The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2000-09-27 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF TECHNICAL PLAT REVIEW A regular meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee was held on Wednesday, September 27, 2000 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LS 00-36.00: Lot Split (Tipton, pp 475) Forwarded Page 2 LSD 00-26.00: Large Scale Development Tabled (Lewis Street Town Homes, pp 403 & 404) Page 6 LSD 00-31.00: Large Scale Development Forwarded (Dixie Development, pp 176) Page 17 FP 00-4.00: Final Plat (Covington Park Phase IV, pp 295) Forwarded Page 38 STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Sara Edwards Ron Petrie Chuck Rutherford Kim Rogers Perry Franklin Kim Hesse UTILITIES PRESENT Johney Boles, Ar Western Gas Mike Phipps, Ozark Electric Kevin Lefler, Cox Communications Bill Smith, Southwestern Bell STAFF ABSENT Mickey Jackson Cheryl Zotti UTILITIES ABSENT Glen Newman, SWEPCO Plat Review Minutes • September 27, 2000 Page 2 LS00-36.00: Lot Split (Tipton, pp 475) was submitted by D.W. Tipton for property located at 5839 Tipton. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 17.85 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 2 acres and 15.85 acres. Conklin. We are ready to get started this morning. I'm Tim Conklin, City Planner. This is the Technical Plat Review Committee, Wednesday, September 27, 2000. We have four items of business this morning. The first item of business is a Lot Split 00-36.00 for Tipton for property located at 5839 Tipton. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 17.85 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 2 acres and 15.85 acres. We are recording this meeting. We do take minutes of this meeting. Therefore, if you could state your name for the record, speak clearly, speak loudly, I encourage you to come up to the table as a representative or the applicant and therefore, we can get an accurate record of the requirements that will be stated during this meeting. Is there a representative for this lot split? Good morning, Alan. Reid: I'm Alan Reid, I'll be representing the Tipton's on this lot split. Conklin: We'll start off with Sara Edwards, our Development Coordinator here at the City • of Fayetteville She will go over the comments from our different city divisions. Chuck Rutherford, Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator Rutherford: No sidewalks required. Kim Rogers. Parks Operations Coordinator Rogers: No park's fees are due. Perry Franklin, Traffic Superintendent Franklin: No comment. Kim Hesse, Landscape Administrator Hesse: No comment. Sara Edwards, Development Coordinator Edwards: I did have a question. What is the existing street condition over there? • Plat Review Minutes September 27, 2000 Page 3 Calhoun: One lane. Conklin: It's gravel currently? Calhoun. One lane. Edwards. I did tell you about the problems with the legal. Reid: I changed those. We've come from a different corner. It's all described from the same point. Edwards: Okay. Celia said this has been approved by the County but I'm not sure if she meant this split? Reid: I haven't taken this to the County yet. Edwards: Okay. Then this will need to get County approval. Reid: Right. Edwards. That's all that I have. Ron Petrie, Staff Engineer Petrie: I really have no comments on this other than to say you do have a 2" water line on the north side. I'm not sure exactly where it ends in this area. Calhoun: We put it there and it ends on that piece of property. Petrie: On this tract? Calhoun: We paid to have it put down there. Petrie: At some point, I'm not sure exactly where it ends, but if you keep developing this... Calhoun. It ends between those two comers. This line, this is it and we put it right here in the corner to supply both pieces. We put a double tap right there. Petrie: If you do skid off more of this tract. Plat Review Minutes September 27, 2000 Page 4 Calhoun: It's not. Petrie: I know but if you do in the future... Calhoun: It's only being split one time under five acres. Petrie: Eventually you probably will. Maybe a true subdivision. I'm just making sure that you are aware that a waterline will have to be extended. Calhoun: We had to pay to have it put down there. Whoever else gets it, they will have to pay. Petrie: Right. Conklin: I just want to clarify that Ron, we are not asking for that waterline to be extended? Petrie: Not at this time. Conklin: Not at this time to tract B. Okay. Johney Boles, Arkansas Western Gas Boles: The easements shown are fine. No other comment. Mike Phipps, Ozark Electric Phipps: No comment. Kevin Lefler, Cox Communications Lefler: No comment. Bill Smith, Southwestern Bell Smith: No comment. Conklin: Is there an existing house on tract B? Calhoun: My dad lives right here in this corner. Conklin: Is he on well water? • • • Plat Review Minutes September 27, 2000 Page 5 Calhoun: Yes. Conklin: Dust wanted to clarify that. Thanks. Edwards. This will also go to the Subdivision Committee meeting October 12, 2000, 8:30 a.m. Conklin: Thank you very much. Plat Review Minutes • September 27, 2000 Page 6 • • LSD 00-26.00: Large Scale Development (Lewis Street Town Homes, pp 403 & 404) was submitted by W.B. Rudasill of WBR Engineering Associates on behalf of Dale Shultz of Lewis Street Town Homes for property located at the northwest corner of Lewis Avenue and Reap Street. The property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential and contains 3.93 acres with 24 units proposed. Conklin: The next item on our agenda is Large Scale Development for Lewis Street Town Homes submitted by W.B. Rudasill of WBR Engineering Associates on behalf of Dale Shultz of Lewis Street Town Homes for property located at the northwest corner of Lewis Avenue and Reap Street. The property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential and contains 3.93 acres with 24 units proposed. Good morning Mr. Rudasill. Rudasill; Good morning. I'm Bill Rudasill, I'm with WBR Engineering and I'm representing Dale Shultz and his wife. Conklin: We will start with Sara Edwards our Development Coordinator. Kim Hesse, Landscape Administrator Hesse: Individual trees 24" and larger are to be identified by species and the tree symbol on the drawing is to be representative of the actual canopy diameter All proposed utility extension and proposed grades are to be shown on the plans. No disturbance is allowed under the dripline of the trees to be preserved. All grade changes and utility trenching must be outside the canopy edge for trees to be considered preserved. Trees to be preserved are to have tree protection fencing indicated on the grading plan. Notes and details are also to be included on the grading plan. What are the future plans for this site and can the minimum tree preservation area be indicated for the entire site? Rudasill: Okay. As far as future plans for it, at this time the bank has authorized me to do 24 units. He doesn't know whether they are going to go beyond that in the future. He has had several people request the possibility of purchasing pieces in the back of this to add to their lots that are on the west end. He really has no idea what he is going to do with it. He does plan, some time in the future, to put some more units in there if these work out but it's so far down the road that he can't really determine that right now. We can go ahead and do a tree count for the whole site if she would prefer that. Edwards: Would you Kim? • Plat Review Minutes September 27, 2000 Page 7 Hesse: Rudasill: I don't know. We've got a very tentative layout for the rest of that but, like I said, it really hinges on how these 24 units do. Hesse: If you want to probably meet the minimum for each phase of it. Conklin: What's the minimum percent canopy required? 15%? Hesse: 20%. Conklin: 20%. The question is are we going to show 20% tree canopy to be preserved and perpetuity on this site and where that's located. Is that what you are looking for Kim? Rudasill: There are several trees on the west end of this that are not shown. Hesse: There are a lot of trees on this. • Conklin: That concerns me too and that has always been a big issue is what trees are we saving and how much canopy we are saving. In the end are we going to have 20% canopy on this site? • Rudasill: I was trying to look at this as this portion I would preserve 20% canopy and as we move toward the west end we would do that for each portion of the development. Conklin: Where the phase line... Rudasill: I didn't get it drawn on there but it will be just west of the two trees that are on the west end of the parking lot. It will be shown in that area. Conklin: You are saying that you are showing 20% tree preservation canopy? Rudasill: Yes. Conklin: That you are going to have an existing canopy... What's the existing canopy of this portion of the property right here? Rudasill: I've got the wrong one. There was a tree preservation plan that was submitted separate of this. It should have that on there. Plat Review Minutes • September 27, 2000 Page 8 Hesse: On this application he has 22 trees existing, removing 16. Rudasill: Yes. Conklin: Well, that's not 20% Rudasill: We were planting additional trees to bring that back up to 20%. Conklin: Has the Landscape Administrator agreed to that? Rudasill: I've not sat down and met with her, no. Conklin: Okay. Kim, is that something you are going to look at and make a recommendation then at the next meeting? Hesse: Yes. I need to go back out there again. I don't know if the trees on this portion are of the quality to be preserved. Rudasill: Some of them are and some of them aren't. There is one that is a really large old • tree but it's not really in that great of shape. We probably should do that. I can meet with her. Conklin: Yes. We need a plan that clearly shows what the ordinance requires for zoning, how much canopy is going to be left and how much canopy you are proposing to show as replacement. I'm sure Kim can go over what she is actually looking for just for the Commissioners, they ask me that question every two weeks. How much canopy exists on the site? How much canopy is being preserved on the site and how much canopy is allowed to be called replacement? Rudasill: In that essence, I do have one other question. Parking requirements for this site is one per bedroom plus 20% or is that 20% optional? Edwards: It's a maximum. Rudasill: So we could reduce the stalls to accommodate some additional trees? Edwards: Yes. Rudasill: Okay. I've got a full 20%. • Conklin: There is a minimum and a maximum. 