HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-06-14 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF
TECHNICAL PLAT REVIEW
A regular meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee was held on Wednesday, June 14,
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: Lot Split (Gale, pp 60)
LS 00-21.00: Lot Split (Palmer, pp 572)
LS 00-22.00: Lot Split (Martin, pp 609)
LS 00-20.00: Lot Split (Eckels, pp 168)
FP 00-2.00: Final Plat (Millennium Place, pp 177)
LSD 00-16.00: Large Scale Development
(Keating Enterprise Inc., pp 289)
LSD 00-15.00: Large Scale Development
(Lake Hills Church, pp 255)
LSD 00-17.00: Large Scale Development
(McDonalds, pp 134)
STAFF PRESENT
Tim Conklin
Sara Edwards
Jim Beavers
Kim Hesse
Chuck Rutherford
Kim Rogers
UTILITIES PRESENT
Mike Phipps, Ozark Electric
Johney Boles, Ar Western Gas
Bob Faulk, Southwestern Bell
Jack Regale, SWEPCO
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT
Celia Scott-Silkwood
ACTION TAKEN
Forward w/revisions
Item pulled
Forward w/revisions
Forward w/revisions
Forward w/revisions
Forward w/revisions
Moved to 6/28 Plat Review
Moved to 6/28 Plat Review
STAFF ABSENT
Perry Franklin
Cheryl Zotti
Mickey Jackson
UTILITIES ABSENT
Kevin Lefler, Cox Communications
•
Plat Review Minutes
June 14, 2000
Page 2
LS 00-16.00: Lot Split (Gale, pp 60) was 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.
Conklin: Good morning everybody. This is the meeting of the Technical Plat Review
Committee, Wednesday, June 14, 2000 at 9:00 am. The first item of business is
LS 00-16 submitted by Arden Gale for property located at 1530 Albright Road.
The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural. There is R -I zoning that is pending. It
went to the Planning Commission on Monday night and will go to City Council.
The property contains approximately 4.21 acres. The request is to split into two
tracts of approximately 3.21 acres and 1 acre. Ms. Gale, would you like to join us
this morning.
Gale: Okay.
Conklin: We will start out with Sara Edwards with the Planning Division comments.
•Edwards. Large trees exist in the right-of-way so therefore, sidewalks will not be required.
You don't have to build a sidewalk. You will have parks fees due in the amount
of $470.00 for one additional single family unit. I would like for you to add the
adjacent property owners to the survey. You can just write them in or type them
in on each side. Down here you need to add plat page 60. There is a problem
with the legal description that you need to get fixed. I have attached that in this
packet. Tony has written what the problem is over here so you can take a look at
that and have your surveyor fix that. You do need to reference the July 21, 1999
flood map. I would like to remind you this is subject to City Council approval of
your rezoning to R-1. Any other staff comments?
•
Beavers: I would remind you that it is Springdale water and septic system which is a
corporate entity approved by the County to whoever buys the lot.
Conklin: Are you aware of any problems with getting a perk test approved on that lot
Gale: No.
Conklin: So you are fairly confident that you will be able to get a septic system on this one
acre tract?
Gale: I'm very confident.
•
Plat Review Minutes
June 14, 2000
Page 3
Conklin: I just wanted to clarify that. Any other staff comments?
Edwards: Revisions are due June 21, 2000 at 10.00 am.
Rutherford: No comment.
Hesse: No comment.
Rogers: No comment.
Conklin: Utility Comments?
Phipps: I would like a 20 foot easement shown along Albright drive outside the right-of-
way.
Conklin: A 20 foot general utility easement outside the right-of-way.
Phipps: Yes.
• Boles: Johney Boles, Arkansas Westem Gas, no comment.
Faulk: Bob Faulk, Southwestern Bell, no comment.
Conklin: Any other comments from anybody? Okay. Thank you Ms. Gale.
Edwards: You can call me if you have any questions.
Gale: Thank you.
•
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
June 14, 2000
Page 4
LS 00-21.00: Lot Split (Palmer, pp 572) was submitted by Larry F. Palmer for property located
at 6290 Danita. The property is zoned R -I, Low Density Residential and contains approximately
1.49 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of approximately 0.472 acres and 0.472 acres.
Conklin: The next item is LS 00-21 submitted by Larry F. Palmer for property located at
6290 Danita. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains
approximately 1.49 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of approximately
0.472 acres and 0.472 acres. Planning staff has a problem with this with regard to
the fact this property has been split once or twice already. Anytime you split it
more than three times it needs to come through as a subdivision. We have been
trying to get in contact with the owner or applicant and have not been successful.
This will be removed from this agenda this morning.
Plat Review Minutes
June 14, 2000
Page 5
LS 00-22.00: Lot Split (Martin, pp 609) was submitted by Paula Nall on behalf of Kenneth
Martin for property located at 0 Hunt Lane. The property is in the City Growth Area and
contains approximately 2.75 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 1.75 acres and 1 acre.
Conklin: That brings us to our next item which is a LS 00-22 submitted by Paula Nall on
behalf of Kenneth Martin for property located at, is that right, 0 Hunt Lane The
property is in the City Growth Area and contains approximately 2.75 acres The
request is to split into two tracts of 1 75 acres and 1 acre. Is the applicant here
now?
Nall: Yes.
Conklin: Go ahead Sara.
Edwards: We need for you to add the adjacent property owners and the zoning to show on
each side. Show who owns the property on each side of you.
Nall: Okay.
• Edwards: You are just outside the city limits, correct?
Nall: Yes.
Edwards: So, forget the zoning and just list the property owners. Also, add plat page 609
down here. That tells us where to locate it in the city. You also need a vicinity
map.
Nall: It's on the back of the plan.
Edwards: Okay. You have a floodplain reference on there but it is referenced to an older
map. You need to reference the February 5, 1997 FIRM map.
Conklin: Do you see it on here? Can you show us on the vicinity map? I guess I'm
missing it. Have you marked it on there?
Nall: No, I did not mark the lot.
Conklin: The location?
Nall: Yes. It's on Hunt Lane and it's here.
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
June 14, 2000
Page 6
Conklin: Okay. We do need it marked on there. Make a big note on there as "site" or
whatever for when the utilities or Planning Commissioners look at it.
Nall: Okay.
Edwards. Our ordinance does require under a suburban subdivision that our minimum lot
size be 1.5 acres so I'm noting that you are requesting a variance for that to a
smaller lot size. Just go ahead and write a letter to us stating that you are
requesting it.
