No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-01-31 - Minutes• • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF TECHNICAL PLAT REVIEW A regular meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee was held on Wednesday, January 31, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED LS 01-5.00A and 5.00B: Lot Split (Hudak, pp 143) Page 2 LS 01-4.00: Lot Split (Reed Trust, pp 640) Page 5 LS 01-6.00: Page 9 LS 01-7.00: Page 13 LS 01-8.00: Page 17 LSD 01-1.00: Page 19 PP 01-1.00: Page 32 FP 01-1.00: Page 51 Lot Split (Cahoon, pp 254, 293) Lot Split (Eckels, pp 207) Lot Split (McOunaid's Corporation, pp 135, 174) Large Scale Development (Gregg Street Storage, pp 328) ACTION TAKEN Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Preliminary Plat (The Business Center @ Joyce Street, pp 176) Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded. Final Plat (CMN Business Park II, Phases I & II, pp 173, 174) Forwarded STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Sara Edwards Perry Franklin Chuck Rutherford Kim Hesse Kim Rogers Ron Petrie Keith Shreve UTILITIES PRESENT Mike Phipps, Ozark Electric Bill Smith, Southwestern Bell Glen Newman, SWEPCO Jim Sargent, SWEPCO •• Kevin Lefler, Cox Communications STAFF ABSENT Mickey Jackson Cheryl Zotti UTILITIES ABSENT Johney Boles, Ar Western Gas • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 2 LS 01-5.00A & 5.0013: Lot Split (Hudak, pp 143) was submitted by Jacki & David Hudak for property located at 4250 Sassafras Hill Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 11.67 acres. The request is to split into three tracts of 1.26 acres, 4 31 acres and 5.37 acres. Conklin: Good morning. Welcome to the Technical Plat Review Committee, Wednesday, January 31, 2001. The first item on the agenda is a lot split 01-5.00A and 01-5.00B for Hudak submitted by Jacki & David Hudak for property located at 4250 Sassafras Hill Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 11.67 acres. The request is to split into three tracts of 1 26 acres, 4.31 acres and 5.37 acres. Is there a representative here for that lot split? Hudak: , I'm Jackie Hudak. Conklin: The way this meeting works, if you can come to the table, staff and the utilities will make comments with regard to your lot split. We put these in writing if you want to bring those back to the surveyor. By the way, I'm Tim Conklin, the City Planner. I don't want to make this too overwhelming for you. We are going to start out with Sara Edwards and she is going to go over the comments that we prepared from yesterday's meeting. Sara Edwards - Associate Planner Edwards: I'm just going to start with the applicable comments. The rest say "no comment". We've got a Master Street Plan and both of these streets are on that which means that we need additional right-of-way to be dedicated 35 feet from centerline. It's not really dimensioned so, I'm not sure what exists. I'm thinking our existing is 15/20. You just have to dedicate the additional to bring that up to 35 feet. The other thing is, when I talked to you about these two left out pieces, in order to give that to your neighbors you need to do a property line adjustment, so you will need to fill out an application to that also before we can approve this. Hudak: Did you ever find out why they did that? Edwards: Your surveyor said he talked to you and you and he told you that your fence line is quite a bit inside your property and you told him you just wanted to give the rest to your neighbor. • Hudak: I didn't say that. • • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 3 Edwards: If you don't want to, just have him include that back in the acreage and that will take care of it. Hudak: Okay. Conklin: It's no big deal. Whatever your property line is, you can show that on there and you just need to revise that survey to not give that property to your neighbor. Edwards: The other thing is, on any Tots under one and a half acres, you need an Arkansas Department of Health permit saying that the lot will perc so you can put in a sewage system. Then after you get all of that and our conditions met, you need to go to the County and get their approval. That's basically all that 1 have. Ron? Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: No comment. Edwards: Utilities? Mike Phipps, Ozark Electric Phipps: No comment. Bill Smith - Southwestern Bell Smith: No comment. Jim Sargent - SWEPCO Sargent: No comment. Kevin Lefler - Cox Communications Lefler: No comment. Edwards. That's it. Hudak: Just those three things? • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 4 Edwards. Yes. Hudak: So I bring that back to the next meeting? Edwards. Yes. February 7, 2001, by 10:00 a.m. is your deadline. Hudak: 37 copies of all of the above. Do you know whether the surveyor will have to do a new survey totally or revise it? Edwards: He'll probably relocate your pin, this comer pin. Hudak: That's all the work? Edwards: Yes. Hudak: Thank you very much. 1111 Conklin: If you have any questions, please give us a call and we'll try to help you or the surveyor get everything done. • • • • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 5 LS 01-4.00: Lot Split (Reed Trust, pp 640) was submitted by David E. Lashley on behalf of Mary Pauline Reed Trust for property located at 2283 S. School. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 3.01 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 2.49 acres and 0.51 acres. Conklin: The next item on the agenda is lot split 01-4.00 submitted by David E Lashley on behalf of Mary Pauline Reed Trust for property located at 2283 S. School. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 3.01 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 2.49 acres and 0 51 acres. Good morning Mr. Reid. Reid: Good morning. Sara Edwards - Associate Planner Edwards: School Avenue is a principal arterial which requires a six foot sidewalk and a ten foot greenspace. That needs to be shown and will have to built. Correct Chuck? You guys want it built right now right? Shreve: Yes. Edwards: Prior to me stamping this approved, you will have to have the sidewalk in and Chuck will have to inspect it. Reid: Does that sidewalk have to have a curb or is there a space between the curb? Edwards: It needs to show, as part of the Master Street Plan it's got to be 55 feet from centerline. We are going to have to have that dedicated. Then, there is going to be the 10 foot greenspace and the 6 foot sidewalk within that. You understand how that works? We have a problem with that house. I think it's going to be in that 55 feet of right-of-way so we'll have to dedicate around it and take a lesser dedication to City Council. So, make us a proposal. That's what we are asking for. Reid: There is going have to be more right-of-way dedicated? Conklin: Yes. On our Master Street Plan if you look at the Walgreen's, that's a good example, you've got the sidewalks sitting 10 feet behind the curb then you've got the 6 foot sidewalk and 15 feet of landscaping, well you need 55 feet of right-of-way in order to do that sidewalk and have the green space between the curb and sidewalk. That's why Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 6 we are requiring the additional right-of-way. Then in the future, if we ever do have six lane arterials, we'll have some room to widen the streets if that ever happens. Reid: If we do come back to show it's like going through this. Edwards: No. You are not going be able to build it to the building. You are going to have to dedicate around it. Conklin: Remember how we did over on Duncan and Center Street where we went around the building? Weren't you involved in that one? Reid: I'll look at it. Edwards: Dedicate like this. Conklin: Just go around the building unless you are going to remove the building. • Reid: No, I don't think they plan on that. Edwards: You are just going to have to work with Chuck and Keith on the sidewalk. Reid: I know I have to have a right-of-way, I was wondering if I had to have a sidewalk. Conklin: We'll have to route the sidewalk through along School Street. We are going to work with you. Edwards: The other thing is, I can't get this drawing to scale. Reid: This is a reduced copy. Edwards: I would like to be able to tell how much right-of-way we could have got and I can dimension it at all. That's important. Conklin: What's the purpose of this split? Reid: As far as I know this woman has passed away and I think David Lashley is the trustee of her trust and there is a man that wants to, I think he presently rents or leases that building and he wants to buy it now that she's passed on. • • • • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 7 Edwards: Is it commercial? Reid: I don't even know what he does in there. It's zoned commercial. He's not living in it. He works some type of labor in there. He just thought it was a nice opportunity now since she passed on to purchase what he wanted. I believe the rest of her property is for sale too. I think it's presently under contract. Edwards: Revisions are due by February 7, 2001, 10:00 a.m. Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer. Petrie: My only comment was a question, do you happen to know if these existing houses are hooked onto the sewer? Reid: Petrie: No, I don't. I can check downstairs. I assume they are. My only question is, if they are not they need to be connected. We do have an ordinance that requires that. Reid: They are pretty old. Petrie: Can look into that before the Subdivision meeting? Reid: Sure. Conklin: Are you talking about extending the line or connecting it? Petrie: There is a sewer line that is on both of these properties. They would be able to connect without extending to the main. Conklin: You are talking about a connection to put the buildings on the line? It is a requirement under ordinance. Petrie: Yes. That's all. Glen Newman - SWEPCO Newman: No comment. • • • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 8 Mike Phipps, Ozark Electric Phipps: No comment. Bill Smith - Southwestern 13e11 Smith: No comment. Kevin Lefler - Cox Communications Lefler: No comment. • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 9 LS 01-6.00: Lot Split (Cahoon, pp 254, 293) was submitted by Alan Reid on behalf of Tom Cahoon for property located at 2822 Old Wire Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.95 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 0.55 acres and 0.34 acres Conklin: The next item on the agenda is a Lot Split 01-6.00 submitted by Alan Reid on behalf of Tom Cahoon for property located at 2822 Old Wire Road. The property is zoned R- 1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.95 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 0.55 acres and 0.34 acres. Welcome back Allen. Reid: Glad to be here. Sara Edwards - Associate Planner Edwards: Old Wire Road is a minor arterial which requires 6 foot sidewalk with a minimum 10 foot greenspace. The sidewalks will be required for the parent tract of the lot split and the remainder at the time of development. The sidewalk will be required at the right-of- way line from property line to property line. • Kim Rogers - Parks Operations Coordinator • Rogers: You have parks fees due for one unit, which is $470. The Parks Department would like you to add the surveyor and owner's phone numbers to the plat as well as the zip code and owner's address. Conklin: That way we will be able to invoice you or the client. Reid: Just so I know, the right-of-way on Old Wire is? Edwards: 45 feet from centerline. It looks like there is an additional 15 that needs to be dedicated. Reid: Are you guys absolutely sure that's where you want it? I'm only saying that because Boxwood is only 40. I didn't know if you wanted me to line up with Boxwood or if you want me to go ahead and set it back another 5 feet from Boxwood. Conklin: That's the current Master Street Plan requirement. Reid: I saw that but I didn't want to do it until... • • • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 10 Conklin: If anything, in some areas you are probably going to need more than that with the terrain. Edwards: I did want you to make sure your client knows they are already encroaching on the side setback where you've got it dimensioned at 7 feet and with the right-of-way dedication they are going to be encroaching on the front, I believe . Maybe or maybe not. We'll have to see after that comes through. Just so they are aware, we are not going to require a variance at this time. Add the width of this lot here. Make sure that it's meeting the 70 feet. I think it is. I just wanted you to be sure to dimension that. Go ahead and dimension this lot too in case they ever want a lot split. Reid: Back up. I lost you there. Edwards: I think this is about 75 feet, this entire width here. So, I want you to dimension that. Reid: It's 64 and 10 for 74 feet. Edwards: See, I couldn't tell. That's why I need it. Reid: See that right there. It takes a bend there. Edwards: I want you to say 74, 150 or whatever it is. Reid: It's 125, 41. Edwards: Okay. Reid: I will dimension that at 74 though. Maybe I can make it a little clearer because there is a bend in the line I can't give it one straight distance. Conklin: We are trying to check for zoning compliance, lot width. R-1 is 70 feet of lot width. Reid: That's what I got 64.54 and then 10.01. There is a bend in the line right there so I had to change the bearing and distance right there. 