Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-11-04 - Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF TECHNICAL PLAT REVIEW A meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee was held on Tuesday, November 4, 1997 at 9:00 a.m. in room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. UTILITY REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT: Dennis Burrack, Kevin Leflar, Rick Evan, Mike Phipps, and Andy Calloway. STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Jim Beavers, Beth Sandeen, Chuck Rutherford, Perry Franklin, Dawn Warrick, and Heather Woodruff. ITEMS REVIEWED 1. LSD 97-5.00: Fayetteville Warehouse review of LSD 2. LSD 97-20.00: Summit Development 3. LSD 97-22.00: Staff/Mark 4. LSD 97-23.00: Superior Car Wash The following comments were presented. ACTION TAKEN No representative present Fwd to Subdivision Fwd to Subdivision No representative present • LSD 97-20.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (SUMMIT DEVELOPMENT) SUMMIT DEVELOPMENT -N. OF WEDINGTON DR. AND W. OF SHILOH DR. The large scale development was submitted by Development Consultants on behalf of Summit Development for property located north of Wedington Drive and west of Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. STAFF: Ms. Warrick stated the previous comments still applied to the project. Landscape Administrator- Beth Sandeen-575-8308 Ms. Sandeen stated she had not received revised landscaping plans. She asked Mr. Rickett to provide a landscape plan illustrating all of the requirements including the screening along the south property line. Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator- Chuck Rutherford -575-8291 Sidewalks: a minimum 6' sidewalk with a minimum 6' greenspace will be required on both sides of the proposed street. The sidewalks shall be continuous through the driveways and built to city standards An inspection will be required prior to the concrete pour. Traffic -Perry Franklin- 575-8228 • Street Names: Mr. Franklin is not in favor of having an intersection where all three legs have the same name. He felt it would be very confusing to someone looking for an address. Timberline a�� • • • Technical Plat Review November 4, 1997 Page 2 to the south of Timberline should be renamed. Street Lights: 1. A street light is required at the intersection of Timberline and Timberline. 2. A street light is required at the north end of Steamboat Drive. 3. A street light is required every 300', at the end of a street, and at every intersection. Comments: Should each apartment building have a van accessible space? Ms. Warrick asked Mr. Rickett to check with the developer to see how he planned to accommodate handicap accessibility. Parks -Nancy Dugwyler- 444-3472 No comments. Planning -Dawn Warrick -575-8262 Ms. Warrick instructed Mr. Rickett to refer back to the previous Subdivision comments Subdivision. She added the approved parking waiver for 139 spaces needed to accommodated on the plan. She asked the applicant to update their diskette with the revisions. Fire- Mickey Jackson -575-8364 Fire Hydrant locations: add an additional hydrant in the east parking lot landscape island, similar to the proposed hydrant on the west side. Comments: The apartment building should be sprinkled, and will be required to be sprinkled unless all features of standard building code section 901 are complied with. If the building height exceeds 50 feet, sprinklers will be required, regardless. The 8" water main needs to be fed from two sources. Ms. Little stated the fire chief needed a commitment for the building to be sprinkled. If the building was not going to be sprinkled, then there would be additional requirements. Engineering- Jim Beavers- 444-3418 General: 1. All designs are subject to the City's latest design criteria (water, sewer, streets and drainage). Review for plat approval is not approval of public improvements and all improvements are subject to further review at the time construction plans are submitted. Water: 1. 8 inch line as shown. Provide a loop, or second connection as requested by the Fire Chief. 2. Minimum easement (or combination of accessible ROW and easement) widths for water lines shall be 20 feet. Minimum easement width when the water line is in a general utility easement or in a water and sewer easement will be 25 feet. Wider easements may be necessary to provide 1:1 trench slopes for water and sewer mains. 3. Fire protection and fire hydrant locations to meet the Fire Chiefs request. Sanitary Sewer: 1. There will be a fee of $67.00 per unit assessed this development to go toward improvements in the Hamstring basin. This is consistent with the charges of $200.00 per residential lot as eta • • • Technical Plat Review November 4, 1997 Page 3 charged to other subdivisions in this basin. At 132 units the fee will be $8,844.00. If you desire, you may submit projected flow calculations to document a different ratio. I estimated the ratio to be 222/703 = .32, rounded to .33. 