The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2000-05-31 - Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF TECHNICAL PLAT REVIEW A regular meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee was held on Wednesday, May 31, 2000 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED LS 00-16.00: (Gale, pp 60) LS 00-17.00: (Gladden, pp 167) LS 00-18.00: (Anders/Bryan, pp 141) LS 00-19.00: (Baggett, pp 529) LSD 00-12.00: (Gary Hampton Parking, pp 245) LSD 00-13.00: (State Fair Cinema, pp 209) LSD 00-14.00: (Trinity Temple, pp 252) STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Sara Edwards Ron Petrie Mickey Jackson Chuck Rutherford Kim Rogers UTILITIES PRESENT Mike Phipps, Ozark Electric Johney Boles, Ar Western Gas Bill Smith, Southwestern Bell Kevin Lefler, Cox Communications ACTION TAKEN Moved to 6/14/00 PR Forward w/revisions Forward w/revisions Forward w/revisions Forward w/revisions Forward w/revisions Forward w/revisions STAFF ABSENT Perry Franklin Cheryl Zotti Kim Hesse UTILITIES ABSENT Michael Campbell, SWEPCO • • • Plat Review Minutes May 31, 2000 Page 2 LS 00-16:00: Lot Split (Gale, pp 60) Item submitted by Arden Gale for property located at 1530 Albright Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural (pending R-1, Low Density Residential zoning) and contains approximately 4.21 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of approximately 3.21 acres and 1 acre. Good morning, we will get started with our Technical Plat Review Committee. I'm Tim Conklin, City Planner. It's Wednesday May 31, 2000. Conklin: First item of business is a lot split, LS 00-16 submitted by Arden Gale for property located at 1530 Albright Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural. There is a rezoning pending to R-1, Low Density Residential. The property contains approximately 4.21 acres. The request is to split the tract into two tracts of approximately 3.21 acres and one acres. Will the representative or applicant to come forward. Edwards: I don't believe they are here. Conklin: No one here on that one. We will move to the next one and I'll have someone call the applicant. • • • Plat Review Minutes May 31, 2000 Page 3 LS 00-17.00: Lot Split (Gladden, pp 167) Item submitted by George Faucette on behalf of Jo Ann Gladden for property located at Howard Nickle Road and Salem Road. The property is in the City growth area and contains approximately 70 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 40 acres and 30 acres. Conklin: The next lot split is LS 00-17 submitted by George Faucette on behalf of Jo Arm Gladden for property located at Howard Nickle Road and Salem Road. The property is in the City growth area and contains approximately 70 acres. The request is to split the property into two tracts of 40 acres and 30 acres. George, would you like to come sit up here this morning? Faucette: Thank you. Conklin: We will start with Sara Edwards our Development Coordinator for Planning. She will go over the planning comments. Edwards: In the survey we would like for the plat pages to be added which are 206 and 167. We need a legal description for the original parcel. We need a flood plain reference. We need the project owner or the developer listed. We need the Master Street Plan added to the vicinity map and our records show Salem Road also running to the east of this property. Faucette: Salem Road running to the east. Edwards: Right. Conklin: Not adjacent to your property but just along here. Faucette: You want that shown on there? Conklin: Show that on there to give the Planning Commission a reference. Faucette: And the Master Street Plan and vicinity map over here? Edwards: Yes. As far as conforming to our Master Street Plan, we do show Howard Nickel Road on our Master Street Plan continuing through this property. We do require 110 feet of right-of-way through there. And we also show another, what we are calling Salem Road, along the west and we require 45 feet of right-of-way. • Conklin: I'd like to make one comment on that for the record. This right-of-way • • • Plat Review Minutes May 31, 2000 Page 4 requirement is required under Chapter 156 of our Unified Development Ordinance under section 156.03 D-1 a3, Dedication of Right -of -Way. I'll read this for the record since I understand this will be an issue. It states, dedication of right-of- way, the City Planner shall not waive the preliminary and final plat requirements of this chapter for a proposed subdivision until the subdivider dedicates sufficient right-of-way to bring those streets which the Master Street Plan shows to abut or intersect the proposed subdivision into conformance with the right-of-way requirements of the Master Street Plan for said streets. Provided the Planning Commission may approve a lesser dedication in the event of undue hardship or practical difficulties. Such lesser dedication shall be subject to approval by the City Council. That is why this lot split is going through its process today. Typically it could be done administratively. Due to the size of the tracts, however, the applicant has submitted a plan that does not comply with this section of our Unified Development Ordinance. I'll let you go ahead, Sara. Edwards: That's all I have. Faucette: Tim, can I get a copy of what you just read? Conklin: Sure. Petrie: One thing I would like you to add to the plat is the septic system location for the existing house. You will have to make a guess but we need to make sure it's going to be on the lot you are creating. Faucette: That house is about 60 years old. I have no idea where it is. Petrie: You will have to do your best. If you are selling off land that contains that septic system for that house, that creates all kinds of problems for you. We have existing water on Hutchenson Road and West Salem Road. The water is available as you are probably aware, sewer is not available for this area Any new septic systems would have