HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-09-09 - Minutes•
•
MINUTES OF A SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING
The Subdivision Committee of the Fayetteville Planning Commission met at 1:30 P.M.
Friday, September 9, 1983, in the Chamber of Commerce Board Room, 123 West
Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Don Hunnicutt, Melanie Stockdell, Barbara Crook.
OTHERS PRESENT: Fred Hanna, Mel Milholland, Jim Potts, Sterling Anders, Clayton
Powell, Mrs. Robert Stout, Bobbie Jones.
Chairman Don Hunnicutt called the meeting to order.
The minutes of the Subdivision Committee Meeting of August 19, MINUTES
1983, were approved as mailed upon a motion by Melanie Stockdell.
The first item on the agenda was the approval of the Large JOHN MAGUIRE
Scale Development Plan for office buildings to be located at Large Scale Development
4210 and 4226 Frontage Road; John Maguire, Owner and Developer. 4210 & 4226 N. Frontage Rd
The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District.
Fred Hanna was present to represent Mr. Maguire.
Chairman Hunnicutt stated that there were a few things mentioned in the Plat Review
Minutes which needed to be taken care of:
(1) Notification of adjoining property owner(s) with a different zoning
classification. Mr. Hanna said that Mrs. Robert Stout was the owner of the only
property adjoining the development site which had a different zoning classification.
Mrs. Stout was present.
(2) The driveway at the North end of the development site had to be set back
12.5 feet for a safety zone (this is applicable to the portion of the driveway where
the curb is broken and where it extends back to the street property line only).
Mr. Hanna stated this had been corrected on the drawings furnished to the Planning
Commission. Barbara Crook advised Mr. Hanna that it should be dimensioned on the
drawing before a building permit is issued.
(3) Change building dimensions on the offset corners of the buildings from 60 ft.
to 55 ft. This had not been done yet; Mr. Hanna was asked to have this changed
on the original before plans are submitted for the building permit.
(4) Parking must be set back 5 ft. from the East 120 ft. of the South property
line because the adjacent zoning is A-1. Bobbie Jones said the drawing as submitted
complies with that requirement, but she had advised them of it in case they should
want to change their parking layout.
Barbara Crook asked if the utility easement along the front property line is 5 ft.
wide or 15 ft. wide. She asked that the 15 ft. wide easement be more clearly
dimensioned as her copy did not print the "1" in "15". She also asked that the
site plan state that the parking and driveway areas will be paved. Mr. Hanna advised
her they would be concrete. Mrs. Crook asked that the site plan show the 5 ft.
wide concrete sidewalk which is required along Frontage Road. Bobbie Jones advised
that a 1982 ordinance amendment requires developers to install sidewalks along any
side of a service road with a potential for development, but not along the side where
there will be no development between the service road and the controlled access highway.
At this point Mrs. Stout inquired what was to happen with the South end of this
section of Frontage Road where it deadended into her property. Bobbie Jones stated
that there are some proposed amendments to the Master Street Plan on the Planning
)go
Subdivision Committee Meeting
September 9, 1983 - Page 2
Commission agenda for September 12. This will be a public hearing. One of the
proposed amendments shows the portion of Frontage Road between this development
site and the North end of Frontage Road in Bassett Place Subdivision to curve
around Mrs. Stout's house by passing it on the East. Mrs. Stout was showed a copy
of the proposal. She expressed concern that it would go through a wooded area
she owns and destroy habitation for certain wildlife. She asked how soon this would
take place. Chairman Hunnicutt advised her that it would probably take place when
she, or a future owner of her property, decided to develop her property.
Barbara Crook asked where the vicinity map for the site was and why it was not on
the same sheet as the site plan.
Mrs. Crook asked how they planned'. to handle the on-site drainage. She stated they
could not just let it run out the driveways into the street.
