HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-01-18 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
TECHNICAL PLAT REVIEW
A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Technical Plat Review Committee was held on
Wednesday, January 18, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration
Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
ITEMS CONSIDERED
LSP 00-1911: Lot Split (TERRY, 141)
Page 3
LSP 00-1912: Lot Split (LINDSEY, 259)
Page 5
FPL 00-1910: Final Plat (CLEARWOOD
CROSSING, 323)
Page 7
LSD 05-1827: Large Scale Development
(WESTERN SIZZLIN, 557)
Page 9
ACTION TAKEN
Forwarded
Forwarded
Forwarded
Forwarded
Technical Plat Review Committee
January 18, 2006
Page 2
UTILITY REPS PRESENT
Mike Moore/COX
Kenny Sullivan/AEP
Johney Boles/AWB
Greg McGee/Ozarks Electric
STAFF PRESENT
Andrew Garner
Jesse Fulcher
Suzanne Morgan
Brent O'Neal/Engineering
Sarah Patterson/Urban Forester
UTILITY REPS ABSENT
Sue Clouser/SWBT
STAFF ABSENT
Technical Plat Review Committee
January 18, 2006
Page 3
LSP 00-1911: Lot Split (TERRY, 141): Submitted by BLEW, BATES &
ASSOCIATES, for property located at 4122 N. HUNGATE LANE. The property is
zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY — 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 3.47
acres. The request is to divide the subject property into two tracts of 1.21 and 2.26 acres.
Garner:
Bunch:
Garner:
Welcome to the Technical Plat Review meeting for January 18, 2006. The
first item is a lot split for Terry. Is someone here for the lot split?
I am Bryan Bunch and am a land surveyor for Blew, Bates & Associates.
The comments from the Planning Staff. The park is located in the
planning area, so the City zoning requirements do not apply. Notated on
page two, the memo to change the zoning of the site and the surrounding
parcels; some standard comments: include the City plat page on the plat,
on the vicinity map, call out the City limits and the planning area
boundaries so they are more clear. We did get a comment from the GIS
Division that the legal description needed to be revised; the comment on
page two, I copied it in there, says "the legal description for Tract A does
not close, does not add up. 34.73'+/- closure error". Let us know if you
have any questions about that. One thing to note on your survey is there is
a shed located across the property line, in the right-of-way. The County
building setback and County right-of-way issue and wanted to note it.
Bunch: You want to give a distance into the right-of-way of the shed or make a
note to move it.
Garner: It is really up to the County. It is their regulation. The County setbacks
for residential development are 25' from the front, 20' from the rear and
10' off the side. It should be noted on the plat. The last comment, tract B
would be less than an acre and a half, so a copy of the subject permit is
required for verification and the existing septic/sewer system is
acceptable. That is all I have from planning.
O'Neal: Limit the size of the borderline along the street.
Patterson: No comment.
Sulliven: Kenny Sulliven, SWEPCO. This is Ozarks territory and Mr. McGee is not
here. I'm sure he would want you to show some sort of easement, if there
is not one. You might want to get a hold of him.
Moore: Mike Moore, Cox Communications. Do you know where on Tract A they
are planning to build? That will determine exactly where those UEs need
to be.
Technical Plat Review Committee
January 18, 2006
Page 4
Bunch: I do not know at this time.
Moore: Well in that case what I would like to do is see a 20' UE on the west and
the east property line, that way we can service Tract A. No, the north and
south, I'm sorry, it says east and west on it.
Bunch: On the strip coming in from the road.
Moore: The strip coming in from the road, the south property line of Tract A and
the north property line of Tract B. I think we could pretty much reach
anything from those two areas.
Boles:
Johney Boles, Arkansas Western Gas. I would like for you to show a 20'
utility easement adjacent to the road right-of-way across Tract A and Tract
B. We do have an existing 2" line that runs across the majority of the
frontage along Tract A and about two thirds of Tract B. It stops prior to
the shed. All the way down. Is the shed going to remain or is it going to
be removed?
Bunch: I don't know at this time, but whatever needs to be done. It is in the right-
of-way of the road, so whatever the County says. We will notify the
landowner and see what he wants to do.
Garner: These revisions are due January 25th by 10 a.m.
Technical Plat Review Committee
January 18, 2006
Page 5
LSP 00-1912: Lot Split (LINDSEY, 259): Submitted by DAVE JORGENSEN for
property located at 3141 DOYNE HAMM RD. The property is in the Planning Area and
contains approximately 8.59 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into two
tracts of 6.34 and 2.25 acres.