to be approved by Washington County. That's all. Edwards: Okay. Any utility comments? Smith: I have none. Phipps: We would like a 20 foot easement around the perimeter of both tracts. Faucette: Around the 40 and the 30? • • • Plat Review Minutes May 31, 2000 Page 5 Phipps: Faucette: Phipps: Lefler: Boles: Faucette: Boles: Petrie: Jackson: Rutherford: Rogers: Faucette: Boles: Faucette: Conklin: Yes. That would cover any future development that may occur. And on this 110 foot right-of-way, we will need easement on each side of it. On Howard Nickel between them. I assume the 20 feet on each side will give you 40 there. Okay. Yes. I have no other comments. Same comments as electric. Make a general utility easement around there. That's all I have. I'd just like to make sure the easements that are dedicated are outside of the right- of-way. Outside right-of-way? Right. Outside of the proposed right-of-ways and on private property. Any other staff comments? No comment. No comment. No comment. Let me ask a question if I could on your comment, as you know we are going to attempt to get some waiver on the right-of-way requirement. If we don't, the right-of-way happens to go through the house as done now which means the easements if outside of the right-of-way would encompass the house also. Any suggestions on that? I know that's sort of a what if question. If you get a variance, assuming you get a variance on the right of way, I just need to make sure, because it's against our company policy to lay on county or street front right-of-way, I have to lay on private property. As long as I have assurance that it's on private property that's good enough for us. Okay. One other comment regarding the right-of-way. In the past the Planning Commission has been flexible in moving the right-of-way further away from • • Plat Review Minutes May 31, 2000 Page 6 structures and adjusting it so it does not go through structures. That may be something that Subdivision Committee looked at or the Planning Commission does also. Is that everything? Edwards. Yes. Faucette: Thank you. This has to be resubmitted by the 7'h? Edwards: Yes it does. • • • Plat Review Minutes May 31, 2000 Page 7 LS 00-18.00: Lot Split (Anders/Bryan, pp 141) Item submitted by Patricia Anders for property located at 4650 E. Gulley Road. The property is in the City growth area and contains approximately 5 33 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 4.33 acres and 1 acre. Conklin: Next item on the agenda is LS00-18 Anders/Bryan submitted by Patricia Anders for property located at 4650 E. Gulley Road. The property is in the City growth area and contains approximately 5.33 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 4.33 acres and 1 acre. Is the applicant or representative here? Edwards: First of all this is outside the city limits so sidewalks are not required. No parks fees are required. Please add adjacent property owners. Add a floodplain reference. And 1 did talk to someone about this. There is an access easement which this property will be accessing and this must be filed concurrently with this lot split we will need a copy of the access easement giving this land the right to use this easement. And you will also need to get county approval of the lot split. Bryan: Is the floodplain reference not on the survey? Edwards- There it is. It is on there. Bryan: You say add adjacent property owners, to what? Edwards: To the property lines on the plat. Conklin: With regard to the 1 acre parcel size, our ordinances do require a 1.5 acre minimum if it's on a septic system. However, we have been approving smaller parcels than 1.5 acres because the county used to review these prior to the City of Fayetteville and approve smaller lots through the county process. I just want to bring that up as something we need to bring to the attention of the Subdivision Committee and Planning Commission. I do have going to Planning Commission's second meeting in June, revisions that allow it to whatever your perk test can accommodate. You are showing an easement for a septic field which I'm assuming does go with this tract 1. Bryan: Yes sir. Edwards: That's all I have. Petrie: Have you given any consideration how this tract will be served with water? • • Plat Review Minutes May 31, 2000 Page 8 Bryan: Yes. There is a general easement that I brought by yesterday running along the east side of the larger tract. A 25 foot on Gulley Road north cutting into the middle of the property. Petrie: A 25 foot general utility easement? Bryan: Yes. I'll let you look at that. I brought a copy by yesterday to the city. Petrie: This is saying 25 foot. Bryan: That was done after the survey. Petrie: But that is adjacent to this? What you are wanting to do is run a private line? Bryan. The water is going to be an extension. Paul, I believe it is at the water company. Petrie: Paul Mitchell? Bryan: It may be David. David I believe it was, said that it would be considered an extension because there is other property down to the north and east of that property that does not have water at this point, so it would be an extension. Petrie: Okay. I was unaware of that. Conklin: So it's going to be a public or private line? Bryan: A public line from what he was telling me. Conklin: And are you building that and paying for it? Bryan: I suppose so. Conklin: I dust want to clarify that. Petrie: That may garner more discussion. It's really up to the engineering department if it's public or private If it's a public line then we have problems of where are we going to put the meter so it can be read. Bryan: What they told me is it would be put off of Huntgate on the north side of the property and that the easement actually runs across the north part of the property. • • • Plat Review Minutes May 31, 2000 Page 9 Petrie: Bryan. Petrie: Edwards: Petrie: Jackson: Okay. If you would, you have my comments and telephone number for the engineering department, if you would please give me a call tomorrow or Friday so I can give you a definite answer. We do need to show whatever is being proposed on the plat so we want to make sure everybody is in agreement with what is required. Okay. Did you mention the right-of-way line? I do show the 55 feet. Okay. That's all. No comment. Rutherford: No comment Rogers: Phipps: Lefler Boles: Bryan. Boles: Bryan. Boles: Bryan: Boles: No comment. No comment. No comment. I just have one question, this county road 4030, that is Huntgate Lane isn't it? Huntgate Lane is actually that road right there I believe. 