6.5. SR 05-05-2008REQUEST FOR ACTION
To Item Number
Ci Council 6.5.
Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by
Public Works Ma 5, 2008 Loxi ohnson, Ci Administrator
Item Description Reviewed by
Auburn Place Petition
Reviewed by
Action Requested
Respond to Auburn Place petition.
Background/Discussion
Residents from 701 to 726 Auburn Place have requested that the City take over their private driveways.
At the June 18, 2007, City Council meeting the City Council discussed the issue of private roads
throughout the City and determined that it was not in the City's best interest to take over private roads
and driveways. The minutes and staff memo from that meeting are attached for your review. Further,
Public Works Director Terry Mauxex has reviewed the Aubum Place streets/driveways; a memo and
maps from him axe attached.
Financial Impact
See attached memo fox information on the costs the City would incur if the private drives were accepted
as City streets.
Attachments
• Staff memo and minutes from June 18, 2007 City Council meeting
• Memo from Public Works Director Terry Mauxex
Action Motion by Second by _ Vote
Follow Up
s:\Council\Lori\208\Aubum Place.doc
Excerpt of Council Minutes from June 18, 2007.
7.1. Private Roads
Ms. Johnson provided the background information fox this request as outlined in hex staff
report. She stated the roads are private because the developers requested private roads so
they could get more density and not have to comply with city street standards. She further
stated that the association documents fox these developments clearly state that the residents
are responsible for all costs of maintaining and repairing the private roads. The residents
would have received this information when parchasing a townhome on a private road.
Arthur Jackett, 19045 Xavier Street-Stated Ms. Johnson's explanation of the city's costs and
responsibility if it were to take over private roads was well done. He requested the city create
an informative flyer explaining this issue to residents. He stated townhome representative
Bill Saaranen is concerned about the taxes he pays but that he doesn't receive any benefit
from the city fox road maintenance.
Ms. Johnson suggested information in an upcoming newsletter.
Mr. Hals questioned how much of the private roads residents are requesting the city take
over due to the layout of the streets in the townhome developments. He stated it would cost
about $160-175,000 for a special truck to plow these roads due to there narrow size. Mx.
Hals stated an entirely new snowplow route would be created which would take extra
staffing. He stated maintenance costs would be about $15,000 per mile fot sealcoating and
some areas would need an overlay improvement, which would cost about $200,000 per mile.
He stated the private roads would be expensive far the city to take over. He questioned the
Council where the city would stop with taking over private roads (private gravel and
commercial roads).
Ed Wortman, 19121 King Court (Elk Run Village)-Stated he doesn't understand how his
road could be considered private because of statements in the contractors agreement.
Mr. Maurer explained that the city owns the sewer and water in the developments and has
easements over the road in order to be able to perform routine maintenance. He stated there
is no public right-of--way in the developments. He stated the city does not own the storm
sewer or the street in the development.
Mr. Beck stated the city does not own the land the streets axe located on upon
Mx. Wortman stated he pays high taxes and association fees and questioned what he gets fox
the expenses. He stated he doesn't get street lights or road maintenance. He stated the city
accepted the improvements that were made on these roads by the developer and questioned
why the standards are different than the city public road standards. He questioned if it were
possible for the city to make some type of adjustment to assist residents in townhome
developments. He also requested the Council change the standards required for private
roads.
Ms. Johnson stated signage will be installed letting everyone know which streets are private
Mayor Klinzing stated the city shouldn't begin to maintain private roads in the city. She
stated the city would need to justify the cost to the rest of the taxpayers. She stated it would
not be beneficial to the townhome residents because the roads would have to be improved
to meet city requirements, they would have to be built through the developments to fit the
city's grid street system. She stated the city would have to make a lot of changes to the roads
fox emergency vehicles access, pazking regulations, setbacks and right-of--way.
The Council concurred.
Councilmember Motin stated he supports the idea of trying to work with legislators ox see if
there is some type of offset that could be done fox these disparities.
Councilmembex Farber stated the townhome development is a beautiful project compared
to what the developer originally requested to develop. He stated residents need to work with
the State in order to get any type of tax credit.
Mayor Klinzing stated the townhomes would need to lobby to their legislators to have the
taxes changed.
Jetty Olson, 18264 Kent Street (Country Crossing)-Stated he appreciated Mr. Hals and Ms.
