HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-07-15 - Minutes•
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF
TECHNICAL PLAT REVIEW
A meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee was held on Wednesday, July 15, 1998,
at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain,
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
UTILITY REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT:
Dennis Burrack - SWEPCO, Andy Calloway - SW Bell, Rick Evans - AR Western Gas, Kevin
Lefler, TCA Cable
STAFF PRESENT:
Alett Little, Tim Conklin, Jim Beavers, Dawn Warrick, Beth Sandeen, and Debra Humphrey
Items:
LS 98-26.00: LOT SPLIT: (JOHN & MARY MILLER, PP 475)
COUNTY 5675 AND 5677 DOT TIPTON ROAD
This item was submitted by John & Mary Miller for property located in the County at 5675 and
• 5677 Dot Tipton Road. The property contains approximately 3.5 acres. The lot split will create
two tracts each containing approximately 1.76 acres more or less. This is the second lot split
request.
Comments from the following were presented:
STAFF:
Sidewalks/Trails-Chuck Rutherford
This property is outside the city limits where sidewalks are not required.
Planning -Dawn Warrick -575-8262
Plat Requirements:
1. Plat page 475 added to the map.
2. Updated vicinity map.
3. Legal descriptions do not meet minimum survey standards of 1/10,000 and need revised
legal.
4. Require the surveyor to stamp the map.
• Engineering- Jim Beavers- 4/14-3418
(13
1. The existing 2 inch water line extends approximately 900 feet west of CR 649. Volume
and pressure may be less than desired. Fire protection is not available.
2. The County must approve the septic systems.
Miller: He stated he installed the 2" water main several years ago. He inquired
why staff was requesting a revised legal.
Little: She stated the revised legal does not meet the state requirement for closure.
Warrick: She noted that due to the size of the tracts created, this item would be required to
go forward to planning commission for approval
Miller: He inquired if staff needed 37 copies.
Warrick. She responded the applicant would need to provide 37 copies with the requested
revisions by 10:00 a.m. July 22, 1998.
Miller: He stated he did not understand this. He wondered why they could not bring one
copy and have the City make the additional copies.
Little: She stated staff could talk with him later about this; however, the expense of the
copies should be paid by the developer and not the citizens of Fayetteville
Miller: He stated he had been kicked around like a rubber ball.
Little: She stated she understood his concerns, however the City has not done this. Staff
noticed the survey was not stamped. Staff checks all the legal descriptions that
come through the process in order to ensure they are correct before filing them
with the County Courthouse. Staff found an error, and the legal cannot be filed
until it is correct.
Miller He stated they had previously provided 20 copies to the county and 28 copies to
the City. He inquired why nobody could tell them if the lot split will be
approved.
Little: She stated that we cannot tell you it will be approved. It takes the commission's
approval
Miller: He stated his concern was that he had to go through the county planning approval
and now he has to go through the City planning approval.
UTILITIES
This is within the Ozark Electric territory and the applicant needs to check with them.
i1(
• Miller: He stated he and his wife were planning to retire. They wanted to divide 3.5 acres
into four lots for trailers They went to the courthouse and obtained house
numbers and were not aware they had to go before the Planning Commission at
the County. He had installed the meter loops, water meters, and gas taps; he did a
perk test; and the health department visited. Then the county came and told him
he could not proceed.
Little: She stated staff would not discuss the county regulations with the applicant.
Miller: He stated that the county approved the perk test. Then he found out he had to go
through the county planning commission for the lot split, and because it was in the
City's growth area, he had to go before the City's planning commission.
He stated what they may do is split the land by deeding half the land to his
grandkids.
SW Bell- Andy Calloway -442-3170
1. Request 15 foot utility easement along the north property line be extended to 20 feet.
2. The remaining building setbacks whether labeled 10 foot or 20 foot be shown as 10 -foot
setback and utility easements.
• Warrick. She inquired if he was referring to the perimeter as well as the interior setbbacks.
Calloway: He confirmed yes.
Miller: He inquired about to the 20 foot easement.
