Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-08-14 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE TECHNICAL PLAT REVIEW COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee was held on Wednesday, August 14, 2002 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED PPL 02-15.00: Preliminary Plat (Crystal Springs, Phase III, pp 246) Page 2 STAFF PRESENT Sara Edwards Matt Casey Kim Hesse Renee Thomas Keith Shreve Tim Conklin Perry Franklin ACTION TAKEN Forwarded STAFF ABSENT UTILITIES PRESENT UTILITIES ABSENT Larry Gibson, Cox Communications Mike Phipps, Ozark Electric Coop. Johnny Boles, Arkansas Western Gas Glenn Newman, AEP/ SWEPCO Sue Clouser, Southwestern Bell Jim Sargent, AEP/ SWEPCO Technical Plat Review August 14, 2002 Page 2 Conklin: Milholland: Conklin: Edwards: Rutherford: Milholland: Conklin: Milholland: Rutherford: Milholland: Rutherford: Milholland: Rutherford: We are going to get started. This is the Technical Plat Review Committee meeting, today is Wednesday, August 14, 2002. The first item of business, the only item of business, is a Preliminary Plat for Crystal Springs Phase III, submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of Crystal Springs Phase III, Ltd., located east of Pyrite Drive on Crystal Drive. It is zoned R-1, it contains 35.13 acres with 101 lots proposed. Good morning Mr. Milholland. Good morning. Sara? Here are your comments. The only thing that I am going to add to that packet is Sue Clouser from Southwestern Bell sent in some comments as well. From the Sidewalks Division, the necessary grading for sidewalks shall be done as part of the street construction. Raven is a collector, which requires a 6' sidewalk and a 10' green space on both sides. Your table is calling for a 10' sidewalk, I just wanted to let you know what the minimum requirement was, he can build more if he wants. On your plat, on everyone of them you are showing your sidewalk width the same as your green space width. Now on a residential street, let me point out that a sidewalk is only required on one side of the street on those. However, we have subdivisions in the city that have chosen to put sidewalks on both sides of the street even though the requirement is one side. It is your choice. I mean we appreciate that but I just wanted to point out what the minimum requirements were. Are you saying that we say it is on both sides? You are saying that it is on one side, he is saying that you might want to put it on both sides. Oh, ok, I've got you. Right here you have got a 10' and here you have got a 6' and a 6'. The minimum requirement is a 4' sidewalk. If you want to do that that is fine. I just wanted to make you aware. These are one side with 4' I'm assuming. The sidewalk is 4' and the green space is 5'. Six foot with a ten foot green space? Right. Technical Plat Review August 14, 2002 Page 3 Conklin: Rutherford: Milholland: Edwards: Jefcoat: Edwards: Conklin: Milholland: Conklin: Edwards: Milholland: Then you have Pyrite Drive in that table, which is not a part of the subdivision. You will probably want to eliminate that. Now I would recommend on both sides of a residential street. We have subdivisions that have been built and the residents have called and asked how come they aren't on both sides. I will ask them. Standard comments are two access ramps are required at each street comer. A single ramp on the radius should not be used. 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. A 24" wide strip of detectable warning shall be installed at the bottom of the curb ramp portion of the sidewalk or the street. Every effort should be made to prevent sewer manholes, water valves, and other appurtenances from being constructed within sidewalks or access ramps. Please check the location of the manhole on the northeast radius of Topaz Dr. and Crystal Dr. From Solid Waste, there is no comment. From Parks, there was a previous land dedication for 575 lots total and we do have that deed and this development has met the park requirements for that. From Planning, the owners did not sign the application, that needs to be done immediately for it to continue. They came by and signed that. I saw him come in and sign the check, let me see here. Ok, I've got it. Joe Edwards? Yes. Ok, great. Thank you. We need complete signage and tree preservation plans, that is a requirement of submittal and they will each go over that in just a minute. Lots 183 and 184 shall be dimensioned at the 25' building setback and our requirement is that they be 70' wide. They may be, they're just not labeled where we can verify that. Ok, 70' at building setback. Technical Plat Review August 14, 2002 Page 4 Edwards: Milholland: Conklin: Milholland: Conklin: Edwards: You are required to have 6,000 square feet of buildable area outside the floodplain. I am assuming that we are going to do a LOMR with some fill for this? Yes. Ok, let me say that one more time. We are going to do a letter of map revision based on fill that is going to be done prior to the Final Plat being submitted to the City of Fayetteville for approval. We don't want any misunderstanding or confusion. We had a little misunderstanding the last time. I want to be perfectly clear that we understand that you are going to follow the procedures and do the compaction of the fill to meet those standards for density and all of that to bring those lots up above the hundred year floodplain. It is on the record, that is what I wanted to get. That is what we did the last time, I think that we just didn't have it