4030 I believe is not considered Huntgate Lane. I'm not sure about that. Okay. This county road 4030 does come all the way to Gulley Road? There is a gap on it that's been laid out here. I'm proposing to bring the gap this way simply because that saves me having to do easements for these owners over here. What do you plan to build on tract 1? A two story single family resident house. Okay. Where is your access easement in relation to this property? • • • Plat Review Minutes May 31, 2000 Page 10 Bryan: The access is here. Boles: Okay. And who's property does this access easement cross? Bryan. Mr. Huntgate, Jerry Huntgate. Boles: Jerry Huntgate. Okay. That's all I have. Edwards: Johney, is this easement still okay down through here even when they move the right-of-way back? Boles: Yes. It's 50 foot and it's a high pressure transmission line. How much additional right-of-way are they going to have to dedicate? Edwards: Twenty foot. Petrie. Twenty-five foot. Boles: I believe that line is going to follow it in that rededicated right-of-way area. It will probably be okay. Edwards: Any other staff or utility comments? Conklin: When are revisions due? Edwards. Revisions are due by Wednesday June 7th at 10:00 am. • • • Plat Review Minutes May 31, 2000 Page 11 LS 00-19.00: Lot Split (Baggett, pp 529) Item submitted by Ray Baggett for property located at 3499 E. Huntsville Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 4 5 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 4.0 acres and 0.5 acres. Conklin: The next item is LS 00-19 submitted by Ray Baggett for property located at 3499 E. Huntsville Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 4.5 acres. The request is to split this property into two tracts of 4.0 acres and .5 acres. Is anybody here to represent Mr. Baggett. Baggett: I'm Ray Baggett. Edwards: Huntsville Road is a principal arterial. That requires a minimum 10 foot green space with a 6 foot sidewalk. The sidewalk will be required on tract B for the lot split and on tract A at time of development. You will have $470.00 in park fees due. This is our standard fee for an additional home. We would like for you to add the adjacent zoning to this survey just undemeath these property owners. Baggett: What do we do to get that? Edwards: I can help you add them. Give me a call, I've already got it labeled on here. We do have a problem with the legal description that you are aware of. I can get you more details on that. I didn't bring it with me. I think we are working on that. Baggett: Legal description? Conklin: We check the legal descriptions to make sure that when you run these dimension and angles that when you get back to the beginning it closes and the lines come together. Unfortunately about 7 or 8 out of 10 have problems with the descriptions and we have to make corrections to have it meet state standards for surveys. Baggett: Do we have to have it resurveyed? Conklin: No. Your surveyor can adjust those calls. Edwards: Huntsville Road is a principal arterial and it requires 55 feet from center line to be dedicated as right-of-way. We need an additional 15 feet dedication. Baggett: From the right-of-way there now? • • • Plat Review Minutes May 31, 2000 Page 12 Edwards: Yes. The green space and sidewalks will fall within that. Conklin: The sidewalk will be on public property not on your property. Mrs. Baggett: Why 6 feet? Conklin: That's the standard city adopted size. Mrs. Baggett: I have never seen a 6 foot sidewalk anywhere. Conklin: On a principal arterial we require they build them. Chuck, can you think of any on Huntsville? Rutherford: There are some 6 foot sidewalks constructed on the opposite side of the road from where you are. On the other side of the river. There by Mrs. Hunt's place going east. I remember a recent lot split that required a 6 foot sidewalk. Edwards: That's all I have. Petrie: Our only comment is that we would like the existing 15 foot utility easements for that sewer line be increased to 20 feet to bring it to current regulations. Baggett: The one that runs in the middle? Petrie: Yes sir. Baggett: Okay. Petrie: That's all I have. Mrs. Baggett: Is that where we hook into the sewer lines? Baggett: If we build it now we have to go to a manhole. I think that line is 22 feet. Petrie: You should be able to tap it. The city will do the tap. There is a tap fee involved and you'll just come and get that permit and the city will come out and make the tap. Conklin: The service line to the house, the plumber will have to do that right? Petrie: Right. The city will make the tap on the main. • Plat Review Minutes May 31, 2000 Page 13 Conklin: The plumber will bring the sewer lines to the main and the city will come out and tap it into the sewer. Petrie: The service line won't need an easement. There is an existing over the public main. Mrs. Baggett: What about the water main? Petrie: Baggett: Conklin: Petrie: • Edwards: Phipps: Baggett: Phipps: Baggett: Phipps: Baggett: Phipps: Baggett: Phipps: You've got a 10 foot building setback and utility easement shown there now. If we could increase that to 20 it would be better. • Baggett: Okay. We may possibly build a house but the west side of it would be about 35 feet from the fence. That would give enough room. The water is on the opposite side of the highway. Again, the same process of