Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2001-06-27 - Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF TECHNICAL PLAT REVIEW A regular meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee was held on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LSP 01-25.00, 26.00, 27.00: Lot Split (Lot 7 CMN Business Park II, Phase I & 2, pp 212) Forwarded Page 2 LSP 01-24.00: Lot Split (Foster, pp 714, 715) Forwarded Page 5 LSD 01-23.00: Large Scale Development (Lindsey Office Building, pp 175) Forwarded Page 8 PPL 01-4.00: Page 19 STAFF PRESENT Sara Edwards Ron Petrie Keith Shreve Kim Hesse Perry Franklin Kim Rogers Tim Conklin Preliminary Plat (Cross Creek Subdivision LLC, pp 359) Forwarded UTILITIES PRESENT Bill Sargent, SWEPCO Sue Clouser, Southwestern Bell STAFF ABSENT Solid Waste Fire Chief UTILITIES ABSENT Mike Phipps, Ozark Electric Kevin Lefler, Cox Communications Johney Boles, AR Western Gas • • • Plat Review Minutes June 27, 2001 Page 2 LSP 01-25.00, 26.00, 27.00: Lot Split (Lot 7 CMN Business Park II, Phase 1 & 2, pp 212) was submitted by Christopher Rogers of CEI Engineering Associates on behalf of Target for property located on lots 7 & 15 of CMN Business Park II, phases 1 & 2. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 9.41 acres. The request is to split into four tracts of 1.26 acres, 0.56 acres, 1.48 acres and 6.11 acres. Edwards. Welcome to the Wednesday, June 27, 2001, meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee. The first item is a lot split 01-25.00, 26.00 and 27.00 submitted by Christopher Rogers of CEI Engineering Associates on behalf of Target for property located on lots 7 & 15 of CMN Business Park II, phases 1 & 2. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 9.41 acres. The request is to split into four tracts of 1.26 acres, 0.56 acres, 1.48 acres and 6.11 acres. Chuck Rutherford - Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator Rutherford: Existing sidewalks along Shiloh, Steel and Van Asche meet the requirements, please show the existing sidewalks on the plat. New sidewalks, driveway approaches and access ramps constructed in the right-of-way shall meet Ordinance Number 4005, Section 98.67. Driveway approaches shall be constructed of Portland Cement Concrete. The sidewalk shall be continuous through driveways with a maximum of 2% cross slope. An inspection is required prior to concrete pour. Rogers. Would you like to see those on this drawing? Sara Edwards - Associate Planner Edwards. No. I think you are showing a tree preservation easement outline although all the line types are the same and I can't really tell if you are meeting it. Rogers: Yes, that's the tree preservation easement. Edwards: It kind of runs down here and you can't really tell where it goes. What I would like to see is that it's shaded. I don't like the wording. We did not get an easement as part of lot 15's development, we only got it as part of lot 7 so you can't really reference that unified development plan because it didn't grant the easement. As of right now we don't have an easement plat for lot 7 either. I think you need to grant it with this. Rogers. Go ahead and grant the easements in this lot split? • Plat Review Minutes June 27, 2001 Page 3 Conklin: Yes. We want to see the tree preservation easement on there. Ziada: Just lot 7 right? Conklin: Yes. We'll have more than one easement recorded, I understand that but I think it will help the public when the review the files to know that this is tree preservation area granted with this also. Do you know when that easement plat will be ready? Rogers: After we get the construction plans we will submit it through. Also, we wanted to go through as far as the lot line adjustment. What would be best for your review, when would you like us to submit it? Should we wait until after Subdivision Committee? I just want to make it less confusing. We'll have that after July 12'. Edwards: Lot 7A is on that intersection therefore, there will not be any curb cuts allowed for it, it needs to be accessed through lot 7. I need you to place a note on this plat stating that. Ziada: What is the easement for that? • Edwards. Right now where that intersection stands, I think that we are going to have some traffic conflicts. Secondly, there is a 200 foot minimum curb cut in the Design Overlay District and you really don't have the room to put it on the south side and then on the west side you do but it's going to be right next to another entrance and there is a minimum distance between them. I don't think it's technically feasible on that lot. I typically just measure from the lot line. Conklin: The idea here is to have a unified development and shared parking. I think it would be best to use the current access points that we have Ziada: Conklin: Rogers: • Conklin: Can we handle that through lot 7A when it goes through large scale development? I would rather work it out and not have anymore discussions on it at this time. I talked to Mr. Milholland about this two years ago, about access points. It's always in my mind that the access points that were granted were going to be used through the entire development. It wasn't shown on the original unified development plan. We'll tell our client that. If there is questions from them, we'll let you know. Of course you can make your request to the Subdivision Committee and Planning • • • Plat Review Minutes June 27, 2001 Page 4 Commission. Staff would prefer to use those entrances that have been established already. Edwards. Revisions are due July 3`d Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: One comment on that plat you've got. I see one thing. White that easement out. That's all I have. Bill Sargent - SWEPCO Sargent: No comments. Sue Clouser - Southwestern Bell Clouser: No comments. Edwards: I'll be calling you about the property line adjustment. I think we still need to take care of that tree, it's been on the property line adjustment too. Rogers: That's being handled administratively? Edwards: Yes. Conklin: Let me ask one favor, can you fill out the applicant on this application so it's not blank, for the property line adjustment? • • • Plat Review Minutes June 27, 2001 Page 5 LSP 01-24.00 Lot Split (Foster, pp 714, 715) was submitted by Nathan McKinney on behalf of Roy & Mona Foster for property located at 3330 Cato Springs Road. The property is in the Planning Growth Area and contains approximately 22.38 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 20.1 acres and 2.28 acres. Edwards: This item is a lot split for Foster submitted by Nathan McKinney on behalf of Roy & Mona Foster for property located at 3330 Cato Springs Road. The property is in the Planning Growth Area and contains approximately 22.38 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 20 1 acres and 2.28 acres. Please state your name for the record. McKinney: Nathan McKinney. Sara Edwards - Associate