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 About2001-11-14 - Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF TECHNICAL PLAT REVIEW A regular meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee was held on Wednesday, November 14, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LSP 01-37.00: Lot Split (Baker, pp 558) Page 3 LSP 01-38.00: Lot Split (Wilkins, pp 221) Page 6 LSP 01-31.00: Lot Split (Guisinger/Sager, pp 325) Page 10 LSD 01-34.00: Large Scale (Farm Credit Services, pp 325) Page 15 Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded LSD 01-42.00: Large Scale Development (Karstetter & Glass, pp 402) Forwarded Page 20 LSD 01-40.00: Large Scale Development (Sunbridge Center, Lot 9, pp 290) Page 24 Forwarded PPL 01-8.00: Preliminary Plat (David Lyle Duplex, pp 569) Forwarded Page 28 LSD 01-25.10: Large Scale Development (Cliffs phase I11 P.U.D., pp 487) Page 34 LSD 01-41.00: Large Scale Development (Steele Crossing II, pp 212) Page 39 Forwarded Forwarded • • • Technical Plat Review Minutes November 14, 2001 Page 2 STAFF PRESENT Sara Edwards Keith Shreve Kim Hesse Ron Petrie Renee Thomas Perry Franklin Eric Schuldt UTILITIES PRESENT Sue Clauser, Southwestern Bell Johnny Boles, Arkansas Western Gas Glen Newman, SWEPCO Larry Gibson, Cox Communications STAFF ABSENT Solid Waste Fire Chief UTILITIES ABSENT Mike Phipps, Ozark Electric Coop. • • Technical Plat Review Minutes November 14, 2001 Page 3 Edwards: Welcome to the Wednesday, November 14, 2001 meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee. The first three items listed on our agenda were property line adjustments which we typically do not hear at this meeting. I just want to make sure that there is nobody here for Charleston Place or Weaver property line adjustments. LSP 01-37.00: Lot Split (Baker, pp558) was submitted by William Greenhaw on behalf of Wilma Jean Baker for property located at 1391 & 1393 Farmer's Avenue. The property is zoned RS, Residential Small Lot and contains approximately 9.71 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of0.32 acres and 0 33 acres. Edwards. The first item on our agenda will be a lot split 01-37, Baker, submitted by William Greenhaw on behalf of Wilma Jean Baker for property located at 1391 & 1393 Farmer's Avenue. The property is zoned R -S and contains .71 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of .32 and .33 acres. If you would like to come up to the table. Please state your name for the record. Greenhaw: Edwards: Greenhaw: Edwards: Greenhaw: Edwards. I'm Bill Greenhaw, I represent Ms Baker. Good morning. How are you? Just fine. You all can probably see on the plat that this lot has two houses on it. The houses were put on the property before it came into the city. It already has all of the utilities in both locations. The purpose of this lot split is to allow Ms. Baker, who is planning a retirement, to be able to transfer ownership to the two houses separately. What is this in the back? Is that just a garage? It looks like a porch which makes me think it is also a house. Greenhaw: Let me take a look at it. It looks like a garage. Edwards: Ok, what I will do is I will go over all of the staff comments and then Ron will go over engineering comments and we'll go through utility comments regarding what revisions we'll need before we can approve this. We have an existing sidewalk so that is good, we don't have to rebuild that. There are no parks fees due. There are no comments from our • • • Technical Plat Review Minutes November 14, 2001 Page 4 Petrie: Traffic Superintendent, no comments from Parks, from Planning, the only comment that I have is regarding the structures I researched this and it looks like they were built in 1925 and 1945, which predated zoning. Therefore, they are legal nonconforming structures with regard to setback and the number of dwelling units since there is more than one there. As far as that goes, we don't need any revisions unless Ron or the utility companies have requests. My name is Ron Petrie, I'm with the Engineering Division. The thing that we're concerned on is just how to more or less verify that service line, because water and sewer are going to remain on the lots that are being split, so that we're not having a water meter here and down there, I'm not sure if that feeds somebody else. There are not service lines that come in and feed this and this so we're getting crossover on surfaces and creating illegal situations on crossover with the sewer and water. I'm asking for more or less a verification if they can, that that is not going to occur when they split this. I'm not sure ifthis back here has water and sewer service, if it is being fed from the front. I just want to make sure it is not being fed from somewhere over here to come across the proposed lot. Greenhaw: I can tell you that there is a tenant in one of the houses and Ms. Baker's daughter is in another. I know that the properties are not on the same water meter. As far as the other utilities are concemed, I'm almost certain they are all metered separately. As far as where the utility lines are, they are under ground, I don't have a clue. Petrie: Your surveyor on this has done a decent job of at least showing what he could. He showed a clean out up here and a clean out here, I think we're ok on sewer ifthis one is not being fed off of some, it may not have sewer, I don't know. It is coming off up here and not across this way This back, which I thought was a little apartment unit or granny unit might have a little bit of trouble, I didn't know. Whatever you could find out would ease our concerns a little bit. Just talk with the owners, ifthey've owned the houses a long time they may know the answer to where those services are put in. That is all 1 have. Greenhaw: Ok. Edwards: Ok, utilities? Glen Newman - SWEPCO Newman: No comment. Johnny Boles - Arkansas Western Gas • • • Technical Plat Review Minutes November 14, 2001 Page 5 Boles: No comment. Larry Gibson - Cox Communications Gibson: No comment. Sue Clauser - Southwestern Bell Clauser: No comment. Edwards. Ok. If you can let us know on Ron's questions. Other than that, it doesn't look like we need any revisions. Greenhaw: Ok, and the revisions that you wanted the surveyor to make Ron, what you've given me? Edwards: There wasn't any. Petrie: There are no revisions to make to the actual file. Greenhaw: What I have has taken ten months. Petrie: Sure, if you could find out anything on that service line. We can do that verbally. Edwards. Subdivision Committee is November 29, 2001 at 8:30 a.m., that will be the next time this is heard. Greenhaw: Did you want these comments before that day? Edwards: Yes. Greenhaw: Ok, thank you. • • • Technical Plat Review Minutes November 14, 2001 Page 6 LSP 01-38.00: Lot Split (Wilkins, pp 221) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Gordon Wilkins for property located on Sassafras Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 7.15 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 5.65 acres and 1.5 acres. Edwards • The next item is lot split 01-38, submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Gordon Wilkins for property located on Sassafras Hill Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 7.15 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 5.65 and 1.5 acres. Brackett: Good morning. Edwards: Ok, because it is in the growth area, sidewalks are not required, parks fees are not required. What we do need is a waiver requesting that this property not have to meet the required 75' of street frontage. The waiver will be limited to the property as shown. I would like a note added to the plat that no further lot splits will be allowed. Other than that, Sassafras Road is a collector on the master street plan, which requires 35' of right-of- way be dedicated from center line. You do need to obtain county approval along with this. Did you have anything to add Celia? Silkwood: No, just call me. Edwards. That is all that I have. Petrie: Chris, can you explain the water line? I guess that is what I'm having the most trouble with. Brackett: Yes, that is an existing service. Everything shown on the plat is existing. Petrie: Their existing meter is here? That is just a service line this whole distance? Brackett: Yes. Petrie: Any idea how long that has been there? Brackett: I do not know that. Petrie: That is really odd. I guess the question is where is the proposed service for this house? It is going to have to be off ofa separate line. This is nothing but a service line so the water line couldn't come off of that. • • • Technical Plat Review Minutes November 14, 2001 Page 7 Brackett: Ok. Petrie: Typically what we would see on this is the water meter located down here in the road and this is all service line, which is what really needs to happen in this situation. We would rather have two meters sitting right here instead of way back here. This is a service line because it is in between a public line and the meter, the city has to maintain that. Brackett: So you would like to have it moved? Petrie: Yes. If we're dealing with a service line, a private, it is not a public line so we really need both of those meters down here at the road. It would just have to be a separate service line to feed this new house which gets us into the issues of easements. Easement situation because this is a private line feeding this line across this line, this just needs to be covered with a private easement, the public utility easement wouldn't grant rights fora private line. It needs to specific in this area. Brackett: Petrie: Can they overlap? 