Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-02-10 - Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE TECHNICAL PLAT REVIEW COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee was held on February 10, 1999 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED PP99-2: Altus Addition, pp 258 PP99-3: Robinwood Subdivision, pp298 LSD99-5: Walgreens, pp 290 MEMBERS PRESENT Mark Beasley Rick Evans Kevin Lefler Mike Phipps STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Kim Hesse Mickey Jackson Janet Johns Alett Little Sid Norbash Chuck Rutherford Dawn Warrick ACTION TAKEN Forward to Subdivision Forward to Subdivision Forward to Subdivision None MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF ABSENT Perry Franklin Ron Petrie Kim Rogers • • • Minutes of Technical Plat Review February 10, 1999 Page 2 PP99-2: PRELIMINARY PLAT ALTUS ADDITION, pp 258 This item was submitted by Robert Schmitt of RNS Enterprises for property located north of Highway 45 and east of Altus Road. The property is in the planning growth area and contains approximately 7.01 acres with 4 lots proposed. Robert Schmitt and Dave Jorgensen were present on behalf of the project. STAFF COMMENTS Cheryl Zotti - Solid Waste No comments since this is in the county. Warrick. If the property is ever incorporated into the City limits, a turnaround must be provided for trash trucks. Kim Hesse - Landscape Administrator Tree preservation and landscape requirements do not apply to county projects. Chuck Rutherford - Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator Sidewalks are not required outside the city limits. Perry Franklin - Traffic Superintendent No comments. Kim Rogers - Park Department No comments. Dawn Warrick. Development Coordinator All submittal requirements were adequate. All plat requirements were adequate with the exception that plat page 258 needs to be added to the title block and to the plat as well. Regarding lot requirements, this project was heard by the County Planning Board for compliance with county regulations in regard to lot size. • Minutes of Technical Plat Review February 10, 1999 Page 3 Little: Have we gotten that approval, yet? Warrick. I know this went to County Planning immediately after you turned it in because of planning issues. We need to know the results of their meeting. Jorgensen: Actually, this didn't need to go to County Planning. This was administrative. Warrick: Do you have a sign off? Jorgensen: There is no sign off. Bob told me that he did meet with Sarah and the only comment that Sarah had was that we may want to have this little stretch of property come out from Lots 3 and 4 to make that just a common easement. I'm not sure that is of any great advantage. Little: We think it needs to go all the way through and actually be extended. Jorgensen: She agreed with that but instead of this being a part of Lot 3 and this part being a part of Lot 4 just to let this be an access and utility easement all the way back. • Warrick. Basically, 3 and 4 are currently flag lots. Little: I don't think it matters since this is a 40 feet access and utility easement. They can put a drive anywhere they want to. • Jorgensen: That was the only thing they commented on. Little: Now why did it not require County approval? Jorgensen: This doesn't constitute a subdivision per their new regulations. Warrick. Usually they have to fill out the exemption form. Little: We get a form. Jorgensen: I'll get that for you. Warrick: We had a question regarding the right of way for Office Drive. Part of the property is on either side of the right of way. We would request that from the easternmost right of way line to the property from that point west be dedicated as right of way for Office Drive. It's kind of a triangular piece anyway. • • • Minutes of Technical Plat Review February 10, 1999 Page 4 Jorgensen: Yes. Warrick: That basically means your property line runs to that right of way line as it currently exists. Little: That has to be a dedication to the County, too. Warrick: On your 20 feet access and utility easement that runs between the north and south, we need those easement lines to extend to the east property line. Ron Petrie - Engineering General comments are that all designs are subject to the City's latest design criteria. Review for plat approval is not approval of public improvements and all proposed improvements are subject to further review at the time construction plans are submitted. Regarding water, is the existing 2 inch waterline along Altus Drive sufficient for the existing and proposed users? Provide hydraulic calculations. Separate service lines will have to be provided for each new lot. These service lines can not cross over adjacent lots Regarding sanitary sewer, the review and approval of the individual septic systems for these lots is to be provided by Washington County. Little: This really is not meeting our standards for a tandem lot. Our standards for tandem lot require 25 feet access. Tandem lot comes under zoning. I don't even know if we can enforce that in the county. Conklin: I thought originally we were talking about a right of way going to the east. Little: It actually needs