Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-12-29 - MinutesMINUTES OF THE TECHNICAL PLAT REVIEW COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee was held at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Items Discussed LSP 04-1362: Butler Page 2 LSD 04-1360: MailCo Page 4 Members Present Mike Phipps, Ozark Electric Coop. Sue Clouser, Southwestern Bell Johny Boles, Arkansas Western Gas Brent O'Neal, City Engineering Suzanne Morgan, City Planning Renee Thomas, City Planning Action Taken Forwarded Forwarded Members Absent Jim Sargent, AEP, SWEPCO Technical Plat Review December 29, 2004 Page 2 Morgan: Welcome to the Technical Plat Review Committee meeting of Wednesday, December 29, 2004. We have two items on the agenda. The first is LSP 04-1362 for Butler submitted by Dave Jorgensen. This is located in the Planning Area. The original property contains approximately 9.95 acres. Looking at this property, as I spoke with you on the phone the other day, it looks like this is just a property line adjustment however, it was submitted as a Lot Split. Staff is going to look at this a little bit more. There was a similar action taken on an adjacent property. It may be that this is just going to be an administrative approval for a Property Line Adjustment but we'll go ahead and take comments from utilities incase this does need to go through as a Lot Split. As for Planning comments, if you could include a note stating that all surrounding properties are within the Planning Area. That will allow us to know exactly where this is. Dimension the existing right of way from centerline, I believe it is 25' from centerline, but if you could confirm that. Also, if you could show these easements, you have a 10' easement which was dedicated with the original plat and I was just curious what this 20'x50' easement is, is that to be dedicated with this? Jorgensen: Johny was just asking that. I'm not sure. I will have to check that. I think it was intended to be a 20' utility easement along the right of way line all the way and it didn't get put in there like that. We are going to do that. Morgan: Ok. The owner information, if you could provide that on the plat as well as note the building setback, the 10' side and 20' rear for each proposed tract. Also, it looks like the applicant is requesting an access easement to be dedicated with this plat, if you could just note that it is to be dedicated with this plat and not already existing. Also, in the ownership and dedication block it mentions the City of Fayetteville. Because this is in the County it needs to say Washington County. Should this be processed as a Property Line Adjustment instead of the one legal description for the entire tract we will need to have the two descriptions of each property as they existed previous to this action. County approval is required prior to recordation. That is all that I have. Brent O'Neal — Staff Engineer O'Neal: Show the existing water lines and the location of the existing meter. Morgan: Utilities? Mike Phipps — Ozarks Electric Coop. Phipps: Dave, I didn't get a chance to go look at this, we need to access this lower south half. If we have to come off that county road up there on top we are Technical Plat Review December 29, 2004 Page 3 going to need a 20' easement somewhere to get to that. You have 10' on this one side. Jorgensen: We are going to give 20' utility and access easement all the way to that back part. Phipps: If we get a 20' down this west boundary line that will get us back to that area. We have power out there and may not need it, but you can put it on there, I don't think it is going to affect any building or anything. Jorgensen: Ok, so we will just make it 20' all the way down that west boundary line all the way south. Johny Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: Like we discussed before, if you will give that 20' UE along that right of way that's all I need. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: I agree with those comments. Morgan: If you could add the street name to the plat that would help. Revisions are due on the 5th of January and I will get with you before that. Technical Plat Review December 29, 2004 Page 4 Morgan: Our second and final item is a Large Scale Development for MailCo submitted by Steve Clark. The property is located on South School Avenue north of Whitlock Street and the property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and RSF-4. The proposal is to construct a 13,000 sq.ft. building. If you could, the letter that was submitted describing this proposal, we would appreciate a little more information on exactly what services are provided by Mail Co. There is an existing violation on the property within that creek area to the north of the property and that violation needs to be resolved prior to any issuance of any permits or construction. Clark: Can we get our grading permit so that they can get in with the equipment to start the grading operations and get that stuff out of there at the same time? Morgan: Really I think that violation needs to be taken care of prior to a grading permit but we can take a look at that. Definitely before building permit. Clark: I don't think there will be an issue with that but first off, the owners have just recently bought it so all of the violations are from previous owners. That doesn't dispute the fact that they have to take care of it but in order to get in there and do that it would be nice if they could get their general contractor since we are going to be doing some dirt work, to get in there and get that cleaned up as a first step to their grading operations. I think that is a reasonable request. Morgan: I have included some pictures of that