Street Superintendent Clayton Powell stated that he had not checked the location of
the nearest curb drop inlet on the street. He emphasized that the developer could
not empty the water from his parking lot out the driveways onto the street. He said
if there is a drop inlet close by on the street, the developer could collect it on
his site and pipe it to a drop inlet. If it is too far to the drop inlet, he could
take it to the East to the nearest hillside drainage ditch. Mr. Hanna stated he had
assumed there was storm drainage along the street and that they could put a catch
basin in at each driveway. Mrs. Crook advised him he should work this out with
Mr. Powell and also cautioned him against directing his on-site drainage onto a
neighbor where it had not previously drained.
Melanie Stockdell asked what type screening he proposed for his trash container.
Mr. Hanna said he had planned to fence the 3 sides, except the front. She asked
that this be noted on the site plan.
Chairman Hunnicutt asked about Building Inspector Freeman Wood's comments on the
distance between the buildings, and asked if this meant there could be no windows
in the walls between the buildings. It was decided they should contact Mr. Wood and
that they would have to comply with the Standard Building Code on this matter.
Mrs. Crook asked about Ozarks Electric's comments on street lights. Mrs. Stout
stated that there are 2 street lights on the East side of Frontage Road.
Bobbie Jones advised that at the end of the first phase of construction, they would
have to submit an "as -built" site plan showing all the improvements and utility
locations on the site at that point; when they request the second building permit,
they should submit a copy of the site plan containing the as -built information from
the first phase. After completion of both phases, they should submit another "as -built"
showing all improvements again.
Mrs. Stout commented that Frontage Road ends in a ditch at this time. She said that
2 days after they had cleared their land, there was a large rain and a good deal of
their dirt had washed down into her wooded area. She said she did not want the
animals in her wooded area to be flooded out sometime because of the way they were
handling their site. Mr. Hanna assured her that, up to now, they had just shoved some
dirt around, but that when it was finished, it would be paved with a lawn and the
slope would be planted in grass.
Chairman Hunnicutt stated that since the developer was not seeking any waivers or
variances, the Subdivision Committee could approve this plan and it would not be
necessary for it to be heard by the full Planning Commission.
Barbara Crook moved approval of the large scale development plan of John MOTION
• Maguire to construct office buildings at 4210 and 4226 N. Frontage Road
as it was presented, with the following changes:
(1) The site plan dimension the 12.5 ft. safety zone (setback) for the driveway
on the Northwest corner of the site;
(2) The site plan show a 5 ft. concrete sidewalk to be constructed along Frontage
Road.
!21
•
•
•
Subdivision Committee Meeting
September 9, 1983 - Page 3
(3) Site plan show an "adequate" screen around the trash dumpster location;
(4) Site plan show the surfacing for the parking areas and driveways to be concrete;
(5) Storm drainage be worked out so that surface water is handled on the site
in a way that is satisfactory to the City Engineer;
(6) Meet the Fire Code and Standard Building Code on the separation of the two
buildings;
(7) Change the building dimensions on the site plan to reflect the accurate
dimension of 55 ft. rather than 60 ft;
(8) Subject to other Plat Review Comments not in conflict with this motion as
stated. Stockdell seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously. 3-0.
The next item on the agenda was approval of the preliminary
plat of Point West Subdivision located North of Sycamore
Street, West of 71 By -Pass, and South of Mt. Comfort Road;
M.A.P. Group, Owner and Developer. The property is zoned
I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial District.
POINT WEST
Preliminary Plat
West of 71 By -Pass between
Sycamore $ Mt. Comfort Rd.
Sterling Anders, Jim Potts, and Mel Milholland were present to represent
the proposal.
Chairman Hunnicutt noted that the developers are requesting some waivers and asked
Street Superintendent Clayton Powell to comment.
Mr. Powell stated that he was attending this meeting because this industrial
subdivision (being developed by the private sector of the economy), will be a
precedent. He said the streets in the City -owned Industrial Park were constructed
by the City and will be perpetually maintained by the City. He stated the proposed
Point West is zoned "Heavy Industrial (sic) and Light Industrial", and the City's
minimum residential street specifications are grossly inadequate for an industrial
complex. The right-of-way is inadequate and intersection radii are inadequate.
