No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-10-31 - Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF TECHNICAL PLAT REVIEW A regular meeting ofthe Technical Plat Review Committee was held on Wednesday, October 31, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111 ofthe City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED LSD 01-37.00 Large Scale Development (Dandy, pp 524) Page 5 LSD 01-38.00 Large Scale Development (American Electric, pp 328) Page 16 LSD 01-39.00 Large Scale Development (Combs St. Church of Christ, pp 524) Page 23 PPL 01-6.00 Preliminary Plat • (Watkins, pp 650) Page 28 PPL 01-7.00 Preliminary Plat (Fairfield Subdivision Phase III, pp 359) Page 34 STAFF PRESENT Ron Petrie Keith Shreve Kim Hesse Tim Conklin Renee Thomas Perry Franklin UTILITIES PRESENT Sue Clauser, Southwestern Bell Johnny Boles, Arkansas Western Gas Mike Phipps, Ozark Electric Coop. • Glen Newman, SWEPCO Larry Gibson, Cox Communications Jim Sargent, SWEPCO ACTION TAKEN Forwarded Forwarded Tabled Forwarded Forwarded STAFF ABSENT Solid Waste Fire Chief Kim Rogers Sara Edwards UTILITIES ABSENT • • • Technical Plat Review Minutes October 31, 2001 Page 2 Conklin: Good morning. This is a meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee, Wednesday, October 31, 2001. The first item of business is a lot split, 01-36 for Lazenby submitted by Glen Carter of Carter Consulting on behalf of William Lazenby for property located at 3016 Mt. Comfort Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately .4 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of .18 acres and .20 acres. lam Tim Conklin, City Planner. I will briefly go over the comments from other staff members and then go around and talk with other staff that have individual comments. From the Parks and Recreation Division, the park land ordinance fees in the amount of $470 will be assessed for the one additional lot. Glen, you do have those comments with you. From the Sidewalks Division, Mt Comfort Road is a minor arterial which requires a 6' sidewalk and a minimum of 10' green space. Gooseberry Ln. Is a local street which requires a four foot sidewalk and a minimum of six feet of green space. Tract "A" requires a four foot sidewalk along Gooseberry Ln. At this location we recommend a cash contribution in lieu of sidewalk construction in the amount of$960.00. (West side 80 If x 4 foot wide x $3.00 per square foot) This amount is due before the certificate of occupancy is issued for any new construction. Tract "B" requires a four foot sidewalk along Gooseberry Ln. and a six foot sidewalk along Mt Comfort Rd. At this location we recommend a cash contribution in lieu of construction in the amount of$2,940.00 Tract "B" has an existing house which requires this amount to be paid before the lot split is filed They have made a note. However, at this time ordinance #4311 is under review and revisions may be made. The recommend fees will not be collected at this time pending the outcome of review. That would be the review by the City Council. There has been an ongoing debate with regard to this ordinance All new sidewalks, driveway approaches, or access ramps constructed in the right of way shall meet Unified Development Ordinance Section 171.13 per standards and constructed of with those cross slopes and elevated above the top of the curb. Prior to construction, if you do build these, inspection is required The next comment is from our Traffic Superintendent and he doesn't have any comments. Moving along here, from the Planning Division, all adjacent zoning is R-1. Plat page 323 is the plat page, right of way should be shown from centerline. With regard to street requirements, all the right of way on Mt. Comfort is not existing. Our records show 30' from the center line existing. Therefore, we need an additional 15'. The survey is not depicting this. Where is the discrepancy? I guess what we are looking at is Mt. Comfort Rd. is a minor arterial, as far as the 90, you are showing 90' from there to there. We show 41' at this location, what we're looking for is a total of45' from the centerline for right of way. Carter: Ok, 45' from centerline? • • Technical Plat Review Minutes October 31, 2001 Page 3 Conklin: Yes, of Mt. Comfort Rd. We are willing to discuss this. We are trying to figure out where your centerline is. Carter: What I was finding out was that the centerline ofthe street is not the centerline ofthe right of way. That is the problem I was having. It was not built on the center. We can look at that and talk about it some more though if you would like. Conklin: Yes, sure. If you could show existing right of way, I think you are showing proposed future right of way. Carter: Yes. Conklin: Ok, show existing right of way and I think that will clarify that. Carter: You want 45' from the centerline of the street? Conklin: That is what the master street plan requires for a minor arterial street. If the street is not centered then we can show that and look at that. Carter: Conklin: Ok. In order for the project to continue all the requested revisions will have to be made. 37 copies are due in the Planning Division no later than 10:00 a.m., November 7th. That is all we have from planning. Ron, do you have any comments? Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: No comments. Conklin: Any other staff members? Ok, we'll start with utility companies. Johnny Boles - Arkansas Western Gas Boles: Glen, the only thing I have is I would like for you to show a 20' easement on the north side of Mt. Comfort Rd. That is the only thing I have Mike Phipps - Ozark Electric Coop. • Phipps: The only thing I have is any relocation of existing utilities will be at the owner's expense. • • • Technical Plat Review Minutes October 31, 2001 Page 4 Carter: Ok. Sue Clauser - Southwestern Bell Clauser: I agree with Johnny on the 20' utility easement down Mt. Comfort Rd. That's it. Carter: Ok, so the only additional change is the 20' utility easement along Mt. Comfort. Conklin: That's all we have Any questions? • • • Technical Plat Review Minutes October 31, 2001 Page 5 LSD 01-37.00 Large Scale Development (Dandy, pp 524) was submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter Consulting, PA on behalf of Bnan Dandy for property located at the southwest comer of Fletcher Avenue and Rodgers Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains 0.50 acres with 12 dwelling units proposed. Conklin: Item number two is a large scale development for Dandy submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter Consulting on behalf of Brian Dandy for property located at the southwest comer of Fletcher Avenue and Rodgers Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains 0.50 acres with 12 dwelling units proposed. From the Parks and Recreation Division, the proposal submitted in the name of LSD 01-37, Dandy is in the SE park quadrant, zoned R-2, there are no comments that have been made on this. This is adjacent to Hometown Development which we are considering tomorrow at Subdivision Committee. That issue was discussed with our City Attorney. From our Sidewalks Division, Fletcher Avenue is a local street that requires a 6' sidewalk with a minimum of 6' of green space. New sidewalks, driveway approaches, or access ramps constructed in the right of way shall meet Unified Development requirements including the cross slope and the percent above the curb. Driveway approaches shall be constructed of Portland Cement Concrete. An inspection is required prior to the pour. From our Traffic Superintendent, street lights required at intersections, end of streets and every 300'. With the sight distance, make sure any landscaping on the corner is either lower than 30' or that any tree limbs are at least 8' above the ground. Other comments and recommendations include contacting the Inspection Division to see if any ADA issues apply to this residential apartment complex. From the Planning Division, any building that exceeds 20' there is an additional 1' setback for each foot over 20' so check your buildings. Street requirements, is there 40' of distance from the intersection to the curb cut if you could check that. Parking and driveway requirements, dimension your aisle widths, 24' is the minimum. The driveway is 40' not 24'. Typically our driveways are limited to 24', the radius should be 25' coming off of Fletcher into that driveway. All utilities need to be placed underground. Once again, those revisions will need to be made. They are due in the Planning Division's office by Wednesday November 7, 2001 at 10:00 a.m. Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: Glen, just on the water, it appears that the water that is shown connects straight from the public main to you, it bypasses your meter. Do you see your water line? I am just asking you to clarify it so it will appear like it is going to the meter first. Carter: Oh, I see, you are saying it doesn't look like it goes to the meters. • • Technical Plat Review Minutes October 31, 2001 Page 6 Petrie: With your grading, we can turn back to that standard checklist. I'm just going to hit some of the highlights here, you can read the rest of them. Some of the things that might require the change of the plan is note number 2, you've got a retaining wall for that dumpster pad that goes up against the property line. You still have the same 5' setback requirement there. Carter: Oh, ok. Petrie: Of course all the retaining walls will need traffic rails, handrails because ofthe proximity to your driveway and the height of those. Speaking ofthe height, that is note number 6, if you could put on here the exact height of these drawings. Carter: Ok. Petrie: It looks like to me that all of your adjacent property owners aren't shown on this plan. Carter: The city owns all the way around I think. Oh, we didn't show that, ok. Petrie: We still have some on the other side of Rogers. I don't know who has all been notified and not notified. Carter: Ok. Petrie: If you can show your grading associated with the sidewalk. Carter: Oh, ok. Petrie: Also, there is in the northwest comer of the site where a driveway is, at least it looks like to me that you will have to extend the retaining wall up further to the north. You've got a proposed contour line of 1256 where it hits the back of the curb and the existing elevation is about 1249. That is a 7 foot drop off there with nothing proposed. It just looks like it is kind of incomplete right there in that corner. There is another item on that grading checklist that requires to show any existing proposed building within 100' ofthe site. We know we've got proposed buildings right adjacent to this. Carter: Ok. Would that include the tank next door over here? Petrie: No, I wouldn't consider that. Moving on to the drainage, I will need a private drainage • easement and anoint use agreement for that detention pond on the adjacent property. • • Technical Plat Review Minutes October 31, 2001 Page 7 Conklin: Ron, let me just interrupt you on that issue I am a little concemed because we've debated about whether or not this is one or two projects, Hometown and Dandy. I understand there are two property owners. I dealt with Greg House, he owns many of these anequated lots on Mt. Sequoyah and he has asked me the same question, tt is zoned R-2, can I go in and develop pieces? You know, I don't want a whole bunch together, I just want pieces. I made a ruling, I told Greg this and I told you this and Bob Schmitt that I will agree to that because we have lots that were created all the way back to 1910 that exist up there. As long as you can develop those lots independently from other property, you know, meet all the grading setbacks, meet all the building setbacks, don't cross property lines, stand alone. Now we are developing apiece of property and the only way it can be developed is by combining it with the property to the west and you are not paying parks fees because it is not a large scale development, or it is a large scale development, but because it is under an acre our City Attorney thought that the only reason why you are dong this is because I required that to make sure all the ordinances would be met because of the street requirements. I am bringing this up because I want to make sure I'm being consistent with what I tell Mr. Greg House who owns property just down the street and what you are doing with your detention pond. I guess one question is can you develop this all together and meet our ordinancesjust for Mr. Dandy without going on to Mr. Schmitt's property because you are not going to be grading across property lines or anything. Carter: Yes we can but it was requested that wejoin the detention ponds together for just to make things simpler and for easier maintenance. Conklin: Ok, the whole issue is, now we have two curb cuts, we have two large scale developments going at the same time. We could end up with one curb cut possibly, but you are going to have two curb cuts side by side up there. One may be more appropriate. We're going through large scale. I think the biggest issue for me is the parks fees which is now, we are combining in my mind, I don't care how many owners we have, we have developments with multiple owners that come in and develop together, a large scale development. I am concemed you're breaking this apart, not going through a process that other people have to go through. I will discuss that with the Subdivision Committee and Planning Commission too. Petrie: Are you saying I requested it? Carter: I thought that is what you said. Would you like two separate detention ponds? Petrie: I could care less. I can't imagine that I told you something like that. I think we might have • discussed it and I said either way it doesn't matter. • • Technical Plat Review Minutes October 31, 2001 Page 8 Carter: Maybe I requested it and you seemed to think that would be ok. Anyway, by putting those together it gives you the feeling Tim that these projects are one project is that the concern? Conklin: That is the perception I get because you can't develop this project without going on to Mr.Schmitt's property for the detention pond and from the beginning. This was just the beginning of the development on Mt. Sequoyah. Schmitt is not the only one. Dandy, House, I'm dealing with other people. I want to treat them all equally and I have many lots out there that are just sitting on paper and all the sudden we are grading more than an acre and combining properties that are more than an acre and you are avoiding the large scale development process and avoiding parks fees. I'm trying to do my job here. The public is going to come in and they are going to look and they are going to say "Tim, they are going across property lines here, it is really one large scale development." Carter: Ok, we can develop Mr. Dandy's property regardless of Mr. Schmitt. If he was tabled for 12 months, Mr. Dandy could develop his property just as we have it here with the exception of the detention pond which we've already designed one that will fit on the property but we felt like it would be, we look at it like this, I realize you have to address that and you have to be concemed about that when you meet the public and when you have to assure the public that you are dealing equally with all people that come to you for a project, or come to the city. Conklin: And developers. I am more worried about the developers than the public. Carter: It is like if we put in a Wendys down here on College Ave. and then next door we put in a bar -b -q place and it is like the city says "Would you all mind sharing driveways?" or something, sure, I mean you know, we'll share and it makes it more cost efficient but that doesn't mean it is one project. Well, what about the grading in between the two projects. You know, we'll work with the people next to us to try to make things work. If you want us to develop separately we can. If we work with the guys next door that is going to look bad to the public? Well, maybe it will, maybe they'll think we're doing something to try to escape. I have discussed this matter with Brian Dandy and with Bob Schmitt. Brian Dandy is not in any way business connected to Bob Schmitt. He knows Bob Schmitt and they are friends and they talk to each other and Brian Dandy likes Bob Schmitt's project so much so that he wants to build a mirror image of it in a similar place. I realize that makes it look like one project. Conklin: Yes, and I'm trying to come up with criteria for Greg House. He met with me and he • owns all the way down to Olive Street. Questions that developers ask me is "When do • • • Technical Plat Review Minutes October 31, 2001 Page 9 I have to go through large scale development?" That is what I have to deal with. I am trying to treat everybody the same. My response has been, I put it in writing for Mr. House is that if you can develop those anequated lots, those old lots together, less than an acre, you meet all the setbacks for grading, storm water, everything else, that is fine but I don't want you grading the whole hillside and putting detention in a different place and saying that is not part of the development because then it is going to be over an acre and I guess for me, I consider that part of the development. Carter: We'll separate the detention ponds, that is not a problem. Conklin: Ok, and I'm not trying to make it hard on you guys. You've got two large scale developments here. Carter: We are going through large scale development. Conklin: I guess the other issue is you could, I would be willing to combine the detention ponds, but pay the parks fees and do one curb cut and combine them together because 1 think as a city we all benefit. Carter: I think it would be beneficial too if there was one curb cut and a shared access. I think something like that would work but the issue of the parks fees is a matter that I have absolutely nothing to do with and I understand your concern about it but I don't know what answer to give you on that, if there is any required. I can tell you that this project from an engineering standpoint could stand alone. I could tell you that these guys could save some money if they put their detention ponds together but if that causes problems, we've got room we could put the detention pond over here on Dandy's