Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-03-14 - Minutes•
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF
TECHNICAL PLAT REVIEW
A regular meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee was held on Wednesday, March 14, 2001
at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain, Fayetteville,
Arkansas.
ITEMS CONSIDERED
LS 01-12.00: Lot Split (Gray, pp 213)
Page 2
LS 01-13.00:
Page 6
LSD 01-6.00:
Page 10
LSD 01-7.00:
Page 14
• FP 01-3.00:
Page 20
•
ACTION TAKEN
Request amended to be PLA
(Administrative Review)
Lot Split
(North College Development, pp 484) Forwarded
Large Scale Development
(Hanna, pp 643) Forwarded
Large Scale Development
(Lot 9 Millenium Place, pp 177) Forwarded
Final Plat (Silverthome Subdivision, pp 474)Forwarded
STAFF PRESENT
Dawn Warrick
Pen -y Franklin
Kim Rogers
Ron Petrie
Keith Shreve
UTILITIES PRESENT
Glen Newman, SWEPCO
Bill Smith, Southwestem Bell
STAFF ABSENT
Cheryl Zotti
Kim Hesse
Mickey Jackson
Sara Edwards
Chuck Rutherford
UTILITIES ABSENT
Kevin Lefler, Cox Communications
Mike Phipps, Ozark Electric
Johney Boles, AR Western Gas
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
March 14, 2001
Page 2
LS 01-12.00: Lot Split (Gray, pp 213) was submitted by Philip Humbard of Engineering Services, Inc.
on behalf of Susan Gray for property located at 845 Longview Street. The property is zoned C-2,
Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 0.786 acres. The request is to split into two tracts
of 0.342 acres and 0.444 acres.
Warrick: This is the Lot Split for Gray submitted by Philip Humbard of Engineering Services, Inc.
on behalf of Susan Gray for property located at 845 Longview Street. The property is
zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 0.786 acres. The
request is to split into two tracts of 0.342 acres and 0.444 acres.
Perla, Franklin - Traffic Superintendent
Franklin: No comment.
Chuck Rutherford - Sidewalk & Trails Coordinator
Rutherford: Longview is a collector street which requires a 6 foot sidewalk with a minimum 10 foot
green space. Construction of the sidewalk will be required on both tracts from
property line to property line. That will have to be installed and approved prior to the
lot split being filed of record.
Kim Rogers - Parks Operations Coordinator
Rogers: No comment.
Dawn Warrick -Planner
Warrick: Submittal requirements were adequate. Under plat requirements, you do need plat
page 213 added to the title block somewhere on the plat. We also need a flood plain
reference, FIRM panel number 84D dated July 27, 2001. Is that right? Is there a
2001 FIRM panel?
Petrie: It's the first I've heard of it.
Warrick: FIRM panel 84D. Legal description information from GIS, that's on a separate sheet
in here. The written description does not match calls in the drawing. The drafts person
in GIS told us that there are three or four descriptions going, a deed description, a
survey description and a written description and they don't necessarily all match. You
need to choose one and tie it to state plane coordinates and make sure the written
matches the graphic. With regard to street requirements Longview is a collector on the
Plat Review Minutes
March 14, 2001 '
Page 3
Humbard:
Warrick:
Ron Petrie
Petrie:
Humbard:
Warrick:
Petrie.
Humbard:
Petrie:
Humbard:
Warrick:
Humbard:
Warrick:
Master Street Plan requiring that 35 feet be dedicated from centerline. Therefore,
dedication of 10 additional feet is required along Longview. It's 25 feet existing right
now, so it will extend to 35. That also shifts the building setback line so it will shift the
right-of-way line. Can you tell us if there are any overhead utility lines?
I cannot.
Check that before you submit revisions. If they are, all non electric lines and electric
lines under 12KV are required to be placed underground.
- Staff Engineer
Just one question, do you know if there are any existing buildings on this?
Yes. There is an existing nursery building that's sitting right here and some kind of
greenhouse deal on the back side of it.
Can you show the footprint for those?
They are not residential?
No. There's no residential. The greenhouse is in the process of closing and she's
selling all the stuff out of it. It's not a viable business right now.
That's my only question.
So you do want to see the footprint of it on there?
If there are permanent structures. It sounds like the greenhouse is.
It's kind of an old house that they changed into a sales area and the greenhouse is kind
of behind it.
The only thing I would say is it would impact the building setback line. If that's shifting
we just need to make sure that the structure meets those. The 35 foot requirement is
because Longview is designated on the Master Street Plan as a collector, so additional
right-of-way is required and that shifts your building setback line. I think it would be
appropriate to go ahead and show the footprint of the building so that we can make
sure that you can still meet setbacks. If you can't, you need to reflect it on here so we
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
March 14, 2001
Page 4
Humbard:
Warrick:
Humbard:
Warrick.