paying for a tap fee for the water line and the city will come out and do the tap and make the boar to get the water service on that side of the highway. Will they bring that to the right of way? How far do they bring that? To the right of way. It will only be a service line for one residence, for one meter. Any utility comments? Ray, can they build south of that center line? Yes. Can you get a house out there? Yes. You could. There is room to build. You have a 10 foot easement. If we all get in there we will need 20 foot. Where at? Down the west side. That wouldn't be any problem. • • • Plat Review Minutes May 31, 2000 Page 14 Phipps: Yes. Baggett: We will have a driveway on that side. If we need to move over we can. Phipps: We can come under the driveway with no problem. Baggett: That will work. Phipps: Ray, we would have to stop that transformer in the utility easement then you could take it underground to the house. We wouldn't need an easement for that. Baggett: We will work with whatever we need to. Phipps: Okay. No other comments. Lefler: The additional right-of-way that was given out on Huntsville took in the 15 foot utility easement so we will need to get that additional back. Boles: Is that right Tim? Is that the way that works? After they dedicate their 15 feet that eliminates this 15 foot utility easement as shown? Conklin: I'm not sure we can eliminate it just by giving the right-of-way, but our right-of- way will be over that and if you need an easement if the highway department ever widens that road, I'd request it now. Boles: Then does the southern edge of the new right-of-way becomes your point of beginning for your 25 foot building setback? Conklin: That's correct. Boles: Okay. Conklin: It is a highway and there will be 4 lanes so keep that in mind when you build the house too, the noise and everything I'd set it back as far as you can off that highway. Baggett: That's about as far as we can go without getting into the sewer line. Lefler: We need to request an additional 15 foot utility easement from the old 15 foot line. Is that right then? • • • Plat Review Minutes May 31, 2000 Page 15 Phipps: Boles: Smith: Boles: Baggett: Boles: Baggett: Lefler: Boles: Edwards: Jackson: If they widen that road we will have to move that line back. Let's make it 20 foot. And that will start where the proposed street right of way ends. The northern edge of the utility easement would be the southern edge as shown on this plat. Do you follow what we are saying? You're going to come to the edge of the right-of-way? You are showing a 15 foot utility easement here. Your new right-of-way is going to come to this point. So the northern edge of the new easement would be here. Okay. That's all I have. No other comment. Any other staff comment? No comment. Rutherford: No comment Rogers: Edwards: Conklin: Edwards: Conklin: Baggett: Edwards. No comment. Revisions are due by 10 00 am on June 7'h. What you do is take the information we have given you this morning, go to Mr. Blew's office and ask him to make those revisions and then how many copies? Thirty seven. Submit 37 copies with the changes on it. Okay. That's all in here? Yes. • • • Plat Review Minutes May 31, 2000 Page 16 Baggett: Then after that, what happens? Conklin: We go to Subdivision Committee and if everything is in order they will approve it at that level. That will be your final meeting. Mrs. Baggett: So another 2 weeks hopefully. Conklin: Then after that if you are selling the property you can have a deed prepared and we will stamp the deed that show we have approved it and have met all of our conditions. Baggett: We will have to have a different description of the land we are going to build on because of that bank. Conklin: You should have that on there. We require a new legal description for each lot so it's on there. The sidewalk will need to be constructed prior to us signing off on that deed. Is that correct Chuck? On the existing house, they will need to construct the sidewalk prior to filing the deed? Rutherford: Prior to filing, yes. Conklin: Prior to filing the deed Mrs. Baggett: It has to be done before the deed is done? Conklin: Yes. Baggett: I think when we get a building permit they are going to require sidewalks or something. Conklin: Is that something you want to try and do at one time? Put the sidewalk in on both? You're building a house there? Baggett: I think so because we are going to do that as quick as we can. Conklin: Are you opposed to that Chuck? Rutherford: I'm not opposed to that. It's standard in the past though that for the lot split to become valid the sidewalk needs to be on there. Baggett: We can put it in but I'm wondering about the driveway. What do you do, build a • • • Plat Review Minutes May 31, 2000 Page 17 driveway up to it then stop? Rutherford: Sidewalks are continuous through our driveways. Mrs. Baggett: I believe we are talking about the existing house. Conklin: Yes. That's what I meant, the existing house. Thank you. • • • Plat Review Minutes May 31, 2000 Page 18 LSD 00-12.00: Large Scale Development (Gary Hampton Parking, pp 245) Item submitted by Charlie Venable on behalf of The City of Fayetteville for property located at 2790 N. Salem Road. The property is zoned P-1, Institutional and contains approximately 8.23 acres. The request is for an additional lot containing 147 parking spaces. Conklin: The next item is LSD 00-12 submitted by Charlie Venable on behalf of The City of Fayetteville for property located at 2790 N. Salem Road. The property is zoned P-1, Institutional and contains 8.23 acres. The request is for additional lot containing 147 parking spaces. Good morning Kim. Rogers: Good morning. Edwards. The Parks & Recreation Division will construct a sidewalk along Salem Road at the time of large scale development in 2001. A final plan showing trees and other landscaping will be required for our files. A waiver is required for the elimination