Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-10-30 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE TECHNICAL PLAT REVIEW COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee was held on Wednesday, October 30, 2002 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LSP 0-55.00 (1041): Lot Split (Krushiker Addition, pp 558) Forwarded Page 2 PPL 02-17.00 (1028): Preliminary Plat (Skyler Subdivision, pp 403) Page 4 LSD 02-27.00 (1006): Large Scale Development (PJT Development, pp 435) Page 9 LSD 02-29.00 (1040): Large Scale Development (Sequoyah Commons, pp 485) Page 17 Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Matt Casey Sara Edwards Kim Hesse Renee Thomas Keith Shreve UTILITIES PRESENT Larry Gibson, Cox Communications Glenn Newman, AEP/ SWEPCO Johny Boles, Arkansas Western Gas Jim Sargent, AEP/ SWEPCO Sue Clouser, Southwestern Bell Tim Conklin Perry Franklin Danny Farrar Travis Dotson UTILITIES ABSENT Mike Phipps, Ozark Electric Coop. Technical Plat Review October 30, 2002 Page 2 LSP 0-55.00 (1041): Lot Split (Krushiker Addition, pp 558) was submitted by Erin Rushing on behalf of Narendra Krushiker for property located at 6214 W. 6`h Street. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 3.53 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 2.39 acres and 1.14 acres. Edwards: Welcome to the Wednesday, October 30, 2002 meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee. The first item on our agenda is LSP 02-55.00 submitted by Erin Rushing on behalf of Narendra Krushiker for property located at 6214 W. 6th Street. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 3.53 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 2.39 acres and 1.14 acres. Good morning. There is no comment from the Parks Department. From Engineering, they are requesting that you show the location of the proposed water and sewer lines and to provide a written agreement between lots two and three and the University Square Shopping Center for shared use of the detention pond. Rushing: I think we have already done that. Casey: We had discussed it when you did the Hampton and I think they say they would provide that if it was going to be sold. I would like to go ahead and see that now since it is going to be split off entirely from this one as well. Edwards: No comments from Traffic. From Planning, I see the adjacent zoning. I am asking that you add the plat page number and a note added that states only one monument sign will be allowed for all three lots along Shiloh and only one monument sign for all three lots along Sixth Street. From Sidewalks, there are no sidewalks required for lot splits. Revisions are due November 6th by 10:00 a.m. Utilities? Glenn Newman — AEP/ SWEPCO Newman. Erin, could I get an easement along the west property line on lots one and two on Hwy. 62 north on the west side? You are showing a 10', could we get a 20'? Rushing: Yes, I can do that on lot two. Lot one I think belongs to a different owner now. I can do that on lot two though. Casey: You will get a chance on lot one when they come through with the Large Scale. Newman: Ok. That is all I had. Johny Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Technical Plat Review October 30, 2002 Page 3 Boles: No comment. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: No comment. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: Other than the easement we just talked about, I have no comment. Edwards: Ok, revisions are due back November 6th by 10:00 a.m. Technical Plat Review October 30, 2002 Page 4 PPL 02-17.00 (1028): Preliminary Plat (Skyler Subdivision, pp 403) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Sam Mathias for property located south of Deane and between Sang & Porter. The property is zoned RMF -6, Low Density Multi -Family Residential and contains approximately 21.03 acres with 61 lots proposed. Edwards: The next item is PPL 02-17.00, submitted by Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Sam Mathias for property located south of Deane and between Sang & Porter. The property is zoned RMF -6, Low Density Multi -Family Residential and contains approximately 21.03 acres with 61 lots proposed. I will start with Parks, the Parks Board voted to accept money in lieu of land. Parks fees are assessed in the amount of $47,915 for 119 multi- family units and seven single-family units. There are minutes included. From Sidewalks, Porter requires 70' of right-of-way, a 6' sidewalk and a 10' green space. They are recommending that the sidewalk be constructed at the new right-of-way line, which would create a green space of 15'. Deane Street, the requirement is a 6' sidewalk and a 10' green space. With the street improvements that would be 25' green space with the 14' from centerline improvements. Sang, they are requesting a 6' sidewalk and a 5' green space. Skyler, Evening Shade and Willow Brook, a 6' sidewalk and a 5' green space. They are requesting that the table be changed to add the street name, right-of-way width, street width, and green space width to reflect those above dimensions. Everything else is pretty standard. Gilbert: A question on Deane. If we put that sidewalk at the right-of-way line it is probably going to take out all of those trees along there, along Deane. Is that really what we want to do? Shreve: We can move the sidewalk. If we want to save