Johnson's explanation of private roads and the costs associated with maintaining them. He
stated the townhome associations aze looking at the same costs to do the work themselves.
He questioned if the city is still doing private roads for townhomes.
Ms. Johnson stated the ordinance and its requirements have changed. She stated the private
drives are much shorter and the developer is required to pay fox the city street to come to
the private drives.
Mr. Olson stated the mill rates fox the townhomes are the same as single-family residential
lots and feels they should be differentiated.
Mx. Beck stated the ordinance changes were made in order to balance the issues with private
roads that have developed over the years against the desire to make townhome projects
affordable to residents. He stated private roads make townhomes more affordable and help
to lower the value of the properties.
Ms. Johnson stated the mill rate, which is now the tax rate, may be the same as a single-
fatnily residential home but the class rates are lower so the land and building taxable value is
less than asingle-family home. She stated questions with value should be directed to the
county assessor.
Mayor Klinzing stated the assessor looks at townhomes differently because they axe on
smaller lots without public improvements and have less of a setback. She stated the value of
the land is less then single-family home developments. She stated the city looks at the private
roads to be driveways and therefore does not require connections for through traffic to get
to other developments, which is a benefit to the townhome owner.
Councilmember Zexcvas stated iE some of the private roads were taken over by the city, the
residents will still have the individual drives going to their garages that would need to be
contracted out and maintained. He stated it would not be enough to provide relief to
association fees. He stated the city will assess the residents Eox road improvements. He stated
he didn't feel the townhome residents would come out ahead if the city took over the roads.
He stated there would be no guarantee the townhome residents would get plowed out right
away. He stated they would be a lower priority whereas now the association can hire/fire a
contractor.
Bill Sarxanen (Trout Brook)-(Came late to this discussion)-Stated he feels the city should
snowplow the private roads. He stated there is no problem with the heavy garbage trucks
using the private roads so why couldn't the snowplows use them. He stated the mill rate fox
townhomes is the same as for a single family home. He stated he is willing to work with the
city to negotiate some kind of deal.
Mill rates versus class rates were explained
__..
~l
River
REQUEST FOR ACTION
To
Ci Council Item Number
7.2.
Agenda Section
Administration Meeting Date
une 18, 2007 Prepared by
Lori ohnson, Ci Administrator
Item Description Reviewed by
ond to Request fox City to Take Over Private Roads
Res
p Reviewed by
Action Reauested
The Council is asked to respond to a citizen request that the City take over private roads.
Background/Discussion
At the May 10`h woxksession, the Council discussed private roads in response to a request from atown-
home pxoperry owner that the Ciry take over the private roads within the townhome development. At
the woxksession, Street Superintendent Phil Hals and I gave the Council some preliminary information
about private roads along with a general overview of the costs and other issues associated with taking
over private roads, many of which basically function as driveways. We indicated that there were several
issues outside of just the cost that the Council needed to take into consideration prior to making a
decision. At that meeting, staff requested that the Council authorize funds to install new street signs that
clearly indicate which streets axe private streets; the Council concurred and those signs are now being
installed. The Council further directed staff to research the issue in more detail and report back to the
Council.
Again, as we stated at the last woxksession, there axe numerous items related to taking over private roads.
The issues fall under three main categories. The most obvious issue is the cost for on-going maintenance
and replacement at the end of the useful life of the roads. The standards to which the streets were built is
another issue. Third is the ownership of the property under the road and the need to convey that
property, along with adequate right-of--way, to the City before the City could take over the street.
Since costs are the main issue, I will address that first. The costs break down into two categories; on-
going maintenance and reconstruction. On-going maintenance includes signage, snow plowing, seal
coating, crack filling, pot hole repair, sweeping, and striping. On gravel roads it includes grading, signage,
snow plowing, and maintaining a good gravel base.
Attached is a memo from Street Superintendent Phil Hals outlining some of the costs associated with the
maintenance and the reconstruction of the private roads. The width of the private roads is much
narrower than city streets so a specialized piece of equipment with a cost of approximately $175,000
would need to be purchased to do snow plowing. In addition, because of the layout of the streets and
driveways, this would be a much more labor-intensive operation than plowing public streets. Staff
estimates that it would take two times the normal time because of snow storage, street width, and other
issues. An additional snowplow route, and driver fox that route, would need to be added to cover
S:\Council\Lori\2007\Private Roads decision requestcd OG ]8 07.doc
plowing the private streets. This does not take into consideration plowing the narrow 12 to 14 foot wide
drives that lead from the private roads to the individual driveways. Mr. Hals estimates that those would
double the private road mileage in townhome developments from 3.7 to over seven miles. Mx. Hals'
memo provides estimates far other costs including $15,000 per mile for seal coating and $200,000 per
mile for an overlay.
