HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-04-28 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
TECHNICAL PLAT REVIEW MEETING
A regular meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee was held on Wednesday, April 28,
1999 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain,
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
ITEMS CONSIDERED
LS99-9: Sisco, pp 240
LS99-10: Hammond, pp 256
LSD99-13: Sunbridge Center, Lot 7, pp 290
LSD99-14: Nelms Auto Plaza, pp 248/249
MEMBERS PRESENT
Johney Boles, ArkWestern
Mike Phipps, Ozarks Electric
Robert Falk, SWB
Mike Campbell, SWEPCO
Mike Hicks, SWEPCO
STAFF PRESENT
Tim Conklin
Janet Johns
Ron Petrie
Dawn Warrick
ACTION TAKEN
Forward to Subdivision
Forward to Subdivision
Forward to Subdivision
Forward to Subdivision
MEMBERS ABSENT
Kevin Lefler, TCA (provided
written comments)
STAFF ABSENT
•
f
Plat Review Minutes
April 28, 1999
Page 2
LS99-9: LOT SPLIT
SISCO, pp240
This item was submitted by Michael and Wendy Sisco for property located at 6338 and 6432
West Wheeler Road. The property is in the planning growth area and contains approximately 2
acres. The request is to split the property into 2 tract of 0.32 acres and 1.68 acres.
Mike Sisco was present on behalf of the request.
Staff Comments
Cheryl Zotti, Environmental Affairs Administrator
No Comment
Chuck Rutherford. Sidewalk & Trails Coordinator
Sidewalks are not required because this project is outside the city limits.
Kim Hesse, Landscape Administrator
No Comment
Perry Franklin, Traffic Superintendent
No Comment
Kim Rogers. Parks Onerations Coordinator
No parks fees are due since this is in the planning growth area.
Dawn Warrick. Development Coordinator
All submittal requirements were adequate. Regarding plat requirements, add plat page 240 to the
title block, add the parent tract legal description to the plat, and no easements are shown as
existing or proposed. There were no street requirements. There were no parking requirements.
Regarding lot requirements, neither of the proposed tracts would meet requirements of a lot in
the A -I district within the city limits. If this land is ever annexed, the appropriate zoning will
have to be requested at that time. Regarding other requirements, approval through Washington
County Planning is not required as this split is for the purpose of financing only. Documentation
of county exemption is on file.
•
•
1
Plat Review Minutes
April 28, 1999
Page 3
In order for the project to continue in the current review cycle, all requested revisions and
additional information must be added to the plat. 37 copies of the revised plat must be submitted
to the Planning Division no later than 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, May 5, 1999.
Ron Petrie. Engineering
Petrie: I've never heard of a leach field easement. Have you contacted the Washington
County Health Department? Did anyone tell you put that on there like that?
Sisco: When I talked to County Planning, I told her we had septic for that first house.
She requested I show that in the drawing.
Petrie: We don't regulate the leach systems out in the county.
Sisco: When I bought this property 5 years ago, they had it put in and we went through
all that approval.
Petrie: I don't think there is a problem with the leach system.
Conklin: Our experience is that they normally want the septic system on the lot where the
house is located and they also want an additional area in case that one fails. This is the first time
that we have actually seen the septic system located on someone's property and potentially there
is not enough area on tract one for additional septic field. We need something from the county
saying that it's approved.
Regarding water, our records show an existing 6 inch waterline located along Wheeler Road and
same should be reflected on the plat. Regarding sanitary sewer, no public facilities are available.
The septic system must be approved by Washington County Health Department.
Utility Comments
Michael Campbell. SWEPCO
No Comment
Bob Falk. Southwestem Bell
No Comment
Mike Phipps. Ozarks Electric
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
April 28, 1999
Page 4
I would ask that the 25 foot building setback at the front on Wheeler Road also include the utility
easement. We also need an easement up the west property line where there is an 8 foot setback.
We want an 20 foot building setback and utility easement. They could put that on the east side.
Either way. We need access through there.
Johnev Boles. Arkansas Western Gas
No Comment
Kevin Lefler. TCA Cable
No Comment
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
April 28, 1999
Page 5
LS99-10: LOT SPLIT
HAMMOND, PP 256
This item was submitted by Brad Hammond on behalf of Randall Jack Harriman for property
located at 3284 Skillern Road. The property is in the planning growth area and contains
approximately 3.17 acres. The request is to split the property into 2 tracts of 0.99 acres and 2.18
acres.
Brad Hammond was present on behalf of the project.
Staff Comments
Warrick: Remind me if you would when this is going to the County Planning Board.
Hammond: May 6.
Warrick: We will know after that whether we can take this on to Subdivision Committee
Cheryl Zotti. Environmental Affairs Administrator
No Comment
Kim Hesse. Landscape Administrator
No Comment
Chuck Rutherford. Sidewalk & Trails Coordinator
Sidewalks are not required since this property is outside the city limits.
Perry Franklin. Traffic Supenntendent
No Comment
Kim Rogers. Parks Operations Coordinator
No parks fees are assessed since this is in the planning growth area.