of landscape islands. If islands are to be eliminated, a tree adjacent to the parking will be required for every 8-10 parking spaces. These trees must be placed so as to evenly shade the pavement of the parking lot. Some form of screening is required along the east boundary of the property. A berm, fence, landscaping or the combination will be required to screen at a height of 6 feet withing a two year period. Petrie: I need a copy of that. Edwards: Okay. If you are going to request the waiver for landscaping islands it has to be in writing. Rogers: We are working on that right now. Edwards: That's all I have. Petrie: You are not going to ask for the waiver are you? Rogers: Yes. Because we are not going to do the islands in-between the spaces on that back row. On that row there. We are going to put up basketball goals for the school and they are going to use it as a play area during the day. Petrie: What about the others here? Rogers: There are trees lawns. • • • Plat Review Minutes May 31, 2000 Page 19 Conklin: It's a tree lawn. We rearranged those spaces. We felt they would be an issue on the east side. Are we going to redesign this? Rogers: We decided to redesign this here then add the berm here. Conklin: I believe you are still going to have to request a waiver on the south and east side to this parking lot due to the number of spaces. Edwards: Any utility comments? Phipps: Any relocation of existing utilities will be at the owner's expense. Lefler: No comment. The gas company stepped out for a minute but said he has no comment on it either. Conklin: For the record, what we discussed yesterday, there will be a berm located in this 50 foot buffer area between Crystal Springs Phase II which will be 6 feet high. Total height will be a combination of a berm with landscaping. • • Plat Review Minutes May 31, 2000 Page 20 LSD 00-13.00: Large Scale Development (State Fair Cinema, pp 209) Item submitted by Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of State Fair Cinema for property located at 3352 N. Hwy 112. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 29.56 acres. The request is to add an additional movie screen. Conklin: The next item is LSD 00-13 submitted by Crafton, Tull and associates on behalf of State Fair Cinema for property located at 3352 N. Hwy 112. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 29.56 acres. The request is to add an additional movie screen. This is a drive-in theater. Edwards: Highway 112 is a principal arterial which requires a minimum 10 foot green space with a 6 foot sidewalk and the sidewalk needs to be added to he legend. A tree preservation application and tree preservation fees are required. More detailed information is required on the species and size of trees to be planted on site. Also a detail for proper installation of plant material is required on the plans. Some form of irrigation is required to maintain trees along Hwy 112. Parton: Do those details need to be on our next round of revisions9 Edwards: I believe she wants them on the plans. Conklin: Are there any trees to be removed? Parton: No. Edwards: Street lights are to be installed on existing overhead electric. And I just want to make a comment, you didn't call out this driveway as paved, you expected it would be paved? Parton: Right. Edwards: And the overhead electric line is above 12KV? Parton: 12.2 is what I was told. Is that right Mike? Phipps: Pardon me? Parton: That existing overhead line coming into the property is 12.2KV? • Phipps: Right. • • Plat Review Minutes May 31, 2000 Page 21 Edwards. An 8 inch water line and a fire hydrant should be extended to the drive adjacent to the projection house. Conklin: Mickey Jackson, our Fire Chief, had a question with regard to the symbols right here, what those represented. Parton: Existing fire hydrants. Jackson: There are not any fire hydrants out there. Parton: There are not? Jackson: And that can use a 6 inch water line. Parton: If they aren't there, they aren't there. You need a 6 inch line? Jackson: A 6 inch line. There is no way to properly locate a single fire hydrant. You have to have one in there. I'd Just put it there in that area around the projection house. Centrally locate it that way, hopefully we can get to wherever we need to in the complex. Parton: We will get it. Jackson: We will be happy to work with you on a location. They possibly were there and were just covered up while moving dirt or something. But when I went out there I couldn't find any hydrants. Petrie: We don't have any record of them. Jackson: I don't think they were ever put in. Edwards: Okay. Ron. Petrie: Chris, as you know that requires a 20 foot utility easement for that water line. We are also asking for easements along Hwy 112. We show accepting 6 inch and also a sewer line and also that pump station. We need the standard easements then 10 feet also. These guys are probably going to ask for more but that's our minimum. The grading, we do need a permit application and review fee submitted. Parton: We did. I asked Kim about her fee and tell me about your fee and we gave a check for $1120 when we submitted out package. • • • Plat Review Minutes May 31, 2000 Page 22 Edwards: Did you do the applications? Parton: We didn't do the applications but we did submit the fees. Conklin: Why didn't you do the applications? Parton: It slipped my mind I guess. Conklin: I'm just curious. It comes up every other week. I want to help my staff make sure that engineering and Landscape Administrator know the fees been sent. I'm hoping the applications are submitted with the plans. Petrie: We would like to see the copy of the receipt at least Parton: Okay. Petrie: As for the parking lot for the drive in, I'm trying to get an idea of what is planned for that. Parton: The plan, Ron, is to remove approximately 12 to 18 inches of the existing surface out there and bring in some red hill side to a 6 to 16 inch depth. Then on