The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2000-10-18 - Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF TECHNICAL PLAT REVIEW A regular meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee was held on Wednesday, October 18, 2000 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED LS 00-38.00: Lot Split (Wilkins, pp 221) Page 2 LS 00-39.00: Lot Split (Wilkins, pp 221) Page 2 FP 00-5.00: Final Plat (Covington Park Ph. III, pp 295) Page 8 STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Sara Edwards Ron Petrie Chuck Rutherford Kim Rogers Perry Franklin UTILITIES PRESENT Johney Boles, Ar Western Gas Mike Phipps, Ozark Electric ACTION TAKEN Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded STAFF ABSENT Mickey Jackson Cheryl Zotti Kim Hesse UTILITIES ABSENT Glen Newman, SWEPCO Kevin Lefler, Cox Communications Bill Smith, Southwestern Bell Plat Review Minutes October 18, 2000 Page 2 LS 00-38.00: Lot Split (Wilkins, pp 221) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Gordon Wilkins for property located on Sassafras Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 3.86 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 2.0 acres and -L86 acres: — — — LS 00-39.00: Lot Split (Wilkins, pp 221) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Gordon Wilkins for property located on Sassafras Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 3.29 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 1.50 acres and 1.79 acres. Conklin: Good morning. This is the meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee, Wednesday, October 18, 2000. The first item of business is a Lot Split 00-38.00 submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Gordon Wilkins for property located on Sassafras Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 3.86 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 2.0 acres and 1.86 acres. Good morning, Dave. Jorgensen: Good morning. Conklin: We'll start with Sara Edwards our Development Coordinator. Chuck Rutherford - Sidewalk & Trails Coordinator Rutherford: No comment. Kim Rogers - Parks Operations Coordinator Rogers: No comment. Perry Franklin - Traffic Superintendent Franklin: No comment. Sara Edwards - Development Coordinator Edwards: We are requiring an additional $200 fee. I think Janet talked to you about that because it's two lot splits. Jorgensen: I thought that he had previously paid one but evidently he didn't. • • • Plat Review Minutes October 18, 2000 Page 3 Conklin: Jorgensen: Conklin: Edwards: Conklin: We will check on that. He said that he thought he did but just check and if we need to get it down here, we sure -can. — - - - It's been a long time. I do want to you add project developer name, address and phone number on there. Add plat page 221. We are requiring that the Arkansas Department of Health permit be submitted for each lot, all four lots, prior to us stamping the lot split to be approved. You will have to get County approval prior to filing. Lastly, we as staff are recommending that the Subdivision Committee make a recommendation regarding connectivity, extending that street to the property line, the pavement width and the right- of-way dedication. At this time, we've talked with Mr. Wilkins about this, Fayetteville now reviews the subdivision plats prior to the County. Our ordinances require each lot to have seventy- five feet of frontage on an approved street. We happen to have Celia Scott-Silkwood here, the County Planner, so she can Jump in on this discussion too. County requires a sixty foot easement, twenty foot paved surface. State Fire Code 1999 also requires a twenty foot improved surface for fire access. You probably have a ten foot paved surface, quite a few trees have been planted, some type of pine tree along this area on tract four. That is something that the Subdivision Committee will have to discuss with regard to what improvements are needed and future connections to other land that hasn't developed yet. We'll have to work through that. Celia, do you have any comment on this, how you would review it, since you are here? Scott-Silkwood: Conklin: Well, since it's four lots or less, all the County would require, as far as roads, is a thirty foot easement and we would just require a thirty foot easement to all the properties, to all the lots but we don't have a pavement requirement or anything because it's four lots or less on a private road. Is there an issue with a twenty-five foot access easement? Scott-Silkwood: Conklin: Well, there could be with the Planning Board. I'm not sure how to handle that either. You have an existing twenty-five foot easement, the ordinance requires thirty feet. Is that something that... • • • Plat Review Minutes