some trees in an area like that we can work around the trees. Gilbert: I will probably just need to meet with you sometime Keith. That is one reason we put it kind of out like it was so we can work through that. Shreve: What we are trying to do is when you're getting the extra right-of-way is get it moved all the way back to the right-of-way line. Gilbert: Yes, it makes sense. There are some conflicting interests here. You can I can work through that I'm sure. Shreve: Absolutely. We will do that in the field. Gilbert: Ok, great, thank you. Technical Plat Review October 30, 2002 Page 5 Edwards: Gilbert: Edwards: Gilbert: Edwards: Gilbert: Edwards: From our Traffic Superintendent, he is very concerned about potential parking problems on this street . Developments similar to this, at least in the condominium style is Georgian Place, Peachtree Street over off Leverett, where we have cars blocking the street where a fire truck can't get through. We have cars parked all over yards on the side of the structures. What he is suggesting is the possibility of a 31' street which would alleviate the parking problems where the student housing is located. I would like to propose if you can make a proposal that tells us this is going to be different than this development, I think they have one car garages like these, is there something that can make that different. Make a proposal, this is his recommendation for the parking issues. He says he gets calls every weekend, every night, all the time. A 31' street, will that fit in a 50' right-of-way? It might cut into the green space. We might have to cut down the green space. We can look at that. From Planning, just as a reminder, a detailed study is required for a Zone- A- floodplain. It will be required prior to Final Plat submittal. Lot 44 is required to have 6,000 sq.ft. outside the floodplain. Did you address that anywhere? We are planning on doing some filling on lot 44 but with the other changes we had to make to get this back in we really didn't spend a lot of time on it. We certainly have not forgotten it and will check it. I think probably it will be ok but we do need to verify that. Then a note that trees and shrubs along the south and east property lines that were required by the Bill of Assurance will be required to be installed prior to Final Plat approval. That is all that I have. Engineering had no comments this time. Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: Edwards: Kim Hesse — Hesse: All of the issues from last time were addressed. They have taken care of those. Did you have anything Kim? Landscape Administrator Just that I think it really addresses utilities more than anything. We met with the Engineer after they submitted this. As we go through this, what Technical Plat Review October 30, 2002 Page 6 we are proposing is that along some of those streets that utilities go in front in order to preserve the trees on the eastern boundary. Gilbert: It is particularly along Evening Shade Drive. You can see along the backs of those lots. We had discussed this last time, two weeks ago at the last meeting and Mr. Mathias and Mr. Barnes have agreed that those lots can be served from the front and we would like to take that rear easement out to save that tree canopy back there. Hesse: Also, possibly this other section. Gilbert: Right. Along Skyler where lots 13 and 14 are down near Porter. We will be adjusting that rear easement to stay away from those trees as well. What we are looking at at first is just to pull it forward. If we need to get rid of it all together we can serve those from the front as well, we can take service from the front on those as well. Clouser: Are you sure there are no existing facilities in there now? Gilbert: I don't believe there are. It looks like that has been there for 80 years. Hesse: This is drastically going to change the preservation, mitigation is going to change. Edwards: Ok. David, with your next plan it will have those utility easements off and we will have some more final tree preservation numbers. Gilbert: Yes. I am sorry that we didn't get that to you earlier. We were not able to get everybody together for a meeting until I guess it was an hour after this had to be turned back in. Edwards: Ok, utilities? Jim Sargent — AEP/SWEPCO Sargent: Over here on lot 58 between the detention pond, you are showing a 15' easement, could you make that a 20'? Gilbert: Yes. Sargent: Also, across the street between lots 42 and 43. Gilbert: We will see what we can get in there. We have some building issues but we will try to do that. Technical Plat Review October 30, 2002 Page 7 Sargent: Gilbert: Sargent: Ok. I don't know how many utilities are going through there but 15' would definitely be crowded. Right. The one over on 58 we will certainly do. I think the only other comments that I have got is of course, SWEPCO bas got the overhead underground cost difference that the developer will have to pay and the developer will pay for the street lights. The house that is remaining on lot 59, that has an existing overhead service to it and that will have to go underground so the developer will have to pay for that. I guess if there is any other relocation of existing facilities it will be at the developer's expense. That is all I have. Johny Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: Sargent: Gibson: Sargent: Gilbert: Boles: Sargent: Gibson: Sargent: Boles: Jim, are you going to come through this 15' easement between 42 and 43 or are you going to come across down here if we are going to have to go in front? Do they want all of those served from the front? These right here, 12 through 18. Are you going to want all of those from the front? We are still looking at that, that is a possibility. I am going to want a crossing across Willow Brook Drive on the north side of Skyler from the southwest corner of lot 20 to the southeast corner of that detention pond lot probably right there if that goes front lot service. I will too. Just make that a quad. From that crossing down to Skyler with that intersection and then your easement across there would be ok if we are going to wind up with front lot service on 12 to 18. We are probably going to need a crossing between lots 7 and 8 to 20 and 21 crossing Skyler Drive. That is all I have. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: Those crossings are fine. If you would, on that one between 7 and 8 to 20 and 21, add me one in there too. That is all I have. Technical Plat Review October 30, 2002 Page 8 Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: I will go in there also. How deep is this between lots 57 and 58? Are we going to be able to cross that with no problem when we are running our cable from 44 to 45? Gilbert: The bottom of that box will basically be where the existing ground is now and the top of the curb in that area will be about 3' to 4' higher. I would say probably you are going to want to go under that box. Clouser: Can you give us a crossing there too please if there's not one in there? If there are any existing facilities that need to be relocated it will be at the owner's expense. Edwards: Ok, that's all we have. Gilbert: Thank you. Technical Plat Review October 30, 2002 Page 9 LSD 02-27.00 (1006): Large Scale Development (PJT Development, pp 435) was submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter Consulting on behalf of Bobby Hatfield of PJT Development for property located at the southeast corner of Wedington Drive and Double Springs Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 5.51 acres with four retail buildings proposed. Edwards: The next item is LSD 02-27.00 submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter Consulting on behalf of Bobby Hatfield of PJT Development for property located at the southeast corner of Wedington Drive and Double Springs Road. The property is zoned C-2 and contains approximately 5.51 acres with four retail buildings proposed. Good morning. Carter: I would like to start by giving you a number that you asked to be put on the plat the last time that I forgot. The percent green space, I don't know if you want a percent built area or percent green space but I have both numbers. Green space is 52.27%, that takes care of the 15%. Matt, I have for you this report. I think if you look at those numbers I penciled in for you that tells you what you need to know about that. The pond size as a result of that run increased slightly. The pond that we had working in there before was much bigger so we know it works, I just have to put it in there and draw it and I will submit that to you today. Edwards: Ok. There is no comment from Parks. Sidewalks, Wedington requires a 6' sidewalk and a 10' green space. Double Springs requires a 6' sidewalk, 10' green space. Five bicycle racks are required, three for Phase I and two for Phase II. Everything else is pretty standard. You can read through about the warnings and access ramps. Carter: Is any of that that we haven't done? Shreve: No. That is the same basic comments that we have made and it looks like your drawing is addressing all of those Glenn. I think we are in pretty good shape. Carter: Ok, I didn't put detectable warnings on the east end of the site and I meant to ask you about that before I got to printing time but I never got to it. That doesn't go across the street or anything. Shreve: No Sir, only across the street. Carter: Ok. Edwards: From Traffic, street lights are ok as shown. However, he did want to make sure you were aware that along Wedington there are 35' steel cut off lighting fixtures if new fixtures go in or if these street lights are going to go on existing electric poles then that is fine. Ozark isn't here to tell us. Technical Plat Review October 30, 2002 Page 10 They have a standard that they use along major roads which is a larger street lamp than the others. Carter: Ok, so he is going to have to use steel if they aren't going on the existing poles? Edwards: Right. Carter: I am not sure on that, they may not work out on existing poles. Edwards: Building three will require a van accessible space located at the nearest access aisle to the front entrance. Carter: Ok, I wanted to comment They are in front of building two but I thought that was closer than putting them out here in front of building three. Out there they have got an island they have got to go around and I don't see any difference in the distance unless you just see it different. If I put it over there it messes up the parking. Edwards: You can ask Perry if he thinks the ADA would be ok with that. Again, the Fire Depatlutent is asking that buildings one and four have a drive extended to the south for access for fire protection so that