to be a right of way. I think Conklin: It talks about access. Jorgensen: How about if I call it access and right of way. It doesn't make any difference. It was intended to be a right of way. Little: Right of way and utility easement. UTILITY COMMENTS Mike Phipps - Ozarks Electric No comments. • • • Minutes of Technical Plat Review February 10, 1999 Page 5 Rick Evans - Arkansas Western Gas We need 20 feet off the back side of Lot 2 as a utility easement. Kevin Lefler - TCA Cable No comment. Further Discussion Warrick: Our Southwestern Bell representative is not present this morning so please contact him. Little: Lot 2 will need approval by the County Health Department for septic. Warrick: In order for this to proceed to the Subdivision Committee, we will need 37 copies by 10 a.m. on Wednesday, February 17. • • • Minutes of Technical Plat Review February 10, 1999 Page 6 PP99-3: PRELIMINARY PLAT ROBINWOOD SUBDIVISION, pp 298 This item was submitted by Robert Schmitt of RNS Enterprises for property located at Highway 45, west and south of Son's Chapel. The property is in the planning growth area and contains approximately 7.40 acres with 7 lots proposed. Robert Schmitt and Dave Jorgensen were present on behalf of the project. STAFF COMMENTS Cheryl Zotti - Environmental Affairs Administrator The cul de sac was adequate. The street width was adequate. Kim Hesse - Landscape Administrator Tree preservation and landscape requirements do not apply to county projects. Chuck Rutherford - Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator Sidewalks are not required outside the city limits. Perry Franklin - Traffic Superintendent Woodcrest Drive already exists in Fayetteville. Check with Jim Johnson at 575-8380 for a new street name. No street lights are shown on the plat. We recommend one approximately every 300 feet at the end of the street and one at the intersection. No sight distance problems were noted. Schmitt: Is there a Robinwood? Jorgensen: Yes. Schmitt: Woodcrest is what Mr. Johnson gave us. Little: Perry would know because he puts up signs. Maybe that's a private drive. Double check that, please. Schmitt: That's no problem. Minutes of Technical Plat Review February 10, 1999 Page 7 Kim Rogers - Park Operations Coordinator No comments. Dawn Warrick - Development Coordinator All submittal requirements were adequate All plat requirements were adequate with the exception that the plat page 298 needed to be added to the title block and the name of the developer and the name of the current owner needed to be added to the plat All street requirements were adequate. All lot requirements are adequate. Warrick: Do we have County approval on this? Jorgensen: I don't know that the minutes of the meeting have been made up yet. We went through the County meeting last Thursday night. Their comments were they would like to see the 40 feet easement on the south end be increased to 50 feet. Little: Is that right of way, too? Jorgensen: Yes. The south boundary line is 457 feet. Warrick: So the distance is off. Jorgensen: Which would cause it to be somewhat short of the southwest comer. Warrick: So this corner is not -- Jorgensen: It's back about 20 feet and then it goes straight from there up to where the jog is. Little: The fob isn't there. Jorgensen: We got that taken care of. We met with the owners. Little: We wanted to make sure that the road that goes out to the cemetery comes out right beside the street. It doesn't get back over to this street. Schmitt: Right. Little: I just wanted to make sure. Did you have people from the surrounding area at the Planning Board meeting? • Minutes of Technical Plat Review February 10, 1999 Page 8 Jorgensen: The only ones were Greenhaw and Harpen. They were concerned because it comes out in their area. We went over it with them. Little: We need to place a sign. Jorgensen: Place a sign? Warrick. Yes. We need a sign that states it is a future street extension so that people don't get confused. Little: The right of way at 50 feet is going to have to touch that south property line. Conklin: That 50 feet right of way to the east needs to be clear that it goes all the way to the property line. Warrick: That line needs to be extended. Little: • easement? • Do you have to go through any kind of process to vacate this other private Jorgensen: That was one of the comments. They would like to see the written approval from the people who have that service. Little: That makes sense. Jorgensen: I'll get you a copy of the comments from the County by Subdivision Committee meeting. Ron Petrie - Engineering In general, all designs are subject to the City's latest design criteria. Review for plat approval is not approval of public improvements and all proposed improvements are subject to further review at the time construction plans are submitted. Regarding water, the fire hydrant spacing shall meet the more stringent of the published water standards or the Fire Chief's request. Regarding sanitary sewer, the review and approval of the individual septic systems for these lots is to be provided by Washington County. Warrick: I believe the Fire Chief was satisfied with this. Could you enlarge the vicinity