October 18, 2000 Page 4 Scott-Silkwood: There's two houses back there already. They would have to ask for a variance from the thirty foot easement. Conklin: That variance can't be granted by you, that will have to be the Planning-Board9 This will go to the Planning Board? Scott-Silkwood: It's going to have to go to Planning Board because of the size of the tracts too. They will have to go through the whole process. Conklin: Typically, something like this, what has the County required with regard to improvements? Scott-Silkwood: Nothing. Conklin: Just an easement, no paved surface? Scott-Silkwood: They don't even require the fifty foot radius on a cul-de-sac for four lots or below, five lots or above. Five lots to ten, we do have a pavement requirement. Of course on extra pavement, it's SP2. Conklin: Okay. The thirty foot easement, that's a private easement. The City of Fayetteville wanted to make sure that if this was going to be a street, what would be the minimum right-of-way? Is that sixty foot with swale? Would it be sixty foot right-of-way with twenty foot? Scott-Silkwood: You could have a sixty foot right-of-way with a twenty foot pavement with the four foot shoulder and the ditch and all that or you can have fifty foot right-of- way, twenty-eight foot back-to-back. Conklin: So looking at this as a thirty foot private road easement, private road easement, you would not allow, even if we extended it to the property line, it would not allow four people to connect onto that in the future? Scott-Silkwood: I don't see how you can get the connection. I've been out there but I wasn't really paying attention to this back here. What was back there? Conklin: It starts going down the hill, Slaughter Mountain. I'm not saying you can't build it, I don't think it's that steep at that point. That's what I've been looking at this summer and this fall regarding easements. If you do a private easement, you don't have any • • • Plat Review Minutes October 18, 2000 Page 5 connectivity between the streets. You don't have to have any roads. That's a decision, once this has been approved, if it's approved with a thirty foot easement or a sixty foot. If it's private, we are not going to be able to connect onto any other subdivisions. Scott-Silkwood: Exactly. Conklin: Okay. Thank you Celia. Anything else Sara? Edwards: That's it. Conklin: Ron? Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: My comments have to do with the water, that's the requirement to extend public water back to these eastem row of lots. I recommend a four inch to the sides of the houses and a possibility of irrigation systems. I would require a twenty foot utility easement. Conklin: That four inch water line Ron that you are connecting, if that's a private easement, is there any problem with that crossing property lines? Petrie: It's going to be a public easement. I know he won't be too happy about that but it's too many lots to be trying to get a service line across. Jorgensen: No problem. Petrie: That all Mike Phipps - Ozark Electric Phipps: Dave, can we just make this a twenty foot easement on the south? Jorgensen: Okay. All the way along the south right? All around the perimeter? Phipps: Yes. You have a twenty-five foot access easement, could that also be a utility easement? Jorgensen. Yes, it could. • • • Plat Review Minutes October 18, 2000 Page 6 Phipps: Any relocation of existing power will be at the developers expense. I have no other comments. - Johitey Boles - Arkansas Western Gas Boles: Conklin: Jorgensen: Conklin: Jorgensen: Conklin: Jorgensen: Conklin: Jorgensen: Conklin: Mike took care of my comments Dave. Dave, will there be restrictive covenants on this9 I can check and I would imagine that if it's the wish of the Planning Commission, I don't see where that's a problem at all because they are wanting to maintain nice houses back there. This one's nice and he's building a nice one. I guess this is a two part question. With regard to maintenance of this drive, there has to be some agreement who is going to maintain it. The other thing is if it's approved without a future connection for a public street, I would like something in there, we will probably recommend a conditional approval that no further lot splits of any these lots shall be allowed. Okay. I can see tract three possibly being split in the future to build a house. I've seen it done. I'm sure that's no problem. I think you have to limit it at some point. The argument is that we only have four houses, it's never going to be further developed, we don't need a public street then five years from now each person that owns a house wants to build another house for a relative or something and then split it. I would like to have some type of assurance