20% is the maximum. Plat Review Minutes September 27, 2000 Page 9 Rudasill: Conklin: Rudasill: Conklin: Hesse: Okay. That will help. I can take a couple of stalls out to preserve those. So you are clear on what we are looking for with regard to tree preservation and protection? Yes. Why don't you go ahead Sara? There are landscape requirements that apply to the parking lot. Please review off- street parking lot landscape requirements. Chuck Rutherford, Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator Rutherford: Rudasill: Conklin: Rudasill: Conklin: Rutherford: Rudasill: Rutherford: Rudasill: Lewis Street is a local street. This requires a minimum 4 foot sidewalk with a minimum 6 foot green space. The sidewalk shall be continuous along Lewis Street and continuous through the driveway. The sidewalk needs to be added to the legend. The curb and gutter line needs to be removed through the sidewalk. Do you understand that at the driveway? Yes. Through the driveway, curb and gutter. We are also looking at this, do you have that one in your comments? I do have one question and maybe you can answer me, I don't know. This street is currently not curbed the entire street. The full length of Lewis is not curbed. Ron is going to go over his recommendation on that. I have a question on the sidewalk. Are you showing an existing driveway on the main? No. It's just a gravel driveway. It's going to be torn out. We'll tear that out and dress that ditch up if there is a ditch allowed in there. One comment though that if it's not and it's used, it will have to be removed. You understand about the curb and gutter line being removed from the sidewalk? Yes. It will be a handicap ramp type situation. Rutherford: It may or may not be. It doesn't have to be. The sidewalk can be continuous right Plat Review Minutes September 27, 2000 Page 10 through there. That's it. Perry Franklin, Traffic Superintendent Franklin: Street lights are required every 300 feet on street right-of-way if not existing. I don't see where you are showing the street lights. They may be installed on existing overhead electric poles. Each building access must have at least one ADA van accessible space, at least four are required. Rudasill: I've got two. Okay. Conklin: Perry, you have some concerns on the location of those too, didn't you? Franklin: Over there when you look on the driveway for those two that are facing Lewis Street there should be some ADA access right there. Rudasill: Okay. Franklin• So they don't have to park way over here and come all the way around that side of the street and back. These other two I guess they could be located the best you can to get access to those buildings on the front. The other question I have, have you gotten to the other comment about backing out? Edwards: No. Go ahead. Franklin: That 18 feet needs to be 24 to back out of the apartments. Rudasill: If we can reduce those parking requirements I can get that. Kim Rogers - Parks Operations Coordinator Rogers: Parks fees for 24 units are $9,000. Please add the number of multi -family townhouses under your "land usage" area. Also, add the owner and engineer phone numbers under the address listed. Rudasill: Along those lines, the owner has requested that we discuss this. They did not want to take land in lieu at the time we were at there on the land versus cash. He has a proposal here to provide a privately maintained half acres park that would go dust west of the existing units that are there. The reason for it is twofold, number one there is a kiddy park over in Asbell but to get there they have to walk about 1,000 feet to Lewis Street to get over to that park. There is nothing Plat Review Minutes • September 27, 2000 Page 11 provided on that end of Washington Plaza or this development for smaller children. He's concerned about those kids walking down that street. If that won't work, we will go with the cash but he would prefer to put the park if it will meet his park's requirements. Conklin: I don't think that's going to meet his park requirements. Anybody can ask for anything and they typically go through this process and staff has to support the Parks Board recommendation and ask for the money in lieu but you have the right under the ordinance to ask for some other different type of accommodation to meet that requirement. Edwards: What size is the park you are talking about? Rudasill: Half acre. Conklin: You are talking about private? Rudasill: Providing the parks requirement but a privately maintained public park. Washington Plaza will be able to use it. Conklin: We haven't typically done that. Another developer in town did a lot of apartments, built basketball courts and other amenities but still was required to pay parks fees. It's not something that we do in Fayetteville. Sara Edwards - Development Coordinator Edwards: I did not receive a project disk on this. What I would like to request instead of doing it right now when you turn in the easement plat, just tum it in at that time that way it reflects all the changes. We would like for you to dimension the right- of-way from the centerline. Add building setbacks to the legend and label here Rudasill: Okay. They are on there. Edwards: Okay. Add the plat page. Rudasill: Which is? Edwards: Add adjacent zoning. The plat page is 403 & 404. Conklin: Plat page number 403 and 404. Plat Review Minutes 11111 September 27, 2000 Page 12 Rudasill: Okay. Edwards:_ Add adjacent zoning. Like Chuck said, we do want the drive to be removed. Aisle width and the drive in the parking lot should not exceed 24 feet. Are there going to be any signs on this development? Rudasill: I did not ask him that. There probably will be a small sign somewhere. It will most likely go in that area, on either side of the drive. Edwards: Get with him and show that on there. I did have a question about overhead electric what size is that? Does anybody know? Conklin: Is that Ozark? Phipps: It's SWEPCO. Edwards: If it's over 12kv it has to be underground. Rudasill: Okay. • Conklin: Is that everything you have Sara? Edwards: Yes. I have some minor things. You have an extra "H" in that. That's it. Rudasill: We corrected that. It's actually been corrected already. Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: You have these comments in that packet? Rudasill: Yes. I believe so. • Petrie: I'll skip over the general comments. Under water you show a 4" water line coming off of this 6", that would need to be a public line which would require an 8" minimum line and some way to blow off the end of it. Either a fire hydrant or a blow off would need to be put on the end of it. We would also need a 20 foot off-site utility easement for that construction. You show 6" water on the east side, our records show that's 8". Rudasill: I got that from the Water Department. Plat Review Minutes September 27, 2000 • Page 13 • • Petrie. Sewer, we do require a minimum 20 foot utility easement. With that sewer line centered that would also affect the location of some of the apartments or an off- site easement. Rudasill: Would that need to be extended at the public line or can it be extended at the private sewer? Petrie: I think it would really limit future development of this lot. I think it could be done either way. I don't recommend it because I think it limits what you can do back here in the future. Any additional buildings we would want it to be a public main through here. Two buildings are something that we could go either way. Rudasill: I was trying to avoid having to submit to the Health Department on it. If we need to go to the Health Department, I don't want to do it. Petrie: I think the Health Department is pretty reasonable on their time. Rudasill: I'm not worried about time. It's just extra plans that have to be drawn up. Petrie: For the grading, I'm really not too sure what you have planned. Rudasill: I laid off on the grading partially because we didn't know whether or not the park would be in there but I'm going to go ahead and develop it assuming that the park is not going to be in there and then we will go to the Planning Commission and request that park. If