back in time. Ok. You do need to add a floodplain reference, something that says that this property is affected by the hundred year floodplain, map panel number and date. I didn't see that anywhere on here. In our subdivision design standards, there is a requirement that all blocks be between 400' and 1,400' in length and that your whole north side, which is double that, what we are looking for is a stub out street to the north, preferably to the Schlegal's property and we are trying to get our block length within 1,400' with that. Conklin- Have you talked with the Schlegal's at all about that? Milholland: Conklin: Edwards: Conklin: When we did this the two times before they weren't interested in anything. We tried to buy that land from them and they didn't want to sell it. That is why we have dealt with the city, had a golf course going from here to here. Let me just say, if you want to approach them to find out the best location for that stub out, I encourage you to do that also. As I am sure you are aware, all utilities shall be underground. We need to do some sort of city approval for building a street on public property. I am not sure. I am not sure how to do that if I can just say "Ok, build a street on this land." or if I need to go to the City Council and have them say that's ok. Technical Plat Review August 14, 2002 Page 5 Milholland: Conklin: Milholland: Conklin: Milholland: Conklin: Milholland: Conklin: Edwards: Conklin- Milholland: Conklin: Milholland: Edwards: The Planning Commission, the last time we were here, said they would approve here and up to a certain point, maybe it was this point here unless we run an extension. I know that you remember all of this but to end up with they wouldn't work with us to the north and then the Planning Commission said "If you will purchase this we will go on record to Council recommending that they share the cost of the street." I don't think that it ever went to Council but it was recommended. We would like that same scenario, at least a cost share on the city's portion here. So you are requesting that as a part of this application? Yes. Do we have that in a letter in our file? I think so. Mickey Herrington was handling that. It was a cost share from here to here for this purpose. Why would the city cost share on development that he is selling lots on, that he owns? All I can tell you is what happened. They said to buy this, which was very expensive, they had to relocate some things and all that kind of stuff, that we will cost share on the street and the sidewalks in here. I can't predict what the Council is going to do but I would be somewhat surprised if they cost shared on a local street on a development that you own and that you're selling lots. Possibly the city portion of the land, that might be a possibility. Do you have any estimates of what that would be? We need a letter requesting that and an estimate. I can't just bring it to Council without an amount. I can get one. It is going to be close to $200 a foot. Is that storm drainage, sidewalks, street lights, fire hydrants? $200 to $225 total cost per foot for street and gutter. I do not have a letter in the file. Milholland: I will get one. I guess we did a letter to request the right of way. Technical Plat Review August 14, 2002 Page 6 Conklin: Milholland: Conklin: Since we are going to Council, yes, put them together. I thought you were paying for the entire road, 100%, I was just trying to figure out if I had the authority to say "Yes, build the road on city property." I will just write a letter asking for both. I can't foresee a problem with building that Dean Solomon Road because we've talked about it for so many years. The original rezoning was back in 1993. Milholland: Then there was Phase I and this Phase here was approved twice. I think the last time it was approved was about 1996. Conklin: Milholland: Conklin: Milholland: Conklin: Milholland: Edwards: Milholland: Conklin: Milholland: That is quite a history. Actually, four things happened to this piece of land. We approved it twice but we upgraded the streets, we have come back at your request, and moved this street here over to here and gave additional footage. The street ordinance changed so we went back and redesigned it to that and also the street widths here. Is your client paying 100% of the 36' street for Raven Drive? No, only what the city requires, which is a residential street. What is proposed to be built right now? Residential. It looks wider. Itis. The street width is 36' in your chart. The reason it is is like I said, at the time the city said "If you will give us the right of way, we will construct the difference in width." Conklin- We need that in your request too. You might as well get the Council to answer all the questions. You all came to us, we didn't go to you and Mickey handled that. I understand Mel but the Council is going to have to agree to do that cost share or you need to show what you are actually going to build. Milholland: Conklin: Technical Plat Review August 14, 2002 Page 7 Milholland: My understanding is that all the developers are required to build is a residential street. Conklin: Yes, then that is all we need to know. Milholland: You want a letter asking the city, just saying that we plan on building a residential? Conklin: Milholland: Edwards: Yes, unless the city cost shares to upgrade it to a collector. Proposed Raven Drive is to be a 28' street from back of curb to back of curb unless City Council approves cost share. And that is for City Council. Just