that won't happen either. Do you have any questions regarding the condition that we are going to place on that with regard to the septic system approval? They are going to have to provide us the Arkansas Department of Health permit. No problem. You should have two of those if you have that house under construction. Then we'll need two additional ones. They'll have to go out there and decide what size house, dig the holes, do the test and get that all approved and to us before we'll stamp the deeds. Plat Review Minutes October 18, 2000 Page 7 Jorgensen: We don't need to have it stamped before we take it to the County do we? Conklin: No. I'm talking about before we stamp the deed for filing, when they sell this tract one and four.- On all four tracts, we'll want that Department of Health — Jorgensen: Okay. No problem. Edwards: Revisions are due October 25, 2000 by 10:00 a.m. Jorgensen: Okay. • • • Plat Review Minutes October 18, 2000 Page 8 FP 00-5.00: Final Plat (Covington Park Ph. III, pp 295) was submitted by Tom Hennelly of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Don Cozart for property located north of Hwy 45 and east of Hwy 265. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 11.06 acres -with 29 Lots proposed. Conklin: The next item is Covington Park, Phase III, zoned R-1, 29 lots on 11.06 acres, the Final Plat submitted by Tom Hennelly of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Don Cozart. Sara, would you like to begin? Chuck Rutherford - Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator Rutherford: Highway 45 is a principal arterial requiring a minimum of ten foot greenspace with a minimum six foot sidewalk. These requirements needs to be added to the street and right-of-way table. The sidewalk needs to be shown in the legend. Two access ramps will be required and need to be shown at each street corner. Perry Franklin - Traffic Superintendent Franklin: We do want you to delete the street lights between lots 139 & 140 and 145 & 146. Add street lights between lots 132 & 133, 135 & 136, 138 & 139, 141 & 142 and 144 & 145. That's to get the three hundred feet. They are not in already are they? Jorgensen: No. Kim Rogers - Parks Operations Coordinator Rogers: Parks fees due 29 units at $470 per unit is $13,630. I would like you to add the engineer and owners phone numbers on the plat. San Edwards - Development Coordinator Edwards. You are not showing the side building setbacks of 8 feet on all the lots. I need you to add those. If you would, go ahead and add a table saying front, back and side setbacks Just because sometimes I get calls and it usually fits right there on the plat. Are you going to put a subdivision sign at this entrance? Jorgensen: In the greenspace where it's called common area, there is going to be some kind of sign. I think there is going to be some kind of sign there, I'm not positive. It's going to be landscaped up real nice. I bet you want to see what it looks like? • • Plat Review Minutes October 18, 2000 Page 9 Edwards: Conklin: Edwards - Jorgensen: Edwards: Jorgensen: Conklin: Petrie: Jorgensen: Edwards: Conklin: Edwards: Conklin: Jorgensen: • are well aware of the situation. You've given them plenty of notice. I don't think I need that. I just need to know where it is. Check our street standards. I definitely want the location. That's what that is set aside for in that corner? Yes. I will check on the sign deal. I know we required Mr. Greg House to submit his request for a sign. I'll look at that and see. His was in the right-of-way. This will not be in the right-of-way. Is that correct? Right. I need the addresses on there. I do appreciate the square footage on each lot. Street lights are required to be installed, guaranteed, or a copy of the paid contract with the electric company prior to signing the final plat. We did that on Summersby also. Our ordinance required street lights. We are supposed to make sure everything is put in there or guaranteed. I'm sure they can guarantee the street lights but they are not going put them in until they put electric in so you can't get them in there. What I'm looking for is a contract that has been executed and the payment has been made so if the developer Jumps ship or whatever, leaves town, that we get our street lights that our requirement needs. That's how I've been handling that. As with phase four, we do still need the restrictive covenants. If Covington Park Boulevard is not constructed by November 14, 2000, we will cease issuing residential building permits on the entire development. Revisions are due October 25, 2000 by 10:00 a.m. Where are we at with the infrastructure final inspection? Coming along. If the weather holds out, I don't think it's going to be a