Planner Edwards: Have you ever been through this process before? What we do is review this for compliance of ordinances and we need some changes made before we can approve it. I'm going to go over what changes and revisions we need. The first one, which I didn't write down, it looks like he has the name wrong at the top of the survey. The drawing is not to scale which means I can't put my scale on here and figure out any of the dimensions. Has it been shrunk? McKinney: Edwards: McKinney. Edwards: McKinney: Edwards: I have a larger version, it might have. Be sure when you turn in your revisions, turn in this size because it does scale. From talking to our secretary who took the application, her understanding is that you are only requesting one lot split? That's correct. What I need for you to do is, you need to take off tract 3 and combine this into one. This is going to be filed over at the County and it's rather misleading thinking that both of these splits have been approved. I understand that but the lady at the County told me that if we ever requested a future lot split that we would need something like this. You may want to put on a different survey that you can have for later if you want that lot split. At this time, I don't want both of them shown because it looks like we've granted both of these lot splits. • Plat Review Minutes June 27, 2001 Page 6 McKinney: We are simply requesting one. Conklin: Yes, but what's shown on this... Put it this way, sitting here this moming and looking at this, reading this description and looking at the survey, they don't match. I show three lots and this says one lot. Basically, we need a picture to show what you are requesting, a survey. Edwards' I have to stamp this and say we've approved this and I cannot stamp this saying we've approved because it's showing two lot splits. Conklin: You have the survey description for tract 3 and tract 2. If someone went over to the County and looked at this, it looks like we split off the additional lot. We are just trying to get something to reflect what you are actually applying for. Edwards- He just needs to put plat page 714 and 715 at the bottom and that's our City referencing system. The vicinity map he is using doesn't show all of our current streets, specifically I-540. It's very difficult to tell from this where this property is located, he needs to fix that. The legal descriptions he has used do not reference state plane coordinates, we do require those so we can put it in our GIS system in the right location. He should understand what that means and should be able to fix it. We require all streets to be dimensioned from centerline so I know how much right-of-way exists and because this isn't in the City limits I don't have any right-of-way records to understand how much right-of-way exists which he needs to tell us. As part of that, Cato Springs is on our Master Street Plan which requires we have 55 feet from centerline dedicated. I don't know if that exists already or if you need to dedicate some more. That's one of the things I need for him to show. Of course, after you get our approval and make these revisions you have to get County approval. These revisions are due by July 3, 2001 by 10:00 a.m. McKinney: There is no way we can speed the process up any faster, is that correct? This is going to cause a hardship particularly on the buyers if they have to wait until July 12`^ to even figure if we will get a split, then close on the property and then start the building permit process. Edwards: We do not have the authority to grant this administratively, it has to be done by the Planning Commission or the Subdivision Committee. They have to grant it and that's the way the bylaws are written. We don't have that authority. • Conklin: It's a state law. I can't sign off on that. • • • Plat Review Minutes June 27, 2001 Page 7 McKinney: The very first opportunity is July 12th? Edwards. That is when your revisions are due. I'm sorry, the revisions are due July 3rd and the meeting is July 12th. McKinney: It sounds like all of the corrections that you are requesting will belong on this survey, is that correct? Edwards: Yes. McKinney: If I bring in a corrected version of this survey can somebody go over it with me to make sure we got it right? Edwards: Yes. Conklin: Sara or I can and we would be more than happy to. McKinney: The fellow who drew this survey is welcome to call somebody here at this office and make sure it's correct? Edwards. Yes. Scott-Silkwood: I'm Celia Scott-Silkwood, the County Planner now. On the back of my card, it tells you what we'll need and we can do this administratively. It won't cost you anything and it will take about 30 minutes. • • • Plat Review Minutes June 27, 2001 Page 8 LSD 01-23.00: Large Scale Development (Lindsey Office Building, pp 174) was submitted by Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Lindsey Company for property located north of Joyce Street and south of Steams Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 5.85 acres with an 82,420 sq. ft. office building proposed. Edwards: The next item is a large scale development for Lindsey Office Building submitted by Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Lindsey Company for property located north of Joyce Street and south of Stearns Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 5.85 acres with an 82,420 sq. ft. office building proposed. State your names please. Bates: Geoff Bates. Ellis: Dave Ellis. Kim Hesse - Landscape Administrator Hesse: Large species trees are to be placed within the tree lawn area of the parking lot or landscape islands are to be added. A water line is located within this tree lawn area which will limit the ability to place large trees in this location. This will need to be addressed. Basically your options on the tree lines is to eliminate the islands but the to plant trees within it for large species trees. We are really trying to keep them how far Ron? Petrie: 10 feet is what we are after. Hesse: We either relocate the islands or the waterline. Bates: We were trying to get away from the backfill, keeping it in that island. Hesse: A continuous planting of shrubs with trees placed at 30' intervals are to be planted along the rights-of-way surrounding the property. If the ponds are designed to retain water and used as landscape features they may be utilized in place of plants This should be discussed further. Conklin: Bates: Are they wet ponds? Yes. • • • Plat Review Minutes June 27, 2001 Page 9 Edwards: Conklin: Bates: Petrie: Hesse: Bates: Hesse: Bates: Hesse: Bates: Hesse: Bates: Hesse: Bates: Hesse: The trees are part of the Commercial Design Standards. They are required. I think that we probably have the authority to change out shrubs if the trees are required which you might need to meet that. Look at something to fix that. Or reduce the size of the ponds. I don't think we can. We