Dawn Warrick. Development Coordinator
All submittal requirements were adequately met. Regarding plat requirements, add the name of
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
April 28, 1999
Page 6
the property owner to the south to the plat. Add plat page 256 to the title block. Add the panel
number to the title block which was used for flood plain certification. Add separate legal
description for each proposed tract for a total of 3 legals to be added to the plat. Regarding street
requirements, Skillern Road is classified as a minor arterial on the City's Master Street Plan. A
total of 90 feet of right of way is necessary. Dedication of 45 feet from the centerline of Skillern
is required for this project. There were no parking requirements. Regarding lot requirements, if
this property were to be annexed into the City, lot 2 would not meet the requirements for a legal
lot in the A-1 zoning district. If an annexation is ever proposed, an appropriate zoning
designation must also be requested. If this will be filed as a final plat with the Circuit Clerk,
addresses must be added to the plat. County approval is expected on May 6, 1999. They
required a plat for approval due to the size lot required.
In order for this project to continue in the current review cycle, all requested revisions and
additional information must be added to the plat and 37 revised copies must be submitted to the
Planning Division no later than 10 a.m on Wednesday, May 5, 1999.
Ron Petrie. Engineering
• Regarding water, our records show an existing 4 inch waterline located along Skillern Road and
a 2 inch waterline along Lancaster Road What is the plan for water service?
Hammond: There is an existing 2 inch line along Lancaster Drive and lot 1 is served with the
4 inch line along Skillern. I plan on serving lot 2 from the line on Lancaster. I'll have to run a
service line. I understand I have to get an easement across the adjoining property or I could go
along the access drive.
Petrie: We would prefer to serve that off of Skillem. We would like to have a private
easement. We don't want to tie on to the 2 inch line unless we have to. We want you to explore
that possibility and let us know at the next meeting.
Regarding sanitary sewer, no public sanitary sewer is available. Show the existing septic system
location for the existing house.
Utility Comments
Michael Campbell, SWEPCO
No Comment
• Bob Falk Southwestern Bell
Plat Review Minutes
April 28, 1999
Page 7
I would like a utility easement along the west side of the property.
Hammond: What width?
Falk: 20 foot is preferable. If everyone can get in with something less, we can go less.
20 foot would be preferable
Hammond: There is an existing shed that would be pretty close to that easement.
Falk: We could get around the shed.
Mike Phipps. Ozark Electric
Is that Carl Yates property? I haven't had a chance to look at this property.
Hammond: Yes. He has an access drive.
Phipps: I couldn't picture this house at the entrance. We would request the easement at
• the west side. The existing power is such that we could run a private line up there so we would
need a private easement. There is a service pole at the west side of the property.
Hammond: We'll dedicate whatever you need.
Johney Boles, Arkansas Western Gas
I would request that the front building setback also we labeled a utility easement. Also, from the
centerline of Lancaster at the "T" running west approximately 150 feet, we have a 2 inch
wrapped steel line that goes to Skillem Road and ties in. We need to have that located and
shown on the plat.
Kevin Lefler, TCA Cable
They will go in with the electric.
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
April 28, 1999
Page 8
LSD99-13 LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT
SUNBRIDGE CENTER -LOT 7, PP 290
This item was submitted by Bill Keating of Keating Construction for property located in Lot 7 of
Sunbridge Center. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office, and contains approximately
1.27 acres.
Chris Brackett and Bill Keating was present on behalf of the project.
Staff Comments
Cheryl Zotti, Environmental Affairs Administrator
Container locations were adequate. Container pads were adequate as well as screening. An area
needs to be shown on the plat for a recycling container.
Kim Hesse, Landscape Administrator
The trees within and surrounding the parking are adequate. The only changes are to spread the
shrub planting along the curb of the parking lot. A note should be included on the plan regarding
the automatic irrigation system. If this will not be included, provisions must be shown to place
hose bibs at 100 feet diameter spacing throughout the lot for landscape maintenance.
Keating: I don't understand that.
Warrick. We revised the parking lot ordinance.
Conklin: It requires shrubs to be along the front parking lot area.
Brackett: A hedge row?
Warrick: Yes.
Conklin: It is along front property lines joining street right of ways -- landscaping in these
areas shall contain one tree every 30 linear feet plus a continuous planting of shrubs along the
street right of way.
Warrick: You have about 90 feet on either side of your drive, so you need another tree on
each side.
• Brackett: It was her request that we only put 4 because she said an additional one would be
•
Plat Review Minutes
April 28, 1999
Page 9
too many and the trees wouldn't survive.
Keating: She said she didn't like them that close.
Warrick: You need to work that out with her.
Keating: We brought her over and asked where she wanted them. That's what we did.
Chuck Rutherford, Sidewalk & Trails Coordinator
Sunbridge Drive is a local street having a 50 foot right of way and a 31 foot street back of curb to
back of curb. A 5 foot sidewalk is shown with a 5 foot green space. This will meet the
requirement for Sunbridge Drive.
Perry Franklin, Traffic Superintendent
The ADA spaces at each building should be van accessible. ITE trip generation report was
included with this written report.
Warrick. He talked about the ADA spaces yesterday at in house review. The reason is that
on that one van accessible space that you are showing there is no immediate access to the other
two buildings. He is requesting that there we a van accessible space provided for two of them.
Brackett: That won't be problem on this one but that's not in the ADA. It does meet the
ADA. We don't have a problem with it on this. It may be a problem in the future for the fact
that this project currently meets the ADA.
Conklin: Perry's concerned was that it did not meet the intent of the ADA because you
have 3 separate buildings and only one van accessible space.
Brackett. That's fine. We'll adjust this.
Keating: Normally, I don't care. We place them at the front doors so it keeps the front
doors clean. You bum up a lot of space.
Brackett: That's only 3 more feet and it's not a problem on this.
Kim Rogers, Parks Operations Coordinator
No parks fees are assessed since this is zoned R -O, Residential Office.