it doesn't go then we will have a grading plan. Primarily the drainage in the parking lot will run through the street ditch on Lewis and the other areas will be touched up to where the drain is going out of the development. Petrie: I need a preliminary grading plan. I need a preliminary drainage. That's not something that... Rudasill: I understand. Conklin: This will be coming back to Plat Review, those are requirements at submittal time. The preliminary grading or drainage is required I'm not going to forward this on to Subdivision Committee. You will have to come back here and take care of your parking and other issues. With regard to off-site easement Ron, do we need that before we proceed on? Petrie: No, they can come back through this way if they need to. Plat Review Minutes • September 27, 2000 Page 14 Conklin: Tree preservation concerns me. My staff is probably tired of me giving this lecture. I give it every two weeks. I'm very disturbed that we can't get tree preservation plans that meet our requirements at the time of submittal. Every two weeks, I sit here and walk everybody through what we are looking for. I encourage the engineers, surveyors and developers out there to step up and get a preservation plan done that we can read and understand. • • Petrie: Just real quick I'll finish up. It looks like I have three different sets of contours too. If you can take a look at that. The grading permit, give me a copy of the latest up-to-date permit. It does need to be signed by the owner. Drainage, I mentioned that we need that preliminary drainage report before we can proceed. See section 1.2 that gives you a pretty clear deadline for what needs to be in the preliminary report. I should tell you that the other projects on this site, detention was required and it will be required unless it can be proven that it's not needed. On the street, the typical requirements for a street that is below standards it's to be improved adjacent to this site: It's a local street, so it would be 14 feet from centerline and that would bring it up to standards for drainage or whatever is needed. When the off-site improvements are approved by the Planning Commission that would just be our recommendation. That's all I've got. Edwards: I have the same problem on the signatures. We will need the owners to come in and sign it or a letter authorizing you to sign for them. Johney Boles, Arkansas Western Gas Boles: Bill, I'm not real clear what I'm looking at out here in front. Rudasill: We will provide an easement around the outside edge of all four sides of the entire development. Boles: If I'm looking at the legend correctly, you are showing a right-of-way line out in front of the property. Then about 25 feet west of that? Rudasill: It's a setback line. Boles: That's not the property line? Rudasill: No. The first line that's a double dash with a dot dot, that is the right-of-way line. Boles: So that's where private property also begins? • • Plat Review Minutes September 27, 2000 Page 15 Rudasill: Yes. Then the setback is twenty-five feet from that. Boles: The legend shows a single dot for property line. You are probably aware on the east side of Lewis Street there we have a large regulator setting and we have a line that comes across the west side of Lewis Street that turns north. Are you wanting to serve these complexes from the south side of the proposed buildings? Rudasill: Yes. There are currently utilities on the east side of the first two buildings and there are several utilities along the edge of Reap Street but I don't know that there is gas in there. Boles: We are going to need a utility easement along the west side of Lewis Street probably 20 feet in width. We have an existing inch and a quarter line that runs from the edge of the street by the right-of-way about 720 feet to the west and then it turns north so we can serve off of that. We could do a line extension or serve it off of an existing line, whatever your preference is. That's all I have. Kevin Lefler, Cox Communications Lefler: We've got area cable along this overhead electric line here too so if they have to go into the ground and we do to it will be at the developers expense and I can look up the cost on that. As far as getting service to the buildings, we can serve these off of either the overhead electric poles or the pedestals that we placed along there and then this building back here we could come down here and serve it through this way on the south side. That's all. Bill Smith, Southwestern Bell Smith: How many total units are you planning? Rudasill: Right now it's 24. Smith: If I place a cable down here I don't want to come back and put in some other ones. I would size it to max out the piece of property. Rudasill: If they were to go in there in the future with apartments, they originally planned 72 but with parks requirements and drainage requirements and all that, it's going to be less than a total of 72 for the entire development, so probably somewhere around 60. • Smith. With the sewer going down the 15 foot easement, does that sewer run in the • • • Plat Review Minutes September 27, 2000 Page 16 middle, is it going to limit the use of my easement? Rudasill: There are several pedestals that are along the side of the road already. Smith- But it might not be sized for this. Petrie: I've requested 20 foot utility easement there. Smith: If this is 20 foot then I have no problem, I can feed back then it can be serviced off the south end of the building. Whenever you pre -wire they all have to go that way. That's the only comment I have. Conklin: Any other utility comments? You do need some screening around the dumpster shown. We'll place this back on our next Plat Review agenda. Janet in our office will give you the time to get that work back to us. Rudasill: Okay. Thank you. Conklin: Thank you. • Plat Review Minutes September 27, 2000 Page 17 LSD 00-31.00: Large Scale Development (Dixie Development, pp 176) was submitted by Joe Rogers of The Benham Group on behalf Dixie Development for property located at the southwest corner of Joyce Blvd. and Old Missouri Road. The property is zoned R-0, Residential Office and contains approximately 6.65 acres. The request is for five professional office buildings. Conklin: The next item is a Large Scale Development submitted by Joe Rogers of The Benham Group on behalf Dixie Development for property located at the southwest corner of Joyce Blvd. and Old Missouri Road The property is zoned R-0, Residential Office and contains approximately 6.65 acres. The request is for five professional office buildings. Good morning. I'll start out with Sara Edwards, our Development Coordinator will go over staff comments then we will take Engineering and utilities. Jim Johnson - 911 Addressing Coordinator Johnson: The two private drives in this project will need street names. Jim Johnson is asking that you call him to verify the selected names. • Carnahan: Do those need to be named before we go to the next meeting? Edwards: Yes if you want it to go through. Kim Hesse, Landscape Administrator Hesse: Individual trees 24 inch and larger need to be identified by species and the tree symbol on the drawing is to be representative of the actual canopy diameter. All trees are to be shown on the plan and those proposed for preservation shall be indicated as such on the grading plan. Carnahan: Should I respond as we go along? We are under the impression that we are already showing the canopy. Gary Carnahan with The Benham Group. We've done that right? We've shown all the existing trees and we are under the impression that that is on the drawing at this time. Hesse: Gary, I talked to Brent and they are not identified. I know what they are but they are not identified by species, it says that they are elms and the size and it doesn't show the canopy It shows the canopy but it doesn't show the canopy, you know what I'm saying? • Carnahan: Right. Plat Review Minutes • September 27, 2000 Page 18 Hesse: The canopy is bigger than the symbol. What I've asked Brent to do is to let me know the existing and preserved canopy and short a report that shows me that. A short report explaining why some trees are being removed. That needs to be indicated before Planning Commission. Carnahan: Should we submit that to you then Kim? Hesse: Yes. I need a memo explaining the reason for not meeting minimum preservation requirements and that's required prior to Subdivision Committee. Carnahan: We thought we had worked that out. That's why we had Brent meet with you so we thought everything that we are showing here was already approved. Hesse: I think he met with Planning but I wasn't there at that meeting. Carnahan: You did not meet on the site with him? Hesse: No. I talked with him separately and he told me about it. I've been on the site. Really a lot of it depends on information that I need on the plan. The memo is the explanation of which trees that are unhealthy and should be removed. I didn't know that he wasn't over the project until I called him. He said he would get with you. Carnahan: Okay. I'll get with him. Hesse: Be sure he understands. Conklin: Do we know how much existing canopy there is? Hesse: Yes. Conklin: Do we know how much is being preserved? What is the existing canopy? Hesse: The existing canopy is 3.8%. They are proposing to preserve 1.37%. Conklin: Could you come up to the tape recorder so we can get that on the record? Sheri won't be able to hear. Hesse: • Their application shows existing 3.8% and existing to be preserved is 1.37%. I've been on the site. There is some fence around vegetation. They are all shown on there just not labeled as to what they are. I know that some of those aren't very Plat Review Minutes • September 27, 2000 Page 19 • • healthy and Brent can explain why we aren't saving them all. Then your grade aren't showing and I can't tell between the one's that are quite small and I know the tree in reality is bigger than that. For me to look at the grade and correspond that with what we do with the trees that we are preserving. I have a hard time with that. Conklin: You are thinking that your recommendation is going to support what they are showing or are you not sure? Hesse: Yes. I'm supportive of what they are saving, I just want to make sure we are able to save those. Conklin: Okay. So you are supportive of going form 3.8% to 1.37%? Hesse: Yes. You need to explain that. Carnahan: Okay. Thank you. Hesse: No disturbance is allowed under the dripline of the trees to be preserved. All grade changes and utility trenching must be outside the canopy edge for trees to be considered preserved. Trees to be preserved are to have tree protectionfencing indicated on the grading plan. Some form of irrigation is required and shall be noted on Landscape Plan. The minimum requirement is to provide hose bibs placed at 100' radius from all landscaped areas. Chuck Rutherford - Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator Rutherford: Joyce is a principal arterial and Old Missouri is a collector. The requirement for both streets is to have a minimum 6 foot sidewalk with a minimum 10 foot greenspace. The sidewalk shall be continuous through the driveways with the curb and gutter lines removed. The green space between curb and sidewalk needs to have the width shown. Two access ramps are required at the corner of Joyce Blvd. and Old Missouri Road. The sidewalk needs to be added to the legend. Carnahan: Okay. We'll get that. Perry Franklin - Traffic Superintendent Franklin: Street lights are required every 300' along the public street right-of-way and at the intersection of Old Missouri and Joyce Blvd. Each parking lot requires one ADA space for every 25 parking spaces and at least one van accessible space is required • • • Plat Review Minutes September 27, 2000 Page 20 Carnahan: in each parking lot for each building. Van accessible spaces require an 8' space and an 8' aisle. Standard ADA spaced may share the van accessible aisle. More ADA spaces required than shown on the plan. We'll get with Perry to make sure. Sara Edwards - Development Coordinator Edwards: Carnahan: Edwards: Conklin: Carnahan: Conklin: Edwards. Carnahan: Edwards: Carnahan: We need a project disk to be submitted at the time of the submittal of the recorded easement plat which is required with your permit. Would you repeat that, sorry? We want a project disk submitted at the time that you bring in your recorded easement plat and we need a recorded easement plat at the time of permit. In order to get the right-of-way dedicated for utility easements we require something called an easement plat with a signature block on it. Years and years ago we used to do separate instruments and you would have to create the legal description and provide it for each easement. We find this is a lot easier to just put in on paperwork to dedicate this easement and it would have a signature block for each utility company. Could we get a sample of one of those from you? Sure. Just give me a call and I will fax it to you. We need you to add the adjacent zoning which is right under where the property owners are. Add plat page 176. I want this added to the site plan. I need a flood plain reference added. You have not provided a legend and that needs to be provided. On the legal description, I noticed that. We do have a little sized stamped survey plat with the correct legal description on it. We had a mis communication about getting that to you. We apologize. We'll give you two. We need the right-of-way dimensioned from centerline. The building setbacks need added and labeled. The right-of-way there, I thought we had that. Can you confirm to us what that right-of-way is on Old Missouri Road? • • • Plat Review Minutes September 27, 2000 Page 21 Conklin: There are some issues with that. Ron is going to go over that. Petrie. Our records show 20 feet total. Carnahan: I guess I was thinking 80 or something. Edwards: Along Old Missouri we would definitely require 35 feet from centerline be dedicated but Ron is going to talk about that. On Joyce we require 55 feet from centerline. If it's dimensioned and that exists, that's fine, otherwise we need the additional dedicated. We do want this top drive eliminated to reduce blocking problem from the drive thru and to minimize the number of curb cuts on a principal arterial street. Carnahan: What was the first reason? Edwards: So they traffic is not causing problems on Joyce from the drive-thru. Conklin: Typically the Planning Commission has looked at where we can eliminate curb cuts on a principal arterial street. We've reduced those curb cuts down. Basically, you are looking at this one curb cut can serve this bank and people can come in and go back out. We are just trying to reduce the number of curb cuts which increases the capacity on the roadway. Look at College Avenue and the number of curb cuts, it has capacity. I know the argument and we go back and forth on this all the time. It's just one, is one curb cut going to cause Joyce Blvd. to fail? Probably not but if you allow one you keep on allowing for the next developer to have two and the next one and then you end up with a bunch of curb cuts. We are recommending that, you are more than welcome to go forward and argue your case to have that curb cut there and let the Planning Commission decide it. I can't kick you out of the process if you leave it on the plan but I'm going to recommend that you limit your access to this curb cut. I especially like this one too with the amount of drive-thru length you have for cars for stacking. I believe it can work. Carnahan: We do think these are two excellent access points to the acreage and this one is specifically Just for the bank and it's a requirement of the bank. In fact, they said without this access for their drive-thru, they won't go forward with that project. It's very critical. It isn't just a flippant thing that we are just trying to get another curb cut. It's something that the bank feels very strongly about. We will want to go forward and argue to keep that in the plan. Also, I just wanted to point out that it is an "in" only. We won't have people trying to pull out here into the traffic. It's an "in" only. We tried to design the geometry of the driveway so that it's Plat Review Minutes September 27, 2000 Page 22 clearly an "in" only driveway. It's to get people into those drive-thru lanes and then flow out. They would come back here to try to get out. It is critical We feel like it's not excessive on a six acre parcel to ask for three driveways. We basically have essentially five buildings. We feel to ask for three driveways for five buildings we don't think it's an excessive request. That was our logic. Conklin: I appreciate that and one again I'm trying to share with you what the City's philosophy on that is on direct curb cuts. Few of the developments we have had they had just one curb cut especially where they were unified by a shopping center or office complex. Israel: My name is Ben Israel, I would like to ask how long that policy has been in place? I noticed that other banks that are on the same street, one of them is a relatively new bank. Conklin: I think that's one way in and one way out. Israel: This is one way in. I don't understand the difference. I'm a newcomer to developing here. Conklin: We talk about it at every Planning Commission. We try to limit the number of curb cuts. I also did that on the Wal Mart Neighborhood Market and Bank of Fayetteville. They are sharing the same access. Harp's Shopping Center. I've seen it work in other places too. Israel: They didn't even have a choice. The Bank of Fayetteville, there is no other access possible there. Conklin. Hopefully that's because the City limited access for that development. That's what we are doing. We are trying to limit access on developments to reduce the number of curb cuts. Once again, like I said, you can make your case to the Planning Commission. Carnahan: We would like to proceed and ask for that. Conklin: I'm not going to penalize you or anything for asking for that. I just want you to know what our recommendation is. Israel: Is there some way we can prevent this? Conklin: No. It's something that we look at The Planning Commission does. They also Plat Review Minutes • September 27, 2000 Page 23 Carnahan: Conklin: Rogers: Conklin: Edwards. Carnahan: Edwards: Carnahan: Edwards: Carnahan: • like to look at cross access. The development to the west develops a possibility that something goes down there that they want to go down to the bank and don't want to get back on Joyce Blvd. I'm not even sure if you are showing cross access. I did talk to Brent Vinson about that. Brent's aware of this. We