property. Conklin: I mean I have already told another developer what he needed to do not to go through large scale and this developer is not doing what I told him to do and Mr. Schmitt to do. Mr. Dandy and Mr. Schmitt are not connected together and now they are developing on other property to make it work. I prefer one detention pond or considered in my mind, together, pay parks fees. Lets talk about one curb cut. Sorry Ron, I just wanted to discuss that issue because when the public comes in and other developers come in and look at this they are going to say "Well you treated Dandy differently from Mr. Schmitt and Mr. House." I don't want that. Carter: I see no reason, I don't know, did you require Mr. House to go through large scale development? • Technical Plat Review Minutes October 31, 2001 Page 10 Conklin: He hasn't done his project yet. Carter: Oh, ok. Conklin: I put it in writing so he could rely on my interpretation of the ordinance so when he would come in for a building permit my staff would issue it. He has that letter. Carter: Petrie: We will try to do whatever we can to work with you. I don't want to get in to the position of trying to find a developer that got away with something that we didn't. I don't want to play that. I realize that you have to face that issue. I understand that and I certainly appreciate your position. We can discuss that some more and I will discuss with the developers this issue of combining and paying parks fees and 1 can discuss it with them. Then it is out of my hand to do anything with. Just remember that we're meeting at 8:30 tomorrow at Subdivision Committee meeting for your other project. It doesn't show a combined detention pond. I don't think you want to be going into that meeting with this hanging over to be discussed and decided.. • Conklin: The large scale tomorrow that we're looking at tomorrow doesn't show this combined detention pond? Petrie: Right. Carter: That's right. Conklin: How are they supposed to review those plans then? Carter: Well, because it is independent. I thought that is what you asked. Bob Schmitt is going to do his project independent of Brian Dandy so his pond is not required to be this big. Brian Dandy can be this big unless you want them to separate. Conklin: I say if you can put them together, you can consider it one large scale, parks fees apply. If you want to separate them Kit Williams has already made his interpretation on that as our City Attorney and that is fine. That is where we are at, it kind ofconcems me that we are considering a large scale tomorrow that may change with regard to the detention pond. Glen, why don't you get with both of your clients since you represent Mr. Schmitt with Hometown Development and Mr. Dandy and discuss that with them? • Carter: Ok, sure I will. • • • Technical Plat Review Minutes October 31, 2001 Page 11 Petrie: If you put that detention pond strictly on this lot can you get your 20' setback? Carter: The detention pond for this lot is surprisingly small because the drainage area that goes in to Bob Schmitt's comes offofBnan Dandy. Brian Dandy's water goes onto Bob Schmitt and Bob Schmitt ends up taking care of it. The actual amount of water that Brian Dandy has for his pond is very small. Petrie: I would have to look at that because we've got two sets of buildings which completely block any drainage. Carter. Ok. Petrie: Carter: The numbers that I saw anyway, that you included, did not include any of the drainage coming off from the east onto the site. You used an onsite area and that was it. It looks like there is drainage back to the east that drains and maybe a culvert on that Rogers Drive. It looks like there may be just looking at this profile. I'm very well aware of the drainage up there. There is a culvert under Rogers Drive that directs the water into a ditch along Fletcher and down Fletcher and does not enter into the site. The water up above, north and east of Rogers Drive, all drains to this ditch which goes down and is routed around this site. None of that water reaches the site. The access road to these tanks on the east creates a natural barrier and prevents water from going over on the site. Our drainage area did go up to that area and include water that was off the property that came over onto our site. I'll review the drainage area and make sure it has done what I said it did, but the last time I looked it did. Petrie: It went up to the driveway? Carter: Yes Sir, it should have. I thought it went up to the center of Rogers Drive because I saw a crown in it and water going both ways. The water going to the northeast is routed around the site. The water going to the southwest does come onto the site. I've studied this. Conklin: Let us know by tomorrow what the plan is with regard to the combined detention pond or a single. What 1 want to make sure that we do here at the city, as city employees, is tell you so you can tell your client exactly what it is going to take to get this project approved. It has taken a long time, I understand that. I want to make sure we're clear, exactly. I don't want Mr. Schmitt's project to be tabled because Mr. Dandy is considering combining his, or enlarging Mr. Schmitt's detention pond. I am worried about that for • • Technical Plat Review Minutes October 31, 2001 Page 12 tomorrow. The Chairman ofthe Commission, Bob Estes, will be sitting in on this project for Mr. Schmitt tomorrow with two other Commissioners, I want to make sure it is clear that we know what we're doing and what the project is going to look like and I don't want the project to be tabled. That is the last thing I want for you and your clients to be tabled tomorrow. Let's see ifwe can get it worked out. Carter: What I submitted was in my opinion, exactly what I was told how to submit it. The detention pond for Bob Schmitt plus the grading and drainage plan for Bob Schmitt you know, independently of Brian Dandy. Maybe I misunderstood that if that is not what you thought Ron. Petrie: I would never say something like that. I think you should show what is requested, not hypotheticals. What is being requested is this. If I did, then I was mistaken. Carter: We came up with a question. We've got two detention ponds and two drainage reports. We can submit either one. I thought I asked you which one you wanted and I thought you wanted Bob Schmitt without the expansion of Brian Dandy. That is what I thought you told me and that is exactly why I did it that way. I wondered why are we doing that because Brian Dandy comes along and wants to extend the pond it is going to be different. We can do either one but now is not a good time to find out we needed to do the other one. Petrie: I have no recollection of us even discussing this. I'm not saying we didn't but I don't remember it. I Just think we should show what is being requested. That is one of the problems that planning has ifwe don't show what is being requested. Even ifwe have a stand alone pond of course we need to revise the numbers and we need the water spread map showing that it is all going onto the site. You should break down separately, flows coming onto the site, 2 to 100 year storms. Flows on the site and then flows off the site. That is how it is required to be submitted. I didn't have that data either. Carter: Flows coming onto the site? Petrie: Yes. In your manual, §1.2 it states the requirements, preliminary and final. There are seven items that are required to be submitted. Just to finish up and move on, streets, we have a requirement or a recommendation, for Schmitt to widen 14' for curb and gutter. I think that same recommendation would stand on this one too. That is all I have. Conklin: From our Landscape Administrator, the limits of tree protection is to be indicated on the • plan including sap east of the proposed retaining wall trees that are to remain along the • • • Technical Plat Review Minutes October 31, 2001 Page 13 rights of ways and all areas where construction activity will affect adjacent trees offsite. Please review the approved tree protection detail notes and make necessary revisions. Kim, would you like to add anything in light of my interpretations and how I'm trying to deal with this in regard to it doesn't meet the tree preservation ordinance? Do they need to plant any extra trees? Hesse: Well they haven't shown any. Do you have a tree and landscape manual? Carter: I think I do. Hesse: You might look at it for the policies. Carter: I don't have the recently passed revisions. Hesse: I'll send those out next month. Conklin: We have the manuals in our office. The landscape manual that you can find the details if you don't, if you haven't picked one up recently. It just came out a couple of months ago. They are free. If you need the ordinance, we have the ordinance in our office too. Utilities. Glen Newman - SWEPCO Newman: Glen, you are showing a 10' utility easement along the west side along the back of the building, is that the entire length? Carter: Yes. Newman: We have overhead facilities there so what we can do, that 10' right next to the building, it is going to crowd us because we can't do anything any closer than 4' to the building