Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-01-07 - Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF TECHNICAL PLAT REVIEW A meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee was held on Tuesday, January 7, 1997 at 9:00 a.m. in room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. UTILITY REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT: Dennis Burrack, Rick Evans, and Andy Calloway. STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Jim Beavers, Dawn Warrick, Rich Lane, Heather Woodruff, Chuck Rutherford, Beth Sandeen, Perry Franklin, and Mickey Jackson. Item`LSD96-42.00i)RIO BRAVO CANTINA (pp. 213) The first item on the agenda was submitted by Butler, Rosenbury & Associates for property located north of Millsap Road and west of N. College Street. The property is zoned C-2 (Thoroughfare Commercial) and contains approximately 1.95 acres. Comments from the following were presented: STAFF: 911 Coordinator -Jim Johnson -575 - Solid Waste Division- Cheryl Zotti-443-3400 Cul-de-sac: Street Width: Container Location: Container Pad: Screening: The Solid Waste Division will not open gates. It will be the restaurant's responsibility to open the gate. Three sided screening is recommended. Mr. Butler stated the owner preferred to have the gates and would coordinate with Solid Waste to provide access. Landscape Administrator- Beth Sandeen-575-8308 Tree Preservation &/or Replacement: the trees proposed along the north property line will need to be shifted approximately 8-10' to the north due to existing easements and existing gas line. Rare Trees ID'd or Statement: Location of Utilities, Easements, ROW: Location for Storage, Cement Wash-out, etc.: Tree Protection Specifications: Other Landscaping Requirements: The landscaping currently meets Parking Lot and Commercial • Technical Plat Review January 7, 1997 Page 2 Design Standard Landscaping requirements; however if shared access and the number of required parking spaces change the landscaping would have to be amended. Mr. Butler stated they would move the trees and amend the landscaping plan if they needed to. Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator- Chuck Rutherford -575-8291 Sidewalks. A minimum 6' sidewalk (continuous through the driveway) with a 10' green space between the curb and sidewalk would be required along Millsap Road. Trails: Location of Utilities, Easements, ROW: Comments: The sidewalks need to be shown on the plan and in the legend. Mr. Butler commented the existing sidewalks was 5' and there would be a jog in the walk if he were to place it as requested. Mr. Rutherford responded the new ordinance passed in September required a 6' sidewalk along Millsap. He would need to taper the sidewalk to meet the existing walk Mr. Butler stated one of the sidewalks did not continue from the drive to the property line. He asked if he was to build on the adjacent owner's property. Mr. Rutherford replied the City would have to contact the adjacent property owner. Ms. Little stated they would have to make the sidewalk join up, the jog would happen on his • property. Mr. Rutherford stated the City would have to get the adjacent property owner to build the sidewalk to their property line. Mr. Butler stated he would build the sidewalk so the adjacent property owner would have to make the transition. • Traffic -Perry Franklin- 575-8228 Street Names. Street Lights: Comments: Parks -Nancy Dugwyler- 444-3472 Land Dedication Requirement: Money in Lieu: Vehicle access to Park Land: Pedestrian Access Easements: Drainage through Park: Planning -Dawn Warrick- 575-8267 Plat Information: Label adjacent zoning, add plat page 213 to title block, dimension rights-of- way from centerline, add sidewalks and fire hydrants to legend, adjust building setback as necessary to reflect new right-of-way on Millsap- see street requirements comments. Proposed & Existing Street rights of way and easements: Millsap is designated as a collector on the Master Street Plan requiring a total of 70' of right-of-way minimum, 35' from centerline with • Technical Plat Review January 7, 1997 Page 3 • • 6' sidewalks and minimum 10' green space. Maximum curb width for a single ingress/egress is 24' or 12' per aisle (plan shows 30')- reduce the entrance to 24' and increase the turning radius to 45' or 50' to accommodate truck access. Parking Requirements: A standard parking stall is 9' X 19', a waiver will be necessary for the excess parking- 1 space per 4 seats plus 20% is maximum by ordinance. Subdivision of Land: Site Specific Information: Other requirements: This subdivision is exempt from Design Overlay District requirements. Provide letter requesting parking waiver as discussed in previous comments. COMMERCIAL DESIGN STANDARDS Site Development Standards: Refrigerator compressors are not screened on the back of the building. Site coverage calculations are needed for the amount of developed vs. undeveloped land. Shared access with properties to east and west is requested. Design Elements Guidelines for Commercial Structures: Need color rendered elevation of main facade showing landscaping. Mr. Butler asked if the right-of-way was the property line. Ms. Warrick stated it would become the property line. Mr. Butler commented there was a 5' right-of-way easement shown on the survey plat. The actual property line was not 35' from the centerline of Millsap. Ms. Warrick explained the right-of-way line would become 35' from the centerline of Millsap. It would require the dedication of additional right-of-way. Mr. Butler asked if that had happened on the other properties. Ms. Little stated it had changed during the preliminary plat. This was an additional change. Mr. Butler commented his client was paying a lot of money per square foot and if they were giving up property they would like the seller to give them some money back. Ms. Little responded they were giving up property; it was a dedication. They should negotiate that with the seller. Mr. Butler stated they would show the 35' from the centerline to the new right-of-way line. He asked when the actual dedication process would occur. Ms. Warrick explained it occurred on the easement plat. It was filed as part of the easement plat. The easement plat was required prior to the issuance of a building permit. After the as -builds were turned in they compared it to the easement plats and filed it if there were no discrepancies. She added it would change their building setbacks, but it would not change the placement of their building. She commented the property owner to the west was listed as Brewer investment company. She asked when they had check the property owner. Mr. Butler stated they had just done it and it was correct. Ms Warrick stated the maximum curb width for a single ingress and egress is a 24' cut. Mr. Butler requested a three lane entrance. They were wanting two lanes out and one lane in. Ms. Warrick replied it would require a median. Mr. Lane added there would be a 10' median, making the total width 46'. 