No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-08-16 - Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF TECHNICAL PLAT REVIEW A regular meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee was held on Wednesday, August 16, 2000 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED LSD 00-18.10: Large Scale Development (L&E Equity Investments, LLC, pp 177) Page 2 LSD 00-24.00: Large Scale Development (Stephens, pp 212) Page 7 LSD 00-25.00: Large Scale Development (Air BP, pp 795) Page 43 LS 00-26.00: Lot Split (Schmitt, pp 298) Page 23 STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Sara Edwards Ron Petrie Kim Hesse Chuck Rutherford UTILITIES PRESENT Mike Phipps, Ozark Electric Johney Boles, Ar Western Gas Bill Smith, Southwestern Bell Kevin Lefler, Cox Communications Jack Regal, SWEPCO ACTION TAKEN Forward with revisions Forward with revisions Forward with revisions Forward with revisions STAFF ABSENT Mickey Jackson Cheryl Zotti Kim Rogers Perry Franklin UTILITIES ABSENT • • Plat Review Minutes August 16, 2000 Page 2 LSD 00-18.10: Large Scale Development (L&E Equity Investments, LLC, pp 177) was submitted by Steve DeNoon of Jordan & Associates on behalf of Kirk Elsass of L & E Equity Investments, LLC for property located on lots 5 & 6 of Millennium Place. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.56 acres. The request is to build professional offices. Conklin: Why don't we get started this morning. This is a meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee, Wednesday, August 16, 2000. The first item of business is a Large Scale Development, L&E Equity Investments, was submitted by Steve DeNoon of Jordan & Associates on behalf of Kirk Elsass of L & E Equity Investments, LLC for property located on lots 5 & 6 of Millennium Place. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.56 acres. The request is to build two professional office buildings. Good morning. We will start out with Sara Edwards the Development Coordinator in Planning. Comments have been received. Kim Hesse, Landscape Administrator Hesse: The parking lot tree islands are too small to support the required trees. A six by six minimum plating space is required. Straighten the parking lot and place tree requirements between curb of parking and the building. We are also going to require that this aisle width does not exceed 24 feet. Edwards: We just need it kind of straightened there and then she wants a tree planted right here. Conklin: Are we asking that these tree islands be eliminated and the tree requirement be placed on the outside of this parking lot? Hesse: Yes. Conklin: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. So there will be no tree islands within the parking lot. Hesse: No. Edwards. A detailed landscape plan is required prior to building permit approval the Landscape Administrator's office. Please review off-street parking lot ordinance for landscape requirements. A continuous planting of 5 gallon sized shrubs will be required along the right-of-way to fulfill the reduced setback requirements. Some form of irrigation is required for new landscaping, water spigots placed at • Plat Review Minutes August 16, 2000 Page 3 100' radius intervals is the minimum requirements. Per the covenants of the subdivision 4" caliper trees are required at 30' intervals along Millenium Drive. Please include all applicable details and notes required for landscape installation. Chuck Rutherford, Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator Rutherford: Millenium Drive requires a minimum six foot sidewalk and six foot greenspace between the curb and sidewalk. The width needs to be shown on the plat. Show ADA parking space on the left and the ADA aisle on the right for the building on the right. Edwards: He says it's flip-flopped from the way it is shown on the plan. I'm not sure. DeNoon: Yes. I know what he's talking about. I think he means the striping. Sara Edwards, Development Coordinator Edwards: This project has changed somewhat so I do need a new project disk. We have the original CD and if you want us to give that back to you, you can re-record it. It's up to you. We do need elevations provided on the signs. Your two monument signs down here. You need to add plat page 177 somewhere down here in the title block. This vicinity map reads better, I would just like for you to add Joyce and Crossover so the Planning Commissioners can tell exactly where that is. I need for you to dimension Millenium Drive from centerline. We still have a problem with the setbacks. In the R-0 district the rear setback is 25 feet and you've got it 20 here and it's encroaching in a couple of spots in the corners. Conklin: It looks like you have enough room for the buildings. DeNoon: Yes. There won't be any problem with that. Edwards: As Kim said, we are going to reduce the front setback to 25 feet for additional landscaping. That looks like it was taken care of. Like I mentioned before intemal aisle widths should not exceed 24 feet. If you straighten those out that should take care of that. Just a note, all mechanical and utility equipment must be screened. We do need a site coverage note. You cannot exceed 85% site coverage. That's all I have. Ron Petrie, Staff Engineer Petrie: Ron Petrie, Engineering. I think I have asked this questions before. There's not • • • Plat Review Minutes August 16, 2000 Page 4 planning to be a sprinkler system in these buildings? DeNoon: No. Petrie: For grading and drainage we do need some revisions to the grading plan to accept it. The main items are that you need to show contour elevations 1274, 1275 and 1276. That's right around that pond. If you can look into the existing inverts of this pipe that drains the pond, you are proposing to cut back there a foot and a half or so. I'm not sure what the elevation of that pipe is. You need to check that. There are some minor items on the grading plan checklist. You have a copy of that. I won't go over every one of those. That's all I've got for this project. Edwards: Any utility comments? Kevin Lefler, Cox Communications Lefler: If you would I'd like to let Ozark, in this case, go first. I think that kind of dictates what I'll do. Mike Phipps, Ozark Electric Phipps: We had planned to put the transformer to serve both buildings on the property line. Again, we are getting, if it's not trees we are getting dumpsters in these utility easements. Why can't we have a clean utility easement with nothing in it? I just can't understand why can never get that. Which side of the dumpster do you want me to set a transformer on? You've got to come from one building to get to it. DeNoon: Put it on either side. Put in the corner of the property. You've got easements running all over this property. Phipps: You've got two dumpsters sitting right in these buildings. DeNoon: We'll sleeve it. Phipps: We'll need sleeves across that drainage. What you've got there. We don't know how deep it is. DeNoon: When we find out how deep it is, we'll raise the pads or whatever is necessary to put the utilities under there. You probably have got eight feet from the dumpster pad to the drainage easement. Plat Review Minutes August 16, 2000 Page 5 Phipps: Is it going to be three phase or single phase service? DeNoon: I imagine single phase, at this time. Phipps: If we are going to three phase, that pad for the three phase transformer will be about the size of that dumpster so you won't have room. DeNoon: These buildings are probably 200 or 250 amps each. Phipps: Well, I'll need an 8" sleeve across that drainage. Conklin: Does anybody else need a conduit? Johney Boles, Arkansas Western Gas Boles: I need a 4". Bill Smith, Southwestern Bell Smith: I need a 4". DeNoon: Okay. An 8" electric, 4" phone, 4" gas and 4" cable. Phipps: That's for my primary. If I set the transformer on the west side of the dumpsters the building to the east will have to bring a conduit from the building to that point. Lot six would have to go from wherever their meter is to point out on the building. Underground these 24" across the parking lot to that transformer location will be west of the dumpsters. I have no other comment. Kevin Lefler, Cox Communications Lefler: I need a 4" conduit from wherever your electric meter location is on lot five and six to go to this corner where the dumpsters are and where the pad is going to be. Just have your electrician pre -wire all the outlets out to that meter location. That's all. Johney Boles, Arkansas Western Gas Boles: No comment. Smith: Bill Smith, Southwestem Bell. I need a 4" coming from the building if you have Plat Review Minutes August 16, 2000 Page 6 a utility room in there out to the rear easement. Also, this rear easement, does it connect to easements on either side? DeNoon: I assume it does. Yes. Smith: It does? I don't know if you are cutting these corners off of the property on either side of the easement at the rear. I just want to make sure. Petrie: It goes around that pond. It's not really shown. Smith: That's all I need is the conduit under the dumpster site and into each building. DeNoon: What size conduit in here? Smith: 4" DeNoon: Okay. I'll get that. Conklin: Anybody else have any other comments on this? Just for the record, Cheryl Zotti did call, from Solid Waste. She was concerned about the dumpster being located in the back with trucks backing out. I'm not sure how to resolve that issue. DeNoon: I've already talked to her about it once. She said it looks like it's the only place we could put it. Conklin: I just want to make sure her comments are on record. Thanks. DeNoon: Thank you very much. No comment from the Fire Department, Parks Department or Traffic Superintendent. • • Plat Review Minutes August 16, 2000 Page 7 LSD 00-24.00: Large Scale Development (Stephens, pp 212) was submitted by Robert Brown of Development Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Bob East for property located north of Futrall Drive and Wimberly Drive (Lot 9 of CMN Business Park). The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.86 acres. The request is to build professional offices. Conklin: The next item on our agenda is Large Scale Development (Stephens, pp 212) was