Nall: Is all of that on here or do I need to be writing it down?
Edwards. It's all on there.
Conklin: It's all on there and for the record, with regard to the lot size, we used to have lot
splits go to the county first and they reviewed the lots and configurations and
approved that. Now, and I always defer any conflicts between our regulations and
the county regulations once they approve that, that it was fine. Now that we are
going through the city first, we do have this regulation and in my opinion we do
need to change, because it meets the county sanitation requirement for a perk test
or a septic system. You again have a lot less than an acre and I plan on taking that
to Planning Commission at the second meeting of this month. We do need to
point that out and get that variance taken care of.
Edwards: I would like to note that after you get approval here you do have to get approval
from the county.
Nall: We already have approval from the county. Do we need to do that again?
Edwards. No, not if you already have it.
Conklin: Here is the County Planner.
Nall: We got approval from the county back in October.
Scott-Silkwood: Okay. A long time ago.
Nall: Then the title company did all of this for my parents. Then the lady that got a non
compliance letter and that's why I'm here.
Conklin: Sara went through all the information in that letter.
•
• Beavers: I think this has already been taken care of and if so it needs to be shown on the
Plat Review Minutes
June 14, 2000
Page 7
Scott-Silkwood: So you went to the Planning Board?
Nall:
We went through the county and got an approval. Actually they got an exception
because it was a split between brothers and sisters. Then the brothers sold it to
my parents.
Scott-Silkwood: Okay. So whenever you guys get through with the process send it over.
Conklin: Okay.
Edwards: These revisions are due, 37 copies, on Wednesday, June 21, 2000 by 10:00 am.
Nall: Okay. So everything that needs to be done is actually on the plat and a letter
asking for a variance?
Edwards: Yes.
Conklin: And if you have any questions you can give us a call.
•
plat. Someone came in our office a while back and said the water surface lines on
tract B went right through where they wanted to build a house on tract A.
Nall: That was my parents, Jim. They are just going to leave it like it is. There is no
problem.
Beavers: There is a problem with the city. If they are going to leave the service line across
tract A where it is, then there needs to be a 10 foot private easement dedicated
from tract A to tract B and shown on this plat. That is just so if it changes
ownership in the future, whoever owns tract A doesn't cut the water off to tract B.
Nall: Okay.
Beavers: It's fine to leave it like it is.
Nall: We Just need to show a 10 foot easement on the plat?
Conklin: A 10 foot utility easement centered on the water line.
Beavers: Private easement from A to B
•
Plat Review Minutes
June 14, 2000
Page 8
Conklin: Private from A to B.
Beavers: Again Just a reminder that it's on septic and to please verify the septic system for
tract B is entirely on tract B and not on tract A. That's all I have.
Hesse: No comment.
Rogers: No comment.
Phipps: No comment for the electric company.
Boles: I would like for you to show a 20 foot utility easement on the east side of Hunt
Lane parallel to the right-of-way.
Nall: Isn't it already there?
Boles: It's not shown. Do your parents live east of Fayetteville?
• Nall: They live in Elkins at this time. I think you have been out there, Johney. I
believe mother had you go out there because of where the meter was. She was
questioning that.
Boles: Right. I know where this is then.
Conklin: You want a 20 foot utility easement along this right-of-way line?
Boles: Yes.
Conklin: On the east side of it?
Boles: Yes.
Conklin: That's a general utility easement. For everybody or Just for Arkansas Western
Gas?
Boles: General would be fine.
Conklin: Okay.
• Nall: There is a 30 foot road easement and you are wanting there to be in addition to
this 30 foot a 20 foot utility easement?
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
June 14, 2000
Page 9
Conklin: Yes. In addition to that another 20 feet.
Nall: So we are talking 50 feet?
Conklin: Fifty feet, yes.
Beavers: I'd like to verify one thing. The staff comments are provided to you in writing but
the private comments are not. You will need to write that down.
Conklin: You may want to draw it on there.
Boles: I can draw it on there for you.
Nall: I guess I'm questioning why since there is one across the front of Hunt Lane.
Your gas line is already there.
Boles:
But at any point and time in the future that we want to replace that, we can't put it
back on that street right-of-way. We have to put it back on private property. So
coming off of this right of way line over 20 feet is where the utility easement
needs to be. That's all I have.
Faulk: No comment for the telephone company.
Conklin: Any other comments on this lot split? Revisions are due by June 21, 2000 by
10.00 am. If you have any questions please feel free to call me or Sara. What
Johney is asking for is typical.
Nall: I understand that.
Conklin: What happens is when we have a street widening project and they are in the right
of way they are responsible to relocate those facilities at your cost. They don't
like to place utilities in the street right-of-way anymore.
Boles: If we are on private right-of-way to start with then we seek reimbursement to
relocate those line.
Nall: I'm just thinking in my mind that they are going to both croak. They are moving
from a farm to town.
Boles: Tell her to call me.
•
Plat Review Minutes
June 14, 2000
Page 10
Nall: They already feel like they are giving away, that they have paid for something
they can't use. So, in my mind I'm just trying to figure out how to explain this to
them.
Phipps: Is the power on the east or west side?
Nall: There is a power pole right there in the northeast corner.
Phipps: We have power back to that existing house.
Nall: Yes.
Phipps: There is a utility easement with that line that goes back through there. The only
thing now is it will show a recorded easement there in front.
Nall:
Okay. She's in the hospital with cancer and I'm dealing with all these different
things.
• Conklin: I'm sure Johney will be happy to talk to her.
•
Boles: More than happy. I'll be glad to talk with you in just a few minutes if you would
like.
Nall: All right.
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
June 14, 2000
Page 11
LS 00-20.00: Lot Split (Eckels, pp 168) was submitted by William Rudasill on behalf of Dan
Eckels for property located at 3906 N. Salem Road. The property is in the City Growth Area and
contains approximately 30.06 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 27.06 acres and 1.5
acres.
Conklin: Next item is LS 00-20 for Mr. Eckels submitted by William Rudasill on behalf of
Dan Eckels for property located at 3906 N. Salem Road. The property is in the
City Growth Area and contains approximately 30.06 acres. The request is to split
into two tracts of 27.06 acres and 1.5 acres Good morning Mr. Rudasill.
Rudasill: Good moming.
Edwards: First of all there are 2 lot splits being requested here so we need an additional lot
split application and an additional $200.00 fee.
Rudasill: Okay.
Edwards: Plat page 168 needs to be added to the title block. I need the planning area
boundary added to the vicinity map. I believe Tony had talked to you about
problems with the legal description.
