The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2000-04-12 - Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF TECHNICAL PLAT REVIEW A regular meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee was held on Wednesday, April 12, 2000 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED LS 00-10.00: Bonner, pp 490 LSD 00-2.10: Atlas, pp 367 MEMBERS PRESENT Mike Campbell, SWEPCO Robert Falk, Southwestern Bell Bill Smith, Southwestern Bell Johney Boles, AR Western Gas STAFF RESENT • Tim Conklin Sara Edwards Ron Petrie Kim Hesse Kim Rogers Perry Franklin • ACTION TAKEN Forward w/revisions Forward w/revisions MEMBERS ABSENT Kevin Lefler, Cox Communications Mike Phipps, Ozark Electric STAFF ABSENT Mickey Jackson Chuck Rutherford Cheryl Zotti • Technical Plat Review April 12, 2000 Page 2 LS 00-10.00: LOT SPLIT BONNER, PP490 This was submitted by Mark and Karen Bonner for property located at 333 N. Starr Drive. This is in the city growth area and contains approximately 21.67 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 8.94 acres and 12 73 acres. Staff Reports Conklin: This lot split actually could be approved administratively. It typically would not go through this process, but since it was handed out to the utilities, if you have comments on it, I would be more than happy to forward them on to the applicant. No comments? Boles: I would like to have a 20 ft utility easement, if I can, on the east side of County Road 338. Conklin: County Road 338? • Boles: Yes, County Road 338. Conklin: Arkansas Western Gas, 20 foot utility easement, east side of County Road 338. General? • Boles: Yes, make it general. Conklin: Any other comments on this lot split? If not, we will move on to the second item of business. • • • Technical Plat Review April 12, 2000 Page 3 LSD 00-2.10: Large Scale Development P.U.D. (Atlas Construction, pp 367) Conklin: The second item of business is a large scale development, submitted by Chris Parton of Crafton, Tull and Associates, on behalf of Dan Ferguson of Atlas Construction for property located on Sycamore between Gregg and North College. The property is zoned R-1.5, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 0.95 acres with 5 units proposed. I will start out with Sara Edwards, our development coordinator and go over the planning division comments. Edwards: Okay, from our Environmental Affairs Administrator from Solid Waste. She would like to see Solid Waste service plans. Development should show dedicated space for at least 3 solid waste containers. Two, 2 cubic yard containers for waste, and one 4 cubic yard container for recycling. As far as sidewalks, the 6 foot sidewalk needs to be shown extending to the east and west property line. Chuck Rutherford is not here, but he did say he will work with you and wants to see it on the plat. You have been scheduled for the May 1, 2000 P.R.A.B. agenda, and they will determine at that time the money or land that will be dedicated.As far as the planning comments, the PUD ordinance requires that a structure more than 10 feet in height be setback an additional foot for each foot over ten when adjacent to a R-1 district.. Therefore, this development is not meeting these to the east. A letter will need to be submitted requesting a waiver from this requirement. Conklin: I just wanted to make one statement with regard to that additional setback. Staff will not support the variance of that. It does appear that this project could be redesigned to meet that setback. We are dealing with a vacant piece of property and anytime we could design something to meet our setbacks. Staff will typically not support those variances, so for the record, we will not be supporting that variance. Parton: Just so you know, after our meeting last night, we did go back and look at the buildings on Sycamore oriented in a north -south direction, up and down, and we actually would lose a couple more trees, a little bit nicer trees on the side Edwards: Alright. Also, the PUD ordinance states that private streets will be permitted only for a loop street or street ending in a cul-de-sac. A variance from these standards must be submitted in writing. Staff will, however, support the dead end private • • • Technical Plat Review April 12, 2000 Page 4 street because it is providing additional open space. I do have a question for the electric company. Do you have the size of the overhead line running along Sycamore? Campbell: Yes, it is 12,470 volts three ways, along the street. There is a line that goes into the property that is overhead that is secondary voltage that will need to be removed. Edwards: Okay. I would like to see a copy of the protective covenants showing how the open space will be maintained. I will read the Landscape Administrator's comments. She would like to see revised tree preservation calculations to show actual existing canopy and canopy proposed for preservation. Show all service lines for sanitary sewers. Trees that are shown for preservation shall have no disturbance under the drip zone including trenching for service lines. The patio for Unit 4 will need to be reduced in size to decrease the impact to the adjacent oak tree. The large tree between Units 2 and 3 and the driveway to the north cannot be counted as preserved, due to the amount of impact to the root zone. One of the trees shown as preserved is dead. Please revise plans and preservation percentage to represent true preservation. Additional buffers may be required for these structures. Hesse: My comment is in regard to setbacks. There will need to be a buffer if built as shown. If the buildings are located so close to the property line, a six foot fence will not provide adequate screening. If the buildings were set back more, a shorter fence might work. Conklin: Chris, can you explain to us how this ownership will transfer and all of that. I'm trying to determine how this is going to work. That's why I'm asking that. Parton: It will be simply, it's the same as the Zion Valley development where the owners of the property develop and sell the units, and then the rest of the property will be maintained by a POA. Petrie: Okay, it will be a POA. It won't be by Frances Ferguson. Parton: No. Conklin: Each individual unit is going to own the land underneath so you are going to actually create lot lines? Parton: As far as I know, yes. • • • Technical Plat Review April 12, 2000 Page 5 Conklin: Do we see those lot lines today? Parton: They will be the same. Conklin: And you are going to create a legal description? Parton: It will be done just the same as what we did on Zion Valley. Conklin: I am Just trying to determine if there needs to be a preliminary plat for transferring title. Typically we do preliminary and final plat to do the subdivision of land'. We are in a large scale development right now. I can make that determination by subdivision, so I just wanted to clarify that. Ron Petrie Staff Engineer One thing that will need added showing services lines for Units 1 and 2 that need to be separate service lines. You may or may not have to extend that main to provide for that. But you do need to show, and I know that will affect the tree preservation. You need to eliminate the 90 degree bend in the waterline. Parton: Toa 45? Petrie: Yes. No sprinkler systems? Parton: No. Petrie: Just adding a fire hydrant. For grading, I think these are the exact same comments as before that came through. I won't go through those again. Drainage, again, the exact same comments as before. I need to see these. Need calculations before this goes on. That's all. Conklin: Kim, as far as the tree preservation requirements, are we meeting those? Hesse: I'll need to take a closer look at what they are proposing. Conklin: Okay. But the requirement is 20% of the existing tree canopy on site needs to be preserved. 