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
April 28, 1999
Page 10
Dawn Warrick, Development Coordinator
Regarding submittal requirements, the property line adjustment noted on this plat is being
processed as an administrative item. Additional legal descriptions are necessary to complete the
adjustment application. Regarding plat requirements, add the FIRM panel number to the flood
plain certification. Street requirements were adequate. Parking requirements were adequate.
Lot requirements were adequate. Regarding other requirements, screening to the north is
required between all commercial and residential uses. Will all signage be wall mounted? All
utilities shall be located underground.
Brackett: We were planning on planting a pine tree to screen the north. Is that adequate?
Warrick: As long as it meets the ordinance requirement for a screen between the two.
Conklin: It has to be at a sufficient density.
Brackett: We will get with the landscape administrator. That's our intent to screen.
Keating: She actually did not mention the screening. I wanted to put those trees there
because I wanted to hide what was over there. I wanted to screen.
Brackett: We will screen it.
Keating: She can get with me and whatever trees she wants me to plant there -- I want
something that is fast growing and big.
Warrick: Is that a barbed wire fence?
Keating: It's not a barbed wire fence. It's a cyclone or hurricane or whatever you call
them. That's a problem. We told Mae that was one of the conditions of this lot that she had to
get that fence moved. I think she's going to run into some problems with that.
Conklin: Is it razor wire fence?
Keating: It's chain link. It's so old. I have some ideas about what we might do with that
fence. I'll talk to you later about it.
Warrick: What about signage?
Keating: Same thing. It will be up in the gables.
•
Plat Review Minutes
April 28, 1999
Page 11
In order for this project to continue in the current review cycle, all requested revisions and
additional information must be added to the plat and 37 revised copies must be submitted to the
Planning Division no later than 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, May 5, 1999. Developers of all large
scale developments are required by City ordinance to provide notification to all adjoining
property owners of the upcoming public hearings. Proof of said notification is required to be
submitted with revisions. This project will not proceed to the next review level without proof of
notification.
Regarding Commercial Design Standards review and site development, two additional trees need
to be added along the Sunbridge frontage. Regarding design elements, this project is a
continuation of the Sunbridge Business Center which has been approved by the Planning
Commission and is currently under development.
Warrick: Work out the two trees on Sunbridge with Kim. This also has an administrative
lot line adjustment which will track along with this request. We will not sign off on it until we
have original and adjusted descriptions for the two lots that are affected.
Conklin: On the flood panel, use the 1991 information.
• Brackett. You should have that.
Warrick: I'll check on that. As soon as we check that, we can sign off on the lot line
adjustment.
Ron Petrie, Engineering
In general, all designs are subject to the City's latest design criteria. Review for plat approval is
not approval of public improvements and all proposed improvements are subject to further
review at the time construction plans are submitted. All corrections and/or additional
information are required to be provided no later than the standard deadline of May 5, 199 to
continue to subdivision committee.
Regarding water, it appears that an 8 inch water main should be extended into this site to provide
fire protection and shorten the proposed services. A 20 foot utility easement must also be
provided.
Regarding drainage, the preliminary report was reviewed for general compliance with
requirements for a preliminary drainage submittal and is acceptable. A more detailed review will
be made when the final drainage plans are submitted.
• Regarding grading, the submitted preliminary grading plan is acceptable as a preliminary plan.
Plat Review Minutes
April 28, 1999
Page 12
Additional information must be provided on the final grading plan. Provisions to keep mud and
debris such as a gravel construction entrance is required to be addressed on the grading plan.
This information must be included on the final grading plan. A construction time schedule and
description of quantity, source, and composition of imported fill material and compaction
specifications must be provided to the engineer or contractor at the preconstruction conference.
Brackett: We may have a problem with the 8 inch water line. Can we meet about that
before we get a plan?
Petrie: Yes.
Utility Comments
Kevin Lefler, TCA Cable
Have the electrician call our office for information on in-house wiring for future Internet usage.
Michael Campbell. SWEPCO
You have power in part of this development. It appears that the existing utility easements are
sufficient. I'll get with Mr. Keating after this meeting and discuss transformer locations and
conduit requirements.
Bob Falk. SWB
Same comments as SWEPCO.
Johney Boles ArkWestern
We need the southwest corner of lot 7 to extend the 5 foot easement to the jog. It's coming off
the frontage of your 25 foot utility easement running up the west property line. Do you have any
idea of the total number of tenants?
Keating: 6 to 8 total. 2 maybe 3 to a building.
•
Plat Review Minutes
April28, 1999
Page 13
LSD99-14: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT
NELMS AUTO PLAZA, pp 248/249
This item was submitted by Rick Rogers of CEI Engineering on behalf of Don Nelms for
property located at Arkansas Highway 112 and Highway 71 Bypass. The property is zoned C-2,
Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 33.56 acres.
Rick Rogers, Lyle Jenkins, and Audy Lack were present on behalf of the project.
Staff Comments
Warrick: I noticed several inaccuracies on the front sheet of your plans. Under ownership
information, you have a sentence that starts, "The general contractor and the consulting architect
and/or the ," this isn't necessary. Warner Cable needs to be revised to TCA Cable and
they have a different address. I think the phone number is still correct. Water and Sewer
Department --Mr. Jurgens spells his name with a "u." You need to change the Planning Director
to Tim Conklin and show the phone number 575-8264. Southwestern Bell now has different
representative, Mr. Bob Falk at 442-3170. Arkansas Westem Gas has a new representative,
Johney Boles.