Humbard:
Warrick:
Humbard:
Warrick:
Humbard:
Warrick:
Humbard:
Warrick:
know what the situation is.
They are planning to demolish the buildings. That will be a parking lot to be honest with
you.
She's selling to Lewis Brothers?
She's selling this half to Lewis Brothers and this half to Bedford. Bedford is needing
additional parking for his business there also. The one that Bedford is looking at
doesn't have anything on it. It's a gravel parking lot now.
Why aren't we just doing a lot line adjustment?
We are not proposing any structures or anything like that on here.
Okay. It probably doesn't matter a whole lot but it may be possible to do a lot line
adjustment and adjust this tract onto Bedford and this would be the remainder.
Yes, since he's contiguous against this. Maybe we should have talked about what we
were trying to do in the beginning.
It might have been easier. Let's look at changing it to that. It would be a situation that
we wouldn't have to go forward in the process, it's handled administratively after staff
review. We would still like to see the revisions but hold off on making too many
changes.
You might want to just show the legal description of this lot in with that?
What we would need for a lot line adjustment would be four legal descriptions, the
beginning tract of each of the two, which would be the Bedford property and the Gray
property. And an adjusted tract description for each of the two after the adjustment is
made. You can revise this plat with that information.
Does it throw in the fact that somebody else owns this property now and there is going
to be a transfer between Lewis and Susan Gray? Is that going to be anything that
would make a difference there?
As far as tract B? It shouldn't.
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
March 14, 2001
Page 5
Humbard:
Warrick:
Humbard:
Warrick:
Humbard:
Warrick.
Humbard:
Warrick:
They can just sell the remainder directly to them?
Exactly. She would end up with tract B in this situation. It would become a remainder.
This piece would automatically transfer with the adjusted descriptions. She would still
have a piece of property that would go through the property transfer with Lewis.
Whatever is easiest. For some reason I though tract split when this first came up.
That will save you time. In this situation you can take advantage of that process
because you are adjusting onto an adjacent property owner.
If we can do it that way, I'll provide that information to you.
That saves you from having to go to Subdivision Committee. You are on your own
time frame to make those revisions. Submit 3 copies to the Planning Division instead of
37 and we can review it administratively and approve it if everything is in order.
Do we get our $200 back?
No, it still costs $200 for a lot line adjustment. The fee is the same, so there is no
change there. Any other comments?
Jim Sargent - SWEPCO
Sargent:
I was going to ask for an easement along the lot split line. I think we won't need that if
he's going to do an adjustment.
Bill Smith - Southwestern Bell
Smith:
Warrick:
No comment.
There you go.
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
March 14, 2001
Page 6
LS 01-13.00: Lot Split (North College Development, pp 484) was submitted by Richard Alexander
on behalf of North College Development for property located at 9 & 11 N. West Avenue. The property
is zoned R -O, Residential and contains approximately 0.45 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of
0.23 acres and 0.22 acres.
Warrick: We are going to start with the lot split for North College Development submitted by
Richard Alexander on behalf of North College Development for property located at 9 &
11 N. West Avenue. The property is zoned R -O, Residential and contains approximately
0.45 acres The request is to split into two tracts of 0.23 acres and 0.22 acres. Would
you introduce yourselves for the record please?
Alexander: Richard Alexander for North College Development.
Merryship: Rob Merryship for North College Development.
Warrick: Thank you. We'll start by going through the written staff comments, you guys have a
copy, I'll read through those for the record. If you have any questions as we go through,
please ask and then we'll take utility comments.
Perry Franklin - Traffic Superintendent
Franklin: No comment.
Chuck Rutherford - Sidewalk & Trails Coordinator
Rutherford: The existing sidewalk along West Avenue is acceptable. No additional requirements.
Kim Rogers - Parks Operations Coordinator
Rogers:
No comment.
Dawn Warrick - Planner
Warrick:
Alexander:
Warrick:
Submittal requirements were adequate. Under plat requirements, we do need you to add
plat page 484 to the plat. Generally they'll do that in the title block area. We also need a
flood plain reference added to the plat with regard to the most current FEMA map. The
next statement says see GIS comments.
You mean to the survey right?
Yes. The next comment says "see GIS comments", that's attached to the next page.
There was a distance omitted in the last call of the remainder tract. All of the
descriptions need to be tied to state plane coordinates.