1 think they can overlap, we're dealing with an existing line, it is not the ideal situation but it is existing. Brackett: So we just need to show an additional 10', 5' on each side or whatever? Petrie: Yes, 10'. Brackett: Private easement? Petrie: Right, just so there is no question. Brackett: And that is all the way across the property? Petrie: Yes, wherever the line is. Brackett: Ok. Petrie: The last thing I had was the access easement, it is by note on here, can you just clarify, I assume this is not a public access easement. Brackett: For this lot. • • • Technical Plat Review Minutes November 14, 2001 Page 8 Petrie: From this lot to this lot and that is it. Brackett: Do you want me to put 25' private access easement and 25' UE? Petrie: Clarify it. The utilities may need a public utility easement too, I guess it is up to them whether the UE needs to be public or private. You have a utility easement down here. Edwards: I think that that 60' was left over when he was trying to do more lots back here. Now that we're doing the waiver, you can reduce that down to a 25', we're not trying to make it public now. Brackett: Ok, that will go back down to a 25'. Edwards: Is that ok with you Celia? Silkwood: •That is fine. Brackett: We may take out the UE there and just have this easement around the edge, and that will just be a 25' access easement. Clauser: So you will continue that 20' up around the lot on the corner up here? Brackett: Yes, those lines will connect, there around that comer. We'll have that access easement. Petrie: It probably needs to be a public utility easement through this little finger here. Brackett: Yes, that will remain the same, then this will shrink down to a 25' access easement and then we'll connect the UE around the corner here. Petrie: That is all I have. Edwards: Ok, utilities? Newman: It is Ozark Electric's service area. Johnny Boles - Arkansas Western Gas Boles: Chris, what do we have immediately adjacent to this property to the east? • • • Technical Plat Review Minutes November 14, 2001 Page 9 Brackett: I'm sorry, I do not know. Silkwood: 1 think it is, to the east, there is nothing back there. Boles: I'm wondering if we might need to extend this 20' UE across the balance of tract two to this southeast corner of tract two? Brackett: Would you rather have that go around this instead of going around the other property? Just have it encompass? Boles: My preference would be around the perimeter but I don't know what everyone else would prefer. Clauser: That is fine with me. Brackett: Ok so I'll take yours out and I'll extend this, would you have a problem.with that? Boles: No, that is all I have. Larry Gibson - Cox Communications Gibson: I agree with the easement. Sue Clauser - Southwestern Bell Clauser: I agree with that easement. Edwards: Ok, revisions are due November 21, 2001 by 10:00 a.m. • Technical Plat Review Minutes November 14, 2001 Page 10 LSP 01-31.00: Lot Split (Guisinger/Sager, pp 325) was submitted by Chris Brackett of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Paul Guisinger and Louise Sager for property located north of Porter Road, east of Deane Soloman, and west of Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 24.78 acres The request is to split into 1.02 aces and 23.76 acres. Edwards: The next item of business is lot split 01-31.00, Guisinger/Sager, submitted by Chris Brackett of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Paul and Louise for property located north of Porter Road, east of Deane Soloman, and west of Shiloh. The property is zoned C-1 and contains 24.78 acres. The request is to split into 1.02 and 23.76 acres. Starting with sidewalks, our ordinance 43.11 which requires sidewalk construction for lots, which is under review, the requirement for sidewalk construction might be changed. Right now Shiloh Drive is a collector which requires a 6' sidewalk and a minimum 10' of green space. Brackett: I don't want to confuse things but we submitted this separately. This lot split here is just for, ok, never mind. This is a separate deal is it not? This is a rezoning? Did we submit this for the lot split? • Edwards. That's what we have Brackett: Ok, never mind, I'm sorry. Edwards: That is what you wanted, the lot split? Brackett: Yes. Edwards: Keith, did you have any other requirements for Deane Soloman or Mount Comfort on this lot split? • Shreve: No, I missed Deane Soloman. There would probably be a sidewalk requirement there. Mount Comfort is a small area on the curb. There could be a sidewalk requirement along Deane Soloman also. It Just depends on what the Council does with this ordinance. The City Attorney's opinion is that we can not require it for lot splits. We're kind of in limbo at this point. The ordinance, as written, would require a 6' sidewalk along Shiloh for the full length of the property and I don't know exactly what Deane Soloman would be just off the top of my head, it could be a 6' sidewalk there also. Edwards: Just because this is a really large piece of property, do you have a problem with them asking for a waiver from that sidewalk? They are rezoning the rest of it and do have development planned. • • • Technical Plat Review November 14, 2001 Page 11 Shreve: Edwards: Brackett: Edwards: Brackett: Edwards: Brackett: Edwards. Brackett: Petrie: Brackett: Petrie: No, I wouldn't oppose that. Ok. That is what I would suggest. We'll make it a condition and recommend that the waiver be granted. Do I need to get you a letter? Yes, please. We'll enforce that sidewalk, that way we won't be for the smaller lot.. . Right. No comment from our Traffic Superintendent. No parks fees are due. We do have an error with the legal description. I did include our GIS comments. He said that the description needs to match, these are fractional quarters and it needs state plan coordinates. Ok. Deane Soloman is a collector, which requires 35' from centerline be dedicated and you didn't really call out the right-of-way width there so we need to check that out. Mount Comfort, just a little piece touches, is a minor arterial, which requires 45' from centerline. We need to do some research on that right-of-way and possibly get some additional. That is all the comments that I have. Ok. Chris, on our existing utilities, we have an existing 36" waterline along Deane Soloman Road, there is probably an easement in place, I'm not sure what the width is, it doesn't show up on our plat maps. I want to make sure that everybody understands there needs to be a minimum of 10' from the existing waterline. If it is not in place, we need that dedicated. Ok. Also, on the large scale, you show this waterline that runs along the south side of this property, the same thing, you show an easement across this, 10', that easement needs to be shown going across the property to where that turns back to the south, 10' from the property line like you show on the large scale is fine. • • • Technical Plat Review November 14, 2001 Page 12 Brackett. Ok. Petrie: Other issues have to do with the sewer that you are proposing for the large scale. By ordinance, that is required to be a condition of the lot split, because you are creating a lot, which means that your choices are going to be, you're going to have to ask for a waiver that it not be done at this time and done as a condition of the lot split, or it has to be in place before we can actually grant the approval for the lot split. Brackett: We'll probably have to go with the waiver then. Petrie: Either way, I would request that you show this on this plat and the sewer line easement and then put a note on this plat what is being proposed in order for us to go ahead and stamp approval on the lot split. I believe it would take an actual waiver from the Planning Commission. That is all I have Brackett: Edwards: Newman: Petrie: Newman: Ok. Utilities? It is Ozark Johnny asked, did