looked at that. We don't have any... That other property has been a church standing along the church lot for a long time so we don't know that it's really compatible for that or if there is any desire to share. I'm not sure where that road is coming in from Butterfield Trails. I'm sure that people in Butterfield Trails if there is a way to connect through the parking lot for them to not have to get out on Joyce or Old Missouri. That's another option too. Perry Franklin has lots of complaints that the people living in Butterfield can't get out on Joyce Blvd. right now. One of the problems with that though is the fact that Butterfield Trail is a gated community. They would want to control their access points. They are going to have an access down there on Old Missouri. I would be surprised if they would even want one in here. At the City we respond to that population that lives in Butterfield Trail saying that they can't get out and they want a traffic signal on Joyce Blvd. in front of the retirement community to get their cars out. I am just throwing that out to you because we have to respond to everybody in Butterfield that calls and says we can't get to the bank or post office or whatever. All of your aisle widths with the exception of this are required to be 24 feet. Right now they are 25. Where is that note? I do need to know where the signs are going to be located and elevations of those signs. By elevations do you mean a drawing of what it looks like? Yes. I didn't see overhead utilities but if there is overhead electric, it needs to be placed underground. We want to have underground utilities. Plat Review Minutes September 27, 2000 Page 24 Phipps: Edwards. Phipps: Conklin: Phipps: Conklin: Carnahan: Phipps: Carnahan: Edwards: Carnahan: Edwards: Carnahan: Edwards. Carnahan: One moment Sara. Go ahead. We have an overhead line coming across Old Missouri to that old house. If you want that overhead out, you are going to have to bore under Old Missouri Road to our pole on Paradise Valley's property. The ordinance reads when we amended that to allow a pole to be placed on the property to get to underground. Or if you don't want a pole there, you can bore under it. I would imagine you will want a pole there. We ought to meet with you and discuss, we would hope with bringing this much business to Ozark Electric that you would be willing to help us with some of that. Why don't we meet with you separately to discuss the cost of extension? The extension is fine, the only thing is the bore, we don't do that. You will have to take care of the bore. An 8 inch bore could run $40 to $50 a foot. You are looking at possibly 80 to 90 feet. All right, thank you for that information. We will evaluate what to do with that. We do require 15 feet of landscaped area between the new dedicated driveway line, the front property line and the parking lot. I need that to be dimensioned at the smallest point here and here. We require 5 feet of landscaping between the parking and side and back property lines. All of your dumpsters and utility equipment will need to be screened from the right-of-way. Where is that note again Sara? There is not a note on there. What was that again? All dumpsters and utility equipment need screening. Do you have a requirement for type of screening? Plat Review Minutes • September 27, 2000 Page 25 Edwards: Carnahan: Conklin: Carnahan: Conklin: Edwards: Carnahan: Edwards: Carnahan: Petrie: Carnahan: Edwards: Conklin: Edwards: Petrie: Carnahan: • We require three sides on the dumpsters. Utility equipment usually we require landscaping. Okay. Keep in mind the roof mounted utility equipment you will have to architecturally incorporate that into the structure. You can't just put your air conditioning unit up on top and put a wood fence on top of your building. You would have to raise your periput up to cover all the utilities and equipment. On projects like this, it tends not to be a problem. Most of them are nicely done that way. We don't run into that too often but just in case. That's a good requirement, I like that. Architecturally you need to design your building, raise your periput up. I did include the problems we had with the legal but you may have addressed it already. I think we have that taken care of now. The revisions are due in by 10:00 a.m. on October 4, 2000. 37 copies? Is it okay if we bring those in a truck or van? Just kidding. Half of these sheets, we don't even need. Would you tell us specifically what we need to bring back copies of? We need the site plan. Some of our Commissioners have requested that they see the grading and the street. C-3, C-5 and C-11. The public utilities need to be shown on something. The easements. We don't need a separate sheet because there is not that much. We might just bring that drawing back. What sheet is that that we show the utilities on right now? • Plat Review Minutes September 27, 2000 Page 26 Petrie: C-6, C-7. If you want to just send Engineering a full set that would work too. You wouldn't have to have 37 copies. Carnahan: Can we do that Tim? We can just send him a revised utility set and send you 37 copies of C-3, C-5 and C-11? Conklin: Yes. Ron Petrie our Staff Engineer will not go over his notes. Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: Carnahan: Petrie: Carnahan: Petrie. I'll skip over the general comments there. Under water, number one that's just a standard comment regarding fire protection I don't believe Mickey Jackson had any comments on this project. Number two. It's just a question of whether you plan on sprinklering. If so, show the proposed location on the plans. The City does have a requirement that they need a fire hydrants 100 feet from the Fire Department's connections on those. That may affect some of your fire hydrant locations you have shown. You don't want to duplicate fire hydrants obviously. Those lines leading up to the building of course have to be reviewed as a public line even though we don't require easements. The minimum water line size for fire protection and domestic use is 8 inches and I believe you have 6 inch shown. You also have ductile iron shown. Our recommendation is DR -14 PVC C900. I've got a note that meter location and size must be approved separately by Don Osburn in the Meter Division. Ron, do we need to have that done between now and next Wednesday? Before it's put in the ground. I would ask that you show the easements for the utilities. Generally, we require 20 foot utility easement. You have some water and sewer back to back so those would obviously be larger. What we look for is 10 feet from the waterline or sewer line to the easement line is what we try to achieve. Under sewer, the same thing with the easements. You have ductile iron shown we do recommend SDR -26 PVC. We will putting in some off-site sewer. Just going back and looking in our records, not all of this is covered with easements. At least we don't have a record of them. So we would be looking at acquiring some off-site easements. We were under the impression that easements were there because of that previous development. A few are. Not all. Where this cuts back to the west, I don't have a record of the • easement. Back in between here this is right along the easement line. We would Plat Review Minutes • September 27, 2000 Page 27 • need additional easement there. I think I've listed those. Just say that previous requirements are what we are shooting for 10 feet from the line so we can maintain it. You may want to look into that. It's not something we would need before the next meeting or anything like that. It just has to be done before it's constructed. In the grading, I have included our standard checklist in that packet. I won't go over all the small items that need to be added to the plan but let me hit a few that may require some revisions. One of the things, I don't have any property boundaries or right-of-ways shown on this. That does make a difference. We have a setback requirement for cut and fill slopes and retaining walls of 5 feet unless you have written permission from the adjacent property owners It's kind of hard to tell exactly where these are falling but I think they would have some problems in a few areas. For the cuts along the right-of-way, I have a requirement in the grading ordinance and I will read it, it says "cuts adjacent to public right-of- ways shall be setback a minimum of 25 feet excluding driveways and access roads." I believe that is going to create some problems with these approached detention ponds and a waiver may have to be requested for that. Usually the reason for that requirement is obviously with public safety to make sure there is not just a cut off or drop off by a road. Another thing is that 25 feet is usually full of utilities. Obviously you don't want people going in and cutting out where you have a lot of utilities. This situation I don't see a problem with either of those. Camahan: I think that's a pretty gradual slope in the detention area. Petrie: Right. Depending on where that right-of-way is, it's hard to tell if it's not shown. Carnahan: We'll put that on there. Petrie: We may just need to get a waiver request from that requirement. Carnahan: Would that waiver be granted by the Planning Commission? Petrie: If you can clarify the heights of some of those retaining walls. The other