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.