are limited on our space. Let's discuss that with my comments. I have concerns about the amount of tree removal along the NE corner of the site. Two off site 30" oaks and additional existing canopy will be removed or affected by the proposed grades. I recommend the addition of a short retaining wall with the 3 to 1 slope to reduce the impact to the canopy. We should be just losing that one 16" oak. Your grades go probably within 5. feet of the property line. You will probably be grading within 10 feet of the trunk of the trees. Probably. Which is definitely going to take out a third or more of the root system, which is enough to possibly lose a few trees. Is that property owned by Lindsey? No. It would really make a big difference. I'll see how much it costs to build a retaining wall. I was thinking three or four foot and then we would back fill the grade. It doesn't look like you have a whole lot of room. It's kind of tight. A finalized landscape and irrigation plan will be required prior to building permit approval. Complete existing canopy information is needed on the tree preservation plan along with the tree preservation application. I got a copy of this morning. • • • Plat Review Minutes June 27, 2001 Page 10 Keith Shreve - Sidewalks Development Coordinator Shreve: Sterns Road is a collector which requires a six foot sidewalk and a minimum of ten feet of greenspace. Joyce is a principle arterial which requires a six foot sidewalk and a minimum of ten feet of greenspace Sidewalks, driveway approaches and access ramps shall be constructed to Ordinance Number 4005. An inspection is required prior to concrete pour. Sidewalk shall be continuous through the driveways with a maximum of 2% cross slope and elevated 2% above top of curb. Remove lines representing curbs through the sidewalk section, in the driveway, from the drawing. Driveway approaches shall be constructed of Portland Cement Concrete. We have a new ordinance requiring bicycle parking racks. Edwards' Six is what I got in my comments. Perry Franklin - Traffic Superintendent Franklin: Street lighting is required every 300 feet and those need to be 250 watt HPS cut off, similar to the those on the west end of Joyce. Bates: Do they need to just be along Joyce, not along Sterns? Edwards: I would guess they need to be on Sterns too but you may want to call Perry and ask him. Mickey Jackson - Fire Chief Jackson: A hydrant will be needed within 100 feet of the sprinkler connection. This can be accomplished by moving either of the proposed hydrants shown. Sara Edwards - Associate Planner Edwards: Recently I sent out a letter stating how many pages are acceptable to be submitted for a large scale development plan, which is two. You are little bit over. We don't need any of the detailed pages and you can combine your grading and tree preservation plan on one. This has gone before the Planning Commission for Commercial Design Standards. If there are no variances requested maybe it can be approved at Subdivision and, if that's the case, I Just need one 81/2 by 11 color rendered elevation to put in the file. If it does go to Planning Commission I'll need twelve. Signage, I don't know if that was addressed before. I do need an elevation, I think you had a sign called out somewhere • Plat Review Minutes June 27, 2001 Page 11 in here in the other plan. I do need an elevation of that. You need to add plat page 174. I didn't see your parking calculations although I saw them first thing this morning. I do need you to reference the ratio you are using. I also need you to number off your spaces. I've had some recent projects where they say there is this many on the plan and then when you go and count them out, there is not that many. I need them numbered. You are okay on Joyce, Stems requires 35 feet from centerline. According to our records, we are showing 25 feet exist all the way to the property line. It needs to be 35 feet from centerline dedicated which moves you back 15 feet and you need to take a look at that. We are also placing a requirement that Sterns Street be constructed up to the property line, with sidewalk. All these properties in the Vantage Square area we've been assessing for the construction of Vantage Street. Bates: You want to improve street all the way up to the property line? Edwards: Yes. What's the existing? Bates: Probably about the same distance. • Edwards. We don't want it in front of Mcllroy. Conklin: This is already built over here. It should be built up to that subdivision. They turn back to the north. Hesse: It looks like there is curb and gutter on both sides of the street. There is curb and gutter on the north side of the street. Bates: You don't normally make them do both sides of the street do you? Conklin: It's a collector street, we are trying to get a connection there. Petrie: We do not have an existing street, that you are just improving. If it was an existing street, we would probably only be requiring the improvement on one side. Conklin: 14 feet from centerline with curb, gutter, storm drainage and sidewalks. In this case we are trying to get the street built to the property line since it partially exists in front of the property for a short distance. Fugitt: Are we being taken advantage of here. I know the City is trying to get a road but we • would not want to do all of it. We would like the property owner to the north to build • • • Plat Review Minutes June 27, 2001 Page 12 his half. Bates: Maybe we can make some trade-offs on some of this other stuff like some of the trees. There might be some problem with the ponds already. Conklin: At minimum it's one half. Half of a street doesn't function very well. Bates: I agree. I'm not trying to cause trouble. Edwards. Next to all the properties in the Vantage area we've been assessing for the construction of Vantage Street. I've been reviewing some files and trying to find the ratios we have used before to come up with that amount and I am not finished with that calculation. I'm just putting you on notice that there is going to be something assessed. Conklin: First Security Bank was assessed for Vantage when they came through with their development. Edwards: It's a Master Street Plan. Bates: Where is Vantage? Conklin: Do you know where the post office is, they constructed that part of Vantage when they built the post office It goes from Zion Road all the way across Joyce back up to Millsap. Edwards: I'll let you know a dollar figure on that. The northern drive is not dimensioned. We've got a 27 foot maximum. All new utilities shall be placed underground. I don't think there is any overhead lines over there. I told you about the 15 feet of landscaping. We need some cross access to the east, at least 1,2 if you would like. Conklin: So, when this develops if they need to come over here to get to someone's office they don't have to get out on Joyce. Just an access point. That's all that I have. Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: I'll start with water, you show 15 foot utility easements, we need 20 foot. Try to eliminate the 90 degree bends, you've got one or two shown. On your final plans look at that. It's not listed on there but what Kim mentioned, we try to get the trees setback 10 feet from our water and sewer lines. On sewer, the same thing with the easements, • • Plat Review Minutes June 27, 2001 Page 13 we need 20 feet and you've got 15 foot shown. Rain catchers will have to be added. On to our grading comments, our standard checklist is here in the back. All the comments on grading are shown on that. I'll go over some of them. I did not get a copy of the permit application form, the updated one should be attached in the back. Bates: We have that I just left it out. Petrie: Next comment is setback requirements. There is a requirement in the grading ordinance and I'll just read it to you "Cuts adjacent to public rights-of-way shall be setback a minimum of 25 feet excluding driveways or access roads". That has to do with these detention ponds. The way I read that ordinance is you are dedicating some additional right-of-way along that frontage. I would measure that 25 feet from the existing right-of-way which means if we can get on these two 10 more feet, you will meet that ordinance and 5 feet on this one down here. Then we have room for this landscaping that's being requested. On your calculations you are showing you've got 25% extra capacity, that's not needed. You can eliminate that 25%. I'm just trying to make it work. You also have a setback problem along Sterns. You are showing cutting out to the right-of-way over there. What you need to do is try to eliminate that as much as possible. You still may have to have a waiver for that. Bates: If we end up having to put a retaining wall, we probably won't be getting that anyway. Conklin: If they are building the street and they grade the street, does that still apply if they are doing all that grading together with the street? Petrie: If they are building it all at the same time I think we wouldn't have a waiver, if it's all being done at once. We wouldn't need the cut out in the right-of-way. We'll have sidewalk here and if it's a new street, new subdivision, those cuts have to be setback 1 foot from the sidewalk. If it's over 3 to 1 then we will be looking at rails. Bates: You have to put rails on the retaining wall? Petrie: If it's over 2 %x feet. If Sterns Street is built then I think I can do without a waiver for that. We can move those along Joyce Street. Conklin: The one's along Joyce Street, if they are 3 to 1 they don't need a rail along that sidewalk then? • Petrie: That's right. There are several things, just punch list items you need to add to the • • Plat Review Minutes June 27, 2001 Page 14 grading plan. I won't go over every one of those, they are all listed. Back to my written comments on number two, we've kind of discussed most of this. The grading on Sterns, I think you are proposing 3 to 1 slopes, can you label what you proposed? You mentioned the property back to the east is not owned by Lindsey? Bates: I believe so. Petrie: We have a five foot setback requirement for cut and fill slopes. You've got that detention pond right up on the property line. That can be done without a waiver with written permission from the adjacent property owner, otherwise you need to set it back five feet. Bates: Maybe when we reduce the capacity we will move it. Petrie: Either move it back or get written permission from the adjacent property owner. Maintain 36 inches of cover over this waterline along the entrance, if not, you need to plan on lowering that waterline. For drainage, the first comment has to do with the detention ponds. You've said they are all going to be wet ponds. The one thing I would like to see on here is what the pond elevations are going to be, your normal ponding elevation and also, your 100 year water surface elevation. It wasn't clear going through the drainage report. Bates: We have all that it just didn't get on the drawing. Petrie: We have one requirement of a 100 foot setback from any building and that would only affect pond 2. I certainly don't have a problem with that waiver request but it would require a waiver. All the drainage would be considered private, it would be privately maintained. Number three, just making sure you are aware the use of rip rap is not to be used anymore. We would expect to use some more inventive erosion control ideas. Conklin: Natural looking. Fugitt: Rocks are pretty natural looking. Conklin: You don't see too many white boulders all piled up. Something that's not blinding when you are driving down the road. Petrie: Native stone is appropriate. If you can get a summary sheet on that drainage • information, the pre -development and post -development flows so I know what's exiting • • Plat Review Minutes June 27, 2001 Page 15 out of the site, it's very nice to have. Streets, my comment Sterns Road is Just what we discussed. Any off-site improvements have to be decided by the Planning Commission. I know that's all open for discussion. One thing I would like for you to add though is, if you can show what's existing on Sterns, where it ends, where the curb and gutter is, how wide it is. Give me a call if you have any questions. Bill Sargent - SWEPCO Sargent: We'll be planning to serve this building from our electric line on the north side of Sterns Street. I don't see any indication over here where you expect your point of service to be. Bates: I'mnot sure Sargent: We'll need a location to set our transformer in this existing easement along Sterns. If it's some other place on the site, we'll need an easement to get to that location. We'll need load information when you get that also. Conklin: Can it being underground at that pole since the street is not constructed yet and going underground all the way to the building? Sargent: We would probably set it at the pole across from the south side of Sterns. Conklin: Even though Sterns is not there right now? Sargent: Right. Conklin: Why wouldn't you just come under the road right now? It would make the project look better. Sargent: It could be done, we would need to cut in extra conduit or something under the road to do that. Conklin: Is it going to cost the developer more to do it that way? Sargent: It would be slightly more, not much. Fugitt: Are you talking about the distance of Stems Road? • • • Plat Review Minutes June 27, 2001 Page 16 Sargent: Fugitt: Sargent: Conklin: Fugitt: Sargent: Yes. What conduit do you need? We would need two 4 inch conduits. Instead of having a pole on the property, that's what we are trying to avoid. That's good. Make sure that we get it in here. Conklin: That's not a requirement Kim but I'm trying to make the project look as nice as possible. Fugitt: I think we can justify that. Sue