2. Vehicular access must be provided to the "backyard" or offsite manholes (this appears to have been done). 3. Sanitary sewer easements shall be a minimum of 20 ft. in width and wider as necessary for sewers deeper than 10 feet, or sewers offset in the easement, to provide a 1:1 trench slope. Grading and drainage: 1. Provide additional information to document the different subbasins for the detained flow and the undetained flows. 2. Provide additional subbasin information for the inflows to the detention ponds and the "routing" effect from the west pond through the east pond. 3. A note for the future development. the timing of the peaks and a study of the two ponds for this development and all future ponds will be required for any future development on the remaining properties to the south. 4. The "volume required" shown on the grading plan does not appear to correspond to any volumes in the calculations. Please clarify. 5. Note that provisions for the 100 -year flows across the parking lots and yards will be required to determine the final floor elevations. 6. All drainage outside of public street right-of-way, including the detention pond, shall be private an privately maintained by the owner. The formal agreement must include the off-site portion of the detention pond. Streets: 1. Is ROW needed from the Lazenby lot 1 at the northwest? UTILITIES SWEPCO- Dennis Burrack-973-2308 Mr. Burrack stated he had asked SWEPCO's rate department for a single point of metering for the apartment building, however, he had not received a reply. He did not foresee a problem with a single point of service. He felt it would be difficult to service each apartment individually. The smaller buildings on the west side, could be serviced individually or a one point, which would be consistent with the rest of the complex. Ozarks Electric would be servicing the street lights along Timberline. Steamboat drive would be serviced by SWEPCO. He requested the developer's electrical contractor contact him as soon as possible to work out the details on servicing Mr. Conklin asked if the light pole was located outside the right-of-way on lot 1. Mr. Burrack explained the pole would be moved to the intersection of Timberline and Timberline. �1q • Technical Plat Review November 4, 1997 Page 4 • Mr. Phipps added the pole would be located between the curb and sidewalk at the intersection. Mr. Conklin asked if there was an easement. Mr. Phipps stated there was an existing utility easement. Mr. Burrack stated the pole line was located within the easement. Ms. Little asked what was located on the pole. Mr. Phipps replied the pole supported an overhead power line. Ms. Little asked if the line was located on this applicant's property. She added if there were overhead power lines located on property owned by Wedington Place and if the lines were serving this development the lines would be required to be placed underground. Mr. Phipps added the relocation of the lines would be at the developer expense. Mr. Burrack stated SWEPCO did not have a filed rate to recoup the cost of maintenance or installation of three phase underground distribution lines. He added SWEPCO did not normally place three phase distribution lines underground. Ms. Little replied it was time to start placing them underground. Mr. Burrack replied SWEPCO did not have a rate filed with their commission. The commission had mandated that they were to provide the lowest priced service available. Ms. Little requested Mr. Burrack to notify her of their commission's next meeting, so a representative from the city could attend. SW Bell- Andy Calloway -442-3170 Mr. Calloway requested the 25' building setback parallel to the east side of Timberline Dnve be designated as a 20' utility easement. He requested a 4" scheduled 40 PVC crossing where the drive and parking area came off of Timberline Drive on the west side. In addition to a 4" crossing off of Steamboat Drive at the two entry drives. He requested the 15' utility easement parallel to Steamboat drive be widened to 20'. The two units furthermost to the west would be serviced from one point which would be on the west end of the two units. The two adjacent units running north and south would be serviced from two separate points. The north unit would be serviced from the north. The other would be serviced from the south. He asked if the 25' utility easement on the south boundary had been dedicated and filed. He added the easement had to be filed for them to service the property. He added there needed to be space inside the building for a%° • Technical Plat Review November 4, 1997 Page 5 an inside terminal. Mr. Adams added the easement would be filed as