so you are clear, even if you go with the 28' street we want the sidewalk at the back. Milholland: Sure. Rutherford: Conklin: Milholland: Edwards: Milholland: Conklin: Milholland: Conklin: Milholland: 28' is a local street. Thank you for clarifying that, we throw those terms around all the time, local and residential. A residential is a 24', that is all we are required to build is that right? No, you are required to build a 28'. Ok. A 24' street is less than 300 vehicles a day. It used to be 31' and they moved it back down to 28'. Are there any other cost shares? I understand in the comments here that several times I was asked by the city to consider whatever it would take to get sewer over here for the city property, to take part. I don't know if they are still interested in that. According to this right here they are not. We need a pump station designed. Casey: We are going to have that 48" line running right along the south property line. We are asking for an easement for that. Technical Plat Review August 14, 2002 Page 8 Milholland: Casey: Milholland: Casey: Milholland: Casey: Milholland: Casey: Milholland: Casey: I feel like that is an easement that you are wanting beyond what this development is creating and normally those are acquisition type projects. I will have to confide in my client. I am not going to say he won't give it. You all aren't going to put anything at all for the sewer? Are we going to construct any part of it? No, not right now. Are you going to cost share to make it less expensive or anything? Are you talking about the 48" or what you show to be the 12"? The 48". At the time that Don Bunn looked at this thing he wanted him to pay the difference in cost of what we had to do and what is up here. I am assuming that is what the 48" is for. Are you saying that you don't want to cost share at this time? The 48" is going to be a separate city project. You want to follow the same route along the backside here? Yes. I figured you would want along the backside. That is the proposed drainage. Milholland: Ok. Casey: Milholland: Casey: Milholland: Casey: Edwards: That will be separate from the sewer that is serving these lots. This proposed will be separate from what you are proposing but you still need to construct your 8" sewer lines within the subdivision to serve the subdivision. Some of this is actually on the golf course isn't it? Yes, it would have to be. Ok, can I have these? Yes. The other thing I need is on your vicinity map, at least put the street layout of how it ties into the other streets because that is what the Subdivision Committee will ask for. Jefcoat: Should we do that on a separate sheet? We have never done that before. Technical Plat Review August 14, 2002 Page 9 Edwards: Milholland: Edwards: Conklin: Milholland: Edwards: You can if you want to but they are going to want to understand how it ties into the existing streets in the subdivision and if the streets proposed are in line. What you want us to do is show all public streets. Yes. I am not sure if you are aware of our requirement about sidewalks and their guarantee. Previously we have allowed sidewalks not to be constructed and to be guaranteed by money in escrow, letter of credit, or a bond and that is no longer the case. It must be guaranteed only by money in a city escrow account and with a contract that requires total installation by the time that half of the lots have received their permits. I am sure that will be a requirement of the Final Plat. I wanted you to be aware ahead of time. We will need proof of payment for the streetlights or the streetlights need to be installed. We need a cancelled check or a receipt prior to Final Plat. The streetlights don't go in normally until people start moving out there. This right here with sidewalks is nothing new is it? It is not, it is an existing ordinance that you have probably dealt with before. Milholland: A bond is not sufficient? Edwards: Milholland: Conklin: Milholland: Conklin. Milholland: Edwards: No. A letter of credit is not sufficient? No. It has just got to be money? Yes. I know it is a headache, if we are going to have to pay it we might as well just put it in. I would be happy with that. That is all I have. Revisions are due August 21, 2002 by 10:00 a.m. Technical Plat Review August 14, 2002 Page 10 Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: Milholland: Casey: Milholland: Casey: Milholland: Jefcoat: Casey: Jefcoat: Casey: Milholland: Jefcoat: Casey: Mel, as we have talked before, there was no grading plan submitted. We need that stuff to determine the Final Plat. In addition, if you could take the existing contours off the plat so it might be a little bit better, but we need a separate grading plan. Also, I don't have a plan showing the proposed storm drainage system so a review of the drainage report that was submitted was not done because there weren't sufficient details submitted. Are you saying that it was not in the drainage report? Tom can correct me, but I think we submitted to you the drainage report that we did on the design prior. I had a drainage report that had a drainage area map but I don't have anything that has the location of the storm sewers shown. If you could show that on the grading plan that would be fine. Can we submit to you the design that we have with the pipes and the size of the slopes on it? That is not required at this time, if you could just get the layout. You need a storm sewer layout with the construction plan too. What you need is a storm sewer layout, I'm sure we've