3 • Technical Plat Review January 7, 1997 Page 4 Mr. Butler stated they did not have 46'. They were wanting to put in a 30' drive. They had been using 30' for three 10' lanes. He asked the process for requesting a waiver. Ms. Warrick explained they would need his request in writing, which would be presented to the Planning Commission. She added the stalls were 9' X 18' in the parking lot. The City's standard parking lot was 9' X 19'. Mr. Butler replied they would change the parking lay out to meet the requirement. Ms. Warrick suggested he add the smaller parking spaces to the waiver request. Mr. Butler responded he would add it to his waiver request. Ms. Warrick stated the parking was calculated over the allowed amount. He would have to justify his request or remove some of the spaces. Mr. Butler responded the parking was marginal for the volume the restaurant would generate The owners did not like having their clients parking in adjacent parking lots They tried to handle as much parking as possible on site. They would request a waiver for the additional parking. He presented a layout of the interior of the building. Ms Warrick commented the waivers would be reviewed by the Planning Commission. She asked if they had determined where their signage would be located. • Mr. Butler thought they would locate it in the rear off of they Bypass. The only additional signage proposed would be located on the building. Ms Warrick reviewed the Commercial Design Standards. The refrigeration compressors were not screened along the back of the building. Mr. Butler stated they would screen them or relocate them on the roof behind a parapet wall. Ms. Warrick stated they were also looking at the possibility of shared access to property owners to the east and the west. Mr. Butler stated the owners did not want shared access. They did not want to encourage their customers to park in other parking lots, especially since they were not similar businesses. Ms. Little stated the City encouraged it. Ms. Warrick continued it made it easier for other people to move around. Mr. Butler responded the way the properties were laid out there was not much access possible. Ms. Warrick stated he would have to eliminate a few parking spaces on each side Mr. Butler stated they preferred not too. He added access easements were normally filed when the plats were approved. They would have to obtain access easements from adjacent property owners. The access would not benefit his client and could create more problems. Ms. Warrick commented they were needing a color rendering of the main facade showing the landscaping. Mr. Butler stated he had sent Ms. Langley a complete set of photos of a similar facility in Springfield. Ms Warrick stated they needed to have something for the Planning Commissioners. Mr. Butler suggested making color copies of the photos for the Planning Commissioners. • Ms. Warrick stated they needed an actual drawing with the landscaping shown. Mr. Butler stated they would do that. • • • Technical Plat Review January 7, 1997 Page 5 Ms. Warrick stated she would need 12 copies of the color renderings showing the main facade facing Millsap, showing the landscaping. Fire- Mickey Jackson -575-8364 Fire Hydrant Spacing: Fire Hydrant locations. Water Main Sizing: Water Main Looping: Water Main Location: General Street Design: Comments: No comments or requirements. Developer should consider a sprinkler system for restaurant, but it was not a requirement. Mr. Butler stated the restaurant was fully sprinkled. Engineering- Jim Beavers- 444-3418 Water -Preliminary: Sewer -Preliminary: Preliminary Grading: Preliminary Drainage: Street -Preliminary: Comments: Fire protection, including additional mains and fire hydrants, shall meet the Fire Chief's recommendations. All improvements shall meet the City's latest criteria and are subject to additional review. Verify that the 30' entrance drive is allowable Preliminary grading and drainage plan is acceptable- supplement with erosion control measures per the ordinances for final submittal. Ms. Warrick suggested removing the parking spaces directly off the entry for saftey. UTILITIES No comments from utilities. SWEPCO- Dennis Burrack-973-2308 Mr. Burrack stated there was an existing transformer between Rio Bravo and Eye Center which would serve this. Service had been placed underground several years ago to serve the lots. Rio Bravo would have to run all of the conduit and conductors from the transformer pad to their building It was set up for CT metering pad with conduits already installed in it for the metering side. There were some conduits for secondary stubbed out toward this lot. They would have to get with an electrical contractor to find exactly what requirement he would need on that. SWEPCO contractors would install them under the transformers. He added this had been put in under an easement on the original plat and he did not see the easement on the plat. Mr Butler commented it looked like there was a joint easement with a 42" culvert. Mr. Burrack did not believe it was shown correctly. Mr. Beavers suggested they have Mr. Milholland look into it. Mr. Burrack stated they needed to verify the easements and the placement of the pipe and the s • Technical Plat Review January 7, 1997 Page 6 • transformer. He believed they were not over the top of it, there were on the side of it. He added if they were going to do any cutting or digging to contact Call -One. Ozark Electric Cooperatives- Mike Phipps- 521-2900 No Comment. SW Bell- Andy Calloway -442-3170 Mr. Calloway informed them there was a major telephone cable running along the north property line and any adjustments