submitted by Robert Brown of Development Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Bob East for property located north of Futrall Drive and Wimberly Drive (Lot 9 of CMN Business Park). The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1 86 acres. The request is to build a professional office building. I will start by having Sara Edwards our Development Coordinator go over comments that she has received from other divisions and planning. Good morning, Robert. Brown: Good morning. Kim Hesse, Landscape Administrator Hesse: Trees are to be planted at 30' intervals adjacent to Hwy. 471. Due to existing utilities, these shall be placed close to the Arkansas Highway Department fence. Interior landscape requirements call for three tree islands to be placed throughout the parking and she is checking some locations such as these. Brown: Additional? Edwards: Yes. Every twelve spaces you have to have a landscaped island. Brown: Okay. Edwards: She did say to please see her for locations. Conklin: 1 know parking is very critical with what you are going to do. I'll let you look at it too. I thought maybe you could possibility make some up in this area. Maybe you could make some space up over here. Brown: We have seven. I was reading the ordinance it says one tree for twelve spaces. We have enough islands for seven or so. Here, here, here, here, here. I thought that was good. • Conklin: I don't see Kim. She left. But anyway, this is what she was looking for. Plat Review Minutes • August 16, 2000 Page 8 • Typically, I can tell you, she is looking for a tree every twelve spaces or ten spaces, somewhere in there. Brown: I'll get with her and see what we can do. Edwards: Some form of irrigation is required for new landscaping, water spigots placed at 100' intervals is the minimum requirement. Please include all applicable details and notes required for landscape installation. Please review off-street parking lot ordinance for landscape requirements. That's just a standard comment. That's all for landscaping. Chuck Rutherford, Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator Rutherford: Futrall Drive is a collector street. The requirement is for a minimum six foot sidewalk with a minimum ten foot greenspace. The greenspace width needs to be shown on the plat. The sidewalk needs to be added to the legend. Curb and gutter needs to be removed through the sidewalk at the driveway approach. Brown: This is one that has an existing sidewalk out here. 1 don't believe we have got six feet behind the curb to the sidewalk. Conklin: No. We went out there and you didn't. You'll need to get with Chuck Rutherford. Get with him this week. He'll be out of town next week and see what his recommendation is. When Sara and I went out there, my opinion is, I thought that sidewalk you would be able to utilize. Brown: It is six foot wide It's proper standard width. What it was is it looks like it was trying to transition to follow this right-of-way. At the time I guess the space wasn't there when the sidewalk was constructed. Now there is an opportunity for all right-of-ways. I need to call Chuck about that? Edwards: Yes. I think he'll help. Brown: Is that this number right here? Edwards: Yes. Perry Franklin, Traffic Superintendent Franklin: One ADA space must be signed for van accessible parking. Show ADA ramp • locations in sidewalks. • • • Plat Review Minutes August 16, 2000 Page 9 Brown: Okay. Basically, we will sign these spaces but there is no quote `ramp". What we'll have is the pavement will be flush with the sidewalk in front of the handicap spaces. It's probably more evident looking at the grading sheet those five elevations there. There will be, at this point in time, steeper ramps. Basically, you can see here my drop here. Conklin: Do you have any concerns about vehicles stopping? Brown: No. The handicap signs are set in steel balling. So they will be centered in front of the spaces. There won't be any problem in that respect. We would like to do it without the ramps that way you don't have the sidewalk going up and down. Sara Edwards, Development Coordinator Edwards: I've got a note that we need the current property owner to sign the application. Brown: We've got those. Edwards: I did not get a project disk so you need to submit it. Brown: We have mailed that to the drafter. Edwards: Okay. We do need twelve color elevations showing all four sides of the building as well as the monument sign. You can submit those on 8 %z X 11. Regal: The elevations were included in the package. Edwards. Okay. They gave us twelve? Conklin: Okay. We have those. Thank you. Edwards: I need you to add the adjacent zoning. You can just put under the property owners on the plat. Add plat page 212 to the title block. I think if you could make your property more identifiable on the vicinity map. Brown: Matt pointed that out to me a little while ago. Edwards. Okay. Brown: It's on there somewhere. Plat Review Minutes August 16, 2000 Page 10 Edwards. It looks like you are modifying this cross access over here to the left. Brown: Their drive comes in and where we have parking right here so while we are doing this the minimum amount that we can to connect to their circulation. Basically, their parking spaces are like this and this is all drive lane right here going to the back. We are trying to tie into their drive lane. We'll have to do some repair and remove some sod out there. Edwards: Okay. What we are going to need is permission from the owners to go on their property and do that work. Brown: Okay. I thought you would handle that since you require that. Conklin: You need to contact the owner to make sure they give some type of approval for that work to be done. Brown: Okay. If they disagree? Conklin: Then we will make you go over that to the property line. It's already across the access there so I'm hoping that everyone is going to agree. If they disagree, call me up. I'll see what I can do. Brown: It's in the wrong place. Conklin: You are not asking them to pay for any of that? Brown: No. We understand that's out expense. It's kind of the same way over here. This was not quite as dramatic of a transition right there. Edwards: You do have the landscaped area up here. That looks good. We've got a problem right here though. It has to be fifteen feet between all parking areas and right-of- ways. Conklin: In street right-of-way. Brown: I was hoping for consideration of the average through there for this site. Sixteen, thirty, ten, eight feet. Conklin: Robert. I really think you need to meet the fifteen. Brown: Okay. It's just going to cost us some rnore parking spaces. • • Plat Review Minutes August 16, 2000 Page 11 Conklin: I understand. Brown: Okay. Edwards. We do have a requirement in our design overlay district that pedestrian access be provided from the street to the building. That you provide a sidewalk or trail. When you get this project in place you can cut in a sidewalk and you can run it through the tree island Conklin: The ordinance requires access from the street to the front of the building. If you don't like that idea, you being a design professional you may be able to come up with something. Brown: It's going to be hard to do that and put a tree in too. Conklin: I understand. Somehow get that sidewalk from the street to the parking lot. Brown: Okay. We'll take a look at that. Edwards: Where is your dumpster at? Brown: Right here. Edwards: You've got a screen on that. It looks good. I didn't mark this down but all utility equipment shall be screened. Conklin: Anything located on top of the building, on the ground, on the side. It's very important. If your peripet wall is not high enough currently, you need to increase that height for any roof mounted equipment. Cheryl Zotti, Environmental Affairs Administrator Zotti: A 25,000 square foot building should allow the minimum of two six cubic yard containers. You need to have the pad 24 feet wide. You've got her comment there. All of the revisions are due in Wednesday, August 23, 2000. Conklin: Before you go Ron, at this time let me just read into the record, so everybody is aware. The exemption that has been made to the Design Overlay District under 161.21g2 of our Unified Development Ordinance the City Planner has the authority to exempt subdivisions of lots from our Design Overlay District regulations. They were created prior to June 28, 1994. The lot in question that • Plat Review Minutes August 16, 2000 Page 12 • we do make a correction on our description is not CMN is actually reserved tract two also known as tract 5 North Hills Medical Park was original created in 1990 and subsequently split in 1993 creating two lots. The lot to the west development Colliers and other retail uses was part of that. This lot was created prior to the Design Overlay Requirements, our new Master Street Plan right-of-way requirements, our Parking and Landscaping requirements and our Commercial Design Standards. Staff has met with the developer. We have existing lots developed to the east and west a cross access already shown. The additional right-of-way requirement and the twenty-five foot greenspace made it difficult to connect those parking lots together and provide a transition between developments, therefore I am exempting them from the 25 foot greenspace along what is shown as US Hwy. 471 and Futrall Drive. I wanted to get that in the record. You ready Ron? Ron Petrie, Staff Engineer Petrie: Sure. Good morning Robert. Brown: Good morning. Did the drainage report look okay? Petrie: I'll get to that. Brown: Okay. Petrie: Typically, yes. As for the water, I was a little concerned when I saw the 8" fire surface line. Is that for the demand to run the sprinkler system? Brown: No. Look up in the building here. Did you notice we've got a 3" domestic water service. Petrie: Yes. Brown: An 8" fire Petrie: Why I'm concerned is, I think it's just a 6" that crosses the road. If you need an 8" for capacity on that fire sprinkler system then more than likely you are going to need to connect across the street. The sewer, our regulations state the minimum slope on the sewer is .6% if possible. .4% is the very minimum but .6% if possible. You show it .4%. We want to make sure that is has to be .4% before we accept that. • Plat Review Minutes August 16, 2000 Page 13 Brown: I know that Mark and Kevin have looked at that. What it is is obviously this is kind of a high point and the most immediately available sewer over here is not accessible. It runs on the two altemative directions and along the highway are a whole lot further away. If we put it in at .6% it's going to cause our line to go even further and further down. Petrie: This is kind of a final design item. When I say the cross-section that's what I'll be looking for. If not possible to make it work at .6% then .4% we can accept. Brown: Okay. Petrie: Grading, I have included a checklist. It's a couple of pages back. There's several small items that I need you to take care of. Erosion control. If you can label your finished grade or your proposed slopes. There is a setback requirement for retaining walls that's 5 feet from the property line. There is a couple that you have shown that are on the property line. There is a stipulation that if you can't provide approval from the adjacent property owners we can't accept them. If you are going to leave them as shown, I'd ask that you show a temporary easement from the adjacent property owners. Conklin: The adjacent owners would be the Arkansas Highway Transportation Department. Petrie: I think we would probably want you to get approval from them. There may be some fence issues. Brown: What we are talking about is a little bit of keystone type wall. We wouldn't do a lot of excavation. Petrie: That was another one of my comments, I wasn't sure how tall they were going to be. If you can label that we will know what we are dealing with. Brown: They are not very tall. Petrie: It s still a little unclear on the grading plan. If you do have to move that wall adjacent to the parking lot, depending upon the height, we may be looking at some kind of traffic grilling that sets up against the parking lot. The other items were just small items that you need to add to the plats. I'll let you go through that later. For drainage, all of the adjacent developments through here, detention was not required and I really doubt if detention is required for this project. I think there is some problems with where you have this detention pond shown. I'm just asking you to reconsider that. • Plat Review Minutes August 16, 2000 Page 14 Brown: Is it or is it not required? Petrie: I don't think so, no. Do you know where the pipe is that crosses the 471? Brown: I'm familiar with it but I don't know exactly. Petrie: I'm thinking it's pretty close. What I'm getting to is, if you don't provide detention we may need some more information down stream. Brown: Okay. Petrie: Particularly if it has to cross over to this one lot we have to make sure we are not going to flood this from the highway because of additional run-off. So we probably will need some more information unless that culvert is somewhere right along this property line. Brown: What was your concerns with the pond? Petrie: On the second page, I have two comments. If the detention pond remains, it is located in that utility easement. There are several existing utilities in that easement. I think it will probably have to be lowered. Brown: No. It's all basically filled to create the pond. Petrie: Okay. It's Just hard to tell on the grading plan. I think the main reason is none of the existing contours are labeled. It's really hard to tell exactly how far you are and what you are doing. Brown: That one here is twelve, ten, eleven, twelve. The bottom of that swale is the low point it's at 11.4. It's basically right there along the bottom of this line non- existing grade. It's basically bermed around the side and sloped up towards the building. There's really no cutting along that curve back there. It's all been done by mounting and shaping and creating the pond with berms. Petrie: What we have is a requirement, especially in our Grading Ordinance that if you drain within the existing easement that has existing utilities, you need approval from those utility companies. I'm not sure if these guys want a detention pond on top of their Imes. The last item, if the detention remains, if you can provide a summary table of your flows existing, post development and also post developed rounded through the pond. Just a summary table. • • Plat Review Minutes August 16, 2000 Page 15 Brown: Okay. Petrie: That's all I've got. Conklin: Utilities? Jack Regal, SWEPCO Regal: I'll talk about permanent service first On your site plat you are showing an existing pole kind of toward the northwest building corner. Then you are showing an underground electric service by SWEPCO from that pole to the building. That way it can be a service line that will be installed by your electrician. I would like that struck from the plat. It is possible to use that pole for the permanent service. Conklin: Jack, what size line is that? Regal: 12,470 volt, three phase line. Major circuit that feeds that whole section of town. Conklin: So we are going to put that underground right? Regal: Not unless the City requests it. Conklin: I'm just giving you a hard time. It is exempt. Anything above 12 KV and above is exempt. That can remain. Any new additional electric lines or other utility lines have to be underground. Brown: That will be a drop off the pole and underground to the buildings? Regal. Right. Brown: That's kind of what I anticipate at this time. Conklin: The electric meter is going to be on the back wall then? Regal: They will probably be on a angle iron frame out by the pole. I imagine this will go to a CT metering as large as it the square footage is. That's just a second guess. At this point I was king of leading into one of my next comments, I will need some information when it becomes available on the electric design. The size of the main service, the number of the size of the service cables from the building to the pole. All that kind of dictates what other structures have to be placed at the pole for the building. • Plat Review Minutes August 16, 2000 Page 16 Brown: Sure. If we can, I'd rather the meter be at the building which is a cleaner appearance, if possible. I guess it's crucial one way or the other whatever you think is best. Conklin: My comment was with regard to screening and making sure it's somehow paneled. Regal: I will have some sort of above -ground box. It's possible it might have to be some screening around the base of the pole to the above -ground box or whatever I place back there. Conklin: I think on Collier's we had to go back and paint the pipes and equipment the same color as the building. Regal: I'm not too acquainted with the process is it appropriate at this time to talk about additional easement. Conklin: Yes. • Regal: I notice you are showing a proposed street light on Futrall at the center of the building. I'll need some type of an easement to get cable from this back property to site up front. I noticed on the plat you are showing ten foot utility easement that kind of runs diagonally across this property. • Brown: That was reflected on the boundary survey that we received from Alan Reid that was done before the sale. Regal: That's not being utilized for anything at this point. Brown: Not that I could tell. Regal: No. Not that I could tell either. Underground records or overhead. That particular ten foot diagonal easement could be removed or abandoned. In it's place I would like to ask for a ten foot utility easement along this west property line. Between your development and the Collier's property. Conklin: The parking lot is going to be in there. Regal: There's about a five foot greenspace and I can work with that five foot greenspace for this street lighting cable. • Plat Review Minutes August 16, 2000 Page 17 Brown: That's to get to the street light? Regal: Yes. Brown: They don't go from the adjacent lights? Conklin: I was going to ask that same questions Jack. Regal: Tim, I didn't see any adjacent lights out there. Brown: There's one both ways. It's shaded. Regal: I might have to go back and look at that because I looked and I didn't see that. There's parking lot lighting on the adjacent property but I didn't see any street lights. Brown: That may be. • Regal: Of course, I won't be able to tie into that parking lot lighting because that's all metered service off those adjacent properties. I don't believe there's any street lighting on Futrall. • Brown: I know in one case on Collier's. That may very well may be the case. I'm not certain about the other one. Regal: Okay. Regal: The retaining wall has to be moved five foot off the property line. Isn't that right? Petrie: I said to get written approval from the adjacent property owners. Regal: I think I can still work with that. It's going to be a small cable. In fact, we might even be able to plow it in. Brown: We could have to put the wall in the middle there where you are going to lay. We'll talk with the people along the property. Regal: It could be that that does become an issue or you might have to run a conduit or something underneath that edge of that parking area just to get past your retaining wall in the back. It could be probably just a 2" PVC if that's what needs to happen. Plat Review Minutes August 16, 2000 Page 18 Brown: Okay. Regal: It's strictly for the street lighting. I'm not sure how the City works here, I'm mostly familiar with Springdale but I would assume that the City is going to require the developer pay the installed cost on the street light. Conklin: Yes. Regal: It could be substantial for street lighting. Conklin: We are not going to change that policy. Your developer is going to pay for the street light and installation. Pierson: There is a proposed street light here but there's not street lights on the rest of the street? Regal: I think there may be on some of it but not all of it. I think farther to the east. I don't think there's anything down here on this west end of Futrall. Conklin: This was not part of the CMN subdivision. Pierson: Which is part of those regulations I guess? Brown: It's probably more of a timing deal there. Conklin: I think it's more of a timing issue. Pierson: I was just