got that. I was thinking that that was all in the drainage report. I didn't find that. The only map that I found was a drainage area map. Were there some blank envelopes in there? Maybe they didn't get put in the envelopes. I would have to look and see. One thing is for sure, we have a storm sewer layout but I will have them blow up a water and sewer layout on the design so I know that we've got it. All of the offsite structures were built according to that plan so there is a plan. I will just need to get a copy of that. I guess you have talked to Mr. Beavers previously about this project and the need for detention. He asked for some information at that time and it hasn't been submitted to him. He was looking for a letter. Technical Plat Review August 14, 2002 Page 11 Milholland: Casey: Milholland: Casey: Milholland: Casey: Conklin. Casey: Milholland: Casey: Milholland: Conklin: Milholland: Casey: I talked to Ron Petrie back in the spring about whether we are required detention on this project since it has been approved twice before and the offsite construction was completed on the golf course at that time and so he talked to Jim and Jim made the decision at that time that he felt that it wouldn't be required on this project. He wanted me to write a letter. I didn't write the letter, I just thought I would submit it when I submitted this but I guess he wants the letter. Yes, he wants specific detail on what was proposed before and what is the difference between detention with additional cost to take care of this. He is looking for some specifics on that. I will get that letter in first thing. We have already discussed the 12" waterline that is shown as a 12" if you could just back that off to an 8" or whatever the minimum is. I don't think that the grade will allow an 8". That is suspected but that is according to the ten state standards, you can't up the sewer size because of the lack of slope. What standards? The ten state. Matt, is that a policy that has been with the city all of these years? Yes. What that is forcing the developer to do is put in a long term maintenance lift station that the city will maintain. The kind of design it is an 8" will not go right here. We have to have this to get that out to here. There is a lot of expense already, that kills the project if you are going to hold to it. I have put 8" sewers into 6" before all over town. You see a lot of 6" ones. I guess I am assuming if the Health Department approves it you will approve it. Can you run two 8" parallel lines? An 8" would be too shallow right here, it wouldn't work. Let me follow up on that but like I say, that is the policy. Technical Plat Review August 14, 2002 Page 12 Milholland: Casey: Milholland: Casey: Milholland: Casey: It was approved at one time. That is the only reason we ran a 12" is because of this added distance right here. A 10" might work but it is going to be awfully shallow. Also, with the 8" water main along Crystal, it is going to need to extend and connect to the 36" out at Dean Solomon. I think it is just off the map to the south of where Crystal intersects to Dean Solomon to create that loop. What size is that 24"? It is 36". It is on the east side of Dean Solomon. Ok. Also, we have already touched on it but we will need a 10' exclusive sewer easement along the south property line. You can refer to that map that I gave you for the location of that sewer line. We need to upsize the water line that is proposed. I think a 6" is shown along Topaz. We need to up that to an 8", you can have a 6" along Tiger Eye Drive only. I have got a note on here that we are not going to recommend the cost share for the extension to Dean Solomon. The previous agreement was crossing through the golf course property and it was twice as long and now you've acquired that property and are going to develop it and that length of street connecting to Dean Solomon has decreased quite a bit so we are not going to recommend the cost share across the city property. Milholland: Ok, that is what we talked about earlier? Conklin- Milholland: Conklin: Milholland: Casey: Yes. I am positive that he wants to write a letter to the Council asking them. Sure. You have every right to ask the City Council to consider that. The Public Works Department, City Engineering will be making that recommendation. Ok. This is the first project I've had in thirty years that I've had to get three approvals on the same project. The intersection of Raven and Crystal, we need to straighten that up a little bit and have that come in at a 90° angle, at least to the radius returns at that intersection. Milholland: You know, we made some bad judgments. We were told whenever we moved this over to here and gave that extra land we were told that that was Technical Plat Review August 14, 2002 Page 13 going to be over to there and now you are making us change it. I guess we can take it back. Conklin: No you can't. The Master Street Plan is on there now like that Mel. Milholland: It is almost impossible to do that without losing lots. Casey: I am not sure why they previously approved that at that angle but that is not typical. Milholland: Originally it went like this in here and I believe we came out like this and when they wanted to move this stuff over here and get the additional right of way and asked us to come back through that. Conklin: We moved the Master Street Plan over. I didn't approve any angles of intersection. I am sorry Mel. Milholland: I'm not saying that you did. I am saying that we were told to do it that way and