1 would hate to make it appear as a straight line. Conklin: Okay. If you don't want to put 75, don't put it on there. That's fine. Edwards: We'll move the 10 down here. • • • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 11 Conklin: I don't want to jeopardize or influence you to do something you don't want to do. Reid: I don't want to give people the impression that it's one straight line. Conklin: I understand that. I just wanted to make sure everybody is clear that is a 74 foot wide lot. Reid: It should be the same as this down here. Edwards: Revisions are due February 7, 2001, 10:00 a.m. Reid: When is the parks fee due so I can tell him? Is that due at the next meeting? Edwards: Prior to stamping this. Reid: If he comes in if he gets approval from the Committee and he wants to actually create a deed he needs to come in. Edwards: Yes and Kim will bill him. Conklin: Kim, are you hearing about when that parks fee is due? After.this is approved, doesn't accounting send aninvoice? Rogers. Actually, I do it before that sometimes. Reid: When we come back with revisions, we'll have this named and addressed and zip code so she can have that address. Conklin: Thank you Kim. Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: Just a couple of items, first do you happen to know where the existing water meter is to this existing house? I want to make sure that remains on the lot that you are creating. Then if it needs to be moved, that needs to be done with the condition of this split. The other item, with this easement that you show for the sewer line, if you will label that "private easement" not a "utility easement". It will be an easement from one lot owner to the other lot owner. It's not going to be a public easement. I also ask for you to describe that. So we'll know what we are looking for. When you see a building • • • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 12 permit, if you describe it. Just offset from a lot corner or something. That's all. Edwards: I got it! I want you to put lot widths. Jim Sargent - SWEPCO Newman: No comment. Mike Phipps, Ozark Electric Phipps: No comment. Bili Smith - Southwestern Bell Smith: No comment. Kevin Lefler - Cox Communications Lefler: No comment. • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 13 LS 01-7.00: Lot Split (Eckels, pp 207) was submitted by Alan Reid on behalf of Dan & Nancy Eckels for property located at 2837 Howard Nickell Road. The property is in the Planning Growth Area and contains approximately 6.58 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 4.58 acres and 2 acres Conklin: The next item is a Lot Split 01-7.00 submitted by Alan Reid on behalf of Dan & Nancy Eckels for property located at 2837 Howard Nickell Road. The property is in the Planning Growth Area and contains approximately 6.58 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 4 58 acres and 2 acres. You ready Sara? Edwards: I included in your packet Clyde Randall's comments. If you can get with him on that. Basically, I think it's okay. He did have a question so if you can get with him on it. Sara Edwards - Associate Planner Edwards: I need the right-of-way dimensioned from centerline up on Howard Nickell. Howard Nickell is a collector, requiring 70 feet of right-of-way, 35 feet from centerline. Which means an additional 15 feet is required. Then I also need a private access easement for where this driveway is crossing over into this lot that's being split off. Eckels: Can you be a little more specific? Edwards: Yes. This drive is going through this new lot you are creating. You do intend on using this driveway, I'm assuming. In order for you to have rights to that, you need to provide a private easement for yourself. Conklin: Yes. Before you sell this drive off with this piece of property you want to make sure you can, in the future, use this drive unless you want to rebuild it. Eckels: Can that be handled through a contract between the purchasers of the lot and us? Conklin: It probably could or Allen could show an easement on the survey. What do you think Allen? Eckels: What you are saying is the private easement would be something just shown on the survey to say that it gives us access? Conklin: Yes. We are trying to protect your interests with regard to access. I think it would be • simpler to just show it on the survey. • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 14 Reid: They can show an easement then if they decide not to, they could probably get that easement released. Conklin: This would be a private easement between two land owners. Reid: They could just release the easement when they are through with it. Conklin: Yes. 1 just want to make sure you don't cut your drive off because they could build a fence across there and if you guys get into a fight. Edwards: We also want a Arkansas Department of Health permit proving that an individual septic system will be allowed. Eckels: It's completed. Do we need to fax you a copy of that? Edwards: Yes. The County did ask me to let you know that you need to get their approval following our approval. Revisions are due February 7, 2001, at 10:00 a.m. • Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: Eckels: Petrie: My only comment is the same comment having to do with the meter and any service line. 1 assume this house is on City water. Do you happen to know how it's being fed? Is it coming from the south or the north? It's on City water and septic but 1 have no idea where it is being fed from. You need to look into that. You just need to make sure there is not a service line going all the way through this property going back to this or you are going to have the same problem with your driveways you did with that water service line. You need to look into that before the next meeting. That's all. Mike Phipps - Ozark Electric Phipps: If we could, I don't know where they will build on this two acres? Eckels: 1 can give you some indication on that if that helps. Will that help? Phipps: Yes, if it's over 200 feet to Howard Nickell then we'll need a utility easement probably down the west side of this property. Where you got a 10 foot, we need 20 foot for all • • • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 15 the utilities. Reid: I think there is an easement that adjoins across that property, can that be incorporated into it? Phipps: Yes. Reid: There is a subdivision to the west here. There is a platted easement there, can we just show it on here? Edwards. Yes. Reid: I'll show adjacent easements. Phipps: I have no other comments. Kevin Lefler - Cox Communications Lefler: Same comments as the electric company. Bill Smith - Southwestern Bell Smith: No comment. Reid: The right-of-way of Howard Eckels you said needs to be at 70 feet? Edwards. We require 35 from centerline. Reid: So we need back up 5 more feet because we have 30 already. Edwards: Yes. Reid: I wanted to make sure I understood that. Eckels: I have one question, I don't know if you can answer this or not but on the south border of the property there is a strip of land owned by a property owner across the street which I'm sure you may be aware of, are there any plans that you know of for County or City? Because it's in the City's potential growth area, do you know of any City plans that would do anything to that road that would change anything? • • • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 16 Conklin: I'm not aware of any. The County Planner yesterday said the County is not going to build any more roads. That's what I heard It's unfortunate you've got that strip of land that's like spike strips because it excludes people from coming onto their property. It's not usable for anything else. Reid: There was always a question about the right-of-way and the person that actually owns that property the road crosses over, there abstract doesn't call for any right-of-ways. I guess when they got legal counsel they said all she is required to give is the road until somebody says "We want this right-of-way". Conklin: That's an idea because the County does require a 60 foot right-of-way on their streets. Maybe you can get with the County Planner to get that right-of-way. Thank you. • • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 17 LS 01-8.00: Lot Split (McDonald's Corporation, pp 135, 174) was submitted by Kris Fullerton on behalf of McDonald's Corporation for property located at the Northeast corner of Joyce Blvd. and Mall. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 0.35 acres and 1.65 acres. Conklin: The next item is a lot split 01-8.00 submitted by Kris Fullerton on behalf of McDonald's Corporation for property located at the Northeast corner of Joyce Blvd. and Mall. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2 acres The request is to split into two tracts of 0.35 acres and 1.65 acres. Good morning Tom. Hennelley: Good moming. Conklin: We'll start out with Sara Edwards. Sara Edwards - Associate Planner Edwards: Basically, our only staff comment has to do with when McDonald's came through, they dedicated right-of-way, they agreed to build a sidewalk and we just want that shown on here. Conklin: On Mall Avenue and Joyce Boulevard. Edwards: I think once that is done, that should take care of me. Conklin: Ron, do you have anything? Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: Yes. They are going to have to extend sewer to this new lot they are creating. They should also provide whatever easement is necessary for that to happen. That's all. Mike Phipps, Ozark Electric Phipps: No comment. Bill Smith - Southwestern Bell • Smith: No comment. • • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 18 Jim Sargent - SWEPCO Sargent: No comment. Kevin Lefler - Cox Communications Lefler: No comment. Hennetley: It's a tax deal. Petrie: If they are not going to put anything on it, I'm not going to require the sewer. Conklin: McDonald's said they are trying to sell that off because of the cost of all these improvements and site acquisition. It was so high that they were going to try to create this parcel to help recoup some of the money. Petrie: If we can get some kind of Bill of Assurance you won't need a sewer or something like that. Conklin: They really want to develop that. That's what Ben Aguirre and Chris Fullerton told me. They really want to sell this and have something built on there. If it needs sewer, you might as well get it now. Hennelley: Okay. • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 19 LSD 01-1.00: Large Scale Development (Gregg Street Storage, pp 328) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Sweetser LTD Partnership for property located between Elm & Township and West of Gregg Street. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 9.49 acres. The request is to build 17 Mini Storage Units with living quarters above one unit (Use unit 21) in I-1 district. Conklin: The next item is Gregg Street Storage, Large Scale Development submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Sweetser LTD Partnership for property located between Elm & Township and West of Gregg Street. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 9.49 acres. The request is to build 17 Mini Storage Units with living quarters above one unit (Use unit 21) in I-1 district. Perry Franklin - Traffic Superintendent Franklin: I would like you to install 250 HPS cut off street light fixture and utility pole at driveway and at northeast corner of the property. • Clyde Randall - GIS • Randall: . There was a closing error on your legal and I included the comments. GIS also made a comment that Gregg is an Avenue not a Street, so you might want to call it Gregg Avenue Storage. You can name is what ever you want? Conklin: All our north/south streets are Avenues and all our east/west streets are Streets. Sara Edwards - Associate Planner Edwards: Also, on this and the storage facility that we pulled, you did not provide any parcel numbers on the applications. I'm pretty sure I know where it is but I would like to double check that. I'm showing this property to the south as I-1. Back to the legal, we need that to reference two of our state/plane coordinates. Now, the allowed distance for the curb cut is 24 feet of the width, you've got 28, we are revising that to 27. If you want to go ahead and put it down as 27, you still need to request a waiver. That would be 15' in and a 12' out. Now, I know that on old Gregg, I think that we told you differently but, after taking a look at it, we do want 25 feet from centerline dedicated on this old Gregg to meet our 50 foot standard. Also, which you aren't showing is, we require 15 feet of landscaped area. Even though this is zoned Industrial, it does have to meet our Commercial Design Standards for the site standards. So, we will need 15 • • • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 20 Hennelley: Edwards: Hennelley: Edwards: Hennelley: Conklin: Hennelley: Conklin: Edwards: Hennelley: Edwards. Hennelley: foot of landscaping, it needs the trees every 30 feet plus we've got an additional screening ordinance for mini storage which requires complete screening from the right- of-way and we've got a Master Street Plan street running along this south border so we also need complete screening along that. So, the east and south. You are talking along the entire length? Yes. I faxed David a copy of that ordinance a while back. Also across the east? Yes. You've got 10 parking spaces shown and I'm willing to go with your calculations on this but you are not meeting your own calculations so you need to request a waiver for the three additional spaces also. Maybe tell us why you need those and if you think there is going to be enough business in this office to warrant 10 parking spaces. I think this building here is going to be climate controlled and I think they are expecting a little more business out of that one and activity plus the caretakers over this. The overhead doors are going to be facing this way then? I don't know the answer to that. I'm not sure what the actual configuration for this one will be. All I know is this will be heated and cooled. My education on climate controlled storage facilities recently has been to put mini - storage units on the outside. That was over at another storage facility site that I was educated on. I don't know if I mentioned as part of the landscaping, we would like the fence on the far side of that 15 feet of required landscaping. On the storage side? Well, on the back of that 15 feet. Then I've got a question back here in the rear Are you planning on paving the floodway? Well, I knew this was going to come up on this hill. The County, when they owned this thing, filled the whole deal in. • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 21 Conklin: Hennelley: Conklin: Hennelley: Conklin: Hennelley: • Conklin: Hennelley: Conklin: Hennelley: Conklin: Hennelley: • Conklin: Hennelley: Was that before the study was done? The topo map that the City has that we got from you, does not show all the fill. It doesn't show any fill back in there. The topo that they used to do the study doesn't show what's our there right now that's been filled? Exactly. That's not good Tom. I wasn't really sure how to handle that because I don't know when it was done. Neither the floodplain elevations or the floodway are accurate based on the topography out here. I guess to answer your question, we had intended on paving it but we don't have to. It's gravel right now. What's the difference in elevation from what our maps show to what's out there? About ten feet. Ten feet? Eight or ten feet in places. I was going to say, maybe we should take that out and just bring it back. It's insignificant. If you can imagine, the contours from the City map pretty much look like something like this as being the bank and this entire area was brought up pretty much that amount. I think one solution would be to have you take that model and redo it and floodplain to see what we have if you want to work in the floodway. I can't see allowing anything else in the floodway. If you go by the floodplain elevations, the flood plain is actually inside the floodway. If you go by the flood elevations on the map then the floodplain is actually to the west of where the floodway is located on the map. • • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 22 Edwards. Wouldn't it be beneficial for you to go ahead and study that, that way he doesn't have to get insurance or elevate the building. Right now he has to get flood insurance on it. Hennelley: He's going to require renter's insurance for each one of these units anyway. Edwards: Conklin: Edwards: Hennelley: Conklin: Hennelley: Edwards: That won't cover flood. They are going to be 10 feet up. That's true. The elevations we show will be so high out of these. They are going to be way up there if they add ten feet of fill. I guess what it comes down to is we can put gravel back there if it's going to mean filing a LOMR on it or something. You are not going to grade anything? Is it where you want it? Hennelley: For all practical purposes it is. There is some grading that was intended being done there. There wasn't going to be any fill, per se. Petrie: Hennelley: Conklin: Hennelley: Petrie: You are showing some fill in that floodway. It's really a minor leveling out than anything else. We are not building anything up to any extent. We don't have to do that. I can adjust the grading to where we are not doing that. I don't think we should have anything in the floodway knowing that we have a violation of a City and Federal regulation that has occurred. If you can pull everything back outside that floodway or if you want to do a study and redo the map to give him more property, that would be worth spending the $5,300 in fees and other fees you will have to do. Why don't you find out which direction they want to go. We'll work with you to clean it up. Okay. That also includes, I guess, pulling that fire hydrant back? I would think so, yes. • • • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 23 Conklin: Maybe the County would be willing to help out. Hennelley: I think they kind of pulled the wool down on that one. I can make this work either way. Edwards: Does he plan on putting a sign out here? It hasn't been located.. Hennelley: I don't believe they are going to. Edwards: It's going to be a building sign? Hennelley: Yes, as far as I know. Edwards: The two waivers for the parking and driveway will have to be submitted in writing. Does anybody know if we've got overhead electric over here? Newman: There is an existing line that goes back across the property there. I guess that will probably be removed? Hennelley: Right. They do want to remove that. Any electric that you guys need to bring in, you guys are fixing to substation that. Newman: That will be a transmission line and a major overhaul. Hennelley: I think they can get whatever power they need off of Gregg Street. Edwards: Is that a big line? Newman: It's two phases, 12 KV. It runs the entire length of the property on Gregg Street. Conklin: Are you going to put it underground? Newman: We weren't planning on it. Edwards: Doesn't the ordinance say over 12 KV and this is exactly 12 KV. Conklin: It's 12 KV and above. It's going to be hard to plant those trees underneath those lines. Edwards. They can go to the edge of it. • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 24 Kim Hesse - Landscape Administrator Hesse: • Hennelley: • Edwards: Conklin: Hesse: Conklin: Hesse: Two walnut trees, 24" DBH and larger, were removed from the site within two weeks of the large scale development submittal. It was obvious that the property was to be developed at the time of the tree removal and that the development would be reviewed by City administration. Therefore, this development does fall within the requirements of the tree preservation ordinance and the removal of the trees would be a violation of that ordinance. A fine shall be assessed per rare tree removed. This development does fall within the landscape requirements of the Commercial Design Standards ordinance. A 15 foot landscape buffer is required adjacent to all rights-of-way within which shade trees are to be planted at 30' intervals. A landscape plan will be required Storage units, by use, are to be screened from adjacent rights-of-way. A view obscuring fence and/or vegetation is required. If vegetation is to be utilized for screening purposes, the vegetation must reach 6' in height by the end of the second growing season. Landscape requirements for parking lots apply to the small parking lot at the front of this development. A tree preservation plan is required and may be combined with the site, utility, or grading plan. The title of the plan must refer to tree preservation. So put that in the block? Yes. Kim, the tree preservation ordinance does not require any minimum percent canopy in I-1, is that correct? 10 percent. Okay. There is no existing trees left on the site, is that correct? There are some. Hennelley: There are along the creek bend. Hesse: Conklin: Edwards: They have that in their application. We have 8.15 percent. Okay. Ron, I did generate your traffic count. How many storage units are there? • • • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 25 Hennelley: Edwards. Individual units? I don't know the answer to that. I put 200, I just took a guess. We probably need to find that out. Hennelley: Okay. Edwards: I bet it's more than 200. Hennelley: There's 18. Conklin: With regard to the screening, this road to the south, the right-of-way will be dedicated and some type of improvement may be required when SWEPCO develops their substation. I would also like to see screening along the south line. Hennelley: Yes. Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: Hennelley: Petrie: Hennelley: Petrie: Hennelley: Petrie: Tom, we'll just start with water. Have you guys met with Mickey Jackson? Yes, I talked to Mickey. That's the reason why we put this hydrant back here, in addition to this one over here that Upchurch is putting in. Upchurch is paying for part of it? Yes. Upchurch and Sweetser are splitting the cost for the crossing and then Upchurch is paying from the "T" up to here and Sweetser is paying to the back up property. Micky did not want any hydrants in front? There is a hydrant right here, an existing hydrant on Gregg Street. It's on the 4 land Gregg. Our concern was that if there was any extended firefighting that went on, you would have the hose crossing the tracks. So, that's when we approached Upchurch about putting in this additional hydrant on the old Gregg Street. Then, that covered us for the front of the buildings and we had to put this one in the back to cover the rear. What I'm having trouble with is in our requirements, we are required every 600 feet for Industrial Commercial. It says every 600 feet you need a fire hydrant in a commercial development. I'm having a little bit of trouble how to justify not having one exactly in • • • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 26 front of this building. This one in front of Upchurch is pretty away especially if you are looking in back of these other storage buildings here on the southeast corner. Hennelley: I think, I wasn't going by that center, I was going by Mickey was telling me this road length that they would dump the hose out on as they hook it up and pull the truck down, I was pretty sure that we met that requirement once that was 500 feet from either one, any building could be reached. Petrie: That's not the requirements as I remember it. Let's leave it sort of open right here and 1 want to discuss that with Mickey and make sure that will work. Hennelley: If we need to drop another one in, right out here, it's not a problem to do that other than a cost of a hydrant. Petrie. Let me discuss that with Mickey and I'll get back to you on that. I assume none of these will have a sprinkler system. Hennelley: Petrie: Hennelley: Petrie: Hennelley: Petrie: Hennelley: Petrie: I think the temperature controlled unit will, the first one up here in the northeast corner. If you would show that. That right there is going to require another fire hydrant. You need a fire hydrant within 100 feet of the Fire Department connection. If that's not the case, if this building will not be sprinkled, will you let me know? Okay. You probably know you need a permit from the Railroad Company for that crossing. Typical comment in regards to easements. What you are showing through the development looks good. You have this off-site sewer, Just want to make sure that's covered a minimum of ten feet off that sewer line, the easement right-of-way. Run that by me again. We just need ten feet of right-of-way for an easement from the sewer line. It's shown going through here. 1 don't know if there is an easement here or what. Okay. I see what you are saying. We need the required easement for the sewer line. Right. It Just needs to be a minimum of ten feet, standard comment. For grading, I got a copy of the permit and it's not signed by anybody. Can you get me one signed by the • • • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 27 Hennelley: Petrie: Hennelley: Petrie: Hennelley: Petrie: Hennelley: owner? Other comments and this all may change depending upon what you do back in the floodplain. If you do anything in the floodway, we are going to require approval from the Corps. You need a floodplain development permit for any of the grading in the floodplain. I ask that you move that silt fence back and provide some type of erosion control where it discharges from the parking lot. Drainage, just to sum it up, I don't feel too comfortable with what we have. I think we need to get together as soon as possible and look at how you figure those time and concentrations. I'm not saying it's wrong. We kind of discussed this. I've already got the preliminary work done on analyzing the creek if you feel more comfortable with that. It's not that big a deal to do that. I just want to see how you did these time and concentrations. Let's get together. Okay. You are talking about with the maps? Is that the big concern? You need the flow and where it was taken pre -imposed. I thought I put that in there but I guess I didn't. That's no problem at all. I didn't see it. Let's get together as soon as we can and go over that. Streets, the first time I looked at it, I saw these brick columns, one to two feet off the existing road. That raised a big question in my mind. Now we have dedication requirements which we would want that fence moved back to the right-of-way. Other comments is, improvements to the old Gregg Street, in my memory 1 can't recall any commercial development industrial that wasn't on an unimproved road that they didn't have to widen it to at least the local street standard. Upchurch is fixing to do their improvements, they didn't cane through the large scale and they are not going to be improving that road and they won't be dedicating any right-of-way either. So, I know this is an unusual situation because of where it's located and because you actually have Gregg Street here and this is really almost an access drive or service road for these businesses along here. That's something that the Planning Commission needs to decide. According to traffic, I agree there is no traffic there. Average 56 cars per day. It's hard to justify that. Planning Commission will have to make some kind of decision. Just so you guys know, the Sweetser's will probably be opposed to doing that, obviously. They would rather not do that. So, if you all make a recommendation that it be approved, we will work it out. • • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 28 Petrie: Possibly. I don't know that 100%. Hennelley: Okay. That either will or will not allow it to be, normally this could be approved at Subdivision Committee without all these conditions, right? Edwards: Yes. Hennelley: That means it's got to go through? Okay. That was where I was going with that. Petrie: If you would go ahead and label the existing widths of the street. Hennelley: Pavement widths? Petrie: Yes. 1 believe if it is required to be widened, it basically just has curb on one side. That's all. Glen Newman - SWEPCO Newman: Hennelley: Newman: Hennelley: Newman: I think I've asked the question, you want the existing taken off the property? They will The only building that's going to require power is going to be the front one out there for the living quarters and controlled climate? I don't believe that is true. I'll need to find out which ones they do want power to. This basically won't make any difference. We can incorporate the new with the old. We'll just get together on that. That's all I have. Kevin Lefler - Cox Communications Lefler: You are showing an overhead electric line along old Gregg here, on a pole, right in the center of that new drive you are going to put in there, I think we are on that so if there is any cost of relocating that pole or our service, that will be at the developers expense. We will be able to serve this building, no problem, from that line on the survey. That's all. • • • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 29 Bill Smith - Southwestern Bell Smith: This is just strictly storage nothing is going to be down here? No office? Hennelley: Other than that one building, there will be some living quarters and that's it. Smith: Edwards: I'll just need a conduit out of that for the future phone. That's my only comment. I do need to add something that I forgot to talk about. I think that most mini storage facilities have dumpsters. I just think that probably people decide they don't want their stuff anymore and need to throw it away. I don't see a dumpster location on this so you might want to check with them. I'm sure they will want a dumpster and show that on there. This climate controlled facility, make sure that any utility equipment units are screened. Revisions due February 7, 2001, at 10:00 a.m. Chuck Rutherford - Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator Rutherford: Hennelley: Rutherford: Hennelley: Rutherford: Hennelley: Tom had asked that we discuss the sidewalk issue at Plat Review and I didn't have a comment sheet on it. I think Tom, for my conversation, you were asking to maybe put the sidewalk in a different location than on old Gregg Avenue, is that correct? Right. After looking at the site, my recommendation and I could go along with that, my recommendation would be to build a six foot sidewalk on the east side of Gregg Avenue adjacent to that chain link fence. Over on SWEPCO side, right. Yes. Because the citizens of Fayetteville are asking for sidewalks along that part of Gregg Avenue and I think it would get the most use right there and be the safest from the street. I don't think the Sweetser's would have a problem doing that. However, in light of the right-of-way dedication on the old Gregg Avenue and the street improvements, they would probably want to put the sidewalk along their frontage if they were going to have to dedicate that right-of-way and do the street improvements anyway, where they would be the ones who would benefit immediately from it. I know Ron had talked about the traffic counts that maybe the street improvements themselves may not need to • • • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 30 be made. The screening is no problem. This is definitely where the sidewalk would be used the most is over on the east side of Gregg Avenue for sure. We might just need to get together and discuss that between now and Subdivision Committee and try and come up with an agreement. I'm sure they are going to feel that they are giving, giving, and giving. Rutherford. On the sidewalk the cost will be the same no matter if it's built on Gregg Avenue or on old Gregg Avenue. Right. Your recommendation is on new Gregg? Yes. They would be more than willing to do that. There is some Gregg conflicts and that type of thing right there along the railroad. We wouldn't be able to put it over there. Hennelley: Conklin: Rutherford: Hennelley: Rutherford: Hennelley: Rutherford: Hennelley: Rutherford: If it was built on the west side of Gregg Avenue, it would almost have to lie right against the curb and I don't see that being user friendly because you are right there next to that railroad anyway. You've got the room on the east side of Gregg. How much green space are we talking about? If you put it up against that fence it will just be the green space that's left between the sidewalk and out to the curb which is quite a bit, down in that ditch and then back up. What about crossing the entrance to SWEPCO's yard there? Would they have to pour it continuously through that entrance as well? No, if that's already built, they would not. I didn't see that entrance being across from there yesterday. I thought it was further on down. Hennelley: I think it's located right there at the southeast corner. Rutherford: Right before the southeast corner? Hennelley: Yes and we are talking about a 6 foot sidewalk that would basically be the 513 feet. • • • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 31 Rutherford: Yes and they could bring it in to the right-of-way and make it work because that road is already constructed. Hennelley: Okay. I'II give you a holler later on this afternoon and we might need to get together and discuss how to work this whole deal out. • • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 32 PP 01-1.00: Preliminary Plat (The Business Center @ Joyce Street, pp 176) was submitted by Steve Clark, P.E. on behalf of Mr. Ben Israel for property located at 2400 E. Joyce Blvd. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 5 acres with 5 lots proposed. Conklin: The next item on the agenda is the Preliminary Plat for The Business Center at Joyce Street submitted by Steve Clark, P.E. on behalf of Mr. Ben Israel for property located at 2400 E. Joyce Blvd. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 5 acres with 5 lots proposed. Good morning. We'll start with Sara Edwards our Associate Planner. Kim Hesse - Landscape Administrator Hesse: The tree preservation plan shall include the following: Indicate the location, size, and species of trees 24" and larger. The tree preservation application is required as a part of the submittal, a copy of the application is included. The tree preservation plan shall also indicate where tree preservation fencing shall be installed along with a tree protection fencing detail and notes. A copy of the detail is included. The area indicated for tree preservation shall be protected by either a deed restriction or an easement. Is that a conservation easement already? Clark: I don't think there is any documentation. I think at this point, it was an agreement that was made back at the time of the zoning. It has not gone as part of that and I would anticipate that we will put some type of easement restrictions on it at the final plat. Edwards: I would like to see it just called tree easement. Conklin: Kim has developed language for that easement. Clark: Not something as a separate instrument but just something that goes on the final plat? Edwards: Yes. Jim Johnson - 911 Coordinator Johnson: Jim Johnson does not like Business Center Drive, it must be used somewhere else. He wants you to come up with a different name. Israel: It was my understanding that we dedicated that back 50 feet and we can take down • every other tree on this site and it wasn't required to keep any other tree. • • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 33 Hesse: You still have to show it on the tree preservation plan. Clark: Beg your pardon? Hesse: You still have to do the tree preservation plan and show the amount of canopy. If that meets that percentage that's required for that zone, I would go along with that. I just have to have the number on the plan. Clark: Hesse: Clark: Hesse: Clark: You need for me to demonstrate to you percentages and requirements. You still need to show those rare trees that are outside there. I believe they are actually shown. • All 1 have is the tree line. Any individual trees that are away from the group. You are saying within that tree line, we need to go identify? Hesse: Yes, you are required to identify al trees 24" DBH or larger. It could be a matter of walking the site first to determine if large trees exist. I didn't see many large trees when I was on the site but there are a few. Edwards: Like I was saying, we need to find a different name for Business Center Drive. Clark: The subdivision name is not a problem, it's Just the street name that you are saying? Edwards: Are you just wanting to call it Business Center? Israel: Business Center at Joyce Street. Edwards: Your signs are going to say Business Center at Joyce Street? Israel: At Joyce Boulevard. Edwards: Okay. Conklin: Why don't you check with Jim Johnson to see. Clark: They usually don't concem themselves too much with subdivision names as much as • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 34 they do the street name. Are all of these comments, am I going to get copies of them? Conklin: Yes. Clyde Randall - GIS Randall: There is a problem with the legal. There is a closing error. I'm not sure what the other problem was. Clyde said that if you don't understand it, you can contact him. Sara Edwards - Associate Planner Edwards: Apparently, I do not have a disc provided. We do not have tree preservation or grading applications. Ron says he does not have a grading plan. From speaking with Ron, he needs to have this come back to the next Plat Review so we can have time to review a grading plan once it's submitted. Petrie: It requires a grading plan for whatever you are doing at this time. • Clark: Just for the street. • Petrie: I don't know. I don't know what you are doing. Clark: Okay. That can't be handled at the time that we come in for the grading application? Petrie: No. It's required to be submitted, by ordinance, at the preliminary plat summation. Conklin: We have to get a preliminary grading, storm water plan and tree preservation plan. After this meeting we'll schedule you back on the next cycle for Plat Review. Edwards. Have you decided on a design theme? Clark: A design theme for the buildings? Conklin: Yes. We do have Commercial Design Standards and what we have done in subdivisions, if you have some idea what's going to go out here, give us a list of materials and colors you plan on using. Edwards. Which we can do at final plat but just so you can be thinking about it. • • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 35 Israel: Our idea is to sell the lots off to individuals who would then make decisions about how they would. Conklin: They are going to have to coordinate under Fayetteville ordinances, how their buildings look. You are not the first. I guess it's easier, like your one on old Missouri and Joyce where you were doing it all together. Something in that thinking, what type of buildings you would like to see out there. Restrictive covenants basically Clark: Are Ron's comments incorporated into yours? Petrie: No. I have them. Clark: I'll get those frorn.you? Okay. Petrie: Yes. Israel: It's not allowed to have one guy decide he wants to use brick and another guy decide he wants to use rock or brick? Conklin: They need to architecturally have some common unifying theme. Israel: What about the people that build across the road from you? Conklin: We are going to take a look at them too. We want them to look nice. We are fairly flexible. We won't want someone to build an all glass building and the next person build all dry -vit. Edwards: I think it's better if we take care of this up front, that way if you have a buyer that knows going into it that they've got some restrictions because they may plan on something that is not going to go with anything else. I think it's fair for them to know up front. A lot of buyers do that. I need you to add plat page 176 somewhere over by the title block. I want you to show the adjacent curb cuts. We've got a distance requirement. I think it's probably okay, I just want you to show it on there if there is a private drive going up the east side. Clark: Back to what your comment was about plat number, that's just a plat number of this, right? • Edwards: Yes. The right-of-way needs to be dimensioned from centerline. I believe enough • • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 36 exists unless, is this the dimension 57.29? Clark: That's from the section line. The centerline of the road is actually here. Edwards: Okay. This is 40 then? Clark: That's from the centerline of the road as constructed. I think what's happened is, back when Joyce Street was widened, they took right-of-way off of this site because the section line would be the property line. As a result, they shifted the centerline of Joyce Boulevard. There has already been, apparently when Joyce was widened, there was an additional dedication that was made that came off of this property. Conklin: Basically, from centerline, we need 55 feet from centerline of right-of-way. Clark: That creates a problem for the subdivision in that dedication has already occurred once. The road has been moved over. Now there is an additional right-of-way requirement. Edwards. Can you tell us the entire right-of-way that exists out there? Maybe it already has 110 feet. Clark: I'm sure it doesn't. Conklin: Basically, the 55 feet from centerline allows the development to have the green space along the street. Clark: For the center median. Edwards: Between the street and the sidewalk. Conklin: Yes. Eventually, if there is ever a boulevard built, it also allows for the sidewalk to be set back from the curb. I know it's all developed out there. If we don't do it, we have to go to City Council, just so you know. The Planning Commission has to make a recommendation to accept lesser right-of-way and the City Council has to vote to accept it also. If it's that big a problem, we need to sit down and figure out whether or not staff can support it. At least you will know whether or not we will be recommending denial on it when we go to Planning Commission and City Council. Clark: I know the development with the 50 foot greenspace that they have agreed to do in the 411 back is starting to get squeezed down dramatically. Again, I understand that is not your • • • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 37 problem but with the previous dedications that have occurred along the front of it and I know it doesn't meet the standards now. The trail that's existing is already set back from the right-of-way or the edge of the street. There is an existing water line that goes in there so there is a lot of reasons I think it could be determined that it was the City's interest. Conklin: I know we did require the right-of-way on Millenium 55 feet from centerline. The likelihood of us agreeing not to take it is probably low. Where is your front property line on your plat? Clark: We are setback now, we are staying away from the waterline, if you come in another 15 feet this brings it back into this point. We'll look at it and see what it does. I don't know if we have any recourse. Conklin: My decision is not the Planning Commission's decision and goes to City Council decision. So, we'll look at it. I don't know what else to say. It's going to be a hard sell when three other developers had to do it. Israel: Conklin: Did they also have to give up 50 feet of the back of theirs too? That was what was discussed at the time of the rezoning. The tree ordinance in R-0 is 20%, is that correct Kim? Hesse: Yes. Conklin: So you have to save 20% of the tree canopy. That's an ordinance requirement. Israel: We are more than willing to do that. We are not trying to be hard to get along with. We are just getting squeezed. Conklin: I understand. Edwards: Can you add your setbacks on there for a 10 foot side and a 25 foot rear? Clark: Do you want those shown or just as a notation? Edwards: Shown In order to provide connectivity to adjacent properties, we do want you to extend this street to the west coming off this cul-de-sac or in some manner, as you propose, so that we can provide connectivity keeping more traffic off Joyce, increasing • • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 38 the capacity of our roadways. Clark: Does it have to be a public street? Can it be an easement so they can come through the parking lot? Conklin: We haven't done that in the past. Typically, we like the public street to connect over there. Once again, if you can make an argument why we shouldn't have streets connected to each other, go ahead and make that argument. Typically, the Planning Commission looks at how future streets are going to connect to each other. This is a principal arterial, this is a local street, if we can do anything to reduce the number of curb cuts. Clark: If the site was larger than it is, I would agree wholeheartedly with having an alternate route that sits back 120 feet or less, it would be way less than that now, it's hard for me to Justify in a tract this size having that secondary street or secondary connection. You are talking about having a parallel street that probably doesn't even meet your offset standards when it gets put in there. That first lot is 130 feet now, if we take another 15 off for Joyce Boulevard and then to put a 50 foot right-of-way in there, it's going to be pretty close. Conklin: We'll have to have some maps for Subdivision Committee to take a look at it. You'll get a good idea at Subdivision Committee what the three Planning Commissioners on that committee think about whether or not a street needs to have some connections. Keep in mind we Just make the recommendations, we don't make the decisions. Edwards. What's planned out here, maybe you can give us some idea of what kind of business? Clark: It's going to be small offices. I think we are looking at somewhere between 4,000 and 5,000 square feet, 3,500 to 4,000 square feet on the smaller lots and some of them are bigger than that on the one acre lot that's behind it. Edwards: Just professional office. All new utilities will need to go underground. If there is anything existing under 12KV shall be located underground. Clark: Are you talking about the overhead electric that might be along the front? Edwards: Yes. • Clark: Does the electric company do that for 400 feet, take an overhead line