they can get around the building. I assume you didn't talk to them last time? Carter: No, I didn't get a chance. Edwards: They are still requesting that. Casey: It looks like they have already done that. I think that if you could do the same thing that you did on building one down here on building four that that would satisfy that. That would kind of push your grading to the south a little bit but they are just wanting to pull past the building a little bit to be able to serve it. Carter: It just creates a bit of a grading problem. I will get with him and see what he wants to do, how he wants to do that and see if that will work. I will get with him and coordinate it because I need to talk to him about it anyway. Edwards: I did ask about the parking lot lighting and that it be shown on the plan. Am I missing it? I didn't see what was proposed for that on there. Carter: I think he wants to put lights on the buildings. Edwards: That is probably not going to work. Carter: Is that required? Technical Plat Review October 30, 2002 Page 11 Edwards: What we are looking for, he can't use floodlighting, basically on the building that is not going to be allowed. He has to do a shielded light pointing downward so that light is not going to flood onto adjacent properties. Carter: The walks around the building are 7' overhangs. I know he wants to put lighting under that, is that not sufficient? Does he still need parking lot lighting? Edwards: No. He doesn't have to have parking lot lighting at all, we just need to know if that is what he is proposing. Carter: We have got light out on the street and out on the street here. If he puts light under the buildings. I will discuss that with him. Edwards: Flood lighting pointing out toward the parking lot is not going to work. If his intention is to light the sidewalks underneath the overhangs that is fine. Carter: It will be recessed lighting. Edwards: That won't be a problem. I didn't see any monument signs proposed, did you talk to him about that? Carter: Yes, we are proposing no monument signs. He said no signs but if he wanted to put signs on the building would he be able to do that? I was thinking similar to, I'm not sure I will have to talk to him about that. He is not proposing a monument sign though. Edwards: You might want to talk to him if he does want signs on the building, how he proposes to do that. Does he propose to put it in these triangles up here? You can just have him draw a little place. Carter: Have you seen how he did where my office is with the little signs on the front like that? I didn't want one but some of them do, is there any problem with those? Edwards: No, you might just take a picture so we can show the Planning Commission that that is what he has in mind. Carter: Ok. Edwards: With these elevations, I am assuming the first page is building one and the second page is building two. Technical Plat Review October 30, 2002 Page 12 Carter: Edwards: Carter: Edwards: Carter: Edwards: Carter: Edwards: Carter: Edwards: I didn't get a copy of those. He made me a copy and I think I turned them all in not knowing that one of them was mine. I am going to have to find out and get back with you. Did he not turn in a revision or is this just the original ones that were turned in? That is the one you brought to the meeting last time. I talked to him about the unarticulated side and he was going to fix that and we discussed ways to do that and I thought he had that all taken care of and was going to submit new drawings. I will get him to do that and we will identify which building is which so that that matter is taken care of. Was there any particular problem other than the metal? From what is shown here building one is going to have more than four sides, I want to be sure you can see the north side as well as the northeast and northwest sides to understand that that is going to look like from the street basically. This isn't really showing that real well. That was my only comment on that and then the articulation. I am not sure if this is building two or if these are overhead doors and why they are facing the grassed area. Ok, that caught my attention real quick the first time I saw that. We talked about offsite improvements required with Phase I, we talked about the one year approval and how that works the last time. You know utility equipment will be screened, utilities go underground. New for this meeting is we did want a note stating what the proposed street improvements are so that it is clear on the plans. I know that they are somewhat shown, just some sort of an arrow saying 14' from centerline. There is a dimension there but I should probably put a note there to make it a little clearer. Just so you have something all together, 14' from centerline with curb, gutter, storm drainage or something. I will modify that note to expand on that. Ok. Where you have got your Phase line you have got to be built now and future construction, if you could just add Phase I and Phase II to that. That is all that I have. Revisions are due November 6th by 10:00 a.m. Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: Glenn, I went over with you the concerns I had about the drainage design and I assume that the report that you submitted this morning will address Technical Plat Review October 30, 2002 Page 13 those. The written comments are there if you need them. I do want to stress that the improvements, the sewer extension and the detention pond and everything should be installed during Phase I. They are shown over in Phase II but those need to be constructed during the initial Phase. Carter: I made a note. Under where it says future construction of buildings I said all grading done now. Casey: Ok. Where the rear access easement comes out you need to have a 12' gravel access drive in it so that the sewer trucks can get back there for their cleaning and maintenance. Carter: Ok. Casey: Also, what some people have done since that gravel drive is not very attractive, is to go ahead and put sod over the top of it. That way it has got a good firm base under it where it is not going to leave ruts back through there but it also blends in with the rest of the yard that way. Carter: Casey: Hesse: Casey: Carter: Hesse: Carter: Casey: Will that grow? I know that we have talked about that with a project somewhere and I was wondering if that would even grow. Have you seen it done yet? I haven't seen it done. I know that there are several people that are planning on doing that. That might be a question for Kim. It won't grow unless there are three inches of top soil. That would work too. Just as long as we have got the base for those trucks to drive on without leaving 2' ruts through the yard and get stuck. Kim, do you know if there is a good grass type that would work best on that? Is he putting fescue everywhere else? I would just make it match. Ok. The intention of that is just so they can get access and not have to go back there and get stuck and tear up somebody's yard. Even though it is an access easement, they don't want to be tearing everything up getting back to it. Carter: The idea is go ahead and build a base and compact it so he has got a road bed there and then sod it like the rest of it or whatever he is going to do. Technical Plat Review October 30, 2002 Page 14 Casey: That is all that I have got. Edwards: Ok, utilities? Johny Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: Glenn, do you know how many potential tenants are planned for these four? Carter: No. Boles: Is there a pretty good chance that they are going to be multiple? Carter: Yes. Boles: Did we talk the last time that this went through about an easement along the southern edge of these buildings going east and west? Larry and I were talking about that a minute ago. Carter: Yes, there is a 20' easement there at the southern boundary. Boles: I mean right at the back of the buildings, the southern edge of the buildings. Gibson: Between the buildings and the detention pond there Glenn. I don't know how much room you've got. My concern was building three access. Carter: We could run an easement up around this pond. Gibson: Between the pond and the buildings? Carter: Yes. Gibson: As long as you think there is enough room for us to get in there and put our stuff in, that would be fine with me. Carter: I don't see that these other buildings are a problem are they? Gibson: I don't think so Carter: It is just getting around that pond? Boles: I think it would probably be best to get all of your facilities on the south side of the building away from Hwy. 16. If we could get a 20' easement. Technical Plat Review October 30, 2002 Page 15 Gibson: Four could be served from the east side and one and two could come from the west over behind them. Carter: Sue, are you going to do the same thing? Clouser: As long as you are putting it in there. If you want me to feed from the rear give us those easements in there. Carter: If he wants to feed from the front he is going to have to put in conduits. Clouser: That is what I think I asked last time for conduits to be built out. If you are going to give us one up against the buildings, that is fine, we can run conduits back there. Boles: That is all I had Glenn. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: The only other thing that I have besides that was the number of conduits that are going underneath these driveways. This says 4" PVCs but it doesn't say how many. They may just take it for granted that it is going to be a quad. Carter: Let's just don't take it for granted, we should probably put four there so it is down on paper. I will use the word quad, that always means four. Gibson: That is all I had. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: I agree with the utilities along the back and then you can build your conduits along those buildings if it is going to be right up against the building. If you want the telephone equipment inside build me a conduit right inside. If it is going to be along the back wall I won't need a conduit in that case. Carter: Do you want conduits back there or not? Clouser: Yes, that will be fine if you are going to give us a 20' easement. Edwards: Kim, just so I know on tree preservation, are there no trees on this site? Hesse: The only trees existing are in the right-of-way. Edwards: Are there tree preservation numbers for this one? Technical Plat Review October 30, 2002 Page 16 Hesse: Carter: No. My only comment is that it is really up to the Subdivision Committee if they will allow me to make that decision on the tree types. They probably will but you might get with them by the Subdivision Committee meeting. I am pushing them to get the landscaping plan. If I can get that that