Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-05-15 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE TECHNICAL PLAT REVIEW COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee was held on Wednesday, May 15, 2002 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LSP 02-30.00 & 31.00: Lot Split (Beard/Center, pp 599) Page 40 LSP 02-24.00: Lot Split (Baggett, pp 529) Page 3 LSP 02-25.00 & 26.00: Lot Split (Haines, pp 369) Page 5 LSP 02-27.00: Lot Split (Foster, pp 245) Page 8 LSD 02-12.00: Large Scale Development (Bargo Engineering, Inc., pp 604) Page 11 LSD 02-13.00: Large Scale Development (Fayetteville Municipal Airport, pp 795/796/834/835) Page 15 PPL 02-13.00: Preliminary Plat (Stone Mountain Subdivision, pp 488/489) Page 32 Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Sara Edwards Matt Casey Renee Thomas Ron Petrie Kim Hesse Keith Shreve Fire Department Solid Waste Kim Rogers Perry Franklin Technical Plat Review May 15, 2002 Page 2 UTILITIES PRESENT UTILITIES ABSENT Sue Clouser, Southwestern Bell Larry Gibson, Cox Communications Glenn Newman, AEP/ SWEPCO Mike Phipps, Ozark Electric Coop. Jim Sargent, AEP/ SWEPCO Johnny Boles, Arkansas Western Gas Technical Plat Review May 15, 2002 Page 3 LSP 02-24.00: Lot Split (Baggett, pp 529) was submitted by Harold Baggett for property located at 3437 E. Huntsville Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and is in the Growth Area containing approximately 4.02 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 2.1 acres and 1.92 acres. Edwards: Good morning, welcome to the Wednesday, May 15, 2002 meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee. The first item on our agenda is LSP 02-30.00 and 31.00 for Beard/Center submitted by Jerry Kelso. Is anyone here to represent this project? Seeing that no one is here, I will move that to the end of the agenda and move onto the next item. Item number four on the agenda is LSP 02-24.00 submitted by Harold Baggett for property located at 3437 E. Huntsville Rd. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and it is in the city as well as in the growth area. It contains four acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 2.1 acres and 1.92 acres. Is anyone here for that request? Please have a seat at the table. Our sidewalk ordinance has changed a little bit since the last lot split that you did and that is we don't require it at the time of lot split but at the time of lot development. When a permit is sought on this property, that is when a sidewalk will be required. Baggett: We already have one here. Edwards: Right, this is next to where you built yours right? Baggett: Yes. Edwards: That is when that will be required. Baggett: Ok. Edwards: The next sheet, there are no comments from our Traffic Superintendent. I am asking for a few revisions to your survey. That is that the legal descriptions for tracts A and B do not match the drawing. We need to have your surveyor fix that. Your survey is also showing a 10' side setback when the requirement is only for 8' so unless one of the utilities ask for a utility easement, I am going to have that revised to an 8' setback because I don't want to enforce something greater than our regulations. We are requiring right-of-way dedication for Huntsville Road, 55' from centerline. The requirement on that is that a Warranty Deed be given to the City and that is what the Highway Department requires. Before you file the lot split, we will just need a signed Warranty Deed given to the city with proof that it has been filed. Your surveyor should work up the legal description and deed for that. Then, because part of this property is in the county, you also need to obtain county approval, which should be administrative and you should just be able to take the approved survey that we will stamp approved, you take it over to the county and they should be able to approve it probably in the same day for you. This is Matt Casey with our Engineering Division and he has got a few comments as well. Technical Plat Review May 15, 2002 Page 4 Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: We are just requesting an additional easement, a minimum of 10' from the existing sewer line that runs across the property. Also, you need to show the existing 8" waterline that is out front on the road way on the drawing. Baggett: You need the main on the front? It is across the highway, does it have to show on that? Casey: Yes, we just like to have it shown on the drawing. Baggett: Ok. Edwards: Utilities? Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop. Phipps: Ray, the only thing I have is between tracts A and B, lets make that a 10' building setback and UE on each side of that property line so we can access down the middle of that if we need to. That is all I have. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: 1 agree with Mike on the utility easement. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: I agree with those utility easements. That is all I have. Edwards: Ray, your revisions are due May 22' by 10:00 a.m. If you have any questions, or your surveyor has any questions, have him give me a call. Baggett: Ok, thank you. Technical Plat Review May 15, 2002 Page 5 LSP 02-25.00 & 26.00: Lot Split (Haines, pp 369) was submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter & Associates on behalf of Edward & Lerene Haines for property located at 1921 Old Wire Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 10.55 acres. The request is to split into three tracts of 0.78 acres, 7.22 acres, and 2.55 acres. Edwards: The next item is LSP 02-25.00 and 26.00 for Haines submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter & Associates on behalf of Edward & Lerene Haines for property located at 1921 Old Wire Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 10.55 acres. The request is to split into three tracts of 0.78 acres, 7.22 acres, and 2.55 acres. Carter: Good morning, I am Glenn Carter with Carter Consulting. I will be glad to answer any questions you may have. Edwards: As I explained before, sidewalks are not required at the time of lot split. They will be required at the time of individual lot development. There is no comment from our Traffic Superintendent. Park fees are assessed in the amount of $940 and that is for two additional units. Carter: Ok. Edwards: The revisions that Planning needs, we have a requirement that each lot contains 6,000 sq.ft of buildable area outside the floodplain or be a minimum of an acre. All the tracts are a minimum of an acre except for tract 2, which I need for you to verify that it will have the 6,000 sq.ft. of buildable area outside the floodplain. That includes building setbacks as well so you have to take out the hundred year floodplain area and the building setback area and make sure that it has that 6,000 sq.ft. I need adjacent zoning and property owners. There are some comments from G.I.S. on the legal description, which is at the end of this. It looks like tract 3 doesn't close and all of the tracts are off by a little bit. If you could just look into that. Carter: Ok. Edwards: I am asking for plat page 369 to be added. A floodplain reference just stating the panel number and the map date. It is difficult for me to tell the right-of-way and the centerline. If you could add a symbol and maybe symbolize those differently so we can make sure what is going on there. Add your building setbacks. It looks like your label for Old Wire Road got off, just add it on there so that when we get to Subdivision Committee we can definitely see where this property is located. We are now requiring a dedication block, which I attached to this. You are only going to use the top one, which is the City of Fayetteville and what that is doing is anything shown as dedicated right-of-way or easements, that is the property owner dedicating that to the City. Technical Plat Review May 15, 2002 Page 6 Carter: Ok. Edwards: I am also asking for a note added that states "No disturbance of land is allowed in the floodway and no driveways may be constructed in that area." Carter: Ok. Edwards: Engineering? Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: Carter: Casey: Carter: We are requesting an additional easement. There is a minimum of 10' from the existing sewer line on this property. I would like for you to label all the water and sewer lines on or adjacent to the property. The existing 12" that goes through there? We need a minimum of 10'. Ok, so 20' or 10' on either side. I thought we had done that, it looks to me like maybe a layer got turned off or something but yeah, we'll fix that. Edwards: Utilities? Jim Sargent — AEP/SWEPCO Sargent: I would like to ask for a 20' utility easement adjacent to the right-of-way of Old Wire Road and Ash Street. Conklin: Ok, from the right-of-way onto the property? Sargent: Yes. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: I agree with that utility easement. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: We can use that same UE. Also Glenn, we've got existing overhead on the west side of Old Wire running north and south and we also have existing overhead running east and west on the north side of Ash Street. If anything has to be moved or relocated it will be at the owner's expense. Technical Plat Review May 15, 2002 Page 7 Carter: Your existing on Old Wire is which side? Gibson: It is on the west side, it runs northeast and southwest actually but north south. We are joint usage on the AEP poles. Carter: That is all I have. Thomas: Johnny Boles will get with you this week on his comments. Carter: I talked with him yesterday and understand his comments. He faxed me over a copy of his plat book that shows the gas easement there and some other things so we'll be putting some labels on that according to that. We are still looking for the easements. I know that there are some gas easements in there that we will get on here. Edwards: Ok, thank you. Carter: Thank you. Technical Plat Review May 15, 2002 Page 8 LSP 02-27.00: Lot Split (Foster, pp 245) was submitted by Terri Lynne McNaughton on behalf of Steven Foster for property located at the southwest corner of Weir Road and Salem Road. The property is in the Growth Area and contains approximately 6.79 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 3.87 acres and 2.80 acres. Edwards: The next item is LSP 02-27.00 submitted by Terri Lynne McNaughton on behalf of Steven Foster for property located at the southwest corner of Weir Road and Salem Road. The property is in the Growth Area and contains approximately 6.79 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 3.87 acres and 2.80 acres. Good morning. McNaughton: Good morning, I am Terri McNaughton. Edwards: These are staff comments so that you have them all in writing so that you can get them back to the surveyor for the revisions that are required. The first couple are from our Sidewalk Division. There is no comment from Parks, no comment from Traffic. On the fourth page, Planning is requesting some revisions. The description on the survey for the parent tract does not describe this property. It describes property to the south which I think was part of a previous lot split so we need to get the right description on the survey. I am asking for adjacent zoning, which is basically just R-1 to the east. I am also requesting that the city limits line be added to the vicinity map. I am requesting that a floodplain reference be added. Basically what that says is this property is not affected by the floodplain. The right-of-way for Salem, Salem is a street on our Master Street Plan which requires 45' from centerline be dedicated. It looks like there is 60' existing total but your survey is calling out 40' from centerline, which I think maybe should be 30' so that is clear. We are going to need 35' from centerline to be dedicated. I probably just need to talk to the surveyor. If 40' actually exists or 30' actually exists. Also, we need a dedication block added to the plat and that is going to be the second one, which is Washington County. That is just dedicating the right-of-way and utility easements that are being dedicated as part of the split. Are there any houses on this property? McNaughton: No. Edwards: Ok. This property is in the county so it does require county approval prior to filing. That is all of my comments. Utilities? Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop. Phipps: Are we getting additional right-of-way along Salem? Edwards: That was my question. I am not sure if I'm getting 5' more or if it is already existing, it is kind of hard to tell. Phipps: If we do we will need a 20' utility easement on top of that inside that right-of-way Technical Plat Review May 15, 2002 Page 9 Edwards: Phipps: along Salem and also a 20' along Weir Road. Between tracts A and B, is that going to be 10' or 8' setbacks? The county has 10'. If we could make that just a 10' building setback and UE on each side of that line. That is all I have. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: Can you just make the 10' setback that goes between the buildings and you also have around the perimeter, can you just make that setback and utility easement all the way around? McNaughton: Ok. Clouser: That is all I have, thank you. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: McNaughton: Gibson: Edwards: McNaughton: Edwards: McNaughton: Edwards: Those setbacks and UEs are fine with me. I would like to make you aware that we have an overhead fiber optic line that is on the west side of Salem and runs north and south. We are also on the north side of Weir Road running east and west, I don't think this will effect it, but if any of that has to be relocated or damaged it will be at the owner's expense. Ok, and that is running along the west side of Salem? Yes Ma'am, it runs north and south. As I am sitting here, I realize I forgot to make a comment. There is on the survey, a piece of future right-of-way shown. What we would prefer to do is to move back up to Weir Road, take that future right-of-way off and then the requirement on Weir will be 35' from centerline so we will remove that and add 5' on Weir. That is the 5' we were talking about a while ago? There is 5' on Salem that will need to be dedicated because they are both on our Master Street Plan. Ok, I was going to ask if we could get that removed. That is all I have. The revisions are due Wednesday, May 22°a by 10:00 a.m. Technical Plat Review May 15, 2002 Page 10 McNaughton: Can I call you if I have any questions? Edwards: Yes. Technical Plat Review May 15, 2002 Page 11 LSD 02-12.00: Large Scale Development (Bargo Engineering, Inc., pp 604) was submitted by Landtech Engineering, Inc. on behalf of Bargo Engineering, Inc. for property located at 1775 Armstrong Avenue. The property is zoned I-2, General Industrial and contains approximately 5.14 acres. Edwards: The next item is LSD 02-12.00, Bargo Engineering, Inc., submitted by Landtech Engineering, Inc. on behalf of Bargo Engineering, Inc. for property located at 1775 Armstrong Avenue. The property is zoned I-2, General Industrial and contains approximately 5.14 acres. I will start with the Landscape Administrator comments. She is requesting that you indicate the general species of trees and shrubs proposed and the size of them at installation. The trees are required to be 2" caliper and shrubs are to be 3-5 gallons. She suggests meeting with the owner to determine the best location for trees and shrubs based on existing conditions. Hesse: I need to talk with you on that just to see how your existing parking lot is and how you are going to deal with all of that. Also, between the drive and the road, if it will fit in that ditch line or if we have to come up with another arrangement. Presley: Our client had a question on whether or not we had to do these islands in the existing lot. Hesse: That is kind of what I'm talking about. We possibly want the trees but I don't know if you should cut them out. It may be just adjacent. Presley: That is what we really would like to do. They could put them outside and maybe you could ask for a couple more. Hesse: That way you don't have to cut out your existing. The conditions when you actually dig out all that base and everything, there is just not much for the trees to grow in so that seems like that would work best. Presley: Thank you. Edwards: You're saying maybe four trees instead of two or something like that? Hesse: Three or four. It just kind of depends on what kind of species we end up with. Presley: So would you like to go out on site with me sometime and take a look? Hesse: Yes. Edwards: There was no comment from Parks. No comment from our Traffic Superintendent. From Sidewalks, Armstrong is a minor arterial which requires a 6' sidewalk and a minimum of 10' greenspace. Is that being shown on here? Technical Plat Review May 15, 2002 Page 12 Presley: Yes. Edwards: What is the nature of the use of this property? Presley: The existing building is just a machine shop. The proposed building is going to be a warehouse. This is David Williams, he actually works with Bargo Engineering. Williams: We are a full machine shop. Any parts that local businesses need, we've got customers all across the country. The main use for this warehouse space, we've got a large customer, and their product that they send to us comes in on 4'x4' pallets. They are stacked about 2 '/z' high and we get like thirty or forty of those at a time. When they start coming in with all our machines in our shop we have lost all of our floor space storing them so that is going to be used storing all of that. Edwards: Ok, thank you. As I mentioned before, commercial design standards require a minimum of 15' of width along the front property line inward. I realize that there is an existing drive in there so what I would like is just for you to request in writing that you're requesting a waiver from this requirement due to existing conditions on site. I was looking at your plans and counting the parking spaces. You can double check me, but you say you have 49 and that is the minimum required and when I count them I only get 48 so you will need to look into that. If that is true, you will need to find an additional place. That is all that I have. Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: I understand that y'all met with Ron Petrie yesterday and went over all of his comments. Do you have any additional questions at this time? Presley: No, we're fine. Thank you. Glenn Newman — AEP/SWEPCO Newman: This will be served on the existing system I assume and we are on the north side of your existing building. Presley: I believe that is right. All the water, sewer, and everything will come off of what is existing. Newman: Ok. Just lighting load is essentially all we are talking about in there? Presley: As far as we know, yes. Newman: If the electrical contractor has any questions or anything, just have him get in touch Technical Plat Review May 15, 2002 Page 13 Sue Clouser Clouser: Presley: Clouser: with us. That is all I have. — Southwestern Bell Are you going to have phone service out there in the warehouse do you know? Not that I am aware of. If you do decide that you want to go with that, you need to provide us with a pipe. A 2" would be fine in this case because I'm sure you would only have one or two lines in there. I don't know offhand where we feed the existing off this building, I don't know if we're on the outside or the inside but we would need conduit that we could get from the existing into the new building if you decide to go with phone. That is all I have. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: Edwards: Presley: No comment. Can I have your name for the record? Kyle Presley. Technical Plat Review May 15, 2002 Page 14 LSD 02-13.00: Large Scale Development (Fayetteville Municipal Airport, pp 795/796/834/835) was submitted by Ray Boudreaux on behalf of the Fayetteville Municipal Airport for property located at 4500 S. School Avenue. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 512 acres. Edwards: The next item is LSD 02-13.00 for the Fayetteville Municipal Airport submitted by Ray Boudreaux on behalf of the Fayetteville Municipal Airport for property located at 4500 S. School Avenue. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 512 acres. Good morning. Johnson: I am Wayne Johnson with McClelland Engineers with Ray Boudreaux. Edwards: I am going to start with the Landscape Administrator's comments. Trees are to be disbursed among the parking area at a ratio of one tree per twelve spaces and spaced out along S. School in front of the hangar buildings. If the required trees are to be transplanted from the existing parking lot, a three year landscape establishment bond will be required. Trees transplanted during the growing season have a small chance of survival. Hesse: Is that what you were planning? You were just going to transplant what was there? Johnson: Yes. Hesse: When is this going to under construction? Johnson: Late next month. Hesse: I just don't think it is a real good idea. Johnson: I would propose to use the tree transplanter rather than digging them up. Hesse: Either way, even if you use a tree spade, they just don't do well. You've got to treat them with all kinds of stuff and then there's just not a real good chance of survival this time of year. If you still want to try that then we will need an establishment bond, which is the cost of the plant material. I don't know what might work best for you. We'll figure something out. Johnson: The initial development is going to be the north row of hangars. There could be part of those trees, if you look on sheet three, that are on the south half of that area that may not be disturbed initially. Boudreaux: Well, depending on what their distance is from the centerline of the taxiway. They Technical Plat Review May 15, 2002 Page 15 Johnson: Boudreaux: Hesse: Boudreaux: Hesse: Johnson: Boudreaux: Johnson: Hesse: Johnson: Hesse: Edwards: Johnson: Shreve: may all have to be moved. Some of them may not be moved. Although, some of the bigger ones in the existing parking area will need to be removed. The existing parking lot has an irrigation system in it, I don't know whether it is still active or not. No. I'm certainly an advocate of transplanting existing trees but the time of year, I don't know if it is worth the cost. I hate to see them destroyed, there are some nice Bradfords out there. It is just that there is a real narrow chance of them living. We will work with you on trying to get those specifications set up to where maybe it is the size. Maybe we can do it ourselves. We need to have somebody that is in the tree transplanting business. We have a small tree transplanter but it is too small for the size. If anything, you want to go with larger than what you need. I don't know how much space you have in the islands, probably enough. There are some of the existing trees that have died that are in those existing parking lot aisles that need replaced. We can just meet out there and look at them. Based on their existing health depends on what we will do. From our Sidewalk Administrator, School Avenue is a principal arterial, which requires a 6' sidewalk and a minimum 10' of greenspace. Previously the airport has established a sidewalk fund. I know that we've been over this before. It looks like the calculation, based on the improvements is $8,903.40 paid to the airport sidewalk fund. We can break that out with individual projects and divide it by the square footage of these hangars and do it. Ok, how does this compare with the fund that was set up last year with the large scale development when roughly $5,400 was put into the fund? It is the same calculation based on square footage. I don't know if there was any actual money put into that fund or not. Technical Plat Review May 15, 2002 Page 16 Boudreaux: This is only for this particular southeast development for the eight hangars right? The one last year was put in for the other side right? Johnson: Why are taxiways involved in the calculation for sidewalk criteria? Shreve: The original meeting, that I wasn't a part of, they decided any improvement, whether it be a taxiway, a road, or a building, is covering part of the airport property and they based it on any improvement, any area that was disturbed or improved. Johnson: I am just asking because that has nothing to do with public use, parking lots, driveways. Shreve: Well, it could be argued both ways. Johnson: The buildings aspect, to some degree you are involved in public. It is more of a very limited public use from the standpoint that you are using private aircraft, corporate aircraft on those areas. I am just bringing it up. Edwards: If you have questions you might talk to Chuck over in our Sidewalk Division because he and Allett worked out that calculation. Johnson: Parking and drives, I just question the taxiways. Shreve: From our point of view, it is very lenient. If this was a private person coming into develop this, we would require them to build a sidewalk on the entire front. Johnson: We understand. Boudreaux: I think we need a sidewalk along Hwy. 71. There are kids walking to school down there. Shreve: We whole heartedly agree. Johnson: There is what is left of the old asphalt strip right next to the curb but that is not... Boudreaux: Someone needs to do a sidewalk or a trail or something. Shreve: If y'all want to go ahead and build it we will support you all the way. Boudreaux: It's only money right. Shreve: It's only money. Technical Plat Review May 15, 2002 Page 17 Boudreaux: Edwards: Johnson: Edwards: Johnson: Boudreaux: Edwards: Boudreaux: Edwards: Boudreaux: Edwards: Johnson: Edwards: Johnson: Edwards: Johnson: Boudreaux: Johnson: This happens to be public money. From our Traffic Superintendent, he pointed out that you've got parking, you've got a calculation here of 39 spaces and there are not 39 spaces shown on this plat so he is requesting that you show all 39 spaces and that you meet our requirement which is a 9'x19' stall, a 24' aisle. On the south side of the building? If that is where you're proposing them to be. Well, there are some on the north side of the building from that aspect. Can the parking that is already out there, can that be part of that? Over in front of the terminal? It is not in front of the terminal, it is right behind the building. There are like a thousand parking spaces which are not being used. I think that we could argue that. I don't care one way or the other. We need to move these over anyway. They are concerned about where these people will park when using that terminal. There will be some parking behind there for the employees that are in these hangars. We will adjust the buildings and information on the south side of the southern most hangars. The vicinity map, it doesn't outline the property, it shows the city so I am going to get you to shade the airport property. Ok. Also, I would like an explanation of exactly what improvements you are proposing. These hangars, the taxiways, is that right? That's it? Yes. Pavement for parking airplanes on in between the hangars. Ray currently has a lease for the two hangars on the north side west end and CEF is the fixed base operator in there. They are looking at a 300x200 hangar for an Technical Plat Review May 15, 2002 Page 18 Boudreaux: Johnson: Edwards: Johnson: Boudreaux: Johnson: Boudreaux: aircraft storage building that the city will build. The other four are not currently tenants but we wanted to have them on here so that within the next year or two if those tenants did come in we won't have to go through this process again, again, and again. Again, depending on how things develop, these may occur within the next year or two years. They could occur next week. You just don't know if somebody comes in and says "I want to rent that lot and build my hangar there." In fact, I have already had people ask. We just don't want to slow that process down. I think we are in a period that we need to take advantage of growth right now otherwise we miss out and we don't want to miss out. The airport needs to be ready to cater to tenants that would come in and want to bring business to the community and the airport. The taxiways up here, you are proposing them now? The east side, yes. Basically, that is to be done in three phases as FAA funding becomes available. We have shown on here the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Forest Service lease area. The Forest Service is moving their forest fire fighting tanker base from Ft. Smith to Fayetteville and this is where it will be. They have a goal to have this in operation this time next year, therefore, the first phase of the taxiways will need to be worked on. Basically, 1,300 feet or so of taxiways. Then as the demand for those aircraft come in, FAA does not like to see an aircraft cross the runway when they are getting ready to go to one way of the runway to take off or when there is landing and come back and cross. It is called