to operate the thing and then that leaves the gas company with nothing. Carter: There is 10' on the west side too. Newman: Oh, ok. Carter: There exists 20' of utility easement there. Newman: On the opposite? The adjacent property there. • • Technical Plat Review Minutes October 31, 2001 Page 14 Carter: Conklin: Newman: Conklin: Newman: Yes. Did you say you have overhead facilities? Where are those located? They are currently along Fletcher, along the south side. What KV are those? That's 12KV. Conklin: Ok. Newman: Anything inside this will be underground and we will coordinate that with the adjacent property and the adjacent developer. Any relocation will be at the developers expense. Johnny Boles - Arkansas Western Gas Boles: Glen, which side do you plan on servicing from? The east or the west? Carter: Well, I guess I'll be on the west side Boles: I'm going off of memory, did we not place utility easements when this went through before on the south side of Fletcher Street? I thought that we had. Maybe I'm overlooking it but I don't see it shown. Carter: Ok, I'll have to review it. Boles: I thought that we had requested a 20' utility easement on the south side of Fletcher Street. Carter: I think it is one of these situations where we don't really own the property or we didn't on the other one. I think Sue requested 20' on the other one. That is all that Center Street right of way, 30' right of way that comes up through there. On this property as we get closer to the road up there the property line does come up to the pavement so I guess there is a piece of our property there that would be involved in some of that easement. We could certainly give you an easement up there if you need it. Boles: That is all I have. • Carter: So you need a 20' easement there kind of like along the pavement? Technical Plat Review Minutes October 31, 2001 Page 15 Boles: In the green space off the pavement. Sue Clauser - Southwestern Bell Clauser: I agree with Johnny for the 20' utility easement. Larry Gibson - Cox Communications Gibson: I also agree with the utility easement. Our distribution will try to route the same as the electric company does so we'll come off this underground over on this west side. You said there is a 10' easement adjacent to this 10' easement? So a total of 20? Carter: Yes. There is 10' over there so there is a total of 20. Gibson: Ok, one more thing I would like you to be aware of. We do have some fiberoptic ducts running on the south side of Fletcher that would cross the entrance. Carter Are those I saw that were recently placed? Gibson: Right. Those are 11/4" fiber ducts. I would like to see that noted on these prints if you would just for our information and yours too. Any relocation of or damage to Cox Communications facilities will be at the owner's expense. Carter: Do you know how deep those are? Gibson: They bored those things in there and I'm thinking they are going to be approximately 3' deep. Does that mess you up? Carter: I don't know. We just would like to make the driveway. We'll deal with it. Our sewers that we are going to put in are back here. Conklin: That is fiber for what sections? Gibson: For the south and east section of Fayetteville. I can't remember the name of the street if you are going back from this location, back to the west, the first street that tums. It goes from that intersection right there underground and then it goes overhead back to there. That comes from Mt. Sequoyah utility. Conklin: Ok. Does anybody else have any comments with regard to this development? • • • Technical Plat Review Minutes October 31, 2001 Page 16 LSD 01-38.00 Large Scale Development (American Electric, pp 328) was submitted by Ms. Carole Jones of McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc. on behalf of Mr. Ashley Beasley of American Electric Power for property located at 2201 N. Gregg Street The property is zoned 1-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 9.08 acres with a proposed electrical substation. Conklin: The next item is Large Scale Development 01-38, American Electric submitted by Carole Jones of McClelland Consulting Engineers on behalf of Mr. Ashley Beasley of American Electric Power for property located at 2201 N. Gregg Street. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 9.08 acres with a proposed electrical substation. Here are some comments for you Carole. I will briefly go over these. From our Park and Recreation Division, we are interested in discussing a possible conservation easement or other conveyance of land adjacent to Skull Creek. This piece of land could be used as a part of the city's future trail and green way development. The city is very interested in obtaining land along Skull Creek for a north/south trail corridor. Exact easement boundaries will need to be determined in the field. The property includes approximately 300' of creek frontage in the northwest comer of the property. All of the easement would be located in the hundred year floodplain. Since this is not a residential development you are not subject to the park land dedication ordinance but we thought we would ask and seeing if American Electric would be interested in working with us on developing a trail and green way system along Skull Creek. Schuldt: Steve Hatfield is here. He would like to get with you after the meeting and exchange cards. Jones: Ok. Conklin: Steve is our Trail and Greenway Coordinator for the City of Fayetteville. From our Sidewalks Division, Greg Avenue is a minor arterial which requires a 6' sidewalk and a minimum of 10' of green space. The sidewalk is to be constructed on the east side of Greg Avenue. Sidewalk Division personnel will meet with the construction crew for the exact location. New sidewalk driveway approaches or access ramps constructed in the right of way shall meet UDO requirements including slope and percent above the top of the curb. The driveways need to be of Portland Cement Concrete. Keith, would you like to explain what you're looking for? This is Keith Shreve. Shreve: What we've done to the north with Upchurch Electric is actually we build the sidewalk on the east side of Gregg along Swepco frontage. We think that is where the pedestrian traffic is going to be and we would like to continue that. We would just like you to have • • • Technical Plat Review Minutes October 31, 2001 Page 17 a small length of frontage on what we call the Old Gregg. If it is possible we would like to get that on the east side of Gregg. Conklin: It looks like 145.56 feet of frontage ifl'm reading that right. We're not asking you to build a sidewalk all up and down Gregg Street. Shreve: Just that 145' lane. It would probably be on the north end towards Township and we're trying to connect from there. Conklin: From Perry Franklin, our Traffic Superintendent, a street light is required every 300' of frontage on Gregg. Are we requiring a street light? Franklin: If there is not one there. Conklin: Along this old Gregg? Franklin: There are existing poles in there so if there is not one it is no big deal to hang one on there. I'll take a look at it, I meant to get out there and didn't. If we need one I'll give you a call. Conklin: From the Planning Division, a floodplain development permit will be required prior to any work in the floodplain. Sara Edwards is the Flood Plain Administrator for Fayetteville and you can get with her. It looks like all the poles are sited outside the floodway so that shouldn't be any problem. I am sure that you have standards to make sure they don't topple over during a flood. Jones: Conklin: Jones: Conklin: Yes. I have one of those in works already. Ok, 25' of right of way shall be dedicated along the south property line for Elm Street. This is something that we have not discussed and we have had pre -application meetings with you so I apologize for not bringing that up. Ridout Lumber dedicated street right of way for Elm Street when they came through large scale. Ok, so you are just saying continue that across? Yes. 25' across there for the street in the future. That is all we have from the Planning Division. Jones: Your plat page number is different from mine. I'll check that. • • • Technical Plat Review Minutes October 31, 2001 Page 18 Conklin: Jones: Conklin: Is it? Yes, and she marked it. I'll check it and see. That's planning. This is from Kim Hesse. The limits of tree protection fencing is to be indicated in the grading tree protection plan along with the city's standard tree protection detail. Please put all existing preserved and proposed tree percentage numbers on the plan for review by the Subdivision Committee. Ron Petrie will go over his comments at this time. Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: Jones: Campbell: Jones: Petrie: Jones: Petrie: Jones: Petrie: Is this existing house going to remain or is it going to be torn down? This is Michael Campbell. We are looking to relocate it somewhere or tear it down. It won't remain on the site as it is. It will be removed or something. If it was going to remain I just had some questions on the septic system location and water meters. There won't be any water meters needed or sewer for this facility at all. That eliminates all the comments I have under water and sewer. Grading, I don't have any comments on that, it looks good. Drainage, just some additional information is required. Provide the offsite flows entering the site for 2 through 100 year rainfall event and the total flows leaving the site 2 through 100 flows. I don't really remember, I reviewed this a few days ago so we can get together later. Then, looking at it, the storm water will go offsite down towards Skull Creek so we have some concerns about increased flow onto the adjacent property. We may be looking at a small detention pond. They are slightly increased, just a couple of cfs. Ok, we can discuss that. I didn't make this comment. I meant to type this in there and left it off so you may want to write this down. The dedication of the street... The 70'? Yes. Do you know what the radius is being proposed? • • • Technical Plat Review Minutes October 31, 2001 Page 19 Jones: Petrie: I think this is 100' radius right here. Can you label that? I have got a requirement on street standards for collector streets centerline radius is at 200' minimum. Jones: 2001 Petrie: Yes. That is something that we may need to deal with there. Jones: Yeah, I'm pretty sure it is 1001. I'm not sure if we can get a 200 radius in there. What we are trying to do obviously, is tie into this 80' on this over here. Obviously, stay off the power poles up here, you know, swing around. I'll just have to look at it and see if there is enough to put a 200 in there and see what it comes out. Petrie. We would want some right of way that we could actually build a street on, not really too tight of a curve there. Jones: So 200' is the minimum. Ok. Conklin: Steve will get with you at the possibility of looking at a green way and trail. This remnant piece that is up here that has created something from a planning perspective I don't have to create those because under zoning you really can't do anything with them. Jones: I know, it really needs to be that whole corner probably. Conklin: That is just my opinion, it is pretty much an unbuildable piece of property. Jones: Ok. Conklin: Utilities? Jim Sargent - SWEPCO Sargent: No comment. Johnny Boles - Arkansas Western Gas Boles: No comment. • • • Technical Plat Review Minutes October 31, 2001 Page 20 Sue Clauser - Southwestern Bell Clauser: I am not that familiar at all with this area. Is there any reason why we wouldn't have an easement through here? What is over on this side? I was going to ask for a utility easement around the whole perimeter. Jones: You have a phone pedestal up here in this corner. Conklin: This is Ridout Lumber. Clauser: I know where it is at but I can't really picture how it is setup. Conklin: Then Sweetser is doing the ministorage to the north. Jones: Skull Creek runs through and then apartments to the west and residential to the south. Clauser: What about the Elm Street where you asked to have that right of way for the street dedication? Is there something that we might need to get to in the future if that is developed back there? I'm thinking about getting a utility easement along where you're asking for the street dedication. Conklin: The only thing I can think of is American Electric would sale that south half of the property off and maybe develop it residential or something but we haven't even talked about that. Sargent: I figure at that time if they did split it off we could get the easement then. Clauser: I'll probably take a drive by there and then if I could get your phone number and if 1 have anything to add I'll call you. Other than that, I don't have any comments. Thank you. Larry Gibson - Cox Communications Gibson: This is home, the old Frank house is going to be removed. Ok, so there is no reason to have cable service? Jones: Right. When they widen this road out they are going to have to remove that overhead t.v. line. Gibson: Ok, no comment. • Technical Plat Review Minutes October 31, 2001 Page 21 Conklin: Campbell: Petrie: Conklin: Petrie: • Campbell: Petrie: Campbell: Conklin: Campbell: Conklin: Campbell: Conklin: Campbell: Conklin: • One question that staff had yesterday, I remember early on you talked about putting poles down over to Gregg Street. Is that going to be in that 70' right of way? One of the things I remember we were talking about yesterday in house when we were looking at this, there were plans to put overhead electric over to Gregg Street and up Gregg Street for a certain distance. Is that going to be within that 70' right of way dedication? Possibly, possibly not. I'm not sure exactly how we will route those lines out. I don't know if we need to dedicate a utility easement on our own property. If we do, then we certainly don't mind listing those building setbacks as easements or even expanding that 10' setback on the east side to be larger. My only comment is that it is not going to interfere with a possible future street. Ok, that is the question I was trying to ask. You are out of the 70' street dedication right of way. Is there anything at this time to go on Gregg Street? One of the feeders that we will tie into basically stops at that northeast comer so we would be tying into the tail end of the circuit that exists there now. Ok, no new lines on Gregg Street then? No, we would just be tying into what is there. That's on the east side of Gregg? It is on the west side of Gregg. Ok. It kind of runs along that frontage road. So we won't have new poles crossing Gregg? Not at this time. Ok, Ron's concern is we're widening the road. • • • Technical Plat Review Minutes October 31, 2001 Page 22 Petrie: We're buying right of way from the railroad and all that. Conklin: Did anybody else have any comments on this? Thank you Carole. • • • Technical Plat Review Minutes October 31, 2001 Page 24 Rudasill: No, all of our sidewalk issues will be addressed and we'll make sure they meet requirements. Conklin: Ok, from the Planning Division, a disk is required prior to the permit. One large board mounted elevation, 8'A x 11 for all four sides required with next submittal with proposed materials/color. Waiver will need to be requested for a 100' setback from residential zones. That is something staff will support. The plat does not adequately show the right of way as we talked about. We are going to have to table this until that vacation is approved. We can not be processing a project on city property. That vacation process is one of the longer processes that we have here at the city. It takes a city ordinance and Planning Commission approval at City Council. We are looking at by the time that you get all the different people to sign offon that including the utility companies to vacate that, two to three month process I would say. It does take an ordinance which takes three readings at City Council. We will work with you and get you the names of the contacts and try to get this going here. Rudasill: Just a quick question about the ordinance. Can this possibly fall under the emergency clause? Conklin: Yes. Still with Southwestem Bell, you send this to Little Rock, it is not just a phone call. Rudasill: I understand that. Clauser: The sooner the better with that as we have found out. Rudasill: Well the first thing we need to do is sit down and figure out what we want to do. Like I say, we hunted and hunted for this document and couldn't find it. Finally I got it. We are still trying to find out why the easement goes right through the existing building. It has been there forever. Conklin: I would say two weeks to get the utilities to sign off is probably a reasonable time. It is a 45 day process from application to submittal to Planning Commission. Two week lay time to send that up through our city process, we have a City Council agenda and so it kind of gives you an idea, a minimum of two months, that is with all three readings at one meeting which may not be a problem. Rudasill: Ok, well we can get it. Technical Plat Review Minutes October 31, 2001 Page 25 Conklin: Curb cuts must be 40' from the intersections. Bicycle racks shall be provided. 15' of landscaping required along right of way, show parking lot lights. This parking right here, we typically don't allow parking to back into streets. The maximum we can have is two spaces for a residential driveway. I know this is probably existing. Rudasill: Yes. It is an existing gravel drive and then they have parking stalls along that edge of the building. Because of the street issue, we didn't know whether it was private, public, whether the right of way actually existed or not at that time. We had proposed that this be a private drive connection and that those stalls could be preserved. Conklin: I'll take a closer look at that. We're trying to improve the situation. We'll look at that. We had to do this with the Wiggins Church also when they expanded their parking lot, the street was in the right of way and the right of way went across their land. It is not an easy situation. A fence or vegetation will be required along the south parking lot and all utilities shall be underground. Since we are going to table this until we can get this worked out we' Il have time to get the revisions in, just let us know and we'll work together to get that through the process. Under commercial design standards review, all mechanical utility equipment needs to be screened. 