items are just items that need to be added to the grading plan. It won't modify any of your drawings. I also request that you show the grading associated with the proposed sidewalks. You may have to accomplish with these detention ponds. You need to look at that. Under drainage, I do need some additional information in accordance with Section 1.2 of the City Drainage Criteria Manuel. If you want to we can go over this now or whatever you want to do but these are just coming straight out of that section 1.2. It's just some additional flow data. Nothing I believe would change anything. Plat Review Minutes September 27, 2000 Page 28 Carnahan: Petrie: Carnahan: Petrie: Carnahan: Petrie: Carnahan: Petrie: Carnahan: Petrie: Carnahan: Petrie: • You just need additional information. We can get that to you. Under streets, I'll just read this: The Planning commission must determine required offsite improvements to Old Missouri Road. This portion of Old Missouri Road is scheduled to be widened to Collector Street Standards in 2004 CIP program. At this point it is recommended that the City cost -share to improve this portion of Old Missouri Road to Collector Street Standards. That's after discussing it with the Public Works Director and City Engineer. One thing we do not know is exactly where the future centerline needs to be located. At this point, we are requesting a cost estimate be provided for this construction. A recommendation of what the City would be responsible for and what the developer would be responsible for. Typically, in these situations, we would require the developer to widen to Local Street Standards adjacent to the site. 31 feet back to back? No, it's 28. 28 feet. You would require the developer to make sure there was 14 feet on his side of the existing centerline with curb and gutter. What we would really like to happen at this point, while all this is going on, is to get a 36 foot wide street through here. That's what we would like to shoot for. We know it's coming up and has to be done. Ron, the costs estimate you are talking about, is it just for this half of the street? Are thinking about the City doing the whole street Not the City doing it. It would be a cost share that we would reimburse the developer to put in the amount. What I'm saying is, are you talking about both sides? Yes. Both sides. Just to clarify, we would only be paying for 14 feet on one side? Right. That's the typical recommendation. If you go back and look through the rational makes it formula based on track. If you want to go through all those studies and have some other kind of recommendation, we will look at it, no problems. Plat Review Minutes • September 27, 2000 Page 29 Carnahan: When does this need to be done? Does that have to be done by next Wednesday also? Petrie: We•really need to have an idea of how we are going to approach this at the Subdivision Committee meeting. I don't think we will have all the answers by that meeting. If we can nail down percentages or how it's going to be broken out, who's going to pay what, at the Subdivision Committee meeting, it would be appreciated. Our problem is we need 70 feet of right-of-way somewhere. Like I said, we got total 40 feet of right-of-way right now. It was a requirement for Butterfield to give the additional 15 feet on that side to make it 35 feet from centerline right-of-way. I'm not sure if that was ever dedicated since we have finalized the Butterfield stuff. If they sold you the land or whoever the land, before they dedicated the land then we are going to have to get the dedicated land from what you got. Conklin: They agreed to give us the land at that lot split. Petrie: • We have to come up with another 15 feet on the other side of the street so the option is, are we going to take out that 186 fairway of Paradise? We need to make a decision of how we are going to get a 36 foot wide street through here. Carnahan: We will work with you. Petrie: That's all Johney Boles, Arkansas Western Gas Boles: • I think I have a few of my golf balls on your property. I guess as far as utilities, I was speaking with some of the other guys and if I make a mistake and request something that they don't need, I'm sure they will speak up. The consensus I'm getting is we are going to need a 20 foot utility easement around the perimeter. All the way around the perimeter of the project. In reference to Joyce Street and Old Missouri Road, that 20 feet that needs to be outside the additional right-of- way dedication that the City is requiring you to do. In addition to that, let's address crossing for just a moment, you are showing two entrances coming off of Joyce Blvd. and one off of Old Missouri Road, we would need six 4 inch schedule 40 PVC casings installed at those locations 42 inches below finished grade. That would be for all the utilities including three phase power. The 4 inch gas line as it exists on the south side of Joyce Street, if any of that needs to be lowered at the time that the new streets are constructed, that would be done at the developers expense. Also, the 3 inch high-pressure line that you are showing on the east side Plat Review Minutes • September 27, 2000 Page 30 of Old Missouri Road, we probably would not elect to serve any of that project off of that line because in order to do so we would have to put another above ground setting on Paradise Valley's Golf Course to be able to get immediate pressure under the road for these buildings off Old Missouri Road. We would probably have to run two separate lines off of Joyce Street. Just get with me at your convenience on proposed loads and demands for all these buildings in the future. At the time your construction begins, I'll be glad to meet with you on that. Carnahan: On those two runs off of Joyce Street would you have two above ground things then? Boles: No sir. The live on Joyce Street has already been reduced to intermediate pressure. As a matter of fact, the 3 inch line on the east side of Old Missouri Road is what is feeding the 4 inch line. It's already been reduced. That pressure reduction station, I believe, is on the northeast corner of Joyce and Old Missouri Road. Mike Phipps - Ozark Electric • Phipps: Same easements and crossings as the gas company. At some point I'm going to have to see the meter locations on these buildings so we can design the transformer location. What would we like to do, address the Old Missouri Road where our power comes across there, I'm also going to need correct power across Joyce to the northwest corner of this property and what we would like to do is tie it together. We will have a back feed to these apartments. In case we lose one line, we can back feed from the other source. Our line is on the north side of Joyce Street. It would be the main power line to get through there. That would need to be a bore or drop overhead and set a pole in the corner. • Conklin: If you choose to set that pole in the corner, we will work with you on finding the best location. It doesn't necessarily have to be right at the property line. When we amended that ordinance I said "typically you can put those back further right up along the street, it might look better for the project if you decide to do it that way." Phipps: Any drainage on this property that's concrete that crosses these utility easements will need crossing under them. We don't know where that might be. What we are running into is drainage crossing the utility easements and we get to it to put our power in or gas, phone or cable, we've got 6 foot concrete drainage ditches that we have to bore under. It's a lot cheaper to go ahead and put a conduit under there than to have us bore under. Street lights, Perry? Each entrance? Plat Review Minutes • September 27, 2000 Page 31 • • Franklin: Somewhere around 300 feet but if that works out to be close to the entrance, that's fine. Phipps: If I can light it up on Joyce across the entrance, would that work? I've got poles on the north side but I might have one right across from this entrance here. Franklin: Since Joyce is so wide, if you can then try to get them on the south side. Phipps: I'll do that but it will be along Old Missouri, we don't have anything along that side. Conklin: Are you talking about hanging those on wood poles? Phipps: Well they are going to physically opposite there, yes. Franklin: They are on the south side of it down on the ground, right? Carnahan: We probably prefer to have one over there too, on the south side at this main entrance. Not on a wood pole but. Phipps: The biggest we have of that is 175 watt which is only about 12,000 lumins but Joyce should be lit up anyway right now. This would just be an entrance light basically. It wouldn't really be a street light. Joyce is lit up pretty good right now. Conklin: I'm just trying to avoid wood poles. This is a really nice development. Phipps: We only have two types of lights, that silver pole and that black fiberglass. Franklin: You don't have any of those steel poles with the arms on them and cut off lights? Phipps: We can get them. Franklin. You don't have them out there. Phipps: We can order them, they are about $2,200 apiece. Franklin: That's what we require SWEPCO, a couple of developments over on CMN around there. They are paying for actual street lights up and down those streets. We will work with you on it. For the City to