top of that a 6 inch lift of class 7 crushed stone base. Petrie: Are they going to place the soil material on the site? Parton; Could be used on site. They may decide to sell it. I don't know. Petrie: If it will be used on site, we need a grading plan. Parton: I'm sure if they did do that, they would want to do that. Conklin: Just so you are aware, you will need a floodplain development permit prior to beginning construction in the floodplain. If you're sidewalk extends into the floodway we will need a certificate of no rise before anything is done in the floodway. Petrie: The 25 foot drive, what about the grading associated with that drive? You didn't show any grading lines. Parton; That drive and parking area and all the grading was built back in 1980. Along with the grading for that drive. That drive is a gravel surface right now and both • Plat Review Minutes May 31, 2000 Page 23 Tim and Sara had requested that it be paved. They will come in and remove any vegetation that has accumulated over the years, recompact the gravel surface and then start pavement. Petrie: On drainage we still need supporting calculations and documentation of down stream conditions. We need you to prove detention is not required. Parton: Okay. Petrie: A question on the drainage areas you used for your calculations. Parton; Right. Petrie: Last comment, right-of-way along Hwy is required to be dedicated by warranty deed. That's all. Smith: 1 would like a 20 foot easement along Hwy 112. • Phipps: You have a proposed 55 foot right-of-way. If the state comes in and widens this Hwy 112 we will have to move out power line to the east. You have all these landscape trees through there that we will be on top of. We need at least 15 foot clearance. • Parton: We can move our trees back. Phipps: I would. Conklin: Move the trees back out of the easement. Phipps: If I can go with the overhead I'll go right on the edge of the new right-of-way. So we have 20 feet east of that right-of-way. Conklin: What kind of overhead? Phipps: We may not. If the state comes in and widens this then we will have to move it that way and we will have the additional easement we need. Conklin: Is all the power underground? Parton: No. • • • Plat Review Minutes May 31, 2000 Page 24 Phipps: No. It all stops here behind the snack bar and office. What about the street lighting? You said along 112 they want lights? Parton: What Perry and I talked about was the requirement to install street lights at the entrances and along the highway. Phipps: At the intersection? Parton: Right. Conklin: He thought you could use the existing poles. Phipps: Yes. Parton: Perry thought we could hang lights from those utility poles. Phipps: I haven't seen any plans that they are going to widen this but they could in the future. Conklin: I think it will be widened in the future. All the state highways will be widened in the future. They are the only roads that connect. Phipps: You have water, there is no gas. Unless we could go to the west side of Highway 112 to get an easement to that property, we would have to move it to the east. Weather we are underground or overhead on relocation, those trees would be right through there. I have no other comments. Lefler: No comment. Boles: No comment. Conklin: Chuck, I have a question. With regards to this sidewalk where it comes up to the south end along Hwy 112, have we resolved any issues with Nelms and are we going to bridge that creek or extend it over that creek right there? Rutherford: In our conversation with Nelms a week or so ago, I guess it was a surprise to him that they were going to the property line. I sent the minutes to them that the Planning Commission had requested that. I have not heard back from them yet. When we did meet out there I did mention to Rick Rogers, of CEI, that he would need to get with you, Chris, and myself. A decision has to be made as to where these are going to come together. I think that's what you are asking. • • • Plat Review Minutes May 31, 2000 Page 25 Conklin: Rutherford: Conklin: Edwards: That is what I'm asking. How they are going to connect together. I need you to do that. Drawing it on paper and saying it's going to work won't work because of the drainage out there. That is something that will have to be worked out, Chris, between yourselves, Nelms and myself. Thank you. Revisions are due Wednesday, June 7"' 10.00 am. • • • Plat Review Minutes May 31, 2000 Page 26 LSD 00-14.00: Large Scale Development (Trinity Temple, pp 252) Item submitted by Carter & Hodges on behalf of Trinity Temple Assembly of God for property located a 1100 Rolling Hills Drive. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 7.19 acres. The request is to build a multi use building. Conklin: The next item is LSD 00-14 for Trinity Temple submitted by Carter & Hodges on behalf of Trinity Temple Assembly of God for property located at 110 Rolling Hills Drive. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 7.19 acres. The request is to build a multi use building. Hodges: I'm Kevin Hodges and this is Darrell Rogers, pastor of Trinity Temple. Edwards: Rolling Hills Drive is a collector street that requires a minimum 10 foot green space with 6 foot sidewalks. The sidewalk needs to be shown continuous through the driveway approaches. Parking lot landscaping is required. Please state size and species of plant material proposed along with proper installation details. Hodges: On the proposed? Conklin: On the proposed parking. Existing can remain. Edwards: Screening is required along the east boundary of the improvements. A berm, fence, landscaping or a combination is required to create a 6 foot high screen within a two year period. That is a requirement between an R -O and an R-1 district. Hodges: Okay. We will probably will have to look at a fence. Any type of berming, we do have some drainage problems here. We really can't do any kind of berming down there so we would have to do some type of a fence. Edwards: And some form of irrigation is required to maintain proposed landscaping. The front part of the property is zoned R-1 and the back is R -O. I would like you to show the zoning line on the plat. I would like the right-of-way dimensions from centerline so we can verify that we have enough right-of-way. We also need to verify that the amount of proposed and existing parking meets our standards. I don't think that just the proposed will go with just the proposed building. 