Jim Johnson, _l_l Addressm�
The following street names have been selected and approved for this project: Auto Road from the
entrance drive going south around the perimeter of the project; Showroom Drive off Auto Road
in front of the new car showrooms; Transport Road leading from the north side of the entrance
northeast to its termination east of the body shop and behind the Chevrolet showroom. Some of
the private drive will need street names for addressing purposes Please contact his office with
suggested names.
Cheryl Zotti, Environmental Affairs Administrator
All requirements are adequately met.
Kim Hesse, Landscape Administrator
Review of tree preservation within the project is on going. Additional preservation is to be
reviewed by the engineer per a meeting with Mr. Nelms. Landscaping as required by the Off
Street Parking Ordinance shall be addressed within all employee and customer parking areas.
This should include parking areas provided for cars to be serviced by the shop facilities.
Landscaping will not be required within or surrounding display areas as excluded by the Off
Street Parking Ordinance. Trees along the north boundary of the project are to be protected
•
Plat Review Minutes
April 28, 1999
Page 14
during construction. Please evaluate grading to ensure preservation and indicate tree protection
fencing along this boundary.
Chuck Rutherford, Sidewalk & Trails Coordinator
Sidewalks, driveway approaches and access ramps shall be constructed to Ordinance. An
inspection is required prior to the concrete pour. Driveway approaches shall be constructed of
Portland Cement Concrete. Garland Avenue is a principal arterial. This requires a minimum 6
foot sidewalk with a minimum 10 foot green space. The sidewalk shall be continuous through
the driveway. The sidewalk shall start dust south of the driveway and continue to the north
property line.
Warrick: The sidewalk will go from the immediate south boundary and proceed north to the
property line crossing the driveway. While we're talking about that area, we would ask that your
exit be a two aisle exit so there is a right and left turn lane.
Rogers: We addressed that at one time and had it like that. The decision was that we
didn't anticipate too many patrons from this development needing a right hand turn. Currently
there is not a lot of development in that direction and there wouldn't be a need for patrons
coming from that direction. They primarily will be coming from the interstate. That is why we
eliminated the right hand turn only.
Warrick: That was discussed previously. The only thing is there will be people testing
driving vehicles and it's likely the test route will be out 112. You need to figure out what your
route is going to be and that may be a consideration for them. That was actually a comment that
came from administration.
Rogers: We have visited this situation numerous times the last couple of years where we
try to do something and it conflicts with what the State Highway Department will allow us to do.
Their maximum allowance is a 40 foot curb cut. Unless you separate ingress and egress by 25
feet, which is wide and is unreasonable. If we were to add another egress lane and still meet the
City's ordinance for a divided median, we exceed the State requirement.
Warrick: There has been an exception in the past for that. We feel like it is something that
is necessary with the amount of traffic we are looking at.
Conklin: We had that worked out with the Highway Department so that our standards --
Rogers: One thing we're finding out is that when we talk to the Highway Department, we
get a different answer. I don't know why that is. Obviously, we want to do what is best for all
parties and we will entertain adding this lane. I know that when we send it down to Joe
•
Plat Review Minutes
April 28, 1999
Page 15
Shipman, that we always get a comment that we're over the 40 foot mark and then we tell them
the City is requiring us to add this lane.
Conklin: It's a recommendation to look at the traffic exiting left and right. Normally we try
and keep the curb cuts smaller. It would work better to have a left and right out.
Perry Franklin, Traffic Superintendent
ADA spaces are adequate as shown. ITE Trip Generation report is on file.
Warrick: This is only a ball park generation report. There is no hard and fast rule to
calculate this. His expectation was approximately 1,564 in a two way volume for a standard
weekday.
Kim Rogers, Parks Operations Coordinator
No parks fees are required since this is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial.
Dawn Warrick Development Coordinator
Submittal requirements were adequate. Elevations of the Body Shop are necessary. If
freestanding signs are proposed, scaled elevations are required.
Lack: The only free standing sign we know of will be directional signs. All others will
be on the buildings.
Plat requirements were adequate. Add the lighting symbols to the legend and call out on the
plans. Dimension the right of way from the centerline. Dimension the area to be dedicated along
Highway 112.
Lack: There will be 2 different types of lights. It is dependant upon the number of foot
candles that they want. The display area is hatched and the used cars will have a little higher
light than the storage and inventory lots. The intent is to provide enough security lighting for
those where the display lights will be on at night.
Warrick: Add notes regarding the different areas so that it is clear. Will all the areas be
paved?
Rogers: The employee parking area is to be asphalt and the display areas around the front
of the buildings will be a scored concrete.
Plat Review Minutes
April 28, 1999
Page 16
Regarding street requirements, Highway 112 is classified as a principle arterial on the Master
Street Plan requiring a total of 110 feet of right of way. Dedication of 55 feet from the centerline
is required for this project.
Rogers. The right of way dimensions are shown in two different places. It's on the site
plan and the preliminary easement plat where it would actually be dedicated.
Conklin: We're looking for the actual dimensions.
Rogers: It's dimensioned by bearing and distance.
Warrick: The bearing and distance is required for dedication by warranty deed. The
dimension from centerline is important to us.
Rogers: We will provide the dimension on the site plan. As far as dedicating the right of
way on the east, is that permissible?
Warrick: That will be by separate document. Contact the land agent and they will work up
• a warranty deed and get it back to you for filing.