that was approved. Conklin: We did move the Master Street Plan over. Milholland: I think it is unfair to the owners to ask to come back and lose a lot. We will look at it but I think we will lose this lot right here. I don't know if we can actually curve this up enough to do that but we will lose this lot. I was thinking of an intersection with less than 90°, 75° or something like that. Maybe that is an old standard I'm thinking about. Casey: Currently our policy is 90°. Milholland: Is that a standard? Casey: I've just been told that is the policy. Milholland: Ok. I will go back and Mickey Herrington can bring out the minutes on that. I distinctly remember the angle part. Are we tied to this as a policy or can we request Planning Commission approval? Edwards: Is this an actual waiver of an ordinance? Casey: No. Conklin: Matt, you are going to have to put something in the staff report. Milholland: I understand why you want it and it is better, but I guess my point is my client worked with the city at the time when he wasn't even submitting the Technical Plat Review August 14, 2002 Page 14 Conklin: Milholland: Conklin: Milholland: Conklin: Milholland: Conklin: Milholland: Conklin: Milholland: Conklin- Milholland: Jefcoat: Conklin- Milholland: plat to do this. I would think that would've been the time to require it. Did this go through the Planning Commission? It did didn't it? The Master Street Plan, yes. So it was approved based on that. Raven Drive was, Crystal I don't know. I am not going to go down that road Mel. I am not reviewing for the angles of intersections, I am looking for connections but you can make your argument. I will. I know you will. I think it is unfair to come back and you keep on asking. I can't agree that I signed off and approved that intersection. I can not say that to the Commission or the Council. Ok. I just can't do that. My client has worked with the city and they have taken a lot off of us. Has their been a wetlands delineation on this site? They made a delineation on the whole 180 something acres back in the early to mid 90's, 93 or 94 or somewhere in there. Tom does that type of work and he says that generally five years is the limit. I don't know whether it is a written limit. They make a concurrence or a ruling every two to five years. So it has been over five years. What is the plan for wetlands delineation and the second question, has the wetlands delineation been done on the city property where the road is going to go through and if not, when will that happen and we will need to get a copy and of course who is going to pay for that? The city would of course on the street. We will go ahead and have Toni do a delineation. They did a delineation of all of this and there were no wetlands found in that area at that time. The only place at that time was a little one foot by eight foot where the ball pit is. Technical Plat Review August 14, 2002 Page 15 Conklin: Milholland: Conklin: Milholland: Conklin: Milholland: Conklin: Milholland: Conklin: Milholland: Conklin - Casey: You may check with Manuel Barnes with EGIS if that was included as a part of the Wilson Springs Park that side of Dean Solomon if they did a wetlands on that side of city property. Does anybody have an idea? Ok. You might want to check with Gary Dumas and he might have that work from EGIS and there may be a wetlands delineation done on that portion of the city property. Of course, if we are going to be building a road on city property we want to make sure we are following all regulations. Beyond the wetlands delineation, Matt, this is more for the two of you, the grading and drainage plans are also going to be prepared for the road crossing the city property and will be included in your design approval, is that correct? The only grading that we are going to do is along the street. Your client is paying for that as part of the street cost? When we say the client, we are going to request the Council to share in these costs and engineering costs. Engineering cost also? Yes. We want to go ahead and do this to get it approved. He is wanting this so we will go ahead and show it if we haven't already. Ok. I will throw one more idea out, something to think about. Possibly with that city land there, and I haven't talked to anybody else at the city about this, but doing some type of boulevard type entrance to make it look nice. That will help slow traffic down. We haven't considered that. We plan on using the design we have got. The design is pretty standard. We didn't really intend to do a lot of redesign other than bringing it up to the standards of today. If the city wants to pay for one here, my recommendation is if you want to spend money spend it on the first 250' that way and the 300' this way if you want the school busses to get in and out of there without taking up the whole road? Is the road inadequate for the subdivision? Here, no. Ok. I was just curious. The ditch along the west side of the subdivision here where it is butting up to the existing portion, it is my understanding that a portion of it was concrete lined and that for some reason it was allowed not to concrete the Technical Plat Review August 14, 2002 Page 16 Boles: Milholland: Casey: Conklin: Milholland: Conklin: Milholland: Conklin: Milholland: Conklin- Milholland: rest of it but it was told at the time that it was going to need to be finished at the time of this phase so we are going to require that that concrete ditch pavement be extended to the south. We would prefer that not be done until the