Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2003-04-16 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE TECHNICAL PLAT REVIEW COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee was held on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED LSD 02-29.10: Large Scale Development (Sequoyah Commons, pp 485) Page 2 LSP 03-31.00 Lot Split (Williams, pp 493) Page 6 LSP 03-34 .00 Lot Split (Husong, pp 168) Page 8 LSP 03-35.00 Lot Split (Husong, pp 168) Page 8 LSP 03-36.00 Lot Split (Husong, pp 168) Page 8 PPL 02-7.00: Preliminary Plat (Legacy Pointe, pp 435/474) Page 10 LSP 03- 37.00: Lot Split (Scott Miller, pp 562) Page 14 STAFF PRESENT Matt Casey Sara Edwards Renee Thomas Kim Hesse ACTION TAKEN Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded STAFF ABSENT Danny Farrar Travis Dotson Technical Plat Review April 16, 2003 Page 2 LSD 02-29.10: Large Scale Development (Sequoyah Commons, pp 485) was submitted by Mandy Bunch of EB Landworks on behalf of Greg House of Houses Development for property located between Olive Avenue & Fletcher Avenue, south of Spring Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 2.06 acres with 39 dwelling units proposed (48 bedrooms). Edwards: Welcome to the Wednesday, April 16, 2003 meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee. The first item on our agenda is LSD 02-29.10 submitted by Mandy Bunch on behalf of Greg House for property located between Olive and Fletcher south Spring. The property is zoned R-2 and contains approximately 2.06 acres with 39 dwelling units proposed. This has already been through and there are some minor modifications just for the utilities. It is pretty similar. Parks fees $15,377. With regard to Planning comments, Planning Commission will have to determine off site improvements. They did determine that Center Street should be constructed with a possible city cost share and with waivers from the minimum street standards and that Olive would be made 20' wide in all areas and 28' wide adjacent to this site. We are having a staff meeting tomorrow. I know that we have talked about getting the right of way for Center Street better determined. We are going to have a staff meeting tomorrow to let you know about that. I am also requesting once we get that we need a final cost estimate and a list of the specific waivers requested. The Planning Commission will have to have those listed. We need you to vacate the 15' utility easement. There is an easement required on both sides of the 30" water line. I still don't see that on here, are we just refusing to dedicate the easement? Bunch: I don't think we are refusing. I think it could've just been a time glitch and is my fault this time. Edwards: Standard conditions are going to remain about height, setback, lighting not encroaching. Any damage caused to Olive by construction traffic will have to be repaired. I read the minutes and I didn't see that they made a recommendation with the cost share for the requested sidewalk along Olive. I didn't hear any sort of ruling on that so we are going to let that stand. Bunch: You are talking about past the site to Spring? Edwards: If I remember, Greg had requested past the site to Spring when he requested the cost share, right? Bunch: I think that was something that we discussed with the neighbors but you guys haven't required that. It never was addressed and they pretty much decided not to do anything to existing Olive. That seemed to be the way Technical Plat Review April 16, 2003 Page 3 they were going that night if I remember correctly. As far as the Vacation I have got everyone's comments back except for the city's so if I can ever get that released we will get that submitted. Edwards: Ok. That is all that I have. Revisions are due at 10:00 a.m. on April 23`d We will get with you about that easement being vacated and more information for Center Street. Matt? Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: Mandy, we have already talked about most of my comments yesterday. We need the curb, gutter and storm drainage extended down Olive. We have already talked about the easement and the 30" water line. The retaining wall next to that water line is going to have to be setback off 5' from that easement. Bunch: I think I have got it. I think based on previous discussions with staff, I think that was one of the waivers at least brought up and I think there is a waiver requested not to put the curb on the opposite side of Olive. That is my last understanding. I know we have gone several rounds with it since we were adding the parking on our side and the curb and all of that stuff. I will confirm that though. Casey: Ok. Also we require a 6' sidewalk for multi -family so change that or add that to the long list of requests to be waived. We have already talked about the waiver for the grade on the street. Edwards: From Fire, fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be surfaced so as to provide all weather driving capabilities. It looks to me like they are now saying that Olive is not an all weather driving surface getting to this site. I think that we can use Center because Olive is in poor condition. I think we can use Center to satisfy. Bunch: I think he is talking about the existing Olive along our