Also, the sub -base, base material and surface materials just do not come up to an
industrial standard. To give a comparison, when the. City first developed the
Industrial Park, Armstrong Boulevard, which was the existing street that served
the community to the South there, was paved with 8 inches of SB -2, 2" of asphalt, with
asphalt curbs. He said before we ever had one industry built in the Park, that
street had failed from just the local traffic going down to the Black Oak Community.
So, since that time, the Street Department has built all other streets down in the
Industrial Park. The City's last effort was to design the street according to the
American Association of State Highway Officials' (AASHTO)design criteria to support
the weight and traffic numbers that were going to be going in and out of that
Industrial Park. This came to 8 inches of portland cement concrete, 4200 psi
flexural strength, and 600 psi compressive strength. Powell said he feels the .
street in this Industrial Park should be designed similarly. The Portland Cement
Association (PCA), a national organization with chapters in every state, recommends
a minimum thickness for an Industrial Park street of 7 inches. There is a method
by which you can compare the different construction materials for streets regard-
less of zoning. It is called structural numbering, numbers that were worked out
by the AASHTO along with the ASTM.
All these are public non-profit organizations. They conducted tests for over 7
years in the State of Iowa to obtain all this criteria. Seven inches of portland
cement concrete would be equivalent to a road depth of 13 inches if you use SB -2
(crushed limestone), black asphalt base, black binder and then a 2 -inch surface
material. He said this is what the City did when they built the last streets in
the Industrial Park. He said they made everything equal, they felt that to meet
IVa
i
•
Subdivision Committee Meeting
September 9, 1983 - Page 4'
the criteria of the traffic loads and the volume of those loads, it would take a
minimum of 8 inches of concrete. Therefore, they compared that to the gravel and
asphalt materials, advertised for competitive sealed bids to build the street to
that quality, and the concrete street was grossly cheaper than the asphalt of
equal quality and strength. The developer and his engineer have submitted their
request for variances and they point to it as a "frontage road". Powell said he
would like to point out that all of the frontage roads in the City along the
Bypass have been built by the State Highway Department in conjunction with the
completion of the 4-laning of the Bypass itself. The remaining frontage roads,
which are dedicated to the City for City maintenance, are Front Street from the
Arkansas Western Gas Company central office to Joyce Street, and that segment of
Frontage Road coming from Zion Road south where the same developer is building at
this time, on the west side of the Bypass at the Mall from Nelson Funeral Home
(Stearns Joyce) up to the south Mall driveway. Those three streets are frontage
roads dedicated for City maintenance. The rest are all State Highway Department.
Hunnicutt said that the road recently installed in the Steele Addition on the
west side of 71B just south of its north intersection with the Bypass is also a
service road.
Powell said if this is going to be for the City to maintain, he thinks the experience
the City has gained over the past 12 years, the drainage problems, and the failed
street problems, demonstrate the necessity for building things right in the first
place so the taxpayers do not have to pay for correcting the deficiencies later.
Hunnicutt stated that it was his opinion that the Subdivision Committee can only
require the standards the ordinance says it can. He felt the City Board of
Directors would have to make a change in the ordinance to enable the Committee
to require different strengths and thicknesses of concrete or asphalt or whatever
the road surface would be. He said it could be pointed out to the Board.
Sterling Anders pointed out the comparative size of the City Industrial Park and
its lots to the size of the proposed development with lots 125 ft. by 250 ft.
He said the City's Industrial Park has heavy industries and he could not see that
sort of development in this location. Mrs. Crook stated that an industry could
purchase and combine several of these small lots to build on. Mr: Potts stated
that this property is zoned "Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial", not "Heavy
Industrial" with some restrictions through a Bill of Assurance submitted at the
time of rezoning. Crook stated that one possibility would be for the Committee
to delay approval of the proposed plat until after the Board of Directors has
considered whether to amend the street standard ordinances so that the City could
have a gradation of requirements for heavy industrial and light industrial, or it
might be based on the type of trucks that would be allowed to use the streets.
