HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-08-02 Minutes•
•
•
MINUTES OF A PLAT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
A meeting of the Fayetteville PLat Review Committee was held on Thursday,
August 2, 1979, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. in the Board of Directors Room, City
Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas
CITY REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT: Bobbie Jones, Michelle Hale, Don Bunn, Bill
Boudrey, Clayton Powell, Wally Brt, and Rick
Mason
UTILITY REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT: Jimmy Crownover, Dick Shaw, Nick Nance,
John Parker, Floyd Hornaday, and L. 0.
Ferguson
OTHERS PRESENT: Bob Crafton, Tom Hopper, Jim Lindsey, Gary Carnahan, and
other unidentified members of the audience.
The first item for discussion was a
committee review of the final plats of the
Phase 4 and 5 Hyland Park located East of
Crossover Road Present to represent were
Jim Lindsey, President of Hyland Park Inc.;
Bob Crafton and Tom Hopper of Crafton, Tull
and Associates; and Gary Carnahan. Comments
are as follows:
HYLAND PARK
PHASES 4 AND 5
Final Plats
1. Clayton Powell (Street Superintendent): Stated that plans and profiles for
streets and drainage have been approved. Construction is not complete yet.
2. L. 0. Ferguson (Warner Cable): He would have to cross Phase 5 and 6 before
he could get service to Phase 4.
3. Bill Boudrey (Fire Department): He asked about the location of the fire
hydrants. Tom Hopper had all of the utility plan layouts with him and
showed where the fire hydrants would be.
4. Floyd Hornaday ( SWEPC0): Stated that the easements were satisfactory. ,He
said that Phase 4 is not in their territory, and in Phase 5 the service is
split. SWEPCO will service Lot 1, Block 8 and Lots 1, through 10, Block 9.
5. Dick Shaw (S. W. Bell): Easements shown were satisfactory.
6. Jimmy Crownover (OzarksElectric): He asked that the 25 ft. building set -backs
shown on the East side of Lot 17 and the West side of Lot 18, as well as the
private drives for these tandem lot eshown as utility easements in Block 7,
Phase 4. For Phase 5 the easements were O.K. Ozarksviill service Lots 2
through 7,Block 8 and Lots 11 through 16,Block 9.
7. Don Bunn (City Engineer): The water and sewer plans and profiles have been
approved. We will abandon the existing sewer in Lots 7 through 13 Block 7,
in Phase 4. He said new sewer will be built to serve those lots.
The following people were not present and submitted no comment: John Kehn, Don Osburn,
and Wally Brt.
Plat Review Committee Meeting
August 2, 1979
Page 2
B. Bobbie Jones (Planning Administrator): Bobbie said she has not completed
her review. She will try to get written comments in the mail to the de-
veloper and engineer She also noticed:
1. She needs a copy of the covenants.
2. She also asked the developer whether he would sign a contract or post
a bond to insure the completion of improvements.
3. The Planning Commission wants major streets in and around subdivisions
shown on a vicinity map on the final plats, however, Phase 4 and 5 do
not have any major streets in or around them.
The second item for discussion was the
preliminary plat for Kantz Place located
North of Hwy 45 East and West of Crossover Road,
the owner and developer is Ball Family Trust
Present to represent were Bob Crafton and Tom
Hopper of Crafton, Tull F, Associates; and Jim
Lindsey and Gary Carnahan. Comments were as
follows:
1. Clayton Powell (Street Superintendent):
and profiles for street and drainage for
have been approved. The owner -developer
from the AHTD for street connections for
Road (State Hwy 265).
KANTZ PLACE
Preliminary Plat
Stated that the engineering plans
East Oaks Drive and Kantz Drive
is required to obtain permits
State Highway 45 and for Crossover
2. Don Bunn (City Engineer): Don Bunn and Bill Boudrey questioned how far
Tracts 4 and 5 would be from a fire hydrant. They looked at the water and
sewer on the water and sewer layouts with Tom Hopper. Bobbie interrupted
to add that they could not have a tandem lot behind another tandem lot, and
to have them they would have to have a street far enough into Tracts2 and 3
to construct a cul de sac. Then they could take private drives off the cul
de sac for Tracts 4 and 5. Don Bunn asked for a 15 ft. easement down the
East and Southeast side of Tract 6, South of the end of the 'sewer line. He
added that all lots would have sewer. Mr. Bunn asked that the new cul de
sac be constructed to the West no less than 1000 ft. from the West line of
Tracts 4 and 5 with a fire hydrant at the end of the cul de sac. From the
end of the water main they could then run yard lines to serve Tracts 4 and 5.