Calloway: He stated there were gas, and electric and telephone lines along with telephone
and a 20 -foot easement was a standard in order to have enough room to get there
while remaining off the right of way and off the property.
TCA Cable- Kevin Lefler- 521-7730
No comments.
Arkansas Western Gas- Rick Evans- 521-1141
No comments.
Request 37 copies of the requested revisions by 10:00 a.m. July 22, 1998.
Miller: He inquired they would be able to obtain approval.
• Little: She responded there was no reason to not suspect approval of the lot split. She
175
•
said if he had any questions or concerns, he could make an appointment and
address those concerns with her.
FP 98-3.00: FINAL PLAT (SEQUOYAH PRESERVE, PUD)
EAST OF RODGERS DRIVE AND WEST OF HAPPY HOLLOW ROAD
This item was submitted by Dan Coody for property located east of Rodgers Drive and west of
Happy Hollow Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains
approximately 7.17 acres with 11 lots proposed.
Dan Coody appeared before the Technical Plat Review Committee.
STAFF:
Solid Waste Division - Cheryl Zotti
The cul-de-sac/turnaround must provide a 40 foot turning radius and a 17 -foot street with an
island. If there is any on -street parking, it is difficult (sometimes impossible) to pass/use street.
Coody: He stated the "17 foot" is a misprint and should be changed to reflect "14 foot".
Warrick: She suggested the applicant contact the Solid Waste Division to be sure what is
constructed there would provide adequate turnaround.
Coody: He stated he had talked with Cheryl Zotti prior to starting this project and she had
approved his proposal.
Landscape Administrator- Beth Sandeen-575-8308
The final plat is okay.
Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator- Chuck Rutherford -575-8291
The trail showing its The length and width of the trail needs to be shown on the plat. He
provided the Planning Commission minutes of June 10, 1996, for PP 96-3 which indicated that
one of the staff recommended construction of a trail in lieu of a sidewalk.
Traffic -Perry Franklin- 575-8228
1. Street lights are not required on private streets.
Parks -Nancy Dugwyler- 444-3472
There are 11 single family units at $300 each which totals $3,300 of green space fees which need
to be paid prior to the staff signing the mylars.
Warrick. She noted before the plat could be filed at the courthouse, the parks fees would
need to be paid.
Planning -Dawn Warrick -575-8262
1. Add plat page 525 to title block.
2. Label correct dimensions from centerline on streets.
3. Correct easement dimensions - these must match those approved at preliminary plat
phase.
4. See attached setback information.
5. This project is a Planned Unit Development - greenspace is required in exchange for
smaller lots than normal.
6. No signs are shown - are any proposed?
Coody: He stated at the present time they would not be proposing any signage. He
inquired what the procedure would be if at a later time they wanted to install a
sign.
Warrick: She said he would need to apply for a sign permit at that time and go before the
sign inspector.
7. Add addresses for each lot - refer to 911 Addressing Coordinator.
8. All utilities shall be located underground.
9. Provide a diskette with revisions.
Coody:
Little:
He noted the greenspace on the map states 31.1%. The applicant increased the
size of of the subdivision to obtain more greenspace. They had increased it from
7.02 to 7.17%, so in reality the 31.1% increased to 32.1% greenspace.
She inquired if the property contained still 2.23 acres of greenspace. She
recommended the greenspace be shaded on one copy so the calculations can be
made and the greenspace more easily located.
Warrick: She noted there was one property owner to the East of Lots 6 and 7. She noted
this should be Richard Covey and Nan Lawler.
Coody:
Mr. Covey had been in the office and questioned the monuments, and he felt did
not feel the corners had been set. She noted as a requirement of the final plat prior
to being signed all of those monuments must be set.
She inquired what was proposed at the north end of cul-de-sac of Lot 8.
He stated the Fayetteville Bicycle Club uses this land as part of their biking path
through town.
(TV
• Warrick. So at the north end of the cul-de-sac of Lot 8 is a lead off path for their bike trail.