map. The Planning Commission is going to want to see more in that regard. Little: You have shown street names but we can't read them. Minutes of Technical Plat Review February 10, 1999 Page 9 UTILITY COMMENTS Mike Phipps - Ozarks Electric We require a 4 inch quad crossing from Lot 1 and 2 over to Lot 5 and 6. We require a crossing from Lot 2 and 3 to Lot 4 and 5 and also one at the back of the cul de sac. I won't have room to get through there without one. Jorgensen: That would be the very south end of the project? Phipps: Yes. Little: What about Lot 7? Phipps: Yes. I can come down the side of Lot 7. Rick Evans - Arkansas Western Gas We need the same crossings as Ozarks and I would also like to have a 4 inch crossing at the entrance of the subdivision. You're showing a 12 inch water line along Highway 45. We probably need to widen that easement through there. We have a 3 inch gas line in there, too. Widen that to 25 feet. Jorgensen: There was suppose to be a 25 feet setback and utility easement anyway. Evans. All you're showing is a 20 feet utility easement right now. Jorgensen. Okay. Evans: You might make a note that we will probably serve these lots from the front and not from the back unless they want to pay the difference. Schmitt What is the difference? Do we just need to call you and find out? Evans: Yes. Kevin Lefler - TCA Cable We need the same crossings as Ozarks except we don't need the one in the front. Further Discussion Minutes of Technical Plat Review February 10, 1999 Page 10 Warrick: Our Southwestern Bell representative is not present and we ask that you contact them individually In order for this to go forward to our Subdivision Committee, we need 37 copies revised by Wednesday, February 17, at 10 a.m. We also need you to provide proof of notification. • • • Minutes of Technical Plat Review February 10, 1999 Page 11 LSD99-5: LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT WALGREENS, pp 290 This project was submitted by Kurt Jones of Crafton, Tull and Associates on behalf of Walgreens for property located at the northwest corner of College Avenue and Township Street. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 2.59 acres. Kurt Jones and Matt Crafton were present on behalf of this project. STAFF COMMENTS Cheryl Zotti - Environmental Affairs Administrator The container location, pad location, number of contains, and screening are all adequate. Kim Hesse - Landscape Administrator The location of utilities, easements, and rights of way are inadequate. The parking lot landscaping is inadequate. The buffer requirements are adequate. The Commercial Design Standards are inadequate. The new ordinance calls for one tree for every 12 parking spaces if a minimum 8 feet wide island is provided for tree planting. Increase island width to 8 feet. An additional tree is required within the parking lot directly south of the proposed building. A continuous shrub planting is required along the rights of way. The ordinance requires that a landscape plan be included that indicates the species of all plants, size of each species at the time of installation, spacing requirements of each plant, and the type of edging and mulch to be used within the planting beds. All plantings must be within a specifically prepared area. Notes or details must be included that indicate the need to amend the soil within the planting beds. Indicate the location of hose bibs or automated irrigation system This is also a requirement of the revised parking lot ordinance. A Tree Ordinance Fee Waiver was submitted with the reason being that there are no existing trees on the proposed site. The project will add 28 trees to meet the City's requirements. Hesse: Here is a copy of the revised ordinance. The Walgreens which was built in Springdale hired a landscape architect and put in full irrigation and that was not a requirement in Springdale. Crafton: They intend to do that. Hesse: I need to see that. That will be fine. Warrick: What kind of information is going to be necessary when they revise and bring this • • • Minutes of Technical Plat Review February 10, 1999 Page 12 back and what will be necessary at construction phase? Hesse: I need it all by the time they get their building permit. I'm not sure how we left things with the Subdivision Committee. Warrick: I know for sure that the landscaping within the parking lot is going to be a requirement of the Subdivision Committee and the additional shrubbery and the aisle width and the islands that need to be widen. That is what they need to see so far. Hesse: We need to have it as complete as possible by Subdivision which is next week. Crafton: The tree that is at the south side of the building -- Hesse: You will have to redo your configuration. Chuck Rutherford - Sidewalk and Trail Coordinator Sidewalks, driveway approaches and access ramps shall be constructed to Ordinance An inspection is required prior to the concrete pour. The driveway approaches shall be constructed of Portland Cement Concrete. College Avenue is a principal arterial and Township is a minor arterial. This requires a minimum ten feet of green space between the curb and sidewalk and a minimum six feet