Clouser- Southwestern Bell Clouser: We'll need two four inch conduits from your phone room out to the utility easement. I'm not sure if we are going to feed it off of Joyce or Sterns. Where is your room going to go, do you know? Your phone room? Fugitt: It's on the interior. Clouser: It's on the center so it doesn't matter which way we go in that case. I'll give him my card, when you get to that point, we'll see where we are going to feed it from. Fugitt: It seems like when we were here on something else the issue of the sewer came up and capacity that was getting close to. I'm sure I misunderstood this but, once we get a building permit and this all approved then we will be connected to sewer right? Conklin: When do you buy your taps for the sewer? Petrie: They won't be buying taps. They are building the sewer. Conklin: Once you approve the plans. Petrie: The last obstacle would be once you get the plumbing permit with the building permit. • Plat Review Minutes June 27, 2001 Page 17 Once the building permit is in. Bates: There is no chance we are going to build this building and we can't get sewer? Petrie: I don't guarantee anything. Conklin: The issue is the plant and, as I've mentioned before, I'm not the expert on this, your average daily flow is going in there. If it rained and rained from now until Christmas your flows may be above and the City doesn't know what ADEQ would do with that permit. Fugitt: It seems to me logic would say we wouldn't let someone build a building without offering them the ability to discharge sewer. Conklin: The City probably wouldn't. We are saying there is state agency that regulates the City. They know we are building a new plant. • Fugitt: That state agency, once the line is in place and we exceed capacity, who do they cut off'? Do they go to the individual? Petrie: The way it is, as staff all we can do is give you information. The studies that we have that's done by Don Bunn state we have a year and a half of capacity left and that's if you take in all the lots that are out there that haven't been developed, that's already been factored in. Once we reach the capacity of that report we still have capacity. What do we do? Do we cut it off there until all the lots that are out there are developed? It would be up to City Council. We've got politicians involved now. There is no guarantees as how it's exactly going to play out. According to that study we have a year and a half of capacity left. Fugitt: That's based on current growth. Petrie: Yes. Conklin: Current growth levels and these projects that are coming through the process right now there is capacity. The reason why we are still growing is that ADEQ knows we are planning on building a new plant. If the voters of Fayetteville say "No sales tax", I'm not sure what happens then. • Fugitt: I just can't see them going around to certain houses saying they are going to cut them • • Plat Review Minutes June 27, 2001 Page 18 off. It's hard to see how they will do that. Conklin: The official statement of the City is there is capacity for these buildings, unless something outside of the City's control goes wrong. If the voters say "No, we are not going to fund a new treatment plant", we'll probably have some problems. Petrie: I think if the voters say no then Council will have to make a decision. Conklin: It's the projects I'm concerned about where we are giving approval and they are just sitting out there, they haven't received their permits. If they apply for a permit in 2004 or 2005 and we are out of capacity and the plant is not open yet, those are the one's I'm more concerned about Mr. Lindsey's projects get built right after he gets approval. Hopefully there is not a long lag time between this approval and you build it. • • • Plat Review Minutes June 27, 2001 Page 19 PPL 01-4.00: Preliminary Plat (Cross Creek Subdivision LLC, pp 359) was submitted by Brian Moore of Engineering Service Inc. on behalf of Cross Creek Subdivision LLC for property located east of Sunshine Road and north of Highway 16. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 32.35 acres with 100 lots proposed. Edwards: The final item on the agenda is a preliminary plat for Cross Creek Subdivision submitted by Brian Moore of Engineering Service Inc. on behalf of Cross Creek Subdivision LLC for property located east of Sunshine Road and north of Highway 16 The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 32.35 acres with 100 lots proposed. Kim Hesse - Landscape Administrator Hesse: Changes to the tree preservation plan along with the slight lot line adjustments, discussed at the June 21" meeting between ESI, Cross Creek LLC, and myself, are to be represented on the plans at the subdivision submittal. Jim Johnson - 911 Coordinator Johnson: The subdivision name should be changed. Fayetteville already has a commercial development named Cross Creek. Coldwater can be used on only one street, the other street needs a name of it's own. Cross Creek Drive shouldn't be used a street name. Sandy Lane cannot be used. Fallbrook needs 3 separate names. Chuck Rutherford - Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator Rutherford: Shreve: Humbard: The necessary grading and sub -grade preparation for sidewalks shall be done as part of the street construction even if the installation of the actual sidewalks are delayed. Sidewalks, driveway approaches and access ramps shall be constructed of to Ordinance Number 4005. An inspection is required prior to concrete pour. Driveway approaches shall be constructed of Portland Cement Concrete. A table with street names, street width, right-of-way width, greenspace width and sidewalk width needs to be added to the plat. That would replace part of note 1, 4 and 5. Two access ramps at each corner will be required A single ramp on the radius should not be used. A diagram is included. We are trying to get a ramp in each direction across the street. At the radius points, in line where you just go straight and don't have to make the • • Plat Review Minutes June 27, 2001 Page 20 Rutherford: Shreve: Humbard: Shreve: Conklin: Humbard: Edwards: Humbard: Edwards: Shreve: Edwards. Conklin: curve. On residential class streets where the sidewalk wraps around the cul-de-sac and ends, a ramp should be constructed at the ending or beginning point of the sidewalk, preferably at a lot line, and a corresponding ramp across the street. Add a note to the plat all retaining walls shall be setback a minimum of two feet from the right-of-way. All retaining wall construction shall be on the building permit and have the approval of the City Engineer. That's a note needed on the final plat. You mentioned the other day, they may all the streets might have 50 foot right-of-way? We are looking, yes. Chuck wanted me to request a sidewalk on both sides of the street if you gave the additional right-of-way. On all residential class is only required on one side. Why