Engineering- Jim Beavers- 444-3418
Comments:
1. The final inspection for the subdivision has been held and the developer is working on
the punch list items. OMI will test the lift station approximately July 15, 1998.
2. The utility easements as shown on the proposed final plat are wrong, do not match the
construction plans, do not match the previous approvals and are not acceptable.
Provide a minimum 20 ft. easement for the sanitary sewer lines, around the manhole
which has been moved to lot 8 and for the water mains.
The sanitary sewer easements must allow a minimum of a 1:1 trench from the bottom
of the line. The line cannot be against the edge of the easement.
3. The loop street is 14 ft. not 17 ft.
4. Label all streets and all drainage, including the detention pond as private and to be
maintained by the developer or POA.
5. Provide a copy of the covenants showing that the streets and all of the drainage is
private and will be maintained by the developer and/or a POA. The City shall not
maintain any street or drainage within this development.
Coody: He will add to the covenants a requirement for the maintenance of the drainage.
6. The lift station must be on property deeded to the City - not a utility easement.
This can be deeded with the plat.
7. Prior to the City Engineer signing the final plat, the following is required:
a. Resolution of the comments listed above.
b. Completion and testing of all required improvements. All items noted on the
punch list and final inspection notes must be completed and approved by the
City
c. In accordance with the Grading Ordinance all disturbed areas shall be seeded.
d. As -built drawings, construction cost data and maintenance bonds must be
provided to the Engineering Department.
Coody: He stated Jenkins would be doing the as-builts and Tom would stamp them.
Beavers: He stated Tom would need to do more than stamp the as-builts. Since he was
(78
not the design engineer he suggested he go on-site and review the construction.
e. The survey requirements and concrete monuments should be checked by Jim
Petty.
SWEPCO - Dennis Burrack
Facilities are already in place.
SW Bell- Andy Calloway -442-3170
1. He inquired whether there was an attempt to cross over the northwest corner of Lot 5
Coody: He stated they did try to do this but it was unsuccessful.
2. He requests a 20 foot utility easement beginning at the property line on the south point of
Lot 1 along and parallel to the road. Then loop back to the southwest corner of Lot 11,
and then along the property line from there going east back to the property line thence
north to the jog behind Lot 11.
He requests a 20 foot utility easement be dedicated along the north property line of this
project across lot 5 and touching the greenspace north of lot 8 and across the north
property line of lot 6.
It looks like there is a 15 foot utility easement on the south side of the entrance, and he
wanted to clarify that this ties back into lot 11.
Little: She inquired if this was necessary for their service.
Calloway: He stated his concern was the easements presently shown - how would anyone
find those easements 5-10 years later.
Little:
She stated the developer has a requirement under the PUD ordinance to provide
30% open space. The City has practiced not allowing easements in the open space
because in the future if people are out there and the utility companies disturb the
open space, people do not feel the intent of the PUD ordinance has been fulfilled.
They then threaten to file a suit. It would be better to separate the utilities from
the greenspace. However, she understands there are times when they need to
cross. She reiterated for the utility companies and the developer to keep this in
mind and work together.
Coody: He inquired since this area on the north side is loaded with trees and there were no
present utilities, they try to make it a point to avoid this area. If the developer
dedicates this as a 20 foot easement he wanted to know if the phone company
•
•
•
would cut down all the trees.
Calloway: He stated not necessarily, but reserve the option to do so if necessary.
Little:
She requested the developer to provide Mr. Calloway with an extra copy of the
utility easement revisions for their records and information.
TCA Cable- Kevin Lefler- 521-7730
No comments.
Arkansas Western Gas- Rick Evans- 521-1141
No comments.
Dawn requested 37 copies of the revised plat by 10:00 a.m. July 22, 1998.
• PP 98-5.00: PRELIMINARY PLAT (TJF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT)
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WEDINGTON DRIVE AND HWY 71 BYPASS
This item was submitted by Engineering Design Associates on behalf of the applicant for
property located at the southeast corner of Wedington Drive and Hwy 71 Bypass. The property is
zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 27.48 acres with 8 lots
proposed.