Second, because these roads were not constructed as city streets, they ofren do not have sidewalks, access
points do not meet city guidelines, and they are built to different standards than city streets. They are not
as wide, do not have the same design and construction standards, and were not inspected by city staff
during construction to ensure quality construction. Therefore, some of the private roads may have
substandard construction which would require more maintenance and possibly reconstruction earlier than
normal. Some of the townhome developments axe now at a point where the roads axe nearing the end of
their useful lives and will require more than just on going maintenance.
One of the biggest variances from city standards is the width of these private roads; they are not as wide
as city streets. At the time of development, the developers requested that the roads be private so that
they could be narrower and not be required to meet access point standards. This allowed the developers
to increase the density of the development. The City agreed with these requests on the condition that the
associations include maintenance of the streets in the association documents and that they collect
adequate funds through the association fees to maintain the roads. This put all property owners on
notice that they were living on private roads that were the association's responsibility to maintain.
Further, parking will be an issue because of the nature of parking needs in townhome developments and
the streets not being built to standards that allow for parking. If these private roads become city streets,
they will be subject to city parking regulations including snow plowing parking restrictions. Areas that
currently allow parking may need to be signed for no parking because of emergency vehicle access or
other safety concerns. This may be a problem in areas where there is limited off-street parking.
Third, in order for the Ciry to take over the private roads, ownership of the property under the street plus
additional right-of--way on either side of the street would need to be conveyed to the city. The typical
right-of-way fox a minor street is 60 feet. Most of the townhome streets axe around 22 to 26 feet wide
with no right-of--way outside of the street; this 38 to 34 feet less than what the City typically requires fox
public streets in a residential area. If property owners are not willing to give additional right-of--way, the
City would not be able to accept the streets. This additional right-of--way requirement would create lots
that do not conform with our zoning requirements which is another issue that would need to be
addressed.
In conclusion, when property owners purchased pxoperry on these private roads in townhome
developments, they would have been made aware through the association documents that they were
buying property on a private road and that they would be required to bear the cost fox maintaining and
improving the roads. The commercial properties on private roads are similar to townhomes in that there
is an association type of arrangement where fees are collected and maintenance of the common property
is done through the association ox management company. The request that the City now take over those
private roads is more complex than it seems. The cost to take over the approximately seven miles
(excluding drives in townhome developments) of private roads is substantial with no additional revenue
source to fund the added expense, the standards to which they were built axe fax below City requirements,
land fox the streets and associated right-of--way must be freely conveyed to the City, and parking, zoning,
and other related issues would need to be addressed. Fox those reasons listed above, staff recommends
S:\Counril\Lod\2007\Privace Roads decision ceques[ed 06 18 07.dx
that the City not take over existing private roads. If the Council does want to take over these roads, an
option would be to have the associations repair the streets as directed by the city engineer so they are in
good condition before they axe conveyed to the City, transfer the balance of association fees collected fox
toad costs to the City, complete, at the associations' cost, all of the necessary surveying and legal
documents to convey the street property including rights-of-way, and fund the specialized equipment
needed fox snow plowing.
Financial Impact
• A minimum up front cost of approximately $175,000 to purchase a special piece of equipment
fox snow plowing
• Cost to hire an additional maintenance two operator for the additional snow plow route
(approximately $60,000 per year including benefits)
• Seal coat, crack filling, striping, pot hole repair, and overlay costs as identified in the attached
memo
Normal on-going street maintenance costs for sweeping, signage, and etc.