Rudasill: Yes.
Edwards: Right-of-way must be dimensioned from centerline, specifically talking about
Hwy 112 here. With the new dedication it needs to show 55 feet from centerline.
Also, you must get county approval prior to filing the lot splits.
Beavers: Engineering's comments, Ron will be back next Monday if you have any
questions. The waterline to be extended to be 4 inches in size. The waterline
should be outside of the right-of-way with a utility easement that provides a
minimum of 10 foot on each side of the line. Just a reminder that public sewer is
not available. He asked if there are any existing structures on the lots?
Rudasill: Not on the lots that are being split. There are some down here by Hwy 112.
Beavers: And in the title block, you need to change this from Farmington to Fayetteville.
Rudasill: Okay.
Rutherford: No comment.
•
Plat Review Minutes
June 14, 2000
Page 12
Hesse: No comment.
Rogers: No comment.
Edwards: Any utility comments?
Phipps: On lot 1-A we need a 20 foot easement around the whole plat for future use. I
don't know what they plan on this 27 acres in the future.
Rudasill: Probably eventually subdivide it.
Phipps: Right. Then we will have that 20 foot all the way around it.
Rudasill: He has some grade questions he has to deal with to get cars into those lots..
Phipps: Okay. We may deal with that when it goes ahead.
Faulk: Yes, please.
• Rudasill: Go across 2A also?
Phipps: I'd say between them would be better.
Rudasill: Okay.
Faulk: As long as I can get back to Salem.
Rudasill: Okay. Then do you need anything along Salem?
Phipps: Yes. 20 foot along Salem. I have no other comments.
Rudasill: Do you have anything along Hwy 112 already? Do you need something right
there? I'll check, I need to get the residences on there. I've got them but I don't
know why we didn't get them on there. I'll check to see if there is room. I don't
know how close this house is.
Faulk: If you get one on Hwy 112 it would help too.
Phipps: If I've got one there, we already have one.
• Rudasill: Well, we are widening that right-of-way to 55 feet.
•
Plat Review Minutes
June 14, 2000
Page 13
Phipps: Yes. 15 foot.
Rudasill: Yes, we will widen that another 15 foot.
Faulk: No other comments.
Conklin: Anyone else have anything on this plat? This will be going to Washington
County for your approval.
Scott-Silkwood: So you will send this from here over to us?
Conklin: Subdivision Committee then to you.
Scott-Silkwood: Okay. But the other one it had to go to the Planning Commission right?
Conklin: Right.
Scott-Silkwood: Are you going to send like a letter of approval?
• Edwards: That is our intention.
Conklin: Sara is working on coordinating all of this with your office and she is still
reviewing that intergovernmental agreement.
Rudasill: My understanding of the process is I will get a letter to go to them.
Conklin: Yes.
Rudasill: If they have any comments or revisions we will make those then bring it back to
you?
Edwards: Yes.
Conklin: Anything else?
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
June 14, 2000
Page 14
FP 00-2.00: Final Plat (Millennium Place, pp 177) was submitted by Chris Parton of Crafton,
Tull & Associates on behalf of Millennium, LLC for property located at the north west corner of
Joyce and Hwy 265. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and C-1, Neighborhood
Commercial and contains approximately 12.65 acres with 17 lots proposed.
Conklin: We will move on to FP 00-2.00 submitted by Chris Parton of Crafton, Tull &
Associates on behalf of Millennium, LLC for property located at the north west
corner of Joyce and Hwy 265. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and
C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 12.65 acres with 17
lots proposed. Go ahead Sara.
Edwards: The 10 foot asphalt trail exists along Joyce Boulevard. Hwy 265 is a principal
arterial and the requirement is for a minimum 6 foot sidewalk with a minimum 10
foot greenspace. Millennium Drive is a local street which requires a minimum 6
foot sidewalk with a minimum 6 foot greenspace. The sidewalk and greenspace
need to be shown on the plat with the appropriate measurements. The sidewalk
needs to be added to the legend. The grading behind the curbs need to be
completed as defined in the minimum street standards before signatures on the
final plat. I need adjacent zoning and adjacent property owners, plat page,
floodplain reference, and sidewalks shown in the legend like Chuck said. I would
like for you to show the zoning line and I want the square footage for each lot.
Parton: Square footage or acreage? I have the acreage.
Edwards. That's fine. Screening will be addressed at the time of lot development.
Addresses are required on the final plat. Before this goes to Subdivision you need
to take it down to Jim Johnson and get it addressed. Are there going to be any
covenants on this?
Parton: They will have covenants, yes.
Edwards: You need to submit those. I would like you to add a note stating the required
setbacks for each zoning district. Each lot is required to go through the large scale
development process. If a unified design theme is not set forth, the first large
scale development to be processed will set the theme. We need a note added to
the plat limiting access for lots 11, 12, 2 & 3 to Millennium Drive only. Lot 1 &
2 must have a shared curb cut. Revisions are due Wednesday, June 25 by 10:00
am.
• Conklin: Chris, to help the Planning Division out here I would like to have the developer
submit us a list of what materials and colors will be allowed in this development.
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
June 14, 2000
Page 15
Parton: Okay.
Conklin: So we have something to review. I have met with one engineering firm already
with regard to a large scale out here and I am concerned that I'm going to have to
try to keep up with all the different materials and colors that will be occurring out
here. If you can sit down and come up with an appropriate list of colors and
materials I would appreciate it. Thank you.
Parton: Do you want us to bring that with our revisions?
Conklin: Yes, bring that with your revisions. If you could call it out like Acme brick #140,
split face block beige color or something like that so I will have something to go
by.
Edwards: Jim?
Beavers: Chris, Ron reviewed this before he left and if you have any specific questions I
would ask you to call Ron on Monday. I will go over his comments but before I
do that let me ask you, where are we at on getting that sidewalk fixed on Millsap
Avenue? The one where they are dumping the water on the sidewalk but Curt
designed it to go under the sidewalk?
Parton: I had a conversation with Chuck about that last week to find out what happened.
As far as I know Jim Nevels did the inspection and Chuck was present and a
representative from May and Sweetser were there. I'm Just trying to find out what
happened and how it was approved. Talking with Chuck last week it sounded like
there had been an inspection and it was approved to be built like it was shown.
Beavers: Well, Curt had a different design which wasn't on your plans and wasn't shown to
Chuck. I feel like someone has snookered Chuck and the City of Fayetteville. I'll
Just make the comment that I am probably not going to view anymore of Crafton
& Tull's work until we get a letter stating how this is going to be resolved.