utilities get across through there. Just show us where you need the conduits. We still want it in there, as far as the time, it doesn't matter just as long as it gets done. Also, the sidewalks shown connecting Pyrite and Raven across the detention pond, across the channel as well, we might need a pedestrian bridge for that. And an access easement over the top of that. I would think that you would want some kind of public access easement. Right? That is another one of those things that way back when was an idea. I don't know that it is required but it has been talked about. You did it over on Phase II. We didn't build a sidewalk back through here, we built it up to this point right here. You built it up to the school property. We went all the way around the cul-de-sac is what we did. I went out there and I stood on it watching our City of Fayetteville Parks Department landscaping the berm and I said there are going to be kids walking over the berm and trampling over the landscaping so you might want to plan some type of pedestrian access through there. Now these little things that I see when I am driving around, you have got a sidewalk dead ending into a landscaped berm kind of made me scratch my head a little. I haven't been out there but once it is developed I'm sure you are going to have kids walking to school from this development through there so I think it would be nice to show an access easement. You are building a sidewalk for access, pedestrian access, you probably should grant some type of easement for the right of access over that sidewalk. Do you agree with that logic? You know... Conklin- I am not trying to bother you Mel. You are just showing a sidewalk. Technical Plat Review August 14, 2002 Page 17 Milholland: Conklin: Milholland: Conklin: Milholland: Conklin: Milholland: Conklin: Milholland: Conklin: Milholland: Whatever city ordinances require I can agree to. Only my client can agree to granting an easement. Why are you building a sidewalk? Why are we? Yes, was that something agreed to? That was something that was an idea of someone back in 1992 or 1993, it would be a beautiful thing to have a pond there where people walk across it. Someone else later came up with there ought to be a chain link fence to keep the kids from jumping in the pond. I don't know. To me I think if you put a walk across there you can just wait for those children to jump in there. It's a dry pond isn't it? Not today. Ok, you have my comments. I know the idea was portrayed through the years and also someone said build a chain link fence around the pond and someone said that is not going to look good. It is six and one half dozen in the other. I do feel like if you have a sidewalk you are going to have children getting in there. So is it proposed? Is the sidewalk proposed, it is showing on the plat? It is left there due to the fact that if I didn't put it on there it would be questioned. My client doesn't want to build it. That bridge is going to be very expensive and I don't think he is as concerned about the sidewalk cost as much as he is the bridge. If the city would like to share on that for the school. Conklin- What do you think is going to happen when people move in there with kids? Do you think they are gong to walk through there to get to school? Milholland: I think boys are going to be boys. As far as back over here I think they are going to have to pick them up and drive them. I think down here they are going to be driving them. They may be walking somewhere in here you know but you've got sidewalks on all streets. If you walk to here they are going to have their shoes dirty by the time they get to school. I think it is going to cause a lot of problems really. Technical Plat Review August 14, 2002 Page 18 Conklin: Milholland: Conklin: Milholland: Edwards: Conklin: Milholland: Conklin: Rutherford: Milholland: Conklin: Milholland: That is why if they are going to be walking there it seems like a good idea. The whole pond issue, I don't want people with kids drowning but then we have Gulley Park and we encourage people to take their kids to Gulley Park and we've got a creek. But they are with them. Here you have got kids walking alone. There are kids without parents in Gulley Park. I see a lot of kids running around without parents in Gulley Park. Anyway, I'm just saying the pond issue. You asked for my opinion and my opinion is that by the time you get through with a chain link fence or rails and if you put the rails they can still jump over in the rain and there is still a chance of a kid drowning in that ditch when it is raining. That is true with or without a sidewalk. I am going to save Renee the time of typing all of these minutes up and I am not going to talk about it anymore. You asked for my opinion and my opinion is that I think it is a waste of money and very dangerous. I think that it is going to create the school some problems when they start working across the dirt and the ground to get to school. That is my personal opinion honestly but I can't deny that it has been talked about for ten years. Ok, thank you Mel. Moving right along, a little bit of clarification. Anytime you can create a pedestrian environment for the kids to be able to walk to school where a car does not have to drive them to the front to plug up the entrance at 8:00 in the morning or 3:00 in the afternoon is a very positive thing and it keeps the mothers and fathers of the neighborhood from calling Perry Franklin saying "How can we resolve traffic at the school?" I am kind of leaning with