Attachments
• Memo from Street Superintendent, Phil Hals
Action Motion by _ Second by _ Vote
Follow Up
S:\Council\Lori\2007\Yrivate Roads derision requested OG 16 07.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Lori Johnson, City Administrator ~/yy~
FROM: Terry Maurer, Public Works Director ~I `~ ~
DATE: April 16, 2008
SUBJECT: Auburn Place Petition
As requested, I have reviewed the petition received from 701 - 726 Aubum Place requesting
that the City of Elk River assume responsibility fox the asphalt street. This area was
originally platted in the early 1980's as part of the Barrington Place Addition. The area in
question was originally Block 5 of Barrington Place (copy of the original plat is attached). As
you can see from the original Barrington Place plat, the public street dedication fox Auburn
Place ends at the cul-de-sac before Lot 5. The original concept was to construct atow-style
townhome in 3 and 4-unit buildings. Over the years, this area has been xeplatted twice; first,
as the Barrington Place Replat No. 5 (a copy is attached) which modified the original multi-
family concept to create some attached townhome lots. Then in the early 1990's, the
northern half of the Barrington Place Replat No. 5 was again xeplatted as Bruce Addition (a
copy is attached). These two xeplats ultimately created the 20 townhome units (10 double
unit buildings). Also attached is a 2006 aerial photograph of the area from the Sherburne
County website. As you can see from the two xeplats and the aerial photography, there is no
public right-of--way in this area and very minimal space between the building sites. There is
nothing in the area that would define the blacktop surfaces as streets and no defining curb
lines. They are essentially private drives with personal driveways to each unit's garage stall.
I have also made an inspection of the area. It has been recently sealed with an oil material,
but a closer inspection of the bituminous surface shows that it is heavily cracked. We have
no records on file with the city as to the strength ox material used in the street section.
There would be no way fox us to plow this area without pushing snow into each of the
individual private driveways. In fact, to plow this area would require a pickup truck with a
plow, as a large tandem truck would not have sufficient room to maneuver.
As you are aware, we have had a few of these types of requests from multi-family residential
areas over the years. Other areas I recall that have asked the city to take over maintenance
Auburn Place Petition
April 1G, 2005
Page 2
and operation responsibilities that have been rejected had an area that appeared like street,
many with concrete curb and gutter, substandard only in width and strength. This area
clearly does not meet that standard. In fact, I believe this area would be classified as a
private drive utilizing our new zoning for R3 which defines private versus public blacktop
areas in multi-family neighborhoods.
It is important to note that Auburn Street (the public right of way area) is planned to be
included ni the 2008 overlay project. As such, this neighborhood and each unit it in will be
assessed a portion of the cost for that overlay, as it is the only way in and out of their home
sites.
S:\EngneerImprovProj\2008Improvemevt Yrojccts\2008 Bituminous Overlay\U4 16 OS memo LJ Auburn Place petitioadoc
Petition requesting City of Elk River
assume responsibility of
701-726 Auburn Place
(approx. 800' of asphalt street)
The residents of Auburn Place, City of Elk River, Mn. respectfully
desire to dedicate the approx. 800 feet of asphalt roadway (now
designated private) to the City of Elk River, Minnesota. The
residents residing on the aforementioned street have been paying
city taxes since their construction in 1992, yet have been
maintaining the street for the past 16 years. Total taxes (assessed
by Co.) for 2008 will be approx. $35,000.00 of which a substantial
portion is dedicated to the City of Elk River.
Name Address
Assoc. Pres. Ronald Vratisovsky 705 Auburn Pl. (612) 850-2145
V.Pres. Adam Schulte (763) 274-1219 715 Auburn Pl.
Sherburne County, MN
f~beaconTM
Date Created: 4/16/2008
Map Scale: 1 in=134ft
overview
_egend
Parcels
® Plats
Roads
Townships
last Data Upload: 4/16/2008 7:17:01 AM
Disclaimer: Every attempt has been made to ensure that the information contained on this web site is valid at the time of publication. Sherburne County developed by
reserves the right to make additions, changes, or corrections at any time and without notice. Additionally, Sherburne County disclaims any and all liability for
damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of errors, omissions or discrepancies and is not responsible for misuse or misinterpretation. Data is ~ The Schneider Corporation
updated periodically. For the most current information contact the appropriate county department. ~hne~er www.schneidercorp.com
.rt
AAF;F..: t 'S'OT' ~'ILf:Cif
JO ~ / .:s. u.•v
_ _.. __.
\\ ` \ ~ 8918 1.•/~
5 s~\ Zp ~
1
-_ -.. ''spy-- ~~~- -\ •\ ~i0 9 //
3 S ,~
<~~o..~ , 1~~ ..