sidewalk. The above minimums are shown on the plat with the green space shown as plus or minus fifteen feet. Warrick: It looks like the requirements are being met. Rutherford: I have one question on that. I was curious and we talked about this yesterday about why it was noted as plus or minus 15 feet. Crafton: We need to make sure we get the exact centerline of College located so that we can nail that down. Rutherford: There is nothing said that there has to be exactly 10 and stay right on that. I was curious. Perry Franklin - Traffic Supenntendent Street lights are required every 300 feet and at the intersection. No sight distance problems were noted. The developer will be required to pay for the relocation of the traffic signal pole if it is necessary. Is the developer allowing the right of way for the widening of Township in the future? The ADA spaces are adequate as shown. A trip generation report was included and is on • Minutes of Technical Plat Review February 10, 1999 Page 13 file in the Planning Division. Warrick: Are you showing any street lights on here? Crafton: There is one at the corner. Warrick: What is your frontage here? Crafton: I think it's 200 feet. Warrick: We need to make sure there is at least one street light, probably at your entrance. Regarding Township, the requirement for the Master Street Plan is 45 feet. It looks as though you have called it out It's just not dimensioned. Crafton: We called out 49.5 feet. 30 feet is existing. The reason it's not 45 is because we had to move the sidewalk outside the utility pole and we are dedicating the entire sidewalk to the City. Warrick: We prefer that. Kim Rogers - Parks Operations Coordinator No comments. Dawn Warrick - Development Coordinator The submittal requirements were adequate with the exceptions of the Preliminary Grading and Drainage Report and the Tree Preservation Plan. The fees for grading and drainage and tree preservation were received. Refer to division comments from Engineering and Landscape Administration for more information. The plat requirements were adequate except the adjacent zoning needed to be labeled. Also show the layout of adjoining properties especially locations of curb cuts. Is a property line adjustment needed to create this? Dimension the proposed right of way along Township as 45 feet from the centerline. Show all existing and proposed easements Include the name of Walgreen's owner or CEO who is authorized to sign the easement plat. Regarding street requirements, College Avenue is designated as a principle arterial requiring a total of 110 feet of right of way which is 55 feet from the centerline and this is the required dedication for this project as shown on the plat. Township is designated as a minor arterial on the Master Street Plan and requires a total of 90 feet of right of way which is 45 feet from the centerline which is the required dedication for this project as shown on the plat. Regarding parking, the drive aisles need to be reduced to the City standard of 24 feet. We need to discuss the possibility of reducing the width of the drive on the west side of the building. • Minutes of Technical Plat Review February 10, 1999 Page 14 Narrow the aisle on the east which is needed to provide additional stacking room at the access point. Regarding the lot requirements, if this lot does not currently exist as it is shown a lot split or property line adjustment must be filed. Other requirements include that all utilities shall be located underground and it needs to be discussed how to accomplish this. Note that the approval of a large scale development is only valid for one calendar year. If the proposed development will not be under way within that period of time, this submittal is premature. Regarding Commercial Design Standards, the only requirements not met were the mechanical and utility equipment screening and the trash enclosure screening. Please provide information about the location and screening for all mechanical and utility equipment. Is there screening provided for the trash compactor? Regarding design elements, the structure is somewhat box like with cut off corner and main entry adding some interest. Signage and wall treatment provides only articulation on the south and east elevations The west is a side elevation which does not directly face Township. The only treatment on the north is the canopy for the pharmacy drive through. The adjoining developments include car dealership to the south, a motel to the east, a used car lot to the west, and vacant property to the north The pylon sign in the rendered drawing does not meet City ordinance because it is too large. Warrick. We need to talk about your proposed property line. Mr. Nelms owns everything. • Is that correct? • Crafton: Yes. Warrick: He also owns the property to the west. The current property line is proposed to move 60 feet. In order to do that, you have to process a lot line adjustment. That needs to be turned in and processed through our office. We are going to request that you reduce the aisles to meet our standard. We also need to discuss reducing the width of the area on the far west. One of the reasons is it is too wide. The second