Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-04-30 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE TECHNICAL PLAT REVIEW COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee was held on April 30, 2003 at 9:00 a.m. in room 111 in the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED FPL 03-3.00: Fairfield, pp 359 Page 2 LSP 03-37.00: Kulish, pp 565 Page 7 R-PZD 03-4.00: Lazenby, pp 560 Page 8 STAFF PRESENT Matt Casey Tim Conklin Sara Edwards Renee Thomas UTILITIES PRESENT Mike Phipps, Ozark Electric Coop. Johny Boles, Arkansas Western Gas Sue Clouser, Southwestern Bell Larry Gibson, Cox Communications ACTION TAKEN Forwarded Forwarded Tabled STAFF ABSENT Perry Franklin Danny Farrar Travis Dotson UTILITIES ABSENT Jim Sargent, AEP/SWEPCO Glenn Newman, AEP/ SWEPCO Technical Plat Review April 30, 2003 Page 2 FPL03-03.00: Final Plat (Fairfield, pp359) was submitted by Philip Humbard of Engineering Services, Inc. on behalf of Cross Creek, L.L.C. for property located west of Bridgeport Subdivision & east of Sunshine Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 12.80 acres with 41 lots proposed. Edwards: Welcome to the Wednesday, April 30, 2003 meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee. The first item is FPL 03-3.00 submitted by ESI on behalf of Cross Creek, LLC for property located west of Bridgeport subdivision and east of Sunshine Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains 12.8 acres with 41 lots proposed. Good morning. I am going to have Kris read the staff comments. Bunten: From Parks and Recreation, you have 155 lots at .25 acres per unit at 3.875 acres. The floodplain reference should refer to panel # 83D, July 21, 1999. Lots 19, 20, and 21 shall be dimensioned at the 25' building setback line. Final plats need to show addresses for each lot. Proof of payment on street lights are needed. A guarantee for incomplete improvements is needed before any signatures are applied to the plat. Right of way for New Bridge Road and Sunshine Road shall be dedicated prior to signing final plat. A final inspection must be completed prior to the Subdivision Committee meeting. Edwards: You can get addresses from Jim Johnson. Moore: They are on page two on that little chart there. Edwards: I would rather see just the street number on the plat. Moore: We did it like that just because of the room. Can we maybe put that chart on this page or something? Edwards: If you want to do it that will be ok. Moore: It is just so cluttered already. Edwards: The good part is when a developer pulls a plat it has got the address and then they just copy this lot or whatever. You can enlarge this too. Moore: I don't think I can. Edwards: You can shift this here and this here. Do you have any other questions? Moore: I don't think so. Technical Plat Review April 30, 2003 Page 3 Edwards: Matt, did you say you think they are ready to go to Subdivision Committee as far as the final inspection? Casey: No, they have to have a final before Subdivision Committee. Moore: Ok, they are supposed to pave Monday. Casey: The last I heard is they didn't even have all of their curb down. Moore: They are pretty close now. I think we will be close. If we aren't then we will just table it right before. Casey: You can go ahead and get on the scheduled and we will pull you if you aren't ready. Edwards: The only problem I have with that is we pay money to get it in the paper, we pay a lot of money to advertise and do notification so I need to know by May 76 , or our office does, so we don't have to pay money over and over until it is ready. Moore: Ok. Edwards: Utilities? Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop. Phipps: Brian, we have an offsite to the north, you have got a 10' UE. Boles: Lots 10 to 16. Moore: We may not have it now but we can dedicate it if you want. Phipps: Will that be Phase III? Moore: In other words, I either need to dedicate the easement on the offsite property or give you a 20' on 10 through 16. Phipps: Yes. I wish we had the rest of the phases on here so I could see. Moore: I think that 10' goes to the other road, do you just want me to go ahead and take that across? Gibson: I think this was going up here because there were trees in the back. Moore: Do you want me to leave it like that? Technical Plat Review April 30, 2003 Page 4 Boles: I think it is fine the way it is shown isn't it Mike? They are showing a 20' drainage easement between 1 and 61. What is this 25' you're showing here? Moore: That is a sewer line. Boles: What is this 15'? Moore: That is a UE, it will come right through here. Phipps: We will need a 20' easement, 10' each side of 41 and 42, 41 of Phase I and 42 of Phase II and the same thing on 34 and 121, 121 being in Phase III. You have got six 4" quad at the end of the road. We have all got to get up to it so we can turn there. Moore: Would you rather do that or would you rather go straight up