Parton: Okay.
Beavers: As far as Millennium Place goes there has to be a final inspection completed
before the Subdivision Committee meeting. Is that a week from Thursday?
Parton: Two weeks from tomorrow. Do the items, the punch list items have to be
• completed before Subdivision Committee or just the inspections?
•
Plat Review Minutes
June 14, 2000
Page 16
Beavers: Inspections. And I assume you will develop a punch list from the inspections.
Parton: Right.
Conklin: Let me just clarify that for the record. When we talk about punch list items we are
talking about the road will be in, the curb and gutters will be in, you will be able
to drive on it and only the last final layer of pavement is left. Is that what we are
talking about?
Beavers: Right. They can bond out of the sidewalks, the final pavement and landscape.
The punch list will be things like sealing cracks in the gutters, minor things like
that, but the work needs to be complete.
Conklin: Yes. And are you confident that the work will be complete?
Parton: We have been assured by the contractor that it will be complete.
Rutherford: Can I ask a question about the sidewalks? Chris, are you guys going to build
• those up front or leave for each lot to build them or have you decided?
•
Parton: We are going to go ahead and bond the sidewalk in the development and leave
that up to each lot to do that.
Rutherford: How about on Hwy 265?
Parton: I believe they are planning on building that. They will have to make an
adjustment on Joyce.
Rutherford: One thing you might want to look at, I know they poured the curb and gutter on
one side of the street and wrapped it all the way around and they didn't put an
access ramp for the sidewalk. That is something you might want to address. If
not, they are going to have to cross cut the curb.
Beavers: Before I read Ron's comments again, Chris, you do whatever Crafton & Tull
needs to do but on that thing out on Millsap, Curt had submitted plans that we
approved and we really feel like you should have had somebody on site that day
when the contractor showed a different plan to Chuck and 1 expect that to be
corrected.
Parton: We will address it Jim.
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
June 14, 2000
Page 17
Beavers: Okay, water and sewer, per ordinance the water and sewer must be shown on the
final plat. Per the agreement with the owner a payment of $6,600.00 is due and
payable to the water and sewer fund for the waterline extension along Joyce Street
before the final plat is signed. Please label the easements on lots 5 & 6. Because
of the location of the detention pond and the slopes of the detention pond the 20
foot utility easement shown on the west and north of lot 17 can not be used by the
utilities and therefore can not be shown as a utility easement. If they need
easements back there they need to get them in another location.
Parton: Okay.
Beavers: Separate utility and drainage easements between lots 12 and 13 on to the east of
lot 1. A utility easement shown on the south side of lot 10 must be described in
detail since it is not a uniform width. The easement along the street right-of-way
to the northwest of lot 16 should be revised to be a uniform 20 foot width due to
the way the storm pipe comes across the lot. There may or may not be additional
easements needed for the street lights. Drainage, again these are ordinance
requirements, show the minimum finished floor elevations for buildings on lot 1,
9, 10, 12, and 13. Show the maximum limits of ponding in the detention pond.
Label the 100 year water surface elevation. Add a note to the final plat that all
drainage outside of the street right-of-way including storm pipes, open ditches,
and the detention pond will be privately owned and maintained In the covenants
you need to tell us who is going to maintain the pond. Add a note on the final plat
that lot 17 is unbuildable. The right-of-way along Hwy 265 must be dedicated by
separate warranty deed. Then our standard final plat comments, prior to signing
this plat we will need a resolution of all comments listed above. All items on the
punch list completed In accordance to the Grading Ordinance all disturbed areas
shall be revegetated. You will have to have as -built drawings, construction cost
data, and maintenance bonds. The survey requirements and monuments should be
checked by the city surveyor. That is all from engineering.
Edwards: I'm sorry. I skipped over Kim Hesse's comments and I need to read those. The
Catalpa tree on lot 2 has fill within the critical root zone, all fill must be removed
with small equipment. Upon removal of soil, Landscape Administrator shall be
contacted for further inspection of the tree, aeration may be required. Trees slated
for protection were removed by contractor prior to grading approvals, mitigation
was discussed. I recommended to the Planning Commission that we require 4
inch caliper hardwood shade trees versus 2 inch, placed 30 foot on center along
the right-of-way of Millennium Place and require an overall 30% of tree canopy
cover on each lot. I will require that the covenants state these requirements. If
you have questions or comments please give Kim Hesse a call at 575-8308.
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
June 14, 2000
Page 18
Conklin:
Parton:
Conklin:
Beavers:
Hesse:
Parton:
Hesse:
Conklin:
Hesse:
Conklin:
Hesse:
Conklin:
Hesse:
Conklin:
Beavers:
Parton:
With regard to the trees along Millennium Drive, is there a water or sewer line
and which side is that on?
It's on both sides of the street.
Both sides?
I don't know how close it is. They are not on here and I don't know where they
are at.
These will be inside of, it looks to me like they are between the curb and the right-
of-way on this drawing.
The water lines should be between the curb and the sidewalk and then the sewer is
Just behind that.
Then we should have room between the right-of-way and the building setback.
Well, that's between the easement and the building setback.
Kim, can you help me out here? I'm trying to figure out where you are putting
these trees.
Basically the trees that will be required for Commercial Design Standards.
And they will be in the setback area or right-of-way? I'm confused.
We typically put them between the right-of-way and the setback in that 15 foot
strip between the right-of-way and the parking.
Okay. So it's going to be on their property not on our city right-of-way?
Yes.
And the utilities are going to be in the right-of-way?
Yes. It sounds like the public utilities will be. It sounds like they are pretty close
to the curb.
Water is in the right-of-way between the curb and sidewalk, sewer is immediately
behind the sidewalk on the south side of Millennium.
•
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
June 14, 2000
Page 19
Conklin: Immediately behind the sidewalk you have the sewer on the south side?
Parton: On the south side.
Conklin: Okay. There is a 20 foot utility easement there. Are we going to have any
problems putting these 4 inch caliper trees in that 20 foot utility easement? Do we
need to go around and talk to the utilities and see where we are at?
Parton: I'm not exactly certain, I don't have a scale with me, but I don't believe that's a
20 foot easement. It's probably more like 12 to 15 foot. It's 10 feet off of the
sewer lines where it's located. I don't know exactly.
Conklin: Jim, did you request a 20 foot?
Beavers: It's labeled as a 20 foot.
Conklin: And did you request a 20 foot?