and drop it • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 39 underground? Mike Phipps - Ozark Electric Phipps: Clark: Edwards: Conklin: • Clark: Conklin: • Clark: Conklin: • We'll have to put 14/4 line. So we don't have to worry about that. Thank you. Revisions are due February 7, 2001, by 10:00 a.m. I'll just add one more condition and that is curb cuts for lot 1 and 5 will be from Business Center Drive and no additional curb cuts. Right, we had not anticipated anything else coming off of Joyce. Until you sell the lot and they come to visit us. True. They may want one. You Just want that added? Yes, added as a condition only, so everybody knows up front. Chuck Rutherford - Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator Rutherford: Clark: Rutherford: Clark: Rutherford: Clark: A ten foot asphalt trail exists along Joyce Boulevard. Trail transition at Business Center Drive shall not have greater than 1:12 slope, that's where you pull through your street and back up to the trail. Handicapped accessible. Exactly. Business Center Drive is a local street which requires a 6 foot sidewalk with a minimum 6 foot greenspace. Add sidewalk and multi -use trail symbols to the legend. The sidewalk will need to be shown on Business Center Drive. A 6 foot sidewaik and a 6 foot greenspace, is that on both sides or on one side? All the way around. if you follow our Master Street Plan, again like Tim was saying, we are Just following what our ordinance is. It's required for this street. What's your street width requirements? • • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 40 Petrie: 28. Clark: I've got is shown as 30 but we'll change that. Conklin: What's the radius of that cul-de-sac? Clark: 40 feet I believe. That's for the pavement section. The right-of-way, I think, was 50 foot radius Basically, with the 28 foot back-to-back, you require more than a 50 foot right-of-way. Rutherford: Just from the edge of the 52 feet. Clark: To include the sidewalk and greenspace, curb, 6 foot greenspace and then the sidewalk? Rutherford: Six foot sidewalk. Edwards: We want it all the way around that cul-de-sac though. Clark: Right. Can that be built by the property owners as each lot develops? Rutherford: Yes. Clark: Can we Just place it as a note on the plans? Rutherford: Yes, but when you grade for the street and that's on a minimum street standards and the sidewalk specifications, you'll have to grade to one foot outside that 52 feet all the way around by the curb where it's flat. Clark: Grade it for the sidewalk. Rutherford: Exactly Petrie: We'll have to bond those improvements. Conklin: Thank you Ron. The developer is responsible for the sidewalks. Whatever contractual arrangements you make to get those in, we'll sell you the lot and you have to build the sidewalk, but if it don't happen you are liable and we'll write you a letter and send you a bill. • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 41 Clark: How much is the bond on that? Is it 100%? Conklin: 150%. We will also take a letter of credit or cash. Israel: If it appears, we take the 50 feet off the back and have to add 15 more feet on the front, we may have to rethink the whole thing. It may not be feasible, particularly if we have to put that street in there. We'll let you know. Conklin: You do plan on taking the house down right? Israel: Yes. Conklin: 1 had to ask the question. I assumed it wac.being demolished. If not, we've got some setback issues. Israel: If not, we would have to move the street. 11111 Edwards: You might want to check with Janet on the deadline, I think it's Monday if you are going back to Plat Review. • Petrie: Let's discuss that. When we discussed coming back to Plat Review, I was under the assumption we would have a revised plat showing a different street layout. If you are choosing to take this layout to Subdivision Committee and you can take care of all of our comments before the deadline, I don't feel like it could go. If we are going to have a different configuration on lots, streets or whatever, it's going to have to come back to Plat Review. Clark: At this point, I think if the requirement is to put the street in there, I think we back off the subdivision and go to just a LSD and develop it as a single project. I would expect that is what we'll have to do. Edwards: Then we just accept cross access, stub out. Clark: Yes. We can do the same thing by keeping this as a public street and with at least one of the layouts we are looking at preliminary providing a cross access through the parking lot, make a connection to it. I know that creates another problem. With a site that starts off with 5 acres and you take out 6/l0th's for Joyce Street right-of-way and you take out another over half an acre and now you are down to 3.7 or 3.8 and you take another half acre of right-of-way out for that street, there isn't anything left. • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 42 Israel: We could probably get 5,000 square feet on there pretty easy. Clark: Again, recognizing that is not the City's issue. Petrie: You haven't heard my comments yet. Israel: I think we can dispose of your comments because we are not going to go this direction if we have to put a street in. Conklin: On the street, if this is what you have to have to make it work, go forward. The Subdivision Committee is going to have to make a decision. They always look at how to connect streets to each other. Clark: In principal, I agree with you 100%. In this particular case, the site is just small and I don't see how that could be Justified from our prospective anyway. Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: Steve, I'll skip over the general comments. For water, we would ask for some additional easement on that 36 inch waterline, move 10 feet from the waterline to the edge of the easement. We need it a little bit along the frontage there, not a whole lot. I've been unable to get with David Jurgens about this connection of this 36 inch waterline. I want to get his approval for it. I'm trying to avoid that as much as possible. I don't think Mickey Jackson, the Fire Chief, had any comments. The sewer easements look good. A standard comment, add rain catchers to new manholes. Grading, we discussed that, we need a new preliminary grading plan. Also, need a permit application, we've got a copy of that attached to the back of the comments. Drainage, I would like to have a summary table off all of these numbers. I showed you where I would like to get those at. The problem I see with the drainage is you are showing your flows that go to the box, everything combined. The situation is, we've really got a couple of different discharge points from this site. I have to look at it as if it was developed, all infrastructure in at this time. So we've got all this is the back which includes all of lot three that's going to drain back to this corner, on somebody else's property and you are going to increase that flow. I don't have an answer to that. Clark: Actually there are, the counts are in the report. Petrie: I've got the numbers. I don't have a solution to it. You are doubling the flow, pre- • imposed to this location. Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 43 Conklin: Ron, that's based on lot 3 being developed? Petrie: Yes. Conklin: Would it be possible to make him go through large scale and look at it. Petrie: It will. The Large Scale Development will have to conform to what's being proposed at this time. There needs to be a design theme. I don't like to use plain terminology. Conklin: As long as it looks good Ron. Petrie: He needs a place for this to go. If we don't then we are looking at detention and that needs to be addressed at this time. Clark: Even if the overall flow at this particular point, because we've got a big drainage area that comes down and comes along to this site, comes through here and off here and 1 didn't break my counts down to some of those levels but even if the overall flow at this point is not increased because what we are having is, when you start combining hydrograph. Petrie: I need to see the numbers. That's why I need to see the numbers of flow coming onto your property and flows leaving your property at every point. Clark: Okay. Petrie: You gave me a summary but, you didn't combine these and show pre -imposed at that point. Clark: I understand what your request is. I think some of those numbers may be in the report but I'll break them down so you can find them instead of having to dig through the printouts. Petrie: Okay. The next comment in regards to drainage, you've got lots 1 and 2 draining to Joyce Boulevard without entering onto the adjacent property owner. That needs to be addressed at this time. Just a suggestion that there be a concrete swale in the back and some kind of pipe under this connecting it to Joyce. That work will need to be now. Clark: Besides that, something to show you how we are doing it? That was what I anticipated • doing but I didn't know to what level you wanted the design prepared at this point. • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 44 Now I know. Petrie: The swale doesn't need to be sized. Clark: Just indicate that's the design intent? Petrie: Right. On other comments. The utility easements and drainage easements, I would like to see those separate. If you do go on and proceed with this, my standard comment to all these open ditches, detention ponds, pipes, outside the street right-of-way we would consider privately owned and maintained. Streets, we discussed 28 feet back-to-back. Another comment is because that is a public street, you should remove the sidewalk going through the street. It won't be continuous, like that was a private drive. Clark: You talking about along Joyce? Petrie: You show going through this street. • Clark: Yes. That's the existing one that goes through there now. Basically, it ties in. You don't carry the sidewalk through public streets, that's only on right-of-ways? Petrie: Right. You've got to meet all the ramp requirements going down. Clark: Right. No problem. Petrie: Any questions? Clark: No, but a couple of comments. In looking at the design on this thing, I didn't get some of the information from my surveyor until two days before I had to submit this as far as the depths on the storm sewer and the actual location of the waterline. I knew approximately where it was but when I designed this, I laid out and showed a storm sewer extending up Business Center Drive to pick up the cul-de-sac and these properties. In fact, there is going to be a conflict with this 36 inch waterline going out. When I plotted it and put what I believed to be the depth and subject to it being wrong by several feet, the storm sewer ends up going right through the middle of that so there is no way I can run that storm sewer up to this point. Do you allow us to take these two lots over here, 4 and 5, dump them into the street and then put a larger inlet structure down here so that I can pick up the water before it goes out on Joyce? • Petrie: That is something I would look at as part of the final drainage. The key to it is, we have • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 45 a minimum depth of flow in streets requirements. I think for low flow you still have to have an 8 foot open full length to the center of the street. As long as you meet that requirement, that determines where your inlets requirement will be. Clark: You don't specifically prohibit taking the runoff from the parking lot into the street? Petrie: No. Clark: Okay. The other thing is, right now I've shown this sewer line going up and between lots 4 and 5, after I got the depth of the manhole, I can in fact run that down along Joyce Boulevard, turn and then go back north and still maintain a minimum cover of 5 feet or something approximating that. What I'm anticipating is changing the alignment of that sewer line and running it down Joyce Street and then back up to lot 3 to provide_ thatservice. Petrie: We would prefer that. Do you know they need to be setback at least 10 feet from that 36 inch? • Clark: Yes. Petrie: Standard comments on easements, we want an easement 10 feet from that line. Clark: Right. Petrie: You are going to have to have more easement on the lot. • Clark: Right. I don't think that if I have to dedicate the 15 foot street additional right-of-way along Joyce, then that's going to throw the setback further up anyway so it shouldn't be a major issue. Yes, I recognize that. That one is still subject but I wanted you to be aware of it so I didn't want it to come as a surprise when I resubmit and revise that location. That's it. Also, this is something we discussed, cover over that 36? Petrie: Clark: It's in this letter right here. I thought about that. I think I discussed it. The street grades, in order to maintain that, is probably 10% or 12% coming off of Joyce. Petrie: Maintain 3 feet of cover? • • • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 46 Clark: Yes. I've roughly looked at it and I recall it being something over 8% and I think it was about 10% or 101/4%. I know your ordinance says 4%. Petrie: Right. If you put in greater than 4% you have to have a waiver from the Planning Commission. Clark: Okay. Petrie: That does need to be looked at now if we are going to be coming back. Clark: Do they ever give that waiver? Petrie: Yes. There is extenuating circumstances, which I would consider this that they do. We would want to make that as less as we can get it. That would mean doing some extra work around the water pipe. That's what Millenium did up the street. We would want that done to make it as less as possible. Clark: There is a fine line between what's enough cover and what's not enough cover. I know. 3 feet with no protection, even with protection what kind of cover do you want over the pipe? Petrie: I'm thinking Millenium we went out as close as we could get, I think it was a foot off but they basically built around it. They put steel plates over it and everything else. Clark: Are you talking about going to that level? Petrie: I have to see what we have. Clark: We really need to go out and excavate that line and find out what the real elevation of it is. I assume 5 feet from existing grade which I think is what you said you thought it might be. That was using that and locating it at that elevation, it's going to be 10% or so in order to get 3 feet of cover over it. Petrie: I think that needs to be addressed before we go to Planning Commission or you will have to come back to get that waiver. Clark: I think we will probably anticipate that we need to request a waiver and proceed based on that assumption. Do they want specific grades tied to it? Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 47 Petrie: I think we need or something very close to it. I don't think they are going to grant you a blanket waiver. Clark: If I come in and say I think it's going to be 10.6 and if I can make it 10.6 or flatter, that's not a problem, I just can't exceed what that maximum number is. Conklin: They are going to rely on Ron to make a recommendation. Petrie: I feel pretty comfortable with what you are proposing. There is no way that we can make it flatter. Clark: You mean increase the waiver amount without going back to Planning Commission, we can decrease the waiver amount. . Petrie: I just want to make sure we get it as flat as possible before I give you a recommendation. I'm pretty comfortable with what is being proposed. Clark: Can we get with Jurgens and try to schedule him to locate that pipe? Petrie: Sure. Clark: Do I need to handle that or do you want him to get with you or how do we do this? Petrie: 1 think we both try to get a hold of him. He doesn't return my phone calls. Clark: I guess the other option is to get the owner to get his own backhoe out to excavate it. Do you have a prohibition against that? Petrie: We prefer not to for 36 inch. Clark: I understand we would have to take precautions. If it takes Dave two weeks to get back to us. Petrie: We'II talk to Dave and ask for Paul Mitchell. To speed it up, he may just want to run somebody up there to be there while you dig. Mike Phipps - Ozark Electric • Phipps: If you need a relocation of that existing overhead power line along Joyce Street, it • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 48 would be at the developer's expense. Also, the developer will need to supply conduit and trenching from the transformer locations for these lots to the overhead line. So, you will be going under or over that 36 inch water line, depending on how deep it is now. We need 42 inch depth of that 7,200 that we run. Also, if there is a concrete swale, we'll need to have that easement to the east of that concrete swale, if you could bring one along there on the west side through there. With lot 3, you'll see like it is here, I'm not sure where they would set a building on that lot. Clark: We are looking at setting it dead center in it and parking on either side of it? Phipps: That would be probably easier. If we set a transformer on the lot line of 3 and 2, to serve both of those it had another transformer off of 1 to pick it up. You've got a light here that we will need an easement to get to that streetlight. It may be on the lot line of 3 and 2 to the cul-de-sac to get our existing easements showing there to get around to it. They would only need to be 10 foot, 5 foot each side. The line out front, we've got a pole right there where you are showing an existing power pole, I believe we are serving that house from that pole now. Clark: That's correct. I think there is two lines that run back there, one goes to an outside light and one goes to the house I think. My surveyor picked up two different lines. Phipps: That pole, you've got a light shown there, I can hang a 250 watt? Conklin: Perry? Phipps: Can I use that existing pole? Perry Franklin - Traffic Superintendent Franklin: Yes. Phipps: That's all the comments I have. Kevin Lefler - Cox Communications Lefler: Steve, we are going to follow the electric in there on the west side so we will need conduits there. We are also have aerial cable along Joyce on that pole line so if we have to relocate any of that it will be at the developers expense also. • • • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 49 Clark: Do you require that we relocate overhead cable to underground across the frontage of our property? You said since the electric is going to stay overhead, do we have to do the cable? If any of them stay, they can all stay? Conklin: Yes. Lefler: I was concerned about that one pole there by the driveway. That's all. Bill Smith - Southwestern Bell Smith: 1 would agree of the easement being east of the concrete swale on the west property line. Are these trees going to stay in this easement? Clark: We won't be taking them out. It will not be our intent to take them out. I don't know that we are going to count them as part of our percent of canopy. They will likely be taken out. When the electric goes up there and you guys go up there, there is a chance that one or two of them might stay. Phipps: 42 inches deep we have to go, it should be digging from lot 4 back to that overhead line there, chances are you may lose some of them. Clark: If we serve this back lot off of this size, I presume that if all the other utilities come up this side, you may be able to stop your improvements right there and those may be able to stay in place. Smith: This serving lot 3 and it's dead center, we just need a conduit out to wherever this building is set over to that west easement. Clark: If we make this a 15 foot utility easement up through here, can you guys run your telephone up closer to the building? Smith: Yes, I can, as long as we have conduit under any paved area. I would probably like a crossing across Business Center Drive. I'm not sure if my facilities that are down here now, I've got something closer to there. I probably want a crossing. That's my only comments. Clark: So all we need is two 4 inch? • • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 50 Smith: Yes. Gas will want one too. Two or maybe three 4 inch. That's my only comments. Edwards: Thank you. • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 51 FP 01-1.00: Final Plat (CMN Business Park II, Phases I & II, pp 173,174) was submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Company on behalf of Nanchar, Inc. and Marjorie S. Brooks for property located South ofNWA Mall, West of North College Avenue, US 71 Business. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 248.19 acres. The request is for 18 lots. Edwards: The final item is a Final Plat 01-1.00 for CMN Business Park II, Phases I & 11, submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Company on behalf ofNanchar, Inc. and Marjorie S. Brooks for property located South ofNWA Mall, West of North College Avenue, US 71 Business. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, C- 2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 248.19 acres. The request is for 18 lots. Perry Franklin - Street Superintendent Franklin: 1 think Perry has resolved all of his concerns with the street lights. • Milholland: We met with him yesterday. Chuck Rutherford - Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator Edwards: Chuck did say not all of the sidewalks are complete. If we get to final plat and they are • not complete we will need those to be guaranteed. Sara Edwards - Associate Planner Edwards: The developer still needs to contribute funds for the equipment and materials for the five stop lights. Milholland: We are in the process of that. • Edwards. Okay. The City has agreed to install those lights. The developer shall constrict the connection from Van Asche to west Gregg Street with the completion of the sale of 75% of the property in Phase 1. Waivers have been granted at the preliminary plat to include, tree replacement being the responsibility of individual tract developers, overhead electric line from the southwest corner of WalMart westerly along Mud Creek within the floodway is to remain as constructed, and we have granted a waiver to construct the sidewalk on the northern side of Shiloh Drive only. There is $140,000 due for off-site improvements. Note #20 addresses that. • • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 52 Milholland: Edwards: There was a range wasn't there? Yes. We told you we had decided on $140,000 if you recall. Milholland: Is that negotiable? Edwards: Non-negotiable. You were sitting there Mel. I know you were. Milholland: I didn't agree to it. I'II let Mickey Harrington handle it, that's alegal matter. Edwards. Milholland: Edwards: Milholland: Okay. I would just assume you remove that number 20 off. Remove it? Yes. I'll Just tell Mickey and she can do what she wants to with it. There is some other items that I'm sure Ron will go over in his comments that he wants removed and I'll let him do that when he's ready. The developer was required to connect the water main for this development to the water main at the Northwest Arkansas Mall. Since an easement could not be obtained, the developer will be required to contribute funds in escrow for 150% of that estimated cost. Milholland: I thought we were talking one day and it Mr. Beaver's said that, I suggested we pay half but we don't know. Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: Milholland: Edwards: This is what Jim told me was agreed. You can discuss it with Jim but as of yesterday that's what he said. Okay. I'll see him. I know Mickey has been working on the covenant for the design theme, as far as I know, the last time we talked to her those had not been finalized yet and she was going to make some changes, so we would like that submitted prior to a sign off on the final plat. Submitted and recorded actually. • Milholland: Prior to submitting a plat? Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 53 Edwards: Prior to signing off. Yes. Milholland: Was that the same thing on the final plat? Edwards. 1 think we can do that. All these lots, of course, are required to go through large scale development. Along lot 17, there is a 40 easement for the fly -over, we want that to be dedicated right-of-way. In order to approve if a final layer of pavement on all the streets isn't it, that must be guaranteed. We do need a copy of the recorded warranty deed for Steele Boulevard on the Northwest Arkansas Mall property. Milholland: There is a special deed. I think Mickey has provided that to the City. Edwards. She has. It has not been recorded. We've reviewed it, but I'm just telling you that we need a recorded copy and the instrument number cited. Milholland: I thought you were going to file that. Edwards: I don't think so. I think Tim has been talking to Tom Jeffcoat about the fence on top of the lot cuts north of Joyce. We are going to restrict that to be a black painted decorative wrought iron fence. I think you aware of that. I think we have worked out the installation of the street lights that's already been paid for, is that right? Milholland: Yes. Perry and I was talking about that. We got the bill. He Just gave us a final updated cost the end of last week and we included that yesterday. That's prior to final filing we have to pay it, right? Edwards: Yes and provide a copy of receipt, canceled check or some sort of proof. Milholland: Canceled check? Edwards. Something Just telling me that it's paid. Milholland: To you? Edwards: Yes. I Just want a copy. Milholland: Can we just give you a copy of the check with Perry Franklin's bill? • Edwards: This is street lights, not traffic lights that I'm talking about. • • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 54 Milholland: I think we've already done that too. Edwards: That's what I thought. Do you have a copy of it? I think I was provided an agreement but I cannot locate it right now. I'm hoping you have a copy. Milholland: I'll check. I know they paid for it. Edwards: Apparently there were some trees removed along Joyce and the applicant will be responsible for the replacement of those trees within 90 days of final plat approval. Milholland: I think some of those, did the City move some of those out? Kim Hesse = Landscape Administrator Hesse: We've got correspondence between the two of us about these trees. Milholland: Along Joyce? Hesse: Yes. Milholland: Did you take some of those trees and move them somewhere else? Hesse: Yes. There were some that were taken out long ago. I'll see if 1 can find the memo that addresses that situation. Milholland: What we are saying that the trees that were taken out will be put back in. Is that right? Edwards: Is that what you are saying? Hesse: The trees we have in our memo. Those are the trees that we are talking about. There were trees along the waterline and that would be affected by construction. Milholland: They can be put back in is what you are saying. Okay. The location is still available. Hesse: Yes. Milholland: Okay. That's in letter form? • Hesse: Yes. Sara, did you address maintenance of the Boulevard? • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 55 Edwards: It should be addressed. Hesse: We need to figure out what was agreed to before I got here with regards to the fees. We'II just need to research that. What we have done in some other subdivisions that have gone to final plat, the homeowner's association in residential subdivisions maintain that. 1 don't know if Steele, we'll have to research what was discussed. We need to finalize it. Edwards. She's looking for a property owner's association maintenance of the trees on the boulevard. Is that right? Hesse: Yes. I'm not informed of any of that. Milholland: We were talking about this. We are trying to get them to say what kind of trees they liked yesterday at a meeting. He has that and we will present it to you. He has already drawn it out. We'll let you look at it and get your input from the City side of it. Petrie: Who is going to maintain them? Milholland: Maintain them? Edwards: Yes. Milholland: That's probably in the approval process somewhere. It was talked about. We put an irrigation system in. I would like to say the City is going to maintain them but we would have to look at the minutes. It may be a combination of the two or it may be the property owner's association has to. I don't know. I'm almost certain it's in the minutes though. Hesse: We'll just have to figure that out. Milholland: If it's not, maybe you can come up and talk to us Hesse: It wouldn't have been all the way back in the rezone process would it? None of us were here. Milholland: The approval of phase I on the boulevard was October or September 10th. October 6, 1998 was approved by Council and the Planning Commission approved it in September of that same year • • • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 56 Hesse: We'll go back to September 1998. That's the only thing I was concerned about. That's all I have. Milholland: Do you want that put on the plat as to who is responsible? Hesse: Yes. Edwards: We also, if you don't go with our standard scale required, I'm going to require 2 plats at a 1" to 100" scale. One for the Planning Division and one to Engineering. Milholland: Two plats I" to 100". They are not going to be labeled if we take this to the computer and reduce it to that. Petrie: 1" to 100". Milholland: I'm sorry. I don't know if we print it that big. I did check with the courthouse and they allow us to file these sized in a different scale and they want us to reduce them down so they have it where they can see it real easy, I said "you won't be able to read it", she said "That's fine." Petrie: I think Engineering would like the subdivision, I don't think we need the whole plat. Just so we can see where the easements are. Edwards: Yes. Milholland: I can get, without all this stuff on here, I can get both phases together. But I can't do it on this size sheet with all the paraphernalia. Edwards: I don't' think we care the paper size. Milholland: Do you want me to just take that and make it 1" to 100" scale if I can? Edwards: Yes. Petrie: You can do it on two sheets. That's a requirement on ordinance. If you do go with a 200 scale, you have to do this. Milholland: Does it say we can leave this off here? • • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 57 Edwards: I don't think it says. I don't think we care. Milholland: I just want to do it right the first time. I don't want to do it two times is all I'm saying. Edwards: I think it's fine with all this left off. I'm done. Milholland: You want this after we file it? Petrie: We would like to have it this afternoon. Milholland: You want us to do the changes? Petrie: I don't. I can't speak for Tim. Milholland: After they get through we may have some easements or something to modify. Petrie: As I told you before, we don't have our comments ready so we are still reviewing. We would like it for our review now. Milholland: Do you have to have another one if there are changes? Petrie: I don't. Tim might. I don't want to speak for Tim. Milholland: I'll put a rush on this. Petrie: We should have our comments tomorrow to you. Milholland: Do you want me to do it before then? Petrie: We would like to have it now so we can review if fully. Milholland: You want a rule line? Petrie: Whatever. Milholland: Did you want one now too? Edwards. Yes. • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 58 Milholland: You might want to wait. I'll run two later. Edwards: That's fine. Milholland: You want one now or two? Petrie: One. Milholland: I'll do the two later after Planning Commission. I'll give you one now, you do all you want to and after Planning Commission and corrections, I11 give you two. Petrie: Tim may want something in between. Milholland: We can do one now. I can run two copies as easy as I can one. Petrie: He may want one for whatever you are submitting for Subdivision. He may want that. I don't know what he wants. When are we going to have the final inspection? • Milholland: For Planning Commission or final final? • Petrie: Final inspection. Milholland: I think we'll have a walk-through before we go to Planning Commission. If we are bonding, at that time we determine that it can't be done by the time that's filed which is after Planning Commission approves it, we'll have to issue bonds to cover that portion. Petrie: We have to have a final inspection before it goes to Subdivision. You know that. Milholland: Just before that. Petrie: Before Subdivision. I could be the day before Subdivision, it doesn't matter, as long it is realistically going to happen. Monday, the standard deadline, Planning is going to call me and ask "Is this on the agenda for the next Subdivision?" At that point, I'm going to have to determine if it's actually feasible if we are going to have a final inspection. Milholland: Next Monday? Petrie: February 7, 2001. • • Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 59 Edwards: Yes. 1 think it's Wednesday. Milholland: At that time Ron, do you look at it and say is it feasible to finish the project by the time this is approved by Planning Commission, right? Petrie: No. I'm going to determine if they are far along enough to have a final inspection in a few days. Milholland: On the 7th? Edwards: Yes. Don't bring any revisions in to us if you don't think it's going to continue because I'm going to make you bring them in again, is what we are getting at. Wait until you know you are ready. Petrie: We are all under the assumption it's not going to the next Subdivision. Milholland: If there has to be a final walk through for acceptance of the City which I thought it was always what you did, I thought you went in before the Subdivision meeting and you look at is and say "Can this be completed by the time Planning Commission needs to improve it?" If it can't then you wait until the next meeting. Petrie: Most final plats are approved at Subdivision Committee. I'm sure this won't be. Milholland: How come this won't then? Edwards: I think all the Planning Commissioners are interested in seeing it. Petrie: I'm sure. We are going to treat this like any other subdivision. We have to have a final inspection before it goes to Subdivision Committee. It's got to be substantially complete before we have that inspection. Milholland: Okay. I will call you probably the first of next week and let you know. Right now, with the weather conditions if that is what you are saying that everything has to be done by that date, it's impossible. If there is some substantial completion it just means that some minor things have to be done but if you are saying all the base and curb, gutter and all this stuff, you are talking about a week away. If it's sun shining 90 degrees between now and then and they worked 24 hour days I don't think it would. • Edwards: That's what we thought. Plat Review Minutes January 31, 2001 Page 60 Petrie. Milholland: Petrie: If we did anything else, you would be getting special treatment. We are not trying to get anything special. It's a little bit different than I anticipated. I thought substantial completion wasn't quite that much. We have anticipated that if it rains, we probably can't get it done by the time Planning Commission got here. It's not going to speed you up any because we are not going to sign anything until it's 100% completed. Milholland: This is step one, I want to get all the comments. I've talked to most of these guys. Unless they've got something new. Petrie: We'll get you our comments probably tomorrow. Bill Smith - Southwestern Bell Smith: 1 think we talked about a crossing across Mud Creek and over here already to be built a conduit crossing. What about here on Steele? Milholland: We've got posts at the end of them, if you can't find them when you are ready to use them, just holler and we'll point them out for you. That was the only comment I had. That's it. Thank you. Smith: Edwards: