Loading...
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.