part of the purchase transaction with Clary Development. Ms. Little added a building permit would not be issued until the city had recieved an easement plat. TCA Cable- Kevin Leflar- 521-7730 Mr. Leflar requested the same crossings and casings as the other utility companies. He asked for the developer's electrical contractor to contact him. Arkansas Western Gas- Rick Evans- 521-1141 Mr Evans stated he would need the same easements as requested by Southwestern Bell. He requested a crossing with a 4" casing at the northwest corner, from the 20' utility easement (which Bell had requested) to lot 1. • Mr Beavers noted the development would be assessed an offsite sanitary sewer charge of • approximately $9,000. Mr. Conklin asked to applicant to find the location of right-of-way for lot 1. Ms. Warrick stated revisions need to be submitted by 10:00 Monday. a$\ • Technical Plat Review November 4, 1997 Page 6 LSD 97-22.00: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT (STAFF/MARK) DAVID NORMAN -302 EAST MILLSAP RD. The large scale development was submitted by David Norman of McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc. For property located at 302 East Millsap Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 1.4 acres. David Norman and Ken Shireman represented the item. The following comments were presented. STAFF: 911 Coordinator -Jim Johnson -575-8380 The correct address for this new building is 234 E Millsap Road. 302 Millsap is the correct address for the existing building only. • Solid Waste Division- Cheryl Zotti-443-3400 No comments. • Landscape Administrator- Beth Sandeen-575-8308 Other Landscaping Requirements: the note on the plan suggesting that landscaping may vary due to construction is unacceptable. The Plan must reflect landscaping required per code, and must be installed prior to certificate of occupancy request. The Plan does not comply with Commercial Design Standards -15' exclusive of right-of-way with one tree per 30' is required. Add two additional trees in landscape islands for interior landscaping for total of eight trees. Ms. Sandeen asked that the plan reflect exactly what would be installed on site. She needed to know the species and the number of plants. She added the 15' setback could be reduced to 5', if a berm was installed with shrubbery. Ms. Warrick noted the applicant's parking was located on the right-of-way line, meeting the sidewalk Mr. Shireman stated the developer wished to add a fourth floor to the building. The property to the west of this site was also owned by StaffMark was available to them for additional parking. He was anticipating an additional 30 parking spaces. He asked the staff to work with them. He noted if they were bumped from this cycle it would put the building seven weeks behind schedule. Ms. Little replied each division had to make their own decision and comments. If the addition Technical Plat Review November 4, 1997 Page 7 substantially changed the staff's comments then the applicant would have to come back to this level. Mr. Shireman stated the developer would acquire additional land for parking. He knew they would have to present new elevations. He did not expect any other problems. He did not believe the additional grading and drainage would be a problem. Ms. Sandeen replied she would be willing to work with the applicant. She noted the parking would have to meet the city's code. She questioned if Mr. Rutherford would allow the sidewalk to be configured as it was shown on the plan. Mr. Rutherford replied what was shown on the plat was not acceptable. He stated cars could not hang over the sidewalk Ms. Little explained the sidewalk needed to be located at the back of the right-of-way with a 15' greenspace for landscaping between the sidewalk and the parking. Mr. Norman replied requested a waiver from the required 15' greenspace. He noted their layout was similar to the adjacent property which had a row of parking in front of the building. Ms. Little replied applicant had the option to reduce the required 15' of greenspace to 5', if additional landscaping was provided. In response to questions from Mr. Norman, Ms. Warrick explained the property line was the right-of-way line. North of the property line, 5' greenspace was required. She noted the cars could hang 2' into the greenspace. In response to comments made by Mr. Shireman, Ms. Little stated an additional 5' had been taken at the final plat that had been mislabeled "easement" rather than "right-of-way". The city was now asking for an additional 5' of right-of-way to comply with the Master Street Plan. Ms. Little added if the developer was not going to use a full lot, then property line adjustment would be required. She added the property line adjustment would be looked at separately and could be approved administratively. She requested the developer's revisions to be submitted by Friday to allow the applicant time to make any required revisions before the Subdivision deadline. Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator- Chuck Rutherford -575-8291 Sidewalks: Millsap Road is a collector street. A minimum 6' sidewalk with a minimum 10' green space is required. The sidewalk shall be continuous through the driveways. The sidewalk needs to be shown on the plat and in the legend. The sidewalks shall be built to city standards. Technical Plat Review November 4, 1997 Page 8 An inspection is required prior to the concrete pour. Traffic -Perry Franklin- 575-8228 Street Names: No comments Street Lights: Street lights are required every 300' if not already installed. Comments: Since the ADA spaces are all wide enough for van parking, the aisle should be 8' wide and the parking should be 8' wide. Mr. Franklin asked if there would be an additional curb cut for the added parking. Mr. Norman replied they were not anticipating an additional curbcut. Mr. Beavers asked why the road went from three lane to two lane. Ms. Little replied it had been the transitions from North Hills Medical park to CMN Business Park. Parks -Nancy Dugwyler- 444-3472 Planning -Dawn Warrick -575-8262 Plat Information: Label adjacent zoning on plat; show curbcuts on adjacent property (including across Millsap). Add plat page 212 to title block. Add flood plain reference to plat. Northern setback from Hwy 71 right-of-way is 50' unless a setback reduction is requested and additional landscaping is provided- this needs to be worked out with landscape administrator. Proposed & Existing Street rights of way and easements: Max curb cut= 24' wide or 46' (12' entry, 10' landscaped island, 2- 12' exists). Other requirements: Setback reduction request is required for a 25' setback on the north. This project is located in the CMN Business Park which is exempted from the requirements of the Design Overlay District. All utilities shall be located underground. Commercial Design Standard: Landscaping must be exclusive of right -of -way -this requirement also applies to the north property line; please provide site coverage calculations All mechanical and utility equipment needs to be located and screened- if roof mounted, must be completely screened from the public view. Need elevation drawings of all proposed signage. Will there be any other signage on the building? Adjoining developments include North Hills Medical Park, North Park Place (with BC/BS) Ms. Little stated the zoning to the west needed to be checked. Mr. Norman replied the property to the north was zoned R -O. Ms. Little added if StaffMark was going to place parking on the R -O property a conditional use • Technical Plat Review November 4, 1997 Page 9 would have to be approved by the Planning Commission. Ms. Warrick stated all utilities were to be located underground. The existing overhead electric line running across StaffMark's parking lot needed to be placed underground. Ms. Little added if the line was under 34 KB the line would have to be located underground. Mr. Burrack stated the line was 12,470. Ms. Little stated the applicant could request a waiver. Mr. Norman replied the line would have to run underground across their property and to the property to the south. Ms. Little replied the city was currently working with the property to the south. She added there was a possibility of cost sharing. • Fire- Mickey Jackson -575-8364 Fire Hydrant locations: Add a hydrant at east (closest to proposed building) entrance to new building; also a hydrant will be needed within 100 feet of the fire department connection to the sprinkler system. • Engineering- Jim Beavers- 444-3418 General: 1. All designs are subject to the City's latest design criteria (water, sewer, streets, and drainage). Review for plat approval is not approval of public improvements. All improvements, including the drainage report and design, are subject to further review at the time construction plans are submitted. 2. Fire protection per the Fire Chiefs requirements. This may include water main extensions. 3. Grading and drainage previously approved. UTILITIES SWEPCO- Dennis Burrack-973-2308 Mr. Burrack asked if the transformer shown on the plat was servicing the existing building. Mr. Shireman replied it was a separate transformer. Mr. Burrack stated there were no facilities available to provide services to a transformer located as shown on the plat. He would have to work with the developer on the location of the transformer. He questioned how far the parking would be extending onto the adjacent lot. • • Technical Plat Review November 4, 1997 Page 10 Mr Shireman replied it would depend on their parking layout, approximately 65'-120'. Mr. Burrack replied their next structure to the west had a 1200 Kvar capacity on it. There