pay the electric bill, you are going to have to get a street light. I know if you would like for us to pay your utility bill • • Plat Review Minutes September 27, 2000 Page 32 Conklin: Franklin: Carnahan: Franklin: Conklin: Carnahan: Phipps: light, in the future. Somewhere around every 300 feet and it's really a street light, we won't have any problem. If you want to put in your own lights at all your entrances and pay your own bills you can put 10 of them up. We'll fudge it 50 feet if we have to to get in that driveway. Are you going to make that decision then, Perry? I know it's a little bit different working with Ozark electric because they don't run into demand for this kind of fixture any where near the frequency that SWEPCO does. That's why SWEPCO has those because all the interior of Fayetteville is where all commercial development has been so they have those in stock. Perry, it's about 400 feet down Old Missouri to that middle driveway from Joyce. I think we would probably prefer to have them in that driveway rather than 100 foot up from it and a dark driveway. Are your parking lots going to be lighted? Yes. Can we get your card before you leave? Yes. • Kevin Lefler - Cox Communications Lefler: Conklin: Lefler. Phipps: Lefler: I would request the same easements, crossing and considerations of course as Arkansas Western Gas and the electric company. I would recommend whatever you decide your meter locations on these buildings that you have your electrician pull all the lines for video and future data out to those locations. I think we are all concerned a little bit about utilities about all these trees that are going to be planted all around on top of the utility easements. Is that a problem? Yes. Whoever's doing it damages. Going back years down the road and having to replace some of that stuff, how do you get in there to do it? Plat Review Minutes • September 27, 2000 Page 33 • • Conklin: You can put conduit all under the parking lot, that will work. We have this conversation once a month and I understand. How often do you have to go in and in a residential subdivision the homeowner's they landscape their yards, they build their decks, their driveways all over the utility easement, how often do you go in it? Once every 20 years? Lefler: Petrie: Boles: Petrie: If it's never disturbed or anything like that, yes it should last 20 years I want to say one thing, I didn't look at that but we do require trees to be planted a minimum of ten feet from water and sewer line. There is a prime example right there. The City requires that, we would like the same consideration because the tree roots damage our facilities. This is water, they can clog up our lines. They are going to go to the water if there is any kind of leakage which there is always some minor leakage. Conklin: The citizens have spoken, they want landscaped parking lots. They want landscaping in front of the building. That's a requirement so if we have to put our utilities in our parking lots or we have to deal with it 30 years from now, that's a cost but I think everybody is agreeing that they are willing to accept that. If the utility companies aren't, I guess you need to get your utilities in the parking lot. Boles: Tim, we are all for the beautification of Fayetteville but here's the problem that we run into. For example, where I have existing facilities on a street and an easement in place then a project comes through this process than we are required to dedicate additional street right-of-way. Then they are being required to plant trees adjacent to that. Now all my easements are gone. Conklin: What happened to the idea of putting the utilities in the right-of-way? We don't do that anymore. Boles: That's against our corporate policy. Conklin: Because you have to pay for it when have to widen our streets. 100 years ago everybody put their lines in the right-of-way, we didn't have these 25 foot utility easements wrapping the entire site and now we have all this right-of-way and I'm not sure if our water or sewer is going in there but then all the other utilities are outside of that but we also do franchise agreements telling you that you can go in there. Plat Review Minutes September 27, 2000 Page 34 Smith. If it needs to be relocated it's up to our rate payers to pay the relocation. Boles: We are having to ask our rate payers to pay for something that if I'm on private property, I get reimbursed for that. It would make my job a lot easier if I could install on the right-of-way. I don't know how these other guys come up with construction but it's strictly against Arkansas Westem Gas Company's policy to do so without corporate approval. Conklin: Apparently it's against a lot of policies because I see very few utilities going into this ten foot green space we give between the sidewalk and the curb. Maybe I need to get with Kim and we can just put all our trees and landscaping in between the sidewalk and the curb or the street if there is not utilities in that space. Boles: We want to work with you on all of this but the problem in the past are the facilities right in the green space so we can do maintenance on them if required, now they are 70 feet back under a concrete parking lot. That's where our concern is. Petrie: There is nothing forbidding you guys from doing just what I did. Say the trees need to be ten feet from utilities. Carnahan: The only problem is the developer has to put landscaping in that space. Boles: That would keep the owner from utilizing the property. There are so many restrictions on it, it keeps away from the project. I don't know what the answer is but I think there should be a way to be fair to the developer and the City and everybody. I'm all for trees but, it's my personal opinion, eventually tree roots are going to damage the utilities. Conklin: I got a problem in my front yard then. I got trees all over the place. Bill Smith - Southwestern Bell Smith: Basically, what you have here, I have nowhere to go to get to your buildings unless you provide me conduits from Joyce Street into the property and then into each building. I don't know about Ozarks ran away with Cox. There isn't any room. If you give us 20 feet out here, it's either trees or blacktop and curbs. I can share an easement here with power and Cox coming down off of Joyce to a common location if you provide us the conduit to get there. I'm not going to put conduit in there but I would like to have a conduit into a common location and then a conduit into each building, you would probably have to extend it into here Plat Review Minutes September 27, 2000 Page 35 Carnahan: Smith: Carnahan: Smith: and then go into these two and across. Don'tyou just need conduit where it was pavement? Is that what you are saying? If I'm coming here and we got tree and tree and we got all this, I don't know when I'm going to be in there to put your facilities in. More than likely you are going to have this in -curbed and a base coat put in before a phone goes in. I will have to bore everything and Southwestern's policy is, you run conduit to the property line from your buildings. That puts it all here and we would require you to just put it in ahead of time. If it's in conduit it would be protected somewhat with these trees. What you are requiring is completely encasing your wiring in conduit. Basically, this is trees, it will protect us from the trees we have a crossing, all these shrubs crossing, more trees, more shrubs, a crossing... I don't see anywhere I can feasiblely bury it there. Single building developments are required a conduit from the utility room out to the property line. Carnahan: Really? I didn't know that. Smith: Carnahan: Smith. Carnahan: Smith: Carnahan: In this case these are two separate buildings? No. They are together, one building. It would be easier for me if you ran a conduit into one common location and then I can go to these two, extend it to another common location then I can get into those two or three buildings by you providing conduit. I can put my cable in the conduit. It's like a terminal? This will be a splice location. You showed that anyway at that location on the utility plans, a junction or a riser. I don't know how electric is going to get in here, they usually require conduit too and he left. I have nowhere to bury a cable after the curbs are in and landscaping and blacktop. My feed is going to come from this northwest corner. We'll just work with you. Smith- If you provide conduit then we would want that laid out as our easement. What Plat Review Minutes • September 27, 2000 Page 36 • do you do with that easement around this edge of the property? I don't see any use. Boles: I posed the question for the first two or three guys and was told we needed it. We definitely can eliminate the south easement. It's not required. Smith: I'm just concerned with feeding this that Butterfield Village, that's enclosed, that's going to get fed from another way. It's not going to feed through this property. I just need to get into your property and feed your buildings. I'm not worried about looping it. I would probably want two 4 inch, one for copper cable now and one for future fiber if anybody in here requires it. Carnahan: Why don't we just put fiber in there now? These are major office buildings. Smith: We don't spend the money for fiber if we don't have the requirement. 