Then everything would not have to go to the standards for heavy industrial but
would be based on rational use of the street. That would delay these developers.
Mr. Potts stated they were ready to proceed with their construction. He thought
Mr. Powell was basing his recommendations on this being a heavy industrial
zoning, which it is not. Crook stated that this is still precedent setting.
Anders stated they had only purchased a 50 ft. right-of-way from the intersection
of Porter Road into their property. Milholland stated that they are also wanting
to get construction underway without delay. He said the preliminary plat was
submitted under existing ordinances, and they wished to proceed. Hunnicutt said
I V3
•
•
•
Subdivision Committee Meeting
September 9, 1983 - Page 5
the Committee is faced with whether to consider this as submitted and recommend
changes in the street standards, or to table the.clat and make a decision on
the street standards before granting approval. He said this may be the only
industrial area to come in for development within the next ten years. He questoned
how long it would take the Board of Directors to come up with a change in the
ordinance. He thought they would request recommendations from Mr. Powell and the
Planning Commission before making a decision, and this might require two or three
months.
Mr. Powell said the specifications in the City Code are not rigid; they are
minimums and not maximums. Subsoils are taken into consideration. Hunnicutt
said the area in the Industrial Park is not the same as throughout the rest of
town. He said it is the strength underneath which has to be bridged. Powell
said when you design a street you take into consideration your soil and sub -soil
conditions. He stated this is a precedent. He personally recommended a minimum
of six inches of portland cement concrete, or the equivalent in asphalt products,
on a minimum plasticity index of 10, with proctor density of 95% modified on the
soil test. -
Powell said he also felt strongly about connecting Sycamore Street from the East
perimeter of this development (the Bypass) to the Giles Road in the Giles
Addition. He said these developers plan additional multi -family development on
the west side of this industrial area. He said, with/only one outlet at the
intersection of Porter Road for that future development, it becomes a critical
traffic hazard. He stated, with two offset frontage roads meeting there on a
severe curb, when you go into an R-2 zoning of 8-plexes and 12-plexes, you are
going to stack a lot of vehicular traffic in there along with industrial -type
traffic, whether it is ten -wheeled, 60,000 GVW trucks or 40 ft. GV 80,000 lb.
tractor trailers. He said "it is going to get congested in there in a hurry".
Crook asked
for changes
residential
information
how long it would take Powell to come up with some recommendations
in the minimum street standards for streets other than normal
streets. Powell said it could be done administratively with the
and documents he already has in his office.
Stockdell said that she was concerned that the developer and his engineer were
operating under the existing structure set up for them to follow. She said they
are under a time constraint. She said that, due to the nature of the precedent,
the time constraint, the need for adequate surfacing can't be combined into an
ordinance that can be considered. Mr. Powell said that he has documents from the
public, as well as the professional associations that make the minimum
recommendations based on anticipated vehicular count and the actual weight loads.
He said it is already standardized. It would simply be a matter of putting this
into the City's ordinance or passing an ordinance referring to those documents
and adopting them by reference. There would not have to be original research
and development.
Crook stated that part of the review process is the Plat Review C
said that when they went to Plat Review, they got the opinion of
Superintendent that something other than minimum standards ought
this area. Their response is this letter in which they say they
do that.
ommittee. She
the Street
to be met for
prefer not to
)2N
•
•
Subdivision Committee Meeting
September 9, 1983 - Page 6
Milholland said they had checked with the Planning Office on the right-of-way and
it had been referred to as a "frontage road". The Plat Review Committee was the
first time Powell had mentioned to him anything other than a "frontage road".