Beavers: Yes. I believe Ron requested that it be made uniform 20 up here in the curve
because your storm pipe, I think, cuts across this.
Parton: All right.
Conklin: While we are on the subject do the utility companies have any problem putting 4
inch caliper trees in that easement? I'll let you make your comments individually
since we are talking about the trees and putting 4 inch caliper trees every 30 feet
along Millennium Drive. Is there any problem doing that?
Phipps: No. Just that if we have to get in there to do anything, any repairs to existing lines
and we happen to damage a tree we will not replace it. If we have to remove it we
won't replace it.
Boles: Same for the gas.
Faulk: Same for the telephone company. We will try to avoid the tree but we can't
guarantee it.
Hesse: This is the same issue we reviewed last time.
Conklin: I know.
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
June 14, 2000
Page 20
Beavers:
Hesse:
Conklin:
Hesse:
Conklin:
Hesse:
Conklin:
Beavers:
Conklin:
Hesse:
Conklin:
Rutherford:
I have a tree question. Which it's not my question, it's one Tim came up with and
I want to give him credit for it, the tree preservation plan for the overall
subdivision shows the trees on lot 7 & 8 to be saved, is there going to be a note on
this final plat that says all trees shown to be saved on lot 7 & 8 have to be saved?
I'll have to talk to Jerry. I don't know. I would like to have a statement for that
rare Catalpa tree.
That the rare Catalpa tree on lot 2 will have to remain there in perpetuity. Till it
dies. And when we see a development on lot 2 that tree will remain.
We could do that.
I think we should do that. The rest of the trees in the subdivision?
I don't know that we can change the way it is done.
Because each lot is coming through large scale development as a condition of
preliminary plat. However, because of size they would not have to come through
large scale development if the Commission didn't place that condition on it.
Then we just have individual building permits. Kim, that's something you need
to make a recommendation for at Subdivision Committee.
I want to share this real quick, I had an architect call who is working on two large
scales out there and wanted to know if it could be waived, some of the drainage
requirements. With all we have gone through I found it hard to believe he even
asked that question.
So, Kim, with your mitigation that you are recommending, you are recommending
approval of this plan?
With some additional canopy requirements. But as far as the violations, we have
to figure out how to do that.
I would request you write something up on that so the Planning Commission has a
clear understanding of what was approved at preliminary plat and what is being
proposed today at final plat. Anything else from staff?
Chris, I would be interested in stating about the grading behind the right-of-way,
the right-of-way needs to be done before the final plat will be signed.
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
June 14, 2000
Page 21
Parton: Does the sidewalk need to be backfilled?
Rutherford: The grading for the sidewalk elevations and 1 foot behind the sidewalk on both
sides of the street, that grading needs to be done prior to signing the final plat.
Rogers: No comment.
Edwards: Any utility comments?
Phipps: This 30 foot drainage easement, this 20 foot drainage easement are they to be
concreted?
Parton: There are concrete swells on the west side of the drainage easement.
Phipps: We have to cross those. Someone will have to punch us some crossings in there
to get across these things.
Parton: Okay.
Phipps: And I think, Johney, is the gas company coming in here? I have to tie everything
together and I'll probably have to bring 3 phase in here so I will need three 4 inch
crossings in that 30 foot utility easement or drainage easement right there.
Parton: Just crossing east to west?
Phipps: Yes, crossing east and west.
Parton: Between lots 12 and 13 you say?
Phipps: Yes.
Faulk: I need two.
Conklin: So six four inch crosses.
Phipps: Then on the north side of lot 9 & 10, is that concreted up there?
Parton: Yes.
• Phipps: We will need the same thing there.
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
June 14, 2000
Page 22
Parton: Same for the other utilities also?
Boles: Yes for gas.
Faulk: Yes for telephone.
Phipps: Also, before we do any construction at all, all the utility easements will be through
finished grade and will be cleared of trees. Also, I would like to move the street
light on lot 9 & 10 down between lot 8 & 9 and give me a 10 foot utility easement
between 8 & 9 to serve that light. That will put it about 330 feet from the
intersection and will be more uniform with the code. Also, on the north side of lots
5 & 6 we will need a 20 foot easement through there to come around that detention
pond that way. And we will need a little 20 foot easement on lot 4 & 5 to get to
that.
Conklin: This detention pond, how deep is that?
Parton: Six or seven feet.
Conklin: Seven feet. So you have it bermed up?
Parton: Yes.
Conklin: Around every side? And there is no problem putting utilities on that berm?
Beavers: Yes there is. They are not allowed. That's why we said that it is unusable.
Parton: Right. That property line between lots 5 & 6 is at the base of that berm. So if we
dedicated easements off of the southeast side of that lot line it would be exclusive
of the detention basin.
Conklin: Okay, when you say 20 foot utility easement we are not talking on the north side of
17. We are talking 20 feet on 5 & 6?
Parton: On the southeast side of that lot line.
Conklin: Okay. I didn't get that, you guys got that.
Phipps: We will also need it at lots 6 & 7 to get back into that 20 foot there. Just make it
• around.
Plat Review Minutes
June 14, 2000
Page 23
Conklin: There will be no utility easements on lot 17. There will be a detention pond with a
note it can't be developed.
Parton: Yes.
Phipps: On the south side of lots 11 & 12, when I cut through there going east I'll need to
get into that 20 foot utility easement that existed.
Parton: Along the west side of 265?
Phipps: The one you have running north and south, this 20 foot.
Parton: Between the car wash and store?
Phipps: Between the car wash and the convenience store. How much easement do we have
there?
Parton: We have 20 feet showing off of lots 12 &11.
Phipps: It will all be 20 foot?
Parton: It should be, yes.
Faulk: It doesn't reflect 20 feet on the south side of lots 11 & 12.
Phipps: It scales at about 10 feet.
Parton: It's shown incorrectly.
Boles: Did you log it at the northeast comer of one?
Faulk: Yes.
Phipps: Chris, on the preliminary did we not, I thought we had a crossing between Tots 3 &
4 over to lots 16 & 2. That we were going to come up here and cross through there
and go that way.
Boles: And I asked you the other day, Chris, I thought we had requested an easement
between 3 & 4 at preliminary too.
Parton: What I thought we had agreed to do was just have a 20 foot on the south side of lot
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
June 14, 2000
Page 24
3 then we would just provide conduits for the streets there so you could access it
that way on the south side of lot 3 come beneath the street there then go along the
west side of lot 2. Is that satisfactory?