STAFF:
Landscape Administrator- Beth Sandeen-575-8308
A low percentage of tree replacement can be replaced by the tree planting requirements (i.e.
parking lot, commercial design standards, etc) for the LSDs.
Fire Chief - Mickey Jackson
1. Hydrants at entrance to Cleveland Street off Futrall and Marinoni Drive off Wedington,
and at 600 foot intervals between these two entrances.
2. An 8" looped water main will be necessary.
3. Additional hydrants may be needed out on the lots, depending on their use.
• Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator- Chuck Rutherford -575-8291
1. Cleveland Street is shown having a 10 foot greenspace and 6 foot sidewalk.
2. Marinoni Drive is shown having a 6 foot greenspace and 6 foot sidewalk for both streets
this is the correct requirement.
3. The AHTD is widening Wedington Drive and installing the sidewalks
4. This sidewalk needs to be shown and sidewalks need to be added to the legend.
Hessey: He pointed out that the sidewalks on the south side are not part of the subdivision,
but are separated by the construction of the ROW.
Warrick: She inquired if the proposal was to build to the property line.
Hessey: He stated the Marinonis want to build the street at the same time.
Traffic -Perry Franklin- 575-8228
Street light locations are okay as shown.
Planning -Dawn Warrick -575-8262
• 1. Add plat page 441 to title block.
2. Existing contours are shown - need to see proposed - see Engineering comments.
181
3. Explain difference between the two legal descriptions.
Warrick: She noted one description is 27.65 acres and the other 27.48 acres.
Hessey: He noted one is the legal from the deed and the other is the survey description.
Little: She asked that they remove the description from the deed and leave the survey
description on the map.
4. Include all names of TJF owners.
Little: We need the names of the corporate officers or the trustees.
5. One curb cut is allowed per commercial lot.
6. Access for these lots shall be limited to Cleveland Street and Marinoni Drive.
7. Access for lots shall be at 90 degree intersections.
Hessey:
Little:
Ms. Hessey:
Little:
He inquired what the minimum distance requirement would be for a box culvert.
She noted there is one requirement for overlay district that states no curb cuts
within 250 feet of an intersection.
She noted when she visited with Ms Little earlier, the applicant had previously
inquired about an access location. She inquired if it would allowable to have a
lot with no access.
She stated it would be fine with the city. She stated there were no requirements
for frontage or commercial lots. She stated she would not advise anyone to have a
development without cross access agreements to protect themselves.
She further noted staff's recommendation is that all lot access come off Marinoni
and Cleveland are subject to Planning Commission's decision.
Little: She stated that she was concerned because it did not look like a "real" street.
Constantine: He responded they did not intend for this access to be a "real" street.
Little: What staff is looking for is good, safe areas for people to make turns.
After some discussion, Ms. Little stated that as long as they show the access roads as a "real"
street south of Lot 8 and south of Lots 1 and 2 - approximately 30 feet in width - on the map to
be a road, then this would be allowable.
Constantine: He stated that the access shown south of Lot 3 was inadvertently placed there and
18Z
•
•
would be removed.
8. Need to discuss proposed lot configuration.
9. Screening is required between C-2 and R zones.
10. Signage for development to be coordinated at this time.
11. All lots shall be required to go through the large scale development approval process.
Beavers: He noted the drainage channel does not appear to be owned by anyone. The City
will not maintain the channel.
Conklin: He inquired why the applicant was creating Tract 10
He stated the property owner would need to deed tract 10 to a POA, if there was a
POA, or remain in Marinoni's name.
Hessey: He stated if they included this lot then the developers would be required to
provide flood insurance.
Little. She stated she thought HUD was the only agency that provided flood insurance.
She felt as long as the building is elevated two feet above the level of the 100 year
flood plain, then there would not be a flood insurance requirement. She stated it
would not matter to the City who has the ownership of the land. It is unusual that
people deed lands for maintenance as separate tracts. Normally, maintenance
would be covered with other agreements such as covenants or property owners'
associations.