will solve those problems and answer those questions right because you will have types and species and irrigation and soil amendments and everything. Hesse: Yes, the Planning Commission wants to know the types of the trees. Carter: Ok. Edwards: That is all we have. Thank you. Technical Plat Review October 30, 2002 Page 17 LSD 02-29.00 (1040): Large Scale Development (Sequoyah Commons, pp 485) was submitted by Mandy Bunch of EB Landworks on behalf of Greg House of Houses Development for property located between Olive Avenue & Fletcher Avenue, south of Spring Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 2.06 acres with 39 dwelling units proposed (48 bedrooms). Edwards: The final item on the agenda is LSD 02-29.00 submitted by Mandy Bunch of EB Landworks on behalf of Greg House of Houses Development for property located between Olive Avenue & Fletcher Avenue, south of Spring Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 2.06 acres with 39 dwelling units proposed. We will start with Kim's comments she said she already gave to you. Basically it looks like for tree preservation you can not count tree preservation within utility easements or areas too narrow to sustain a healthy canopy through construction. Tree preservation along the south border is to be researched to identify the utility easements existing for the water line. Tree preservation along the north boundary is too narrow to sustain canopy. Prior to approval she will need to review the type and amount of trees existing in these narrow areas. For the landscaping requirements, she is requesting that you confirm that the interior parking lot islands that are utilized for tree islands are a minimum of 8'x 17'. Hesse: There was only one area. You really have enough tree islands if you are looking at a small tree type. It is this one right here. If you have enough trees inside we can do that, we will just put a small species in there. Edwards: From the Parks Department, you have been approved for money in lieu of land. Parks fees are assessed in the amount of $14,625 for 39 units. From Sidewalks, Olive is a residential street that requires a 4' sidewalk and a minimum 5' green space along one side of the street and wrapping the cul- de-sac. Ramps should be constructed at the ending and beginning point of the sidewalk around the cul-de-sac and a corresponding ramp across the street. Everything else looks standard. There is one bicycle parking rack required. I don't know if that was shown on there. Shreve She is actually showing four. Edwards: From Fire, the fire truck needs 20' to get into this development. What he is looking at is we need to remove this island at the cul-de-sac, the island at the driveway entrance. Then we have these one way drive aisles which are not going to work for fire protection because he is not going to be able to get back there to buildings six and seven, he needs at least 20'. Bunch: So they can just be widened to 20'? Casey: Does he need both of them or just one? Technical Plat Review October 30, 2002 Page 18 Edwards: Just one. He also said that your fire hydrants meet the 300' requirement, however, they would recommend an additional hydrant and that would be located at the northeast corner of the entry drive. Bunch: If we can widen at least one of those, the entrance way into the development to 20' can we maintain the island and is there any way to address maintaining an island within the street? I know Matt didn't like that either. Casey: We don't allow islands out in the street unless it is a boulevard. Bunch: You knew I was going to at least ask one more time. If we go with one of these drives that is 20' into the building we can maintain that island? Ok. Shreve: Mandy, the sidewalks need to be continuous through that driveway also, that may effect the drive location. Bunch: We needed to talk about that anyway. I am not sure that it is going to matter once the street comments are done but as far as grading out there I didn't show a green space in that wrap around part of the cul-de-sac so it would stay within the existing right-of-way out there. I think we need to kind of work through that with the rest of our comments when we talk. Edwards: Buildings one and two I am just requesting to know the height of those. The reason being is in the R-2 zone the setback increases with height. Anything over 20' tall has an additional setback. Do you know if these buildings will be taller than 20'? Bunch: Does it go from finished floor to peak of roof or to overhang? Edwards: It goes to the overhang is where it will be measured from to the floor. Bunch: But not the crawl space if there is one. Edwards: Right. If they do come to more than 20' there is an additional 1' setback for every foot over 20', that might be an issue, it might not. How about the lighting? Do you know what kind of lighting is proposed? Bunch: We discussed that. I am pretty sure he wants to do something decorative, we haven't picked a fixture and we need to provide a layout. I think he would definitely be leaning toward something that was more decorative in nature and not a huge floodlight, major light producing fixture. Edwards: Can they work on that, getting us the height of the fixture and the lumens? Technical Plat Review October 30, 2002 Page 19 Bunch: Yes. I will try to get you some information and maybe a brochure or something