20% of the existing tree canopy, minus trees that you can't count, where you have trenching underneath will have to be preserved. Okay, I just want to be clear on that. Hesse: No, it's Just going to be an interpretation question. • • • Technical Plat Review April 12, 2000 Page 6 Conklin: Campbell: Parton: Campbell: Parton: Conklin: Campbell: Well, when I look at a site like this that is vacant and in my opinion, you could hire someone to design five units to fit within our ordinances, that's where I have a problem as a City Planner recommending variances. But it looks like it's feasible to design that same number of units that may not have the same amount of square footage for each unit, but still meet the ordinance requirements. That's what I am looking for from this site. The planning unit development ordinance is to preserve natural features. They are required to have 30% open space, clustering of units. I think the idea here is preserve the natural features, which are the trees on the site. I think it will be important to make sure that we meet the tree ordinance and look at where the other 10% open space is located. That's all I have. We do have an overhead 3 phase line along the north side of Sycamore. I don't see a utility easement proposed along these property boundaries on either side. It's about an eight foot setback from that wooden fence on the west. We do have a pole on that property line. If you intend for us to extend into the property any length to serve you, you will need a utility easement free and clear for us to get into the property or your point of service will be out at the street corner and you will be required to extend it from that point to the meters on the buildings. Isn't there a line running in the 10 foot easement in the adjacent subdivision? I don't know the answer to that. I think most of what we have in there comes off the front and the other street. I don't think we have anything else, back along Sycamore would be the closest power that we have to the site. Okay. So the decision will have to be made if they do power off the west, you will have to have a 20 foot easement or have to come off the front of Sycamore street. And they will be responsible for providing secondary voltage, basically from that point back to building 4 and 5. There's not much of a way to get along the street on the east side. That setback there is not sufficient enough for us to go underground along the west side. It's dust kind of up to you if you want power at the front. It's not what I would recommend, but I know you are kind of crowded in there for other use of the buildings, etc. If you do want us to extend in there, we will have to have a utility easement. Any relocation of facilities, either existing or new facilities, will be at the owner's expense. We ask that you coordinate temporary and permanent easements with SWEPCO. • • • Technical Plat Review April 12, 2000 Page 7 Smith: Parton: Smith: Parton: Smith: Parton: Petrie: Campbell: Smith: Campbell: Smith: Parton: Smith : Boles: I agree with the electric company that we need an easement. Is there a possibility of placing conduit on the east side for us? Could the developer place the conduit from the ground to the rear of both units? As we go down this side, we will encounter root systems of the trees and we don't want to do that. Use part of that driveway for a conduit system? Provide an easement on that side and place the conduit for us, I think that it would work. What size conduit do you need? Probably 4 inch. Is everybody going to be in that? Yes, that's not a problem. Showing a 20 foot easement. Make it 25 and everybody can get in there. Allow a 25 foot utility easement along the east property line with a quad, orange for us. I would like to get to the rear of the unit. What we would do is set a pad mount transformer between those two units with supplied conduit all the way to that point. That would be the point of service to branch out to all. So you could do the conduit up here, do 90 degrees and come to a common point over here and it all stops right there. The five units would come to us from there. That would work. That's all I have. Since these five units, the real estate would be owned by the property owner, just the location where the houses are going to be installed, we will be required to place our meters at the building, which is not the norm for us, but under this scenario, this is what we are required to do. Coming off this four inch casing, we would probably need and would run our four inch casing down to about this point, where we could branch off this service line down to the end of the drive. So let • Technical Plat Review April 12, 2000 Page 8 them know that this line that we have on the north side of Sycamore, has somewhere between 90 to 120 pounds of pressure on it, so we would be required to install an above ground setting on the east side of the driveway in this green space, and would extend north with a medium pressure line to service those dwellings. We will have to get an above ground setting somewhere off of that high pressure line before we can head north with it. Parton: Okay. Boles: Again, as our conversation the other day, if you would have that line shown on this and just go ahead and dedicate a 20 foot easement on the north side of Sycamore. That's all I have. Edwards- Okay. Cox Communications, Kevin Lefler did request the same easement as the electric company. They have aerial cable along the north side of Sycamore. All revisions (37 copies) must be submitted to the Planning Division no later than 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, April 19, 2000. • Conklin: Chris, just one last comment from Planning on the detention ponds, that area. You can't count that area 100%. I'm not sure if you made that calculation. Any comments or questions? That is it. Thank you very much. •