Phipps: I have overhead line and I'm going to set an overhead pole right there at the
southwest corner of lot 2 then take it underground through there. I just couldn't
remember. I thought we did want one up there but I can get buy without it. I'm
not sure if the other utilities can.
Boles: We can if we have to.
Faulk: You are going to have a crossing you say paralleling Joyce?
Parton: Yes. One six inch and three 4 inch conduit put in underneath.
Phipps: I have no other comments.
Boles: I think Mike took care of all of mine.
Faulk: On the west side of lot 3 you are showing a 20 foot utility easement with a 10 foot
building setback.
Parton: It should be 20 foot building setback.
Faulk: So we do have a setback?
Phipps: A 25 foot setback.
Conklin: On the side property lines we require a line right there that's why it's different. I
believe that is a 10 foot setback. Are you looking for a 20 foot utility easement?
Faulk: I'm looking for a 20 foot utility easement on the back side of lot 3 which it showed
but it also showed a 10 foot building setback and they are conflicting.
Conklin: Now this lot has two fronts and two sides. Side setbacks are 10 feet. So it's going
to be 20 foot on lot 3 on the east and west property line because you are asking for
a 20 foot utility easement.
Faulk: Right.
Conklin: Okay, that should work.
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
June 14, 2000
Page 25
Faulk:
Conklin:
Edwards:
Conklin:
Okay. That is all I have.
Any other utility comments? I would request 9 copies of the approved tree
preservation plan be submitted also.
Revisions are due June 25, 2000 by 10:00 am.
Thank you, Chris.
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
June 14, 2000
Page 26
LSD 00-16.00: Large Scale Development ( Keating Enterprises Inc., pp 289) was submitted
by Chris Brackett of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Keating Enterprises Inc., for property
located on lots 1 & 2 of Sunbridge The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and
contains approximately 2.89 acres. The request is for office/lease space.
Conklin: The next item on the agenda is LSD 00-16 submitted by Chris Brackett of
Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Keating Enterprises Inc., for property located
on lots 1 & 2 of Sunbridge. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial
and contains approximately 2.89 acres. The request is for office/lease space. We
will start out with Sara Edwards, our Development Coordinator.
Edwards: On all trees to be protected, ensure that the trees will receive the adequate amount
of water and that they are properly drained. Some form of irrigation is required for
new landscaping, water spigots placed at 100 feet radius intervals is the minimum
requirement. Prior to building permit approval, a more detailed landscape plan is
required with species and plant spacing identified and proper installation details
and notes are added to the plans. I support and recommend the variance to reduce
the 15 foot landscape bed between the parking lot and the right of way to 5 feet due
to tree preservation restraints. A grove of native species trees will be required at
the northeast corner of the lot. Sunbridge Drive is a local street having a 31 foot
street with 50 foot right-of-way. The requirement is for a minimum 5 foot
sidewalk with a minimum 4 foot greenspace. We did have a problem with your
project disk which I think Tony has contacted you about. We need a new one.
Brackett: I believe I e-mailed him the drawings.
Edwards: Okay. Please reference the July 21, 1999 Flood Insurance Rate Map. Please
dimension the right-of-way from centerline along the eastern side of this project
where the right-of-way increases. Then the landscaped areas dimensioned also.
The parking lot may or may not be encroaching.
Keating: What?
Edwards. I want the dimensions for the landscaped area there.
Brackett: From the curb to the right of way?
Edwards: Yes.
Brackett: It's over 15 foot but we can do that.
•
Plat Review Minutes
June 14, 2000
Page 27
Edwards:
Conklin:
Keating:
Edwards:
Brackett:
Edwards.
Conklin:
• Brackett:
•
Beavers:
Brackett:
Beavers:
Keating:
Beavers:
Brackett:
Beavers:
Conklin:
Beavers:
Screening will be required along the northern property line adjacent to the R-2
district. Are you going to have any signs, monument signs identifying the
development?
And if so we need to have that shown on the plat and elevations.
Got it. There will probably be something like I did up the street. I'll get you
drawings and locations.
Revisions are due, 37 copies by 10:00 am Wednesday June 21g. Also a fire
hydrant should be installed at the west entrance to the development off Sunbridge
Drive.
We have two fire hydrants on two Lots in there.
You need to contact Mickey Jackson and see what you need.
Are you showing those on your plan?
Yes. There is one here at the corner of Villa and Sunbridge and there is one on the
eastern property line.
How far apart are they?
They are 660 feet.
That 660 feet exceeds what is allowable in our fire code standings.
How did they ever let them do this to start with? It's different when they develop
the property versus when they put buildings on it?
I can't say. My predecessor reviewed those plans and spacings.
But is the spacing 600 feet?
Six hundred feet.
It's about 680.
Mickey may go with it and say it's close to 600 feet.
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
June 14, 2000
Page 28
Brackett:
Conklin:
Keating:
Conklin:
Keating:
Conklin:
Brackett:
Conklin:
Hesse:
Brackett:
Hesse:
Brackett:
Hesse:
Conklin:
Brackett:
Keating:
Beavers:
I'll talk to him about that.
I just want to clarify some of these comments made by other staff members. With
regard to screening, have you thought about what you are going to put on this north
boundary line?
What ever Kim wants. Just tell me how many and what kind.
Okay. And for the record, I want to make sure we get this in here, this is zoned C-
1. The tree preservation requirement is 20 percent.
Which is a problem now.
You had an existing canopy of 7.43 percent and you are preserving 7.19 percent so
you are reducing it slightly.
We are taking out the one 12 inch oak.
One 12 inch oak. I just want that in the record, what canopy is existing, what is
being preserved. And one clarification question, Kim, you talked about a grove of
native species trees on the northeast corner, are those existing? Are they shown on
this plat?
No. It's actually between the 15 foot building setback and utility easement on the
far east side of that property.
Existing?
No. There are very few there. There are a few.
You are saying we will need to add that?
Yes.
You are adding. You are planting a grove of native species trees there.
Okay.
I don't imagine I can give that to the city for a park or anything can I?
Engineering's comments, Ron reviewed this plan and he will be back on Monday
•
Plat Review Minutes
June 14, 2000
Page 29
to answer any specific questions. But before I read his comments, you are willing
to plant a grove of trees and spend thousands and thousands of dollars, whatever
Kim wants, yet you are going to slight Mickey on a fire hydrant.
Keating: If Mickey thinks we need one, we will pop one in the middle of that puppy.