Jorgensen: Dave Jorgensen and am here to help answer questions on this lot split.
Morgan: This is the first lot split on this property. It doesn't have access to right-
of-way. Some of my comments — show the adjacent subdivisions. There
is one to the north. I want to get a feel for the right-of-way so the
Planning Commission and the Subdivision Committee when they review
this, understand where the existing right-of-way is in relation to the private
drive. As this property and the proposed tract are going to access a private
drive, we will need authorization from the owner saying that they can
utilize that. Sagely Lane per the MSP right-of-way is supposed to bisect
this property and at this time Staff does not feel that the dedication of the
right-of-way is necessary, but we would prefer that you show it through
this property, the 90' right-of-way as it is on the MSP. No septic systems
information is required because each tract is greater than an acre and a
half. Our main concern is going to be the access that will require a
waiver, you are creating a lot that doesn't have any frontage on a public
right-of-way. Staff is evaluating whether or not we would recommend
that this private drive should be improved in any manner, or widened on
right-of-way dedication. Are you familiar with the situation at all of this
private drive?
Jorgensen: I think a document was submitted that stated permission to use the private.
I don't know if it was included, but I'll find out. Isn't there a subdivision
planned to the north that dedicates that right-of-way and a way to get into
it?
Morgan: It doesn't dedicate this right-of-way. It is my understanding that the
owner of this property is retaining ownership. If that is the case, they can
restrict access.
Jorgensen: And this is where the subdivision is?
Morgan: The subdivision is more to the north of this. And maybe it is something
you can reflect on the site plan or the vicinity map. I haven't received any
information from GIS so if there is a problem with the legal description, I
will let you know.
O'Neal:
The only comments I have are regarding the MSP and the other one is to
confirm that both lots will have access to public water. If you could, show
the existing water meters. That's all.
Technical Plat Review Committee
January 18, 2006
Page 6
Patterson: No comment.
Moore: Do you know what they are planning on doing with Tract A?
Jorgensen: No I don't.
Moore: I guess we can dedicate the 20' UE outside of that private right-of-way,
along the front of Tract A and B.
Jorgensen: You are talking about along the private drive, east of our property line or
west of it?
Moore: There is a right-of-way off of that. Dedicate off the property line 20' there
in the front just because of location.
Boles: No comment.
Garner: These revisions are due January 25th by 10 a.m.
Technical Plat Review Committee
January 18, 2006
Page 7
FPL 00-1910: Final Plat (CLEARWOOD CROSSINGS, 323) Submitted by
PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC. for property located at 2389 SALEM
ROAD. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4
UNITS/ACRES and contains approximately 14.94 acres. The request is to approve the
final plat of a residential subdivision with 47 single family lots.
Kemmet: Bruce Kemmet with Project Design Consultants.
Morgan: Take a look at the comments I just gave you. There are several plat
revisions and several comments with regard to building setbacks on the
plat. Since this was platted and approved for preliminary plat, the
designation for Rupple Road has been modified by a minor arterial to a
principle street so there are 55' of right-of-way required from center line.
We would request that the applicant change that.
Kemmet: That might shrink the lots smaller than the minimum size.
Morgan: Potentially. Probably not 48, I think that one is pretty good. It will make
it quite a bit narrower. One might be tight. The problem we are going to
face is, even if this is platted 40' of right-of-way, all of your setbacks are
still going to be measured from the 55'. So if someone wants to build a
building on this Lot one, we are going have to make them show building
setbacks from the master street plan right-of-way. It is going to decrease
their buildable area anyway. It might be possible to adjust the lot line.
Take a look at that. A small revision that was done from the preliminary
plat also, is just the location of the tag on Lot 39 to the street. It used to
be further over to the west, I would like to include for the record a written
statement from you guys why that was modified and some of these lots
were decreased in size. So we can have that officially noted.
Kemmet: There is a spring right there and the Corps of Engineers did not want
disturb it, so we had to alter the shape and configuration of our detention
pond and provide a 100' buffer around that spring. We had to move our
storm sewer and outlet. That was the reason.
Morgan: There are several off site assessments required and I have listed those on
page four of the report. They were discussed at preliminary plat so
nothing should be new on that. I would like to submit estimates for
sidewalks and receipts for streetlights and such at this time. We will
accept; it will speed the process of getting this platted. Let me know if
you have any other questions.
O'Neal:
Comments are pretty straightforward; I want to highlight a couple of them.
