HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-12-14 Minutes•
•
MINUTES OF A PLAT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
A meeting of the Fayetteville Plat Review Committee was held on Thursday,
December 14, 1978, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. in the Board of Directors Room, City
Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
CITY REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT: Bobbie Jones, Gail Biswell, Clayton Powell, Don
Bunn, Donnie Osburn.
UTILITY REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT: Jimmy Crownover, Kenneth Wagner, Andy Calloway.
OTHERS PRESENT: Bruce Kendall (Washington County Planning Board), Wayne Jones,
Danny Johnson, Melvin Milholland and George Faucette, Jr.
The first item for discussion was the
preliminary and final plat of SHALOTT ACRES,
a subdivision located on County Road 649 one
mile south of Highway 16 West of the Fayette-
ville City Limits. Danny Johnson, owner, and
Wayne Jones, engineer, were present to repre-
sent.
SHALOTT ACRES
Preliminary $ Final Plat
County Road 649
South of Hwy. 16 W.
1. Clayton Powell (Street Superintendent): The property is outside the city
limits, but within its growth area. General Kendall should comment upon
the county's road and street standards.
2. Gen. Bruce Kendall (County Planning Board): Dedication of county road right-
of-way (County Road #649) should be made from 30' of centerline of the exist-
ing road (an increase of 10 additional feet). The setup providing for county
road only through lots 1 and 2 is unacceptable. Although a cul-de-sac is
planned for the lot line between lots 2 and 3, a dedication or road easement
should be made clear to the west lot line of lot 3 in order to provide for
possible future extensions of the road. Tandem lots and tandem lot private
drives are disliked by the County Planning Board, but if the City approves
this setup, the County will not object. He stated he would want a 60' road
dedication clear to the end of the west lot line of lot 3 in order that the
road could someday be extended past the cul-de-sac and past lot 3 if needed.
He stated that some type of notation in the abstracts of these lots should be
made noting that buyers should be aware of the road easement and the possibility
of possible future extension across their property to the west.
Clayton Powell stated that he agreed with Gen. Kendall and he also would
rather not have private drives in areas where future extensions were possible.
He stated that if the road was "going to be maintained by the County, it should
be a County road all the way to the west line of lot 3."
3. Don Bunn (City Engineer): Sewer is not available. Water is to the NE corner
of the property. The water main can be extended to serve the lots as far as
the county road goes.
• 4. NDonnie Osburn (Water Meter Superintendent): Will need to run the water main
in front of lots 1 and 2 in order to serve 3. The meter box should be at the
Plat Review Committee Meeting
• December 14, 1978
Page 2
•
•
NE corner of lot 3 to serve the two tandem lots. If the cul-de-sac ends at
lot one, point of service will be at one. Would like to see a 4' x 4' redwood
or western cedar post 3' or 4' high with house numbers thereon. The developers
should put in these posts with house numbers because the property owners will
not. Name the proposed road. Show the county road number designation on the
plat (#649).
Bobbie Jones noted that if the road is made a county road, it will need to
be named and it can be named anything the developer would like, except the
name should not be similar to other county or city.street names.
5. Jimmy Crownover (Ozarks Electric): We already have a line back to lot 1 and
will only need to extend it now between lots 2 and 3. The easements designated
as road and utility easements should be separated and each designated either
utility or road as we cannot go into any easement dedicated as a road easement.
I have no need for the utility easements shown on the south sides of the lots.
As far as I am concerned, they can be eliminated. It would be a good idea to
leave the 15' utility easement on the West side of lot 3 in case future develop-
ments occurs to the west.
6. Kenneth Wagner (Arkansas Western Gas): Stated that, according to his map,
the gas company already has a line on the North side of the lots. Wayne Jones
countered that he was sure their line was at least 1700' from there. Mr.
Wagner stated he would no further comments until he could ascertain the exact
location of his line, although he would like to make it clear that his company
also would not get into any easement designated as a combination "road and
utility easement."
7. Andy Calloway (S. W. Bell): Stated that there were so many "ifs, and & buts"
to this plat that he could not decide what he did or did not need. He said
that he would want to see this plat run back through the Committee after the
revisions had been made since it was presently "totally unacceptable." He
further stated that he did not like the idea of running preliminary and final
plats through at the same time. Clayton Powell agreed.
Mr. Calloway went on to say that, since Mr. Jones did not even know where
his cul-de-sac would be, there was no way the utility companies could decide
exactly what easements they would need. He said that he was only sure of two
things, i.e., that he would need a 25' easement running north and south along
the East side of Lot land one running east and west along the north side of
Lot:.i•,.and_extended clear across Lots..2 and 3 to the west lot line of Lot 3.
Bruce Kendall questioned the reason for running the plat through as both a
preliminary and final, and Bobbie Jones responded "because they didn't propose
any improvements, just a tandem lot with no improvements."
Clayton Powell stated he would require a turn around at the west side of
Lot 3, and that if in the future the road is extended further west, the addi-
tional right-of-way dedicated for the cul-de-sac (a 50' radius with 100' diam-
eter cul-de-sac would be required) would revert to the adjoining property owners.