She stated for the record, Lot 10, if created would be labeled "unbuildable" so that
there would be no future problems.
12. Most of this development is located in the Design Overlay District.
13. ALL utilities shall be located underground.
14. Commercial Design Standards apply. Applicant shall present a unified design theme at
the time of final plat for the entire subdivision.
Warrick: She noted that screening may be required at a later time depending on the zoning
differences of C-2 vs. Residential.
All the lots will be required to go through the Large Scale Development.
Conklin: He inquired if a lot split would be required for the lot being created by Cleveland
and Marinoni Drive, and if this would have to be created by some separate
instrument.
Little: She responded this could either be handled by a separate instrument or the
•
Marinoni's could sign on the plat to dedicate this portion of land.
183
•
•
•
She also stated that there should be a legal description added to the maps.
Engineering- Jim Beavers- 444-3418
Comments:
General:
The proposal as submitted does not comply with the minimum standards for a preliminary
submittal for grading and for drainage.
The drainage report is incomplete and does not comply with the requirements as listed in
amendment no. 2 of the Drainage Criteria Manual.
The preliminary grading plan is very incomplete and does not comply with the ordinance.
Refer to the attached checklist taken as a photo copy from the grading ordinance.
The proposal shall not go forward to subdivision committee but shall be corrected to comply
with the City's criteria and requirements and resubmitted for a future new plat review.
Water:
1. Per existing City regulations, the water shall be extended to the property lines along the
streets. The back lot water line may be looped into the water line along the proposed
streets subject to an acceptable easement.
The City provided a 12 inch extension and tee under Wedington near Futurall for
future development of this property. This should be used.
3. The 8 inch water line south of the new culvert must be shown The final design of the
drainage channel must protect the water line (refer to as built no. 857).
4. Fire hydrant locations to meet the more stringent of the Fire Chief's request or the
water standards (300 ft. Radius).
5. The water line information is required to be shown on the next submittal.
Sanitary sewer:
1. The proposal to construct a street over the existing gravity and force main is subject to
additional review. Specifically the proposed cut and fill must be shown, you must
investigate the structural intregraty of the existing lines and the manholes shall not be
located in the gutter, or adjacent to the gutter as this will increase inflow.
ect
2. Provide information on the existing capacity of the Porter Lift station, your proposed
increase to the load and any proposed improvements to the Porter lift station. Any
necessary improvements shall be the developer's sole expense.
3. "Back -yard" or rear manholes shall be allowed only if truck access is provided to each
manhole. This shall include a reasonably surfaced access drive or trail.
The rear sanitary sewer lines must be set away from the drainage channel such that a
1:1 trench slope will not influence the slope stability of the channel or the trench. This
will move the lines several feet east.
5. The sanitary sewer information is required for the next submittal.
Easements:
1. When an acceptable plan is presented, all water and sanitary sewer easements must be a
minimum of 20 feet in width and wider as necessary to provide a stable 1:1 trench with
the line centered in the easement.
Drainage:
1. The preliminary drainage report does not contain the required information. Refer
specifically to page I-2 of the manual as amended February 6, 1998. This includes
sections
1.2.1. Are there any "wetlands"? "WATERS of the US" ?
1.2.2. Clarify the offsite areas. At the time a final drainage report is presented, the drainage
basin map must include contours for the offsite areas. Future development - the CN of .85 is
reasonable.
1.2.3. The downstream bridge has been replaced by the AHTD with a triple 9 x 5 box. Refer
to copy of attached letter from CEI dated 17 June 92.
1.2.4. General schematic - A. cannot be reviewed without additional grading information.
B. You must also show the general requirements for the future LSD's on the lots or grade the
lots so that the drainage reflects the calculations.
1.2.5. Provide the offsite, onsite and combined flows as specified in this paragraph.
1.2.6. The "timing of the peaks" used to justify the absence of detention is not accepted.
Provide before and after hydrographs at the new box culvert or downstream near the
confluence with Hamstring Creek. Note the engineers for the apartment complex to the west
(Mickle, Wagoner, Coleman) determined that detention was necessary for their site. You
must have very specific proof to eliminate detention on this site.