As you go through the standard notes that are attached and be sure they all
are included; confirm the MSP right-of-way; label any sidewalks that are
Technical Plat Review Committee
January 18, 2006
Page 8
going to be constructed by the developer; on your street table, if you could
revise it to show the widths of the right-of-way dedicating 35' from center
line on Salem and 45' or 55' for Rupple. You are only do half
improvements, so one half of the street. Also put the green space and
sidewalk width for those streets. If you could you add a handicap crossing
at the southeast corner of Lot 34 to Lot 27, due to the fact that you cannot
construct the sidewalk on the north side of Clearwood at this time.
Patterson: In 2005, you guys were approved to mitigate and that was going to be an
amount of 130 2" caliper trees. From what I could tell from the old
reports, it looks like you want to do a combination of onsite planting and
money in lieu of. I have spoken with Amy about getting a planting plan
together. It is going to be similar to one of the last projects you had. I will
need a tree mitigation planting plan before Subdivision — a couple copies
of that. We will need to determine how many trees we can get on the site
and what the remainder will be and that will be paid money in lieu.
McGee: Greg McGee of Ozarks Electric. On 34-38, we will need a 20' UE,
convert that building setback to UE. I have got this plat marked that will
give it to you. This final doesn't show any of the crossings we discussed
during preliminary.
Kemmet: We don't put them on the final plat; we put them on the as builds. But you
would like to see those.
McGee: I would love to see those because we already have this designed according
to the preliminary.
Kemmet: We call them quads, but I've heard now you guys want six conduits
instead of four.
McGee: Yes, six four inch.
Kemmet: I'm not sure that's what they put in there.
McGee: I will give you this. Up here in front of these lots, it looks like we have all
20' UEs, we need 25' in order to accommodate everybody. Water and
sewer is in the easement as well. Anywhere in front.
Kemmet: Lots 18 through 25 there. The rest look like they have 25'.
McGee: There are quite a few of them that need to be converted to 25' UE. Make
that combination setback. I think that design will work for all of us.
Garner: These revisions are due January 25`h by 10 a.m.
Technical Plat Review Committee
January 18, 2006
Page 9
LSD 05-1827: Large Scale Development (WESTERN SIZZLIN, 557): Submitted by
CRAFTON TULL & ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at 3070 W 66 ST., HWY
62 W and ONE MILE ROAD. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE
COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 3.32 acres. The request is to approve an
8,348 SF restaurant and a 5,000 SF retail building on the property.
Hood:
Fulcher:
Scott Hood with Crafton Tull and represent the owners of Western Sizzlin.
Some of these comments are from the first meeting we had. On the first
page, the bottom comment I made was regarding those zoning lines. I do
need to speak with Jeremy — I guess he spoke with the owners regarding
those. On the second page, the adjacent zoning looks like some of it is the
old R-1 as opposed to the RSF-4 and some of the commercial zoning is
incorrect. If you would correct that. Include the plat page number. Show
the 6' sidewalk along the right-of-way on the frontage of the property.
Regarding the conditional use we spoke about, the tree preservation
numbers — I believe Sarah will make some comments about — it may be
difficult for Planning Staff to support that additional parking when we
have such low numbers for preservation.
Hood: But the change there, we are not adding any asphalt, it is basically just
moving this out and putting parking up front.
Fulcher: We will evaluate it with what's been changed on the tree preservation.
Fifty-five feet of right-of-way dedication is required by warranty deed.
On your parking calculations it says that there are 144 in the northeast
corner where there are five spaces sitting there. There are actually 143.
Only 134 will be allowed. (30%) I think part of the problem is that the
Western Sizzlin building shows two different square footages — one shows
9,000 plus and the other in the application shows around 8,500. That
could be the difference. We need to verify that. The entrance drive
should not exceed 39'. It is shown a little over 40' right now. Minimum
of five bike racks would be required within 50' of a public entry — show
those locations. Prior to building permit, we will need cut sheets for all
outdoor lighting. For the screening from the neighbors to the north, we
will be requiring a privacy fence along the north property line and
probably a good number of trees. We will look at the spacing and
numbers on those.
Hood:
Fulcher:
We were hoping to use some of the mitigation back there.
The elevations as discussed the first time look good with the restaurant
building. The retail building, though, the front of it (east side) looks good.
The south and west side which are going to be very visible from the right-
of-way really need more articulation. There are crape myrtle species
Technical Plat Review Committee
January 18, 2006
Page 10
O'Neal:
shown on quite a few of the required landscaped areas. Those should be
replaced with medium to large specie shade trees, required by ordinance.