or relocation of that facility would be at the owners expense. There was an existing above ground telephone station on the northeast and the northwest property. He would prefer coming from the northeast corner. They would need to provide two 2" conduits into the building. He would also need a plywood 3/4" backboard to mount their terminal on in an appropriate place inside. TCA Cable- Kevin Leflar- 521-7730 Request same easement considerations as power and telephone. If the owner wished to have cable TV they needed to provide a 2" conduit to specified location which could be determined with a meeting with Mr. Leflar. Arkansas Western Gas- Rick Evans- 521-1141 Mr. Evans stated the easements were shown were fine. There was an existing line on the north side of the property. They would service the property off that line. The meter would be installed around the northeast corner. Their plumber would be responsible for installing a line from there to the building. He would need to know the gas load of the building. Ms. Warrick stated the revisions would need to be turned in by 10:00 Monday. They would need 37 sets and a revised disk. G • Technical Plat Review January 7, 1997 Page 7 Item: PP96-6.30: CHARLESTON PLACE, A PUD (pp 370) The next item on the agenda was submitted by Greg House for property located north of Mission Blvd and east of Old Wire Road. The property is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and contains approximately 12.84 acres with 51 proposed lots Comments from the following were presented: STAFF: Mr. Beavers made the comment he was willing to proceed with this plat, if the utility companies were comfortable. He continued if the detention ponds were drawn to scale. They would cover part of the lots, part of alleys and part of the easements. They needed to be designed and redrawn. He was willing to let it proceed with his comments, if the other utilities were. Mr. House explained there would be some minor adjustments. The lots did not have to be as deep as they were shown. Mr. Calloway stated his plan was to have front lot service due to all the other utilities in the rear. • He did not think it would be prudent for them to be in the rear of the lots. Mr. Beavers thought pond #1 was okay, but the other two did not match the drainage report. Mr. House defended one of the ponds barely touched an alley and he did not see that as being a problem. Lots 22-24 could be adjusted. Ms. Warrick asked if that would effect any of the utilities enough that they needed to postpone the item. Mr. Burrack stated his plan was similar to Southwestern Bells. Mr. Calloway suggested giving their comment so Mr. House could make the necessary adjustments. 911 Coordinator -Jim Johnson Solid Waste Division- Cheryl Zotti-443-3400 Cul-de-sac: Solid Waste Division did not recommend or support the cul-de-sacs with islands. The cul-de-sacs would be almost impossible to service if there was any parking. Street Width: Container Location: Container Pad. Screening: • Landscape Administrator- Beth Sandeen-575-8308 Tree Preservation &/or Replacement: Needed further tree preservation details at time of grading plan (final) approval. Rare Trees ID'd or Statement: Location of Utilities, Easements, ROW: Location for Storage, Cement Wash-out, etc.: • • Technical Plat Review January 7, 1997 Page 8 Tree Protection Specifications: Other Landscaping Requirements: Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator- Chuck Rutherford -575-8291 Sidewalks: a 4' sidewalk with a 5' minimum green space is required along Amber Drive and Cypress Lane. The sidewalks should be continuous through the driveways. Trails: Location of Utilities, Easements, ROW: Comments: Mr. House stated they had designed in accordance with the new Street Ordinance that allowed them to have 35' right-of-way if they provided an alley. Mr. Beavers did not believe the ordinance would allow him to have the street. Mr. House continued, even if they went to 40', 28' of pavement to 9' on each side of green space and sidewalk, they would be out of the right-of-way. The numbers did not match. Mr. Beavers stated the right-of-way was 50' for a 28' street. Ms. Warrick stated if it was a 40' right-of-way, it was 24' street. Mr. Beavers stated the ordinance limited it too 300 vehicles per day. Mr. House asked how that number was calculated. Mr. Beavers stated it was a formal traffic study. Mr. House asked under what circumstances could they design a new neighborhood with alleys.. Ms. Little commented a residential street was designed for a volume of 300-500, a residential with alley, the design service was 100-300. Mr House asked if anyone else had done this in the community. Ms Little stated they had not under this ordinance. She referred to Heritage Village on Hwy 16W which had alley behind them with public streets in front of them. Those alleys would have very low design service volume. She added it had been developed before this new standard. Mr. House stated they had intended to do that in this design. They had let the alleys loop. They had provided 20' right-of-way, but had intended a 12 pavement. Part of the way they had justified the alley was that they only had to pave 24' of street. If they had to go to 28' of street it would not be feasible. Mr. Beavers suggested he request a waiver. Ms. Little stated he would have to make his case before the Planning Commission. Traffic -Perry Franklin- 575-8228 Street Names: Street Lights: Comments: Parks -Nancy Dugwyler- 444-3472 Land Dedication Requirement: Money in Lieu: 51 single units at $300 per unit, total fees $15,300. • Vehicle access to Park Land: Pedestrian Access Easements: • • • Technical Plat Review January 7, 1997 Page 9 Drainage through Park: Planning -Dawn Warrick- 575-8264 Plat Information: Label adjacent zoning. Proposed & Existing Street rights of way and easements: All private streets must be labeled as private. Streets classified as "Residential with alley" are designed for a traffic load of 300 trips or less per day. This development will place approximately 510 trips per day (51 single family lots @ 10 trips) alone on this street without accounting for any drive through traffic Engineering suggest a standard "Local" street (28' BOC to BOC) this would change the Right-of- way requirements. Parking Requirements: See section of P.U.D. ordinance