runway encouragement. There have been a lot of accidents over the country and they don't like to see that so that is the reason they like to see a parallel taxiway and connections to it. As funding becomes available then that project will be extended down and that is hopefully within the next three years that that will be finished all the way down. We have that in our five year plan but I can tell you that we have to compete on space. We no longer have dedicated revenues or dedicated money out there because we no longer have passenger service which creates that pot of money, so now you have to compete on the merits of the project. Essentially, that parallel taxiway is going to require development on the east side of that taxiway in order to get the money to fund that taxiway. Taxiways, as you know, are very expensive. This project here is 1.3 million or something. About a million dollars. Just to build a bunch of concrete out there for an airplane to taxi on so it is not like you can get it easy. Of course that requires us to manage that too. Technical Plat Review May 15, 2002 Page 19 Johnson: Boudreaux: Edwards: Johnson: Edwards: Johnson: Edwards: Johnson: Boudreaux: Edwards: Johnson: Edwards: Those are basically in there to try to move forward with the final plans on that by the middle of July. Hopefully there will be some money available from the FAA. The FAA is going to have to come up with some money because otherwise their federal agency isn't going to have a way to get from their project out to the runway to take off. They have their money so we know that they are going to start their construction. I am not exactly sure how that is going to work through this Committee or whether or not we're doing that for them or if they need to come do that. I don't understand all of that so somebody is going to have to help me out. That has all been leased to the federal government. Do they have a construction time date? They were hoping to start mid -summer, I am not sure whether they are still on that same schedule or not. Are you sure that this is their final layout? This is the latest layout from them and I think it is pretty much their final layout. Like I said, this project doesn't include that, we just show it for why we are needing the parallel taxiway. Have you talked to them about coming through large scale development when they get their final layout? I would hate for them to come in and try to get a building permit and be told "I'm sorry, you didn't apply for the project." I wouldn't want to hold you up. It has been mentioned to them I think. Oh, we've mentioned it to them. Now, we don't understand what the federal government's requirements might be when we're talking about a city. I guess it is on city property but since they've leased it now it is federal property so I'm not sure exactly how we do that. We want to comply. Typically, unless it is a fee simple ownership, they go ahead and go through the process, same as anybody else. Next, the southern aisle comes back into this southern hangar, at the narrowest point we're looking at about 15' wide. Our requirement is 24'. That is in order to get two way traffic. Which area are you talking about? On your page 3, this aisle down here. Technical Plat Review May 15, 2002 Page 20 Johnson: Boudreaux: Edwards: Boudreaux: Johnson: Edwards: Johnson: Boudreaux: Johnson: Clouser: Johnson: Edwards: Johnson: You are looking at people that work back there. You are not looking at the public access back in there all day long. You are not looking at that much traffic. It is a driveway, it is not a street. I don't know whether you qualify it as a street or driveway. No, we have driveway width minimums as well. If you feel like that is not necessary for this site we can ask for a waiver on that. If it is not necessary there is no need to add extra pavement, I agree with you. Yeah, but I want to do what is right. It is 20' wide so actually it is wide enough to handle two cars. The existing road, the entry drive where it narrows is 15', that is true there. That is existing curb and gutter. It was a single lane, one directional road. So where we start building it now is going to be 20'? On a thirty that is what it scales out to be. We still don't have permission from the state to go into their road at this point either. That's not a big problem, we can get that. The entry road we have played around or looked at the option of taking the existing driveway that is there and making a sharp harsh turn off of that and use that existing recirculation road that is a narrow one lane in there. All of that can also be labeled one way because the north road out of the terminal area is one way, it was all one way to start with so we can label this thing all one way and make people go out that direction and try not to have to obtain a new drive opening off the road and use this other one. It will entail a phone pedestal removal. I think that phone pedestal fed the old parking gate and that is no longer there so I don't know that that phone line is even needed anymore. I would have to look at it. I couldn't tell you right off. W could use that existing road cutting in front of the airport sign and then make a turn over there and make that basically one way into the airport, but still 15' or 16' wide just for incase somebody stalls on the road you could get by. That is what I think that in the end result, would be the better choice now. Ok, you want to change it to that? Yes. What about as far as the one way? Technical Plat Review May 15, 2002 Page 21 Edwards: Boudreaux: Johnson: Boudreaux: Johnson: Edwards: Johnson: Boudreaux: Rogers: Boudreaux: Rogers: Boudreaux: Rogers: Edwards: Johnson: With the one way 15' will be fine. The key is that you have to be careful because on the next part of this development when we go to the south side, those guys have still got to come back. Well, we will probably need to do some adjustment in here for these coming out but this road would be one way. The entry off the road is wide enough for two way access. We would just have to limit this. Ok, so we take care of her problem with the 24' right now. Yes, we would have to do some adjustment right here to get that. Since we are not looking at curb and gutter, do we have to curb and gutter that driveway? No. Maybe we can take some of this curb out and widen it out a little bit there. Is there ever any goal from our Parks Department of putting a bike path all the way through there? Through Combs Park area it has been discussed, also a horseback trail. A horseback trail on the east side of that road? Along Combs, along the White River. On the citywide Master Trails Plan, I do not have a copy yet, it is proposed. I don't believe that it has been passed yet. The only thing we could do on the highway would be a bike path probably. If we wanted to do a bike path down to Greenland. The only reason I say that is because I don't want to destroy that one way road if that might help us in our planning now. Do you see what I'm saying? If we wanted to do that. I will pass that on to Steve Hatfield. Your drawing line types are all the same. What I am looking to be able to read this plan, is maybe we could separate the grading and the large scale. The contours were supposed to be dashed, that was one of my things on there. I know that they were supposed to have changed it but yet when it plotted out they did not. That was one of my comments on the final revisions was to get those dashed and they did not come out and I apologize for that. Edwards: I also would like for you to maybe shade areas of new asphalt so that we can tell Technical Plat Review May 15, 2002 Page 22 what is there and what is proposed so that we can show what we're approving. Johnson: You said something about height of the building? Edwards: I see that on there now. Johnson: That is probably a minimum. Boudreaux: Eave height is probably going to be 28'. You are going to need 28' doors so the center height is probably going to be that. Edwards: The setbacks increase with height so that is why I was asking that question. Boudreaux: They do on runways too because our runways require a 7:1 slope. Edwards: It is kind of similar to that. At 28' your setback is 28' so we're ok because you've got a 30'. I was just checking to make sure that we won't go over that. If for some reason you need to go over 30', and this is of course depending on how we move it for the parking, we probably need to look at moving these buildings so they can meet setbacks. Johnson: In order to get the parking on the south side they are going to be moved. We've got ample spacing between them. Boudreaux: The absolute minimum is 175 face to face on those hangars. If we can get more it is better because then that allows the biggest, the G4 and the 05 actually to taxi by each other. That is the idea. 175' is the minimum. He has got over 200' out there right now. Johnson: I've got 185' out there on this end so we've got a little bit of room there. Edwards: Also, kind of along the lines of what Kim was saying with additional landscaping there is one island per 12 spaces. These grassed areas between the hangars on the north, we're requesting that actual islands come out and trees be planted. I want you to maybe come look at this. Johnson: Ok, I see what you're talking about. We've got to basically cut the islands to get the entry rows in there. Boudreaux: What she is doing is between the building, that is not the existing island. Johnson: We've got to work out elevation differentials there so it may be that the islands don't get adjacent to the buildings. Edwards: Also, is this paved all the way right here? Technical Plat Review May 15, 2002 Page 23 Johnson: This is a grass island, this, that, and that, otherwise it is paved all the way down. I probably should write grass in these island areas. Edwards: Is there grass along this road now? Johnson: No, the island goes all the way. The asphalt s 63' wide running this direction. Edwards: Ok, that is all that I have. Engineering has some comments. Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: Will any of the hangars require water and sewer service? Johnson: Yes, I think so. We talked about the possibility of putting a little pump station southeast of the hangar area and then tying into that force main that comes from the Greenland pump station. The other option is whether we can get adequate fall from the hangar areas to the manhole that is in Greenland. It runs in front of Mabry's Auto Salvage or down that Parker Avenue down there. That is one thing that we were going to look at from a standpoint of sanitary sewer. Currently from the terminal building all flows all go to the north end so it would either have to be a pump station or back to the manhole. In doing that we would get an onsite collection system to a manhole and then get it run back to you. Casey: The grading plan has only been reviewed for this hangar area. At the time of taxiway construction we will need to have a separate grading plan submitted. Johnson: We are working on bigger projects. We wanted to show typically what the elevations were going to be at the intersection of those hangars to give you an idea of what we were looking at from an elevation point. Boudreaux: Maybe what we ought to do on that Forest Service thing is try to come together with those guys. Johnson: You are saying the minimum storm sewer is 18", that is for streets correct? Casey: We don't like to see anything smaller than 18. Johnson: You've got that much water flowing for the hundred year storm, is it cost effective to do that? Petrie: 18" is the minimum. That is what we have been enforcing. It has to do with the maintenance of it. Technical Plat Review May 15, 2002 Page 24 Boudreaux: Petrie: Casey: Johnson: Casey: Johnson: Casey: Boudreaux: Johnson: Boudreaux: Petrie: Johnson: I knew it couldn't be something to do with the water, it has something to do with the maintenance of it? Yes. The existing drop inlets that are currently in the islands, those islands are shown to be moved so what is the plan for the dropdown inlets? They are planned to stay because they catch that water. There is one other set up on the north half of it. With some of the comments we were looking at, either one of two things could happen. We will either leave them in place as they are as inlets and doing something curved around them or something of that nature or as mentioned in here, we will change our grading. Some of these function as flumes that go across the island and flow into the back side of it. Depending on exactly how that is going to work we are going to have to look at that a little bit harder. The drainage report was for the total development including the taxiway. According to our drainage criteria manual they need to show the flows for the whole area. Flows entering the site, generated on site, and leaving the site. Are you talking about for the whole airport? Yes. That needs to be included in the drainage report. Do we have such a thing? No, you're talking about two weeks worth of work. No, you're talking about $200,000 worth of work and I don't have that kind of money. I don't know where we would get that kind of money. I think what he is referring to is the flows in this affected area. You've got some offsite flows coming into these areas that you are going to use for detention and it is going to be hard to design the detention without having those flows. I don't think we're talking about the entire airport. Ok. Are you asking for the drainage that goes to that pipe system south of the terminal, which basically collects the water from the existing parking lot in the terminal building area? Are you looking at that area? It is basically this area right here all goes into this existing pipe. Otherwise, all this stuff comes all the way out to here and comes down around. What we were looking at here on this area is this infill area between the taxiway and the runway is so large that based on proposed inlet elevation and elevations that would still be 1 '/2' below the taxiway. At 35 we've got a five acre feed in here. We can control the runoff out of this area by Technical Plat Review May 15, 2002 Page 25 Casey: limiting the openings in the grate to detain that water in that infill area. The same thing in the other two also rather than detaining it out of the total discharge pipe on the east side of the property. That kind of pertains to another comment I had. We need to have all the calculations of final detention design even in your preliminary drainage report. There was not enough information given to know how that was going to be limited. The wording said that that was going to happen but we didn't have anything to show that that had been calculated. Johnson: Alright. I guess basically we just need to meet with you and Ron and try to come to an understanding of what we're looking at and trying to do. Casey: Also, that would be done at the time of the taxiway construction and we need to limit the offsite flows from the hangar area before construction on the taxiway. Boudreaux: I thought the calculations showed that there weren't any additional flows. Johnson: No, there are some additional flows. We will work on that. Casey: Also, when was the wetland officially delineated and approved? Johnson: In 1994. I talked to Doris with the Corp. of Engineers about a month ago and she said that delineation is still valid. I have one copy of it. The delineation on the east side and then down along the Greenland Schools in this area and then over on the eastern side of the property. She said that is still a valid determination. The Corp. of Engineers came back and did that in early 1994. Casey: Any of the areas defined as wetlands, it says in our ordinance, "...shall be protected from adverse changes and runoff quantity and quality of associated land development." That will need to be addressed also. The plan also shows the pipe being extended and discharging directly into the wetlands. Johnson: This is still quite a distance from the wetlands, it is still probably 300' from the wetlands from that ditch. It is inside the floodplain, it is inside that. Casey: Any grading within the hundred year floodplain would require a floodplain development permit. Johnson: That is Phase II or Phase III work on that basis. Casey: There are some other comments in there that if you've got any questions on I would be more than happy to go over them with you. Technical Plat Review May 15, 2002 Page 26 Johnson: Edwards: We will sit down and visit with you on that. Utilities? Glenn Newman — AEP/SWEPCO Newman: Boudreaux: Newman: Boudreaux: Edwards: Boudreaux: Newman: Boudreaux: Newman: Clouser: Edwards: Clouser: Johnson: Edwards: Any relocation of our facilities, I think we're all on the north side of the terminal there so do you think we'll need any easements? We're hoping it is all underground. It is going to stay as Drake Field and the City, there is no way this is going to be divided up or anything? No way, you can't. This is all public property, every last bit of it. We are leasing it out for the construction of hangars. They get long term leases so that it is bankable but it is all city property. They will pay their own utility bills though. Absolutely. I was just looking at it from a point of view that if it sold off and someone decided that the underground system needs to be relocated or something. Without the easements of course we would have to relocate it. Of course, that gets into some out of pocket. The standard practice at my last airport were that easements were not necessary because it was all city property. Right and if it stays that way Ray, we'll be alright. If anything ever did change it would have to come back through right? Yes with a lot split. I had that same question about easements also. Initially it said it was C-1, C-2, and I-1. The last Planning Commission changed it all to I-1. Right but it is not final until Council hears it. Boudreaux: At agenda session they had no questions on it. Technical Plat Review May 15, 2002 Page 27 Edwards: We'll just wait until the ordinance goes into effect. Newman: At this point we don't know who the tenants are going to be? Boudreaux: At least for the first three we know. Newman: Ok, if we could get some load information. Boudreaux: I have told them that they should be going to Planning and to Code Enforcement and all those things and start working on getting their permits and all that kind of stuff. What I've been waiting on is where the stakes in the ground go so that I can tell them "This is your area." They have already signed leases and are ready to turn dirt the day we can get this approved. It is very important for the future of that airport and for the future of aviation in Fayetteville. Newman: We will work with the individual tenants as to what their voltage and load requirements are going to be. Boudreaux: We might want to consider establishing some kind of standard. A basic 400 amp 220 three phase service. The reason I say that is because I think everybody is going to want similar capabilities. Newman: That is what I would encourage. That way we can install fewer pieces of equipment. That is all that I have. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: Any relocation of any existing facilities will be at the owner's expense as well. Are the lessees going to get their own builders to do their work? Boudreaux: Yes. Clouser: You might want to ask them when you talk to them to have them get in touch with the telephone company also. Boudreaux: All of the utilities. Clouser: What kind of phone uses do they have in the hangars? Boudreaux: Well sure. They are both businesses. I would say that they would both be probably four or five lines. Clouser: You don't look for over ten lines in the hangars? Technical Plat Review May 15, 2002 Page 28 Boudreaux: Not in any one building. Clouser: I need to have a conduit to each of the hangars and I will have to go back and do a job site visit and we'll figure out where we'll need the conduits to since we won't have utility easements it won't need to be in an easement. Boudreaux: Maybe we need to delineate a place where they go. Johnson: Electric and telephone probably need to run within 5' of the backside of the building. Clouser: That sounds like a logical plan. I would like to have a utility easement along Hwy. 71, a 20' UE. Johnson: They are already there. Clouser: Well it is not on the print and I wasn't sure whether it was or not. At least I didn't see it. Johnson: There is apparently one there because there are waterlines in there. Clouser: But we could be in the right-of-way right now. Johnson: It looks like you are in the right-of-way and water is on the airport side. Ok. I need to see what we've got on easements there. Boudreaux: You're not allowed to put any more poles up out there. Clouser: We don't want to put poles up. Clouser: The state is really pushing to have us not to enter right-of-way so that is why we're requesting utility easements. They are not going to make us relocate what is there but if there is any way around going in their right-of-way. Boudreaux: Don't you already have stuff out there? Clouser: Yes but if we need to place another cable in there we want to be in the utility easement rather than in the right-of-way. Johnson: We will check and see what we can find. Ray, in your office you've got a copy of an easement utility map that came from G.I.S. I don't know whether or not it has got all the easements and so forth on it. I know that it has got a lot of them on it. We will look at that and see if there is anything there. It may be just a waterline Technical Plat Review May 15, 2002 Page 29 Clouser: Johnson: Clouser: Boudreaux: Clouser: Boudreaux: Clouser: Johnson: Clouser: Johnson: Clouser: Boudreaux: Clouser: Boudreaux: Clouser: Boudreaux: easement and not utility easement. Exactly. Also, I just wanted to let you know that there is a fiber optic cable along Hwy. 71. Along the fence on the east side of the airport. Right. I just wanted to make sure you knew that that was there. Where do they go? I don't know where that one inparticular goes. The one that goes down Hwy. 71 goes to Greenland and points south of there. It goes. Is it lit up or is it dark? No, it is lit up. It actually connects our central offices, it is a real important one. The one on the backside I think is someone else's. Genuity has a cable running down there too. They are affiliated with AT&T. I don't know who put the one in on the backside of the property but I know it runs all the way down there. Southwestern Belt has the one that runs down the back there. I checked with one of the engineers that has been here quite a while. Where is your point of presence for this cable? As far as along the back fence or in the airport itself are you talking about? I don't know, I know that we have some copper cable running along the hangars that are up on the east corner. The fiber optic and they did tell me that there was a copper cable there. I still have to get in here and research this to see exactly where these cables are or as close as we can get without actually having them located. A lot of this stuff has been done without this kind of coordination before. This is kind of a first for us. That happens a lot when it is one piece of property. We don't necessarily keep records of exactly where they lay on that piece of property. It might be of interest to us to be able to have access to that fiber optic capability right there at that terminal building. Technical Plat Review May 15, 2002 Page 30 Clouser: I will find out where the fiber terminates. Boudreaux: We need high speed kind of activity and we don't have it out there. Clouser: Absolutely. That is all I have. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: I am sure you are aware, we also have a fiber optic on the east side of Hwy 71 running north/south. Johnson: Is it one that has just recently been trenched in? Gibson: Yes Sir. That is the distribution for Greenland and West Fork. As far as servicing some of these hangars, some of the airports I have worked with in the past do require full cable services. They have offices in there. We provide high speed data services also and cable T.V. I would like for them to get with me if they would and we will make arrangements. Boudreaux: They will all be responsible to come to you. The first hangar up there that we will build is simply for storage and we won't be doing anything in there other than storage but the other companies may be doing other things. I don't know, that is their business. Newman: We will certainly work with them for whatever it takes. The only thing I'm seeing on this that might even possibly affect this fiber cable and of course, also telephone too, would be this new driveway. I don't know how far down it would be cutting it in. Johnson: I think what we're looking at now is coming off the existing and making a real sharp turn. We are going to try to eliminate that aspect and not have that enter there. Boudreaux: Especially if Code Enforcement says it's ok. That might be a way to save some money too. Newman: Unless you have something else, that is all that I have. Johnson: Sara, back on that fire hydrant within 100' of any fire department connection, what does that mean? I was trying to get that fire line relocated. Casey: The fire hydrant will need to be within 100' of the building since it is sprinkled. Technical Plat Review May 15, 2002 Page 31 Boudreaux: If there isn't a sprinkler system then it doesn't have to be within 100' but if there is a sprinkler required it has to be within 100'? That seems backwards. Casey: The fire hydrant will need to be within 100' of the building since it is sprinkled. Boudreaux: What do we need to do now? Edwards: Revisions are due Wednesday May 22nd by 10:00 a.m. so we need to have everything that we've requested revised on the plans and resubmitted. The next Subdivision Committee will be two weeks from Thursday. Johnson: If we are going to do that one road for the south hangar if we are going to do that less than 24' we need to request a waiver for that? Edwards: Yes. I don't think it will be a problem, it seems like we have justification for that. It is not heavy traffic. Boudreaux: It is a driveway and it doesn't go anywhere. It is a dead end. Are we done? Edwards: We're done. Boudreaux: Thank you Sara. Technical Plat Review May 15, 2002 Page 32 PPL 02-13.00: Preliminary Plat (Stone Mountain Subdivision, pp 488/489) was submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Bill Conner for property located south of Hyland Park and east of Hwy 265. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 82.74 acres with 112 lots proposed. Edwards: The next item is PPL 02-13.00 submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Bill Conner for property located south of Hyland Park and east of Hwy 265. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 82.74 acres with 112 lots proposed. Johnny Boles who isn't here, he said he will get back with you on this. I will start with our Landscape Administrator. Hesse: Basically I am saying that it is approved. I appreciate what you submitted, it is really complete and it makes my job a lot easier. I like it. It looks good. We will get a complete report before Subdivision with all the criteria but this is basically approved for me. Edwards: Ok, from Parks. The Parks and Recreation Advisor Board accepted a land dedication. They also accepted a banking credit of excess parkland. The requirement for 112 buildable lots is 2.8 acres and they are dedicating 8.19 acres leaving a banking credit of 5.39 acres for the southeast park quadrant. She wants to remind you that the owners will need to address the Planning Commission for approval of the banking credit request and also send the Parks Division a copy of the request. The covenants will need to exclude the parkland dedicated acreage. From our Sidewalk Administrator, the proposed sidewalks as shown in the table meet the requirements. The necessary grading for sidewalks shall be done as part of the street construction. Two access ramps are required at each street corner. At "T" intersections a corresponding ramp should be installed across from the intersecting street. Detectable warnings are now required when constructing or altering a curb ramp. All new sidewalks shall meet U.D.O. requirements, shall be Portland Cement Concrete. Sidewalks should be continuous through drives with a maximum 2% cross slope and elevated 2% above the top of curb. The street names, Perry would like for you to check with Jim Johnson, the 9-1-1 Coordinator, because he thinks that they are really close to some existing street names we have in town and we don't want to confuse anybody. Check with him and whatever he approves is fine. For the streetlight location, he is requesting that you move the streetlight between lots 42 and 43 to between 43 and 44. Shreve: Chris, Perry gave me a plat he has marked up for you if you want his notes on that. Edwards: Then he is requesting that you add one between 6 and 8 and 9 and 10. Phipps: 1 have to get easements for these. Brackett: I will just add easements to all of them. Technical Plat Review May 15, 2002 Page 33 Phipps: Ok, just 10' easements to all of them. Brackett: Ok. Edwards: He is asking that you label the street between lots 5 and 6 Stonebridge. From Planning, there is a minimum requirement in a R-1 zone that all lots be 70' wide. This requirement is at the 25' building setback so I am asking that dimensions be added for this long list of lots. I just don't know until you tell me that they are 70' wide with a 25' setback and dimension that. I am kind of concerned about lot 63 getting that 75', that is the one on Stone Mountain towards the entrance. The other ones I think you are probably pretty close on. Brackett: That is kind of an odd shaped lot. What is the chance of getting a variance on that? Edwards: Zero. Brackett: Ok. Edwards: I am also requesting that you add to note number four where you are talking about the detention pond, that those lots are unbuildable so that nobody attempts to build on them. There was a call missing from the legal description, I need you to check on that. I am requesting that you add adjacent zoning. Refresh my memory, this whole property including this horse barn and everything down all the way to Wyman is one deed? Brackett: I don't know, well I believe that it is a portion going to Hwy. 265 in one deed. I am not 100% sure if the rest of the property is on another deed. Edwards: If it wasn't purchased separately and it is part of this property, we either need to show the whole piece because you can't just omit a piece of property and call it an out lot or we will need to do a lot split for it so it is submitted separately. Brackett: The problem is with showing that whole piece is it won't fit on the sheet. Edwards: We may need just to attach something. Obviously if it won't be readable for the lot then we will just attach a separate page. If they are in two deeds and they exist that way then that is another way. Brackett: They don't exist this way for sure, I know that. Edwards: A second page will be fine and we will need to call that a lot. Brackett: Could it be future phases? That is what it is, future phases of the same subdivision. Technical Plat Review May 15, 2002 Page 34 We've shown that before, I don't think it would be a lot. Edwards: The thing is we are creating a separate legal description and what we are trying to avoid is creating an out lot with a meets and bounds description and we could just show it, call it a lot and then that lot could be further subdivided later. Brackett: So you want a legal description of the entire piece of property and you want these calls just to be lot lines? Edwards: Yes. Brackett: Alright. Edwards: I realize that Stone Mountain Drive is on the Master Street Plan and we will request to defer the right-of-way dedication for the rest of this property until the future phases come in. We don't know for sure where to go right now. Also, we do need an amendment to the Master Street Plan. We will process that at the same meeting as this. Just note that it is going to be a request for a relocation just a little bit north and then a reduction to a collector from a minor arterial. That will have to go to City Council for an approval on a Master Street Plan amendment. Brackett: Alright. Edwards: All utilities shall be placed underground, which I know you are aware of. Revisions are due May 22, 2002 at 10:00 a.m. We do have a new enforcement, it has been in the ordinance but we weren't enforcing it this way. I just want you to be aware before we get to final plat. Pursuant to § 166.03 sidewalks must be installed prior to Final Plat approval. It will only be allowed to be guaranteed by money in a city escrow account. With a contract it will require total installation by the time that 1/2 of the lots have received building permits. That is a change. There won't be a letter of credit allowed. It will only be deposited by escrow and then the developer will be responsible to construct after % are done. That an ordinance in place, not a change, it is just one that we hadn't realized was there. Brackett: So after half of them are built we are going to put the sidewalk in and they are going to build houses and crack it all up and we're going to reinstall it? Edwards: Well, that is your opinion of it I guess. I have subdivisions now that build them ahead of time anyway. It is just an opinion really. Engineering? Petrie: Chris, as we discussed, the water connection from Hwy. 265 will not serve this subdivision. It will have to be served from a higher pressure plant. Connection through Highland Park can not be accepted without some additional studies through that area and it is very unlikely that connection can be made. I have listed the three Technical Plat Review May 15, 2002 Page 35 options possible. I am certainly open for suggestions there but we've got some work to do on water. I will skip over the general comments under water. If there is a connection to 265 in conjunction with some other improvements, that will need to be from the existing 12" stub out for the 24" waterline. For sanitary sewer, as we discussed, we will need a full study of the sewer lines from this connection down to Stonebridge Road. Also, we will need a study from OMI, Paul Hawkins, on the existing lift station at Stonebridge on the south side of Hwy. 16. You referenced a road back to these backyard manholes, I am just wondering where that road is going to be. Brackett: What it is is the house that is Katherine Keck's property, there will be an access road that goes from the cul-de-sac, it is going to circle down to that property. There is an existing road that currently our property line follows back down to Stonebridge Road. We will leave that road in back along the length up until the detention pond and that last manhole and that is how access will be provided to those back manholes. It will end there. We will take out the drive from the detention pond back to the west to Stonebridge Drive. Petrie: Is that driveway within this easement area? Brackett: Yes. It is within there. Petrie: Maybe you are more familiar with the future phases, but I just question whether sewer should be stubbed out along Pebble Stone Drive back to the east. If that road is extended then I could see some lots being split off that upper side and serving that. This large horse barn is shown to remain. Do you know if that will need any water or sewer service? Brackett: There are horses in there. It currently has water and sewer and I know the water comes down along the private drive from Cliffside so we will have to provide some other water service to it. I am sure it is on septic. Petrie: When it comes to sewer, it basically says that if the sewer is accessible you have to connect to it. It looks like we will need to convert that over at this time and also provide some place where a meter can be located along there that won't interfere with your future phases. That is something you guys need to think about before we get the construction plans. A couple of comments under grading. We will need all the cut and fill slopes to be setback a minimum of 5' from the property line. There will be a few changes to the grading plan. It also states that we need terraces. If you have a cut or fill slope that is three to one or flatter you still have to have terraces when a slope measures over 100' so that is another change. The drainage comments we have discussed. I won't waste everybody's time going through that again. Do you have any questions or want to go over any of that right now? Technical Plat Review May 15, 2002 Page 36 Brackett: No. Petrie: Just get with me later if you have any questions. For the streets, Stonebridge Drive south of this is currently being widened by the city. It is not showing a partial widening so we will have to look at some type of assessment for that street since it will be one of the major connections for this subdivision. I haven't had time to prepare some possible cost share numbers. I don't know right now if it is going to be a cost share assessment. That is something that I will work on before the Subdivision Committee meeting and I will try to get that to you as soon as it is available for you to look at. Sight distance, if I go out there I could probably answer it yes or no if it has a problem. Brackett: I haven't run the numbers but I have sat there and you can see both ways for a while. Petrie: Ok. I think you are right, I just want to make sure somebody verifies that. Brackett: Alright. Petrie: You guys will need a formal variance request if you haven't submitted it already for the minimum street standards on the maximum allowable grade. I have a comment that some of the streets can be classified as residential streets and should be 24' wide. I don't particularly have a problem if you want to leave them 28' but that option is there. I think we would like to see a left turn lane down at the intersection of Hwy. 265. We know the left turning movements can be difficult right there so we really encourage that we have some storage for left turners. Brackett: That includes the island and all of that? Can you have it without the island? Is there a standard? I know that there used to be certain standards. Petrie: It doesn't require an island. All of this area by the highway going south of the Manrey's property, is all of that right-of-way? Brackett: Yes. There is really no useful area there, part of it is fill so we are planning on dedicating all that right-of-way. Edwards: Is that clearly shown on this plan? Petrie: l