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
March 14, 2001
Page 7
Alexander: State plane coordinates? Alan will know what that means? Where is that now?
Wamck: Yes. The distance that was omitted was in the last remainder tract. It's shown on the
drawing it was lust left off. It should be, on the remainder in the first paragraph, the
second to last line states "thence north 89°51'19" east", after that statement it should be
123.44 feet to the point of beginning. That needs to be updated. Other comments with
regard to streets, West Avenue is designated a historic collector on the Master Street
Plan which requires 25 feet from centerline to be dedicated. The building setback line
will also shift with that dedication of right-of-way.
Alexander:
Warrick:
Is that going to put it into the building?
I don't think it will put it into the building. We are talking about 5 feet because there is
currently 20 feet. The structure is currently encroaching the setback, it's going to make
it encroach another five feet. You are going to end up shifting everything back.
Actually, your building setback is already back there, isn't it? It's lust going to
encroach it 5 feet more. Is that the variance application that you are working on right
now?
Alexander: No. It will be added to it.
Warrick:
It's not going to push the right-of-way into the building but it does make your setback
further encroaching. It doesn't really change the condition except the encroachment.
Alexander: So the Master Street Plan and conforming right-of-way are the same issue?
Warrick:
Yes.
Alexander: Five feet to the west?
Warrick:
Correct. That's actually changed, it used to be classified... West Avenue, before this
most recent update of the Master Street Plan it was classified as a collector which
required 35 feet from centerline. It's actually less now, we added a new designation as
a historic collector which is a 25 foot or 50 total right-of-way which is less than it would
have been before December. That's actually good. That takes care of Planning
comments. Ron, I'll ask you to do Engineering.
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
March 14, 2001
Page 8
Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer
Petrie: Can you help me out with where your meters are that feed this back building?
Merryship: They are in the front, the gas comes off our building. We've got a number of meters at
the Cooper house on the north side that run the gas and the rest of the utilities, we have
an easement through the southwest and goes down to Center Street.
Petrie: They said water, but actually your water is running through here.
Merryship: Yes. That runs off of the west too.
Petrie: Do you know about sewer?
Merryship: Sewer is in the back, in that other easement.
Petrie: It looks like you are going to have to have another easement here if you've got a
service line feeding back here across this lot to this lot.
Alexander: We're already giving an easement.
Petrie: You're giving an access easement.
Merryship: We probably ought to put utility also.
Petrie:
You need to locate where that line is so you know if it's going to be covered in an
easement. It just needs to be a private easement, it doesn't need to be a public utility
easement. From one lot to the other lot. It needs to be looked at.
Alexander. Which ones are you unclear about?
Petrie: The waterline is the only one that crosses this, you may have some others, gas.
Alexander: I think all the rest of them come in the back there.
Petrie: Okay. That's all I`ve got.
Alexander: It's a water easement that you are wanting?
•
Plat Review Minutes
March 14, 2001
Page 9
Petrie: Right. A private easement.
Warrick: A private easement that covers just that line from the front lot to the back. Does that
need to be a certain width? A 10 foot easement?
Petrie. At least 10 feet. If you want larger, that would be up to you.
Warrick: Do you have any questions or need clarification on the staff comments? Let's go to the
utility comments then.
Glen Newman - SWEPCO
Newman: Are there going to be any changes as far as that?
Alexander: No. All the power is in. We are not changing anything.
Newman: That's all I have.
• BIH Smith - Southwestern Bell
•
Smith: We feed in this easement also on the back side. Everything is fine. No other comment.
Warrick: Anything else? This will need to go forward to Subdivision Committee and in order to
do that we need you to get revisions put together and submit 37 copies no later than
10:00 a.m., Wednesday, March 21, 2001, one week from today.
Alexander: Good because I'm out until the 27th.
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
March 14, 2001
Page 10
LSD 01-6.00: Large Scale Development (Hanna, pp 643) was submitted by Chris Parton of
Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Burt Hanna for property located at the northeast corner of
Armstrong Road and Borick Drive. The property is zoned I-2, General Industrial and contains
approximately 46.47 acres. The request is for an 1,739 square foot boiler building and a wood fired steam
boiler.
Warrick: The next item on the agenda is a Large Scale Development submitted by Chris Parton of
Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Burt Hanna for property located at the northeast
corner of Armstrong Road and Borick Drive. The property is zoned 1-2, General
Industrial and contains approximately 46.47 acres. The request is for an 1,739 square
foot boiler building and a wood fired steam boiler. Will you introduce yourself for the
record?
Parton: Chris Parton with Crafton, Tull & Associates.
Warrick: Thank you. The first comments are from the Landscape Administrator.