thinking that consistency as you are driving down the street, dark then you have a street light. Regal: I would be interested also in hearing what happens with your sidewalk issue because that will have some bearing on where the proposed street light is located. If you can contact me when that is settled. Then I will need to know the size of the street light. What the City is requiring at this site. That looks like, am I reading this incorrect, that you are asking for an additional ten foot right-of-way dedication from this developer on this project? Edwards: Yes. Conklin: Yes. • Plat Review Minutes August 16, 2000 Page 19 Regal. I'll probably end up needing a ten foot utility easement then behind this new right-of-way dedication once again, for the street light. Edwards: How much of a utility easement did you say? Regal: Just ten foot. Just strictly for the street lighting. I take it there's some thought that Futrall Drive will be lighted in the future? Conklin: According to our Master Street Plans it does require the 70 feet of right-of-way if it does need to be widened in the future. Regal: You need to probably, it kind of goes back to the sidewalk issue also, if this location for your proposed street light changes I would like to be notified of that location. Brown: I think, spread along the property, it's going to be in that vicinity. Regal: I think I did mention I'd like once the plans progress on the electric I would like • to hear of the expected usage, expected load usage, the voltage, number and size of conduits and cable that will go out to the transformer poles. That's all I have. • Brown: What was your name? Regal: I'm Jack Regal. Brown: Your number? Regal: 973-2306. Brown: Thanks. Regal: I apologize for not bringing a card with me today. Kevin Lefler, Cox Communications Lefler: We'll need a 4" conduit. SWEPCO's pole is out there on the north side Just around the electric meter is going to be wherever that ends up being. Whether it be in the front or the back. Brown: 4" conduit from where again Kevin? I'm sorry. • • • Plat Review Minutes August 16, 2000 Page 20 Lefler: Conklin: Lefler: Brown: Lefler: Conklin: Lefler: Brown: Lefler: The SWEPCO pole that's out here. I guess that's the north. At the pole you are going to take your underground service from? To wherever the electric meter is going to go. If it's at the pole I guess it's going to be a short piece of conduit or if it's at the building it'll be twenty-five feet or thirty feet. To the building or to the meter? Do we know where the electric meter is going to be? Not at this point. It needs to go there but if we could just get it to the building. That should do me. Your little box will go on the side of the building? Yes. That's for cable? Yes. Johnev Boles, Arkansas Western Gas Boles: Conklin: Brown: Boles: Bill Smith, When I first looked at this plat my concern was that detention area. The reason being is the two gas lines that you have shown are two main transmission lines. Probably 450 or 500 pounds of pressure on them. Basically, feed all of northwest Arkansas. We need to maintain a minimum of at least 30" of cover over that line. If the situation arises that it has to be lowered it will be very expensive. How deep is the line right now? Do you know? I'm not sure. The way we've got it figured right now we will only be increasing your cover a little bit. My personal preference if possible would be that the detention pond goes away. That's all I have. Southwestern Bell Smith: I just want two 4" conduits into wherever your communications room is going to be. I'm not sure if I have an above -ground closure back there I'll have to go see. • • • Plat Review Minutes August 16, 2000 Page 21 If there is that's where I'd like it taken to. I didn't see anything on here. Brown: Pedestal here? No, I didn't notice one. Smith: I can work that out with your electrician later to see what direction. From wherever your entry point needs to be out to your line. Conklin: Is that everything? I just have a couple questions. Your building, you are showing everything in gray is glass. Is that correct? Pierson: Yes. Conklin: We are using brick? Pierson: Brick and actually red brick and a 8" sand colored brick. Conklin: Are these penthouses up on top or elevators? Pierson: One side is an elevator and one side is to match. Conklin: To match? Okay. Pierson: There will also be mechanical items behind those which per your comments they will be fully screened. Conklin: This is facing south so I-540 are we going to see mechanical. Pierson: No. It's going to be fully screened. Conklin: Incorporated as part of the building, cross protection? Pierson: That's correct. Conklin: Not a wood fence up on top of the building? Pierson: No. Conklin: Okay. I'll just throw this out. Did you consider pulling that up to match the top so you don t have that gap in there in between the penthouses? You don't have to change it, I was just curious. I looked at that. Personal preference. I thought it might complete that front better than have it down below. That's dust my critique • • • Plat Review Minutes August 16, 2000 Page 22 of the design. Brown: That's where we are going to hang the banners. Conklin: Okay. I thought you might have more of a prominent building front. Brown: Ron, one more clarification. What you were saying about in terms of discussing with you not doing this detention. What we need to do is locate that crossing and try to assess what kind of drainage is going into it? Petrie: I just want to make sure from your property to that culvert. We have a large ditch on the highway that everything drains into that doesn't even affect anything. That's the main use. Brown: That's the way we've got the water leaving the property through here. Out to the highway so I would expect that's where we fit any the rest of the drainage but we will try and see if we can dig up the location for that. That would be nice to eliminate some complications with dealing with that and maintenance in that area in the future. Petrie: I really don't think it will be required on this project. Brown: Thanks. No comment from the Fire Department or Parks Department. Plat Review Minutes • August 16, 2000 Page 23 • LS 00-26.00: Lot Split (Schmitt, pp 298) was submitted by Neil Schmitt for property located south of Hwy 45 near Son's Chapel. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 10.81 acres. The request is to split into 4 tracts. 1.93 acres, 1.81 acres, 2.41 acres and 4 66 acres. Conklin: Next item is a Lot Split 00-26.00 (Schmitt, pp 298) was submitted by Neil Schmitt for property located south of Hwy 45 near Son's Chapel. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 10.81 acres The request is to split into 4 tracts. 1 93 acres, 1.81 acres, 2.41 acres and 4.66 acres. Good morning. N.Schmitt: B.Schmitt: Conklin: I'm Neil Schmitt. I'm Bob Schmitt. We'll start off with Sam Edwards, Development Coordinator. I'm Tim Conklin, City Planner. Sara Edwards, Development Coordinator Edwards: B.Schmitt: Edwards: First thing, we need to add the plat page 298 down here somewhere. Plat page 298. There are a couple things that Celia had mentioned she would want on this if it made it through this process. I don't know if this is the time to bring that up. Go ahead. B.Sclunitt: Instead of this 25 foot right here she wanted a 30 foot right here. Edwards: Conklin: B.Schmitt: Edwards: We're going to mention that. We're going to talk about what the City is looking for. Okay. Go ahead. We will require this to be dedicated the Master Street Plan to the County and this is shown as a freeway which requires 200 to 300 feet but I don't believe we are going to require that. • Conklin: We've never required that. In an effort to make sure that we are following all of • Plat Review Minutes August 16, 2000 Page 24 B.Schmitt: our ordinances and plans that's what it states on the Master Street Plan. I'm just bringing that up. I'm not asking for that. That statement is for the record. Okay. We have one thought on that. When we looked at this thirty-three acres previously south of this property we dealt with that same issue here. At that point, I don't know who that guy was here that was responsible for the 2010 Plan or road implementation or something, we had talked about actually adjusting this down here to this ease boundary. Conklin: I have not been out there recently. I don't have a problem with that. It's very difficult when we are really looking at a freeway or expressway without a route setting being done to know exactly where it's going to go. You can show it in that location. I'll go out there and if there is a problem, I'll look that over. N.Schmitt: What would you require? Conklin: 110 feet. • Edwards: This Master Street Plan whenever you decide to dedicated it, we do want it by warranty deed. • B.Schmitt: Okay. As opposed to reservation? Edwards. Yes. B.Schmitt: Okay Edwards: That's what the land agents wanted. N.Schmitt: Does the City or the County maintain that? Conklin: It's going to be left in it's natural state. A wilderness area. Everybody is concerned about leaving wilderness areas, I think this is an opportunity for some wilderness areas. Edwards: I included some copies of our ordinance. I included the Public Street Standards from the County. Let me tell you what that means to you. Basically, our Suburban Subdivision Regulations regarding street frontage requires seventy-five feet of frontage on an improved street. Now, we do not have anything in our code that provides for a private street so therefore, all we can do is go by the County's Public Street Standards. We do have a section in our codes that says if the • • • Plat Review Minutes August 16, 2000 Page 25 Conklin: B.Schmitt: Conklin: B.Schmitt: Conklin: B.Schmitt: Conklin: B.Schmitt: property is not immediately adjacent to the City limits we cannot require City standards so we can go ahead and require the lower County Standards. So that is what we are doing. All lots of have to have the seventy-five feet of frontage so in order to create that you have to have a public street built to County Standards. County Standards require sixty feet of right-of-way with shoulders and fifty feet