95% of our type of circuits don't require fiber. You get up into the high speed data, DS3 speed data, that requires a fiber. We won't put it in unless there is a need for it. One of your tenants might need it, then we would put it in. Carnahan: Okay. We have some tenants there that have offices in other cities and they may want to Link those all together. We'll have to investigate that more and get back to you. If we can get your card before we go that would be very helpful. Smith: I think Cox would rather go that way because I don't know how you would bury in there anyway. You go with power. Lefler. Smith: Boles: Smith. It would be a lot easier for us to run in front if possible. Move our line to the front of the project rather than around the perimeter. We don't nail that easement down over there anyway because of the 15 foot or 30 foot... Really that's one solution to this dilemma that we are talking about is if the utilities are internal rather than around the perimeter that gets away from this concrete or trees. We probably want a crossing out here anyway in case we did have to extend past you but to feed you specifically, I can go internally from anywhere on Joyce and branch it off at a common location. • Carnahan: The only thing that you said that seems a little whatever to me was, the extra Plat Review Minutes • September 27, 2000 Page 37 • • Smith: Carnahan: Edwards: conduit. That seems like you are asking for a lot. Otherwise, I understood totally what you were saying. We will work all that out together. We need to give you more information about the tenants and all that. I size the buildings by square foot. With this I'm bringing in a 900 pair cable which will fill up one 4 inch conduit pretty well. If anything happens in here, you put a sign post or anything that wrecks that cable, we do have a spare one. That's why we want a spare or if we need it for fiber. It's dust money is all we are talking about. Sara are we done? Yes. Plat Review Minutes • September 27, 2000 Page 38 • • FP 00-4.00: Final Plat (Covington Park Ph. IV, pp 295) was submitted by Tom Hennelly of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Don Cozart for property located north of Hwy 45 and east of Hwy 265. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 11 6 acres with 23 lots proposed. Edwards: The final item is Final Plat 00-4.00 Covington Park Phase IV submitted by Tom Hennelly of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Don Cozart for property located north of Hwy 45 and east of Hwy 265. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 11.6 acres with 23 lots proposed. First we have parks fees. Kim Rogers - Parks Operations Coordinator Rogers: $10,810 is due for 23 units at $470 per unit. Chuck Rutherford - Sidewalk & Trails Coordinator Rutherford: The street right-of-way where the sidewalk will be placed shall be graded as required by the minimum street standard and the sidewalk ordinance. Under notes, number 3 needs to be added that states: All retaining wall construction shall. be on the building permit and have approval of the City Engineer. Dave, what I wanted here under your notes, just like what you did for Summersby and I'm going to leave you this, that will be there and this will added to that. It's not complete in there. Sara Edwards - Development Coordinator Edwards: I do want you to add the square footage of each lot to the plat again like you did with Summersby. Lot lines are running through our temporary cul-de-sac here so I'm just going to have to get back with you on this. Tim was going to check with Cheryl Zotti to see if we could okay a stub out instead of this cul-de-sac. Otherwise we are going to have to move this setback line back here. I don't know if he got with her on that. I'll have to let you know. If we cannot do a stub out then we are just going to have to move the property line and move the building setback. I want you to label all the corner lot widths at the front building setbacks particularly 161, 162, 163 and 164. They are labeled up here on the front but they have to be 70 feet to meet setback. If Covington Street or Road is not built and dedicated on November 13, 2000, no further permit will be issued. We do need a copy of any covenants for your subdivision. Here is the most current up-to-date preliminary plat that we have and basically the lot numbers are all off. If you can Just provide me with a new one, update all the lots that we have made changes and Plat Review Minutes • September 27, 2000 Page 39 all the different phases, I would appreciate that. Revisions are due October 4, 2000, by 10:00 a.m. Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: I think most of this is on this sheet. You know that we have to have a final inspection before it goes to Subdivision Committee. We need to have the off-site drainage that we met with Gary, it needs to be resolved before it goes to Subdivision Committee. Under easements, you have a little bit of a wire easement across 157, 158 and 159 because of that deep sewer. I'm just asking that it be described so we know how far off the lot lines on the easement is. Between lots 161 and 162 the same situation then Summersby, they extend the drainage easement to the right-of-way and it needs to be 10 feet off of that storm pipe. Drainage, on the grading plans you've got that 100 year water surface elevation shown and if you can just duplicate what you got shown on those grading plans through here is what I'm looking for on that. Under other are Just the items we need before Engineering will sign off. They are standard items. That's all I've got. Utilities? • Johney Boles, Arkansas Western Gas • Boles: Dave, can I have a crossing crossing Kittery Lane between 156 and 157? Jorgensen: You are talking about the north end of the lots? Boles: Yes. Jorgensen: I'll check. I don't think it is. Boles: I think everyone else has existing facilities on the back of Savanna, I know I'm in the front there. I think I may be the only one that needs that. Your utility and drainage swale, it says grass line and drainage swale, on 166 going east and turning north all the way back to 161 are you going to put any concrete at all in there? If you look going back west to 98, on the previous phase, they concreted all that and we had to bore under all that. That's all going to remain grass you think? Jorgensen: As far as I know. Boles: I was Just concerned if it was that we can separate the drainage from the UE. That's all I have. • • • Plat Review Minutes September 27 Page 40 Mike Phipps Phipps: Petrie. Phipps: Petrie: Phipps: Petrie: Phipps: Petrie: Jorgensen: Phipps: Jorgensen: Boles: Smith: Boles: , 2000 - Ozark Electric About those grass line swales, any reason they are sodded before we go in? I know the problem. They way it is we kind of try to get it out of the way but it could be a lot easier if they waited until we got through before they sodded. It would look a lot better. I don't know what you require. I guess when you go out and inspect it and look at it. Most of the time, they are concrete. This is just a very smallswale that cut off some of the drainage right here. What type of slope is that. I don't remember. It's small. This on the back is a natural ditch. Just like the concrete that they did in Millenium Place, I just went in and before they had the concrete drainage, they sodded both sides of it which is in the easement and we are digging right down next to it and on that brand new sod they just put in. Our problem is, if we don't get it now, we will never get it. Let me ask you, Mike where are you at on putting your underground in? On this one? Probably two or three weeks. That's probably not a problem because we have so many other things to take care of, I don't think we are going to get to that. It would be nice if you can get in there and put in the underground in this area and everybody else too and that may happen. We got this off-site drainage problem to deal with and that plus the fact that the rains come in and have to shove them down a little bit. I can't install until the final plat is signed. I can't even draw a job up until I get that. Southwestern Bell can't place the cable unless we have a house foundation. That's kind of where we are at too. Plat Review Minutes • September 27, 2000 Page 41 • • Jorgensen: Petrie: Phipps: Jorgensen: Phipps: One good thing about it it's a grass swale. It could be worse. It could have been one of those cement swales, then you have to deal with that. East property line you said it's a ditch? It's not a swale? Yes. It's a natural creek. The street light at the entrance on Chatsworth Road, that's going to be on an island I take it? On a wood pole! An old rotted out wood pole! Tell Tim that. Yes, it's going to be an island. Did they stub out some conduits? Jorgensen: I'll have to check. I think there is but I have to check. Phipps: Check to see which way they are going so I'll know what I need a 10 foot easement for to get to it down from the back. I don't know what property line to request it on. I have no other comments. Kevin Lefler - Cox Communications Lefler: Dave, we'll try to go with electric when they do it at the same time and all the easements and crossing are fine. That's all. Bill Smith - Southwestern Bell Smith: I agree with all the easements and crossing proposed. That's all.