15' landscape between the parking and the property line is required. Trash dumpster will need to be screened. We will need a site coverage note. We will need the elevation drawings. That is all that I have This is from Kim Hesse. The limits of tree protection fencing is to be indicated on the plan along the city's standard tree protection detail and notes. Label the existing trees with species and diameter at current site. Replacement trees are to be a minimum of 2" caliper at the time of planting. Ron, do you want to go ahead? Rudasill: We'll provide drainage for you Ron, we've got plenty of time to take care of that. Petrie: I didn't receive a drainage plan. It doesn't appear that there is a good place to discharge storm water. Rudasill: What I would propose and what I've planned, and I didn't bring a plat with me, but we will provide several pickup points within the parking lot to provide drainage in the parking lot and take it to that inlet that is on the northwest comer and then the remaining drainage which is on the south side, the grassy area is what would be allowed to go where it has been going in the past. Petrie. Ok. I need some information. That downstream, my guess is your plans will have a detention pond. • • Technical Plat Review Minutes October 31, 2001 Page 26 Rudasill: Yeah, detention in the parking is what we're going to provide. Petrie. Oh, in the parking is what you're saying? Rudasill: Yeah, in the parking area. We'll do this in the parking lot. Petrie: Some of the other things to look at before we bring it back. If you can verify where the nearest fire hydrant is and determine ifthat meets our requirements. I don't think Mickey Jackson had any requirements. Conklin: Rudasill: Petrie: I don't have any from him. I think there is one right there, it is just not shown on the plat. It wasn't on the property, it was just off the property so it didn't get shown. You can check to see if they are planning on a sprinkler system for the new building and show any new proposed water and sewer service lines, meter locations so we can make comments on those. Rudasill: Ok. Glen Newman - SWEPCO Newman: Bill, can we get a 15' utility easement on the east, west and north and any relocation of the facilities will be at the customer's expense. We can work out the details as far as service with whether you want to go with me or whatever you want to do. Johnny Boles - Arkansas Western Gas Boles: No comment. Sue Clauser - Southwestern Bell Clauser: I agree with the easement request from power and that is all. Larry Gibson - Cox Communications Gibson: I also agree with the easement request for power. When they do determine where your • electricity is going to feed in your building, if you want cable tv in there we will require a • • • Technical Plat Review Minutes October 31, 2001 Page 27 2" PVC from that location to within 3' of an electric meter with 36" radius sweeps on each end. Now Glen, on this pole over here on the north side that they are going to relocate, that is just to avoid the driveway? Newman: That is just to clear the access and go on the island. Gibson: Ok, any relocation of or damage to Cox Communication facilities will be at the owner's expense. That is all I have. Conklin: All the electric out there, what kind is it? Newman: It is all overhead. Conklin: Ok. Anybody else? Rudasill: I will get with you after this meeting to discuss the right ofway issues and what we are going to do and then we'll go over that. It is just a little more confusing than just vacating the right of way. Conklin: Yeah, I don't want you to just vacate all the right ofway, vacate some of the right ofway that in my opinion is not needed. You can get with my staff in there if you want to set up a meeting so you don't have to wait and they can put it on my calendar. • • • Technical Plat Review Minutes October 31, 2001 Page 28 PPL 01-6.00 Preliminary Plat (Watkins, pp 650) was submitted by Bob Hill ofNickle-Hill Group, Inc. on behalf of Lorene Watkins Trust for property located at 2551 Mally Wagnon Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 40 acres with 10 lots proposed. Conklin: The next item is a preliminary plat, 01-6.00 submitted by Bob Hill ofNickle-Hill Group on behalf of Lorene Watkins Trust for property located at 2551 Mally Wagnon Road. The property is in the planning area and contains approximately 40 acres with 10 lots proposed. I will start with staff comments. From our Sidewalks Division, there are no sidewalk comments. From our Traffic Superintendent, he recommends street lighting at each intersection at the end of street and every 300 feet, I don't think we can require it but we are recommending it. Perry is out but I'm pretty sure that is the case. From our Parks and Recreation, it is in a rough area, you don't have to provide park facilities for the future residents out there. From the Planning Division, please submit a diskette. No zoning requirements. Is this 40 acres existing in its own tract or is it coming from a larger parent tract? Reed: She owns some other acreage out there but I believe this is on one deed and the other acres are on a separate deed. Conklin: When was that deed created? Prior to 1980? Reed: Oh yes. Conklin: Yes. Hill: There may have been a deed from her and her husband to a trust if that counts. Conklin: I think it is ok. Ijust wanted to make sure that we don't have any illegal lot splits out there that we needed to get taken care of because now is the time to take care of them if they exist. Reed: Conklin: Ok. County approval is required. I don't have Mickey Jackson's comments from the fire department, I will get those to you. He is recommending a fire hydrant and I will get those to you. Petrie: Have you talked to Mickey about that? • • • Technical Plat Review Minutes October 31, 2001 Page 29 Conklin: I have talked to Dennis Ledbetter, our interim Fire Chief. He is making a recommendation, it is not a requirement in our planning area, his recommendation is to put the fire hydrants out there even though there is only a 4" line at this time because ifthere is a fire it is still better to have the capability I guess to hook to a fire hydrant with a 4" line verses no fire hydrant. That is what Dermis Ledbetter told me yesterday. Petrie: That is different than Mickey's comments. Conklin: That it is required? I don't think we can require fire hydrants in our planning area. Petrie: Well Mickey's comments was to run an 8" all the way down. Reed: From what? Petrie: From the existing 8" . Conklin: I didn't ask that question. I was more concerned about requiring fire hydrants in our planning area. Petrie: We can discuss that one later. I don't think you can put fire hydrants in places where you can't get fire flow and as a matter of fact by our code you can't. Conklin: Ok. Petrie: We will contact the fire department and then get back with you on that. Hill: Can a hydrant be there where the 8" line is. The 8" line is there on Vantoose is that correct? Petrie: No. It is a 4" PVC there. The 8" is down on the highway. Hill: You can't put a hydrant on a 4"? Petrie: No Sir. You can't get the proper fire flow through it to be adequate. If you put one in there then you've just got a false sense of security there. It just won't work. Reed: Petrie: You need 6" right? Really, 6" would work. Technical Plat Review Minutes October 31, 2001 Page 30 Conklin: Petrie: Ron, will you call Mickey or Dennis Ledbetter and figure that out? Ok. We do have a stretch of road here and lots that don't have access to water so we would need a waterline extension Leo Ammons Road . We require that waterline is extended to the property line so that water can be extended back all the way to the south side of the subdivision line. Our requirements now for a line, a dead end line such as this would be 8" which is what we would have to require Even though you are tying into a four we would have to get an 8" piece. Someday all this will be replaced along that loop so it is good policy in that the next guy down here is going want to extend it and then on and on so we don't start off with the wrong size. That is what the standards require, 8" extended to the south property line down that road. The plans show a water meter, I believe it is a water meter on lot 6 against the road. Is that a water meter? Reed: That came off your plans. I have never dug it up but it was on your water and sewer. Petrie: Are there any houses that that could be feeding? Reed: There is a house east of there but there is another meter on your plan for that one too. Petrie: Ok, so there isn't an old meter or something like that? Reed: There has never been another house on this property except for the one that is existing so I don't know why that was put in there. Petrie: It could've been used for some type of service for cattle. Reed: Well it could be, I think I saw a hydrant way at the southeast comer, a spicket for cattle. Petrie: All that will need to be abandoned. Reed: Ok. There is no house in this area, there never has been unless they applied for a tap or something when they put the water line in. Hill: I know there is a water line running in this 63 acres back here. The guy that owned all this let somebody put a waterline across there. Could that possibly be somebody's water meter that lives way over here? Petrie: That is what I'm asking. • Technical Plat Review Minutes October 31, 2001 Page 31 Hill: I don't know what is over here but there is through this 63 acres like a 2" line and that may be what that is. Petrie: In that case, there is a private service line running across these lots that you will be selling without any type of easement across it or anything like that. That is something that needs to be looked at. That is all I've got. Conklin: Utilities? Johnny Boles - Arkansas Western Gas Boles: I have a couple of easements I want to request A 20' utility easement, 10' off each side of the property line between lots 1 and 2,3 and 4, between 5 and 6 and from the southeast corner of lot number 5 adjacent to lot 7 going west back to Leo Ammons Rd. Go along the south property line of lot 5 and the northwest half of lot 7 there. Also, a 20' utility easement between lots 8 and 9 beginning at Leo Ammons Rd. going west back to the pond. • Conklin: Through the pond? • Boles: I'm requesting that for Mike so I will let him clarify that. Mike Phipps - Ozark Electric Coop. Phipps: To the pond and then from the pond I would like 20' on the north side of lot 9 all the way back to the west property line. Conklin: Ok. Go to the pond and then come backup another 10 so that will be 20' around the pond. Phipps: Yes. We request the same utility easements and also any relocation of existing facilities will be at the owner's expense. Sue Clauser - Southwestern Bell Clauser: 1 agree with those utility easements also and have no further comments. Larry Gibson - Cox Communications • Technical Plat Review Minutes October 31, 2001 Page 32 Gibson: I also agree with those utility easements. Our existing cable TV at this time is Molly Wagnon Rd. We are approximately 2,000 feet from the subdivision. We would have considerable overhead plus the underground. The only thing I can do right now is measure it offand draw it up and tum it in as this many lots for possible customers and get approval, higher above me. I don't think there will be a problem with it, I Just can't give you a time line on it. Conklin: Reed: Conklin: Reed: Have you investigated the soils out there as to the size of the lots and septic systems? They all will be perked, I know that. I just want to make sure that these three acres are large enough. Do you have any idea of that area about the soils? I haven't done any soil work on it. There are houses up and down the road everywhere you go so 1 assume everything is working. They will be perk tested I know because we're going through county. • Conklin: Ok, I was Just curious There are some areas in Northwest Arkansas where a 3 acre lot • may not be large enough. Reed: Sure. There is some slope on these northern lots. I'm sure there is a different soil up there than there is in the middle of that field. Conklin: Just advising you because I've seen these things have to come back through because there is Just not enough room. Hill: Are perk tests required for the final plat? We have to get a perk test done. Conklin: Yes. Hill: But we don't do that until after preliminary. Conklin: I will have to take a look at those regulations Bob, those are policy decisions that were recently adopted by the Council. I'm not sure. It would be nice to know whether or not you can perk these lots, what you have to do is typically if you are going to do septic you are going to have to determine how big ofa house you are going to have there and what size system in order to do the test. • • • Technical Plat Review Minutes October 31, 2001 Page 33 Reed: Conklin: I think the county is going to address that when we get there. Ok, thanks. Technical Plat Review Minutes October 31, 2001 Page 34 PPL 01-7.00 Preliminary Plat (Fairfield Subdivision Phase III, pp 359) was submitted by Philip Humbard of Engineering Services on behalf of Cross Creek, LLC for property located north east of 51" Street and Jess Anderson Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 19.45 acres with 63 proposed. Conklin: The last item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat Fairfield Subdivision Phase III submitted by Philip Humbard of Engineering Services on behalf of Cross Creek, LLC for property located north east of 51st Street and Jess Anderson Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 19.45 acres with 63 lots proposed. I will go over staffcomments. From our Parks and Recreation Division, the Parks and Recreation Board recommended accepting land dedication for property north of the Fairfield Crosscreek development pending annexation and rezoning by the developer on May 16, 2001. In the case the property is not annexed or not purchased by the developer, they recommended money in lieu. The land has been purchased. Humbard: We have an option to purchase actually. Conklin: Option to purchase? Ok. Humbard: We've got three years to buy it. Conklin: The Park Staff and the developer will require the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board to work together and determine exact location and total acreage of parks property including accessibility to the park land. The Parks Division requests that the parks boundary be extended along the entire top of slope area should include 28 foot linear strip of land from the back of the proposed property lines to the top of slope. This land is needed to develop the city's multi use trail system. The upper land is needed to contain trail development costs, increase security, visibility and improve accessibility to the neighborhood in this area that Park and Recreation Division will utilize the lower creek area and floodplain developed environmental educational opportunities along a loop self service nature trails In addition, park access will be need to be provided from the neighborhood along the 20' corridor as discussed with the developer. The plan they are looking at today probably doesn't address those concerns. The developer is going to revise the street right of way requirements from a 50' street right of way to a 42' street right of way in three locations. Schuldt: I have a couple of other comments. On Tots 106, 107 and 108 I want to make sure that we discuss the utilities being situated on the front of those lots. Also the developer in the meeting that we had the option of dedicating more land than required. For that land in this • • • Technical Plat Review Minutes October 31, 2001 Page 35 quadrant. The third request is that Phil, would you update the plans, on lots 106,107 and 108 there is a large addition to the trail that we're trying to put behind the property lines go through a large tree that we would like to try to save within the parks property on the back of lot 106. Conklin: What is the circumference of that? Hesse: About 40". Conklin: Anything else Eric? Schuldt: No, that is all. Conklin: From the Sidewalks Division, the necessary grading for sidewalks shall be done as part of street construction even if installation of the sidewalks are delayed new sidewalk driveway approaches, access ramps shall meet UDO requirements, two access ramps at each street comer will be required. Driveway approaches shall be constructed of Portland Cement Concrete. Inspections are required prior to the pour and adding at the final plat. All retaining walls shall be setback 2' from the right of way. All retaining wall construction shall be shown on the building permit and have the approval of the city engineer. If you have any questions call the Sidewalk Division. From our Traffic Superintendent, check with Jim Johnson, our 911 coordinator to determine which lots are the last to be addressed off of Waverly on both ends and mark these lots on the plat. Street lights are ok as shown. There are no site distance problems. From the Planning Division, please submit project disk with the next submittal. All lots shall be 70' wide at the building setback line and shall be dimensioned in order to verify this zoning requirement. The legal description is incorrect. Please see comments from GIS for corrections Other comments include all utilities shall be placed underground, a sewer fee will be assessed. A 20' access easement to the park land is required Lots 103 and 104 will be decreased in depth in order to allow for adequate trail placement. The two east west streets will be allowed to be decreased to 42' of right of way with sidewalks on one side and please call out the park land dedication as lot 154. This is a part of your subdivision, make the park land lot 154. Humbard: How do I do that? Do I dust draw a big lot 154? Conklin: Yes. Humbard: Did we talk about the Redding Way is also being allowed to go to 42'? • • • Technical Plat Review Minutes October 31, 2001 Page 36 Conklin: No, we will need to mention that in Phase I Redding Way, we will talk to the Planning Commission about amending the