addressing paving width. If on -street parking is desired, 6 feet must be added to each side where parking is intended. Subdivision of Land: Site Specific Information: Other requirements: Any new utilities must be placed underground. Ponds shown on plat are not to scale based on the original design, they will infringe on alleys and future homeowners property. Staff would like to postpone this project in order to resolve outstanding issues prior to sending this on to the next meeting. Mr. House did not believe they would have any private streets. Ms. Warrick asked if he had planned to have any on -street parking. Mr. House referred to the Street Design stands and stated on -street parking was permitted. According to the new ordinance parking was allowed on the 24' street. They would not stop it. They would encourage it. Ms. Warrick stated they would discuss it with the Planning Commission. She noted the street standard conflicted with the Plan Unit Development Ordinance, which required an additional 6' paving for on -street parking. Mr. Beavers asked if this was still a PUD, since it had been reduced to 51 units. Mr. House stated it was still a PUD, although he did not know if they were still under the PUD ordinance. He added they needed on -street parking for guest. Mr. Beavers commented if he was allowed to have 24' streets, he would have to have on street parking because the City did not allow curb cuts on that street standard. Ms. Little suggested he needed to address the street standards to the Planning Commission. Mr. House stated it was extremely expensive to design alleys to service one lot at a time, In order to make it feasible it, they would need the narrower streets. Mr. Franklin asked if there would be standard SWEPCO street lights. Mr. House stated there would be. Fire- Mickey Jackson -575-8364 Fire Hydrant Spacing: Fire Hydrant locations: Water Main Sizing: Water Main Looping: q • Technical Plat Review January 7, 1997 Page 10 • • Water Main Location. General Street Design: Comments: Okay as proposed. Engineering- Jim Beavers- 444-3418 Water -Preliminary: The line on Cypress must be 8 inches diameter to the cul-de-sac and then loop around the cul-de-sac with a smaller line. Fire protection to meet the Fire Chiefs request. A minimum easement (or combination of ROW and easement) widths shall be 20' Sewer -Preliminary: Final design subject to additional review. Minimum easement widths (or combination of easements and ROW) shall be 20 feet and wider for sewer lines over 10 feet in depth and must allow for trenching at a 1:1 slope within the easement. The sewer line along the alley behind lots 22/23 does not allow for the 1:1 slope of the trench and the easements must be revised. Also the sewer line around the cul-de-sac does not have adequate easement to allow the excavation of the trench near the manholes. The manhole near the rear of lots 40/41 and in lots 17/16 must be accessible. Sewer lines will not be allowed in detention ponds. The existing line cannot be vacated until the new line is in service. Preliminary Grading: The plan does not reflect the ponds as designed in the drainage report and does not give an accurate layout for review. Pond no. 1, per the design report will probably work. Pond no. 2 is significantly larger and covers the alley and trail and some of the area of the trees which were promised to be kept. Pond no. 3 is much larger than shown ( approximately by a factor of 4) and will cover the alley, the trail and part of lots 22, 23, and 24. A more accurate plat, with ponds shown based upon the preliminary drainage report is needed to allow proper review. This should be required prior to plat review, but, if the other utilities are willing proceed with their review then Engineering will ask for the accurate plat between Plat Review and Subdivision Committee. The plat should also show the existing swales, the outlets from the detention ponds and how they would leave the property. Engineering had heard from adjacent property owners who were concerned about the trees on top bank of the swales. Preliminary Drainage: Street -Preliminary: Jorgensen should provide a traffic projection/report to indicate the expected design service volume. The "residential with alley" is limited to a maximum of 300 vpd and maximum speed of 15 mph. Absent any data, it is Engineerings opinion that the streets would function as "local" The residential with alley also allows parking on the street. Sanitation trucks cannot traverse the alley as shown Also note that "residential with alley" does not allow any curb cuts Jorgensen needs to shown how the traffic will flow at the intersection of Cypress and Amber. Clarify which is one-way. Comments. All designs are subject to the City's latest design criteria (water, sewer, and street) and to further review at the time construction plans are submitted. id • Technical Plat Review January 7, 1997 Page 11 Mr. House asked if could amend the plat and still stay in the process. Ms. Little though he would have to go through Plat Review to for the Planning Commission to act on it. Mr. House asked the utility representatives, if they would have any problems if he was to widen the right-of-way. Mr. Calloway did not care what he did to the width of the right-of-way as long as the utilities remained at minimum dimension. Mr. Burrack stated they would need a certain amount of space to get into the utilities and he could not put the road over them. The utilities would have to be moved back into the lots Mr. House stated the lots were plenty deep. UTILITIES SWEPCO- Dennis Burrack-973-2308 Mr. Burrack stated he would like to come in on the south property line and go all the way along the back. The way the easement waslaid out now, it was not adjacent to any of the properties. It showed a 20' easement 15' south of the property line. It would not be useable in that position. • He asked if the alley was going to be asphalt or gravel. They were going to dig it up about 27 times and if any thing went wrong they had to provide some sort of service to the property. Mr. Beavers commented they had a lot of problems with asphalt allies and did not believe they were going to approve any more asphalt allies. He thought they would have to be concrete. Mr. House clarified SWEPCO would like to be up against the property