Tim, anytime you can provide access for kids to get to school through sidewalks is a good thing. I may be wrong, I think the Parks Department has all the land from this pond down to the creek and from this future road back over to the ball field. That will eventually be used as recreational facilities. Where are the parks boundaries? If I remember, it has been six years ago Tim, I think they have everything from about where the sewer line is at over to the future connection across Technical Plat Review August 14, 2002 Page 19 Conklin: Milholland: Conklin: Jefcoat: Conklin: Milholland: Conklin: Milholland: Conklin: Milholland: Jefcoat: Milholland: Rutherford: the creek all the way back over to the ball field. It was like 15 or 20 acres in there. I think eventually that will be developed as some type of recreational facility, kind of like a park with bridges across it and a little ditch. The ditches are not near as long as down here. Can you show that park on this plat for the Commission to see that? Can I? Yes, you can get it off our GIS. Is that a problem Tom? Are you going to pay us to show it? I am just thinking about access. It is on the city map, you have the data, can you draw one polygon and show it on your plat, city park? If you can't, that's fine, I will make a map. I won't argue about it. I will make a map Mel, don't show it. When you asked about that I was thinking legal description about all the bearings and distances. No, take a polygon off our city map and draw a polygon on your plat. We have a survey, we just need to put it in the computer because it is not in there. We will do something before its over, before we get to Planning Commission it will be on there. Ok, I think it helps your argument here. You bring up there is a park right there. You brought it up so I am saying let's show it so we can see it. The thing that Chuck mentioned, I just want to cover this. When you have a sidewalk along that Township Road, you've got rails there, you have got responsible people passing by there all the time. You won't have responsible people with kids crossing that. That ditch, when it rains and with what is coming down through here, if they fall off in there then it is going to be pretty deep pretty past. Especially if we concrete it, it is going to be real deep. If it is dry and someone falls then that concrete could kill them but that is going to wash pretty fast. That is one difference here and not here is that you've got someone responsible driving by most of the time. We just completed one as a part of a sewer rehabilitation project, where it is the back entrance into Root School where the sidewalk was near a major drainage ditch that goes to the school. That has been very positive from Technical Plat Review August 14, 2002 Page 20 Milholland: Rutherford: Milholland: Conklin: Milholland: Conklin: Edwards: Hesse: Edwards: Hesse: Edwards: Hesse: Edwards: Milholland: Boles: all the people that live in the area. In fact, we are looking right now at connecting sidewalks to that where people can drop their kids off there or their kids can walk there and they don't have to drive out onto Mission Blvd. to get their kids to school. Did you all do that? Yes. The city did? It is a marketing tool. People want to live near trails, you can sell lots. We need to get Mel that video that you showed the other day. My client will probably work with the city to get one across there if they want to build one. Is there anything else? Kim, did you have anything to say about the tree preservation plans? Just that you do need three of those. This is since yesterday? I had it yesterday. What we don't have is a tree preservation plan. We need that. I will talk to Tom about possible preservation, maybe some realignment or some site design change. Matt has decided not to table them at this meeting so that is ok with you and you can review it prior to Subdivision? Yes. Ok, utilities? Here is a copy of what the telephone company sent me, can you guys just look at this and you all check it? That is fine with me. Milholland: Then we wouldn't have to go through all of this. Boles: Sure. Technical Plat Review August 14, 2002 Page 21 Milholland: Boles: Phipps: Boles: Milholland: Boles: I just got a copy of this myself and this is what Sue sent to the City. Locations, they want four PVC Crossings. At lots 134 and 135, I am trying to find out where this is at, ok, right there on the northwest corner. I guess they are wanting a crossing across the street right there. Does everybody want that? Yes. It needs to be a 4" quad. We have kind of all got together. Lots 130 and 131, everybody agree with that? Yes. Milholland: Ok, 4" quad. Lots 202 and 203 across to 188 and 189, is that alright? That seems a little long on the angle, is that alright with you all? Phipps: Milholland: Boles: Milholland: Boles: Milholland: Conklin: Milholland: Gibson: Milholland: Gibson: Milholland: Boles: Yes. I guess these others, I didn't know how she had those, she had them across here like this. 218 to 219 to 183 and 184. 