Regarding parking requirements, what ratios were used to figure parking? The numbers in the
chart on the plan do not calculate correctly. No cross access is provided. There are 34 acres in
this project with no public street connections.
•
Rogers: There is an inaccuracy on the site plan in that there was an error in some of the
square footage shown on the buildings. Those square footages were intended to show total
square footage. Somehow, in our plan production, we showed office footage within these
buildings. Each one of these buildings has some office space, a little display space in the front
which will be included in the office square footage and then we have the maintenance square
footage which has bays for service space. What we did is we tried to break down parking counts
based on office square footage and the associated display in front to have a certain amount count
for those and the number of service bays. When you include all those to together, that is how we
arrived at our required spaces. Obviously from the parking ratio chart, we did not break the
required spaces between the office and the bays. We put them together.
Warrick: What numbers did you use for your office calculation? We need to know the ratio
you actually applied. There are 4 spaces per bay.
Rogers: Yes, we did do that. We will show the ratio.
Warrick: Concerning traffic flow, cross access has not been shown or provided. Are there
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
April28, 1999
Page 17
any proposals?
Rogers: I'm not sure I understand. The owners own all this property and there's no
current plan to develop these other pieces. We are showing a potential future drive extension.
Conklin: The question is connection to adjoining properties. Mr. Nelms owns other
property. Does that have access on Hwy 112?
Rogers: There is no access to 112 but there is an access agreement with the land owner
that sold the property to have access to the road to the north. That property will eventually be
tied into here through this future drive extension we're showing.
Warrick: He has access to Van Asche?
Conklin: The access needs to be platted out there at this time.
Rogers: We can provide a note that access will be provided to the north and south of this
property when it is developed.
Warrick: If that is the best you can do then we ask you to do that. Generally, the
requirement is to stub out to adjoining property.
Conklin: The Planning Commission will look at that. They may want more assurance.
They may want to address public street access with this development. We normally consider
development of public streets with something this size.
Lot requirements were adequate.
Regarding other requirements, will wall signage be the only signage for this development? A
written description is necessary for any waivers requested and they must refer to specific UDO
code sections and have detailed supporting documentation to present to the Planning
Commission. Much of this property is within the Design Overlay District as noted on the plat.
All utilities shall be located underground.
Warrick: It appears as though waiver requests are being made. In order to request a waiver
we have to have written documentation and a description of what the waiver is and what part of
the UDO you are requesting a waiver from and what your intentions are. You are also needing a
variance request from the Board of Adjustments for the overhang encroachments. That is not
something the Planning Commission can grant.
Conklin: You can reduce that with 25 feet of landscaping.
•
Plat Review Minutes
April 28, 1999
Page 18
Lack: We've added some additional landscaping. There isn't any parking in there. It's
our understanding that it wasn't needing a waiver request.
Warrick: Not if you do landscaping. We have a form you need to fill out stating that the
option is being used to reduce your setback.
Lack: That was the only thing I was aware of that we didn't address for overlay district.
Conklin: Your parking aisle width is 20 feet instead of 24 feet. The standard is a 24 feet
aisle for 90 degree parking.
Rogers: We can make that adjustment. The only other drive that is larger is the truck drive
at 30 feet. That is for new car delivery.
Warrick: Do you have any overhead utilities currently?
Rogers: No. Regarding the waiver or variance request for the Overlay District,
• Conklin: We'll worry about the Overlay District requirements.
Rogers: Architecture is added within that as well. Does that have to be a wavier?
•
Warrick: We're going to do Commercial Design Standards. You don't have to worry about
that. It all works together. 15 feet of landscaping along front property lines.
Conklin: The Overlay District would have the 25 feet.
Warrick: Tree planted 1 per 30 feet within the landscaped area -- that is not shown.
Rogers: We have a premise that has been set and approved by the Planning Commission 2
years ago. This item was addressed then and we will continue to address it. This being an
automotive car lot, it's really not the desire of the owner of all these cars that will be displaying
them to have trees next to the display area. It creates a limb problem. He is very concerned.
There is the visual presence from the highway to consider. We have calculated all the trees and
shrubbery that are required by the ordinance, we have placed them in mass groupings in other
locations around the site so that we didn't have the 1 per 30 linear feet.
Warrick: What you just explained to me is what we have to have as a written waiver
request. The Planning Commission has to make that decision again. The project that was
brought through in '96 -- we have a completely different Planning Commission and this is a
brand new project. We understand decisions were made at that time but you're working with
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
April28, 1999
Page 19
different people.
Rogers: The waiver is actually just for the placement location.
Conklin: If that is what you are requesting just put it in a letter.
Phipps: Are you talking about landscaping a utility easement? Any damage to existing
lines in the utility easement will be paid for by the developer. Any landscaping that we have to
remove to service the lines will be paid for by the developer.
Rogers: Has there been any discussion between the utility companies and the city
regarding landscaping ordinances? It's really hard for us to figure out how to group and get the
landscaping in.
Boles: Easements are not a good place to put landscaping.
Warrick: The Landscape Administrator should work with the developer and the utility
companies.
Conklin: That's what has happened in the past. I think the City has tried to adjust the
problem and the Landscape Administrator has tried to work with the developers and utility
companies to make sure the landscape placed in easements is appropriate.
Rogers: As a consultant, what we try to do is locate trees away from major utilities. They
may still be in an easement but we try to locate as far from lines as possible.
A Commercial Design Standards review was made on the site development, construction and
appearance of the project. Regarding site development standards, all mechanical and utility
equipment must be screened from the public view. An area must be reserved to meet the open
space requirements which is 25% for DOD property and may not at any time be developed.