line. Mr. Burrack stated he could push the easement into each piece of property. Mr. House asked if there was an option to sleeve underneath the alley. Mr. Burrack asked if they would be individual lots, sold to individual customer. Mr. House replied yes. Mr. Burrack responded they could not serve any of the lots across public right-of-way. Mr. Evans commented the problem with serving samller lots with allies was that they often ran out of room and people often ran into their facilities. Mr. Calloway commented at Salem Village had a similar concept. The utility companies had recommended the developer show the location of each driveway on each lot, so the utility companies could coordinate. He had planned to provide service from the front of the lots to limit the possibilities of getting hit and to avoid multiple crossings He had planned to come in on the north side and make the loop. He asked Mr. House to sleeve the street for every other lot. Rear lot service wasn't totally out of the question, but based on his configuration he was not interested in rear lot service. Ms. Little commented every other lot there would be a pedestal. Mr Evans commented if he was to service from the front he would need a wider easement than what was provided because of the sidewalks and green space. He explained when there was a • front with a sidewalk and green space, there was 8' they could not use (4 sidewalk and 4' green space). They could not put anything in the green space or under the sidewalk. He would need a IZ • • Technical Plat Review January 7, 1997 Page 12 20' easement behind the sidewalk. He suggested widening the road and converting the allies into easements. Mr. House asked if he could put the easements in the lots on the north side of the alley touching the lot line. Mr. Evans stated they would need a 20' easement. Mr. House did not believe the 20' easement would hurt the lots because they were so deep. Mr. Calloway stated he would not have a problem with that because they were not going to have customers on the south side of this Normally back to back configuration he would have a problem with them. Mr. Burrack commented he would not want to have all the transforms in the front. He was trying to get into the back. When they went up and round the call, he would sit a transformer in that place and feed around in two directions. He could place the transformer in one of the larger lots and screen it. Around the cul-de-sacs he would have to stay in the front. He did not see an easy way to get to the rear Mr. House did not see why he could not service from the back. Mr. Evans did not see any problems with serving from the back as long as they could get to the alleys on the other side. Ms. Little commented the easement would not be a problem because of the 20' setback along the alley. She asked them to work with the alleys when ever possible. She suggested an internal meeting to discuss if the allies should be concrete or asphalt. She noted some of the lots were crowed and suggested driveways with two concrete runways for more room. Mr. Burrack asked why they had so much room along lots 2-21. Ms. Little stated he had a green space requirement he was trying to meet. Mr. House stated they had some extra and they might be able to adjust the south line to accommodate it. Mr. House asked what his setbacks would be. Ms. Little stated they would have to call it to the Planning Commission attention. Mr. Burrack stated he would rather have his accesseries in the rear. He would need easements from the back of the lots to the street lights, from front to back. He recommended going to each utility and getting their design on the plat. Mr. Calloway suggested Mr. House show where utility clusters would be rather then each utility laying out its own design. Ms Little asked them to provide Planning with the same information. Mr. Burrack asked him to get his design thoughts to them to make sure they could make them work. Ozark Electric Cooperatives- Mike Phipps- 521-2900 No Comments SW Bell- Andy Calloway -442-3170 • Mr. Calloway commented where Amber was going to attach to Hackberry Drive, the adjacent Windwood Development, he believed there were off site easements along there not shown on the • • Technical Plat Review January 7, 1997 Page 13 plat. He added, it might dictate what he actually had to request. Particularly in the area adjacent to lot 51. He expressed concern that the Valley Subdivision area, where the walking trail was shown, was an easement through there and their cable was through there serving back to back. His records indicated the Elmwood and Valley were adjacent. Mr. House did not believe they were adjacent. Mr. Burrack added they had an overhead power line going through there. He believed a deeded access at one time. Mr. Calloway asked him to verify the utility easements through there and if there was to show them on the plat. Mr. Beavers added, Amber Drive was showing the waterline on the edge of a 12.5' easement. He would need to change it to a 20' easement and remove the manholes from the sidewalks. Ms. Little commented at Hackberry, where the right-of-way comes in there was a small area that was in common. She suggested the property line be made the right-of-way line. To avoid it becoming a no man's land. TCA Cable- Kevin Leflar- 521-7730 Request the same easement consideration as power and telephone. Arkansas Western Gas- Rick Evans- 521-1141 Mr. Evans commented they would need some crossing under the alley. He asked to be albe to do his installation after the grading had been done but before any paving had been done. Mr Burrack added he also need some crossings. Ms Warrick stated they needed 37 copies, by 10:00 Monday. �3 • • • Technical Plat Review January 7, 1997 Page 14 Item: PP96-9.00: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR STONE BRIDGE MEADOWS (pp 568 & 607) The next item on the agenda was submitted by Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of Bill Meadows for property located north of Stone Farm Road and east of Dead Horse Mountain. Rd. The property is in the county and is currently going through rezoning/annexation process. It contains approximately 37.97 acres with 78 lots proposed. Comments from the following were presented: STAFF: 911 Coordinator -Jim Johnson - Solid Waste Division- Cheryl Zotti-443-3400 