like that. Edwards: Also, just a note that all of the aisles in this development will be fire lanes and will have to be painted and marked as such. At least, all the aisles that they need to access the building. That is all I have for right now. Do you want me to go over the street? Casey: That is fine. Edwards: I will go over the street part. Of course if is Planning Commission's final decision on what offsite street improvements are required. We are recommending that Olive Street be improved to meet residential street standards including pavement, subbase, curb, gutter, storm drainage, from Spring Street to the proposed cul-de-sac. That is because Olive Street is not in good enough shape to handle the traffic that this development will generate and the construction traffic. It already has problems with the asphalt breaking up. That is option number one. Number two would be the extension of Center Street to provide the required frontage for the property. There is an existing 30' right-of-way, it doesn't seem to be too steep through there and that would be a second option. Bunch: Along Center Street? Edwards: Yes. Bunch: It is extremely steep. Edwards: Going to the west. If you go down hill, we are just talking about that way. Bunch: Ok, the other way. Casey: It is not as steep to the west, it looks like itis being driven now by people anyway. Bunch: Basically, you are giving us two options to look at and discuss and we are to make a proposal? Edwards: Yes. We are going to stick with this island being removed if they use this option. Casey: They also need to show easements on each side of all proposed water and sewer lines. I visited with you a little bit about this the other day, we need to extend the water mains either move the water meters closer to the main or extend the main closer to where you want the meters so we don't have the long services in between the main and the meter. Technical Plat Review October 30, 2002 Page 20 Bunch: That was for building number 7, I'm not quite sure what I can do about buildings 3 and 4. Casey: Number 7 was the one we talked about the other day. We might be able to live with 3 and 4. I also want you to verify the width of that easement there on that 30" water line. We need to maintain our setbacks from that easement. I mentioned that there are several retaining walls on here. Any wall greater than 4' in height needs to be designed by a registered professional engineer and inspected during construction by that engineer. Any wall over 30" in height needs to have a safety railing meeting the more stringent of the southern building code requirements. Bunch: If those are not directly adjacent to vehicular areas, what is that requirement? Casey: Then the building code would prevail. Bunch: Is that the 48" too? Casey: Yes. When ASTO kicks in it goes up a little higher I believe. Bunch: It is 54". Casey: Note number 12 there doesn't really impact, it is just acknowledging that we do have an ordinance that all setbacks be cut from the right-of-way but since that the cul-de-sac is new construction that is not going to apply in this case. I just wanted to address that. Bunch: Certainly I think that depending on options that are looked at and discussed, how will that wall that I have got proposed there in the right-of- way be affected? Did you have an opportunity to look at that? Maybe we need to sit down and look at that. I know it affects Keith's comments too. This little stub of wall. Depending on when or how that is addressed that may change. There is no way to put improvements and a sidewalk with that wall right there. It is pretty much a steep bank right there. There needs to be some green outside the property. Anything different could be somewhat extreme. At one point I had the walls actually in the right-of- ways that were street walls and we moved those back thinking that would be your preference. Shreve: There is an existing ordinance that says that they have to be setback 2' from the right-of-way. Bunch: There are several streets in town that have walls. Technical Plat Review October 30, 2002 Page 21 Casey: Bunch: Edwards: Bunch: Edwards: Bunch: Edwards: We can work on that. It sounds like we have got more to think about than just that right now anyway. You are showing it on the right-of-way line? I am just confused. It crosses down into the right-of-way and comes forward to the sidewalk so that we can grade to install the sidewalk and the street improvements. At the same time we are trying to maintain the trees. We will just have to look at that and see if that is a variance. It is kind of a weird situation. Utilities? Glenn Newman — AEP/SWEPCO Newman: We can't put it in the drive or the street, we have transformers and pedestals and they can't go in the streets. What I was looking at is trying to figure out a way to get there along Olive Ave. I was going to request a 20' utility easement there and that will work up until you get to building one and I don't know how we are going to get there. Do you want the transformers and pedestals and things located in front of the buildings? Bunch: We have looked at it and where those little circles with the "E"s are, that is the preferred mechanical entrance to the building. Newman: I will have to locate a transformer and a pedestal for example, for buildings one and two. With the tree preservation that is