area. The zoning of this property is split, C-2 and RSF-4. We really need to see that zoning line. This is approximately the location of it. All of the development for this including parking and everything needs to be within the C-2. There is a possibility of moving this 50' in our zoning regulations, the Zoning & Development Administrator may possibly be able to shift that 50' but even then your proposed parking is outside of that. Because the zoning line kind of jogs over quite a bit you may face some problems trying to get all of that in here. As for the exact location of this zoning line, you can call John Goddard. He is in our GIS Division and will have more specific information on where that is located. Clark: It is really kind of unclear. Morgan: I included his information on here. Under plat requirements, if you could put the plat page numbers, show the location of adjacent curb cuts in this area. The requirement is 200' distance between curb cuts and we just need to know where the adjacent curb cuts are. Clark: It is 200' even for adjacent properties? Technical Plat Review December 29, 2004 Page 5 Morgan: Yes. It needs to be 200' between all of these curb cuts. It looks as though this is slightly under, about 160' from here to here. I don't know if there would be a possibility of being able to line this up. It may become a problem depending on where these are located. Clark: I think if you look, there is the box culvert right there and this is really about as far as we can move it. Morgan: If you are unable to do 200' or if there is a problem with the current one you may need to just request a waiver of that. That requires a letter submitted to the Planning Commission requesting that. Required right of way, from the centerline of School Avenue is 55', you have 50' and so that needs to shift to 55'. This is in the Design Overlay District so we require 25' greenspace outside of the right of way line. Clark: There is existing 110' of right of way here, 60' on this side of the centerline and 50' on our side. Morgan: It still needs to be 55' from centerline to accommodate the greenspace and the sidewalk that is required. Clark: Even though there is existing? Morgan: Yes. If you could modify the setback to the appropriate C-2 and RSF-4 zoning. Clark: I think one of the things that when we first talked on this one with staff there was some discussion about having it come through as a PZD and then what changed on that is that we ended up going back and looking at the use and realized that it was a C-2 use so we didn't get some of these changes made. We will do that. Morgan: There are several references to industrial use and I-1 zoning district, if you could take those off. Clark: We will get rid of those. Morgan: I did a little bit of landscaping comment here, one tree per 30', which you provided for in the front and on the sides, this area right here needs to have at least one tree that needs to be adjacent to the right of way. Clark: We will look at where the creek line is. We have a creek here and then another creek and a lot of heavy vegetation around it so do we need to plant a tree if there are existing trees? Technical Plat Review December 29, 2004 Page 6 Morgan: Clark: I will allow Jeremy to review that. He didn't make that comment, that was just something that I saw on the plan but if it is possible to put a tree there that's fine. For parking requirements, it looks like the ratio looks fine, the 8,300 sq.ft. for industrial, we are calculating that as manufacturing which is one space per 1,200 sq.ft. or one space per employee whichever is greater. If you could just supply some information on not only the total number of employees expected to work in this facility but also the number of employees that would be working in this 8,300 sq.ft. It may be the same employees working in the whole area. That needs to be broken down between this use verses this use. If we have somebody at the front desk then they would not necessarily be counted as the employees back here in the other area? Morgan: Correct. A lot of time the reason for wanting to calculate that differently is if you had a big manufacturing plant and are only going to have people working in that manufacturing plant. Clark: As opposed to the office staff up here that needs the office calculations. Morgan: Sure. If we could have the totals on both. In order to add a little bit of room, you can decrease the parking spaces adjacent to greenspace to 17' in length and is this greenspace behind the building? Clark: It will be for now, it may be a future expansion. Morgan: Ok, we can leave that at 19' in length. This drive aisle width may be reduced to 24'. Clark: The reason we have that at 27' is because the occasional truck that comes in. We are trying to make sure they come in that way and get a little extra width but we may end up having to squeeze it down. Morgan: Commercial driveway radii needs to be a minimum of 25' also, the driveways out of the property is for one way in and one way out, the driveways are a maximum of 27'. I don't know your intent of traffic here. Clark: It is the intent again, with the occasional truck that comes in that we are hoping to make them a little wider than the normal to allow a little more turning movement. Morgan: The maximum is 27'. If you want to increase that it will be a waiver. Clark: That is still required if you go to one in and two out to put an island separating them? Technical Plat Review December 29, 2004 Page 7 Morgan: No, we don't have that requirement. Clark: Morgan: Clark: Morgan: Clark: Morgan: Clark: Morgan: Clark: Morgan: Clark: Morgan: Clark: You used to. I am not sure if we used to have that requirement. If I wanted to go to 36' if