4 ~~'~ '1 1
I. •- i l ...y'
\ \ . / ALA r .~ 1 4 ~ w ~'&
- - _~m _. v \ ~ E
xni rsc Nn i.~o~ ~ \~ i
\.. ~ e
1 _ ~ Y
". .:a:j•l.l- ~ ~
L d \
\ \`
+l \ 2
6 '
~ i a~
4 ,~
F.` `` ~ - -
v
~ \ 1
~.
'~ ~ ~ \
~ ~~~c~:~
~~: ~~
~i "L a\.
~ -
. `, ~ r,
~'
~\
\` ~
~ \."_
~ ' ~ „>~e,
~~ ~,
.~1
--
__,
_ .;
`~ .~
_- ,-- ~-
i
dal
1.,... ...::..dews: -.
\ .... ..,
r
~:'.
a
z
H
O
z
ro
i.
BARR/NGTON PLAC
REPEAT NO. 5
`/
..,
r .
~r
--N B97~Y3' W 9 .00--
P I P
O ~ p
r~I, T~ ~ :::i .f. o. v.~i", w
8
7
6
---N B9'2B'40'W 300.98---
eN 9C OraFage wd VIIIIIY Eeeamanl
9 ~ ,o
,5
--N 9Y6%3' 120.00 -- ;
~A 1
~ ~
~ ~
~
~~ r ;
J
pp'
r
:
o
1
~~
.
_. f.
~~ ~
l I pp
by
_
a
j
p^
f '~.
'
~ ^f0
,
pp
~ !`
~~
r
~
~ ~0
Oi
ly P
/.~
11
pi
r,A l~ I
......
---N 9.26%3' 120.00 - -
~ for ]~E °d 6.
Sau1n r pt OH PLP -
OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF SHERBURNE
_...___
CERTIFY TIIAT THE WITHIN INSTAU-
7AS L'ILL'D IN THIS OFI'ICE FOR RECORD
~~,9Q,
F,o 17LCORDLD IN SAID OFFIC~E~ pS
PENT NO. ;,-~. ° ~ ~ ~ A dffi a~`l
ICMTTCCnni f"fr~rr,,.a.`.,.~______
5
693'W X0.00 -- --~ \ v 5
9 O ~ ~a
~F~~
/ / r1\m
~I / l '
"$~ ~
£~i
5~ \ ~~ k.
~oA 2
N,'.'. ei
--N 89'26%3' W I
OO.99
_
z ~ ~U
~
cfJ
P
p
p y
_
,
BB--~ ; -
-BO o
.
N 89'26%3' W -' ~ ~ - '
is! I W _.
i
-~~ ~ O ,_ ~`.,
is\,/'~ @ `
1 r U ~ ,
i
ina+ ~ 'uded' J
~~~~/ M 52'42'92' W
/q
:.. ----.....- 9.68
N B9'P6%3' W
-~8c0.00- __ ~ '
7 9622"
~ n urdPr cR°~ r .,N T3'64~3Q E
N 1y OQ./
~ 00
%~ / $Z' `
-~ m ~.i
i u
/ w
l' 56.00 ~~ P m1
:J _ `n.
5
Y~ BO
JAS,. ,~] i
m d IU
.3 $ aob
m :g q e6;
6~
m J900 ~ .2 ~ ~ \
_HJgp 51'99'E 18.0
9 .r , __ ~qo''
~ c
.G 6q,j5.p0
.N Ck
~ `.
7/ '•J
:~
f ;l f~
(t ~/'
~ 5600
6L~~ ,
rA9 E i.:1
~~ ~ '
,,
~..
a `~+
R=6pPo ~
~, ,
~~/
9i
t
</, ~Z'
-~~~ ~~~
J i~
9 6i' `^\ 6
~9, ~ ~: N -
~L;.
{ i
r ~v
0
_ N89°28'40"W 96.32 R=85.0
S89°28'40"E
116.03 ail ~ne9°nl•oo°w -fix wus Aoo.
--66
13-- ~-
~ ~~ N89°26'13"W (M) D0.99
_
.
s
uxE O< n.ao
L9T 1z-~
\
~~OPAINAGE n k
UTILItt EASEMENT- / N N
-'PPAINACE 33.za
8~
'/
_ ~._~ I 569°ze'I}'~~6100 k UTLItY EASEMENT--
°_i .^.
~RUC~ ADD/T/ON
/„
Nosr w'Lr caR. aP LBr 12 o j °5fi \06,y6 Rp?SL;, -¢ I°= ~N ~.