would you give more right-of-way, what's the purpose of that? My building setback moves back and my lot width can be measured at the setback. That would be why I would want to give more right-of-way. If we make it 50 it requires sidewalks. I would like all the sidewalks to be at the edge of the right-of-way line. I highlighted on several down here that are not back at the property right-of-way. That's a minimum distance. I think what you've done is use the local street, 40 foot width, standard with greenspace and sidewalk width for 50 foot street. Isn't there a diagram somewhere? Yes. It should result at the edge of the right-of-way. It's listed as a greenspace minimum width. If you give more right-of-way we prefer to have the sidewalk at the right-of-way line and increase this greenspace. Can we do something in the middle? If this is a 40 foot right-of-way and you still have these eyebrows, is it going to impact you having a 40 foot right-of-way on that? • • Plat Review Minutes June 27, 2001 Page 21 Humbard: Conklin: Edwards: Conklin: Humbard: Petrie: Humbard: Conklin: Edwards: Humbard: Petrie: Humbard: Petrie: Humbard: Petrie: Humbard: Conklin: Just in some locations. Minimum lots like on lot 36 where it's a huge lot already but it's a triangular shape, if we had the 40 or 42 foot right-of-way and then you measure the building width at the right-of-way... This is a 50 foot radius for the cul-de-sac. That's still a 50 foot radius. Can he stick a 50 foot radius on a 40 foot wide street? He might. You have a 50 foot radius already on a 40 foot right-of-way. With the lot is measured at the building setback line. On cul-de-sacs you would have the same right-of-way. That's not a problem. That's what I'm thinking, your street would be 40 foot right-of-way... Right, but we are requesting 42 to get that. If it doesn't affect my lot lines I don't have a problem. You would have more land to sell. The problem I've been getting into is I'm having to maintain that 70 foot at the building setback and the building setback is so many feet behind the right-of-way. It keeps your right-of-way around the cul-de-sac. It shouldn't affect it. The only thing it would affect is moving the sidewalk one way or the other, it's not going to change the price of the lots or what actual land they really got. It's Just a matter of what's shown on the plat I guess. It might affect where you put your water meters, don't you put those at the right-of-way line? Usually a couple feet back. You are talking two and a half feet difference in location of the water meters. I guess sidewalk and trails are saying they want sidewalks on both sides. • • • Plat Review Minutes June 27, 2001 Page 22 Humbard: It would be lots cheaper on us to go ahead and make them 42 feet and only put sidewalks on one side. Shreve: I don't know if Tim would agree, if it's a 50 foot right-of-way then it should go out and flatten the street. Edwards: Then it will be confused throughout time. Humbard: We'll see if we can, if we got a place it won't work I'll come back and talk to you about it. Kim Rogers - Parks Operations Coordinator Rogers: May 16, 2001, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommended accepting land dedication for the property north of the Cross Creek Development pending annexation and rezoning by the developer In the case the property is not annexed or not purchased by the developer, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommends money in lieu of land. The parks staff and developer will be required to work together on determining the exact location and total acreage of the park property including accessibility to the park land and would like to meet as soon as possible to set a location for the proposed park land. Humbard: We do have a purchase agreement on the land now. It is going forward. Rogers: Until that is annexed and rezoned and the park land issue is cleared up, we won't be signing off on the final plat until that's resolved. Is there more land going to be connecting to this property now? Humbard: Not that I know of. July the 9th we have the hearing at the County and then that night we have the hearing at the Planning Commission. I sent you a copy of the advertisement. Edwards: It still has to go to City Council. Rogers: I'm not doing that until this is annexed and rezoned. This will not be signed off and completed until. Humbard: It doesn't have to go to Council because we are giving land right? • Plat Review Minutes June 27, 2001 Page 23 Rogers: See how much it comes out to be, I don't know the total units for sure. Humbard: It's about 151 units. Rogers: I don't know the total acreage yet until we figure out the park land. Humbard: We have about 4 %z acres that we can give. Rogers: If it works out that way, we will not have to go to City Council. If we have to take any money at all, like the rest of it, if it's a combination... Humbard: I expect it will be all land. Rogers: These are the issues that we'll have to work out after it's rezoned and annexed. As soon as that is done, call me. Perry Franklin - Traffic Superintendent • Franklin: You need to move the streetlight to the end of Coldwater Circle and add on at Coldwater Circle and Coldwater Lane. Move street light between 41 and 42 to between 42 and 43 and add one between 55 and 56. • Mickey Jackson - Fire Chief Jackson: The hydrant on the line between lots 35 and 36 should be moved to the street intersection on the corner of lot 34. That hydrant should go up to the intersection. The same for the hydrant between lot lines 16 and 17, move to street intersection on corner of lot 17. Sara Edwards - Associate Planner Edwards: I do still need the widths dimensioned on lots fronting a cul-de-sac at the 25 foot building setback, you need to say 70 feet or whatever. Humbard: Those are measured along the line? Edwards: Yes. The 20 foot utility easements located at the rear of lots shall be called 20 foot utility easement and building setback line. I want side and rear setbacks called out throughout. There is a 45 foot utility easement at the rear of lots 39 through 51, you've • Plat Review Minutes June 27, 2001 Page 24 got a building setback line going through the middle of that, take that off because you can't build on a utility easement. That needs to be 45 UE and BSL. Up here on lots 39 through 45, your building setback is a straight line and everywhere else it's a dashed line, you need to fix that. It's dashed here and solid. Lots 82 through 86 have a 20 foot UE called out but only 10 feet shown. Humbard: That's an existing easement that's going to have to be vacated. Edwards: I don't care what it is, I want it to say what it is. Humbard: Ron, you need 10 feet each side of that sewer line? Petrie: Yes. If you are going to have utilities on the back of those you will need a little bit bigger than 20. Humbard: Typically we have 20 foot easements and we put all the utilities