going to cause us to have to locate that in front of the building. Bunch: Ok. In front in this area? Newman. Over to the left out there by the street. If you gave me a 20' utility easement along Olive from the south end to the north end up there across in the cul-de-sac then I could locate a transformer right there just on the west side of the building in the front and stay out of the tree preservation area that is there. Bunch: That is just getting us to buildings one and two though right? Newman: Yes, that is just buildings one and two. We still have a couple of others here. By giving you that utility easement I can locate the transformer between buildings three and four out in that easement along Olive. Technical Plat Review October 30, 2002 Page 22 Bunch: You have to have 20'? Is everybody looking at going the same way? Boles: I don't know yet. Bunch: I think I probably need to sit down with you sometime and we need to go over this because Mr. House is definitely wanting to minimize utility easements and we have got such tree preservation areas that we really need to keep them. That is why it is shown like this for us to start working with, this is the idea because we are already installing several retaining walls all around this thing to maintain these trees. Newman: How tall are the walls going to be typically? Bunch: Average is around 5', the higher are up to 10' in some areas. Newman: Ok. With the retaining wall and tree preservation my concern is that we are not going to be able to get to it with vehicles or even with tree preservation area. Buildings 6 and 7, I have an overhead line that runs along Center Street right-of-way but I have a 12 KV line that runs up the hill there, that is going to be my source. Bunch: That is kind of what I had anticipated. Can you come in from that center area and then go up or do you have to come up twice? Newman: I just don't see any place to locate the equipment, the transformers and what have you by coming up this. There is not a lot of room between the parking lot and the driveway. Bunch: Would there be someway to have a central transformer location and run secondary up to buildings 3 and 4 from some sort of general area like right in here that were accessible? Newman: Just give you one location and then let you run private lines? Bunch: Is that something that we maybe could work through so that we didn't have easements and equipment everywhere? Newman. Let's look at it and see. What I am really afraid of is that if we don't get somewhere centrally located within the complex then the load that three two bedroom townhouses and the two levels of one bedroom units, what we need to do is look at this if we could. What I originally thought was to go up an easement on the west side and then go up an easement along Fletcher but the tree preservation area on Fletcher is going to prohibit that. Technical Plat Review October 30, 2002 Page 23 Bunch: That and if you are looking at any kind of vehicular access that is pretty much not going to happen. I just need to call you and we need to sit down and go look at that. Newman: Yes Ma'am, let's do that. Gibson: Try to make that a meeting with all utilities. Boles: Yes, this is going to be a little unique. Bunch: I appreciate it if you could spend the time. It would be better for us to spend the time to do. Gibson: I know we can't go in the street because there has to be turn ups where it goes off to these buildings. I have the same issues as Glenn. Johny Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: Mandy, I don't see your point of entry for gas for building five, am I overlooking it? Bunch: No. It is just not on there. Boles: I just thought I would bring that to your attention. They do want gas to that building don't they Bunch: I would think so I know he is still in the decision process of whether it will be all electric or gas but we want to plan for everything so he has that option. Boles: Ok, just let me know. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: We will just wait until that meeting Mandy to go over all of those issues. The only entrance is going to be off Olive right? I am not seeing one off of Center. I am sure you can off Fletcher. Bunch: We don't have anything proposed off any of the streets other than Olive. I guess the only thing that would come to mind is the discussion that Planning had that might change access. Gibson: That is all I have. Let's just all get together. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Technical Plat Review October 30, 2002 Page 24 Clouser: Just the same thing. Edwards: Do you think you are going to be able to comply with the tree preservation ordinance without a redesign? Bunch: I think so. I think the utility easements will have the biggest affect. I know we had already talked to Kim about the easement for the 30" water line that we needed to track down that nobody seems to have so I believe so in that we have some areas adjacent to Olive that we have not included yet as well as detention design, which I am still in the process of trying to find the right design for this site that can be added to that so I believe it will be a lot closer to that. We are trying to save what is there because it needs to be saved and we are also short on mitigation opportunities. Edwards: Alright, deadline for revisions is November 6th at 10:00 a.m.