HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-02-25 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
TECHNICAL PLAT REVIEW COMMITTEE
A regular meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee was held on February 25,
2004 at 9:00 a.m. in room 111 in the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain,
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
LSD 04-10.00: Lindsey Office Building, pp 174
Page 2
STAFF PRESENT
Matt Casey
Jeremy Pate
Renee Thomas
Craig Camagey
UTILITIES PRESENT
Jim Sargent, AEP/ SWEPCO
Mike Phipps, Ozark Electric Coop.
Larry Gibson, Cox Communications
ACTION TAKEN
Forwarded
STAFF ABSENT
Perry Franklin
Danny Farrar
Travis Dotson
UTILITIES ABSENT
Johney Boles, Arkansas Western Gas
Sue Clouser, Southwestern Bell
Technical Plat Review
February 25, 2004
Page 2
LSD 04-10.00: Large Scale Development (Lindsey Office Building, pp 174) was
submitted by Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. on behalf of Lindsey Management
Company for property located on the northeast corner of Joyce Blvd. and Stearns Street.
The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 5.86
acres. The request is to allow development of an 84,420 sq.ft. office building with 275
parking spaces proposed.
Pate: Welcome to the Wednesday, February 25, 2004 meeting of the Technical
Plat Review Committee. There are three items. Item number three, the
Large Scale Development for Hanks Furniture has been tabled at this time.
There is not an applicant present for the Large Scale Development for
Allied Storage so we will move to item number two, LSD 04-10.00 for the
Lindsey Office Building submitted by Jerry Kelso. This project has been
before the Planning Commission previously but it does have to comply
with all of our current ordinances and the recommendation from staff at
this time, just to let you know. For Subdivision Committee review we will
need a materials sample board showing the materials of the structure and
then a board of the elevations. I believe we have one side elevation but it
is just an architectural rendering, not the elevation. The maximum height
is 75' or six stories. If you could just include as a note the height of the
structure, I know that middle portion is pretty high. The street lights along
Stearns Street and Joyce, I don't know if those are existing or not but if
not, they will be required every 300', if you could show those. There are
six bicycle racks required. I noticed on the plat it said spaces, I just want
to ensure that those are racks that will accommodate two bikes. Staff has
talked a little bit about the traffic created from 82,000 sq.ft. of office
space. We haven't quite come up with a recommendation of what to do
with that yet. Either a traffic study or maybe participation in a signal
somewhere in this location. If you would contact staff this week and we
will let you have a more formal recommendation of what we should go
forward with. I have been talking with both Dawn and Tim about this
specifically just because a site with this much office space intended for
that many employees in one location. There are several avenues out.
Obviously, we have two out onto Joyce Street and one out onto Stearns
and a couple of cross connections here so we will have to look at it and see
what we've recommended in the past.
Kelso: You've got a lot of vacant land out there too and that is going to be
developed either commercial or office.
Pate: The magnitude of this structure, it's a pretty large structure in this location
so that is one of the things that kind of brought it to our attention. If there
is any signage to be located, show where that is.
Kelso: I think we have got an actual sign plan and everything so I will get that to
you.
Technical Plat Review
February 25, 2004
Page 3
Pate: Dumpsters, again screened on all sides. No permanent structure more than
30" in height is allowed within a building setback. I believe I saw a
retaining wall within the building setback, as long as that is not over 30".
This is the retaining wall to the north, I'm not sure of the height of that.
Matt may have called it out to label that wall but if it is over 30" it can't be
within the building setback. That is all of the Planning comments. Matt,
do you have anything?
Matt Casey — Staff Eneineer
Casey: How tall is that wall?
Kelso: I don't know Matt. These plans were actually done by someone earlier.
We are at 15' and you are at 10' back there so it appears to be about 5'
tall.
Casey: I assume that utility representatives are going to ask for a utility easement
along Stearns there so a retaining wall cannot be located within an
easement either, regardless of the height. Jeremy already mentioned the
building setback issue. If you could label that height at the highest point.
Kelso: One thing that might help us, we took this thing to the City Council as far
as the reduction of Stearns Street and that may give us enough room to put
a 3 to 1 slope instead of a retaining wall.
Pate: I had that same question because it looks like you're dedicating right of
way.
Kelso: That was done before we went to City Council to reduce the right of way
width.
Pate: That was only for that location as well. We have to go through the same
process, I believe it would go back to the City Council.
Kelso: This was part of the deal on the other one too. We were improving that
with the other plan.
Casey: This was shown on Stearns Street apartments.
Pate: Maybe we can just go down to 50' right of way.