problem. They • • • • Plat Review Minutes October 18, 2000 Page 10 Conklin: Jorgensen: Ron Petrie Petrie: Jorgensen. Conklin: Petrie: Conklin: Petrie: Conklin: Petrie: There is a sign up there. I don't want the newspaper taking a picture of the sign and then the street not get constructed. I'd like the street constructed by November 13, 2000. Knock on wood, if we have good weather it will work out. - Staff Engineer Most of mine are just some clean up for easements. The first one is at the northwest corner of lot 130, there is a bend in that easement, if you would describe that a little bit better so we know what we are looking at when doing permits. The drainage easement between lots 133 and 134, it's shown to be 10 foot, that's required to be 20 foot centered on the storm pipe. Extend that to the right-of-way. South of lot 131, in that common area, you have the utility easement stopped, it does need to be continued. There are some storm pipes located west of lots 145 and 147, they are not shown. I ask that you show that. I think I would like to get some additional easement on lot 147. I think it cuts through the very corner outside that setback. My understanding is, there is a hundred foot setback requirement from the pond on Josh Brown's property. That's my understanding. If that's the situation, we need to have that shown and described on the plat. Okay. What are you looking for Ron? Do you want him to show where the pond is located and then... I don't think he needs to show the pond for final plat but the setback. How do you verify it's a hundred feet? That's what I'm trying to determine. I just have to measure from the construction plans, I've got the pond shown on it. You'll check. I was trying to make sure that we know where a hundred feet is. You will be able to tell from the construction drawings where this hundred foot setback is going to be located. I've added another one, this is not on that sheet right there so you may want to write this down. Through the detention pond and through this common area, we typically require a drainage easement through the detention pond connecting the outlet structure • • • Plat Review Minutes October 18, 2000 Page 11 Conklin: Petrie: Conklin: Petrie: Conklin: Jorgensen: Conklin: Jorgensen: Conklin: and inlet pipes. What's that easement? The manual says a minimum of ten feet, I would say go ahead and make it twenty. Of course I have a list of all the items we will need before we can sign the final plat. You are aware of all those. I just want to verify that these water surfaces were installed for these lots. I know this water line was put in early Can you verify that? I want to make sure that's been taken care of. That's all I've got. Ron, we talked about this yesterday, this pipe from 133 and 134 that carries the hundred year storm based on all this build out, in the pipe. We don't have any overflow. Therefore, you don't need the finished four elevations on the lots. I just wanted to verify that. With regard to the hundred foot setback on the pond, this is for my office, does that include any outbuildings, storage sheds they buy at Lowe's and that kind of stuff? That will be the question we'll get in our office. I wouldn't think so. Maybe we need to clarify that. One other comment, I'm not sure if it was in the preliminary but access to lot 131 shall be restricted to Covington Park. No driveways or curb cuts shall be allowed onto Highway 45. You might also want to add, this came up recently over at Brookhaven Subdivision a request to split one of these lots that had frontage. No additional splits? It makes it easy on my staff and me if you do that because the neighborhood typically gets upset when that occurs. I would like that if you would have the restrictive covenants, put that in there and make sure everybody understands that. I can see lot 131 that "Boy! We can build another house on that." I would like to avoid that from happening. The one in Brookhaven is on a corner lot and they have enough frontage and area to create another lot. I'm not sure if the neighbors are mad about that, they probably don't know about it yet. Typically, as you know, it's an issue. I would just like to get it resolved at this point in time. Okay. The detention pond is maintained by Covington Park? • • Plat Review Minutes October 18, 2000 Page 12 Jorgensen: Petrie: Conklin: Mike Phipps Phipps: Jorgensen: Phipps: Jorgensen: Phipps: Jorgensen: Phipps: Jorgensen: Petrie: Jorgensen: Phipps: Yes. There is a note on the plan. That's all 1 have. Mike? - Ozark Electric We'll need ten foot easements to those street lights. Also, I don't have the preliminary that went through a long time ago. You've got a twenty foot easement between 126 and 127 over to 134 and 