Kim Hesse - Landscape Administrator
Hesse:
An approved detail for tree protection fencing is to be added to the plans for the two
pecan trees. The maple trees shown to be preserved are in the location of grading.
These trees have been recently planted and should transplant with a good success rate.
I request that these young maple trees be relocated on site and if additional trees are
needed they are to be planted at the end of construction. I suggest that the maples be
planted north and east of the paved area at the rear of the building. I think she's talking
about the rear of the boiler building. Those trees that are going to need to be moved
for this construction will need to be relocated in the same general area, based on these
comments.
Perry Franklin - Traffic Superintendent
Franklin: No comment.
Chuck Rutherford - Sidewalk & Trails Coordinator
Rutherford: The existing sidewalks meet requirements. Sidewalks shall be continuous through the
new driveway. So, there will a modification there.
Kim Rogers - Parks Operations Coordinator
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
March 14, 2001
Page 11
Rogers. No comment.
Dawn Warrick - Planner
Warrick: Submittal requirements were adequate. Plat requirements, it says see GIS. The legal
description and everything checked out fine. So there are no comments from GIS.
Parton: Ignore that then?
Warrick: Yes. That's because we did our comments before we got theirs. They are in there for
your record as well. Street requirements, Armstrong is a minor arterial requiring 45
feet from centerline. An additional 5 feet is required along Armstrong I don't know
why that wasn't requested on the original large scale. It doesn't affect anything with
regard to setback. Planning Commission required the construction and completion of
the cul-de-sac on Borick Drive with the original large scale development approval.
That still stands and that requirement will carry with this large scale unless we find
information that it's otherwise been removed.
Parton: We had a letter from Engineering Department. Jim wrote a letter to Kurt Jones on this
deal and stated the cul-de-sac did not have to be constructed.
Warrick: Did Planning Commission make that determination?
Parton: No, Jim Beavers wrote a letter specifically.
Warrick: The Planning Commission made the requirement and is the only board or body that can
remove the requirement. Unless we've got proof that it was taken back to Planning
Commission, I haven't found record of that, then the requirement stands until such time
as the Planning Commission removes the requirement. We are going to make a
statement with this large scale that it was a requirement of the previous one. If you
would like to request that it be removed, then you will have to request that at the
Planning Commission when this goes forward, which you can do. Under parking
requirements and other, this building is changing from warehousing to manufacturing.
Therefore, parking ratios and number of spaces have changed. Please indicate square
footages and uses and submit parking calculations. There is a difference between the
calculation for warehousing versus manufacturing. Warehousing requires 1 parking
space per 2,000 square feet and manufacturing of 1 per 1,200 square feet, so you just
need to make sure the existing parking is adequate to accommodate the change of use.
The new driveway is shown to be how wide9
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
March 14, 2001
Page 12
Parton: 25 feet back to back, 24 face to face.
Warrick. Dimension it face to face so that it meets the 24 foot requirement. Also, listed under
other, there is a large wax tank somewhere in the vicinity of the addition and it's not
shown on the plan. We need to have that shown. Are the trees showing existing or
proposed along the south property line, the two rows?
Parton: Those are all existing.
Warrick: We've already discussed the issue of grading around those. That's all. The next
comments are Engineering, Ron?
Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer
Petrie: Will this need to have sprinkler system, fire protection?
Hanna: There is one built in the same building.
Petrie: It will connect to the existing connection, you won't be getting a new connection off of
the main.
Hanna: I don't think so.
Petrie: We went ahead and reviewed this as a final so we won't have to worry about the final.
I've got comments on here for grading and drainage, just standard comments. There
are not too many big issues there if you can go ahead and address those on the next
submittal then we won't have to worry about the final submittal and the final grading
plan. We'll go ahead and do that all up front. Do you have any question on those?
Parton: It should all be straight forward.
Petrie: It's fairly standard. The streets, Dawn's already mentioned that about the cul-de-sac.
That's all I've got.
Warrick: Any other staff comments for this project. Utility comments please?
Glen Newman - SWEPCO
Newman: Chris, at the source is from the pole up on Borick Drive into the transformer. If that
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
March 14, 2001
Page 13
Parton:
Newman:
Bill Smith
conflicts with any kind of foundation work or anything like that, you can't go under the
building, so if it needs to be relocated it will be at the developers expense. Also,
clearance around that existing transformer, the transformer opens to the south so we'll
need to be sure to keep 10 feet in front of that transformer and five feet around it.
Do you know which one of these poles? Just to the east of the drive?
Yes. It runs in a straight line from that pole to the transformer. That's the only
comment I have.