2. The detailed calculations submitted for the storm drainage were not reviewed.
3. Your 24 hour storm precipitations used do not conform to the values listed in
paragraph 2.4.4.2 of our manual.
4. Explain how you have a hydrograph labeled Q100 = 1219 cfs and the CLOMR
application says Q100 = 1407 cfs.
5. The CLOMR application used the old bridge which has been replaced. Do you believe
it is necessary to remodel for the new box culvert?
6. The final drainage report must determine the 100 -yr WSE for all flows, including over
the culverts between lots, in the street, in channels.... Refer to the manual.
7. The City (contact Tim Conklin, Floodplain Administrator 575-8264) has received data
from the Corps of Engineers which established new flows, elevations, floodway and
flood water surface elevations across this property. The City is enforcing the new
data.
8. Any rerouting of drainage within the AHTD ROW requires approval from the AHTD
prior to acceptance of the plan by the City.
Any proposed open channel flows must follow the Drainage Criteria Manual. Refer
specifically to chapter 9 for bend radius, water surface elevation requirements,....
Grading:
1. Refer to the enclosed checklist taken as a copy from the grading ordinance. All items
required by ordinance for a preliminary grading plan are required.
2. Insufficient information to review. Revise and resubmit.
Streets:
1. Traditionally, the Planning Commission has recommended and the City Council has
agreed to cost share the difference between a standard 28 ft. Street and a 36 ft. Street
for residential development. A cost share request for commercial development will not
be supported by staff.
2. The Planning Commission will further address connectivity.
UTILITIES
• SWEPCO- Dennis Burrack-973-2308
He inquired if each lot would be going through large scale development.
Little: She confirmed this was correct.
Burrack: He stated he was asked to make a general statement regarding the State Highway
right of ways for overhead facilities. Pursuant to the Minute Orders of the
Highway Department when a relocation project it is the responsibility of the utility
section right of way division to make all arrangements (written or verbal) to the
accommodation of the public utilities of the State Highway rights of way.
Burrack: He stated this was due to a jurisdictional conflict on some requests that had been
made to him considering facilities on state rights of way. Therefore, any
relocation of anything that is on the State rights of way would have to come from
the state.
Little: She inquired if this included estimates also.
Burrack: He confirmed this would include estimates as well.
The request to do any rearrangements on anything on state highway rights of way
• is property of the state.
It is a Minute Order No. 96167 from the Arkansas State Highway Department by
Danny Cornett.
•
Burrack: He stated pursuant to the Public Service Commission's rulings that any facilities
in existence that are in use and useful must be relocated by the utility companies.
The estimates must be made within a 6 month period. Preparation is not to
interfere with the engineering construction process of service to "new" customers
when the facility to be relocated serves existing customers.
He stated this ruling was part of the commission's efforts to keep costs down.
SW Bell- Andy Calloway -442-3170
Request a perimeter easement of a minimum of 20 feet around the entire property.
He inquired if there would be any problem bringing the 20 foot easement along with the street
dedication. He stated if this was a problem, then he would request that a 20 foot utility easement
be dedicated along the south side of Lot 4 and the east side of Lot 5 following the property. The
utility easement would be separate from the drainage easement.
Constantine: He inquired what allows utility companies to require a 20 foot easement.
1U7
•
•
•
Calloway:
He stated there was nothing in writing, but they may not be able to service
this property. He noted with four utilities needing some separation and
having less than 5 feet between each utility, damage to the other utilities
could occur.
TCA Cable- Kevin Lefler- 521-7730
Will discuss this at large scale development. He stated any relocation would be at developer's
expense.
He inquired if the surveys show the utility poles on this property.
Arkansas Western Gas- Rick Evans- 521-1141
He reserves his comments when they come through as LSD.
Revisions are due Wednesday, July 8, 1998, by 10:00 a.m.
lW