1 think we might be better off trying to do an entire site calculation. If you could get me the number of seats in the auditorium. • • • Plat Review Minutes May 31, 2000 Page 27 Rogers: Edwards: Conklin: Rogers: Conklin: Rogers: Conklin: Edwards: Carter: Conklin: Edwards: Hodges: Edwards: Phipps: Edwards: Five hundred. I think that works. I'll have to check. When I've worked with other churches what I have done also is if you have multiple services going on that overlap, give us that information. We don't at the present time. Okay. It's a possibility but not at present. Some of the churches on Dickson Street are doing that and it's causing the need for additional parking for them also. If you will just put that in a letter, put it in writing. Probably they will be using one building or the other but not both at the same time. It's like an activity center. They go over there for special functions and over here during church. That's fine. Some churches want more parking with multiple services and other churches, yes, if you are using one or the other we will take a look. I'm not sure if he has more than what's allowed or not enough. I think it's probably more. I put a little more. The reason we did that was for overflow. We can phase this parking but we thought we could go ahead and do it all now it would be better than doing it in the future in case they expand. They are looking at sometime in the future expanding their services. We thought since we were going to large scale, let's do it all at once, get front and back, get our drains right, and everything set up for the future. I do show this overhead electric line, do you know what size that is? I didn't get out to the site. Let me get my map and I'll let you know. If it is then the requirement is for it to be underground but we will see what he says. Add one fire hydrant on an 8 inch main on left side of the property between • • • Plat Review Minutes May 31, 2000 Page 28 the existing and proposed building. Hodges: There is a fire hydrant right there next to that. Jackson: The proposed building exceeds the max distance. Hodges: Does it? So where do we need to put it? Jackson: Anywhere that is convenient for you on the west side of the parking lot next to the water main. Carter: There is also another one down on the other end of the fence there. Jackson: Is there access from there? Can a truck and hose get in there? Conklin: Where is that at, Glen? Carter: Down on this end. There is one right here too. Right in front of the daycare center. That road ends right there. There is an access easement to the property and this is a big field. Jackson: There is not a drive through there though. Carter: No. But we could probably build a drive quicker than we could lay water lines. You have one in the front, one by the building and one in the back. There are four hydrants there now. Hodges: There is one down across the road on the southwest side. Jackson: On Rolling Hills? Hodges: Yes. Jackson: We need to be able to drive from the fire hydrant to the building. It's too far away from your building. Carter: This other one, how far is that? I think there is just a pile of dirt there now to stop people from going in there. Hodges: But for safety, if you have to drive from there to the building you would have to have one right here. You could lay hose there but, it's your call. • • • Plat Review Minutes May 31, 2000 Page 29 Jackson: The best way is to put a hydrant between the existing church building and the proposed building to protect ourselves. It also gives us a two prang attack if there was a fire in the church, which we don't have now. Hodges: We will put her there. Conklin: So we are adding a fire hydrant. What location? Hodges: I'm going to put it about mid way between the two existing buildings. Edwards: That's all I have. Petrie: We have utility and sewer line along Rolling Hills Drive. I assume there is an easement along there? If not, we would require 10 foot minimum from utility lines be dedicated. Will you have new water or sewer service to the gym? Rogers: Yes. Petrie: And it will be separate from the other church building? Rogers: Yes. Petrie: We have water, no problem. Hodges: Ron, looking at the sewer, will it be running up to the front? We don't have access over the sewer manhole to the north and west. The only sewer we have access to is the one on the front. I plan to just run service up to the front and tap into that line. Petrie: If you would show that. Oh, you have it. I can't figure out which one of these lines is the property line. Hodges: That would be the wide dash with two dots in-between. It's kind of hard to see, it's real faded. Petrie: Okay. We would want the meter located someplace accessible. In the comments I reviewed the grading and drainage as a final plan. I prefer not to go through all of these unless you have any questions. These are final comments. I should point out that you will have to have the detention squared away before we go to Subdivision. That is a preliminary requirement. • Plat Review Minutes May 31, 2000 Page 30 Hodges: Smith: Lefler: Phipps: Conklin: Phipps: Conklin: • Phipps: Rogers: Conklin: Phipps: Rogers: Phipps: Conklin: • Boles: Hodges: Boles: I'll get with you later. No comment If they want service for any reason in here, we are set up to give it to them with this cable along here. If we have to relocate this overhead line that will be at the owners