is you have a one way drive coming around the back of the building and you've indicated a two way drive to the loading area. We feel this is not really correct. It should be a one way out. There really doesn't need to be more than 18 feet. Crafton: That is a Walgreen's requirement. The reason it's two way is to allow trucks to get to the loading bay. It won't be two way the entire length. It is a minimum requirement they have of 49.5 feet from the building. That is why we have done and shown that. For the trucks to make that turn, they need that distance. Warrick: Do they need that distance the whole way or do they need that distance to make the turn? Little: I don't understand why they have to come around the back of the building if they are going to back in? Minutes of Technical Plat Review February 10, 1999 Page 15 Crafton: How would they back in otherwise? They would have to use the parking lot and tum around. I think they would like to keep the big trucks out of the parking lot. Little: They are a 24 hour operation. That might make a difference. Will they be here at Subdivision? Crafton: I'm sure they could be if you would like them to be. Little: It's good to have those things where we have differences. If they are here they can understand what we are asking and then if it's not absolutely firm then you can work on it. It's it's absolutely firm then we can't work on it anymore. Crafton: I'll ask them about it and see what they say. Warrick: That would be my major question then. If this is the way the trucks will come it, the aisle doesn't need to be two way. The trucks are going to be going south. Little: It interferes with the traffic coming through the drive through. Warrick: I understand it may need to be wider if the trucks need more room to turn and make their movements. I'm just wondering if they could only widen the turn at the left hand corner. The next parking area we need to talk about is the parking that faces College on the far eastern side. I notice that it angles following the angle of the street. Parking could be set up in a configuration like the rest of the parking that is perpendicular to the building. There is really no reason that it couldn't be. The parking spaces would be closer to the building to get people into it and you would also be able to provide more stacking distance here which is going to be a rather congested intersection regardless at the eastern exit. That is what we are requesting is to see this aisle narrowed to 24 feet and these parking spaces configured in an orientation that matches the rest of the parking. The landscaping would be at an angle but we feel that is a benefit as opposed to having parking further away from the building. Little: It's actually safer backing out straight than at an angle. Have we talked about the right of way being all the way down? Warrick: The right of way dedication needs to encompass the entire original lot that we are talking about. Crafton: What do you need from Don Nelms? He signed the application. Little: You will need to provide the description of the area to be dedicated. We take that • • • Minutes of Technical Plat Review February 10, 1999 Page 16 Warrick: We take that description to our land agents -- Little: They make up a warranty deed and he signs the warranty deed and we file it. Warrick: The legal description is only for the piece that is going to be dedicated for this project. Little: We would do it by plat but the State Highway Department has told us that in order for them to receive the right of way, they have to have a warranty deed. Warrick: While we are talking about the configuration of the lots, we had a question on the lot configuration on the northeast corner. We don't remember seeing this angle in the past on this lot configuration. Is that based on deed information? Little: Or who owns this? Warrick: The triangle is kind of no man's land. Crafton: I asked the same questions. The surveyors from their search and their survey can not find any information on this triangle. There is a pin. Little: It looks strange, but if you have assessed the data that's fine. We'll take it. Warrick: Regarding right of way in this corner, we request that be right of way dedication. All utilities should be located underground. We need to talk about that because there is a lot of overhead electric on this site. Have you discussed that? Crafton: There is a high transmission line. Beasley: It's a main distribution circuit. Little: They are all around. Over here, too? Beasley: No. Just on Township. Little: We figured that. Beasley: It goes all the way down and crosses the highway. Little: There is one off their property line. There is one half on and half off. • Minutes of Technical Plat Review February 10, 1999 Page 17 Warrick: The north dips into it and then goes off. Beasley: That is not a main circuit on the north side. Warrick: If you're proposing to leave any of these above ground, we need a written request so the Planning Commission can consider a waiver. Little: SWEPCO can be very helpful to you giving you the sizes or whatever you need. Warrick: They can even justify some of your cost. We would expect anything that is not