3. Floyd Hornaday (SWEPCO): He wants a 20 ft. easement centered on the lot line
between Lots 1 and 2, Block 3. For the new street and cul de sac, a 25 ft.
utility easement along both the North and South sides of the street and all of
the way around the cul de sac. He wants the 20 ft. utility easement along the
South side of Lot 1, Block 2. Also, he asked for an additional 5 ft. easement
off the propertynot being subdivided to the East of Lots 14 through 21 and Lot
23, Block 2 (this must be done by a seperate written instrument).
4. Dick Shaw (S W. Bell): Mr. Shaw asked that the easement between Lot 9 and
Lots 10 and 13 be 25 ft. wide rather than 20 ft. wide. Also extend the
easement on the East side on Lot 14 into Lot 13 for25 ft. then tie back to
the easement on the East side of Lot 13.
Plat Review Committee Meeting
August 2, 1979
Page 3
5. L. 0. Ferguson (Warner Cable): Agreed with the easement request of Mr. Hornaday
and Mr. Shaw.
6. Wally Brt (Sanitation Superintendent): Stated that he wants masonry garbage
can holders with screening, large enough to hold 8 or 10 garbage cans, at the
end of the cul de sac. If they do not put in garbage cans, he wants a turn-
around constructed at least 30 ft. by 40 ft.
7. Bobbie Jones (Planning Administrator): Stated:
1. Bobbie repeated that Tracts 4 and 5 could not be tandem lots located
behind Tracts 2 and 3, which are tandem lots. The Planning Commission
must approve tandem lots. Jim Lindsey stated that the idea was to go with
tandem lots because the rock problem in this area is severe.
2. Bobbie asked how long the 2 excluded properties had been under separate
ownership, she was answered by Jim Lindsey who said that it had been for
a long time.
•
3. A commercial sidewalk should be 5 ft. wide. Clayton Powell added a com-
mercial sidewalk should be on both sides of the street.
4. The balance of Bobbie's comments are in letter form attached.
John Kehn (Arkansas Western Gas)• Not Present. No Comment Submitted.
9. Don Osburn (Water Meter Foreman): Not Present. No Comment Submitted.
The third item for discussion was the
final plat for East Oaks Subdivision located
on the West side of Crossover Road South of the
township line, the owner -developer is Northwest
Financial Services, Inc.. Present to represent
was Crafton, Tull P, Associates. Comments were
as followed:
EAST OAKS SUBDIVISION
Final Plat
Phase 1
1. Tom Hopper (Crafton, Tull €, Associates): Stated that the lots along Township and
Crossover Road had all been laid out so that the houses could be built facing onto
side streets because he thought this was better. Bobbie Jones told him that the
Board of Directors had complained because this subdivision was approved for develop-
ment with three streets to intersect into Crossover Road. They thought only one
street in this subdivision should have been allowed to intersect into Crossover Road.
Mr. Hopper said that he and Don Grimes, City Manager, had discussed this; but at time
the street plans, profiles, and specifications had all already been prepared and
approved for all three streets to intersect Crossover Road. Mr. Crafton added that
much of the storm sewer and drainage work had already been constructed at that time
also. Tom Hopper said that the water was already installed and that they had put
the drainage in drain pipes rather than in open ditches to cut down on the width
of the easements.
•
•
•
Plat Review Committee Meeting
August 2, 1979
Page 4
2. Don Bunn (City Engineer): He asked them to put casings under the streets where.
the mains have to cross the street. The water and sewer taps have not been made
yet and before the streets are paved, the developer should put in conduit for
these taps and service lines which must cross the street.
3. Clayton Powell (Street Superintendent): Suggested that the developers of the
subdivisions( abutting Township Road form a improvement district to get construction
of Township Road.