He said they had approached it as a frontage road on right-of-way width, design,
estimated cost of construction, and everything. He said they were proposing an
8/2 combination (8 inches of SB -2 and 2 inches of Hot Mix asphalt) rather than
6/2 from a practical standpoint of design. The other roads similar to it in
town are 8/2 and the subsoil at some of those other locations is not nearly as
good as this site. He said the strength of the street is not based just upon the
street material, but also upon what is under the street material. He said some of
their soil would hold up several tons per square foot. He said they planned to
bridge the swale of the floodplain with hillside off the highway embankment.
Crook said it is not the usual practice to design the streets according to their
location or as frontage roads or main streets or whatever. It is to design them
according to their use and base conditions available Milholland said the others
he checked on were built with 8/2. Crook asked Milholland, suppose those others
were subject to residential traffic and this one is intended for industrial, would
he design a street the same for both of these uses? Milholland read from the
Zoning Ordinance the "purposes" of the I-1 Zoning District:
"The heavy commercial district is designed primarily to accomodate
certain commercial and light industrial uses which are compatible
with one another but are inappropriate in other commercial or
industrial districts. The light industrial district is designed
to group together a wide range of industrial uses, which do not
produce objectionable environmental influences in their operation
and appearance. The regulations of this district are intended to
provide a degree of compatibility between uses permitted in this
district and those in nearby residential districts."
Crook stated that she understood there was a difference between this subdivision
and the Industrial Park, but that the difference is somewhere between the
Industrial Park and normal residential. She said she would like to have some
indication that this was closer to residential and that they wouldn't have
anything other than passenger traffic. Crook noted that the I-1 District lists
among the permitted uses Use Unit 21, Warehousing and Wholesaling (this could be
heavy vehicular traffic); Use Unit 22, Manufacturing. Jim Potts said that at
the time of rezoning, they had filed a Bill of Assurances stating nothing listed in
Use Units 18, 22 and 27 could be constructed on the property without the prior
approval of the City Board of Directors.
Hunnicutt asked Clayton Powell if it would be proper to submit the strength of
the existing soil out there and see what the 8/2 they have proposed would support.
Powell said that, according to the structural numbers adopted by the AHTD, AASHTO
and the ASTM, 8 inches of concrete has a structural number of 4.0; the 8/2 they
referred to has a structural number of 1.8, 6 inches of concrete, which is also
in City specifications, has a structural number of 3.0. He would like to see
a compromise worked out here rather than delaying the process by tabling it to
revise the street specifications to specifically deal with this problem and others
like it. He asked for a compromise. He said he would like to see a structural
number of 3----, 6 inches of portland cement concrete, or the equivalent in
asphalt products, whichever would be the most economically feasible. Hunnicutt
asked what the equivalent in asphalt would be. Powell said it would be 6/4/4/2
or 6 inches of SB -2, 4 inches of black base, 4 inches of black binder and 2 inches
1
•
•
•
Subdivision Committee Meeting
September 9, 1983 - Page 7
of surface. He said this would give a good street section in an industrial complex.
He said the structural numbers are equal. Crook asked if this took into
consideration the subsoil. Powell said it does, because it contemplates being
put on a subsoil with a plasticity index of 10 or less with compaction of 95%
modified proctor density. He said you could also use the California bearing
ratios. Mr, Potts said they were first approached with the minimum standards
of 6/2, but their engineer had recommended 8/2 which is above minimum and they
wanted to stick with the 8/2. Mr. Powell said his compromise was based on a light
industrial (use) street.
Crook asked if, based on the uses that would be permitted by way of the Bill of
Assurance and loads on the road, did they agree that the worst case would be if
this was all developed to have fairly heavily -loaded trucks needing access to all
of the property. The frequency of traffic might be less than in some types, but
the weight potential would be there. She said she was thinking of protecting
the City in road maintenance. She asked Powell if there are some specifications
that would meet that sort of condition, not a lot of traffic, but a middle ground.