a high power transmission line to be placed underground unless there is some extreme circumstances. Crafton: What about the overhead that comes in from off the site. Are you expecting us to get to that point and bury it? Warrick: That would be our expectation. Little: That would be the minimum, if you could bury it back to the line, that would be fine. What is on your property is the minimum. You might ask whether that line is needed. Beasley: I talked to Dennis about that before I came up here this morning and there is a building that is serving back there somewhere. Little: I bet you that is that blood place. I think it's vacant. Crafton: That's the Nettleship property. There are existing street lights. If we took those down we might not need them. Beasley: It looks like the power pole ends here. That's a guy wire. If it's off the property then we wouldn't be required to do anything with it. Little: What kind of lights are there. If they're our street lights -- Beasley: Their flood lights for Nelms. Warrick: There is a street light at the corner and it's 299 feet to the next one. Those are not necessary as a requirement for street lighting. If they just serve Nelms Auto Lot at this point in time, we would be only be looking for interior lighting. The approval for large scale development is valid for one calendar year If the development is not under way within one calendar year, then that approval is void. Is this project at a point that it can start construction Minutes of Technical Plat Review February 10, 1999 Page 18 within one calendar year? Mr. Nelms is going to have to move and he does not have an approved large scale to move his facility at this point in time. Our thought is this may be premature. Crafton: I was going to say yes until you talked about Mr. Nelms not being able to move. Warrick: Unless he has something that I don't know about. We need to know. We don't want Walgreens to get in the situation that their large scale expires before they are actually able to start construction. Concerning Commercial Design Standards and the elevations and signage that were submitted, the first thing is concerning site development and the only comment is that we need information about the location of utility equipment. So you're showing a board fence surrounding the compactor in the back? Crafton: That's right. Warrick: What about any compressor or HVAC? Crafton: It will be roof mounted and I'm not sure as far as a transformer box. Warrick: Will the used car lot remain? Little: There is a vacant lot to the north, too that needs to be added on. I think it's zoned R -O. Warrick: The pylon sign that has been proposed does not meet the current standard. It is too large. Little: It can be 75 square feet, 40 feet back from the right of way. Warrick: You have proposed 131 square feet, so that is in excess of what our ordinance allows. It allows 75 square feet total. It needs to be 40 feet back which it maybe. We'll look for some revisions on your sign elevation. Little: We talked about at Subdivision Committee last time seeing how we are requesting 12 color copies and those are subject to changes, we are thinking of just asking for one large size color copy that we all can talk from and then after we get through Subdivision and we have the first meeting with the Planning Commissioners, you would provide the 12 color ones. I think it is asking an awful lot of you all to have to continue to bring us 12 copies. Crafton: There is no place in northwest Arkansas that can enlarge full size color copies. You have to send them to Little Rock. We can do one. We have trouble reducing them and getting copies because no one here can do that. Typically what the architect sends is 24 x 36 or Minutes of Technical Plat Review February 10, 1999 Page 19 even larger. We're having to do a lot of cutting and pasting. Little: So getting one big one to start with would help. Crafton: Yes. Jones: That is basically what we start out with. Little: That is what we want to go to. Every time we ask for changes, then they are sitting at the table with the wrong elevation. Jones: Let me ask this. Would it be better to wait until after plat review to even give you the color ones. Little: We have to have one to do our review from. If you just give us the one big one, we'll work with that until we get all the way through Subdivision. After Subdivision Committee, in between Subdivision Committee and Planning Commission, then we'll get the 12. Some projects get approved and Subdivision Committee then we wouldn't need the 12 small ones. But, if they go on to Planning Commission, then we'll have to have 12 small ones. We talked to the Planning Commission about it and they weren't real happy about it but they don't know what trouble we have keeping them current with their 12 individual copies. Warrick: We have had comments about requesting a reduced plan view on the elevation. Like the footprint of the building. What would that do to your process? Crafton: We can shrink the plan down. It's not going to be readable. Little: So you just reprint this on the big one. Warrick: All she asked for was the outline of the building itself. Jones: I admit this