you ask for an easement along the east property line Ron? Yes. We have a 36" waterline along that road. That is what Johnny asked for, he had to take a phone call. Gibson: There are utilities in there now Glen. I don't know what they've got in there, but they should be on through there. Newman: If not, then Johnny requested an easement along the east line. Petrie: 20' wide? Newman: Yes, that is all he said. Larry Gibson - Cox Communications Gibson: Chris, we've got an existing aerial line from Deane Soloman going to the south, we've also got existing on the south side of this property running east and west, north of Porter Road. I just wanted to make you understand any relocation of or damage to Cox facilities will be • • Technical Plat Review November 14, 2001 Page 13 at the owner's expense. Sue Clauser - Southwestern Bell Clauser: Where did Johnny ask for his additional easement? Gibson: I don't know if it is additional. There are utilities through there right now. I know there is water and electric. Clauser: On the west side you're talking about? Newman: Yes. Clauser: Ok, so we're going to get a 20' utility easement on this west side? Newman: Yes. Clauser: Can we also extend that along that little piece on the south edge there? Brackett: On Mount Comfort? There is a pie shape piece of property between this and Mount Comfort that we don't own. We only touch here at the corner. Clauser: How big is that little pie shaped piece of property? Brackett: I don't know the size. Clauser: Is that something that is going to be developed? Newman: It is going to be developed. Brackett: Yes, I believe it probably could be developed. Clauser: Ok, I'm Just thinking that we might want to shoot through there if we had autility easement through there. I was looking to extend that 20' utility easement along that south property line down below, but I don't know if that is really necessary or not. Newman: Is that not where the Farm Credit Service property is? • Clauser: No, that is going to go in this little... • • Technical Plat Review November 14, 2001 Page 14 Newman: Yeah, that is what I'm saying. Clauser: No, there is a little pie shaped piece of property.. . Petrie: We are more or less asking for a 10' utility easement along that property line, that is what we've already asked for. Clauser: But can we go in there with you? Petrie: It is a general utility easement, but only 10' wide, just to make sure you understand. Clauser: I don't know that we would ever need to get in there but I would like to be able to if something came along and we had to. Brackett: If this is developed, they will be required that same requirement because they are going to have that water line actually on them. Clauser: Ok, so then I agree with that 20' on the west and then we're going to get a 10' on the south. Brackett: Ok. Boles: Chris, was there a utility easement requested along the east side of Deane Soloman Road? Brackett: Yes, I got 20' on the east side off of any right-of-way. Clauser: We're talking about west again right? Boles: Yeah. • • • Technical Plat Review November 14, 2001 Page 15 LSD 01-34.00: Large Scale (Farm Credit Services, pp 325) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Farm Credit services for property located west of Shiloh Drive, east of Deane Soloman and north of Porter Road. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 1.02 acres. With a 3,208 sq. ft. building proposed. Edwards: Ok, the next item is a large scale for Farm Credit Services, submitted by Jorgensen on behalf of Farm Credit Services for property located west of Shiloh, east of Deane Soloman and north of Porter Road. The property is zoned C-1, and contains approximately 1.02 acres with a 3,208 sq. ft. building proposed. We'll start with sidewalk comments. Shiloh is a collector which requires a 6' sidewalk and 10' of green space. Please construct the sidewalk at the right-of-way line, do not plant trees or shrubs within 8' of the street side of the sidewalk This will allow widening of the sidewalk for a future multiuse trail. Brackett: We're probably going to have a problem on that due to the fact that we're not going to have enough room for our landscape requirements. We're going to have a swale running through there. If I move that back and don't plant anything near it we're not going to have any place to stick all of those trees. We've got a sign here so we don't want it right through there. Edwards: Could you push it back beyond that sign, closer to the building? Brackett: Umm... Edwards: Chris, you know you can't meet your landscaping requirements in the public right-of-way, it is required on this property. Brackett: Edwards. I didn't know that, we've always shown it there before. I know we made an exception on that Auto Master, but other than that, we try to keep it on the property. Brackett: I assume that if we put it all on the parking lot, there will be an exemption of the quarter inch from foot to the top of the curb? If you notice, this property drops down quite a bit, we're going to be filling 5' to try to get that. Do you want to take a look at that? Shreve: We can take a look at that. I haven't been on this site. The new trail coordinator wants to make room for a future trail. • • • Technical Plat Review November 14, 2001 Page 16 Hesse: Are those plants that are out there are they at the existing right-of-way line? You could probably get some of your requirement out of that. Brackett: I can't recall what we even have staked out there. Does it look new? If it is new... Hesse: Yes, there are new stakes out there. Brackett: It would be the new lot. Hesse: Ok. Brackett: Unless we've staked, just so we could find it, I don't know. There is quite a distance between the curb and that right-of-way. There is 25' in there. The property drops off, we're talking if we go 1/4" per foot, we're going to be substantially higher. Shreve: In a situation like that, I think we can work with it. We try to follow the contour of the land somewhat. Brackett: Can we keep the sidewalk where it is where it crosses the drive and then have it turn out and follow the right-of-way line? Schuldt: Why don't we get with Steve and give you a call Chris? Shreve: This is something new on us here too. There is a possibility of widening this in the future. Landscape may be on the street side. Brackett: I'm sure we can probably work that landscaping out. Shreve: We could put the sidewalk back to the right-of-way and then that allows us to building on the right-of-way. Schuldt: A typical trail is 12' wide. Brackett: Ok, I've got some room in there if we don't have to bring this up and that's not dropping down. Shreve: I know we've done that south there on Shiloh, we just follow the contour of the ground to deal with the situation, I don't really see the problem with following more or less the contour of the existing ground. We would probably like to keep it at the right-of-way line • • Technical Plat Review November 14, 2001 Page 17 even through the driveway if possible. I will need to drive out to the site and look at it. Brackett: We can work that out. Shreve: We'll get with you on that. Brackett: I don't think it will be a problem. Edwards: No parks fees are due. Traffic Superintendent has requested that you show street lights every 300 feet. Franklin: I think from that comer down there you could probably land one somewhere down there. Brackett: Just add a new one around the drive? Franklin: Yes, if it winds up closer we'll get a way into the driveway. Brackett: Ok. Edwards: We do need elevations of the other two side of the buildings I have talked to the architect about that. Key: I've got one copy of them here and I can submit some more copies on smaller sheets for distribution if you need it. These are the north and west shown here. As we discussed, we're basically going with the same materials on all four sides with the pattern and an exit access door to the north side. Edwards. Ok, I don't think it is a problem. It looks pretty good. Just give us 12 copies if it is not in color like we discussed. Can I keep this one? Key: Yes. Edwards: Again, the legal description had some corrections and that is the same as in the lot split. Will any parking lot lighting be used? Kneiss: We have not addressed that. What is typical? My plans were to have lighting on the building and limited parking areas in the corner. • Edwards: What we're trying to be careful of is we don't want any light trespassing onto other • Technical Plat Review November 14, 2001 Page 18 property and specifically this property to the south which is zoned R-1. Kneiss: If we had flood lighting those could be directed pretty specifically to the parking area? Edwards: Right. Kneiss: We could go with that. Edwards: That would be fine. A general comment, all the utilities shall be placed underground, mechanical equipment shall be screened. Will you use a dumpster? Kneiss: That is our plan. Edwards: Ok, we need to show that location on there. Finally, we do have a requirement for screening adjacent to residential uses. It looks like you've got the trees in there and Kim will have to tell us if that will provide screening within the two years as required. Hesse: As far as tree preservation What I've done is the preliminary root conforms and a lot of this I didn't get because I didn't know the information. I would like permission to work with all of the engineers today that that relates to and probably not expect them to turn it in as the same deadline as the other revisions because it is going to take time for me to meet with them all. A lot of the analysis reports are due to me only and they are not really required for Subdivision or Planning Commission. If we could work it that way, I could have the information to do a full report. I' llj ust contact each one of the engineers. On this Chris, I will need very detailed information. Edwards: Ok, did any other staff have any comments? Ok. Petrie: Chris, these are general, these comments under general, water and sewer, grading, they are all just standard comments. Your grading plan looks fine. Number two, I have received that application for the problem there. My only issues are under drainage. The first one, we would need a detention pond because of the increase in the runoff and I would need the final design on that with calculations for the detention and the second comment had to do with, it looks like there is a high point here We've got drainage going one direction and more drainage going the other direction. If you would break your predevelopment flows and post development flows so we know how much increase going this way or if it is decreasing going this way increasing going this way. • Brackett: If we're going to put a pond in, we'll direct all of the water into the pond. That way it • • • • Technical Plat Review November 14, 2001 Page 19 Petrie: would swirl around the back of the building. You're probably cutting offdrainage going this way to the parking lot going this necessary so it may not be necessary. I dust need you to look at that and see if it is necessary, I don't think it will be. It's probably, just one pond possibly in this corner here. Or in the parking lot, whatever you choose. Brackett: Ok. Petrie. You'll need to decide, that is all I have. Edwards: Ok, utilities? Johnny Boles - Arkansas Western Gas Boles: No comment. Larry Gibson - Cox Communications Gibson: We'll service this building the same way as before. I think the closest facility if I'm not mistaken is to the southeast on the southeast side of Shiloh. However they come across there we will come across the same way as electric. Sue Clauser - Southwestern Bell Clauser: We'll need two 4" conduits on the utility easement. We may need a conduit under the drive, depending on where we put our cable to feed you up If any utilities do need to be relocated, it will be at the owner's expense. Brackett: Alright. • • • Technical Plat Review November 14, 2001 Page 20 LSD 01-39.00: Large Scale Development (Karstetter & Glass, pp 402) was submitted by Steve Clark on behalf of Doris Ann Glass for property located at 2530 Wedington Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.76 acres with a 1240 sq.ft. Shop expansion proposed. Edwards: The next item was submitted by Steve Clark on behalf of Doris Ann Glass, large scale development, Karstetter & Glass, it is zoned C-2, contains 1.76 acres with a 1240 sq. ft. Shop extension. Good moming Steve. Clark: Good morning, how are you? Edwards: Just fine, how are you? Clark: Good, thanks. Edwards: Ok, we're going to start with our Sidewalks Division comments. Our sidewalk is existing along Wedington and you can meet that requirement, so that is good. There are no parks fees because this is commercial. There are no comments from our Traffic Superintendent. Planning comments, elevations were not provided, pretty much null in this case, it is halfway constructed. We can pretty much tell what it is going to look like so if you wanted to take photos, ok, those are fine. Besides that we Just wanted a sample of the metal. Do you have that too? Clark: No, no metal samples, this was the smaller pictures. Edwards: Good. Clark: The metal siding? Edwards: Yes. I will need the right-of-way dimensions from centerline and the requirements. Site coverage, notes should be added. Clark: What is the site coverage note generally? Edwards: Well, it would be like building is 25' from the side of the building and impervious surface covers a percent of the site. Clark: Impervious surface? Technical Plat Review • November 14, 2001 Page 21 • Edwards. Yes, up to a 75% according to the design overlay district requirements. Clark: Does that need to cover the total site or just the portion that is the building? Edwards: I would suggest you go with the total site because I don't think you can make it otherwise. Design overlay district, we've worked on this and there is a list of waivers that need to be requested in writing. Clark: One letter requesting all of these? Edwards: Yes. Clark: Ok. Edwards: Curb cuts should be a minimal of200' apart and the driveway which should not be 39', those kind of work together in this case. Aisle widths are 24' wide, not the case here. 25' ofgreenspace is required along all public right-of-ways, you don't have that. Building shall be block, masonry or other natural looking materials, no building shall have metal sidewalls unless metal is similar to natural looking materials, that is the list of waivers. Wedington is a principal arterial which requires 55' from center line be dedicated along the entire property and we're talking shop and house. Clark: The highway department has already, the street has just been widened, the right-of-way has been acquired. Are you all wanting additional right-of-way beyond that? Edwards. You can ask for a waiver, but right-of-way waivers go all the way to City Council, so it is going to be another step, so you might look at what it is actually going to do before you decide that. Clark: Ok. Edwards: On Futrall, you didn't tell us how much existed there and I didn't have a chance to look it up. The requirement for a local street is 50' total, which is 25' from centerline and I don't know if you have that. Clark: 1 doubt that it is there. I think what happened then is when the Hanks went in, they built right up to her property line, or within a few feet of her property line and so there is, I'll look at that. • • • Technical Plat Review November 14, 2001 Page 22 Edwards: Ok, that is all that I have. Revisions are due the 21" by 10:00 a.m. The large scale will go all the way to Planning Commission because of the waivers. Petrie: Clark: Edwards: Clark: Edwards: Clark: Edwards: Clark: Edwards: My only comment had to do with our 24" water line out front. I don't think you showed the easement so I'm just making sure we have at least 10' of easement from that 24" waterline. It probably already exists. I would expect so. I have a question on this second page. Ok, that is just telling you notification. I think I provided notification. It has to go out before Subdivision Committee meeting by certified mail. Ok, we'll send those out. You have to send it out in addition to the labels you submitted to us. Right, well, ok, maybe I didn't then. Ok. That final stuff is what we require as part of your building permit. Clark: Ok. A separate easement plat if there are additional easements required. Now, as far as the right-of-way along Futrall, can be done by easement plat or can it be done by separate instrument? Edwards: Wedington will have to be done by Warranty Deed because it is a state highway. Futrall we could do by easement plat or if it is only one, we' 11 go ahead and do it by easement. Clark: Ok, just by easement. Is that it? Edwards: Utilities. Glen Newman - SWEPCO Newman: Any relocation of any existing, we're serving, so I don't see that that is applicable in this case. Any new load information or anything like that, get your electrical contractor to let us know as soon as he can. That is all that 1 have. • • • Technical Plat Review November 14, 2001 Page 23 Johnny Boles Boles: Clark: - Arkansas Western Gas Steve, isn't there, do you know what the existing easement is on this north side of Wedington here? I really don't. As far as utilities, I'm not sure. I know that whatever, I'm assuming that whenever utilities were relocated as part of the highway.. Boles: If you would, just show that on this drawing. I believe it was 20' or 25', I don't really recall, that is all I have. Larry Gibson - Cox Communications Gibson: No comment. Sue Clauser - Southwestern Bell Clauser: Edwards. Clark: Edwards: Clark: I agree with the gas company for the utility easement to be shown. No further comments. Ok, that is all. Revisions are due by the 21st at 10:00 a.m. if I didn't tell you that. You did, thank you. Will staff support these waivers and stuff? I think so. Thank you. Technical Plat Review November 14, 2001 Page 24 LSD 01-40.00: Large Scale Development (Sunbridge Center, Lot 9, pp 290) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen ofJorgensen & Associates on behalf of Keating Enterprises, Inc. for property located on Lot 9 Sunbridge Center. The property is zoned ROO, Residential Office and contains approximately 1.24 acres with two office buildings proposed. Edwards • The next item on the agenda is LSD 01-40.00, submitted by Dave Jorgensen ofJorgensen & Associates on behalf of Keating Enterprises, Inc. for property located on Lot 9, Sunbridge Center. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 1.24 acres with two office buildings proposed. I'll start with Sidewalk comments, Sunbridge Drive is a local street having 50' right-of-way in a 31' street. A 5' sidewalk is shown with a 5' greenspace and this meets the requirements for Sunbridge Drive. Two bicycle parking racks are required per ordinance 42.93 There are no parks fees due. We had some discussion about the tree pit, they haven't worked very well in the past as far as large vehicles protruding out into the aisle way, Perry did make a comment about that, I think what we decided to do was on those spaces that are affected by that, go ahead and label those as compact, that way smaller cars could park in there and maybe fix the problem. We're going to look at the change in the ordinance with regard to that. Elevations, I didn't get any. Brackett: You might want to talk to Tim. I know that Bill talked to Tim, you were out. They worked out something, I wasn't involved in that. Edwards: Ok, he did say something about that. Have you seen it? Is it going to be similar? Brackett: Not to lots 1 and 2, but similar to lots 4 and 5, it is not going to be the red, it is going to be the green roof. I guess they didn't like the roof. Edwards. Ok. How about free standing signs? I didn't see any. Brackett: No. Edwards: Ok, utilities shall be underground. What about a dumpster? I think he does the rollout doesn't he? Brackett: Edwards: Yes, it is shown. Oh, ok Utility equipment shall be screened and then commercial design standards, we will review closer when we get elevations. • • • Technical Plat Review November 14, 2001 Page 25 Brackett: Ok. Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: Chris, the general, the water and sewer, it is all just general comments. The grading, I've reviewed that, it looks fine, no comments on that. The drainage report itself, it looks good, no comments. The only comments had to do with this ditch back here. This is the only portion. We've got here across this property that is left just an open ditch and I haven't seen it back there. I've left this question and I'm not really giving any type of recommendation. What does this look like back there? Does it have any function as a ditch? Is it grown up? Brackett: He cleans it out. It wasn't grown up before, it was functioning fine. It is awful big. I'm sure it has more capacity than is needed. It might look nicer if it is concreted, but it is not going to be overgrown as long as these developments are here. He is not going to let it overgrow because he has clients there. I'm sure it will be maintained if that is your concern. Petrie: That is a public drainage easement. Technically the city has got some responsibility to maintain it. Brackett: What I'm saying is that he will be maintaining it, due to the fact that it is in his best interest to maintain it. I don't know, as far as I would assume he would oppose it being concreted because it would be quite an expense since it is functioning. That is something that I can bring up and we can discuss this. Petrie: I want to discuss it further with the city engineer. The thing that would concern us if we leave it the way it is is that we have got the fill going in from this building, is more or less why... is our hundred year storm being, does it stay in the creek bed, if it doesn't, are we pushing it back over to this trailer park over here? There are questions like that we would need answered in the final design. I'm not asking for that right now but we will need that with your water surface elevations, pre and post. Brackett: Ok. Petrie: That is all I have. Edwards: Utilities? • • • Technical Plat Review November 14, 2001 Page 26 Glen Newman - SWEPCO Newman: Chris, will we have an easement along the east side9 We have an easement on the north, we'll need an easement along there, it looks like somewhere in this location we need a 10, does the transformer serve both buildings? Just an easement in from the north to the transformer location. Brackett: It can't come across here? Newman: Yes, it can. Brackett: I mean we have existing right now. If you could service this. That way you don't have to go in around those trees. Newman: Sure. Just the customer will provide conduit from the transformer facing out to this transformer over here. Brackett: Ok. Newman: We'll need an easement on that, whichever direction we come in. Brackett: Alright. Newman: We'll also need load information for both buildings and that is all I have. Johnny Boles - Arkansas Western Gas Boles: Chris, the easements shown are fine for us Do you have any idea on how many potential tenants that will be in these two buildings? Brackett: I don't. He probably is not sure. As far as how many separate tenants possible, I would say probably four to five on this building also. So, total of maybe ten possible. It just depends on how much space people need. Boles: Ok, that is all I have. Larry Gibson - Cox Communications Gibson: 1 would like to just make sure that we're included in the same easement with electric. That is all I have. • • • Technical Plat Review November 14, 2001 Page 27 Sue Clauser- Southwestern Bell Clauser: The easements are fine. We' lI need two 4" conduits from each building to your easement. Brackett: Ok. • • Technical Plat Review November 14, 2001 Page 28 PPL 01-8.00: Preliminary Plat (David Lyle Duplex, pp 569) was submitted by Shawki Al-Madoun, PE ofNorthstar Engineering Consultants, Inc. on behalf of NW Investments of Springdale, Inc. for property located on Hwy 16 east. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 6 91 acres with 20 lots proposed. Edwards: The next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat 01-8.00, David Lyle Duplex submitted by Shawki Al-Madoun ofNorthstar Engineering on behalf ofNW Investments of Springdale, Inc. for property located on Hwy 16 east. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 6.91 acres with 20 lots proposed. Bender: I'm Mike Bender with Northstar Engineering. Edwards: I'm going to start with sidewalk comments, Highway 16 is a principal arterial, which requires a 6' sidewalk with a minimum 10' greenspace. Please construct the sidewalk at the right of way line. Do not plant trees or shrubs within 8' of the street side of the sidewalk Colonial, Falcon and Dove are local streets which require a 6' sidewalk and a minimum of 6' greenspace on both sides of the street. That shows up there. Two access ramps at each street corner will be required. The necessary grading for sidewalk construction shall be done as part of the street construction. The rest are pretty standard comments. What kind of parks requirements? Schuldt: We had a special Parks Board meeting yesterday to discuss parks land dedication and not requiring it. Staff is still working on the minutes. They recommend to the Planning Commission to consider the excess park land dedicated in 1996 be accepted in lieu of the park land ordinance requirements for these duplexes. If not approved by the Planning Commission, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommends money in lieu of park land dedication. Furthermore, that dedication in 1996 was 6 98 acres, what was required at that time was 3.22, this addition would require about an acre, so there is still some surplus The Parks Board recommended that that surplus count for the park being named Baiiari Park and will not be considered as land banked in the future. Edwards: They recommended that that land count for the dedication? Schuldt: Yes, they did. Edwards: But it not count for any future developments by this developer. Ok. Schuldt: Part of that recommendation was that if for some reason Planning Commission says that • was not acceptable, then