- Southwestern Bell
Smith:
Parton:
Smith:
Warrick:
Parton:
Warrick:
If phone facilities are required in this proposed boiler building, it will have to be ran
back into the main warehouse, going back to that demark location. We won't provide
another demark there. If any of our facilities will have to be relocated, it will be at the
owner's expense. Along Armstrong they are going to require additional 5 foot of right-
of-way, so you could you extend the utility easement 5 feet also?
Just dedicate an additional 5 feet?
Yes. So we can keep the 20 foot corridor through there. That's all my comments.
I got a call this morning from Arkansas Western Gas, Mr. Boles will be contacting you
with his comments. Any questions?
No.
For this to go forward, Sara has a different date on this one I apologize, I'll have to
check and make sure the date on here is correct, March 21, 2001, is what she has
listed as the submittal date. Does that sound right? That should be a week from today,
by 10:00 a.m., 37 copies to go forward to Subdivision Committee. Thank you very
much.
Plat Review Minutes
March 14, 2001
Page 14
LSD 01-7.00: Large Scale Development (Lot 9 Millennium Place, pp 177) was submitted by Steve
DeNoon of Jordan & Associates on behalf of Kirk Elsass of L & E Equities, Inc. for property located at
lot 9 of Millennium Place. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.63
acres. The request is to build two office buildings, a 2515 square foot building and a 3153 square foot
building.
Warrick. The next item on the agenda is a Large Scale Development for Lot 9 Millenium Place
submitted by Steve DeNoon of Jordan & Associates on behalf of Kirk Elsass of L & E
Equities, Inc. for property located at lot 9 of Millennium Place. The property is zoned R-
0, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.63 acres. The request is to build two
office buildings, a 2,515 square foot building and a 3,153 square foot building. Would
you introduce yourself for the record please?
DeNoon: Good morning, I'm Steve DeNoon with Jordan and Associates.
Warrick: Good morning. We'll start by going through staff comments. I'll begin with comments
from the Landscape Administrator.
Kim Hesse - Landscape Administrator
Hesse:
Please note on the plan that there are no existing trees. Screening is required to the
north adjacent to the R-1 zone. Please screen with a 6 foot tall wooden fence or with
approved screening plants. Two trees are required for the parking lot. Please locate
far enough from the dumpster area to avoid damage to the trees. A setback reduction
form is required, that's been included in your packet of information here, the second
sheet. That's for the reduced setback along the front property line from 50 to 25. A
water spigot is to be placed at the front of the buildings to supply water to front
landscaping unless an automated system is planned. Please note on the plans how
plants are to be irrigated. A final landscape plan is required prior to building permit
approval. To receive approval for the setback reduction the following requirements
apply: plant large species trees 30 foot on center; plant a continuous planting of shrubs
and ground covers. Ground covers must be approved and 50% of the shrubs shall be
evergreen. All approved landscape installation notes and details apply. Shrubs are to
be a minimum of 18 inches in height at the time of planting. Trees are to be at least 2
inch caliper in size at the time of planting.
Perry Franklin - Traffic Superintendent
Franklin: No comment.
•
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
March 14, 2001
Page 15
Chuck Rutherford - Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator
Rutherford: Millennium Place requires a 6 foot sidewalk with a minimum of 6 foot greenspace. The
sidewalk must be continuous through the driveway.
Kim Rogers - Parks Operations Coordinator
Rogers: No comment.
Dawn Warrick - Planner
Warrick: We do need a diskette and an easement plat with the project, once all revisions are
made. Plat requirements, we need you to add plat page 177 to the title block area
somewhere. With regard to the legal description, that was fine.
DeNoon: The plat page was on there too.
Warrick: Thank you very much. Dimension right-of-way from centerline. We had a question
about your notation that "building and paving area out of the site total is 55%, we need
you to check that because it doesn't look like there is 45% greenspace on this piece of
property. Street requirements are adequate. Parking requirements, we need you to
dimension your spaces they should each be 9 by 19. The aisle width cannot exceed 24
feet in width and stub -out the parking lot on both sides of the property lines, this is for
cross access in the future to adjacent lots. Under other requirements, a fence or other
view obscuring vegetation is required between R-1 and non-residential use, that was
referred to in the landscape comments with regard to screening. Locate signs and
provide an elevation of the sign to be used. If it's wall signage, just add it to your
elevations. If it's a monument or freestanding sign, we need you to provide that
information. There is also a notation about the additional landscaping being necessary
for the reduced setback option, that's already been addressed on the landscape
comments as well. Next is Engineering comments.
Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer
Petrie: I assume you will not have a sprinkler system in either of these buildings?
DeNoon: No.