4. Floyd Hornaday (SWEPCO): Stated that he needs a 25 ft. off-site easement in a
separate easement deed in order to get service to Block 7.
5. Nick Nance ( S. W. Bell): He agreed with Hornaday on easements.
6. Wally Brt (Sanitation Superintendent): Stated thatif they are not going to build
the streets all of the way through to an existing street he wants a turnaround
or.(cul .de sac where the street construction stops.
7. Bob Crafton (Crafton, Tull $ Associates): Stated that the extended East Oaks
Drive would be built simultaneously with the development of East Oaks subdivision
out to Hwy 45. He said that the Planning Commission had already ruled that they did
not have to pay for the construction of Township.
The final item for discussion were the
following streets and sidewalks being ad-
vertised for bid under the Community Devel-
opment program. Whillock (Hwy 71, East to End),
E. Farmers (Hwy 62, South to End), Combs (Hunts-
ville Rd. to Existing Curbed Point), Montgomery,
Greenwood, Irene, Alta (Hwy 71, East), Sligo
(Ashwood to Vale) and Sycamore (Gregg to Woolsey).
Sidewalks --Garland (Sycamore to Mt. Comfort), 6th
(College to Wood), and 7th (College to Wood).
Rick Mason, from Community Development, showed
the plans to the utility representatives. Comments
was' as followes:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Street and Sidewalk Construction
1. Clayton Powell (Street Superintendent): Stated that all streets.were to be paved
to follow city standards and have curbs, gutters and sidewalks except for:
Whillock Streets pavement will be only 18 ft. wide and there will be no curb,
gutter, or sidewalk; Combs Avenue will be only 21 ft. plus the curb, gutter, and
sidewalk which will make it 24 ft. wide. He mentioned that a driveway has been
built on Combs near the intersection of Huntsville Road which was not approved
because the required safety zone from the street intersection was not sufficient.
In construction he plans to construct a 6 inch high curb across this driveway
,anyway.
•
•
Plat Review Committee Meeting
August 2, 1979
Page 5
1. Floyd Hornaday (SWEPCO): He and Dick Shaw agreed that as soon as the Board
of Directors approved and accepted the bids they want a set of plans, and
these plans must show the location of all utility poles to be moved or the
right-of-way for the street must be staked, or both.
The meeting adjourned at 11:10 o'clock A.M.
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
F. 0. DRAWER F
Mr. Bob Crafton
Crafton, Tull & Associates
.P. 0. Drawer 549
Rogers, Arkansas 72756
Dear Mr. Crafton:
72701 [501) e2i-7700
August 3, 1979
Re: Proposed Final Plat of East Oaks
Subdivision
I have completed my review of your proposed plat and submit the following comments
and questions:
1. At least a rough draft of the Covenants should be submitted for review.
Morton Gitelman, a member of the Planning Commission, asked that the
City of Fayetteville be included as a beneficiary of the covenants at
the meeting in which the Preliminary Plat was approved.
• 2. Do you wish to sign a Contract giving the City a lien on the lots within
the Subdivision to assure that the requirements improvements will be
completed as required by the City regulations; or do you wish to post
a performance bond, or a cash bond?
3. The note pertaining to construction of sidewalks should be changed to
read that ". . . if the lot lies vacant for 5 years, the sidewalks shall
be constructed by the end of the 5 -year period by the lot owner of record
in the Office of the Washington County Circuit Clerk and Ex -Officio Recorder
on that date."
4. The plat must show sidewalks to be constructed all the way around the cul
de sac on Copper Oaks Plaza. Also, the symbol for sidewalks along Crossover
Road (Highway 265) is barely legible. This should be darkened so that it is
clearly legible.
5. Correct the Zoning Classification to read, "R-1, Low Density Residential
District".
6. This plat shows a street light to be on the West side of East Oaks Drive
opposite the Southwest corner of Lot 14, Block 2. The Preliminary Plat of
Kantz Place shows a street light proposed on the East side of the street at
approximately the same location. The two plats must agree.
