Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-07-03 MinutesMINUTES OF A PLAT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING A meeting of the Plat Review Committee was held Thursday, at 9:45 A.M., July 3, 1980, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. UTILITY REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT: Kenneth Wagner, Dick Shaw, Ivan Bromley, L. 0. Ferguson. CITY REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Bobbie Jones, Cynthia Stewart, John Durham, Don Bunn, Wally Brt, Clint Hutchens, David McWethy. Ross Fefercorn. The first and only item for consideration was the Preliminary Plat for the Brophy Circle Townhouses, a Planned Unit Development, located North of Township Road, and West of Brophy Circle, Ralph Brophy, Owner, Ross Fefercorn and Thomas Prokasky, Developers. BROPHY CIRCLE TOWNHOUSES PRELIMINARY PLAT NORTH OF TOWNSHIP ROAD NORTH F, WEST OF BROPHY CIRCLE 1. David McWethy (Administrative Assistant): Stated that he was opposed to the variance of street lighting and sidewalks within the PUD, unless a covenant was provided to the City, on the plat, that installation of street lights and sidewalks will be exclusively at the expense of the Property Owners Association. He stated that he could foresee future property owners complaining about the PUD not having street lighting and sidewalks and expecting the City to install them. Mr. Fefercorn stated that there were existing street lights in Brophy Subdivision. He said that the Developers were trying to avoid standard City fixtures within the Development. He stated that there were existing City lighting fixtures on Brophy Circle, and that there would be yard lights on each garage. He said there would possibly be small lights attached to each gate post. McWethy stated that in this case he would not be. opposed to the variance of the requirement that street lighting be installed. McWethy asked if there were presently sidewalks along Brophy Circle. Mr. Fefercorn stated there were not, the Developers wished to avoid sidewalks.within the Development, but that they planned to install paved pathways from each garage to its parking space. McWethy asked if the lots were platted, Fefercorn stated that they were and they were also FHA approved. McWethy wondered if Mr. Fefercorn had any interest in this Development. Fefercorn stated that he did; but not financially. McWethy stated that he would suggest sidewalks along Brophy Circle, and Brophy Avenue. Mr. Fefercorn stated that he was in agreement. McWethy said that the City was requiring sidewalks be installed in Subdivisions and Large Scale Developments. He stated that otherwise, the responsibility would be put on each individual property owner. McWethy said that it might be difficult to sell the lots if the prospective owners knew that at some point in time, they would be required to install sidewalks. Mr. Fefercorn said he understood that a variance had been granted to waive the sidewalk requirements for this Development. Bobbie Jones stated that the Plat Review Committee Meeting July 3, 1980 Page 2 variance was granted for sidewalks internal to the PUD only; that they would be required along Brophy Circle and Brophy Avenue. Bobbie Jones stated that when this property was originally platted and subdivided, the sidewalks had been platted on the West side of Brophy Circle. Mr. Fefercorn said that there was a minor correction he wished to make on the plats that the members were referring to. He said there should be either A, 8, C, or D designated for each respective outlot. He said the entire tract was considered Block 5 at this time. He said the Developers were proposing to break this up into four blocks. 2. Floyd Hornaday (SWEPCO): Mr. Hornaday had given his comments to Mrs. Bobbie Jones, Planning Administrator, by phone. She stated Mr. Hornaday was requesting that the 25 ft. building setback on the West side of Brophy Circle be changed and designated as a Building Setback and Utility Easement. Also, between Block SC and SD (running approximately 119 ft. to the Northwest) there be a 20 ft. utility easement, to extend 10 ft. on either side of the property line. He had stated that he would like to use the existing utility easement between Block SA and Block SB. Ms. Jones said she understood that Mr. Fefercorn and Mr. Hornaday had discussed decreasing the width of the easement along the West side of Brophy Circle. Mr. Hornaday had said that if the easement was decreased.that it be retained at least 15 ft., wide, and that if the property to the West was ever developed, that another 15 ft. would be obtained from that. Mr. Fefercorh said the Developers had no objection to using the building setback along Brophy Circle as a utility easement, nor to an easement between Block SC and Block 5D. He said that the problem was in the 20 ft. width between Blocks SC and 5D, he said that a 15 ft. setback would be more desirable. Bobbie Jones stated that no portion of the building or its overhang could extend over a utility easement. Mr. Fefercorn said that in terms of the covenants associated with the Development, the entire grounds would be available for any utility to work on and do their maintenance. Ms. Jones stated that Mr. Hornaday and Mr. Fefercorn should get together and work on this and advise the Office of City Planning as to what agreement they had reached. 