with curb and gutter and twenty feet of pavement. We have now begun to take these before the County. Sara and I have had to learn all the County regulations to at least advise people splitting property what the process is. We do not have a private drive. I have had many headaches over the past two months with regard to this. I'm very concerned about our growth and planning area, especially with a private drive because I don't know. You may know the answer to this question, is a private drive a public street? This thirty- three acres down here. Can you put fifty houses on it and have them access this private drive through this property? That's my concern. As the City of Fayetteville, I'm not going to recognize private drives. We don't have anything that talks about private drives All I can do is, as we have in the past as you know, make sure that we have streets being planned that connect to each other that are public. That's going to be my position unless the quorum court says something different or throw some other ordinance in that states City's can't do that. Right now I'm going to look at the County standard sixty foot right-of-way, twenty foot paved surface. That's all I have to go on. That's the minimum public street standard in the County. Unless you are dealing with one of their sub -standards which has to deal with the Ovate road. We don't have that standard. You don't but they do. Is that right? Yes. Our standard has always been a public street. Just so we have this on the record. This is a policy shift from three months ago when I got my last thing approved which was you took a forty foot dedication for the City and accepted the County's minimum road standard. County was approving those. Right. • Plat Review Minutes August 16, 2000 Page 26 Conklin: They approved them ahead time. The County is not giving me any guidance on this. B.Schmitt: This is just you having to come up with something on your own for your minimum standards. Conklin: Yes. I have to look at the ordinances and see what we have It says seventy-five feet on an approved street. Street, in my opinion, should be public because my question that I raised and I said you may be able to answer it, what happens when this thirty-three acres develops? Do they have the right to go through this private drive to access fifty homes? B.Schmitt: Conklin: B.Schmitt: Conklin: B.Schmitt: Conklin: N.Schmitt: Conklin: B.Schmitt: Conklin: As a matter of fact, what you did up here was you reserved forty feet so that if somebody came back in here and later did something that wasn't a lot split and actually was subdivision, they could come through and put in a full city street, you could require that. That would be at their expense. What is a private drive? Is it public? I don't know. That's the question. I don't think the County knows either. I'm not trying to be putting this all on the County right now but. Miles View Road down here is a public private drive. Talk about headache. Can you imagine ten or twenty years from now. I live on a private drive within city limits and as far as I know everybody has access to it. We do have another lot split coming up with a guy that's very concerned and actually it's just private property but how many cars can drive past his house? You know it s going to potentially develop out there. With Timber Glen Lane I think it's kind of a moot point, anybody can drive down that. That is a paved surface that we put over public property. Is that not right? The private drive issue. What we are going to ask for is a sixty foot right-of-way and the minimum County standards. • • • Plat Review Minutes August 16, 2000 Page 27 B.Schmitt: Conklin: B.Schmitt: Edwards: B.Schmitt: Conklin: B.Schmitt: Conklin: B.Schmitt: Conklin: B.Schmitt: Conklin: Or fifty foot? With curb and gutter. Okay. We can't give you sixty anywhere through here. Here's where it's going to come to the crutch of the issue real quickly then because I came in and met with Dawn several times on this project. We bought a $220,000 piece of property based off the information. We gave her all of this information and said "If we set this up like this, can we get it split up and sent through the City?" She said "Under our regulations, yes you can." Under our current regulations. "Under our current regulations." You all decided to arbitrarily switch those in the past six weeks. No. The County said I had to deal with all this up front and I had to react to all these things and I'm going, I'm just trying to do my job, I'm going now I only have the County standards and it says sixty feet. I'm concerned about a public street. Actually under the County standards this meets the requirement for no street whatsoever. So what happens to this thirty-three acres? The thirty-three acres is owned by the Pals'. They are going to put two houses back there. Okay. That's what they are saying but what if you bought that and you had another developer in here. I actually did buy it and tried to develop it two years ago and it can't be done. My point is though, how do we get... I thought about this a lot, hopefully I'm not overreacting on this whole issue. You indicate you live on a private drive. The City of Fayetteville is, you know, connectivity. We have always tried to provide access to adjoining properties. I'm not sure what a private drive is. If that means it's just privately maintained and the public can have, ten years from now, three hundred vehicles per day on it, to development south of there. Can you have a private drive from this development to that development, four developments back • Plat Review Minutes August 16, 2000 Page 28 B.Schmitt: Conklin: B.Schmitt: Edwards: Conklin: B.Schmitt: Conklin: B.Schmitt: Conklin: in off of Highway 45. Those people that have their three $500,000 houses, are they going to be okay with that? I don't know what a private drive is. I talked to Celia and I don't think she's clear on that. Celia Scott-Silkwood, the Planning Director from Washington County is not clear what a private drive is. \Ve definitely understand you ambiguity and I actually after talking with you guys several times in the past couple weeks, I understand you guys are having to come up with something as a minimum to require. What I think our position is here is I think the City has some responsibility to us because we went out and made a $227,000 purchase off the current regulations that you used four months ago. You know these things take several months. There's no way that we could have shifted. If you can see all of our accesses, everything met the regulations you were using eight weeks ago. What the County was approving. You can come forth, it's a good discussion because I need guidance myself and all I know is when I feel like I'm doing a disservice to the citizens of Fayetteville and the people living in the County and landowners out there that will develop in the future with battles that will occur with them trying to develop property going through private drive after private drive. I just think it would just be clear to get sixty -foot right-of-way for a public street, connect them up and if the County wants to modify their standards for not requiring a twenty foot paved drive but twenty foot of SB2 or whatever, that's their call. They actually have those in place now. If you go look at what the County requires for this lot split, it doesn't actually require any paved surface whatsoever. For a private drive. For a private drive. Which for the County this is the City's definition of what the County is asking thr. I'm trying to get a public street. Your public street requirement goes out sixty feet. Their public street requirement is forty feet. I'm trying to get a public street that everybody is aware. • • • Plat Review Minutes August 16, 2000 Page 29 N.Schmitt: Conklin: N.Schmitt: Conklin: B.Schmitt: Conklin: N.Schmitt: Conklin: We don't have a way to get sixty feet. I understand. Just take it off the edge of here. Get sixty there and get sixty there. We don't have this little area here we can't use. I'm just saying on your property though. I can't correct the past decisions. I'm not asking you to correct the past decisions and I'm trying to be fair to you and that's why I'm sharing with you all my thoughts and insights on what's going to happen in the future because as you are aware, it's growing fast out there. This is what people want. What I would suggest just for constructive input is that if we require seventy-five feet of frontage on a sixty foot wide road and you either have to make a curb and gutter or a twenty -foot wide paved what you are going to end up doing in effect is limit development on parcels like this to just a standard subdivision form. Which, from what I understand, people want diversity in subdivision development as they go out a little bit farther. They are wanting larger lots. If I had to come in here and put this in true subdivision form, which is basically what would happed if we had to give sixty new curb and gutter all the way through here, the cost would be so high that nobody would be able to afford it. I would have to split it into smaller lots and then we are back to another Covington Park out here which a lot of people aren't wanting. Does that make sense? There's two sides to that too. One could argue that that's causing urban sprawl because you can put more people on less land. You are not going to be consuming all of the land around Fayetteville either. Once again, I'm trying to figure out a policy. For Sara and Ito have to react to these on a weekly basis. No one wants to build a street or public street or provide access to their neighbors. It seems to be the letter of policy that if it has to be decided upon, announced and published. What about the people who previously bought land to do development before? It's like I said just bring it forward. You can make your argument. I'm trying to be fair to everybody on this. The County said one day, I went to a meeting, Intergovernmental Cooperation Council, over at the County and they said well we want the Cities to look at these first because their standards are more stringent. I said that's fine and then I discovered that the