Cul-de-sac: Cul-de-sacs adequate, if 45'. Street Width: Container Location: Container Pad: Screening: Ms. Warrick asked Mr. Jorgensen to follow up with Ms. Zotti on the turning radii. Landscape Administrator- Beth Sandeen-575-8308 Tree Preservation &/or Replacement: Need further tree preservation details at time of final grading plan. Rare Trees ID'd or Statement: Location of Utilities, Easements, ROW: Location for Storage, Cement Wash-out, etc.: Tree Protection Specifications: Other Landscaping Requirements: Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator- Chuck Rutherford -575-8291 Sidewalks: Sidewalk along River Meadows Drive shall be a minimum of 4' with a minimum 6' green space between the curb and sidewalk. The sidewalks along St. Andrews Circle and River Bluff Cove will be a minimum of 4' and have a minimum 4' green space between the curb and sidewalk. All sidewalks shall be continuous through the driveways. Trails: Location of Utilities, Easements, ROW: Comments: Sidewalks need to be shown in the legend. Traffic -Perry Franklin- 575-8228 Street Names: Street Lights: Comments: i7, • • Technical Plat Review January 7, 1997 Page 15 Parks -Nancy Dugwyler- 444-3472 Land Dedication Requirement: will dedicate 1.95 acres for parks. Money in Lieu: Vehicle access to Park Land: Pedestrian Access Easements: Drainage through Park: Ms. Little asked him to show the location of the park to the Planning Commission. Mr. Jorgensen stated he would discuss the location with Parks. He added they had talked about the area by the river adjacent to Stonebridge Road. It was also possible it would be on the north side of the river. Planning -Dawn Warrick- 575-8264 Plat Information: Show adjacent zoning where applicable. Add Plat Pages 568, 569, 607 and 608 to the title block. Right of way dimensions are noted, but need to be shown on plat (dimensioned from centerline). Add sidewalk, fire hydrant and streetlight to legend. Proposed & Existing Street rights of way and easements: Highway 16 E Is designated as a principle arterial on the Master Street Plan- a total of 110' of right-of-way is required, 55' from centerline. A stub out to the south will be requested, probably between lots 46 and 47. Add River Bluff Cove information to the "Street Notes" on the plat. Subdivision of Land: Site Specific Information: Other requirements: All new utilities will have to be placed underground. A concept plat for this entire development will be required before Subdivision Committee. Information concerning sewer capacity and the possible need for improvements to lift station #19 were requested by City Engineering November 15, 1996. This information- If any improvements are necessary, they will be at the expense of the developer. Mr. Meadows commented it was his understanding that they were to provide ingress and egress for their own development. They were not effecting the current property owners have as far as their road usage. If they were to build a road, they would lose two $40,000 lots plus the money to run the road and utilities. He expressed concerns of an apartment complex being developed next to them and using the stubout to feed its traffic through the subdivision and golf coarse. Ms. Warrick stated the staff would request the stub out and it would be the Planning Commission final decision. Ms. Little suggested he provide the individual acreage and where those lot lines were. The Commission looked for connectivity when there was a substantial piece of un developed land adjacent to a development. So far they have been nonnegotiable about the issue. Fire- Mickey Jackson -575-8364 Fire Hydrant Spacing: • Fire Hydrant locations: Need one additional hydrant between lots 50 and 51. Spacing between hydrants shown on lots 48 and 53 is excessive. • Technical Plat Review January 7, 1997 Page 16 • • Water Main Sizing: Water Main Looping: Water Main Location: General Street Design. Comments: Engineering- Jim Beavers- 444-3418 Water -Preliminary: Final design subject to additional review. The 8 inch water lines shown are acceptable. Fire protection to meet the Fire Chief's request. Minimum easement (or combination of ROW and easement) widths shall be 20 feet. Sewer -Preliminary: Final design subject to additional review. Minimum easements widths (or combination of easements and ROW) shall be 20 feet and wider for sewer lines over 10 feet in depth and must also allow for trenching at a 1:1 slope within the easement. The sewer lines as presented will not allow the 1:1 trenching and comments to far into the yards to the edge of the easements at all of the curved segments such as lots 26, 69, 70, 72, 73, 18, 19, 9, 8. This line needs to be designed to follow the street and easements. The gravity sewer must extend to the north property line (Wands Sims) and to the south ( Stone Farm Road) as typical for all residential developments. Also the sewer line should extend to the east property line if a stub -out is required by the Planning Commission ( at a minimum, an easement must be provided for Mare extension of the sewer line). The sewer is not connected alone "River Bluff Cove". The "2 inch" force main is subject to further review of the calculations (seems small). It will be very hard for the City to maintain if it is behind houses on the edge of the bluff. Request that the force main be moved to follow the streets and not to be behind houses. The lift station will include SCADA charges payable to the City of approximately $8,000.00. The lift station should be moved forward if possible. The lift station cannot be in the flood plain without special design precautions. Also, the station must be on deeded property and not an easement. A paved drive to the lift station is required. Jorgensen must submit data concerning the capacity of the receiving City lift Station (no. 10) If any improvements to the receiving line or lift station are required then this expense shall be borne by the developer. Preliminary Grading and Drainage: Mr. Beavers agreed with the "concept" of no detention per the preliminary drainage report but he did not agree with he specific calculations the preliminary report and the specific inlet sizes shown on the grading and drainage plan. The drainage criteria manual (and the City's "criteria" in place prior to the drainage manual) require that " Storm water runoff