think he needs to clarify that on the plan. Certainly there is no problem with doing that. The existing house for the Manrey's, will that existing driveway remain? Brackett: We plan on connecting their driveway to the city road. Edwards: On all of that right-of-way what about maintenance? Technical Plat Review May 15, 2002 Page 37 Petrie: It certainly would be a good place for a P.O.A. to have a common area to have the nice entrances into the subdivision. If it is going to be city right-of-way you will get a minimal maintenance. I am sure it would not be the most desirable entrance into the subdivision. It is something that you could consider that might be better suited as common area. Brackett: Well there is going to have to be some kind of maintenance for the detention ponds too maybe we could work that in too. I am sure that it is best for the subdivision that it be maintained by the P.O.A. Petrie: My last comment has to do with the transition on Stonebridge. The existing road is not in line with what is proposed. I think that is because of your sidewalks and things like that. Brackett: I don't really show anything going down that road. I don't know exactly what is going on. Petrie: It is staying where it is at. One side they are putting in curb and drainage pipes from my understanding and the other side is open ditch. It is not really moving from an existing location. Again, that is not something that really needs to be answered immediately, it just needs to be considered. That is all that I have. Edwards: Utilities? Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop. Phipps: Chris, I just added some crossings to what you have. I like your note that all these crossings on here will be six 4" PVC, that is the first time I have seen that on a plat. The 20' UE will need to go all the way out to Hwy. 265. Where it comes along lot 1. Brackett: You're talking about where it ends there and that's all right-of-way. Phipps: It needs to be UE, we've got to access from Hwy. 265. Brackett: South of that road is going to be a 3 to 1 slope all the way down, it is a lot of fill. There is a big hole right there that we're going to be filling in. Would you rather it be more to the road than cross there? Phipps: If we did we would have to cross somewhere, we have room on the other side. Brackett: Right there where that narrows down is just over 70', you've got 70' for right-of- way. I think you're going to have to be in the right-of-way there because I don't Technical Plat Review May 15, 2002 Page 38 have anywhere else to put it. Brackett: I can give you all the property that we own right there but I can't do more than that. Phipps: That is the only access we have three phase on Hwy. 265, we've got to get from Hwy. 265 back through here. Wherever they want to put that utility easement we will have to have a 20'UE. Edwards: I'm not clear why you can't go in the right-of-way. Phipps: If it is level, I'm not going on a slope. I want it flat and cleared on the other side and I want it shown right-of-way and UE. If they go north on across, I will need a crossing over here between lots one and two. Edwards: We can label it right-of-way and UE if you want but you can go anywhere it says right-of-way anyway. Phipps: No, it needs to be UE. Right-of-way doesn't necessarily give us access to install facilities. Edwards: I guess we could give a UE in a right-of-way. Phipps: Most of the time it is not a problem, but if a homeowner has a problem. I have seen many times that they've brought the deed out and there is no utility easement. Brackett: I think it would be a better idea for you to run along the north side of the road along the entrance and then you might cross right there where lot one is. Phipps: Lets cross between one and two. Brackett: You don't want to be in front of lot one? I was going to show it right there on the east side of lot one. Phipps: You are going to have a 10' UE already on lot one and two, lets just make it 20'. Brackett: This is all three to one down to this. There may be some area in there but most of that is going to be sloped. I am saying run it along here and cross right here and you can either get in back of there or you can run along front. Phipps: I have to dig this way anyway for that streetlight. It is just saving the developer's money. Brackett: Ok. Technical Plat Review May 15, 2002 Page 39 Phipps: And a six 4" there. Brackett: Is 10' enough in the right-of-way right there in that narrow section where it is 70', do you want me to show 10' south of that north line? Phipps: How much right-of-way do you have there? Brackett: There is 70'. Phipps: Just make it 70' right-of-way and UE. As long as it says UE I will go in there. I need a utility crossing from the southeast corner of five over to six and the northeast corner of six over to sixty-one and sixty-two. Brackett: Kind of in the middle of that lot? Phipps: It will probably just end up west of that line probably 10' straight across. 45 and 46 over to 84 and 85, and 80 and 81 to 39 and 38. We need a 20' UE, 10' on each side on 39 and 38. Also a 20' UE on 33 and 32, 10' each side. Six 4" crossings from 99 and 100 to 112 and 111, and six 4" crossings from 107 and 73 to 72 and 108. You've got a utility crossing there on 58 and 59 to 113 and 64 already existing? Brackett: Yes. Phipps: I believe you got the rest of them. That is all I have Chris. Brackett: Alright. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: You did a good job on the utility easements too. Just give us a couple of weeks notification before you start. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: I would like to see a crossing down at the entrance at Hwy. 265 also. Is there a utility easement along 265 there? Brackett: That is all going to be right-of-way and UE. Clouser: Ok. That is all I have. Edwards: That's all we have. Brackett: Thank you. Technical Plat Review May 15, 2002 Page 40 LSP 02-30.00 & 31.00: Lot Split (Beard/Center, pp 599) was submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Tom Broyles and John Ellis for property owned by Cynthia Beard and William M. Center, III and located west of Razorback Road and south of 15th Street. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial, R-2, Medium Density Residential, and C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial containing approximately 29.62 acres. The request is to split into three tracts of 22.11 acres, 4.42 acres, and 3.09 acres. Edwards: LSP 02-30 and 31.00 submitted by Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Tom Broyles and John Ellis for property located west of Razorback Road and south of 156 Street. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial, R-2, Medium Density Residential, and C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial containing approximately 29.62 acres. The request is to split into three tracts of 22.11 acres, 4.42 acres, and 3.09 acres. From our Traffic Superintendent, no comments. From Sidewalk and Trails, we don't require sidewalks with lot splits, but they will be required when the property develops. No comments from Parks. From Planning, I am requesting that you add adjacent zoning. Add plat page 599. Add building setbacks. Razorback Road is a principal arterial which requires 55' to the centerline. There are a couple of places shown on there at only 50'. The requirement is 55', that has to be dedicated by warranty deed because it is a state highway. While I am up, Johnny Boles from Arkansas Western Gas requests a 20' easement on the west side of Razorback. 20' on the south side of 15`" Street and 20' on the east side of Beachwood. Harris: Once this lot split is approved I will come back with development and then they will want additional easements. Can we wait until that time to give the easements? If someone doesn't need it I hate to come back and go through the vacation process. Edwards: They probably could. Those are pretty standard though along the right-of-way, I wouldn't see those not being required anyway. Harris: I think that there will be some interior roads in there. They might want to move up the interior roads. Newman: The only thing we have a problem with there is if one tract sales and the other one doesn't. We are dealing with one property owner now whereas later we might be dealing with three. That is most of the time the reason that we ask for those at this time. Harris: That was 20' on the east side of Beachwood? Edwards: Yes. Technical Plat Review May 15, 2002 Page 41 Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: We are also requesting a minimum 10' easement on each side of the sewer lines. I would like for you to show all the water and sewer lines on or adjacent to this property. Harris: Ok. Edwards: Ok, utilities? Glenn Newman — AEP/SWEPCO Newman. We might as well go ahead and ask for one along 186 Street along the south property line. Just go ahead and circle that thing and that gives us several ways to get into it. That is all that I have. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: I agree with the utility easement requests. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: Those easements are fine. I would also like to get a future print of this area. We do have an underground fiber optic line on the south side of 15th Street that runs east and west and then follows south line on a curve and then it is on the east side of Beachwood. That is the distribution for the University of Arkansas. Harris: Are you on the right-of-way there? Gibson: Yes. Harris: Ok. Gibson: If that has to be relocated it will be at the owner's expense. That is all I have. Edwards: Are there any questions? Harris: No. Edwards: Meeting adjourned.