County was approving lots less than an acre and a half that didn't meet our ordinance. Just subject to a perk test. We know that land and soil conditions don't do that so I had to go to the Council and • • Plat Review Minutes August 16, 2000 Page 30 B.Schmitt: Conklin: B.Schmitt: Conklin: N.Schmitt: B.Schmitt: N.Schmitt: Conklin: amend that ordinance just to allow people that had smaller lots. Then I have an ordinance that states that it has to have seventy-five feet on an approved road. Well, County was approving lots consistently with less than seventy-five feet on an approved road I got Micky Jackson, our State Fire Chief pulling out a state law fire code that states you have to have a twenty foot improved street for each lot, which is over and beyond the fourteen foot gravel. Which is a private drive. So we got state law which is higher than the City and County. I'm throwing my hands up. I think to meet state law, to meet our ordinance, to provide connections to future properties it needs to be sixty feet. Just so you know I think I'm a reasonable person. I guess I have some problem thinking you are going to have a twenty foot paved surface next to gravel. The public street which I know is public and that chart it says paved so if Planning Commission wants to consider not requiring twenty feet of pavement that's fine. We are going to pave whatever we do through here. The decision between what that pavement may be chip and seal or asphalt will probably be determined by the width of the road. You want an asphalt road we will put in a ten foot. You want a chip and seal we will put in a twenty foot. We are actually planning on doing it all the way from the end of the pavement at both properties. So it will be a nice drive. After your statement of where you are now and what you are developing, is there a way that you see what we can do what we are trying to accomplish here and still give you what you want. In my opinion, yes. Dedicate ten more feet of right-of-way. Decide what road surface and width and I would show that on the plat. I was thinking you get a sixty foot right-of-way through lot three and four and maybe curve it so you don't have a ninety degree turn but it's up to you. I don't think it's going to matter and build that down to that south property line. Build a twenty foot road? Yes. Take the road all the way down here? I've got access up here. I've got access up here. This goes right into a bluff line down here. • If there is a hill or topography issue, yes, we bring that up. Sara was out there. I need to get out there again. I was out there with you a year ago? • • • Plat Review Minutes August 16, 2000 Page 32 Conklin: B.Schmitt: Conklin: B.Schmitt: Conklin: N.Schmitt. Conklin: N.Schmitt: Conklin: B.Schmitt: Edwards. B.Schmitt: Conklin: B.Schmitt: I'm trying to slowly bring this some rational way to handle these things. Okay. Sixty here. Then the twenty foot road, does it have to be centered in that? Can it be along the edge? Does it matter? It doesn't matter. You want twenty feet starting where? In this frontage area? Yes. We need to get seventy-five feet on an approved road and if you are going to make an argument that you can't extend it or it shouldn't be extended for future development, make that argument. I need to take a little trip out there and go see this bluff. It doesn't make sense to me. We are going to put two houses here. We are going to bring driveways off why would we have to make a twenty foot paved street all the way down to here. Doesn't make sense to me at all. What I was thinking, once again, you have thirty three acres, when that develops with one and a half acre lots. Then let them pay for paving the street. That's not how we typically do business in Fayetteville. The way we do business is that we require the developers to stub it out to the property lines. Provide connectivity and access. I'm trying to follow the same policies we have had inside in the City ever since I've been here. How about we Just remove that totally and we just run sixty feet down here so this house has seventy-five feet of frontage. She owns all the way to here? Yes. Go ahead and show it that way and I expect to see a cliff out there when I go out there. What you will do is you will drive, we've got this clearly marked with some gravel down and put some four foot high stakes to mark this. If you go out and you got on the Pal property line and you walk 100 feet you will fall off a cliff. • • Plat Review Minutes August 16, 2000 Page 33 Conklin: Okay. You are going to wam me so I don't fall off that cliff. B.Schmitt: Yes. Johney Boles, Arkansas Western Gas Boles: Can you show me where that property is in relation to Robin Wood Subdivision? B.Schmitt: Yes. N.Schmitt: South of it. B.Schmitt: Yes. It's immediately south of that. Boles: Show me here where your southeast corner is of Robin Wood. B.Schmitt: I don't know if it's to scale but it's right here. That last lot in there is right there. Boles: So you have an existing home right over here? B.Schmitt: Yes, sir. That's Dr. Giles house. Greenhall is right here. This is Virginia originally Greenhall married to Harkins they have that little house up there on the hill. Then they have a cottage of some kind. Here's Leonard's back over here. N.Schmitt: If we show an easement down through here at all we don't need any going through here. Boles: That's what we are saying. There is no need for it. Conklin: If there is a cliff then that road is not going to provide any additional access to adjoining property then we might not require a dedication. B.Schmitt: We just need some advice from you guys how you can get it down. I definitely understand. We could have set this up had we known at the time that we were purchasing this, with the exception of this little thing right here. We could have set this up to meet whatever standards you have. Conklin: I understand. • B.Schmitt: We would have, at that point, brought the road straight down this way. The topography doesn't lend itself to that as much as it does here. We definitely could • • • Plat Review Minutes August 16, 2000 Page 34 Conklin: B.Schmitt: Conklin: B.Schmitt: Conklin: B.Schmitt: Conklin: have had a real clean-cut situation as opposed to this. When you do revise this if you can clearly show what improvements you are going to make with the right-of-ways on it. I think City and County would be interested, if that's what you are stating, that you are going to be paving that to show this off-site improvement. Okay. This here, we have a ten foot wide private drive coming up to stop at this on Timber Glen. You want us to just go from there on the twenty? On that back there? I want you to meet County public road standards. Yes twenty. Okay. I'm just verifying. Plus, state fire codes. That's something I'm sure the quorum court didn't know about. I gave it to Celia yesterday. She was going to talk to the County Judge. We are working really hard with the County and the other cities are to, to figure this out. B.Schmitt: Just come up with a set of, if you develop in the County and it's also in the growth this is what you do. Conklin: B.Schmitt: Conklin: B.Schmitt: Conklin: Edwards: This is what you are going to do. The other thing we talked about is with regard to this right-of-way issue and easements. Typically, well I've seen this Just with easement for access, what we talked about is actually having that as right-of-way so your property lines go up to that. It's clear of record that it's a public street. That's on this section here? Yes and this section here. That's what we did on Timber Lane. Okay. You know what I'm talking about? I've seen a lot of plans for the property lines go to the center of the road. We want this to say right-of-way dedication. • • Plat Review Minutes August 16, 2000 Page 35 B.Schmitt: Conklin: Okay. So that will say that on this whole sixty feet but they can put the road basically on one side of that if they wanted to. That's what the County is going to want you to do. N.Schmitt: Say right-of-way dedication here to? Conklin: B.Schmitt: Conklin: Edwards: Conklin: B.Schmitt: Conklin: Edwards: B.Schmitt: Conklin: Ron Petrie, Petrie: B.Schmitt: That the street construction standards. We can't dedicate this. I understand that. You can down there. You can put more traffic on it. We can do that. Okay. You have to go to Washington County following this. Obviously, you know that. Following our approval. There is a state law that requires that Arkansas Department of Health permit for individual sewage disposal system for under ten acres. We would like for you to go ahead and get that prior to filing this lot split so that we can make sure that this will work. Revisions are due August 27, 2000, by 10:00 a.m. Okay. We could probably get that for you by the 23rd I think. I'm sorry Ron. You agree 100% with everything I said, right? Staff Engineer I wasn't listening. Really my only concern is where the water line is and how do you plan on serving these lots? We have an eight inch waterline that runs basically to the end of this Timber Glen Lane to the Robin Wood Subdivision. • Petrie: In that case I would just ask you to show where you are going to extend this and • • • Plat Review Minutes August 16, 2000 Page 36 B.Schmitt: Petrie: B.Schmitt: Petrie: B.Schmitt: Petrie: N.Schmitt: Petrie: B.Schmitt: Petrie: B.Schmitt: Petrie: how you plan on serving the lots. We were going to ask for your advice on what we need. We also have an unused two inch waterline that runs to the same point on the other side of the road. We would definitely require the eight inch be extended. Okay. You want the eight inch extended? You don't need eight inches to serve four lots though. No. We need eight inches to serve any future growth out there. Okay. Where are you going to want that extended to? We cannot serve across two lines. The public main will have to somehow get back to, a minimum, to the west side of lot three. Then a private easement over to lot four. We can't have a private service line crossing two lines. We can live with one line but not two. We are going to need an eight inch line down to lot three, is what you are saying? You definitely need an eight