Mr. Powell was asked to what standards Ash Street and Sycamore Street are
constructed. He said Sycamore is 6/4/4/2 as is the portion of Gregg Avenue
which was built recently. Joyce Street, presently under construction, is 8
inches of concrete. Powell recited the following structural numbers:
Surface asphalt .34
SB -2 .14 (depending on the number of fines)
Black base .3
Black Binder .25
Concrete .5
8/2 gives 1.80. 6 inches of portland cement concrete gives 3.0. But you can add
in the black base on the SB -2 and the black binder which will bring it up. He
said he thought 3.0 is needed here. The AHTD has adopted the AASHTO and ASTM
results. Powell advised Mrs. Stockdell that 8/4/2 is one way of obtaining 3.0.
Crook asked the developers if they understood the strengths he was citing were
just a different way of reaching the same structural design. Milholland said he
had never designed a street in Fayetteville that way. He said, based on previous
work, when an engineer takes a job he bases it on working that town. He said he
had checked and other frontage roads with less desirable subgrades are 8/2 and
said Bobbie Jones referred to this as a frontage road in her comments to him.
Stockdell asked if the developer and his engineer could strike a compromise with
Powell at some point such as a structural number of 2.4, assuming that they would
be willing to make some progressive recommendations that would protect their
interests in getting the road built and protect the City's interest that a road
will be built that will work. She said 2.4 is halfway between what the developer
is proposing and what Mr. Powell has recommended, that then for the future an
ordinance could be designed that meets the needs.
Milholland said they had been working on this project for two years, including
rezoning of the property. He said this is the first time the street standards
have come up. Powell said there is a tremendous difference between a subdivision
and an industrial park. He said he would compromise with a 2.4 or with a 6/4/2
which equals'2:72 which is better than 8/2. He said five inches of concrete on
a prepared subgrade would give 2.50 - otherwise he thought it would fail in less
than a year. Powell said concrete has sometimes come in to the City as a lower
26
l,7
Subdivision Committee Meeting
September 9, 1983 - Page 8
• bid price than equivalent asphalt.
•
•
The Committee proceeded to discuss the other Plat Review comments.
Crook asked about fire hydrant locations. Milholland pointed out the locations and
said they are spaced 1,000 ft. apart. He said Don Bunn has already approved the
engineering plans on water and sewer. Crook asked if sidewalks were shown.
Milholland said a note was on the plat that sidewalks will be constructed by the
individual lot developers. Crook stated that sidewalks should be five feet wide
rather than four feet wide. Milholland said he had failed to dimension the
sanitary sewer easement, but he thought 15 feet would be wide enough.
Hunnicutt asked about the radii at the street intersections. Milholland said
that Powell had asked for a street right-of-way width of sixty feet because of
the turn -ins. Milholland proposed a 50 ft. right-of-way with 50 feet on the
right-of-way radii at intersections. It is normally a 25 foot radii. He said
he was willing to work with Powell on the curb radii
Hunnicutt commented on Sycamore Street at the south end of the Subdivision and said
that one of the concerns of the Planning Commission at rezoning had been they did
not want traffic going back through that residential subdivision. He questioned
if Sycamore needed to be improved. He said if there would be a service road to
the south, why go back and improve Sycamore to cross the creek. Milholland said
that, if Sycamore is improved now, there would be some truck traffic sneaking out
through there. Crook said she was against improving Sycamore at this point. She
thought the right-of-way needed should be dedicated. She also questioned if Point
West should be built at this time. She suggested leaving three outlets of access
back to the west and leave it on call to be developed when the property to the
west is developed. Milholland said there is only 20 acres of developable land
to the west of this, due to the floodplain. They are only showing Point West
to get back in there. Crook said that when Shiloh is constructed to the south
end, they need to provide a temporary cul de sac. This would enable traffic
driving to the end to turn around and get back out. Crook asked if the
developers would be willing to sign a Bill of Assurance to pay their proportionate
share of improving Sycamore Street upon call of the City. They agreed they would
be willing to do so. There was a question of whether any right-of-way was needed
for Sycamore east of the intersection with Shiloh. It was felt this developer
should furnish 25 feet north of the existing centerline at this time, until the
property to the south is developed.