Beavers: The general comments are all designs are subject to further review. Since you
have these in writing I'll just hilight them. If there are any adjustments to the
water and sewer it will be at the developer's expense. The preliminary grading
plan lacked a couple of items. Ron included a check list. The drainage report also
lacked a few items and he listed out the additional information you will need to
review that drainage report. And although it doesn't say it here in Ron's
comments, those are also due at the same time all revisions are which is when?
Conklin: June 21, 2000 at 10.00 am in Planning Division.
Beavers: That's all.
• Conklin: Let me make one comment. With regard to this plan, Kim, this is the tree
preservation plan also correct?
•
Hesse: Correct. The grading plan is.
Conklin: Okay. I want to make sure what we have in our files with regard to that tree
preservation plan.
Beavers: Do you even get a copy of that?
Conklin: I'm trying to solve this situation. So the grading plan is called, it doesn't say tree
preservation plan on here.
Brackett. It does. Well, it may not. I'm sorry. It should. In the past what we have done is
put the tree preservation on the grading plan at intervals. Then we have given two
sets to engineering which one engineering reviews and one Kim reviews. And we
have been giving Kim her own set.
Edwards. Are you giving them directly to her?
Brackett: Yes. But if you would like we could add a copy or two for Planning.
Conklin: Yes. I need to know what the tree preservation plan is so I can put one in our file
•
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
June 14, 2000
Page 30
and know that this is the approved tree preservation plan.
Brackett: Okay.
Conklin: Kim, not to put you on the spot or anything, is this meeting the tree preservation
plan and tree ordinance requirements for the record?
Hesse: Yes.
Conklin: Yes. Thank you. I have had many people asking many questions and I just want
to be able to answer them. So, we have it on tape in the minutes. Thank you.
Edwards: Any utility comments?
Regale: Yes, Jack Regale, SWEPCO. I didn't get a chance to look at that original
Sunbridge east plat. Was there a utility easement there along the west side of this
lot 1?
Brackett: No.
Regale: There was not.
Brackett: There are easements in-between the two lots
Regale: Between lots 1 & 2. That 15 foot that you are showing?
Brackett: Yes.
Regale: That was on the plat.
Keating: Plus you guys are going to take what you want anyway.
Regale: If we have the opportunity, yes, and if it's needed. The other item I want to
understand a little bit, you are proposing installing new trees along the north
property line as a screen between the adjacent property and this property and that is
in the 20 foot utility easement, this 15 foot utility easement?
Keating: It will probably be in the drainage easement. It will probably be right behind the
curb.
Brackett: It won't be along, right there on the north property line. It will be up closer to the
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
June 14, 2000
Page 31
parking lot.
Keating: Along that drainage easement starting from here and going to here turning the
corner and heading down, we are probably going to put 4x6 cement culverts. Just
like what goes under the street right now. In other words, that thing is going to go
away. There is not going to be any more ditch on that property.
Regale: Right. I see that on the plan.
Keating: When we put that in maybe we could set your conduit.
Beavers: I don't know that we will allow any screening in the drainage easements. This
goes back to a conflict we always have. I'm not saying we won't. I'm just saying
this is new to me. I don't know if you talked to Ron about it.
Brackett: Not yet.
Beavers: We reserve the right to review this.
Brackett: Okay.
Beavers. I think we need a tree easement. We have the drainage easement the utility
easement then a tree easement.
Keating: We need a building easement.
Boles: You need to start stacking these Bill.
Keating: As far as the north side goes, once this property is developed, and I don't know if
you have my colored drawings, you really are not going to see anything back there.
Brackett: We are quite a bit above the trailers.
Conklin: Well, the idea is that the mobile homes aren't seeing you. We are trying to screen
the residential from the commercial.
Brackett: I would venture to say that within the parking lot where it is at, you won't be able
to see these buildings. It will be so much higher and looking like that.
Keating: Whatever Kim wants.
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
June 14, 2000
Page 32
Conklin:
Hesse:
Keating:
Regale:
Boles:
Keating:
Boles:
Brackett:
Conklin:
Phipps:
Boles:
Hesse:
Conklin:
Boles:
We are talking about a continuous planting of evergreen type species, trees that
will provide a screen year round.
What happens when all the ordinances conflict with each other?
We saved them on lots 4, 5, and 6. Now we are trying to save them and Kim says
now save these trees. Then the gas company comes in and yanked all those
suckers right out.
That's just an additional conflict to work around is all.
And we are not opposed to the beautification of this town.
Put it on record that you like trees.
But we are opposed for the root systems of these trees causing harm on our
property.
I understand and I want to work it out. I'm Just saying there is a utility easement
then there is a drainage easement and then there is a parking lot. If trees are going
to be planted along that north line and they will need to be in one or the other.
We all know in this room what the situation is. For the people who don't know,
we are trying to put all the pieces together.
I think it's a good idea. I'm in favor of a tree easement.
I am too.
Could you all come speak at our ordinance review meetings? Because that is an
option being discussed.
When we look at our tree ordinance and how to save these trees because it's Just
not trees we are trying to do here. We are dealing with utilities, drainage and
everything else.
By planting those trees in the utility easements you are not prolonging the life of
that tree. Sooner or later you have the potential that the tree might die. You roll
the dice and you are not helping yourself. That's Just my opinion.
Conklin: I would encourage the utilities to participate in this process we are going through
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
June 14, 2000
Page 33
and come up with the best way to preserve trees in this community.
Regale: Actually it's a little bit of a twist also, is it not, in trying to plant a new row of trees
for screening where, I thought the original ordinance was a screening fence, like a
wooden fence.
Conklin: It was always vegetation, fence or combination of the two. Fences have been a
problem because they fall down in five to ten years. Vegetation is preferred in my
opinion.
Faulk: Vegetation can fall down too.
Regale: So in other words, it's kind of a shift of the city's emphases more towards the
evergreens as opposed to a solid wood fence.
Conklin: Yes due to maintenance problems. You have to get them to maintain them.
Beavers: Chris, was that drainage easement existing or proposed?
Brackett: It's existing.
Beavers: Ron didn't make a comment so I would like to say we can't be putting in a 6 foot
wide culvert. There is no way we could ever repair it within 10 feet. Could you
make that utility easement a utility and drainage easement?
Brackett: Yes.
Beavers: In case we ever need to get in there and do repairs.
Brackett: That's fine. So you would have from the back of the whole north line to install.
We can do that.
Beavers: Since that is a concrete culvert you won't have to be worried abut the trees going
through the joints and that would be a better place for it probably than the utility
easement
Regale: Electric service to these lots will probably come from lot 9 of Sunbridge and I
don't know where I can be placed on your lot here. If I remember right, I think
those utilities are on the south side of the drainage culvert?