inch line to the south side of lot two. You want us to put in an eight inch line another thousand feet to serve four lots? Another thousand feet. Yes. It has to be. The minimum size of dead-end line eight inch. We have seventeen houses serviced right now with a two inch line and all just a half a mile wide. Believe me, I know that. I've been dealing with that problem. That's been a huge problem. That's an old existing two inch line that the City let you use. You didn't have to construct anything. B.Schmitt: Right. Petrie: If you would have, it would have had to been an eight inch. That's dust because it's the old part of the City. The minimum water line size is eight inch when there is potential for growth. If I'm sure that it's only going to serve two lots. This little extension that may go back and feed these two lots we can consider being a two • Plat Review Minutes August 16, 2000 Page 37 B.Schmitt: inch. I can't promise that right now. You need to talk to the City Engineer. If we have an existing two inch waterline right here that's not servicing anybody else, can we utilize that to at least service one to two lots? We have an existing two inch line right here that's not servicing anything else. Petrie: You would have to extend the line. Eight inch needs to be brought down to this development. B.Schmitt: Right. We can bring eight inch over to here. I don't mind bringing it to the development but as far as bringing it an extra 700 feet down to this end, I don't see any reason to do that. If somebody wants to development past us, they can pay for the rest of the 700. I've already brought it in at that point 1500 feet. Petrie: That's something we can consider. I would say that it would have to go to the south side of lot one. Conklin: It would have to go to here. • Petrie: Right. Conklin: That's what we are trying to do. Our policy has always been to extend the utilities to the edge of the development. B.Schmitt: I think, again just as construction information, I think you need to look at what kind of development you are going to encourage out 45 and in suburban areas. If you want larger lots, you are not going to be able to put in an eight inch line to service four lots. Most people can't afford to do it. Petrie: Then I have a two inch and this guy develops and then I'll let a few more go in there and at some point somebody is going to have to run an eight inch and it's not going to be the City. That's the problem. The City is not going to pay for this development along this road. B.Schmitt: I would ask you to do some engineering figures on one, two, three, four, five, six, we know how many houses are going to be out here under final development. How much of a line do we need to serve six houses off of an eight inch waterline? Conklin: I have a question though. • Petrie: The requirement is an eight inch has to be extended. Plat Review Minutes August 16, 2000 Page 38 B.Schmitt: Petrie: B.Schmitt: Petrie: N.Schmitt: Petrie: N.Schmitt: Petrie: The question is, where does it need to be extended to? I said I would agree to extend it to the south side of lot one. So extend it here and how are we going to service these off of that? You need to show me what you are suggesting. Can we bring a two inch line off of that eight inch down this side to these two Tots? To which side? This side. Bring a two inch off the eight inch down this easement to serve lots three and four. What do we have to the north? I have to be fairly sure that nobody else is going to use that two inch. B.Schmitt: At this point, we own all this property. Nobody else can tap into that line right there. This property is already developed. That's what I'm asking. It's fully developed? N.Schmitt: Petrie: Conklin: N.Schmitt: Petrie: Conklin: Petrie: I would call it underdeveloped because as we see closer to town, everybody is splitting off there house on .34 acres and coming up with some college money or whatever or some other funds to do something else with and it's just a matter of time. I assume there is water down here. This house here is getting water from somewhere. I have no record of it. My question was, on that two inch line like we have been dealing with the problem with the irrigation for landscaping. There's no guarantees out here either with these five hundred thousand dollar houses. I believe the eight inch is ruined and we can try to guarantee it. That's our • Plat Review Minutes August 16, 2000 Page 39 problem on Altus. They have half million dollar homes if not more and of course they want irrigation out there and we can't get them irrigation. N.Schmitt: They are irrigating out there. Petrie: Right but they are bringing them off of the standard service line. It's not what they want. Conklin: Are you going to have a deed restriction on this saying that these lots can't be split? B.Schmitt: That's fine. We don't have a problem with that. Conklin: I'm just trying to find out what kind of guarantees we are going to have. Can we put a note on the plat. B.Schmitt: If we can get a deduction in the length of the eight inch line requirement we can definitely give you a deed restriction that these can't be split. If you can bring the eight inch to the north boundary of lot one. Petrie: I can't do that. B.Schmitt: We can access all four of these off of those. Why can't you do that? You should be able to access six houses off of two inches private hooking up right there. Petrie: What our requirements state is you should extend it through the development so in actuality it should go to the south side of lot two. The eight inch needs to be extended at least to lot two. I've got a City Engineer that would be glad to discuss this with you. I know what the requirements are. N.Schmitt: Bring a two inch line down to this too? B.Schmitt: These would just tap into the eight? Petrie: That's something that I want to ask Jim Beavers. I don't think I can guarantee anything to two inch. We Just need to run it by him. B.Schmitt: Would these not be their private service lines, starting right here? Not a City two inch? • Conklin: What he said is that it can't cross over two lots. You can only go over one lot and • • Plat Review Minutes August 16, 2000 Page 40 that's why his statement was to run it to lot three. N.Schmitt: This would be a City line down to lot three. Petrie: That's what we are considering. I didn't know what you were proposing when I looked at this. I hadn't prepared comments and haven't had a chance to think about that so I just need to get with Jim Beavers. If that's what you are proposing. A two inch to the west side of lot three and private service line over to lot four. B.Schmitt: Okay. Petrie: You are welcome to discuss that eight inch with Jim Beavers too. B.Schmitt: Okay. We may want to sit down and do that. Petrie: He may make you take it to the south of lot two. B.Schmitt: If you can get a guarantee on what's going to go on down here on these thirty- three acres from the Pal's, deed restriction. Conklin: The only reason that I brought that up because you keep on saying nothing is going to happen out there. B.Schmitt: At the time what you told me was that you made me bring it to here so that future developments could have access to that eight inch line. You didn't tell me that future developments would have to bring it all the way down through it. Petrie: It's the same situation. Conklin: Once again, we are trying to provide basic infrastructure. B.Schmitt: At our cost for future development. Conklin: No. Petrie: Not the City's cost. Conklin: Not at the City's cost but if you are going to develop it should not be at the public's cost. • B.Schmitt: At the public's cost. Plat Review Minutes August 16, 2000 Page 41 N.Schmitt: B.Schmitt: N.Schmitt: Conklin: B.Schmitt: Conklin: B.Schmitt: Conklin: Kevin Lefler, Lefler: B.Schmitt: Lefler: I understand that at no City cost. It seems to me that any given subdivision ought to have to put in whatever is required to service that subdivision. The next subdivision has to come back in and put in whatever is required to service and then on to what the City requires. We are being required to give all of the land here to the City so that any future development could come through and do whatever they need to do but yet you are also making us go ahead and put in the line so that any future development..in fact we know what is going on here, it's not a question. Even if it were, they ought to pay for setting this line, not us. There is a lot of, like you said, what is the end result? Larger lots. Do you need an eight inch water line to service six houses? Concurrency with infrastructure is this leap frog maybe should be developed right now. This infrastructure is not to it. Those are other policy issues too that you could look at. I think we can debate this all day. I think you heard Ron, the City Engineer is going to be the final say on it. You want to get with Jim Beavers and figure out if he is going to make you make that eight inch line stop at lot one or all the way to south of lot two. What you are going to propose to serve lot three and four. How's that? That's a good starting point. Utilities? Cox Communications The north side of lots one, three and four, we need that to be a twenty foot utility easement so that we can come through there. Also, depending on if anything happens with development of a street or road through here between lots one, two and three or three and four, we would need a sleeve under it if you are going to pave or do anything with the road that you were talking about. We would need a sleeve under that easement portion of that right there. A four inch. Okay. That would be between three and four? Or one and two? Yes. Or if it decides to swing the other way and go right between lots one and two. That's all. Plat Review Minutes August 16, 2000 Page 42 Mike Phipps, Ozark Electric Phipps: Did you get that Sara? Edwards: We didn't get it on tape. Phipps: We have two quads there and right over here and the twenty foot easement will go all the way to Fox Run lot. B.Schmitt: You would need those how deep? Phipps: Forty-two inches. B.Schmitt: Forty-two inches. That services gas and electric or Just electric? Phipps: All four