Kelso: If we can do that I think we should be able to get a three to one slope in
there to make it work.
Technical Plat Review
February 25, 2004
Page 4
Casey: Also, if you could address the height of the retaining wall and also the
easement. On number three down here in the bottom left corner, it is also
in an easement and the detention pond. If you could address that so it is
not in the utility easement. Also, sidewalks along Joyce need to be 10'
wide at the edge of the right of way consistent with what's been installed
to the east and also need to go all the way to the property line, which will
necessitate this culvert to be able to accommodate that. That is all I have.
Craig Carnagey — Landscape Administrator
Camagey: Jerry, this was approved a year ago?
Kelso: It may have been a couple of years ago.
Camagey: I assume Kim requested this wall in the northeast corner to save those
trees back there. Is there any reason that you know that she didn't request
that on this other grouping in the middle of the property?
Kelso: I think because the grades were there, we are getting pretty close back to
existing grades. I looked at that a little bit and I know what you are saying
but I think we were within a couple feet or so of existing grade with the
back of curb at that location. I may need to look at the grading just a little
bit more. You know by the time you have a retaining wall in there and
you've got two foot to make up you're better off to just three to one slope
it up to 6'.
Camagey: The only comment that I have, I can't determine on this northern side for
street trees, if these are street trees or if these are shrubs. The plantings
between the pin oak and the althea are pretty similar. I would like to make
sure that those are street trees along Stearns. If you could eliminate the
pin oaks from the selection and put something in there, anything on our
list would work other than that pin oak.
Kelso: Are you talking about the ones here along Stearns?
Camagey: Actually, in general, if you could just eliminate the pin oaks all together
for the whole project. In the last couple of years the pin oaks have really
been hit by an outbreak of beetles. Before building permit we are just
going to need a detailed landscape plan including the size of all these
species installation and just standard planting details and things like that.
Jim Sargent- AEP/SWEPCO
Sargent: I see that you've got a utility easement along Stearns and Joyce Street.
We will need an easement to get back to where our transformer pad is. I
Technical Plat Review
February 25, 2004
Page 5
don't know if you have those trees in there if we will have to angle around
those but we will serve this from off of Stearns Road.
Kelso: We may have to eliminate the retaining wall along Stearns, maybe we can
go between where we've got the retaining wall and the back of curb.
Sargent: We will just need a 20' easement down to that location.
Kelso: I don't think Craig will let me put an easement down the back of those
trees.
Camagey: It would be a shame to put a retaining wall in there to save them and then
a utility cuts them out.
Sargent: I will need load information and we will need two 4" conduits from the
transformer pad to the riser pole. Are you pretty sure that's the location
where the transformer is going?
Kelso: I think so. Most of the work was done on this thing a couple of years ago
by somebody else and I think there was a lot of detail but that's probably
where the transformer is going to be.
Sargent: That's all I have.
Larry Gibson — Cox Communications
Gibson: Jerry, we can come in there the same way SWEPCO does. The only thing
I'd ask for would be about 4' to 6' north of that transformer pad, place us
a 4" from there over to the riser pole. Also, from that location to the tower
is where they'd probably have the communications room, I'm guessing, I
don't know. If they do that would be almost the center of the building
somewhere or in one of these comers. Also, if they could get us a conduit
from there over to these wings just under the pad a 2" would work fine.
Of course we will need access from there, I'm sure Jim will have his
office on top and if he doesn't have TV he is going to be mad. We'll just
need access from these bottom floors, especially on this tower part and
then from the communications room location, wherever it is going to be
out to the wings and turn a 2" conduit with a 4" back. That will do it for
me.
Pate: A couple more comments in your packet here, in 1995 there was a right of
way dedication that has not been less and accepted in this legal so I
included that for you.
Kelso: I seen some stuff like that in my folder and I didn't know what that was so
I just left it off.
Technical Plat Review
February 25, 2004
Page 6
Pate: I included that for you. Also, the Fire Department has comments in here.
One of theirs we talked about at In-house was the provision for a 26' wide
entrance. They have a recommendation that that be a minimum of 26'
wide.
Kelso: For this one way coming in?
Pate: Planning staff's recommendation is that there is adequate access to several
places on this site. I don't know if potentially that is not marked as a fire
lane or something of that nature. Again, that's a recommendation from
them. Planning staff feels comfortable with what you have but I just
wanted to make sure that that was brought up. Commercial design
standards look fine, this is what was permitted. We just need to make sure
that the other sides are the same or what all the sides look like. Revisions
are due March 3`a at 10:00 a.m. With that, there is no one else here for the
other items so we will have to continue those to the next meeting.