3. John Durham (City Fire Department): Stated that his only concern was if there was adequate fire hydrant protection. Mr. Durham stated as far as he could determine, there was only one fire hydrant available to this Development, and did not feel that one hydrant would be sufficient. Don Bunn stated that a fire hydrant would be required 500 ft. from any residential structure. John Durham stated that if the fire hydrant protection was not sufficient, that another hydrant should be installed in the Development. Don Bunn stated that there may be another hydrant at the Southwest Corner of the Development where it meets Township Road. Durham said if that fire hydrant does in fact exist, that he would be satisfied. Bobbie Jones asked if the units would be two stories high. Mr. Fefercorn stated that the buildings would be two stories high and that some would have tuck under garages under them, which would make them three stories high on one side. John Durham asked if any consideration had yet been given to materials that would be used for siding and roofing. Mr. Fefercorn stated that the roofing would probably be asphalt, and the siding some type of stucco. He said that at this time, no final decision had been made. Mr. Durham stated that the prevaling wind was from the Southwest, and if wood siding or shakes were used there could be a problem Plat Review Committee Meeting July 3, 1980 Page 3 with a fire spreading to other units. 4. Don Bunn (City Water and Sewer Superintendent): Asked if Mr. Fefercorn desired a Master Meter for the entire development, or if he desired individual meters. Mr. Fefercorn replied that he wished to have individual water meters. Bunn said there was an existing 6 -inch water line going around Brophy Circle and Brophy Avenue He stated that both water and sewer were readily available. He said that there may be some water service connections that have already been made. Mr. Bunn suggested a 2 inch water main to be connected with the North end, looped through the PUD, and tied back in to the Township Road connection. Mr. Fefercorn said it was his understanding that there was a water main running through Brophy Circle. He asked if it would be feasible to drop in through the utility easement between Blocks 5A and 5B, then branch off and into each unit. He stated that this was more desirable as this Development would be constructed in phases and at any point in time he would like each individual phase to be able to stand alone. Mr. Bunn stated this idea was feasible. Fefercorn asked Bunn if it would be possible to stub the main at Phase I, and as the Development grows, run the main down to the future sites. Bunn saw no problem with this suggestion. Bobbie Jones asked if sewer was available. Don Bunn stated that sewer was available and that it would probably come from the West side of the Development. Bobbie Jones asked if each individual unit would have a separate sewer service. line. Don Bunn replied that normally each building would have a separate line, but that since this was a PUD he would not object to a common service line. It would be considered similar to a "private main". Don Bunn stated that if any extensions were necessary, either water or sewer, the Developer would have to submit Engineered plans and specifications to the City Engineer's Office and the State Board of Health, for approval prior to construction. He said as far as water and sewer, the easements were sufficient, except if any of the mains were extended, the City would need sufficient easements for those extensions. 5. Clint Hutchens (City Police Department): No comment. 6. L. 0. Ferguson (Warner Cable): Requested that from the South side of Brophy Circle all the way around the South end of the PUD be designated a 25 ft building setback and utility easement.(North side of Township Road). He said if this area was going to be black topped, that he would request the Developer install 2" pvc casing in this area with sweep elbows and 18" risers above ground level, back into the easement on the West side of the Development. He also requested the Developer install 2" pvc, schedule 40, between Block A and Block B. Ferguson requested 2" pvc, schedule 40, be laid by the Developer between Block 5C and Block 5D; from the easement on the front to the back easement between those two blocks. Mr. Fefercorn asked Mr. Ferguson if he was following the same path as SWEPCO. Mr. Ferguson said that he was Mr. Ferguson stated that in Block 58, the North end of the block, there is a proposed driveway. He said that 2" pvc, schedule 40, is to`be laid under the driveway by the Developer. Bobbie Jones stated that in the drainage easement there was an existing rip rap drainage ditch. She suggested that anything that is torn out be replaced. A • • Plat Review Committee Meeting July 3, 1980 Page 4 7. Kenneth Wagner (Arkansas Western Gas Company): Requested the easement between Block SC and SD be a 20 ft. easement (Fefercorn had requested that easement be reduced to 15 ft.). Mr. Wagner stated that the Gas Company generally requests 25 ft. which is crowded to begin with. He said that anything narrower would be too crowded. Mr. Fefercorn and Mr. Wagner discussed different alternatives to laying the gas line. Fefercorn stated that in order to make room for the 20 ft. utility easement, the Developers may have to eliminate one building. Fefercorn asked if it would be possible to tap the high pressure gas line that runs along the Northeast corner of the Development. Mr. Wagner replied that he would rather not tap this line. Mr. Wagner said that he would explore the possibility of running a line in the same easement of the high pressure gas line. He said that if this was done, the Gas Company would consider decreasing the easement to 15 ft., but that for the time being, he would prefer to leave the easement at 20 ft. Bobbie Jones said that in order to get the proposed utility easement decreased, Mr. Fefercorn would need the approval of all the utility companies involved. On the existing easement, he would also need the approval of all the utility companies as well as approval from the Board of Directors. Mr. Fefercorn asked if it would be possible to move the easement to another location. Mr. Wagner stated that he would check with his Operating Manager and get back with him. Wagner stated that on the North side of Township Road, there is an existing two inch gas line, running East and West, three to four feet behind the curb. Wagner requested a 25 ft. utility easement on the North side of Township Road. Wagner stated that he would prefer to keep service on the West side of Brophy Circle. Wagner asked if Township Road was going to be widened. Bobbie Jones stated that at some date, Township would be physically widened. Wagner stated in that case, if there was going to be a parking lot, that he suggests the laying of pvc casing under any pavement, in case the gas line had to be relocated, with a minimum size of four.inches. 