and then go over? Phipps: Either way we are going to have the same setup. It is probably already in isn't it? Moore: Yes. What I am saying is do you want to go north from the northeast corner of 34 north and then west and hit that utility duct straight on on the north side. Boles: Between 120 and 121. There is a 20' utility easement shown there. Phipps: Ok, that is fine. Edwards: What does it take to do offsite like that, it has to be by a deed right? Casey: By separate document. Phipps: 41 and 42 over to 1 and 161 we should have a utility crossing there. Moore: Is that in that next phase? Phipps: Yes. Moore: Tell me what they are between and I will make sure it gets in on the next phase. Gibson: It is 41 and 42 over to 1 and 161, 42 and 43 over to 161. Phipps: If the street just ends there we can probably just dig it. Technical Plat Review April 30, 2003 Page 5 Moore: We are going to start Phase II in about two weeks just FYI. Phipps: We have got our six 4" here and you have got the 10' easement for street lights. Edwards: Have you paid for your street lights yet? Phipps: No they haven't. That is all I have. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: Lots 8 and 9, are those actually in Phase I? That is ok, we have got that 10' on each side of 9 and 10. Boles: Did you add this easement here Brian? Moore: I drew it. Gibson: We can probably just go ahead and dig across there if that street is going to just end for now we will be fine. We have to get to the back of it, which would be actually between 9 and 91 if we could get a UE going to the back of the lot. Moore: I can't add a duct here or anything, they have already got the curb poured. Gibson: We should be able to come right straight across there and then kind of jog over to get in the back there between 91 and 9. Everything else looks good to me. Boles: You will need 10' off 130, between 130 and 10 for a total of 20'. Moore: That is not a problem. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: I agree with all of the easements. If there is anything that needs to be relocated, which I don't think there is, it will be at the owner/developer's expense. You are going to put a quad in here for us? Moore: No. Clouser: I will need a crossing in here even though it is dirt. Moore: Ok, offsite. You will be in there well before we pave that I think. Boles: How long do you think it will be before they start building? Technical Plat Review April 30, 2003 Page 6 Moore: I would assume one will be on every lot within two weeks after we final it. Boles: Call me. Clouser: Please give me a call when you start building. Phipps: We are running three or four weeks behind and we just got the plat. Moore: Ok, thank you. Technical Plat Review April 30, 2003 Page 7 LSP 03-38.00: Lot Split (Kulish, pp565) was submitted by Kurt Kulish for property located at 2008 E. Huntsville Road at the corner of E. Huntsville and Dockery Lane. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.54 acres. The request is to split the property into two tracts containing 0.27 acres and 0.27 acres. Edwards: The next item is LSP 03-38.00 submitted by Kurt Kulish for property located at 2008 E. Huntsville Road at the corner of E. Huntsville and Dockery Lane. The property is zoned R-1, and contains approximately .54 acres. The request is to split the property into two tracts containing .27 and .27 acres. I see no one is here for this. Utilities if you have any comments we will go ahead and take them and that way they will be in the minutes. Gibson: They need to remove that house that is in the easement. I am looking at these building setbacks and utility easements and I don't see that I have any comments on it, everything looks good. It is workable. Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop. Phipps: The only comment I have is any relocation of existing facilities will be at the owner's expense. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: Any relocation will be at the owner's expense and the same thing about the house. Johny Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: No comment. Technical Plat Review April 30, 2003 Page 8 R-PZD 03-04.00: Planned Zoning District (Lazenby Apartments, pp560) was submitted by Landtech Engineering, Inc. on behalf of Bill Lazenby for property located on Razorback Road on west side between Baum Stadium and State Revenue Office. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial -Light Industrial and contains approximately 8.38 acres. The request is for a Residential Planned Zoning District with office and multi -family dwellings proposed. Edwards: The last item is R-PZD 03-4.00 submitted by Landtech Engineering on behalf of Bill Lazenby for property located on the west side of Razorback Road between Baum Stadium and the State Revenue Office. It is zoned I- 1 and contains approximately 8.38 acres. The request is for a Residential Planned Zoning District with office and multi -family dwellings proposed. We will start with Parks comments. Bunten: Money in lieu for 152 units at $555 per unit at $84,360. Edwards: I noticed that there were units being added. Gabbard: There are 160 total. Edwards: Do you guys want to read the comments? Bland: Tree preservation was disapproved because the minimum requirement for tree preservation was not preserved. Conklin: We went out there with Kim Hesse and talked. Kim Hesse is no longer our Landscape Administrator, she applied for and got the Park Planner job. We went out there last week and she indicated to us that early on she made a recommendation that trees needed to be saved within that drainage area. We walked it. It looked like there were wetlands on it. This is a Planned Zoning District. Part of a Planned Zoning District talks about preserving natural features and the recommendation is not to remove all of the trees but to save the trees within the project. We would like to see how this project can be designed to save the trees within that area and not just be completely re -graded. Once again, we don't want to change the direction of the tree ordinance overnight and that is something that Kim has indicated to us. Gabbard: Are you done Tim? Conklin: I am done. Gabbard: In our meetings with Kim, and we had several meetings down there, she expressed an interest in trying to preserve that riparian buffer but what we have also done with the cost, what is the raw land cost on this per acre? Technical Plat Review April 30, 2003 Page 9 Ball: $60,000 or $65,000 per acre. Gabbard: We have $60,000 per acre in raw land cost and with that expensive cost and basis in the land we retained EGIS, Manual Barnes, and he went out there and did make his wetland delineation and actually we told him that for the cost of this land it would be better for us to utilize it as much as we can to get as much return as we can off of it. So what he has recommended is that that he could do is mitigate this off site. Mr. Lazenby had even contracted with him to mitigate off site and we are in the process of working with the Corp. of Engineers right now. That is in Little Rock and that process is ongoing. To meet the requirements of detention and to meet the requirements of tree preservation in this case, the two items both policies being from the city, are contradicting with us right now. We are trying to figure out, our solution to that was to put the detention in the riparian buffer and our solution is to replace that riparian buffer. I wanted Manual here today, he couldn't be here. We fully intended to replace the riparian buffer in the detention pond so that we could have some filtration of storm water before it reaches the creek and what I would like to point out too is I don't know what kind of rules and regulations the University of Arkansas operates under but there is totally a complete destruction of that riparian buffer under Baum Stadium. I guess the state owned lands must operate under a different jurisdiction in the City of Fayetteville than private developers. I had my fun pointing my finger at the University and how they managed to do that, I am done now with that. What I would like to see is the recognition from the city on the raw land costs here and how this developer has tried to put something together where he can basically develop his land to its highest and best potential and at the same time give back to the city the trees. The tree preservation on this basically annihilates everything that is in place, almost. We are working very, very diligently with EGIS to try to place back a riparian buffer in keeping with what Kim said, and that is what she said. We are not only doing that but we talked Mr. Lazenby into a tremendous amount of tree replacement with a five year warranty on that. Right now they have bent over to the point where this could be a real quality thing. They are up to $300,000 in trying to meet the city's requirements and trying to, at the same time, be able to develop this, as I said earlier, to it's highest and best potential. If we can't find any kind of middle ground what would you do with this, Ronnie, I guess I will let you have your speech on this. Ball: I work with Bill and we have met several times about this project. We have had this project on our table for 10 months or better. At first we didn't think it had to be rezoned, we were told that, now we have got back into rezoning. The project has changed so much. Now we are going to have impact fees, we are adding parks. We have added a lot of things to Technical Plat Review April 30, 2003 Page 10 this project that we are at the limit. Our decision at this point is whether to back this project and just go and start building, I guess it is zoned Industrial Commercial, try to go down there and fit metal buildings between the trees and the issues that are down there. That is our only option to the deal. We