BLK I, eARmuBTON xaLS -, p=31 L-s5 /2 W "' ~ `_
p ` ~ ].5 45 ~ / ~ 0 ~ SB9°28'IS'E - 61 C0
/ ~ 15 10
1-- ...., -~--~-~_~ s
m 8 8 °e
\ 13 - 1, t ,, 14 ~ $
~u 509'RB'p"E m Y ~
BL00 ~ SB9'Y6'Id"E
~r \ ~ _ ~ '~ 61.0]
8 _
-\ -
~~ \ J• Put~u*v< ']5 L ::;-~ ~~~:'.: ~ ~: '~ 8 6 °~8$2 8 C~
I \y ` (,~~ ,-BRAINACE~aunLl.. / 6 I 8 I •- $ " 2
m p0.µN3NR~MENS /_{1,~I1 ~ J~ IE~ASEMENiJ
\ Y~ i m"ILB9 -3]63 a /]].C5_ 39.1'9 5 I n
U! \ ~-_ 15W
~/ / ~ N09'28'a0"W Be,]] ~I9.01-
' £ \O ~ /5r3°~~w ~~~` 90, n - S69°3fi'U"E 6100 ,E5 B w. a 10 I &W 589'$6'IS"E BLOO
r SH9"16'13°E 61.00 A
-~ f I tp 0p n8a'za'IJ'w °i 61.00 ~9"~
\ L(so° 5'69° IS~ -
,_ 4i pl '
- sE 55W - / `_ ", '., ~_ / Fa/ N69°PB'IS'W
.~ Z~ $; " ~ NW°Y6'13'W ~ I(• 81.00
~ \ 11 \ =15 m\ a$ _8 '8~ a ~ I ao 4 Ih=
•~ 'tn z\ ~ \ - T a / s69°zan'E 61.89 ?
" a I ~ \~~ __ N69•z6'13"w 61IB0 ~~9e /~ q L =' J ~t9
- ~~\ \ 1 Q ~ ~ '8 V~~~yi sc ~ ~: L.,iT I~v~ : ~ i ~ ~ le6• ~ENi PEP V BnanW~ ~ 5q 34,W
° g' .%~~ ~" f°~ ~ aQm~' / ~~1 u v l Ens 5
~.E _ ., ° _ 8 i ~ ~ li _ ~ ~ w 3iov~-
S" \ N]3'y' ~. ^ ~ - ~ 00.NNN I - NE cd. LOT I6. Bllr 5.
~ t\ 66.C0 ~ ::I E"sfwr6Nrr ~~~ $ I o- rs ~ 1~ ~ -4 aARRwcrm PucE
S I ~~ ~ .18)80 1
\ I .o is m 05 25 ~ ~ \ `_
~pA sE mR. LaT s, aLK s, 510°
1 aw6nBTax PucE-~
'8 63e ~ \ 1
\ 589°26'13"E \ \
\0 fi6.p0 13 D(r (M~ `\ ~ -5'LT TINE CF LOTS 5 k 6. w~l
15 (D1'• h 3q"W \ \ BLK 5. BARRINGTaJ PLAQ \ ' \
5
aq. 51 ~E O6 pt.KOE ~ Pt NO. \ \ BJ( I. B RRG iW 1PEALE RERAi H°. 5 1
V ii LoT a .__.. _, V . \
\\I CF N'A~ pPP1A.\ N°. 5 \ :/ ' ` - / ' /
W~ ~GT'BN P- ' ~ 1' .. \~ 1
BNB` ~
to
~~l o
w o
0
15 ~
City Of Elk River
Shertrtnne County, MN
i - ~ I~~
O '
i Z i'~Ji
rt ~/
i
i..E
10 / R1 N
J "=
Syry
~~ 96~
s~ ._
w~Ne~~TON PP \
0LK ~'
D 20 40 60
' SCPLE IN FEET
±y~ I INCH 2D FEET
For Me purposes of Mis plat, lM1e Easterly
line of Block 6, BARRINGTON PLACE is
assumed to bear NOrtM1 1fiVb'2fi' Wesl.
oDenotes 1/2 inch iron pipe set with o
plOSlic Dlug stamped R.L.S. 0194.
• Denotes iron monument found
i~`~y~ John Oliver &Assaciotes, Mc.
=~'' 1 ` ~ ~l 3/fBBt 2 Of 2 S'NBBtS