8. Dick Shaw (Southwestern Bell Telephone:Co.): Stated that the easements requested and agreed to by the Developer and the other utility companies would be sufficient to get telephone service into the Development. He stated that pvc conduit will have to be placed on the 25 ft. utility easement on the South property line, consisting of 150 ft. of four inch pipe to be installed by the Developer. He also requested that in the utility easement between Blocks SB and Block SA, a four inch conduit be placed by the Developer, as well as in the easement between Block SC and 5B. He requested four inch conduit, to be placed by the Developer, under the main driveway on Brophy Circle, to the North of Block SB. Mr. Shaw stated that within 30 days, the phone company would be putting in a terminal in the Southwest corner of the development. He said that he would need a letter of permission from the Developer stating that the terminal can be installed, to cover the easement in case the Brophy Circle Development falls through, or is never platted, the Phone Company would have a 25 ft. easement on the Southwest corner. Mr. Shaw stated that the phone company would be placing a major terminal in this easement. Bobbie Jones stated that it was her understanding that Mr. Brophy had already dedicated and filed an easement for Plat Review Committee Meeting July 3, 1980 • Page 5 this parcel of land on his Subdivision Plat, Mr. Shaw stated that if that was the case, this easement would be sufficient, and that Mr. Fefercorn would not have to file the letter of permission. 9. Wally Brt (City Sanitation Superintendent): Mr. Brt asked if Mr. Fefercorn was proposing cans or container pickup. Mr. Fefercorn replied they planned to use cans. Wally informed Mr. Fefercorn that he would need permission, in writing, to the effect that the Sanitation Trucks could travel the private roads within the Development. Wally asked what type of roads the Development would have. Mr. Fefercorn stated that the Road base would consist of six inches of class base with two to three inches of asphalt. Wally asked how much room he had in the drives. Fefercorn said the roads would be a minimum of 25 ft. wide with an 80 ft. turning radius. Wally said he would prefer to see containers within the Development, rather than cans. He said that centrally located containers would be more sanitary. He also said after all phases were completed, there would be something like 414 cans, as opposed to two large containers. Mr. Brt stated that if Mr. Fefercorn decided to put in containers, that each container would require a 15 ft. wide by 12 ft. deep pad, with 4" of reinforcement wire, and 6" of concrete. Mr. Fefercorn said that with the tuck under garages, it might be best to have the two containers installed. Mr. • Brt. suggested 6 yard containers, with side doors, as it may be difficult for some persons taking out garbage to lift the top lids on the 4 yard containers. After some discussion, it was decided to place one container at the Northwest side of unit 4, Block SA, and the second container Southeast of the parking spaces on the Northeast side of Block 5D. • 10. Bobbie Jones (City Planning.. Administrator): Asked what the separation would be between structures. Mr. Fefercorn stated that they would be connected. Ms. Jones asked what the separation would be if the structures were not connected. Mr. Fefercorn stated that at the closest point, there would be an 8 ft. separation. Bobbie Jones stated that where there was not a common or party wall, the minimum separation would be 10 ft. according to the PUD ordinance. Bobbie Jones stated that if the exterior walls were fire or party walls that this requirement would probably not be applicable. Ms. Jones stated that if the Developer wished to have this requirment waived, the Planning Commission would be able to waive it, but she felt that the Building Inspector should be made aware, and any building code requirements should be met. A. Ms. Jones gave Mr. Fefercorn a copy of an existing plat on record of this parcel of land showing where sidewalks would be required if the land was ever developed. Mr. Fefercorn had expressed a desire td relocate the sidewalks to the other side of the public streets. Ms. Jones stated that could be accomplished with the written consent of the property owners of all lots affected (including those across the street), a resolution by the Planning Commission, and the changes recorded in the Court House. Mr. Fefercorn asked if this resolution could be handled at the July 14, 1980 Planning Commission Meeting. Ms. Jones stated that it could, if all the letters from the property owners were available. She said Mr. • Plat Review Committee Meeting July 3, 1980 Page 6 Fefercorn would need the written consent of the owners of Lot 1 and Lots 7 through 12 in Block 4, and all of Block 5. B. Ms. Jones stated it was shown on the plat of Brophy Subdivision, that sidewalks will be installed as