137 and 138, that is along the backside there. We need six 4" there Mel. That's for everybody right? Six 4" quads right? That's for everybody right. Not six inch but six each right? Yes. Ok, the others are four each. At 135 and 136. Yes, running north and south there. On the back side ofthat lot? Running north and south between 135 and 136 on the west side. Across the street? What size is that now? Six 4". Technical Plat Review August 14, 2002 Page 22 Milholland: Boles: Phipps: Milholland: Boles: Milholland: Phipps: Milholland: Phipps: Milholland: Phipps: Milholland: Phipps: Milholland: Phipps: Milholland: Let me say this, if we have another stub out, which we will because they are asking to put one there, we will look at lot depths in here and probably make this a wider lot. We will probably take two lots out of there. It will be somewhere between 152 and 153, somewhere in that area. It would be six 4" there Mel. Right there across that drain, we are going to need six 4" across there too. Between 150 and 151 there. Isn't that going to be a 40' drainage easement? I think we designed this to go over to this lot line for the 40' drainage easement here. We have already designed this thing. I tell you what we will do, if we have a drainage structure in this easement we will put one under it. If it is a solid structure, yes. I will have to go back and look at the drainage plan. There is a ditch that comes right here, a little small ditch and then it comes up here. This 36" right here is existing. There is a little short section of pipe that somebody put there. Right here below it between 180 and 181 we will also need six 4" crossings right there. Ok, down here. Right here between 180 and 181 where it goes across. There may be another one down here too, this is a ditch I think though. This right here I think this is a swale, does anybody want under the swale? If it is solid we need six 4" conduits. If it is grass we won't. How deep are they? They're not very deep, it is wide, it is about 40'. Lots 196 and 197 from the southwest corner of 197 to the northwest corner of 196 where that turns. In the front along the street. Four 4"? Technical Plat Review August 14, 2002 Page 23 Boles: Right. Milholland: Where else? What about if this street comes on down, do you all need a crossing at this little intersection where it intersects Crystal? Boles: I will be in the back Mel. Phipps: I will be in the back also. Boles: We would also need conduits across this drainage if you go ahead and concrete this before utilities are in there. Phipps: From lots 131 and 130 to the back of the existing 123 and 124. Milholland: Does everyone agree with that? Boles: Yes. Milholland: What do you guys want there, six 4"? Boles: Four would probably be good enough. Milholland: That is just you three, what about this? Gibson: We are bound from telephone. I don't know if they want to cross there. Between lots 166 and 165 to 168 and 167 across Crystal Drive, six 4". Conklin: Do you have anything out on Dean Solomon Road? I guess my question is are you going to be asking for utility easements across city property? Boles: Yes, we are going to request those. Conklin- Sorry to interrupt, I was just curious. Phipps: That needs to be a 20'? Conklin: That was kind of my question. If you are coming across Dean Solomon are you crossing the street right there? Boles: I don't have any gas there at this point. Phipps: I don't have any power there. Boles: There is fiber optic there, it is already under ground. Technical Plat Review August 14, 2002 Page 24 Milholland: Conklin: Milholland: Boles: Milholland: Boles: Conklin: Boles: Gibson: Conklin: Edwards: Boles: Edwards: Milholland: Conklin: Milholland: Conklin: Milholland: Conklin - The city is going to pay for this. If you all want them they will meet them, put a 6" in if you want to. I do have a question, this right of way is going to be 50'. Do we want to ask the City Council to give us 20' on both sides? Johnny just said yeah, they want equal. Where at? From the northeast corner of lot 166 out to Dean Solomon Road and just that easement continue straight across. How wide? 20' on each side would be adequate. Ok, what about along Dean Solomon? At least parallel. You have got a fiber in there now. I don't know if you will get those or not but I am just curious. Can I ask you why you couldn't do a 25' on one side? If you all needed to go to one easement because there is not a lot out there that you need to serve or anything. It is looping your system. Ok. Do you think the city would be willing to sell us some of that? We might develop those with affordable housing possibly. There might be an opportunity for the city to look at affordable housing. What I am saying though, this right here, why don't we just make it simple and sell this lot to my client and let him build houses on it? Let him build a street, that might be a possibility too. It is more realistic that way. That is a possibility Mel. Technical Plat Review August 14, 2002 Page 25 Milholland: Casey: Conklin: Phipps: Milholland: Phipps: Milholland: Phipps: Milholland: Boles: Milholland: Phipps: Boles: Phipps: Edwards: Boles: Edwards: The sewer is another problem. Well you are going to do a lift station anyway. I would say that the city probably needs to come in here and do lot splits or a subdivision, sell the lots off to help fund the cost share if they decide to do a cost share. This piece here to the back of the west side of 136 and 137 running north and south, that is marked as a 10'. I am sure 26 and 27 has a 20' in the back of it but what do we have in here that we can work with? Do you need it back there? Yes, we do. If you need it instead of a 10' we will give you a 20'. There is a 15' drainage easement. Can we make that a 20' drainage and UE? We could. You have got a 15' drainage and 10' UE for a total of 25' right there. What we would do is just make that a 20' drainage and UE. That can be a 20' UE, ok. Is that enough? Yes. I think that is it. Is everyone finished? We are. Meeting adjourned.