Crook asked that a note be placed on the plat that surface drainage across private
property is not eligible for public maintenance. Milholland said that if drainage
is a paved open ditch or enclosed pipe the City will maintain it with an easement;
if it is open channel (earthen channelization) a note will be on the plat that
that part of the channel will be maintained by the owner.
Hunnicutt noted that they are requesting a waiver of the maximum length of a dead
end street and for street light spacing. He saw no problem with those.
Crook advised that the waiver they were requesting of a sidewalk around Shiloh
Court would have to go to the City Board of Directors for approval. The
developers stated they wished to withdraw that particular request.
Subdivision Committee Meeting
September 9, 1983 - Page 9
Bobbie Jones stated that the Planning Commission needs to act on their request
not to have to improve Sycamore at this time. She read from the Code of
Ordinances on off-site improvements that the Planning Commission may require
posting of a cash bond for 100% of the share of the cost of construction at
today's costs, or the Board of Directors may accept a Bill of Assurance or
performance bond.
Proposed Point West Street was discussed. Milholland said they have combined
Lots 13 and 14 because it was not feasible to construct that much street just
for access to one lot. Bobbie Jones said some provision needs to be made for the
future construction of Point West then. She suggested a Bill of Assurance tied
to the property under the same ownership which lies to the West. She said this
must be of record so that potential purchasers of that property will be aware of
that requirement. Or it could be tied to a possible split of Lot 13 to require
that owner to construct it when Lot 13 is split.
Bobbie Jones said they do have to furnish her office proof that they have
notified the adjoining property owners within 100 feet of this subdivision
before the Planning Commission meets at 5:00 P.M. Monday.
Hunnicutt suggested including in the motion to the Planning Commission that the
owners would have a compromise to offer that would be acceptable on the street
standards.
Crook moved to recommend to the Planning Commission the approval of the
preliminary plat of Point West based on: (1) Plat Review comments, with MOTION
exception taken to the points to be covered in the balance of the motion;
(2) include a note on the plat that drainage access across private property is not
eligible for public maintenance; (3) proof of notification to other property
owners within 100 feet of the subdivision; (4) show sidewalks on both sides of
N. Shiloh Drive to the north edge of Lot 14, Block B and only on the west side
north of that; (5) show sidewalk on north side of Shiloh Court and around the
cul de sac; (6) waiver of street light spacing as shown on the plat; (7) waiver
of maximum length of a dead end street, (8) temporary cul de sacs at the south
end of Shiloh Drive as it is developed down to the south end of the property;
(9) dedication of 25 ft. of right-of-way north of the centerline of the existing
right-of-way of Sycamore (all the way to the Bypass); (10) Bill of Assurances to
cover their proportionate share of constructing Sycamore at the call of the City,
or as the property abutting theirs is developed; (11) Dedication of right-of-way
for Point West Avenue with Bill of Assurance it would be paved when the property
to the west is developed (Bobbie Jones said if it is going to be tied to the
development of the property to the west, it needs to be bound on that property
to the west); this would put prospective purchasers on notice. If it is placed
on this subdivision, and all of these lots are sold, then the requirements to
construct the street would fall on the individuals who have bought lots in this
subdivision. Hunnicutt and Milholland felt they should just leave the right-of-way
dedication for Point West out of this plat and run the subdivision boundary around
it. Bobbie Jones said they would then need utility easements across where the
right of way is now shown; (12) Add a note on the plat that Use Units 18, 22 and
27 are excluded from this subdivision because of the Bill of Assurances recorded
•
in Book 1050 at pages 450, 451, and 452; (13) subject to the Planning Commission
and the owners agreeing on construction standards for North Shiloh Drive.
Stockdell seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously, 3-0.
Crook commented that Fayetteville should now be sophisticated enough to have
a different gradient of street standards for different conditions.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:35 P.M.
If8