of us. B.Schmitt: Everybody. Great. Johney Boles, Arkansas Western Gas Boles: Mike, that's why I like sitting here because usually my work's finished when it gets to me. No comment. Bill Smith, Southwestern Bell Smith: No comment for Bell. Conklin: Revisions will be due... Edwards: Next Wednesday the 23' at 10:00 a.m. Conklin: Thank you. No comments from Landscape Administrator, Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator, Parks Division, Traffic Division, Solid Waste Division or Fire Department. • Plat Review Minutes August 16, 2000 Page 43 LSD 00-25.00: Large Scale Development (Air BP, pp 795) was submitted by Kenneth Schossow on behalf of Air BP for property located on 71 South (airport). The property is zoned I-1 Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial. The request is for an above ground fuel tank. Conklin: Schossow: Conklin: Edwards: Schossow: Edwards: Conklin: Schossow: Lefler: Schossow: Petrie: • This is number three. Ken Schossow has requested.. This is on the airport, Drake Field and is working with the City of Fayetteville and Alett Little down at the airport to put an above ground storage tank. A few years ago Micky Jackson, our Fire Chief passed an ordinance saying that all above ground tanks had to have large scale development approval. Typically, you would not have to be required to have a large scale development but because that ordinance states it does, that's why they are before us. What we did is I just made a copy of the site plan. I have a reduced copy of the plans. I thought we all could just take a look at these plans here. How are you going to get electric there, utilities. With regard to the Planning, really there's nothing to review other than setbacks. Do you have any other comments? Chuck did ask for a contribution to be given to the Sidewalk Fund at the airport. If you want to give him a call and you guys can determine an amount that you can agree on. Who is this? It's Chuck Rutherford. Our Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator. As development occurs at the airport we have been looking towards how all the developers to help build sidewalks. You can talk to Alett about that and Alett can help you respond to that requirement. I'll take that up with her then. Are you going to need cable service out there? No. We are going to have telephone, electric and I think that's it. The only water we will need is the existing fire hydrant that's already located there. Everything is pretty laid out on the page A-2. The third page in the packet here. Every time it rains does somebody from the airport have to go out there and open that valve to determine if there is any spilled fuel. Open that valve, drain this box. Plat Review Minutes August 16, 2000 Page 44 Schossow: Petrie: Conklin: Schossow: Conklin: Schossow: Conklin: Bill Smith, No. The way that it's set up there is a filtering mechanism in the back of the structure itself that will allow rain water collection to run through it into the storm drain. I would have to get a depth engineering to talk to you to that degree how a sophisticated mechanism that they have for petroleum products. It has a filtering device in it that will let water pass through but the minute any petroleum product touches it it swells up and stops the flow. It don't let anything but water go through it. That answers my question. Thank you. With regard to the large scale development fee, the City Council and the lease agreement, the City Council last night tabled this request. My impression from last night was that they all felt the fee should be waived and that it takes an ordinance and Jerry Rose is going to prepare an ordinance for consideration at the next City Council meeting. With regard to the lease agreement, I don't know how to summarize that. If you can, you are better than I am. We shall wait and see and Council has to make a decision on that. From that point, as far as Air BP and our separate concern, I think you pretty well summed it up that if everything goes through and they insist on the $800 then BP has to right you a check before we proceed and if not it's waived and then we start construction as soon as we are given the go ahead. We do have the State Fire Marshall's permit in hand now received via fax and the hard copy is to follow. We are where we need to be with that. We have already sent this out for bid with the hopes that all of this will continue. Last night we just was kind of overwhelmed that the Airport Commission had already approved this and this thing is going back to a public forum when we have already had one. That's not for this Board's concern. We still will go forward tomorrow to Subdivision Committee with you that they can approve this subject to the City Council acting on the lease and fee waiver. That's what we are looking at Does Southwestern Bell telephone have any comments? Southwestern Bell Smith: Do you have a location map where this is located? Plat Review Minutes August 16, 2000 Page 45 Schossow: It's in the lease agreement that I gave you. Conklin: I have it right here. Schossow: If you will notice the terminal, this is the chain link fence that runs just where the old employee parking used to be for the airliner employees. This is located right off of the hard surface. Smith: So we are close to the terminal. Schossow: Right. Smith: I may need some conduit run from here over to that location. I'm not familiar with this. I'm new to the area and I'm not familiar how we even feed the airport. I might have to meet with you out there. Schossow: Whenever we come to the determination of which contractor is going to be awarded the bid on this, everything will be done from the utilities on up and down as far as what needs to be done and that will be inclusive as to their bid. From the phone service which you have to have for this automatic card reader to the electrical. I think the only other thing is the lights that need to go up there. There are some existing lights there now and I don't know if they are going to have to be replaced by a different type of light or not. To answer your question, I'll be glad to meet with you but I'm not sure that I can give you that information that the people that is actually going to be doing the work are until they are determined which ones are awarded the bid. Smith: I'll need some way to get to this property. It might have to be by easement Conklin: The City of Fayetteville owns the property. I'm expecting that the City of Fayetteville can put the utilities on their own property. Shouldn't be a problem. Smith: If I have to extend it from somewhere else or put in an additional line for you that would be at your cost. Schossow: Okay. I11 convey that on to the developer. Conklin: I don't think it's going to be the City of Fayetteville phone system he's tying into. It's going to be a private line. Smith: But it could feed out of the terminal if there is a conduit going into it. If I have to • • • Plat Review Minutes August 16, 2000 Page 46 Schossow: Conklin: come from the roadway we might need an easement. I would think that it would come from the terminal because from this point right here to the terminal itself is about three hundred feet. With the line that being a private line, I'm just thinking about lease agreements. I can't get permission to have you put facilities on the airport property. Will that phone line be a public phone line? Schossow: No. Conklin: Schossow: Conklin: Smith: Conklin: Schossow: Conklin: Schossow: Smith: We need to talk about that. It's a card reader type. I'm not talking about the line itself though. How does that work? We can feed anything off this property from that one d -mark. If you request a second d -mark we would need an easement to that d -mark. They would have to pay for the cable and the terminal. I'll talk to the land agent. Would you be able to take a site map of where your pedestals are located in and around the terminal to see where we would be able to catch the line? I think it's going to require a two line service. I might stand to be corrected on that. I think what Mr. Smith is saying is, you need to plan ahead before you get your contractor out there. Figure out how you are going to serve it. The only concern I have and we can talk to Alett is, if you need another easement granted by the City of Fayetteville to Southwestern Bell, I think that can be done without City Council approval but something to look into. Make sure there is not going to be any delays. You suggested meeting out there to figure out how to make it work. I'll leave it at that. Southwestern Bell and you are going to work it out. Whatever units are needed that you will get through the process. I'll be glad to meet with you anytime. If it's only a couple lines I don't see any problem feeding it from the main terminal or wherever is out there now. Plat Review Minutes August 16, 2000 Page 47 Schossow: I can tell you this, you took about six pay phones out of the terminal when they closed down so there ought to be plenty of lines in and around the terminal. Smith: I need a way to get from the terminal to there. I might need a conduit buried by you guys. In fact we might not even have a pedestal here they might extend a conduit right in, I want to say bury it closure somewhere out here. I'm not sure. Schossow: Go on out there and take a look at where your service is. The nearest would be the answer to it I would assume. Conklin: I would also request that you get with SWEPCO and figure out how that facility is going to be serviced. Schossow: We are already looking into that. I've kind of handed that task out to the three bidders on this. One of the three SSI has already done a lot of the terminal back when. I think it was the bathrooms and the canopy or something. I don't know. They are pretty well familiar with it. They are in the process of looking to see. It's going to require three phase service and they are in the process of looking to see what's the best viable way to get that service to this. Conklin: If they are digging a trench and putting a conduit in, they might as well put a second conduit in that trench to get it out there. You have it all worked out. Okay. Thank you.