want this project to go through but if we can't, then we have to go with the zoning that is there. Go down there, leave what you want us to leave and try to place metal buildings, which is what it is zoned for. That is kind of where we are. We are at the breaking point, we need to know exactly where we are. Gabbard: I guess what I would like to know is there any way in regard to the trees Tim and Julie if we could sit down with Manual, sit down with you guys, sit down with Mr. Lazenby, and have a meeting about this and come to some conclusions on whether or not any middle ground can be met or whether or not that the terms of conditions are such that he needs to take the position of throwing this out and coming back and doing something different. Conklin: I am not opposed to sitting down with them. I am interested, can you provide more information on how the tree preservation ordinance is in conflict with our storm water drainage plan? Gabbard: I need to explain that to you. Here is where it is in contradiction in this case. In any riparian boundary, storage requirements for this retention is tremendous, any detention, even a small pond has usually large storage requirements. Matt, would you typically agree that to do proper detention the basins get fairly large? Casey: They can. Gabbard: In this particular instance it would get fairly large because we have a lot of area that is now going to be paved. As a matter of fact, I have a series of four ponds there. When I originally submitted my drainage report I submitted this as an entire drainage pond and I have had a little trouble doing inner connected pond routing but that is a technical aspect. To get back to your question, here is how they contradict each other. I cannot put the ponds in there that I need and get the size that I need, leave everything natural looking and build the ponds such that they will retain the water required. I have to make those things where the volumes are where they will hold more water. To do that I need to widen those banks, I need to take out that vegetation. Most of that vegetation has been cleared. At one time there was fill brought in there. Evidence of that was brought out in our wetland delineation and Bill confirmed that over the years that backfill material was brought in there. That is kind of an intermittent stream that holds water now because of the filling process that went in there about 15 years ago. The development of the vegetation around that creek occurred Technical Plat Review April 30, 2003 Page 11 Conklin: Gabbard: over the past 15 or 20 years so what you are seeing is second growth there anyway. That has always been in the past 15 or 20 years manmade wetlands. It is wetlands regardless whether it is a pond or anything. It is one of the more obvious ones, considering the wetlands that I have been trying to identify. It was very obvious with the willows and water. Very much so. Here is where I think you might get a comfort level with it because we brought in an expert and we asked him to help us design something and he was going to be a part of designing what was going to be put in those detention ponds as far as type of vegetation and stuff that could create a green belt around that bank. Willows are fast growing and willows are the preponderance of the vegetation that is down there. There is the point Tim. I can't build detention basins and leave that natural looking down there and get the volume requirements that I need to hold back the design storms that I have to put through it. Something has got to give. Either that or we just disregard it period and stay away from that area and you just say you can't build in all of this area back here and let it go. Conklin- Once again, we are looking at a Planned Zoning District. Part of that ordinance talks about preservation of features. What quality are those wetlands? Gabbard: I can't remember what he said. I have the report. Conklin: We are trying to preserve tree canopy which is a tree ordinance issue, and trying to be consistent with all developments in tree canopy and trying to meet the goals of a Residential Planned Zoning District and preserving natural features. Those are the issues that we have to look at. Grading the entire site and reconstructing is not preserving any of that existing tree canopy. We can sit down, I think not only sit down but maybe go out there and look at it and discuss it in more detail also. At this time staff can't support removing the entire vegetation within that corridor. Gabbard: Conklin: Gabbard: Edwards: Do we even need to meet because I think you have already made up your mind. I am not just talking about wetlands, I am talking about the tree preservation ordinance. I think that puts us to going ahead and listening to utility comments and then taking this back to see what you want to do. We have some additional staff comments as well. Technical Plat Review April 