each lot where they are required is developed. She said that it is mentioned in the ordinance, that the sidewalks must be formed up and ready to be poured at the same time as the driveway, and that the City Street Superintendent be called to inspect the forms before either one is poured She said the sidewalks would be 4 ft. wide, and parallel to the curb in the street right-of-way. C. The PUD Ordinance states that any waivers or variances granted by the Planning Commission will be recorded on the plat, or as a signed document to be recorded with the plat. D . Any single structure, containing more than two units, which exceeds 20 ft. in height, will be setback an additional 1 ft. for each one foot of height in excess of 10 ft. when adjacent to an R-1 District. The Commission did not take this into consideration when allowing the 25 ft. setbacks from the Northeast corner and the Southwest corner. Ms. Jones stated that the Board of Directors could over rule any variances granted by the Planning Commission within 21 days after the Planning Commission Meeting at which they were granted. E . Ms. Jones cannot issue any building permit for a change in the development without the approval of the Planning Commission. She said that a building permit could be issued for the PUD, after approval of the Preliminary Plat, but that a Certificate of Occupancy would not be issued until the final plat has been approved, and recorded for that particular phase. F. Each common or party wall will have to be surveyed out before construction begins. G . If structural construction has not started within 18 months after issuance of the building permit, the PUD can be revoked unless just cause for the delay can be provided, and the Planning Commission approves an extension. Building Permits require that construction be started within 6 months of issuance of the Building Permit and completed within two years for what is shown on that Building Permit. H . Any decision made by the Building Inspection Office or the Office of City Planning in relation to the PUD may be appealed to the Planning Commission. Any Planning Commission decisions may be appealed to the City Board of Directors. Any appeal must be in writing. I. Identification of the size in square footage, of any open space must be on the preliminary plat. • J. Proof must be furnished that the owner or developer will maintain the open area until such time as a property owners association is formed. Plat Review Committee Meeting July 3, 1980 eiPage 7 • • K. Ms. Jones said she would give the covenants and by-laws for the PUD to the City Attorney for review and relay any comments back to the Developer. L. Plans for Water and Sewer main. extensions Office of the Water and Sewer Department. be approved by the State Board of Health, on those extensions. These plans must be submitted for approval and recording. will have to be submitted to the Also, main extensions will have to prior to commencing any construction approved before the final plat is M. Ms. Jones stated that the final plat can be submitted to the City before all improvements are done, but a contract must be entered into with the City giving the City lien on the lots. The lots can be sold, but no structure on them can be occupied until the lien is released. N . All internal streets must meet City specifications for sub -base, base and paving, and must meet with the approval of the City Street Superintendent. Drawings for streets and drainage must be submitted to the City Street Superintendent for approval before construction is begun. The City Street Superintendent can require drains and drainage systems where required by code. O . The private drive must be so designated on the Final Plat. A sign no larger than 12 inches by 24 inches must be erected at the entrance of the drive, calling it a private street, that the street should have a name and be designated on the final plat. P. A note will be put either on the plat or in the covenants that all traffic laws for the City under Chapter 19 of Fayetteville Code of Ordinances will be adhered to on the private street. Q• No vegetation shall be installed off of Township Road or Brophy Circle, within the Building Setback which exceeds 30 inches in height, unless it consists of a tree with 10 ft. of visual clearance from the ground to the branches. R. The following must be shown on the preliminary plat: 1) Name and address of owner, developer and engineer. 2) Zoning District. 3) Name and address of surveyor and person preparing the plat. 4) Subdivision name. 5) Date. 6) Graphic scale. 7) North arrow.: 8): Acreage. 9)Metes and bounds description of the property, legal description of the property with dimensions and angles sufficient to locate all lines on the ground, as well as present platted lot numbers. 10) Lots and blocks shall be identified. 11) Boundaries shall be shown by distance. 12) Property shall be located by section, range and township. S . The title block shall say: Final Plat (Name of Subdivision) a replat of Lots 1, 2 3, 4, Block 5, of the Final.Plat of Part of Block 3 4 Blocks 4 and 5 Brophy Addition. T There should be concrete monuments at the corners of the exterior of the existing subdivision. The Developer is required to have pins 1/2" x 30" at all lot corners. Unless the corner of each building designates the corner of the lot, a pin will be placed at each property line. If the building corner designates the lot corner, it must be so designated on the plat. Sizes of Plat Review Committee Meeting • July 3, 1980 Page 8 each individual lot will be on the plat. U. Pick up on final plat the location of existing street lights. V. The Office of City Planning will furnish the Developer with a copy of the certificates to,be.ahown on,the,final plat.