Along the front between the right-of-way of the parking lot, there should
be continuous planting of shrubs. There are some groupings, but there is
also a large amount of shrubs shown along the west property line that
aren't require; you could move those down to fill in those spaces. That
would cover the parking lot requirements.
On number two, you need to show the sidewalk along the right-of-way per
the MSP and show that continuously to the drives. We need a grading
plan that has every item from the grading plan checklist. If you would,
revise that. Label the size of the existing sewer main that runs along 62.
Extend that water main — stub it out to where the some of the west side of
the drive, so if we come back in in the future and extend it, we don't have
to cut the drive.
Ferguson: Scott, I gave you some of my comments. They are pretty lengthy. A lot
of them are from the last technical plat review. You just gave me this
plan, so some of it might already be revised. I know there are a few things
that I still will need. I need you to identify the areas for on-site storage
and delivery. In looking at this plan, I have strong feelings 16 to 4 is a
pretty big drop in percentage and even if we could try to get or work one
more of these trees into an island. I'm looking at tree #65, if you would
look at that. It is a hickory, which typically do a little bit better that oak
species when it comes to disturbance. It is in excellent condition and high
priority for preservation and it is only 18" so it is still smaller than some of
the other ones on the site. It is very close in proximity to an island — I
wonder if there is any way we can incorporate it. There are some more
near Western Sizzlin that are smaller oak species that we could look at. I
would feel better supporting something if we could get the number up a
little bit more, so it might take a meeting. It might mean losing a parking
space, which I know is a goal that you are trying to avoid, but I would
encourage you to look at more options.
Hood: I will meet with you on that.
Sulliven: We probably should get together. You show service for Western Sizzlin
off the back, which is probably a single-phase line. I don't know what
you're requirements were. But we probably will come along the front the
east side and come back in there. The proposed retail, that overhead
electric line is Ozarks Electric. They are just crossing the country there.
That would have to be served from the front on our line. Before you
install any conduits or even if we decide to come up the west side and go
across the drive in the back, you would have to have conduits there. Let's
Technical Plat Review Committee
January 18, 2006
Page 11
get together and discuss the service requirements and the best route for
both of us.
Moore: This is going to be green space behind the Western Sizzlin on the north
side?
Hood: Yes.
Moore: I should be able to feed the Western Sizzlin from that. And as long as we
maintain that 20' UE along the west side, we should be good. I would like
to see where you have your exit point on the northwest point. If you
would put a three or four phase.
Sulliven: If we had to go this way, we'd want a three phase. We probably wouldn't
come up this way, because it is already congested with the overhead line.
I didn't catch that. Where are you going?
Hood: Right now we are trying to have cross access and the other property.
Sulliven: I'm sure you'd be concerned about changing elevation there for clearance
on the line.
Moore: Yes, any cut or relocation on our part would be at the owner's expense.
Moore: I don't think we are interested in SWEPCO going any further than this
retail space.
Hood: On that 20' UE, we may try to move that to a 15' so we can get some of
our mitigated trees in there.
Moore: That's not going work. You already have an existing overhead line.
Hood: Back there, was is the easement on it?
Moore: You talking about the west side?
Hood: The north side.
Sulliven: It is off the property.
Moore: The properties on the north side, do you know if they easement along the
back?
Hood: We are looking into the easement.
Technical Plat Review Committee
January 18, 2006
Page 12
Sulliven: Traditionally there is not. What the concern is, if you decide to take
service there and we put a transformer in the back, you need a 10 x 10
space there and then working space around it — I forget the dimensions —
5' off the building, or 3'. You are getting close there. And then you have
to have space in front of it for operating. We should talk about it before
you release it.
Hood:
Well even if we came in from the east and got it to where you need to set
you stuff, then reduce the easement there. Once again, there are several
trees we could save.
Sulliven: I think we are mostly going to be concerned with the northeast corner. We
are going to maintain that line, if you are going to count it as mitigation,
we would probably whack it down some day. It is possible to reduce it if
we stay on the east side — go up in the corner and put a transformer there.
We can work it out.
Boles:
We do have an existing 4" line running east and west on the north side of
62 there. If that needs to be relocated, it will be done at the developer's
expense. The site locations that you are showing for gas meters are fine.
McGee: Just because of the nature of this thing, is there any way we could label
those overhead power lines? The one on the west side is ours, everything
else if AEP. So anyone who is working there will know whom to contact.
Garner: Any comments. These revisions are due January 25th by 10 a.m.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:45 A.M.