I have one way in and two way out. Yes. Bike racks, two are required if you have 31 spaces or more, 30 or less requires one bike rack. It looks like we need another one. Because this is in the Design Overlay District we require pedestrian access to the building. Normally people bring a sidewalk or a trail down this sidewalk adjacent to the right of way to the front of the building. If you could also explore the possibility of cross access with adjacent properties. I don't know if that is feasible. I wouldn't think so. Certainly not to the north. Looking to this one, I am not opposed to us doing cross access but I don't know about the adjoiner. They may or may not want us to. How do we deal with that? We might need to go out and take a look. It would be a lot easier if this were being developed and the property to the south were not developed. Also there is an existing ditch that comes through here. It may be impossible but it is something to look at. This building sits all the way down to here, I don't know where their driveways are. I will look at it. I don't think it is going to work but I will give it a shot. Ok. Elevations, we received west, south and north and we need also an east elevation. Comments on here, if you could label building materials on these elevations, also show the size, lighting and construction materials of the wall signs. The monument sign needs to be removed from the utility easement. It is also on a water line. It really needs to be out of the utility easement. We will need an elevation showing the size, height and building materials of that sign. As for the building elevations again, staff finds that the proposed building elevations don't meet commercial design standards in that the structure appears to be a box like structure, even though, it looks like there is a little bit of massing to the building. If you look there are some different lines. Technical Plat Review December 29, 2004 Page 8 Morgan: Clark: Morgan: Brent O'Neal If it could be better reflected here. It is shaded a little bit but if you could somehow better show that. Who does the architect need to talk to on that one? They can talk to me. Also, we find that it has unpainted precision block wall, or at least it appears to and large, blank, unarticulated wall surfaces. In the Design Overlay District it is a requirement that the structure be constructed of either wood, masonry or natural looking materials. The architect can call me and we can discuss possibilities of how to break this up. I have added a couple of notes about screening trash enclosures and other mechanical equipment. I will run through Jeremy's comments with landscaping. He had several comments with regard to the tree preservation plan. If you have any questions feel free to call. Most of his landscape comments I've already covered with regard to 25' landscape and 55' from centerline. That is all that I have. — Staff Engineer O'Neal: Clark: O'Neal: Clark: O'Neal: Clark: O'Neal: Steve, I will go over the drainage report first. On the revisions, if you could break out the large off site area drainage since it is not going to change so it will just be a constant and so you will have existing and proposed and right now those areas don't add up. We just need to see if there is a change in grade to make those areas different. The other thing is the times and concentration are different so since you are not proposing detention we need to see that there is no increase of the 100 -year storm. I can talk to you a little bit more about that later. You just need the hydrographs that show the peaks that offset the storm? Yes. The other thing is provide a calculation for the large pipe cutting across the site. On the right of way, you need to extend the sidewalk across the entire frontage to the north. We showed it to the creek. We need to see if we can get it across the creek. You can talk to Chuck Rutherford. Is it the city's expectation or his expectation that we build a bridge across the creek? Somehow get it across the creek. You can visit with Chuck on that. The monument sign is located within the utility easement and needs to be moved. You are proposing irrigation so we would like to see where that Technical Plat Review December 29, 2004 Page 9 meter is going to be. You might also on the construction plans show the site of the proposed meter. Are you going to have fire protection? Clark: That is a building permit issue and a fire marshal issue. I don't know, if we do we will have to have a fire line that comes in. O'Neal: Just show that on your construction plans. This doesn't have a FIRM designation for the floodplain but we have a city designation for the floodplain. You might note that the floodplain and floodway is a city floodplain. That's all that I have. Johny Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: No comment. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: Any relocation of existing facilities will be at the owner/developer's expense. Conduits under the driveways. Clark: Even though you already have existing underground? Clouser: Yeah because if we need to get under the drive in the future that will save us. Do you know if they are going to put a closet inside or outside for phone service? Clark: I don't know. Clouser: We will need conduits and then a #4 bare ground back to power. Morgan: There were also several comments submitted by the Fire Marshal's office. Those are listed in here. Revisions are due the 5th of January. Clark: The Fire Marshal says we need a sprinkler system so I will leave that to the building inspector, it may or may not be required. If it is required we will definitely put it in. If we do we will need a fire line. Morgan: Meeting adjourned.