in it. Petrie: Without water or sewer. • Humbard: Would 25 be alright? If we had a total of 25 and that sewer line being centered... • Petrie: You are talking about the existing sewer line. Your problem is going to be, you are going to need that easement to go all the way back to the west and touch those other Tots. It kind of sweeps down here. This may not be a non-uniform easement because you are going to want that to touch. Humbard: I don't see any problem with whatever we need down there. Edwards: My concern, I need it to show what it is. It's not a written rule but it's standard, you showed the sidewalks on the plat, the reason being is I can tell but is the sidewalk this side of the line, just shade it and take care of that. Humbard: The easement on lot 81 through 86, what are we talking about there? Edwards: That's what I was talking about. Actually, I was talking about this one coming through. Humbard: Do we need to get a hearing date set for the vacation of that easement? Petrie: Have you found the record of that? • • • Plat Review Minutes June 27, 2001 Page 25 Humbard: It's on the survey plat. Petrie: I'm interested in where. Our land agents can't find it recorded. Humbard: It's on the Allen Reed survey and it has book and page on it. Petrie: Yes, you need to. Edwards. Do you want to do it now? Petrie: It's just a sewer easement or is it a general utility easement? Humbard: I think it's for the sewer line. It said sewer easement on it. Petrie: To me that can be done at almost any time but they are certainly taking some risk that it won't be vacated. I think it's a pretty minor risk but there is some risk involved. Humbard: I would like to proceed on getting it vacated and giving you the actual easement. Conklin: You can get the application. Edwards: Let's find the new easement. Humbard: There is one other issue on an easement, there is an old house drop power line easement that comes up that was the utility line to the house. The house is no longer there but the poles are and the wire is still hanging there and there is an easement on that. Conklin: That's just for the power company. You just have to get a letter from them, the City doesn't vacate those. Edwards: Sidewalks located at the back of right-of-way. You do have this one on Newbridge that needs moved back. I don't know exactly why it isn't. Humbard: You want them all adjacent to the right-of-way. Edwards: The drainage easement on lot 5 dimensioned over here. Humbard: That's in the process of being changed a little bit because the length of that box is going • • Plat Review Minutes June 27, 2001 Page 26 to have to be lengthened because it's in a fill area right there. That easement is going to be a little bit different, I've been working on that. Edwards: If it changes, just as long as when we get to final plat it's dimensioned. I need a rear building setback added to lot 6. You see how this easement comes like this, I need it dimensioned from here to here. There is a 15 foot easement located between lots 2 and 3 and it's not centered, I need it dimensioned or centered. Ron's comments, you are doing improvements on Sunshine, I don't know if you agree to what he's recommending? Humbard: We've talked about it but I've not seen it in writing. I think it's curb on one side and not on the other, is that right, 28 foot street? Petrie: Yes. It's less than 20. Local standards on our side which is 14 foot to back of curb. County standard is 20 with a 4 foot shoulder. Edwards: I at least want you to show the sidewalk. Humbard: I've been a little worried you might make a comment on that because we don't show the back of the curb and all that stuff, we are going to add that. Edwards: Like I told you before, the developer is required to do a study on zone A. The study will have to be submitted to FEMA prior to submitting the final plat. The limits of zone A, maybe you are showing them and I don't see them, I need the limits shown and put in the legend. On the final plat, you are going to need to put a note on there providing for the maintenance of the zone A area by the property owner's association. Humbard: We've talked about extending those lot lines. Edwards: Lots 97, 79, 81, 67, 46, 45, 29 and 6 shall not access Newbridge Road. A note shall be placed on the plat reflecting this. Add a note to final plat there will be no curb cuts allowed on Sunshine. All new utilities and existing utilities under 12KV shall be placed underground. On your vicinity map, the Planning Commission is going to want to see where your connections are coming in, you need to fix this so they understand the connectivity out there. Humbard: We are just taking the latest Fayetteville map where the streets aren't showing. We'll figure out some way. • • • Plat Review Minutes June 27, 2001 Page 27 Sue Clouser - Southwestern Bell Clouser: Humbard: Clouser: Humbard: Clouser: Humbard: Clouser: Humbard: Clouser: Can we get a quad over here between 52 and 51 crossing Cross Creek Drive at the utility easement. A quad crossing here so we can be at lot 12, from 13 to 12, are we going to have an easement back here too? We are in the process of rezoning on this. It will come back through. We have to have some way to feed this. We'II probably feed it when we feed those others too. You may be requesting more. This is going to all go in at one time. I think that's it. Are we going to be able to, this is a flood zone, run cable back here? I would expect you would. I just wondered as far as grading, if it was a steep grade. It's pretty flat That's all. Thank you very much. Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: Humbard: Petrie: Most of these you've already seen. I'm going to skip through a lot of this. The minimum easements, one thing I saw lots 5 and 6 got a waterline cutting through there. I think you've shown this additional waterline. We'll need a connection, there is an 8 inch here. It's 8 from there to there and then it's 2 all the way up. We would like to get this connected, this 8 inch. That will feed everything that way but this can, wherever you want to go. I heard you make that comment but I never knew where the 8 inch was. It ends pretty close to this, at least our records show that. 90 degree bends on the construction plans, try to eliminate them where you can. Sewer, there are a few easements need a little bit to the north of lots of 87 and 90. It's drawn in, you've got this right up against that easement. We are looking for 10 feet from any utility. Even this existing easement like we talked about before. You've got it showing 15 foot, we • • Plat Review Minutes June 27, 2001 Page 28 need 20 foot. Humbard: I'll see what I've got. Petrie: You show sewer lines that were built. Humbard: You don't show an easement for the existing sewer line do you? Petrie: I don't know. They couldn't find anything is what they told me. This next comment has, just making sure this is what you want