135, I think I want a six or eight inch crossing in there. There has to be a crossing or we wouldn't request it. You need a crossing right there right? You need a six inch right? I need an 8 or 3/4. Okay. How about you John? Did you say you don't need that one between 121 and 122. No. I don't see why I would need that easement there. You definitely need one between 126 & 127 and 134 & 135 right? Yes. I've got to tie back in the southeast side of 45. I don't want to go back through the detention pond and all that. I don't have room to get through there. This drainage easement along the east side of 141 down to 133 and 134, is that a pipe through here? Right. It's underground. I thought that was an open swale on the very back. It's concrete. It is. I've got to request at least a twenty foot easement through there other than that drainage to get outside. We've got ten foot now is all we could use through there and we'll need more for all that's going in there. • Jorgensen: As deep as those lots are, I don't think that's a problem. What you are saying is you • • Plat Review Minutes October 18, 2000 Page 13 need instead of a ten foot you need twenty. Phipps: Plus your ten foot drainage easement. Boles: It's also the same thing on the west side, Dave. Petrie: On the west side you have that existing utility easement. Would that help you any? Conklin: Up in Timbercrest. Jorgensen: You are not going to tie into any of that stuff are you? Phipps: No. I didn't want to tie Timbercrest into this. We want to go on the east side of Timbercrest, on their property line through there and bring that in. If we did, we would have to change out all the transformers in Timbercrest to accommodate what we are putting in here and it's all landscaped so we didn't want to get back in there and have to do anything. Boles: I'm going to. Conklin: It's a utility easement, you have the right Johney. Phipps: I was going to bring my line down 119 over to 126 & 127 and cross and tie it back together there and on the 45. It's still pretty deep lots. Conklin: You got swimming pools and these $300,000 houses they don't leave their back yard empty. They are fully developed. Jorgensen: Can you get by with fifteen foot in there with that ten foot drainage? Boles: On which side Dave? Jorgensen: Over here. Boles: I can. Phipps: Just leave that. I can go right against that drainage. • Jorgensen: That would help, then we would have a combined twenty five foot. • Plat Review Minutes October 18, 2000 Page 14 Phipps: Petrie: Phipps: Petrie: Phipps: Conklin: Boles: Conklin: Phipps: • Edwards. Petrie: Jorgensen: Conklin: That's not concrete is it? That's just pipe? It's concrete. Is it? Yes. This on this side is fairly small ledge just a concrete bottom to it. Okay. Fifteen foot utilities with a total of twenty-five feet on the west easement. Then twenty on the east easement. For a total of thirty feet. Yes, drainage and utilities. I have no other comments. On the original preliminary it looks like they have 169 now I come up with 170 total. I remember somewhere in phase one or three. Number of lots. It was added on page two. We're at the max here? We added a couple there but I think that a couple of those lots were originally detention pond lots so that's what happened. Could you give us a total number of buildable lots that are in this? Jorgensen: We can do it. Johney Boles - Arkansas Western Gas Boles: Jorgensen: • Jorgensen: No comment. Crossings? You needed crossings somewhere, didn't you? You didn't? You're good to go? Mike, the only crossing you need is right there? • Plat Review Minutes October 18, 2000 Page 15 Phipps: Yes. Jorgensen: Okay. I'll check and find out what's going on. Boles: On the east side, Dave, I'm down to the property line, I think. On the northeast corner of 147, I think I'm to here now. I'Il Just bring it down here to stop. I may continue on go to the highway and tie back in. On the west easement, I want to just run services off of the existing line in Timbercrest. It looks like we are good to go on everything else. Conklin: Street lights are Ozarks poles? Phipps: Yes. Edwards: We pulled Bridgeport. Jorgensen: Who's the owner? The widow? • Conklin: Harry Butcher is involved. Petrie: Same company. Creekwood Hills Development. Conklin: Anything else? Rutherford: I know last week we did a final inspection on phase four, has there been a final inspection on phase three yet? That will be coming? • Jorgensen: Yes sir. When, I'm not sure but they know they have a lot to do in there. They are doing pretty good. Actually, we have to have it before the Subdivision Committee. Rutherford: Okay. Jorgensen: I hope to contact you within the next week and let you know when that is going to be. Conklin: That's it?