Petrie: As you know, I've reviewed the grading and drainage as a final and you've had a
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
March 14, 2001
Page 16
chance to look at these. Do you have any question on those comments?
DeNoon: The only question we had, I ran this past Mr. Elsass, was the need for the concrete
ditch on the ditch to the north. I contacted Mr. Hesse with EDA, the engineer for the
project. He has run some calculations on the flow based on the rates that you gave him
and he's come up with an adequate concrete ditch size. The question that Mr. Elsass
had was the flow rates that we are using here, is that based on the flow rates that were
calculated prior to the installation of the detention pond?
Petrie:
DeNoon:
Petrie.
DeNoon:
Petrie:
The flow coming in this area does not go through the detention pond.
It comes off from the north and kind of northwest there?
Right. All this bypasses that. It's not really related to that at all.
That's what he needs to know.
Do you want me to go over those grading and drainage comments?
DeNoon: Yes. We would like to be able to take a second look at the flow through there to see
what size, if we can make it a smaller ditch and if we could dispense with the need of a
concrete ditch. We are going to have planting in there and we are going to have to
have a screening device and we can't increase that 7 feet of distance there, any more
than we have. We would just like a chance to look at that again.
Petrie: I'm open to any suggestions. It's just you've got to get the water across there
somehow. If you come up with something else, 1 would be glad to look at it.
Elsass:
If you remember when we originally did this, we went to the pond back here and they
re -analyzed this. The water flow that comes down through here, when they went in
and did that ditch down through there, if you actually go out there and look at the site,
you'll notice that there is some water that comes down through there. The majority of
all this water up here comes down this way and a little bit comes down through there.
The concerns that I have is that, in our original plat before I purchased this property,
Dr. Robinson had a 40 foot setback down through here. I'm afraid that we start getting
in right up next to this line, what few trees, that was his whole reason for that setback.
There is not any trees, to speak of, down here to matter but if we get in there and we
start getting into those trees and having to cut those trees out, if we do that it seems
senseless to change the route the way that it is now because the water is already
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
March 14, 2001
Page 17
Petrie:
flowing. Most of this water is coming down through these lots and then coming down
this way but there is not much water coming through there. I don't know if an on-site
visit would make any difference to look at it or not.
Like I said, I think he's going to get Steve to look at that. If there is not much water
there then he should be able to provide a fairly small, replace what was designed, it's a
pretty big ditch.
Elsass: There's not much of a ditch back there. What's back there Steve?
DeNoon: There is a small ditch and you can physically see where the water has washed out an
area to the concrete swale from the northwest. The ditch is not that big.
Petrie:
DeNoon:
Elsass:
Petrie:
I can only comment on the size that it should have been, the size that was designed.
Right. We're basing ours from going out there on-site investigation versus the
calculated numbers.
Do you remember that the way this all happened was that we originally walked about
using lot 1 and the pond and all that. I went out there with Chris Parton and Tom
Hopper and once we sat on the site and looked at it, the way they had these charts
going. All of this water direction had changed from what it was originally and the water
that was showing at one time coming down through this direction here, had been
changed dramatically from back here and what these two houses back in here.
Somehow, the bulk of this water, the only water that actually comes down this way is
water that's either overflow. At one time some water ran across this direction or
somehow the water flowed down through here but once we've done this, we've
channeled this and, if I remember correctly, we brought this from a point in here where
this water drains this way and this water drains this way. The water that we are getting
on these two lots over here is, this is almost lower is what I'm saying. So, there is really
no, you can see what little water there is. With those kind of rains that we had the few
weeks, there is going to be some water that channels through there.
I'm open to any suggestions. If you can get Steve Hesse to look at that. If there is not
that much water you may can handle it in the parking lot. You may can have some
minor swales along the property lines, this property line and the next one, if you still
own it.
• Elsass: Yes, I own both of them.
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
March 14, 2001
Page 18
Petrie: There are alternatives. Just give me something.
DeNoon: Our parking lot now, we've got the drainage directed to the drainage ditch. If there
was an overflow that occurred there then it would go back to the concrete ditch
through the parking lot.
Petrie:
The only other comment I just want to mention, on the final plat this easement shown
along the east side, it's only a drainage easement. That's what we got recorded. I
don't know if you want to make is a combination easement. It will take another
document to get that done.
Elsass: Is that the easement we just filed?
Petrie: It's not necessary.
DeNoon: This is our new platted. We don't need to submit another easement plat?
Petrie: Not unless you want to change these easements up.
DeNoon: No.
Warrick: If you make changes then we'll do an easement plat for this large scale.