structure is somewhat box like but that is the nature of retail. You really destroy your space if you have a lot of ins and outs. Little: It doesn't have to be ins and outs. It can be things applied to the outside. Jones: I heard you mention the north face. That's not going to be visible unless they cut down the hill over there. Little: Is this all going to be one color? There isn't going to be any other color? • • • Minutes of Technical Plat Review February 10, 1999 Page 20 Jones: That is what they are proposing. Crafton: Do you have the sample? Warrick: Yes. I do. The building will be the buff color and a slightly darker color for the drivet feature. Jones: That's another problem we have is the color on the copies doesn't match the samples. We can pencil color twelve copies. Warrick: We are going to need revisions on it. Mickey Jackson - Fire Chief The hydrant spacing needs improvement as well as improvement in their locations. The water main size should be 8 inches. The main looping and main location are adequate. Add a fire hydrant within 100 feet of the fire department connection to the sprinkler system. The water line from the street main to the fire hydrant should be 8 inches. Ron Petrie - Engineenng In general, all designs are subject to the City's latest design criteria. Review for plat approval is not approval of public improvements and all proposed improvements are subject to further review at the time construction plans are submitted. All work within the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD) right of way require approval from the AHTD All corrections and/or additional information are required to be submitted no later than the standard deadline to continue to the Subdivision Committee meeting on February 17. Regarding water, the fire hydrant requirements shall meet the more stringent of the published water standards of the Fire Chiefs request. Will this facility be sprinklered? If so, an additional fire protection line will be required with a fire hydrant located 100 feet from the fire department connection. Show the new 8 inch waterline that is stubbed out at the northern property line and along Township Road. A drawing was attached to the report. The applicant received and one is on file in the Planning Division. This development may be required to use this waterline for their domestic & fire protection water source. The City may choose to cost share to have this new 8 inch waterline extended south and connected to the existing waterlines along Township. Provide a 20 feet utility easement along the College Avenue and Township right of way for this extension. Regarding sanitary sewer, this is existing and any conflicts with the proposed grading will be the owner's responsibility to correct. Regarding grading, the preliminary grading plan does not contain all of the required information and is not in compliance with several regulations as follows: • Minutes of Technical Plat Review February 10, 1999 Page 21 1. Minimum erosion control requirements - provision are required to be made for preventing of mud/debris onto public streets. 2. Cut or fill slopes finish grade - cut or fill slopes shall be a finished grade no steeper than 33% unless approved by City Engineering. 3. Cut or fill slopes setback requirements - a copy of the 10 feet temporary grading easement will be required to be presented to the Engineering Department signed by the adjacent property owner. 4. Cuts - for non solid rock cuts, terraces shall be required for cut and fill slopes greater than 10 feet in height. It has been estimated that the proposed cut is approximately 13.7 feet in height. 5. Erosion and sedimentation control - if the 2:1 slope is permitted, revegetation measures greater than seeding and mulching will be required in order to provide for slope stability. 6. Treatment of slope and benches - if the 2:1 slope is permitted, revegation measures • greater than seeding and mulching will be required in order to provide for slope stability. 7. Required retaining wall and rock cut design - the retaining wall will have to be designed and inspected by a registered professional engineer. Safety railing is required. • 8. Time schedule - all items are to be provided by the engineer or contract when the construction plans are submitted or at the preconstruction conference. 9. Description/fill material/compaction - all items are to be provided by the engineer or contractor when the construction plans are submitted or at the preconstruction conference. 10. Runoff/sedimentation - all items are to be provided by the engineer or contractor when the construction plans are submitted or at the preconstruction conference. 11. Dust - all items are to be provided by the engineer or contractor when the construction plans are submitted or at the preconstruction conference. 