to do. Humbard: We don't show anything in this, it does come up. We'll have it when this comes back in. Petrie: Just make sure you've got your phase line where you want it shown. They may build all at one time but if they are going to come back with final plat in different phases. This is the only thing on that line. You are going to have to build this whole line just to final out this space. That's why I made the comment yesterday. Back yard sewer lines, you've seen that comment. Humbard: I've changed most of them for now. I don't know how I'm going to get away without building this one behind lots 73, 72, 71, we've shown an access road down beside it. Petrie: What you can do would be have one here and one here. I've sent the plans to Paul Hawkins, we have a little question on the lift station right here. We have a little bit of problems with it. Bridgeport was okay but we are getting close on limit. Humbard: I talked to Paul about it. He's indicated that but he's not sure what we can do to make it. He knows about the problem when we have a big rain it becomes overloaded. Petrie: That's when it happens. The Health Department is aware of that and they were very leery of approving Bridgeport. I'm bringing it up because it's an issue that might come up. There is a $200 per lot assessment to improve all this lift station and force main right there. Others are standard comments. Except number ten, this sewer line connection here and we've got this real acute angle coming in. Humbard: I'll do something different. • Petrie: Sewer main added at the end of the sewer line. Grading, I've narrowed it down to Just • • • Plat Review Minutes June 27, 2001 Page 29 Humbard: Petrie: Humbard: Edwards: Petrie: Humbard: a few comments that needs to be added to the preliminary grading plan. There is a few places where these roads meet the existing property, you've got some cut slopes. It really would have to come up to the adjacent property to make it work as shown. Just make sure you are aware of the setback requirement, 5 foot setback cut and fills on adjacent properties. So we have to stop the street short of it? You would need to change the grade to meet the existing. Drainage, number one is the same comment that we had before. You are showing these as open ditches, I'm putting you on notice that those have to be concrete if they are going to be open. The easements are the same. I didn't really go through and look at everything and see if we are okay. I know drainage will change. Number three has to do with detention. What we need if detention is not going be placed in the subdivision, we need written approval from Mr. Nottenkamper. We need that before Subdivision Committee. I've talked to Mr. Nottenkamper myself, he came into our office quite a bit and I feel a little bit better about all of this now that I've talked to him. It's a requirement that all detention be designed up front. That's why I need to make sure it's not required which is why we would have to have a written agreement. You understand where we are coming from, it all runs to the ocean and we are already there. There is a stretch there that's going to affect him. He's in an flood zone and he could mitigate it when he comes to develop but we don't need to make it worse for him. We would have to talk to him. Will they have to include that in their study, what they are doing to him? Yes. When this all gets to here there is no affect. It's just when you don't have this back water condition, it's just sitting here and we know how Pete's are going to work out, you are going to get all this. You are going to get a lot of erosion. You know that. One thing, if no detention we are looking for improvements on this drainage structure across the road. See if we can get that agreement. This discharge point here, these piping systems will drain a portion of this, so I have to look at this at this point. We will need the same kind of agreement from Mr. Hendricks. Let's not bring it across his property unless you have to. Streets, I think we've went through all of these. There is a slight chance we want to do a cost share to upgrade that to 36 foot wide street. That didn't happen at Bridgeport did it? • • • Plat Review Minutes June 27, 2001 Page 30 Petrie: Humbard: Petrie: Humbard: Petrie: Humbard: Petrie: Humbard: Petrie: Humbard: Petrie: Humbard: It's very unlikely. We'll have to get some guidance from the Public Works Director. The cul-de-sac, discussing this with Jim, we have a lot of concerns with the way this is shown, trash trucks, fire trucks. We have to look at this as a street which would throw it into street widths, minimum curbs. We tried not to put the island in it but we were told we needed the island. We've got a lot of land back there and there is no way to access it, is our problem. I need you to be creative. One thing we need to discuss a little bit label what's what out here. I don't know why we cannot show that but the pavement comes to here right now. The one thing we need to verify, we certainly wouldn't want this paved because we are only talking about phase one now. We would like that all the way up here paving, the widening for this little stretch here can be delayed when this is... From here, this is all paved. I probably would behoove us to go ahead and put the curb and widen the street all the way to there while we're at it. I don't know what the developer would recommend but that's what I would suggest to him. I just want to make sure this is not a spot that's sloped out. We may phase into this. I guess I need to show those lines. You are going to phase this too? Yes, it has to be shown or it has to come back to the Planning Commission. We've only got enough to do the first phase and then have to figure what the best part is. That really affects some of our comments, it may affect that street, this waterline connection. We'll need to see that. We are talking phase, as far as annexation and rezoning we have this line over here but the construction phases may be somewhat different. We can't build the whole thing at one time, we just can't do it. • • • Plat Review Minutes June 27, 2001 Page 31 Edwards: We are not completely in agreement with this not connecting down here. Humbard: Have you gone and looked at that or the area it would connect to? Edwards: Yes. Most likely I can see that being removed. I'm not going to place a requirement right now, he just wanted you to know that he is going to bring it up at Subdivision Committee and there will be discussion. Humbard: If we go north off of the cul-de-sac that means the distance between two streets don't meet the minimum. Edwards: How about south? Humbard: All of that can be done but our contention is that you are not getting to much down there. Edwards: Yet. Bridgeport wouldn't have known either. Humbard: I can understand on the east part but on the west part it's totally different. Edwards. We're done.