was no other place to locate this facility. It was needed to power factor or correction for the North Hills Complex. The facility would be very expensive to relocate underground. He had estimates for the overhead line for North Hills phase II. That estimate was for across the road to the right-of- way of the bypass. He had no estimate from that point to the west. The cost for the conductor, placing the line underground and switching would run between $60 and $80 per foot. It did not include the compasitor bank or any additional switching that could be required to provide service to this building He thought there should have been conduits brought across the road from the south property line of CMN business park to the north, between the lots. He was not sure if they existed. If they did not exist, they would have to find an alternate point of serviced. They had been servicing most of CMN Business Park from a line on the south property line of CMN. When the subdivision was developed, conduits were installed to provide service to the existing lots. He presented a distribution map of the area. The lined serviced approximately 5,000 people. He added they had not addressed the existing life on the existing facilities in place. They had been absorbing the remaining life on the existing facilities. They were discussing charging for the remaining life in relocated utility lines. In response to questions from Mr. Shireman, Mr. Burrack replied when the subdivision was layout conduits were to placed at every other property line. He would provide estimates for the applicant if he were to request a waiver to the planning commission. Mr. Burrack added there were no filed rates with the commission on this type of relocation. He added if there were no conduits in place, he would be required to install conduit and transformer pad from the point of service. He stated a contract underground agreement would be sign between them and the owner. The contract would serve as an easement or would allow them to occupy to service the line. He did not request any additional easements. SW Bell- Andy Calloway -442-3170 Mr. Calloway requested the patio to be removed from the right-of-way and utility easement. He noted there was buried cable along the property line in the rear Any relocation of lines would be a the owner expense. Under current guidelines, the established terminal in the existing building would be the only point of service, they would be allowed provide. Service would have to be provided from the existing terminal room. SWBe1I could not put another entry into the addition. Mr. Shireman noted this was a separate building. • Mr. Calloway replied the building was attached by a second story bridge 350 • • Technical Plat Review November 4, 1997 Page 11 Mr. Shireman asked if the buildings were sold separately and the bridge was removed could they receive separate service. Mr. Calloway replied they could be service separately then, he suggested place conduits in anticipation of the future. He noted all of their lines were located in the rear. Under their current guidelines he could not service the building separately if the two properties were connected or if the properties were owned by the same person. He questioned the size of the existing cable, if it was adequate to serve both buildings. He suggested considering if there were other expansion how much service would they need for it. He questioned if there was adequate space to terminate another cable if it was necessary. In response to comments made regarding the patio, Ms. Little stated the city would not restrict the developer from constructing over the utility easement as long as it was not over 30" tall. She cautioned if the utility companies needed to work on the line they would not be responsible for damages. TCA Cable- Kevin Leflar- 521-7730 • Mr. Leflar requested stubout conduits to the back easement. He requested a conduit where the Swepco line would placed underground. They would need a casing placed for future use. • Arkansas Western Gas- Rick Evans- 521-1141 Mr. Evans stated the existing building was serviced from the north west corner. This building could be serviced on the northeast corner of the proposed building. He stated there were two high pressured gas lines in the area on was 8" the other was 10" any excavation of the area the gas company would have to uncover the lines before paving was poured. Any relocation would be at the developer expense The two lines come up to the comer where the gas value was shown on the plan. They then turned and ran west. The line shown going east on the plat was a 2" plastic line. They would be tapping that line. He did not want any trees planted on the line. The line would be dug up periodically for maintenance. If they had to dig through the parking lot it would be repaved with asphalt. on