they would like money in lieu. • • Technical Plat Review November 14, 2001 Page 29 Edwards: Kim, do you want to go ahead and go over your comments? Kim Hesse - Landscape Administrator Hesse: Ok, what we're doing Mike, the biggest thing on this one in the front, the mitigation is heavy, there are 50 to 60 trees. It would have to go through the tree fund then we would turn around and put back in the development, but later. We want to move that all at the same time, that is up to you. I don't know what kind of options you have though because you are limited. Anyway, we can discuss if we can meet the requirements. Bender: Ok, that's not a problem. Edwards: Kim, you'll let me know if there is any problem why we shouldn't proceed on any of these projects? Hesse: Yes. Edwards: Planning comments, a diskette should be submitted prior to Planning Commission. There was an error in the legal description and it was missing a call. It didn't close at all, he's not even sure what is wrong with it but I did include his comments. Add plat page 559 to the title block. I would like to change the name from, you're calling it David Lyle Duplex Addition, can we call it David Lyle Phase III for a legal description, I think that would be better. Bender: Yes. Edwards: On Huntsville, asking for the right-of-way to be dimensioned from centerline which is not a big deal. The 15', I want you to call it out, 15' additional right-of-way dedication so that we're clear. Bender: Ok. Edwards: I believe there is overhead electric, it is probably pretty big, I think it is. Newman: It is Ozark, it is rather large, I don't know. Edwards: Ok, 12 KV is the point where it can stay overhead. If it is under that it has to go • underground. I imagine it is. Finally, we would like a note placed on the plat that no • • • Technical Plat Review November 14, 2001 Page 30 access shall be granted from Huntsville, Colonial or Falcon. From Jim Johnson, he says Dovey Drive can not be used. We already have a Dove Drive, he would like you to select another choice and submit it to him for approval. Petrie: A general comment, it has to do with making sure you understand, I'm just reviewing this as in preliminary, not as in final at this time. Two, is just the deadline for corrections. Under water, the first comment is a general comment having to do with widths of easements for water lines. I didn't see anywhere we need additional easements for that water line. Number two, we don't have any comments from the Fire Department, so the fire protection is ok. Three is a general comment, it has to do with encasements, no concrete encasements, steel if it is needed. Number four, showing the water line to end was the 100' over this existing so we requested to complete this loop and you can reduce this line to a 6" from there to there This one will have to remain an 8". Bender: Do you want a street cut? Petrie: We probably could do a street cut there. Bender: Ok, you want us to move them up from back here? Petrie: Right. Our general policy is we move every chance we get. Number five, our records show an existing easement. Here is a copy of our plat map. This easement right here is the one I'm referring to. I don't know the story behind that easement, whether it is shown on the final plat of David Lyle. Bender: I have a copy of it, I can double check. Petrie: I'm asking if that falls in this existing right of way or something needs to be checked on, but it shows up on our records. Under sewer, again, number one is a general comment, having to do with width of easements. They look fine as shown, if it ends up being deeper than 10' we may need water easements. Number two, you show two service lines on sewer to each lot. Bender: It is just one to each duplex. Petrie: Ok. Number three, again, the same thing on the encasements. Number four is the rain catcher, the rain pan as required for the new sewer manhole. Under grading, we have given you a copy of the grading plan checklist. There are some items that need to be added to the grading plan. On the back page you can see the actual comments that are Technical Plat Review November 14, 2001 Page 31 listed, that really wouldn't change anything on the plans, just checklist items that need to be added to it Bender: I don't see anything here, these are all pointing the wrong way here. Petrie: Ok, that is number three. It is a comment right here on your grading. Too, if you can also label this under the grading plan and just what you mentioned about the contours on the streets. Drainage easement located at the southwest comer of lot 20, it is labeled a utility easement, that is actually an existing drainage easement. It is not a utility easement. There is also a drainage easement on lot 4. That is an existing easement. Bender: Right, an existing 15' for the utilities. Petrie: Right. This part here, the corner here, it goes back this way. Bender: It's in addition to the utility on the plat. Petrie: Right. That is a drainage easement, that is not a utility easement. Bender: This other is a utility easement and that is a drainage in addition to the UE. Am I reading this correct? Petrie: Right. Bender: This is utility here and this is additional drainage. Petrie: Ijust want to make sure you are going to show what is actually there. Drainage easement will be needed. The drainage on the north side of lot 12, it drains into this cul-de-sac and goes back to this other concrete swale. Bender. That is separate from the utility? We've got a 20' utility, I don't know if anybody wants through there. Actually, sewer goes out to the west of there. Petrie: I'm going to have to look at what is being proposed here. It may be that we can combine the utility easement and drainage easement. We'll only consider that if we're talking about a concrete swale here or pipe. Number two has to do with that. The first thing I would like to see is if you can actually put a drop down up here. A pipe, and then discharge it into this. If it is not physically possible due to elevations, then we can look at a concrete • • • Technical Plat Review November 14, 2001 Page 32 swale, but more than likely this will need to be combined probably. It may have to be widened to 25' drainage and utility easement. Bender: Ok. Petrie: Ok, so the report itself, I didn't really have any comments on. It looked fine. For streets, you have got these labeled as 31', the current requirement is 28' wide for local streets. Bender: We will reduce those down. Petrie: Ok, well the 28' is what the standard says, anything over the standard would require some approval from the Planning Commission. If you could label the angle of intersection from here. I have a minimum street standard requirement that you can not be greater than so 1 need to know what that is. Bender. Ok. Petrie. Any questions on that? I did not mention it in the checklist, but the actual permit itself that we received is an old outdated permit, this is a copy of the new one, the other permit didn't have the owner's signature. I need the owner's signature on that permit. Bender: You've got the fee and everything already? Petrie: Yes, fees are ok. That is all I have. Edwards: Utilities? Johnny Boles - Arkansas Western Gas Boles: The gas line is showing from the southeast corner of lot 1 going west to the southwest corner of lot 13 and northwesterly to the northwest comer of lot 12, that is a high pressure transmission line so we would like to be notified before any excavation is done close to the proximity of that line. There is probably about 450 pounds of pressure on that line. That is all I have. Larry Gibson - Cox Communications Gibson: I would like to see a 4" street crossing Dovie from lot 8 to lot 16 on the west side. Technical Plat Review • November 14, 2001 Page 33 • • • Bender: Right at the intersection there? Gibson: Right. Just on the west side here between 16 and 8 running north and south. Then another one across Dovie also, from lot 4 to lot 20 on the east side. I haven't talked to Mike Phipps at Ozark about where they are going to go. He may want to add one to it, if he does, I would like to get one there too but I will need those two right there. That is all I have. Sue Clauser - Southwestern Bell Clauser: If any facilities need to be moved or relocated, it will be at the owner's and developer's expense and I may need conduit also. I need to find out if we have enough capacity in our existing. Probably we'll maybe just make some side crossings? Bender: Ok, I imagine we'll be doing that anyway. Clauser: This Colonial is existing is that correct? Bender: Yes, Colonial and Falcon are both existing roads. Clauser: Ok, so if I need anything else then I will give you a call. Thank you. Edwards. I have one thing to add. Your setback