board, they might be able to dump the water drawn off the fats
into the creek.
Mr. Mattke suggested that if the Railroad is interested in dedicating the
street as a public right-of-way, they might want to contact City Manager
Don Grimes. He pointed out one problem which he shared with the other
utilities in that if it is a private road and they do not have an easement
or written consent to use the road, they really do not have any right to
be in there. He pointed out that, under the present regulations, they
could not just dedicate the road and have the City start maintaining it
without bringing it up to minimum design standards; however, there might
be a possibility of working out something on it. He could not himself
make a decision on that. He did feel that if the road is not to be
dedicated, some written authorization for the utilities to be there should
be given, as well as for emergency vehicles and trash service.
10. Bobbie Jones (Planning Administrator). I also had the question of whether
this was a public street; I think that has been .answered. If this were less
than an acre with the existing development on it we could issue a building
permit without any problem because of the prescriptive -type easement. But
we are dealing with a different ordinance (large scale development ordinance)
which requires dedication of a public street. I think that must be resolved
somewhere; I cannot do that. Bbth Pettigrew and the road to the South are
on railroad property and as far as the zoning ordinance is concerned we would
have no problem if it were not for the large scale development ordinance.
The I-1 Zone requires a front -yard setback of 50 ft. from street right-of-
way. If there is right-of-way dedicated along this North line, you will need
a 50 ft. setback from the 50 ft. right-of-way.for any structure. You have a
25 ft. side setback; the tanks are shown as having only 10 ft. setback from
side property line. We have a.25 ft. rear yard setback, but where it parallels
a railroad track and they are using it for siding purposes, we don't require
that.
153
Plat Review Committee -10-
May 27, 1976
Maximum percentage of buildable area is 50%; you are nowhere near that.
On the office you need two parking spaces. You may find that you need
more. It is difficult to figure them on the tanks; we have a
figure given for storage type facility. Any parking spaces located
inside the 50 ft. front yard setback must be sealed with a "durable
and dustless surface" which is'considered to be either asphalt or
double chip and oil seal. If you have less than 5 parking spaces
and get them back of that 50 ft. setback, they do not have to be
sealed. More than 5 spaces have to be sealed regardless of location.
Parking spaces should be 10 ft. by 20 ft. and have no backing out
into streets: If this becomes a public street, your maximum driveway
width is 40 ft. with 25 ft. distance between individual driveways.
Revise the drawing to show the setback of the office, show a 25 ft.
side setback on the tanks, show the parking area.
I am sure you know that you will need a boiler permit issued by the
State and the boiler must be installed by a licensed boiler fitter.
Mr. Lieberenz and I have researched the use'and, based on a prior
interpretation by the Planning Commission, have determined that this
is a permitted use in I-1.
Looking at the chart, no truck berths are required up to 2,000 sq.
ft. of floor area, but from 2,001 to 40,000 sq. ft., one truck berth
is required. I think they can better determine their needs as far
as truck berths are concerned. No backing into or out of streets.
Any required off-street loading space shall be surfaced with
durable and dustless surface.
I think the final question on the street will have to be made by the
Board of Directors. I believe they will listen to the City Manager's
recommendation.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 A.M.
•
•
•