Elsass: Why do we want to change it?
DeNoon: We don't. That's what I'm saying.
Petrie: That's why I'm pointing that out.
DeNoon: We'll just put that UE in there accidentally.
Elsass: The other reason that I wanted to mention this to you is that because our plans are, Ron
we are going to build on this lot and we are going to come back on 7 and 8 also. For
the reason that we are talking about, Tim has said maybe we don't need to bring this
through large scale on the rest of them after we do this one. I just wanted you to
understand we've got all this taken into consideration is what we are trying to do and
make all this flow right here. Once you get down here, it doesn't really matter because
you've got drainage over here and drainage over here and there is really not a whole lot
you can change that on. We are going to develop all of this so that we can keep
Plat Review Minutes
March 14, 2001
Page 19
control over what's happening on them.
Petrie: 1 don't think it will be a problem, just the details. That's it.
Warrick: You mentioned the situation of not having to bring back large scales, with regard to that
that was a Planning Commission requirement on the preliminary and final plats for
Millenium and the way to make a request that other projects don't have to come
through large scale, is to make a written request to the Planning Commission. If you
write it up and send it in with your revisions then we can take it forward to Subdivision
Committee and Planning Commission with this large scale. What we could recommend
is that those lots, in the future, that don't meet the requirements for a large scale that
aren't 1 acre or greater and don't tip the scale for a large scale, that those do not
process as a large scale. Any of the other, if you combine lots or make one larger than
an acre, than that would process as a large scale as a regular project would.
Elsass: Just a standard letter asking that they remove the requirement?
• Warrick: To lift that requirement from the subdivision. Like I said, you can submit that with your
revisions to take forward. With regard to the Commercial Design Standards, from the
information that you submitted it appears that this building does match the theme and
materials that you started establishing out there. We don't really have any comment
beyond that at this point in time with the exception of sign information. Let's take utility
comments, please.
Bill Smith - Southwestern Bell
Smith: No real comments. Just provide conduit out to the that corner. That's it.
Warrick: Johney Boles with Arkansas Western Gas was not able to come. He did call and say
he would contact each of the applicants with his comments. I think that's it. Revisions
are due one week from today by 10:00 a.m., 37 copies to be forwarded to Subdivision
Committee.
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
March 14, 2001
Page 20
FP 01-3.00: Final Plat (Silverthorne Subdivision, pp 474) was submitted by Brian Moore of
Engineering Services on behalf of John Deweese and Mike Schmidt for property located west of Double
Springs Road & Dot Tipton Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains
approximately 48 acres with 59 lots proposed.
Warrick: Introduce yourself for the record please?
Mays: Tim Mays, Engineering Services.
Warrick: We are going to start by going through the staff comments for Silverthome Subdivision.
This is a final plat FP 01-3.00 submitted by Brian Moore of Engineering Services on
behalf of John Deweese and Mike Schmidt for property located west of Double Springs
Road & Dot Tipton Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and
contains approximately 48 acres with 59 lots proposed.
Perry Franklin - Traffic Superintendent
Franklin: Check with 911 Coordinator, Jim Johnson, and make sure the street names are okay.
• Another comment that you can get information from Jim Johnson regarding, as we
would like you to add addressing to the final plat. Street lighting shown does not meet
city requirements. A street light is required every 300 feet and at intersections and at
the end of streets. Add lights between lots 6 and 7, lots 23 and 24, lots 49 and 50, the
northwest corner of lot 10, at the intersection of Mesa and Double Springs. In looking
at this it looks like the easements are established but there may have been a problem in
getting all of the lots put in.
Warrick: Perry, did you say you were going to go out there? Have you had a chance?
Franklin: I didn't get to go out there yesterday. We were going to go out there and check to see
if it was just a drafting error, that the easements were there and the lights just weren't
shown on the plan. Either way they need to be shown on the plan and installed if they
are not. No other comments with regard to traffic.
Chuck Rutherford - Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator
Rutherford: Sidewalks need to be shown on the plat. Add sidewalk symbol to your legend. A
table with street name, street width, right-of-way width, green space width, and
sidewalk width needs to be added to the plat.
• Shreve: One other comment. We also need two access ramps in each corner. We would like
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
March 14, 2001
Page 21
those shown. One ramp in each direction, where appropriate.
Kim Rogers - Parks Operations Coordinator
Rogers: The Parks & Recreation Advisory Board recommended to accept money in lieu of land
on September 8, 1999. The City Council approved the waiver by Resolution 135-99.
The amount due is $27,730. This fee is based upon the present park land formula in
accordance with UDO Section 166.03(K). Also, Ordinance 4068 requires the formula
base to be updated every 2 years to the current average market price. Therefore, the
actual park land fee will be determined on the date of the final Planning Commission
approval.