shall be computed upon the total drainage basin assuming full development of the area in accordance with the zoning designation at the time of development, except that the least intense zoning allowed for this purpose is R-1. Both runoff factors and time of concentration shall be calculated on a `fully developed' basis. Re: Page II -1, Drainage Criteria manual. The "weighted C" for post development thus may not be what is shown in the preliminary report. Additionally, some provision must be made to allow for drainage from the east to continue flowing downhill to the west without harming the development. This requirement is most important for the developments adjacent to major receiving streams such as this proposal. /4 • Technical Plat Review January 7, 1997 Page 17 Generally, drainage easements will be 20 feet minimum width and separate from utility easements. Overflow swales, 100 year WSE, inlet and pipe calculations will be checked at the final design stage. Street -Preliminary: Need to see the Concept or Master plan to determine the recommendations for stub outs or off site improvements. The Planning Commission may request contributions for streets, bridges or even Highway 16/265 similar to the contribution from Bayarri for " David Lyle SD". Comments: Mr. Beavers asked how he felt about moving the force lane out of the back between lots 14 and 6 to the street where the city could maintain. Mr. Jorgensen stated they had a gravity line running along the back. Running along lot 6-14. They had placed it back there since they had a sewer line gravity running back there, they would go ahead and place the force lane back there. Mr. Beavers asked what the gravity line was to serve. Mr. Jorgensen stated the lots sloped off and they had placed them in there to serve the lots. Mr. Beavers stated the City would not approve them. Mr. Jorgensen stated they could put the sewer line in the front and put pump stations in for each lot. • Mr. Beavers stated they needed to do that. He had not realized he had a gravity line in both the front and the back. Mr. Jorgensen stated they would have individual pump stations for lots 5-14. Mr. Beavers stated there was no way the city could maintain the lines in the back yards. The EPA required the City to have truck access to the lines and there was no way to get a truck back to the lines on the slope. Mr. Jorgensen asked if they could if they fixed to slope to accommodate a truck. Mr. Beavers stated Mr. Jurgens would have to approve it. He added the lift station would have to have a paved road to it and it would have to be on property deeded to the City. He suggested moving it closer to a cul-de-sac. Mr. Jorgensen stated they would try and move it closer to the cul-de-sac, but if they did not they would provide the paved access to it. Mr. Meadows asked what a Master Plan included. Mr. Beavers explained it would be the entire golf course and future phases, the potential lot build out. Mr. Meadows stated they only owned 300 acres of the whole 1000 acres. The golf course would occupy 200 acres of that. They would only have this 40 acres and 60 acres to the southwest. Mr. Beavers asked if they had talked about 600-800 lots in the future. Mr. Meadows explained it could get to that over the next 20 years, if it developed out. If the first 100 acres, the lots would probably last 5-8 years Mr. Beavers added if the stub out was required they would have to run the water and sewer • would follow the street. If the stub out was not required. He would need to provide a utility easement in case the adjacent property owner would like to develop his property. He might want /2 • Technical Plat Review January 7, 1997 Page 18 to tie into the sewer and enlarge the lift station. Ms. Little added lots 60, 61, 75 and 76, if the lot line could come together in the rear , it could be made one point. The 65, 66, 71 and 72 made one point. It would change the configuration some, 66, 67, 70 and 71. She explained when they were so close together like that there were a lot of people who would pull from the wrong pin and they get into setback problems. UTILITIES SWEPCO- Dennis Burrack-973-2308 No comments Ozark Electric Cooperatives- Mike Phipps- 521-2900 Request 20' utility easements 10' on each side of property line between lots 6 and 7. A 20' utility easement, 10' each side of property line, between lots 23 and 24. Ms Little asked if anyone else would be needing the same. Mr. Calloway stated he would need the same. That was were the crossings were and the access to the interior. Ms. Little commented they normally went in with 15', why did they need 20'. Mr. Calloway stated they normally took 15'-20'. SW Bell- Andy Calloway -442-3170 • Mr. Calloway requested the same easements that were requested by the other utilities. He shared the same concerns relative to access off Hwy 16 to the property. They needed a utility easement adjacent to the road on either side. Relative to the canopy, he had the same concerns voice by Mr. Evans. He suggested having front lot service in the area where the canopies were instead of additional easements outside the canopy. TCA Cable- Kevin Leflar- 521-7730 Request the same easements and considerations as power and telephone companies. Arkansas Western Gas- Rick Evans- 521-1141 Mr. Evans commented between lots 1-13 where the force main was going through there and there was also a utility easement. The easement would have to be wider. When there was a sewer line they needed to have it wider. There was a lot of canopy in the rear. If they took the 20-25' easement through there, they would have to clear it. Mr. Jorgensen thought it was for the most part south of the canopy. Mr. Evans comment there was the same problem on lots 49-56 there was existing canopy that would have to be removed. If they wanted to keep the canopy they would have to move the easement outside the canopy. They did not want to hurt a bunch of trees, but they would have to have it cleared. On lots 1 and 2 they were showing a 15' easement behind, they would need at least 25'. From Hwy 16 back to lot 1, r56 one side or the other where the right-of-ways were could they get an easement from one side to the other. Mr. Jorgensen stated he would talk to the adjacent property owners to see if they could get that. Ms. Warrick commented where --Drive met Hwy 16, was