For the present, he stated that a barricade at the end of the cul-de-sac would
be sufficient; that provisions should be made for storm drainage; but that no
plans could be determined exactly until the developer knew what he was actually
going to do.
Plat Review Committee Meeting
• December 14, 1978
Page 3
•
•
8. Bobbie Jones (Planning Administrator): Show on plat:
1. Name and address of owner and developer.
2. Total acreage of development.
3. Topography.
4. Certification of notification of adjoining property
5. Location of existing and proposed utility lines.
6. Proposed use for each lot (single-family, etc.)
7. Certificates for officials and utility companies to sign.
8. Location of property, i.e., "On County Road #649 one mile south of
Highway 16 West of the Fayetteville City Limits."
9. Full legal description.
owners.
Also will need to submit the regular application form
Need copy of proposed covenants. Can go back through
day if have revisions ready by noon next Monday. The
meeting is on January 8, 1979.
The last item for discussion was the prelimi-
nary plat of "The Meadows" a subdivision located
outside the city, but within the growth area, more
particularly located as: 2.25 miles East of the City
Limits along Hwy. 45; and approximately 0.5 miles
North of Hwy. 45 on Ark. Hwy. 156. George Faucette,
Jr. and Melvin Milholland were present to represent.
and pay required fee.
Plat Review next Thurs-
next Planning Commission
"THE MEADOWS"
Preliminary Plat
Ark. Hwy. 156
(Outside City)
1. Gen. Bruce Kendall (County Planning Board): Will need 80' right-of-way for
Highway 156 so show 40' from the centerline of the highway instead of the
platted 30'. The county road should be 60' wide (show 30' each side of center-
line).
Mr. Faucette questioned whether the proposed road would need to be paved
since Highway 156 is not paved, only gravel. Mr. Kendall replied that the road
would need to be built to minimum county standards and he felt it should actual-
ly be paved. He said that minimum county standards even for gravel roads in-
cluded everything for a paved road except the chip seal coat. He stated that,
after you have gone that far, the additional expense for paving is minimal.
However, he said that if the city would like to negotiate this requirement,
he would be agreeable.
2. Clayton Powell (Street Superintendent): Agreed with Mr. Kendall about re-
quiring 80' right-of-way for Highway 156, 60' right-of-way for the proposed
county road, and 50' radius for cul-de-sac, if the road is permitted to end
that way. He stated that since there is no other access road in this area,
he thought the proposed road should be extended to the east property line in
order to provide for future development. He stated that, to his knowledge,
the city has never granted variances from the minimum chip seal required by
the county. He stated that since this subdivision is only about 1/4 mile off
State Highway 45 East (a paved highway) and is so close to the city (not a
remote subdivision) he felt paving should be required. He said the develop-
ment would be using city water, the extension of such line being a factor in
the development in this area.
Plat Review Committee Meeting
December 14, 1978
Page 4
3. Donnie Osburn (Water Meter Superintendent): Name the proposed county road.
4. Don Bunn (City Engineer). Sewer is not available. The water line on the
East side of Highway 156 will need to be extended to the end of the proposed
road in order to pick up tract.5. The water line easement is coincidental with
a gas line. He stated that the notation along the west property line should be
changed to read from "Proposed Water Main by Fay. Water Dep." to "Proposed
Water Main Extension."
5. Jimmy Crownover (Ozarks Electric): Platted utility easements are fine, but
also want 15' down the interim Lot lines (715 feet each side of each lot line).
Will want the 15' utility easement noted down the west property line changed
to a 25' utility easement and building setback. Will want a 25' easement along
the south side of the proposed county road and around the cul-de-sac A 15'
easement along the north side of said proposed road will be sufficient, but
will also need 15' easement between lot lines of tracts 2 and 5 (715 feet each
side of lot line) clear to the east boundary line. This last easement is
asked for to provide for future development to the East.
6. Andy Calloway (S. W. Bell): Agree with easements asked for.
7. Kenneth Wagner (Arkansas Western Gas): Agree with easements, but would like
all utility easements designated "public" since we can't get into any easement
not so noted.
8. Bobbie Jones (Planning Administrator): In summary, will want:
1. 15' "public" utility easements at all interior lot lines.
2. No easements will be needed along the North, East or South property lines.
3. 25' utility easement and building setback needed along west property line
along Hwy. 156.
4. Dedicate additional 10' along Hwy. 156 to give a total of 40' from center-
line off this plat.
5. Change water main notation Dun Bunn asked for.
6. 60' right-of-way (30' each side of centerline) needed for proposed road.
7. Need 25' utility easement along south side of proposed road all the way
around cul-de-sac
8. 15' easement along north side of proposed road.
9. 15' (71' each side of each lot line) easement from end of cul-de-sac to
east property boundary line.
10. 15' easement along west side of Tract 4 south of lot line of Tract 3.
11. Proof of notice to adjacent property owners (may send copies of plat by
certified mail, return receipt requested, and bring receipts to Bobbie).
The meeting adjourned at 10:45 o'clock A.M.