Regarding design elements, no elevations were presented for the Body Shop which is necessary
for a complete review. The applicant needs to explain features that define the unifying
identifiable theme for this project. Adjoining developments include the 112 Drive In and
Daugherty's Equipment Co. Additional information is needed on the variance requests so they
can be presented to the Planning Commission.
Warrick: Will the utilities be screened by parapet?
Lack: We'll use something that maintains the characteristics of the building.
Conklin: That needs to be architecturally integrated into the building. It will be somewhat
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
April 28, 1999
Page 20
challenging because you have the interstate overpass looking down on it.
Rogers: That's impossible.
Conklin: We'll work with you to try and achieve that ordinance requirement. We also need
to see calculations on your green space area.
Warrick: They are over right now.
Rogers. We'll indicate that on the landscape plan.
Conklin: Under Overlay District, your parking lot lighting has a height limitation of 35 feet.
The exterior appearance of the building must have a front facade facing all street rights of way.
The Planning Commission will review the elevation drawings for compliance with that. We'll
need a material list. You talk about the building shall be constructed of wood, masonry, or
natural looking material. No structure shall be allow to have metal side walls or siding. Looking
at your elevations, you have a lot of glass and metal. I think you would need to write a request
for approval of that material.
Lack: Are you talking about the composite metal for the towers?
Conklin: Will you describe your buildings?
Lack: The main material of the building will be masonry and drivet. The tower
elements will be composite metal. It's not really metal side wall. It will be very nice.
Warrick: You need a unifying and identifiable theme. We're going to ask you at the
Subdivision Committee to explain to the Commissioners what elements make this a unified
development. We also want to know what you've done to comply with the City of Fayetteville's
Commercial Design Standards.
Conklin: We will give you the opportunity to explain your design process.
Lack: We tried to take the various corporate designs and find similarities and things to
work with. The individual logos were very helpful and we worked them into the design
standards of the manufactures. The banding of the fascias of the buildings is another element we
tried to maintain throughout. The metal canopies at the front of each building were an accent.
We are required by the different manufacturers to display their logos so we had to go with two
different accent colors. We tried to get all the service entries aligned to be on the right hand side
of each building. We tried to maintain just a few materials.
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
April28, 1999
Page 21
Warrick: We have a question about signage. The two Nelms signs are different.
Rogers: That's a drafting error. They will be the same.
Conklin: We want to document all of this and that is why we asked.
Warrick: There is one area where you have a front area then a row of landscaping before the
drive. Is that a parking area? There is a walkway from that storage area across the vehicle
house, the customers would have to walk through --
Rogers: It's not encouraged for the customers to be in the inventory lot. What you're
seeing is they will have a display car that will set in the median. That is not a walkway.
Conklin: Go over the paved areas and what they are being used for.
Rogers: The hatching is scored concrete on which they will have cars on display with
adequate spacing so that customers can pull in and get out of the car and can walk around and
open doors without dinging each other. They can step back and look at them. That is what these
are for. Every dealership will have one of those around their customer parking lot. The used
cars will also have small areas for display of 1, 2, or 3 cars They will have one lot for storage
and inventory and will be more accessible to the customers than the new car inventory lots. That
is the reason for separation and access drive. There is also employee and customer parking for
vehicle service. We have met with the Landscape Administrator and are working to preserve
several of the trees. We have also shown a landscape island. She also requested more trees in
the employee parking.
Conklin: Reference those in the table.
Rogers: Those should not change but they may increase a little bit. We will add the
landscaping within the employee area. In the storage area, we have initiated landscaping. In the
service area, it is more difficult to landscape because the employees are moving cars around.
Conklin: Will you have grass in those areas9
Rogers: Yes. We will sod. There will be some shrubbery and ground cover in the display
areas. Those trees were calculated based on the number of parking spaces.
Warrick: Will those actually be planted in the islands?
• Rogers: Yes. There are raised planting areas. They may be bermed. The intent is to
provide additional screening for the service areas. Also there will be additional screening to the
•
Plat Review Minutes
April 28, 1999
Page 22
body shop.
Conklin: Is there proposed fencing around the body shop?
Rogers: Yes. There will be a security fence around the body shop. It is best shown on the
site plan. It will be an 8 foot chain link with security gates and locks.
Warrick: The City does not allow barbed wire.
Rogers: The landscaping will cover that fence.
Warrick: I think that covers everything. This is a huge project so there is going to be a lot
of questions from the Commission. Thank you.
In order for this project to continue in the current review cycle, all requested revisions and
additional information must be added to the plat and elevations. 37 revised copies must be
submitted no later than 10 a.m., Wednesday, May 5, 1999.
• Ron Petrie. Engineering
•
In general, all designs are subject to the City's latest design criteria. Review for plat approval is
not approval of public improvements and all proposed improvements are subject to further
review at the time construction plans are submitted. All corrects and/or additional information
are required to be provided no later than May 5.
Regarding water and sanitary sewer, either relocate the proposed water and sewer lines or the
landscaped areas. No trees or heavily landscaped areas can be accepted within utility easements.
All water and sewer line easement shall be a minimum 20 feet in width with the utility line
centered. In cases where the sewer line will be deeper than 10 feet a 1:1 ratio shall be used to
determine the required width of easement. Generally, this has been provided. Provide track
access to all sanitary sewer manholes. Extend the utility easement to the north and east for future
sanitary sewer extensions to the northern property. Contact Paul Hawkins at OMI to determine if
the capacity of the existing lift station located dust north of this property is sufficient or if
improvements will be required as a result of this development. Is there an existing easement
located offsite for the sanitary sewer tie in to the existing lift station or will an easement have to
be acquired.