30, 2003 Page 12 Bunten: Edwards: Gabbard: Edwards: The landscape plan shall be labeled tree preservation plan. Label adjacent zoning on the site map. Label plat page 560 on the site map. The vicinity map shall show all existing streets. We need a statement on the site plan for flood plain reference. The line types in the legend need to be darkened for clarity. We need dimensions on all utility easements. Label building heights for additional setbacks. A site coverage note is required. All existing utilities must be shown and all new utilities must be placed underground. Razorback Road is a principal arterial which requires a 6' sidewalk and a minimum 10' greenspace. New sidewalks, driveway approaches, or access ramps constructed in the right of way shall meet Unified Development Ordinance §171.13. The sidewalk shall be continuous through the driveways with a maximum of 2% cross slope and elevated 2% above top of curb. Driveway approaches shall be constructed of Portland Cement Concrete with a broom finish. Textured, stamped, or exposed aggregate concrete is not allowed within the street right of way. Bicycle parking requires two racks for the office parking and five racks for the residential development. Elevations of all four sides of the building and signage is required. All dumpsters must be screened. I think we have got the building elevations, is this the front of the commercial? I think we are missing a front elevation of the building. The two of the apartments represent both sides. Don Hillis and I both thought that we might be missing a front elevation. Ok, and then any signs that are proposed. Engineering has some comments. Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: I have several comments. I will kind of hit the highlights and you have any questions give me a call. There is an existing 6" waterline running along the west off the adjacent property. We want you to show that and connect this dead end line that you have got feeding these apartments here over to that. I hate to see a break in here and have all those apartments go without water. Also, we need 10' from each side of the water and sewer lines. I think there were some areas with 15'. The southeast corner of the commercial development, it looks like it all drains to the southeast and doesn't have any kind of outlet. I need to know where that is planned to go. Between buildings two and three, it looks like the grading that is shown just kind of forces the water to the west of this property. We need to address that. The parking lots between buildings 10 and 8, we just need to see if there are any inlets proposed. It looks like there are little squares but it didn't show a pipe going anywhere. I just need to know where that is going to discharge to. I didn't make a comment on the staff report, but Technical Plat Review April 30, 2003 Page 13 Turner: Gabbard: Edwards: we are going to be looking at whether or not we are going to recommend street improvements on Razorback. We will have to go out there and look at that before we can make that recommendation. We will know before Subdivision Committee, or this looks like it is going to come back to Plat Review so we will know then. Parks fees, I figured it incorrectly to begin with as single-family rather than multi -family. 160 multi -family units will be $62,880. Thank you. Utilities? Johny Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: Larry Gibson Leonard, we have a distribution line running north and south along the west side of Razorback Road. Anything that is developed with this site will be served off of that line. I guess future routing proposals will be a moot point at this time until you decide what you are going to do with your design. I think I will just pass on easement requests at this time until we determine what we are going to put on this site. — Cox Communications Gibson: We have an overhead line there on the west side of Razorback running north and south. I don't think we are going to have to relocate anything. I believe we are about 150' north of your driveway there, probably 150' or so south of it. I am kind of like Johny, I would like to see what they are going to do with the tree preservation and everything. My initial UE route that I was going to ask for basically just encompassed the exterior of the project and there was one location that I needed to come inside to get those three buildings, 1,2, and 7 but anything I said now, I think I would just pass until we know for sure what they are going to do with those tree. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: Gabbard: Edwards: If we have anything that we need to relocate that would be at the owner/developer's expense. I don't think that we have anything over there. I didn't check the records. The same thing, we will have to layout the easements when we know where your buildings are really going to be. Thank you. Are we done? We are done.