preliminary plat to reduce that right of way. Humbard: We really aren't decreasing the depth, we're just moving the lots on lots 103 and 104. No, I'm sorry, 103 and 104 we actually are decreasing the depths, yes Sir. Conklin: That is all we have from Planning, revisions are due at 10:00, Wednesday, November 7, 2001. Mickey Jackson's comments say water main check with engineering, no other comments. Ron, would you like to go ahead with that? Petrie: They are not as bad as they appear to be. Humbard: Are they the same comments that they were last time? Petrie: Yes. I will talk to you about the ones that aren'tjust general Everything under water is just general requirements, you've already seen them under other phases. Sanitary Sewer number three, $200 per lot assessments, that is prepaid for a total of $12,600. Number seven, you still have this existing easement, we need to get the abandoned paperwork. Humbard: Yes, it is an electrical easement out there. Petrie: I thought it was that sewer easement. Humbard: There also used to be service to a house out here and there is a pole or two that is out in the middle of that phase that will have to be removed. Petrie: That is not exclusive as far as city. Humbard: You're right. Petrie: I just made a comment that we will need that approved prior to final plat. I've had somebody working on this for some time and we have actually found the easement document. Humbard: I've heard there is some talk of putting a new sewer line through this area? Petrie: Yes. Humbard: Should I know about that? • • • Technical Plat Review Minutes October 31, 2001 Page 37 Petrie: Humbard: Petrie: Humbard: Petrie: Humbard: Petrie: Humbard: Petrie: Conklin: Petrie: Conklin: It won't go through the subdivision, it will go right along the road more than likely. This whole lift station here will be replaced. I noticed that there were some people out there doing some work looking at it. When this whole project first came along I asked Don Bunn and Jim Beavers if that is something I should be concerned with, ifthere were any lines going through here and they said no. There will be some work on this lift station and probably some work down the road. For the additional right of way we may need. On grading, I've got some items that need to be added to the grading plan, nothing that would really require any revisions, just some additions going down the checklist that need to be added, just go over them and add those. Satisfy those requirements. For drainage, something that I could point to, at this point, the flows are what preliminary, the watt on the file. A lot of the final things are broken up into little but I don't have those. The important thing at this point is what they are at this point now and then after development. I have a chart that shows that, at least to the major points sections of the sites. If it is in there I didn't see it. Ok, we just need to sit down and go over it. Is it a summary of flows? Yes, a summary of flows, I had them labeled as points going offthe sites and the pre and the post development. That may be ok. The last comment is streets. This is the same comment we had on those other two phases in regards to improvements to Sunshine Rd. We have got the same situation, it is still half city and half county, same recommendations when it goes to the Planning Commission. Is that all that you have? Yes. With regard to the stub out. That has been removed since we originally discussed this. We went out there and looked at this. It does appear that a street could be extended back to the east between the house and the manufactured home out there. That is something Technical Plat Review Minutes October 31, 2001 Page 38 that we would like to see if they ever do develop. Of course, you can make your argument at Subdivision Committee and Planning Commission with regard to that. Looking at it, they are being annexed into the city next Tuesday night. Ifthey ever sold their property or wanted to further develop it and urbanize it with urban development, they would need a street and this would connect into this neighborhood and that is something that looks reasonable to me but we will take the Commissioners out there and they can look at it too when we get further along. Just one little note, your preliminary plat approval is good for one year I do know you have this Phase I and Phase II so after one year of Planning Commission approval it will be void and you will have to come back through the process, I Just want to caution you. Are we doing flood study at all the determine the base flood elevations? Humbard. That was required as a condition of developing Phase II. Conklin: Ok, so final plat will have water surface elevations and floodway determined? Humbard: Right. What are your street stub out locations at9 • Conklin: Between 113 and 114. • Humbard: Ok. Conklin: Mr. Hendrix has a few houses up on top of that block and property. It would be difficult for them to develop that property further coming off of Sunshine with a road going up that trying to meet our street standards. This would provide an easy way to tie into the development with the stub out right here and provide another way in if Mr. Hoyton's property develops on top. A loop type street. Phipps: We'll need to know how much you're going to take off there, we'll be in there. Ifthey go through we want to be down deep enough so we don't have to relocate. Conklin: Ok. Johnny Boles - Arkansas Western Gas Boles: No comment. Mike Phipps - Ozark Electric Coop. • Technical Plat Review Minutes October 31, 2001 Page 39 Phipps: Humbard: Phipps: Conklin: Phipps: Humbard: • Conklin: • Phipps: Hesse: Phipps: Conklin: Humbard: Phipps: Humbard: Lots 111 and 112, I would like a 10' easement for that street light. Actually, I would like to move that street light to that property. I think it is shown now on 113 there. You've got a drainage easement, I don't want to come down that drainage easement to access that line. You're going to need a 10' easement? Yes, 5' on each side. On the utilities, is the electric going to be served from the back? What about 106 and 107? That is what we were discussing. If we go in the rear, we will need an easement up 108 tying into that 20' and then coming back down 106. I think all that will change because of the trees. All of this is going to be pulled to the south about 25-30'. You can serve those lots on 106, 107 and 108 from the front? Yes, I can do that. Yeah, we're trying to preserve that large tree. Ok. It is a massive tree. That tree is actually on the park land side of that land right now and we plan on moving back those lots probably 25' further south so that 25' plus the 20' easement wouldn't be enough. They would be probably 40' from that tree if we put them on back which we really don't want to do. We are trying to move it to the front. How would you get to the front? Come around lots 109? There is a possibility that we are going to fill those two little draws there and put lots continuous across those. We could do north between 146 and 147 on this back easement here and then over one. I'm going to loop mine through there. You're going to go down a lot across the front and then back down again? • Technical Plat Review Minutes October 31, 2001 Page 40 Conklin: What you're saying Phillip is to come down the west side of 109 with an easement? Humbard: There probably is going to be a lot in between there so we will build between 108 and whatever that lot number is. Petrie. You've got a lot there and you are going to have a pretty substantial cross the back where an easement will be located. Phipps: We'll have to bore these two. Humbard: Right, so you'll probably want to come around the west side of 109 in front and go all the way to probably 105. Phipps: Ok, between 109 and 110, 20' and then come across the front and then back over to 105. Any relocation of existing facilities will be a the owner's expense. I knowwe've got some overhead power in there that we will have to take out. • Sue Clauser - Southwestern Bell Clauser: No comment. Larry Gibson - Cox Communications Gibson: Mike, did we ask for any street crossings on this? Maybe we can have some street crossings after they redo it. Humbard: You'll probably want one across that stub street there. Phipps: The proposed stub street, ifwejust know how much they are going to cut, we try to get down deep enough. Humbard: It will probably be a fill. Phipps: We'Iljust make sure that we don't have any utilities above ground there anywhere close. Conklin: That is the only place you need crossings in this whole phase? • Phipps: Yeah, we're in here already. Humbard: We actually kind of submitted Phase 111 when we did the other one. • • Technical Plat Review Minutes October 31, 2001 Page 41 Phipps: What I'm concerned about, he said this is going to shift back to the south 25' so I don't know what it is going to change. Humbard: The general lot lay out should be the same. Conklin: Everything is shifting away from this back. Humbard: We're taking 8' out of this one and this one and we're pushing them all south. Phipps: The layout is the same? Humbard: Yes. Conklin: Ok, thank you. That is all we have.