Petrie: We can't have landscaping in the utility easements.
Beavers: Utility easements are not planting areas. We reserve the right to keep those clear
so we can maintain those facilities.
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
April 28, 1999
Page 23
Graves: We're going to have to relocate those utilities in a paved area. I don't like to do
that but we'll have to meet the landscape ordinance.
Beavers: That is fine for water and sewer. We would prefer for them to be in the street.
Petrie: The water and sewer should be extended to the Graves property.
Rogers: We will provide that easement.
Beavers: When you talk with Paul at OMI, let Ron know. Who designed the sewer?
Rogers: I did.
Beavers: I want to see your calculations on the flows. We may need to talk a little ethics
about this.
Rogers: It is being overseen by a registered engineer.
Petrie: We request that you move the 8 inch line going through the middle and connect
your two dead end lines. We're having problems with dead end lines on this large 8 inch pipes
having stagnant water in there.
Rogers: Okay.
Regarding grading, the submitted preliminary grading plan does not contain all of the
information as required by the Grading Ordinance. The storm water management, drainage and
erosion control permit application is required to be submitted to the Engineering Division for
preliminary large scale development submittals. A portion of the creek that is shown to be
rerouted along the northern boundary will be relocated offsite. Is this an existing easement?
Include the soil type on this property in accordance with the Unified Classification System.
Provide a construction time schedule. Describe the fill material. Provide dust control.
Petrie: These are self explanatory and should be included on your plans.
Regarding drainage, the previous 404 Nationwide Permit by the Corps of Engineers for this
property has expired. In this report is states that "the existing farm pond in the northeast corner
of the property, the three foot wide pond drainage channel, and the Clabber Creek channel are
considered `waters of the United States" The Engineering Division disagrees with the location
of the proposed detention pond. The large channels that are considered "waters of the United
States" should not be restricted for use as detention pond. The detention pond should be located
at the major discharge point from these parking lots to help prevent contaminates from entering
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
April 28, 1999
Page 24
this creek. Add a note to the plans that all open channels, drainage pipes and structures, and the
detention pond will be privately owned and privately maintained. Is the offsite 15 foot drainage
easement located along the northern property existing or will it have to be acquired?
Rogers: We will re-initiate the drainage 404 permit. There has been written
communication. We have received clearance from endangered species and historical. The
environmental engineer has sent off a request for extension of that permit.
Regarding the preliminary drainage report, it was reviewed for general compliance with
requirements for a preliminary drainage submittal. A more detailed review will be made when
the final drainage plans are submitted. All CN's used for the final design must assume full
development upstream. The report states that all storm sewer will convey the 10 year storm.
How will the 100 year storm be transported? Have you studied the timing of the peaks from the
different sub basins? Will detention do more harm than good by delaying the stormwater from
exiting this site before the existing peak from the two large creeks?
Petrie: We're very concerned about drainage.
Beavers: Are you the drainage engineer, too?
Rogers: My drainage engineer is here.
Jenkins: I did the drainage design.
Petrie: There's nothing wrong with the design, it's where it's placed. In every City over
50,000, there is a new EPA regulation regarding Clean Water Act. We're very concerned that
the detention pond is located at the out fall. I'm not familiar with tabular method that was used
for this. Were the water sheds taken into account?
Jenkins: When I calculated and evaluated the pre and post development conditions, I
calculated when the peak flow would cross Highway 112. The time was basically the same
because of all the off site flow through there.
Beavers: Did you look at the upstream future development?
Jenkins: A lot of the upstream area was contained in the Highway 71 right of way and the
University Experimental Farm. That area we calculated as not being developed any further than
it already is.
• Petrie: I request that we set up a meeting before the Subdivision Committee meeting to
discuss this and look at your options. You show a 15 foot drainage easement located off site.
Plat Review Minutes
April 28, 1999
Page 25
Will that have to be acquired or is it existing?
Rogers: It is not existing. It will have to be acquired but there is a verbal agreement with
the adjacent landowner and Don Nelms to have that.
Petrie. Keep in mind that if he doesn't get that easement, then the whole thing will have
to be reconfigured. You'll have to push every thing back. You'll need to have conditional
approval by the Planning Commission for that.
Beavers: Even though these pipes and ponds will be privately maintained, we need some
kind of access to them. I know within the next couple of years we'll to be out there monitoring
the quality of the stormwater.
Rogers: Would the dedication of the drainage easement be adequate for access?
Beavers: We don't want the drainage easement. The City won't be responsible for any type
of maintenance. We'll talk about it.
Petrie: Has any consideration been given to a storm greater than a 10 year9 Is it going to
pond up on all these lots?
Rogers: The current design is that there is a relief built into the grading that they will pond
up a certain amount before they will flow over land to another low point. The larger display
areas will pond up to a point and will flow into the northern street and get in the storm drain
there. If that were to fill up, then it would flow into the customer parking area. If that were to
fill up, then it would go through a break in the landscape buffer and get into the asphalt swale. If
that were to overflow it would flow over land to the developed piece of land in the northwest
corner.
Beavers: Our ordinance require that you calculate all of that and you show it as a part of
this approval process. You trace all the flows. Water surface elevations have to be shown.
Regarding streets, will they be privately owned and maintained and will they remain private? All
work within the Arkansas Highway 112 right of way is required to be approved by the Arkansas
Highway and Transportation Department.
Petrie: We brief discussed the streets. Is there any intention to make some of these
streets public?
Rogers: None whatsoever.
Plat Review Minutes
April 28, 1999
Page 26
Petrie: Only if required?
Rogers: Only is required.
Petrie: It could make a difference when engineering looks at it and how it will be
designed. You are aware that all work within the highway right of way will have to have their
approval.
Rogers. Certainly.
Conklin: If the streets are private, do we normally get an agreement or a waiver for any
damage involved with trash collection?
Beavers: I don't think we have That's probably a real good idea. Their delivery trucks are
going to be pretty heavy.
Warrick: Solid waste needs reinforced pads in front of the dumpsters.
Beavers: There may not be any difference in public and private street construction
standards I would like for you to sign this Review Process Summary.
Utility Comments
Bob Falk, Southwestern Bell
How do you want the telephone service to get in there?
Rogers: The intention is to provide telephone service only to the Honda building where
that will be distributed from there to the rest of the project.
Falk: I'll need a 4 inch conduit back to 112.
Lack: What all is accessible there? Fiber optics?
Falk: Copper is all I can promise. We can provide any type service that you will need
with copper. If fiber is requested, we'll have to work that out separately. The property to the
north, should we get a utility easement around the perimeter of this property so that in the future
we could access that with utilities?
Rogers: Sure
•
Plat Review Minutes
April 28, 1999
Page 27
Falk: You have a 25 foot utility easement halfway existing around the perimeter along
112 and also part of the bypass. Just extend that around the perimeter of the property.
Rogers: Even along the north end?
Falk: Yes. When we get to the final stages, I'll get with my trenchmen and give you my
requirements for inside the building You'll want cable, then for the other?
Rogers: Yes.
Mike Phipps. Ozarks Electric
We talked about moving these utility easements?
Rogers: We talked about putting the water and sewer in the pavement so that will affect
some of the utility easements.
Phipps: I can't speak for gas or phone, we would rather not be in the street. In the parking
• area, we do that everywhere. The crossings at the main drive where you have the underground
electric crossing, we need three 4 inch crossings at each one of those locations. That is just for
electric. I'm sure gas would need one
•
Rogers: How many does the gas company need?
Boles: Just one 4 inch.
Phipps: TCA will follow us. I have to loop through so I'm coming back through, you see?
So they are going to need one, too. On these transformer locations, we're talking about
screening them earlier. If it's a fence type of screening, we need 6 feet on every side of that
transformer.
Warrick: If it's vegetation there needs to be a way to access the transformer.
Phipps: This is OSHA and REA. If there's a fire in there, we don't want to get anybody
trapped.
Rogers: If the transformer is located away from every visual corridor, it still has to be
screened?
Warrick: The Commercial Design Standards requirement is that you screen from the public
view. It has to be screened.
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
April 28, 1999
Page 28
Phipps: We need them minimum 15 feet from the building What type of lighting?
Warrick: Perry said he talked with the Highway Department and they are not requiring
lighting along 112. It would have to be standard highway/interstate lighting.
Phipps: They will need lighting at the entrance. I'll get with Perry and see what kind of
illumination he wants there. For your parking lot lighting, you're just going to feed from the
buildings. As long as the easements stay the same, we don't have any problem. On the easement
plat, if we could get the buildings on it, that would give us a better idea how to run through there.
Rogers: What type of legal document does the City need us to file?
Warrick: You can put the proposed building footprints with dashes. Don't hard line them.
Phipps: We will need the utility easement staked off. I have to know where it's at. Stake
it every 50 feet saying east side of 20 foot utility easement. If you could just do the center line
that would work.
Boles: That would work for me as long as the dimensions are on that stake.
Phipps: Our overhead is on the drive in's property.
Johnev Boles, ArkWestern
As you know our facilities are on the west side of 112. We will have to bore the highway. At
this time I do not know if we are going to pass the cost of that bore to the developer. The cost
related to piping the on site facilities will he related to public footage and also loads for these
buildings. It may be premature but if you could get me rough estimates on the BT loads per hour
for each building it would help. We do prefer green spaces and not paved areas. The problem is
that years down the road when the vegetation is mature, it will have to be disturbed. It's not a
problem to remove those but we won't assume responsible to replace it.
Kevin Lefler, TCA Cable
Warrick: They request the same easements as electric. They don't have service in that area
and they recommend a future plan for cable and two way Internet connections.
Further Staff Comment
Warrick: What does the dash line mean?
Plat Review Minutes
April28, 1999
Page 29
Rogers: It is intended by the developer to build this but it is not clear when he will build it.
It has to do with the financial end of it. He wants the body shop there. It dust may not be built at
the same time the rest of them.
Warrick: If that is considered, you will have one year approval from the date the Planning
Commission approves. If the construction on the body shop has not begun by that time, you will
have to bring forward a new large scale development.
Meeting adjourned at 11:05.
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
April 28, 1999
Page 30
OTHER BUSINESS
Conklin: I would like to announce that on May 27, the City Council Ordinance Review
Committee is going to take up the Underground Utility Ordinance. Tom DeWeese is interested
in that. Mike Pehosh is interested in that also. The meeting will be held on May 27 at 4:30 p.m.
in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
They have me to provide to them what the Planning Commission recommendation was regarding
amending that Ordinance and what the Ordinance Review Committee's recommendation was I
will put a packet together and provide that to all the utilities.