Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-03-15 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A PLAT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Plat Review Committee was held on Thursday, March 15, 1979, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. in the Board of Directors Room, City Admini- stration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. CITY REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT: Gail Biswell, Clayton Powell, Wally Brt and Don Bunn. UTILITY REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT: Kenneth Wagner and Dick Shaw. OTHERS PRESENT: Homer Fry and Neal Albright. The only item for discussion was the pro- posed MEADOW LANE ACRES Subdivision located outside the City Limits three-fourths mile East of O1'1 Wire Road; Homer and Dorothy Fry, owners and developers. Mr. Neal Albright, engineer, and Mr. Homer Fry, owner and developer, were present to represent. MEADOW LANE ACRES (Outside City) Preliminary Plat 1. Kenneth Wagner (Arkansas Western Gas)• Stated that gas is available one- half mile West of the subdivision, and also available just across the quarter on Highway 156 from the East. Mr. Wagner stated that he would need an ease- ment in order to get into the subdivision if the existing road (proposed to be named Meadow Lane) is not a 60' dedicated county road. Mr. Albright re- sponded that the road was a 60' dedicated county road and there would not be any problem getting into the subdivision. Mr. Wagner estimated that it would cost approximately $5,200.00 to get the gas in and he also noted that the developers would be allowed approxi- mately $125.00 in rebate for each meter for a five-year period. Mr. Wagner asked for a 25' building setback and utility easement along the south side of the roadway easement (proposed Meadow Lane). He also stated that he did not like the proposed name of "Meadow Lane" since the name is so similar to the Meadow Street in town and that such similar names create confusion for service vehicles. 2. Clayton Powell (Street Superintendent): Questioned the condition of Meadow Lane and asked why it jogged at the beginning of the property (topo problem, drainage problem, etc.)? Mr. Albright responded that a power line goes down the strip and that guy wires are in the way of the road. He stated that the power company had wanted $30,000. in order to relocate the lines when the road was built by the County. In order to avoid this large expense it was decided to drop down about fifty feet south and build the road out of the power line easement. Mr. Powell questioned whether the north -south roadway easement noted on the plat was a dedicated county road or a private drive. Mr. Albright re- sponded that it was a private drive and stated that he would so designate• it on the revised plat. Mr. Powell stated further that he would like:to see Meadow Lane renamed to,something less similar to other streets in the area. He also stated • • • • Plat Review Committee Meeting March 15, 1979 Page 2 that since the property is so closely situated to the city limits that the city -county agreement which calls for road to be built to at least minimum county standards (double chip 8 oil seal, etc.) should prevail. He stated that he felt the County Planning Board would want to review the plans. Mr. Powell also noted that he felt Meadow Lane should run flush with the north boundary of the property in order that the roadway could be used as ingress and egress for future lots which may be developed on the north side of the property. Mr. Albright responded that it would be difficult to relocate the roadway since the County had already built it to subgrade in its present location. 3. Wally Brt (Sanitation Superintendent): Stated that since the lots are lo- cated outside the City Limits that there would be no City sanitation services provided. 4. Dick Shaw (S. W. Bell): Asked for easements as follows: (1) 25' running along the southern edge of Meadow Lane; (2) 15' down the West property line; (3) 15' down the East property line; (4) 121' on each side of the interior lot lines of Lots 1 and 2 (total 25'); (5) 121' on each side of the interior lot lines of Lots 3 and 4 (total 25'); (6) 15' on each side of the private drive between Lots 2 and 3. Mr. Shaw noted that he would not need the easements asked for on each side of the private drive if the words "and utility easement" were added to the 50' private drive notation. Mr. Albright and Mr. Fry agreed that they would rather give the 15' easements on each side of the drive in order to leave open the possibility that the private drive might someday be improved and paved. Mr. Shaw stated that if the electric company wanted into those 15' easements on each side of the private drive that the easements would have to be widened to 25' each. 5. Don Bunn (City Engineer): Stated that sewer is not available, however, the lots are large enough that septic tanks will be permissible. Mr. Bunn stated that there is a 6" water line located within 1/4 mile West of the subdivision. He stated that he felt it would be optional whether or not the subdivider chose to use individual water wells or whether to hook onto City water. He suggested that the developer look at the cost differ- ences between water wells and City water before making a decision. He stated that it would cost approximately $10,000. to $15,000. to hook onto City water with a 4" line. 6. Gail Biswell (Planning Office): Stated that the following should be added to the plat: (1) Total acreage of the subdivision (i.e., 20 acres); (2) Proposed Use (i.e., Single-family residential); (3) Topography (unless waived by the Planning Commission); (4) Additional certificates for the final plat: • • Plat Review Committee Meeting March 15, 1979 Page 3 (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (a) County Planning Board approval; (b) County Judge approval; (c) County Road Superintendent approval; (d) Utility Companies' approval of easements. A Certificate for the City Water $ Sewer Superintendent if City water is used; Width dimensions of small strips of property lying north of Meadow Lane; Notation that the roadway easement running north -south bewteen Lots 2 and 3 is a private roadway easement 50' in width (not 60' as platted); Six easements requested by S. W. Bell; and Any additional easements requested by Ozarks Electric Coop. Corp. Mrs. Biswell noted that the Subdivision and Planning Commission would need to determine the following: (1) Whether to require improvements to Meadow Lane (minimum County standards are to apply); (2) Whether to request renaming of the street labeled "Meadow Lane"; (3) Whether to waive preparation of topography for the final plat. Mrs. Biswell also noted that the plat may be processed as an informal plat if no improvements are required by the Planning Commission„ and that a revi- sion would be needed by noon, March 19th, in order to go to the March 26th Subdivision and Planning Commission meetings. 7. Bud Allen (County Planning Administrator): Not present at the meeting, but submitted the following comments: "The plat looks fine. The County will not ask for any road improvements to be made to Meadow Lane as the subdivi- sion will only be adding about 4 lots and very little additional traffic." There being no further business to come before the meeting, said meeting adjourned at 9:45 o'clock A.M.