7. The legal description is blurred and difficult to read in many places. It
must be clearly legible. Next to the last call reads 586°28'07"W 475.15 feet";
however, it is shown on the boundary of the plat as S88°28'07"W 475.15 feet.
Please correct the error.
•
•
•
•
Grafton, Tull & Associates
August 3, 1979 - Page 2
8. Because of complaints from homeowners who have purchased lots in subdivisions
and were not aware of Master Street Plan proposals, the City now requests that
major streets within and abutting subdivisions be reflected on the plats.
They have asked that this be done by a vicinity map depicting the relationship
of the major streets to the subdivision; however, since you are short on space
on this plat, it might be acceptable to add a note alongside Township Road that
it is a proposed collector street requiring a 60 ft. right-of-way on the
Master Street Plan of the City of Fayetteville. Another note alongside
Crossover Road should be added to the effect that it is a principal arterial
street requiring an 80 ft. right-of-way on the Master Street Plan of the City
of Fayetteville.
9. Since the Planning Commission voted not to require any participation from the
developer of this subdivision toward the construction of Township Road, I
think there should be a note on this plat stating that the street will be
constructed at a future date by someone other than this subdivider.
10. Add a dimension between the point of beginning and the Northwest corner
of Lot 8, Block 5. It appears to be a distance of 35.39 feet; however,
you should confirm this.
11. The 121/2 ft. easement shown outside the subdivision and along the back lot
lines of Lots 8 and 9, Block 5 and Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 6, and Lots 1 and
2, Block 7, must be prepared and recorded by a separate instrument. The
same is true of the 25 ft. easement requested by the Telephone Company
from the Southwest corner of Lot 2, Block 7 and running Southerly. We
need a copy of this recorded easement for our files.
12. Where easements are centered along lot: lines, they should be dimensioned
in such a way as to reflect this, or a note should be added on the plat
that easements along common lot lines are centered on the lot line unless
otherwise noted.
13. On the upper left hand corner of the plat change the "2-16-30" to
"Sec. 2, T -16-N, R -30-W."
14. In addition to the symbols for "building setback", and "building setback
and utility easement", label each on the plat at least one time in each
block.
15. On Lots 5, 6 and 7, Block 1, is the width of the lot at least 70 ft. at
the building setback line? I am sorry if this was not covered earlier,
but that is the minimum requirement of the Zoning Ordinance.
16. The following questions pertain strictly to easements:
Between Lots 1 and 2, Block 6, the easement is dimensioned as both 25 ft.
and 20 ft. wide. Mr. Hornaday with SWEPCO advised me today that it should
be 25 ft. wide.
The North-South easement to the West of Lot 1, Block 2; Lot 1, Block 3;
Lot 1, Block 4; and Lot 11, Block 1 is shown as a 20 ft. wide drainage
and utility easement. This is very narrow for both. Have you checked
this with those who will be using this easement? Mr. Hornaday said at
least 25 ft. is needed for both.
•
•
•
Crafton, Tull & Associates
August 3, 1979 - Page 3
This same easement is shown as a 25 ft. wide utility easement between
Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 and as a 20 ft. drainage easement between Lots
1 and 2, Block 5. Is this correct?
The easement between Lots 8, 9 and 10, Block 2 znd Lot 6, Block 1 is
shown as 25 ft. wide. Then it narrows down to only 20 ft. between
Lots 1 through 7, Block 2 and Lots 7 through 11, Block 1, with an
additional 10 ft. drainage easement. Will sewer be in the 20 ft.
easement? If so, shouldn't it be 25 ft. wide.
The easement between Blocks 3 and 4 is very irregular in width and I
am sure that I will be called upon eventually to explain why. Can you
advise me of the reason for the width of this easement to vary so much.
Some of these matters were discussed in Plat Review yesterday and others I have
picked up today. A revised plat is needed by Monday or Tuesday, August 7, at the
latest to be on the Planning Commission agenda for August 13. At least 6 copies
are needed in order to send one to each Subdivision Committee Member and retain
one for the file. If we had 11 copies, one could be sent to each Planning
Commission Member, Larry Wood, and one retained for the file.
Sincerely yours,
(Mrs.) Bobbie Jones
Planning Administrator