from Huntsville Road is 30' also and you have it as 25'. Bender: Probably from when we added the right of way. Edwards: Maybe. Do you have any questions Revisions are due on November 21, 2001 by 10:00 a.m. Thank you. • • • Technical Plat Review November 14, 2001 Page 34 LSD 01-25.10: Large Scale Development (Cliffs phase III, P.U.D., pp 487) was submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Cliffs Phase III Ltd. Partnership for property located south of Cliffs Blvd. And east of Happy Hollow Road: The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 36.77 acres with 288 units proposed. Edwards: The next item is LSD 01-25.10, Cliffs phase III, was submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Cliffs Phase III Ltd. Partnership for property located south of Cliffs Blvd. and east of Happy Hollow Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 36 77 acres with 288 units proposed. Good morning. Starting with sidewalks, a 6' sidewalk exists along Cliff and an 8' sidewalk exists along Happy Hollow which meet current requirements. New sidewalks, driveway approaches or access ramps constructed in the right of way shall meet UDO standards. Seven bicycle racks are required and those may be shown on there, I'm not sure. 1 remember discussing that with you. We are still going with the same parks fees as before, $108,000. From Traffic Superintendent, show at least one ADA van accessible space at the nearest accessible route to each building. You are showing twelve ADA spaces, not 24 as noted on the drawing. Kelso: Ok. I'll correct that. Edwards: Ok. Kim, before I do my comments, did you have any comments on this? Hesse: No. I'm working on it. Kelso: We talked yesterday and obviously, the main reason why we're taking this back through large scale is we are shifting a few buildings around and removing an area of tree preservation. Kim, I went out there and looked at it and it looks like we are going to be able to save some more of those trees Just around the corner. Hesse: Ok. Kelso: We'll pick up that half acre that we would've been taking out as part of this revision. That is the whole point of bringing this thing back through. Petrie: Can you tell us where that will be? Will that change anything? Kelso: As far as what the revision is? I brought two pieces of paper, this was the old, this is the new. All we've done is we've taken these buildings here that was approved previously and shifted them up here. • • • Technical Plat Review November 14, 2001 Page 35 Petrie: Kelso: Petrie: Kelso: Edwards. Kelso: Edwards: Hesse: Edwards. I understand that. I meant the additional tree preservation area, will that change anything? No. It was there and I don't know why we did this, but that area right here, that could be saved and there was a big chunk right here. Ok, that was my only question. Thank you. I think we'll be able to pick up that extra half acre. Ok, the only comment that I have from Planning is 15' of landscaping is required between parking lots and public right of way with one tree per 30' of frontage. I'm not terribly familiar with what you're doing, but if trees are coming out, we need to make sure that that requirement is met and then the developer requirements are for a continuous planting of shrubs to screen the parking lot. I'm just concerned about what we're doing and getting landscaping in there. Ok, we've got 25' in there that we're still leaving so we've got plenty of room to do that. Right. I just didn't know what kind of trees are existing and need to be planted. One of the things we asked them to do was at Subdivision level as well as beyond that is to provide a landscape plan. Ok. Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: Kelso: Petrie: Kelso: Petrie: I didn't go back and review this whole thing from scratch, all I did wasjust give you the comments from all of the past reviews, all those comments are still applicable. Really if this thing gets approved Ron, I think all we'll do is change the grading in this area, the drainage all stays the same, sewer line and all stay the same, the only thing we would be shifting is this water line and that would be it. So the only request I'm making is to get two full sets of revised plans. Ok. That's all. • • Technical Plat Review November 14, 2001 Page 36 Glen Newman - SWEPCO Newman: The revisions, the total number of buildings, is that all staying the same and in the same location? I would like to get four locations east so we can tie all of this in and I can give you a blue print. Kelso: If you could give me a way up your route? Newman: I will do that. Kelso: If this thing gets approved, we're going to come right back with the dedication plat. Newman: . Let me give you a layout of what it is going to look like with the four locations before we tie the easements together to complete our loop. Kelso: Ok, however you want to get it to me. Newman: I'll let you know as soon as I get something. Kelso: Alright, very good. Newman: That is all the comments I have. I hope the tree preservation areas aren't going to change any of your easements as far as any major changes? Kelso: No. Newman: That is all I have. Larry Gibson - Cox Communications Gibson: We'll also want 4" crossings across the streets and parking lots, same as the electric. We'll route the same way they do coming in. That is basically all I have. Johnny Boles - Arkansas Western Gas Boles: No comment. • • • Technical Plat Review November 14, 2001 Page 37 Sue Clauser - Southwestern Bell Clauser: I don't see where the easements are on here. Kelso: They are all shown. Clauser: I'm missing it. I'm sure they are, I'm just missing it. Is this all easement along the front of the building, or I guess, the rear is here? Kelso: Yes, I think we pretty well provided 20' easements on the front and the rear of the building. Clauser: 1 don't see the footage, I don't see a 20' UE on here, but I see where you're talking about. Kelso: Ok, it may be something that was screened off when we redid this thing. I freezed off as far as a layer, but they are, and I don't see them either and I can understand where you're coming from. There are 20' easements front and back of all buildings. Clauser: Ok, did we look at this before? Edwards: Yes, we looked at that. They are just moving these three buildings on the north, they are putting some greenspace between that and moving them back a little. Kelso: I guess 1 better take back that statement Dust said. The buildings we moved were right next to the ones in the middle there, were right back to back and we just had a 20' easement going in between them since we've got that space in there, I'll go ahead and provide you guys another 20' easement on the back of buildings 1, 2 and 3 right there. Clauser: Ok. I'm going to have to get with you on this one. I know that we went through this once already but I'm going to have to refresh my memory. We will need conduits from each of the buildings out to the utility easement at a spot that we're going to be able to place our equipment. Kelso: Ok, if I could just get your layouts of your utility then we'll put your easements there and come back if this gets approved with the easement dedication plat immediately. Clauser: Ok, very good, thank you. • • • Technical Plat Review November 14, 2001 Page 38 Edwards: Ok, revisions are due back November 21, 2001 by 10:00 a.m. and this will have to go all the way to Planning Commission because it is a planned unit development. Kelso: Ok, thank you. • • • Technical Plat Review November 14, 2001 Page 39 LSD 01-41.00: Large Scale Development (Steele Crossing II, pp 212) was submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Company on behalf ofJDN Development for property located between Van Asche Drive and Shiloh Drive east of Kohl's. The property is zoned C-2, thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 6.33 acres with 37,075 sq.ft. of retail space proposed. Edwards: The final item on the agenda is LSD 01-41.00 submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of JDN Development for property located between Van Asche Drive and Shiloh Drive east of Kohl's. The property is zoned C-2, thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 6.33 acres with 37,075 sq.ft. of retail space proposed. Kim, do you have any comments? Hesse: I guess my question is are they going to seek a waiver? If we look at it as Steele Crossing I'm not sure how to deal with it on the space? Edwards: I think it is separate. Hesse: I think we'll just need a waiver to get that waived and I will look at it. Edwards: Sidewalks are existing so that looks good. There are bicycle racks required per ordinance 43.93 and there isn't a number listed. Shreve: I wasn't sure how many new parking spaces