12. Soils engineering study - a study is required and it should address the slope stability and erosion control measures needed for the proposed cut. Crafton: The City may choose to cost share on the waterline? Warrick: That would have to be a Council action. • • Minutes of Technical Plat Review February 10, 1999 Page 22 Jones: If the City wants to extend the water line then they will get involved but in any event they want the easement. Crafton: We need to talk about some of the grading issues. Behind the retaining wall, we are proposing a 2:1 slope. It is primarily shale and we talked to Jim Beavers about that. He said that he would support us as long at the soils report reflected that. Warrick: Mr. Petrie is out of town and Mr. Beavers is out sick. Just get with them and work it out. Norbash: Assuming that Jim has approved the 2:1 slope, the ordinary seeding is not enough to stabilize that then you will be required to take additional measures. Warrick: On your checklist at item 7, there are certain things that are called out to be on construction plans or to be submitted at preconstruction conference. Those don't need to be done at this time. Crafton: I know we have to get AHTD approval. Jones: I don't think we're dumping anything onto Township. Well, maybe we are. It will go in the ditch. Warrick: Specifically, it's on the streets themselves. The statement is that Township is substandard. Planning doesn't deal with Highway Department territory. We ask you to contact the Highway Department to advise the Commission of their plans and then they may require cost share or improvements. You will need to contact the Highway Department concerning Township and request information as to any improvements. Crafton: They have a project that is in planning but they could not give me any kind of time frame or high priority. Jones: You are obviously going to ask for improvements or money. Warrick: In general, we make the recommendation. Jones: Will that be based on what the Highway Department says. We can ask them if they prefer to have the improvements made at this time. I know Matt has talked to them. I know they have been working on this 5 or 6 years Anything that you or the Highway Department can provide to guide the Commission would be helpful. • Norbash: On the drainage, you may want to make a change. • Minutes of Technical Plat Review February 10, 1999 Page 23 Jones: We will address that. Crafton: The grading plan shows we have a curb inlet back here and we're piping everything through the ditch but there is no culvert on Township right now. Norbash• That is correct. Crafton: We could put in a couple of inlets but the end result is that we're tied to this ditch. Little: Did we get a big elevation? Warrick: No. Little: When you make revisions, some of your call outs on the height are confusing. Please redimension them. Crafton: And you need these by next week. • Little: We have what we need for next week. Warrick: The sign has to be redone. It is unacceptable. Little: To bring us something that says, "Typical Sign" is just a red flag. UTILITY COMMENTS Mark Beasley, SWEPCO • We need to relocate the existing pole on Township and that should not be any problem. We will probably relocate that pole to the east and that is where we would prefer to serve the building by dipping underground to a transformer location. You would be required to provide the ditch and two 4 inch conduits from the transformer location to the pole. I'm curious about where you want the transformer to be placed. Crafton: Do you have a desire? Beasley: We prefer to be on the west side of the building. I don't know if you will have space for us back there. Crafton: We can put it along that west side but I don't know if the planners will allow that. • • Minutes of Technical Plat Review February 10, 1999 Page 24 Warrick: What is it? Crafton: If we put the transformer on the west would that be acceptable? It has to be screened. Warrick: Can you screen it from the street that would be okay. Beasley: We will need more space than 6 feet. It's probably going to be 9 x 9. Jones: Do you require us to install that pad. Beasley: Yes, we do. There is a steep slope right there because of the wall. Warrick: If you were to widen this out then you would have more than 6 feet. That's a possibility. Beasley: Any distance further than 250 feet from the pole will be at the developer's expense. Rick Evans - Arkansas Western Gas You're showing the gas meter sitting at the building at the northwest corner. The meter will sit out next to the road on the right of way. We'll just have to run the line up to the building while we are doing all of them. I would like for you to show a 20 feet easement along College Avenue and also along Township. Beasley: We could run the water lines in the same utility easement? Evans: Yes. Kevin Lefler, TCA Cable We have cable service along Township so when you relocate that power pole we'll transfer our service and there won't be any charge for that. We would ask for your future cable or fiber needs to place us a 4 inch conduit at the same place the transformer is going to be up to that same pole that you are relocating. Further Discussion • Warrick: Southwestern Bell is not represented to so you will need to contact them individually. In order for this project to proceed to the Subdivision Committee, you will need to • • • Minutes of Technical Plat Review February 10, 1999 Page 25 provide 37 revised copies and 12 revised elevations by Wednesday, February 17 before 10 a.m. Meeting adjourned at 10:15.