Keating: You don't have any utilities in that area.
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
June 14, 2000
Page 34
Regale:
Keating:
Regale:
Faulk:
Regale:
Keating:
Regale:
Brackett.
Regale:
Keating:
Regale:
Keating:
Regale:
Keating:
Regale:
Not yet. But I think, the other option, if you end up with some underground
utilities chances are they might have to be placed on the north side of this drainage
culvert. In other words that transformer location will probably be on the north side
of this drainage and you will need to make some provisions to get underneath that.
Do you like how we did 4, 5, and 6 where I ended up giving most of the parking
lots away in the easements and then we just buried extra conduits wherever you
wanted transformers. Is that a good idea or a bad idea?
I think for that size of a development it worked fine. I think here though we are
just looking at two separate structures.
Three.
Okay. Three.
It's pretty small.
We probably need to sit down and discuss it.
Wherever we work out the location for you we will provide the conduit under that
culvert.
Anything we do is going to end up on the north portion of the lot.
You figure you want to be above or below the new culvert or you don't care?
At some point, that's what I'm saying, I think when we get further to the west on
the adjacent property we are on the south side of the existing drainage.
Yes.
So at some point if indeed we are on the south side of the existing drainage to the
west we will have to shift over on this side. There needs to be some sort of
provisions for that.
For lot 9?
Across lot 9. At this point there is no power available to this site unless some
conduit is placed across lot 9. We are getting back into that arrangement again.
The other items I will need is, once you have developed your tenants, I will need
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
June 14, 2000
Page 35
load information and voltage details. That's all I have.
Boles: Bill do you have any potential tenants?
Keating: No I don't. It is retail/office space. It's going to be developed with a retail type
flair to it.
Boles: Ten per building?
Keating: Probably 10 tenants.
Boles: You are aware that we have existing facilities?
Keating: Up front?
Boles: In the back.
Keating: Really?
Boles: It runs along the north property line and ties back in on the west side of Villa
Boulevard. That's all I have.
Faulk:
Bill, I think we will probably be coming on this from the northeast and we are
going to need conduit in place. We can work on that as you progress on the
building.
Keating: We have to take them all the way over to lot 9 probably.
Faulk: Yes. Just give me a call.
Edwards: I have a question for you. What parking ratio classification were you using?
Brackett: It was the most for commercial. It was retail.
Edwards: One to 250.
Conklin: One to 250 retail is 20 percent over.
Keating: I think office is more actually. What is 1 to 200. That is what we want.
Conklin: One to 200 is sales office.
Plat Review Minutes
June 14, 2000
Page 36
Keating:
Conklin:
Brackett:
Conklin:
Brackett:
Conklin:
Keating:
Conklin:
Keating:
Conklin:
That's it.
We need to document it.
We are trying to assume the worst case. We are right at the requirement. We are
not even close to being 20 percent over. We could have 125 at 1 to 200. But if
you wanted it to 250 I'm not going to say we are within it. I would imagine we are
real close if we are not.
Ninety nine.
We are 104. Surely there will be some sales office.
I think you can break it out.
Yes.
Give us your best estimates.
Yes, we can do that. No problem.
Chuck, do you have a comment?
Rutherford: Yes. Right here at this box was existing and need to pull this over so it lines up
with that.
Brackett:
You don't have any problems with our drawings?
Rutherford: No. This is a drainage box. What I'm saying is you just need it line the new
sidewalk up with the existing.
Brackett: Okay.
Conklin: I won't let you go without talking about the building design.
Keating: Certainly We want all the architectural comments we can have.
Conklin:
Can you go over your building materials and then after you do that explain to me,
for the record how this design and materials and colors are compatible with the
development at Sunbridge.
i
Plat Review Minutes
June 14, 2000
Page 37
Keating: What do you want me to explain again?
Conklin: Go over what materials you propose to use on this building.
Keating: Brick.
Conklin: And the colors that we see are the colors of the brick?
Brackett: Like they have over at Currie's right across the street.
Conklin: What color brick is that?
Keating: Red.
Conklin: Red brick.
Keating: How about reddish?
• Conklin: I just want to make sure that what I'm seeing and what the Planning Commission
is seeing is what it is. I have to go out there with Sara. We go out every Friday
and we look at this and compare it to the elevations and I go well, it's pretty close.
That's Acme 104 I think, or whatever it is. I have to be able to verify it.
Keating: Are you saying you want bricks brought in to give you and idea of what it looks
like?
Conklin: I'm going to put this up against your building and I expect it to look like that.
Keating: Yes.
Conklin: Okay. With regard to the roof color, are there other red roof colors at the site?
Keating: Yes.
Conklin: There are?
Keating: Coaches.
Conklin: This color?
• Keating: As a matter of fact, the building will probably be very similar to Coaches over
•
Plat Review Minutes
June 14, 2000
Page 38
there.
Conklin: Is this a standing C metal roof?
Keating: No. Hopefully you won't even see that roof a lot. I wasn't trying to make that
roof jump out at you.
Conklin: The elevations, in my opinion, it Jumps out at me.
Keating: Well, you have to remember there are a lot of trees in front of these buildings and
those will screen. You are looking at it on a piece of white paper. Are you saying
you really like these elevations, Tim, or that you don't?
Conklin: I'm a little concerned about the red color.
Keating: On the roof or on the brick?
Conklin: Not the brick, the roof.
Keating: Oh no, it goes good.
Conklin: I've had to battle with McDonalds for lighter colors and I want to state that for the
record. Normally I like to have it at least decided at committee level and let them
discuss it too and we may need to go out there.
Keating: I'll bring you a sample of a red roof. How's that?
Conklin: Out there at Sunbridge?
Keating: Yes.
Conklin: And you will bring me a sample of what it looks like?
Keating: I'll bring you a sample. I'll bring you twelve samples you can put in.
Edwards: No.
Keating: No? Don't bring any samples?
Edwards: Just one, not twelve.
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
June 14, 2000
Page 39
Keating: Okay.
Brackett: Is staff going to support our variance? The five foot setback for the parking lot?
Conklin: Yes. We are encouraged to do that under the ordinance to save the trees.
Brackett: Okay.
Hesse: And you want a memo from me, Tim?
Conklin: Yes. Anything else, Sara?
Edwards: No.
Conklin: Lake Hills Church and McDonalds have been pulled due to insufficient application
submittal. They will be back with us next time if they are able to submit the proper
applications.
Meeting adjourned.