Warrick: Are you in process to do that at this point?
Rogers: No. October or November.
Warrick: At this point, if this processes as planned, they do have the current calculation and it
wouldn't change between now and Planning Commission.
Dawn Warrick - Planner
Warrick: Submittal requirements were adequate. Plat requirements, we need plat page 474
added to the title block somewhere. We need the city limits added to the vicinity map.
With regard to the legal description, your legal description is fine but it needs to be tied
to state plane coordinates. There is a sheet in there with planning comments. Double
Springs Road right-of-way is not dimensioned from the centerline and there is a
dedication required there. It looks like it's existing, it's just not dimensioned. Show all
building setbacks and add a table stating the building setbacks at front 25, rear 20,
sides 8, unless a utility easement is greater. You need two charts on there, one for
sidewalks and one for setbacks. Street requirement comments, Double Springs Road
is a minor arterial requiring 45 feet from centerline to be dedicated. As part of the
preliminary plat, Double Springs Road was required to be improved 14 feet from
centerline with curb and gutter. We need all of those improvements shown and the
right-of-way dimensioned. Under lot requirements, dimension lot widths at the 25 foot
setback line for lots 43 and 44. It's important, they have to meet the 70 foot width
requirement at the setback line. Also add the square footage of each lot on the plat so
we can verify compliance with the R-1 requirements. Other requirements, add
addresses. I already talked to you about that. You can get that information from Jim
Johnson. Second, no curb cuts shall allowed on Double Springs Road and we would
Plat Review Minutes
March 14, 2001
Page 22
like you to please add a note to the plat with regard to that. That takes care of Planning
comments.
Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer
Petrie: I think everybody is aware that we will have to have the final inspection for this
subdivision before it can be forwarded to Subdivision Committee.
Warrick: Do you know if the final has been scheduled?
Mays: No, I do not. I can find out and get back with Ron.
Petrie: Requirement of the preliminary plat is there is to be a note that states "all swales, pipes,
channels and other drainage structures not located in the street right-of-way will be
privately owned and maintained." Add that to the plat. Payment of a fee in the amount
of $4,300 for the purchase and installation of a SCADA system for the sewer lift
station. That will be due before Engineering can sign. Also due, a sanitary sewer
assessment in the amount of $11,800 for the future force main from lift station number
7. That was all part of the preliminary plat approval There should be no surprises
there. Streets, a portion of Durango Place between Pagosa and Mesa was required to
be a local street and needs to be 50 feet of right-of-way between those two streets.
The next comment I have is with regards to sidewalks in these residential streets.
That's something that you guys need to look at. On our Master Street Plan residential
streets are not centered in the right-of-way. I know in this situation the street is
centered in the right-of-way which would force sidewalks outside of the right-of-way. I
think the solution is going to have to be that we need 42 feet of right-of-way for these
residential streets.
Warrick: That's the 40 foot right-of-way on Pagosa and the north end of Durango.
Petrie: Yes.
Warrick: Once you guys add the sidewalks to the plan, I think you will see where that happens.
It shifts the sidewalk out. That actually puts a little bit of liability on the property owner
with regard to the sidewalk. It's preferable that the sidewalks be located within the city
right-of-way, so if you adjust your right-of-way width to 42, that should accommodate
it.
Petrie: Other comments, what was previously discussed from Double Springs, you can just
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
March 14, 2001
Page 23
Warrick:
Bill Smith
Smith:
Warrick:
update what was required and what's going to be built there. Just label the 20 foot
wide street as existing. For easements, between Tots 18 and 19 just have that labeled
as a utility easement. We would request a drainage easement and request it separate
from the utility easement. On the west side of lot 19, we request those be separate
easements, drainage and utility easements. On the northwest side of lot 20, going down
to the lift station there is a water line, we need that easement expanded so it's at least
10 feet from that water line. It just needs to be 10 feet from the water line and force
main. You show the off-site easement along Double Springs up here, if you can label
what that is, what type of easement and also give an instrument number where it was
recorded. The last thing under easements, the area for the lift station is required to be
deeded to the City, not just an easement. We want to own that property that it's sitting
on. Under `other" are just our standard comments, items we require before we can
sign final plat such as as-builts, maintenance bonds and all that. It's all listed right there.
That's all I've got.
Anything else from staff? Utility comments please?
-SWEPCO
I concur with all the easements and the crossings. No other comments.
Johney Boles with Arkansas Western Gas should be contacting you with his comments.
He wasn't able to come this morning.