are there? Do you have a number listed? Jefcoat: There is a separate chart. Edwards. So under 244 for shop? Jefcoat: The whole development is considered as parking. Edwards: How many are you adding with this Phase II, do you know? That is where we'll get the number of bicycle racks required from the new parking added. Jefcoat: Edwards: Ok, we'll separate that. Your parking chart is fine. I did get your large elevation. You need to send me 12 of them to be distributed to the Planning Commission? I do need that. With regard to those elevations, you have to have in the design overlay district, front facades facing all streets. This shop building up front has got no windows, no door, nothing to indicate it is a front facing Shiloh Drive so that is the real major issue that we have with the elevation so far, • • • Technical Plat Review November 14, 2001 Page 40 other than that, we haven't been out to Kohls in a while, but we thought that there was some vertical striping on the back of Kohls on those elevations that match so that we don't have to talk about articulation again. Jefcoat: Those are horizontal stripes, I'm not sure about vertical stripes. Edwards. I remember vertical, but I need to go out there and look at it so I would encourage you to do the same. Just to make those match. Jefcoat: It is the same architect and everything so they are quite familiar with it. It Just seems like it is all horizontal, I'm not sure. Edwards: Ok, and you may be right, I just don't know. Add plat page 212. Since the first part of this development came through, we do have new driveway ordinances which have a curb cut radius a minimum of25'. I just want that labeled and shown. Parking lot lighting shall be identical to that in the rest of the development. Jefcoat: I'm not sure there is any additional lighting. Edwards. Oh really? Ok, then that is fine. I am requesting either a landscape plan or just on this label, and maybe you did and I missed it, what kind of trees are going in. Jefcoat: We did, we listed the type of trees for the canopy. McClane: It should be right on the bottom. Jefcoat: There are three red oaks I believe Edwards. Where is that at? McClane: It should be right above the tree chart on the bottom. Jefcoat: There are some red oaks I believe. Edward: Ok, good. That is the information we'll be looking for. Shrubs are required between the parking lot from the right of way, which you typically don't show at this stage, but on the landscape requirements you will. All utility equipment shall be screened. I see you've got your screen wall, that looks good, that is going to be fine. Are you going to mount the utility equipment on top? • • • • Technical Plat Review November 14, 2001 Page 41 Jefcoat: I think the elevations show them on the back wall. Edwards: I'll work with that. No parks fees are due. From our Traffic Superintendent, each business with parking at the front must have at least one van accessible space with an 8' aisle in front of that business. Franklin: Tom, you're really showing more than you need. You've got six across here and you've got four business that have up front parking so you have one here and one here. One van accessible here and one van accessible there with the appropriate frontage. You Just need four van accessible. Jefcoat: Right, we could lose a couple ofthese. I think we already have too much access but I'm not sure. Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer Petrie: I' 11 skip over the first two general comments. They are pretty typical. Number three is what we Just started mentioning Just a minute ago with phase lines. We've got property lines and there is no lot split being proposed so I think it needs to be more clearly identified exactly what that line is. Jefcoat: Phase lines. Petrie: We have had a lot of discussion when the appeal went back to Planning Commission about the incorrect lot lines shown on the plat. I just want to make sure that it is clearly shown what that is and what we're actually doing. Edwards: This is a lot line between Target and Kohls, and this is not a lot line at all over here. You're not intending that to be, you're intending that to be a phase line? Jefcoat: Right. Petrie: I guess as I originally looked at it, I had some confusion as to what exactly was being proposed so I think it needs to be shown so there is no question what that is. Under water and sewer, we had no comments from the Fire Department. Number two, we need a gate valve to separate the public water lines and the proposed fire lines. Jefcoat: Right, just a valve there. • • • Technical Plat Review November 14, 2001 Page 42 Petrie: Jefcoat: Petrie. Jefcoat: Petrie: Jefcoat: Petrie: Jefcoat: Petrie: Jefcoat: Petrie: Right. Three, any costs associated with your grade adjustments to the sewer manholes will be at the developer's expense. Grading, the grading plan itself, I don't have any comments, it appears to meet all the checklist items. I did see what may be a typo on some of these lines back to the south of building E, some of those are not matching up, you can take a look at this area and those. Under drainage, I would like for the record, this question answered. Is this proposed plan propose storm water discharge in compliance with the approved wet land mitigation plan? Right, it is. We can put that statement on the drawing too. Number two, we still need on the final plan, you to address your erosion control at this discharge point. It is the one up here that is by riffraff. Right. Our city policy now is not to use riffraff. Right. It needs to be addressed, have that spread out in some way. The velocity at that part that it might be released without it. It just needs to be addressed, that may be the case. That's the reason I wasn't sure, ok. That is all I have, I have reviewed the preliminary drainage report, it was preliminary, it was fine as preliminary. We'll have to review it again as the final report. That's all. Edwards: Utilities? Glen Newman - SWEPCO Newman: This is all I've got in here so we'll need to establish transformer locations as far as where you want them to be located at in front of the building. Jefcoat: The transformer is in there, as far as where it is.. . Technical Plat Review November 14, 2001 Page 43 Newman: It will have to be relocated? McClane: I don't believe it is a relocation Tom, I believe it is a new one. Newman: We have something here, but I don't believe we have anything here. Just from these tapping cabinet locations to get to these buildings, the customer will provide the ditch, conduit. Whatever route, we'll work with you on routing that thing as inconspicuous and out of the way as possible. Jefcoat: Ok, I'll have to check on that. What about the one for the apartment lighting? McClane: There is an existing pad between Kohls.. . Newman: Yes, behind shop building C, and what we thought we would do there is use that existing transformer to service shop building C and perhaps the tenant A building, but we can get with you or the contractor or whoever to work those details out. We' Il need easements for the underground and then of course, I would like to have load and voltage requirements if you're that far along. Do you even know? Jefcoat: At least for tenant A we are, but we're not sure about the rest. Newman: Ok, it is just kind of the standard package. That is all I have. Johnny Boles - Arkansas Western Gas Boles: I don't have any comments related to the easements at this time Tom. My only concem... Jefcoat: That stub out? Boles: Not necessarily the stub out, it is how to get to building E and keep the costs down because all of our facilities are going out from the intersection of Mall Lane and Van Asche Street from the southwest corner of that intersection going west to serve Kohls. It is a tremendous distance to building E to keep our facilities out on the road. I can get with you later on that. Jefcoat: Ok. • Technical Plat Review November 14, 2001 Page 44 Larry Gibson - Cox Communications Gibson: At the present we have no facilities in front of Steele. It is a future build for us though. You may want to put some 2" PVC from the buildings across into the utility easements, more or likely within 6' or so of your electric transformers, just for future. That is all I have. Sue Clauser - Southwestern Bell Clauser: I'm going to need to feed each of these buildings off of Van Asche also so you are going to need to build me two 4" conduits from each of the buildings out to the utility easement on Van Asche. Jefcoat: Under pave sections alright? Clauser: Yes, as long as you get the 4" conduit out there. That is it. Jefcoat: Alright. Edwards. Did anybody else have anything to add? Revisions are due November 21st by 10:00 a.m. • Meeting adjourned. 10.45 a.m. •