expense. We are on there too. We will wait for electric comments on that. That's all. I think that is just light poles that we have on the west side of the property it's underground on the west side. Now on the east side that is overhead 3 phase power line above 12 KV. Okay. On the east side. The overhead electric is that small duplex wire for lights in the parking lot. On this site? Yes. On the east side. You say it's overhead electric on the east side? Okay. Overhead electric on the east side. Yes. That's 3 phase. On the west side by the new building in there, that's just that, it's underground to that point where you are at and that's just the light poles. In the parking lot? Yes. We will bring that to the attention of the Subdivision Committee. I don't want you to tear your parking lot up. Kevin, do you know how they want to serve this building? Off of existing service or new tap? Do you want a new meter? I believe the existing service is on the east side. • • • Plat Review Minutes May 31, 2000 Page 31 Rogers: Boles: Rogers: Boles: Phipps: Rogers: Phipps: Rogers: Phipps: Conklin: Rutherford: Hodges: Petrie: Hodges: Conklin: I hadn't really thought it out. Whatever is most feasible. I'll leave that to someone else expertise. We may have something, Kevin, in this location off of Market Street. That would probably be closer that way. That's all I have. I have one more comment, if it requires 3 phase, then the building will have to access a transformer. It will be 3 phase. Okay. So we need a new transformer. The air units are definitely going to have to be 3 phase. We have some large units going in. Maybe we can serve it from the existing transformer that's serving the church now. I think we have 3 phase at the church. If we have to upgrade that transformer we can do that. As long as they make it the same voltage that we had over at the church. You can run a private line over to it. I have no other comment. Anyone else? I have one other comment Tim. Along Rolling Hills Drive, the minimum sidewalk and green space will be required I know it's required. There is residential to the east and C-2 to the west which is already developed, I guess I just wasn't thinking that it had to be connected to anything. I don't see the sidewalk being connected to anything in the future. It's a capital improvements project for the City of Fayetteville so there will be a sidewalk connecting to this. It will be. Good. That's all I have for utilities. I do want to talk about Commercial Design Standards but I don't want you to have to sit through our discussion on that, so Plat Review Minutes May 31, 2000 Page 32 thank you very much. Why don't you go over your elevations. Hodges: This is the front. They are going to be taking out these parking spaces. I went ahead and showed them. There is a 12 foot drive right there. That overlap over there, those parking places may be gone. Those will still be there. Then the vehicles will be able to come in, go through and then come back out. That's the drive through. Conklin: Okay. And this is the front? Hodges: That is the front. Conklin: The front facing towards Rolling Hills? Hodges: That's correct. Edwards: And these are the only spaces that will be removed on the entire site? Hodges: Yes. Conklin: And we are using brick and dry-vit? Rogers: On the front. The rest of will be all metal building. Conklin: What does this side look like. Hodges: The rear? Conklin: I guess my question is can you see these buildings from any public right-of-way? Hodges: If you drive around Blockbuster you can probably see the roof. Rogers: There is a fence between Blockbuster and our property. Edwards: But it ends about right here doesn't it? Rogers: It ends right there where our parking starts behind the building. Edwards: So here. This isn't screened. Rogers: We were talking about a privacy fence 6 foot high anyway on this other were we • • • Plat Review Minutes May 31, 2000 Page 33 not? Edwards: On this side yes. Rogers: Okay. On the other side we already have a privacy fence. Hodges: Along back. Rogers: Right. Conklin: For the record, I'm going to go out there and look at it. Sara has looked at it. Your opinion? Edwards: 1 feel you can definitely see it from Harold Street, over here. Hodges: You probably can across this field catch a glance of it. Rogers: You can look across the field. We own that property all the way to the street on the other side over there. The daycare is basically the same construction that we've got. It is the same type of thing. You can see the daycare before you can see ours. Conklin: Since it's somewhat unique being so far back into the property, let me go out there without telling you no today. Then at Subdivision Committee we can discuss it and I'll have a better idea of what I think my recommendation will be Of course, you go to Planning Commission and they can make a final decision on that. Can you see the front from this building? Hodges: No. Rogers: No. Our present auditorium shields that building totally from the front. From Rolling Hills. Conklin: Let me go out there and take a look and see what our recommendation will be to the Planning Commission. Rogers: We want a nice looking building. Appearance means everything to us. I assure you however we choose to build it, or however we are made to build it, it is going to look good. Conklin: Other churches we have approved that are visible from the street right-of-way • • • Plat Review Minutes May 31, 2000 Page 34 have been required to use something like split face block or brick or something other than metal sidewall. I'll take a look. It's somewhat unique because you are not right up along the street. I want to make sure how far back you are and see if a special consideration can be made. I don't want everybody coming in here saying Trinity Temple got a metal building and we didn't. So, we will work on that. Other than that, I think the front looks fine. That's it.