site. There it says gravel, poor condition on existing. I guess I need to do a better job of showing improvements. Edwards: You can call him about his comments. Ok, utilities? Glenn Newman — AEP/SWEPCO Newman: I think we have already talked about all of this. I don't know of any relocation at this time, do you? Technical Plat Review April 16, 2003 Page 4 Bunch: Newman: Bunch: Newman: Bunch: Newman: Bunch: Newman: Larry Gibson Gibson: Clouser: Gibson: Bunch: Gibson: Bunch: No Sir. One thing that may come up, and I don't know who's poles there are but it might be a good time to bring it up, there are poles headed west on Center Street on the right of way and that right of way is only 30' and we are looking at a 20' pavement width and the city is going to get us some server information but I don't know yet how that might be affected. There are several lines that go up Fletcher I think. There are poles through that right of way. It is three phase and conduction and all of that other stuff. Once we decide where we need to go I will make my statement. Relocation is at the expense of the developer. Even if it is in the right of way? The city may be the developer in this case. We will certainly look at it. I knew that was kind of out there but we have only got 30' of right of way and it is pretty steep. I will check that. There are a lot of details to work out on that I think. Otherwise, that is all I have. — Cox Communications Mandy we talked about the conduit routing and everything so that is good to go. The only question I have is on building six did they ever decide for sure whether it would be the southeast corner or the southwest comer would be where telephone and electric is going to go? I think gas is going to go over here. That is building one. They have two locations. They have one that says proposed utility entrance and then the conduit shows going over to the southwest comer. Ok. At one time they talked about going in the front and now they are over on the west end. I will get that adjusted. Technical Plat Review April 16, 2003 Page 5 Gibson: Other than that just give us a heads up on it. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: I have pretty much the same comments. Just to make sure, we need a pull string in the conduits and if there is any relocation it will be at the developer's expense. Newman: Mandy, the lighting, are they going to be lights that we provide? Bunch: I am pretty sure that they will be site specific lights but we haven't approved them yet. What happens as far as information for the street that we have? Revisions are due the 23rd, which is a week. Edwards: I don't think that Subdivision wants to see this without that worked out. Bunch: I know you hate to miss this. Edwards: I do I think if we are sending out our people, I don't think we are going to have it done by the time you need that revision. I can let you know after we meet today. Technical Plat Review April 16, 2003 Page 6 LSP 03-31.00 Lot Split (Williams, pp 493) was submitted by Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of Rich Williams for property located at 371 N. Harvey Dowell Road. The property is in the planning area and contains approximately 23.60 acres. The request is to split the property into two tracts of 21.99 and 1.21 acres. Edwards: The next item is LSP 03-31.00 submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Rich Williams for property located 371 Harvey Dowell Road. It is in the Planning Area containing 23.6 acres. The request is to split the property into two tracts of 21.99 and 1.21 acres. From Parks, Wyman Road is on the Park Master Plan. At the time of development additional easements for pedestrian access may be requested. It looks like the application is not signed. You can sign that. Add plat page 493. The vicinity map, I am asking that it shows more of the surrounding area. I didn't see a floodplain reference. Tract 2 legal description had a reversed call. Wyman and Harvey Dowell Road are classified as Collector streets on the Master Street Plan and require 35' right of way from centerline be dedicated. We will need a dimension to centerline and then 35'. County approval is required prior to filing. Also, I need to add a comment that tract 2 is under 1.5 acres. Therefore, an Arkansas Department of Health permit is required. Brackett: What is that for? Edwards: That is existing, don't worry about that. We are ok. Matt? Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: We just need for you to show the location of the existing water lines. There is one on each road. You have got some lines shown on each side of this force main, I don't know if that is an easement or not but we need a minimum of 10' on each side of the force main and we need to see the location of the septic system for the existing house. Brackett: Ok. Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop. Phipps: Chris, the existing overhead has an existing 30' utility easement, 15' each side of the line. It is not recorded, it has probably been there 40 years and when it was put in it was probably just a handshake with the property owner at that time. Brackett: Ok. Technical Plat Review April 16, 2003 Page 7 Phipps: I would like 20' along Wyman Road outside of the right of way shown where that piece of Wyman touches the property to the west. Any relocation of existing facilities will be at the owner's expense. That is all I have. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: That UE there on Wyman is good. Are they going to subdivide this or is that something you can't tell me? Brackett: Gibson: Sue Clouser I don't know. I would tell you if I knew, I don't have a clue. If we have to relocate anything it will be at the owner's expense. That is all I have. — Southwestern Bell Clouser: Brackett: Clouser: I have the same thing. Any relocation will be at the expense of the developer. Can I get a 20' UE along Harvey Dowell? I don't know of any reason why not. I would like to see that also. Technical Plat Review April 16, 2003 Page 8 LSP 03-34 .00 Lot Split (Husong, pp 168) was submitted by Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of Robert Husong for Lot 8 of the Woodlands subdivision. The property is in the planning area and contains approximately 4.00 acres. The request is to split the property into two tracts of 2.00 acres each. Edwards: The next item is LSP 03-34.00 submitted by Jorgensen on behalf of Robert Husong for lot 8 of Woodlands. The property is in the planning area and contains approximately four acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 2.0 acres and 2.0 acres. I think all the comments are primarily the same thing. Brackett: Is there a lot line adjustment also? Edwards: Yes. It is administrative. If you wanted to stop by our office Kris in our office has that file. He was calling everybody today telling them what revisions need to be made on the property line adjustments so I don't have it up here. It is in the Planning area so there are no Parks fees. From Planning, we needed plat page 168 added. The vicinity map is awfully small, I just need you to make it a little bigger. Brackett: There is not a whole lot of room. Maybe we can show a smaller one and just blow it up. Edwards: The floodplain reference again. It looks like you have the right of way dimensioned from centerline. Woodlands has been final platted right? Brackett: Yes. Edwards: We never got copies of that Final Plat so we need 31 copies and we can't check the legals until we have the Final Plat to take it off of. You can make the 55' the right of way dedicated by this plat and then what we need to do I think we are going to have to make this bigger but we need an owner dedication block added and that way it specifically dedicates that to the city. Repeat that on the last one too. I will just go over, LSP 03-34.00, 35.00, and 36.00 are all lots in Woodlands and my comments are all the same and I think Matt's are all the same too. Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: Mine are all the same. There are not any existing houses on these lots, is that correct Chris? Brackett: No. Casey: The only comment is public sewer is not available. Technical Plat Review April 16, 2003 Page 9 Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop. Phipps: No comment. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: No comment. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: No comment. Technical Plat Review April 16, 2003 Page 10 PPL 02-7.00: Preliminary Plat (Legacy Pointe, pp 435/474) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Charles Sloan of Sloan Properties, Inc. for property located east of Double Springs Road and south of Owl Creek. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and RM -6, Low Density Multi -family Residential and contains approximately 49.80 acres with132 lots proposed. The request is to amend the approved preliminary plat to allow for three phases. Edwards: The next item is PPL 02-7.10 for Legacy Pointe submitted by Jorgensen & Associates for property located east of Double Springs south of Owl Creek. What this is is a subdivision request to now phase it into three phases. You guys should've got a supplemental pack for your agenda. From Parks, land dedication is going to be the same. There is a banking of .25 acres. Per the conditions Parks staff must review the drainage swale located on the park property. Turner: I just wanted to verify that is at the edge of the developer's property? Brackett: Yes. Edwards: What I did was just go ahead and say that all of the original conditions of the March 21,2002 stands. I am going to recommend two temporary cul- de-sacs for Milliken Bend and persimmon. That is for fire and emergency services. Brackett: Persimmon is currently being constructed. While we are finalizing this they will be building Phase II. Maybe we could put some provision if that road is not under construction within so many months then we will have to build that because we can't really do that. Maybe we can have some kind of time situation with that and the other we are ok with. Edwards: Maybe we could put a condition that 90 through 94, 76 and 71 cannot be built on. I am concerned if we have a fire and how are we going to pick up trash on lot 94? We maybe can cut through there. Brackett: I am saying by the time the homes are completed that road will be built. Edwards: Maybe I can put a condition of no Certificate of Occupancy. Brackett: As far as fire is concerned there is a 300' area, this isn't like a big long end of a cul-de-sac. Milliken is fine. I included the staff report from last year. Tree preservation review and everything is the same. Hesse: Well if you are phasing it here I will have to take a look at that for Phase ll. Technical Plat Review April 16, 2003 Page 11 Brackett: Ok, I see because we are breaking it up. I will talk to him about it. Most of the trees are in Phase I. Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: The improvements to Double Springs and the detention pond are to be trusted with Phase I. I know that is being done. Also, I would like to go ahead and see the right of way dedicated for Persimmon with this phase. Brackett: Just on a separate document or the Final Plat or how? Edwards: I think you can put it on the Final Plat. Casey: That is all I have. Edwards: Utilities, is there anything different? Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop. Phipps: Chris, on lots 25 and 26 is that concrete and 92 and 93? Brackett: That is a gravel drive for access to those manholes and the drainage is in pipes underground. That is in the ground right now. Phipps: Ok, I didn't know if we got conduits under that or not. Brackett: On the back of those lots? We didn't install any conduits there. Phipps: It is a gravel drive? Brackett: Yes, it is a ravel drive for access to those manholes. If you really don't want that gravel drive there talk to Engineering and they won't make you put it in. I don't think it is there right now. You are fixing to get in there are you not? Phipps: Yes. We wanted to get up here on the duplex lots is where I will start. Brackett: That will probably be the last thing we do. Phipps: If I get with the contractor out there we may have him put some conduits in there. On Greens Chapel Drive, is that where that utility crossing is at there across from that utility easement? Brackett: That is where we showed it on the plans and there is curb so I assume it is Technical Plat Review April 16, 2003 Page 12 Phipps: Brackett: Clouser: Brackett: Gibson: Edwards: Brackett: Phipps: Brackett: Phipps: Larry Gibson Gibson: We would need that easement to turn to fit with that utility crossing. I don't understand, the one that is in the right of way? We would need it up here where the easement is at. You have got our utility easement way up here and the crossing is down here in the right of way. I will make a phone call and see if that is in. they have got the crossing where it is actually out in the right of way and it should be back in that easement. It is the same way on Persimmon I am pretty sure it is not in on Persimmon. I haven't checked all of these street lights but we need a 10' easement for all of these street lights. It should be shown. That is all I have. — Cox Communications Brackett: Sue Clouser — Clouser: Turner: Right here between lots 51 and 52 where you have got a street crossing right there I am looking at that dotted line right there between 51 and 52 and I am taking for granted it is a 20' UE. If it is labeled I don't see it. It is. Southwestern Bell If there is anything that needs to be relocated it will be at the owner/developer's expense. I don't think we have anything though. Also, these were calculated as single-family lots and not multi -family for the lots with the duplexes so those numbers will change a little bit, probably not a significant change but there will be a change. Brackett: Will you check for me to see if we can go straight to Planning Commission? Technical Plat Review April 16, 2003 Page 13 Edwards: Ok. Brackett: Thank you. Technical Plat Review April 16, 2003 Page 14 LSP 03- 37.00: Lot Split (Scott Miller, pp 562) was submitted by Scott Miller on behalf of Gene Barbee for property located at 729 and 815 S. School. The property is zoned C-2 and contains approximately 1.20 acres. The request is to split the property into two tracts of .45 and .75 acres. Edwards: Next is LSP 03-37.00 submitted by Scott Miller on behalf of Gene Barbee for property located at 729 and 815 S. School. The property is zoned C-2 and contains approximately 1.20 acres. The request is to split the property into two tracts of 0.45 acres and 0.75 acres. There are no Parks fees. Kind of an issue with parking, really you aren't showing parking and it is not striped so you maybe can just show the parking and how it is used for each of the buildings. Reid: I am not even sure that it is paved to tell you the truth. Edwards: There is concrete out there and asphalt. What I am looking for is the square footage of the buildings to determine how much parking is required so I can make sure that individually it will work. The legal description does not close. Right of way has to be by Warranty Deed. That is all that I have. Reid: is there additional right of way to be given? Edwards: It looks like 35' is existing and 55' is what is required so you have got a new right of way. Reid: You want a description of that? Edwards: Yes, that has to be by Warranty Deed. That is all I have. Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: I just need you to show the existing water line along S. School. You have got the sewer line shown. We need an easement a minimum of 10' on each side. It looks like that might put it in right against the building but you can exclude the building from the easement. Edwards: Oh, the right of way has to jog around the building too. That means it has to go to Council. Casey: What businesses are located in here? Reid: t think it is an Asian grocery store. Technical Plat Review April 16, 2003 Page 15 Gibson: There is a Korean restaurant there. Reid: I think they are going to split off the grocery store from the restaurant. Do they have to get a Vacation or something for the right of way? Edwards: City Council has to approve all lesser dedications of right of way. I assume that you want to go around the building so it has to go to City Council. Are you going to tell Scott all of this? Reid: I sure am. Glenn Newman — AEP/SWEPCO Newman. We need an easement. Edwards: It is all in the right of way now. Newman: I can't go over the top of that building. Gibson: This grocery store is sitting I bet it is not 10' to the edge of the curb. It is right there. Newman: I am just going to have to ask for a 20' easement right there in the front. Edwards: Could you just leave the building out of it? Newman: I can't just say that like you can the right of way because if the power line has to go over the top of the building that is I can't do it. Edwards: I can't get a right of way in there either. If they give you an easement through their building that would give you a right to tear down their building and I don't think they want to do that. Clouser: There is no way that it could be written that if the building is demolished that we would then have a right to an easement? Newman: If they just got an exclusion for that building and then they just had to come back and build it back they have been excluded. The only thing I guess I am going to have to say is if those facilities need to be relocated. Clouser: This actually says on here 50' building setback and utility easement. Is that this side that goes behind the building and goes through the other one? Edwards: I don't care if they want to do it that way. Technical Plat Review April 16, 2003 Page 16 Gibson: It goes through that north building and there is a dashed line that goes right behind it and it goes right through the center of the south building. Reid: I don't even know where that came from. I am sure that we have something in our file that is documenting us putting that on there, maybe when we did the survey for the whole tract. Clouser: Was that existing? Reid: That is what I imagine, that it was already there. Gibson: Glenn, how about if we ask for a 20' on the north, west, and south side coming back 71 and just make a circle around it and then if it has to be relocated we could go back in that. Newman: How about this? If the facilities need to be relocated it will be at the owner's expense plus they will need to provide us with a 20' utility easement. Clouser: You don't think they plan on tearing these buildings down? Reid: I would say definitely not. I don't think he would buy it if he had to rebuild the building on it. All of these easements are based on the relocation of the road. Newman: Yes. When they acquire additional right of way. Reid: Won't they take the building though when they acquire the right of way? Edwards: I don't know. Reid: Is that still a state highway? Edwards: Yes. Newman: How would the city come back and get the right of way for the offset of the building? Edwards: If we had to have it we would condemn the building. That would be the only time you would have to move your lines. It is already widened to five lanes. Newman: Ok, my statement that I feel comfortable with is if facilities have to be relocated then it will be at the developer's expense plus they will need to provide us with easements. Technical Plat Review April 16, 2003 Page 17 Reid: Edwards: Newman. Clouser: Newman: Clouser: Newman: Edwards: Newman: Edwards: Which I am sure they would because by that time the building is probably going to be gone. And it is going to have to meet a 50' setback way back here whenever they build. Then they surely wouldn't have any objection to giving us a 20' utility easement along the front there then I think I would be satisfied with that. Where is that recorded then that we will know when that happens? Sara, when they decide to build a new building will this have to go through here? It is only one lot so it wouldn't go through Large Scale. That is the tricky part then. I guess I could require Large Scales on these because of these issues. I will do that. That is all I have. Ok, problem solved. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: Reid: Gibson: Reid: Sue Clouser Clouser: I basically have the same comments as Glenn. If we have to relocate anything we would expect to be provided with a 20' UE. We also have a high count fiber optic line on these AEP poles here running on the west side of Hwy. 71 running north and south. I would like to see that noted on the prints if you would please. What is that called? It is a high count fiber optic. I can add that on there. — Southwestern Bell I agree with Glenn's comments regarding any relocation at the developer/owner's expense and easements provided. Technical Plat Review April 16, 2003 Page 18 Edwards: Alan, it is your parent tract that doesn't close. Are there any other questions? Ok, we are adjourned.