there a 50' right-of-way. What they • were doing was creating lot lines. The building on one of property's to the north would put it 15' from there and on the south there a building 10' from the right-of-way that created non - 7? Technical Plat Review • January 7, 1997 Page 19 conforming structures. Mr. Lane asked if it was existing road or right-of-way. From our records there was no property line there. This showed to be a separate owner and they were curious how that was created. Mr. Jorgensen stated it was created for the specific purpose for access to this property. He did not know if it was labeled as such. He thought part of the garage was on the property line. Ms. Little commented if their house was destroyed in any way they would not be able to rebuild or repair in that location without a variance from the board of adjustments. Mr Evan continued on lots 33 and 34 out by Old Farm Road where he was showing 25' setback, 20-25' of that could be made into utility easement so they could come across there where he was showing utility crossing. Gas easement 50' easement would be wider than 50'. There was three lines in there. What they would do was take the two outside lines and would take 25' off the outside lines. It could go anywhere from 75' to 100' wide. Ms. Warrick comment there would be two unbuildable lots created by the easement. Lots 26 and 38. There would not be enough buildable area to do anything with Mr Evan stated they were going to cross the width the sewer line they would have to go out and uncover the gas line. He would have to adjust the sewer line because he could not afford to move the gas lines. Ms. Little asked about putting the street in over the lines. Was there any relocation required for • that. Mr. Evans stated they would work with them on the elevation of the lines. There was not problems putting a street over the top of it. They would have to work with the people doing the golf course there were a few holes where the greens were over the top of their lines. If they had to repair the lines it would not be at the gas company's expense. Any kind of a grade situation they would have to adjust their grade to accommodate the existing lines. Mr. Jorgensen asked when he could have some one out there to locate the lines. Mr. Evans stated he could locate the lines in the next couple of days if it did not snow. He added normally there would be one line and it would have a 50' easement. On this particular line there was a blanket easement, which he would probably have to have released on this thing. When they had a blanket easement they normally tried to take to two outside lines and take 25' off them. If they were building a house the insurance company would want it at Least 25' off the lines. Mr. Beavers stated he would not be able to excavate down in the bunkers in the course with the high pressure lines. Mr. Meadows stated most of the bunkers and greens were elevated, very few went down into the ground. • Ms. Warrick stated they needed revisions by 10:00 Monday, 37 copies and revised disk. /2 • • 41 PLAT REVIEW 1997 AIRWAYS (LS 97-30.00) 220 ARKANSAS BOOK SERVICE (LSD 97-24.00) 298 ARNOLD/SPURLIN (LS 97-25.00) 186 BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO (LS 97-21.00) 154 BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO (LSD 97-12.00) 130 BRUCE HAUSER (LS 97-24.00) 183 BRYAN WALKER III (LS 97-34.00) 292 C & S CUSTOM HOMES (PLA 97-27.00) 305 CAROLN BASSETT (LS 97-20.00) 141 CHARLESTON PLACE P.U.D. (PP96-6.40) 20 CHARLESTON PLACE PUD (PP 96-6.40) 72 CHRISTINA REDMAN (PLA 97-21.00) 246 CIRCUIT CITY (LSD 97-18.00) 189 CUSTOM BUILDING PRODUCTS (AKA CANTERBURY) (LS 97-6 AND 97-7) 64 DAVID LYLE VILLAGE (FP 97-4.00) 243 DEERFIELD PLACE RESUBMITTAL (PP 97-3.00) 60 DENNY'S (EASEMENT PLAT) 106 DOLLAR GENERAL (LSD 97-14.00) 264 DOLLAR GENERAL (LSD 97- AND LS 97-) 136 DOLLAR GENERAL (LS 97-19.00) 260 DON GINGER (PLA 97-12.00) 139 EDDIE COOKSEY (LS 97-29.00) 217 EDWARD FEDOSKEY (LS 98-2.00) 312 ERIC AND TAMMIE HARPER (LS 97-16.10) 143 FAYETTEVILLE WAREHOUSE (LSD 97-5.00) 94 FAYETTEVILLE WAREHOUSE (LSD 97-5.00) 304 FIELDSTONE SUBDIVISION (FP 97-3.00) 122 GARY MARS (LS 97-26.00) 207. GENE ARNOLD, JR. (LS 97-11.00) 109 GOLD METAL ESTATES (PP 97-2.00) 57 GRACE HUNT (LS 97-22.00) 155 GREG SMITH (LS 97-9.00) 118 GREGORY KEN SMITH (LS 97-9.00) 86 HAZEN (LS 97-4.00) 48 HMT OF FAYETTEVILLE (LSD 98-2.00) 314 JAMES GADDY (PLA 98-1.00) 310 JIM WATSON (LS 97-23.00) 159 JIM KIMBROUGH (LS 97-27.00) 211 JOY, VERA, AND BETTY SHARP (PLA 97-15.00) 172 LANCASTER/ORLT (PLA 97-29.00) 306 LOT 9 SPRING PARK SUBDIVISION (LS 97-33.00) 256 • LOTS 4R &7 SPRING CREEK (LSD 97-19.00) 234 MARGE BRANCH (PLA 97-18.00) 180 MCDONALD'S (PLA 97-11.00) 134 MEADOWBROOK APARTMENTS (EP 97-2.00) 240 MEADOWBROOKS APARTMENTS (LSD 97-6.10) 149 MEADOWBROOKS APARTMENTS (LSD 97-6.00) 100 MEADOWLANDS PHASE III (97-8.00) 202 MONTE AND FAYE ALTER (LS 97-12.00) 112 NELL LANCE (PLA 97-22.00) 248 NEW SCHOOL (PLA 97-6.00) 67 NORTH PARK PLACE, PHASE II (LSD 97-15.00) 144 NORTHHILLS MEDICAL CENTER (PLA 97-10.00) 135 NORTHWEST MEDICAL IMAGING (LSD 97-16.00) 169 PANELS BY MIKEY (LSD 97-1.00) 51 PARADISE VALLEY CABIN (PLA 97-24.00) 269 PROCTOR AND GAMBLE (LSD 97-4.00) 90 PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR TMC AND ASSOCIATES (PLA97-1.00) 25 RIDENOURE/KELLY (PLA 97-4.00) 63 RIO BRAVO CANTINA (LSD96-42.00) 1 ROGER WILKINS (PLA 97-2.00) 45 ROWLAND/ WITT (PLA 97-5.00) 47 RUDKO/LATTA (PLA 97-16.00) 175 • SALEM VILLAGE (FP 97-1.00) 81 SAM AND MAXINE WITT (LS 97-28.00) 214 SERENITY PLACE (PP 97-7.00) 195 SERENITY PLACE (PP 97-7.00) 250 SHELBY ROGERS (PLA 97-25.00) 288 STAFFMARK (LSD 97-22.00) 282 STONEYKIRK SUBDIVISION (PP 97-6.00) 164 SUMMERFIELD SUBDIVISION PHASE I (PP 97-9.00) 270 SUMMIT DEVELOPMENT (LSD 97-20.00) 228 SUMMIT DEVELOPMENT (LSD 97-20.00) 277 SUNBRIDGE SOUTH (LSD 98-1.00) 307 SUNBRIDGE CENTER (LSD 97-3.00) 77 SUPERIOR CAR WASH (LSD 97-2.00) 68 SUPERIOR CAR WASH 2 (LSD 97-23.00) 294 SUSAN CRONIN (LS 97-3.00) 42 TIPTON LOT SPLIT (LS97-2.00) 39 TOM JANUARY (LS 97-18.00 AND LSD 97-13.00) 126 TOMMY BURCH (PLA 97-17.00) 177 TUNE CONSTRUCTION (PLA 97-13.00) 140 WANDA SIMS (PLA 97-23.00) 289 WAYNE KELLER (LS 97-32.00) 252 • WEDINGTON PLACE (RFP 96-12.10) 224 ZACHARY (LS 97-13.00) 115 ZIO'S RESTAURANT (LSD 97-21.00) 271 ZIO'S RESTAURANT (PLA -20.00) 271