Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-01-03 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
TECHNICAL PLAT REVIEW COMMITTEE
A regular meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee was held on Friday, January
3, 2002 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West
Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN
LSP 03-3.00: Lot Split (Ruble, pp 436)
Page 3
LSP 03-4.00: Lot Split (Zakariadze, pp 439)
Page 10
LSP 03-5.00: Lot Split (Mersky, pp 102)
Page 13
PPL 03-2.00: Preliminary Plat (Salem Heights, pp 284)
Page 15
PPL 03-3.00: Preliminary Plat (Salem Meadows, pp 245)
Page 22
LSD 03-2.00: Large Scale Development (Lazenby, pp 560)
Page 26
LSD 03-3.00: Large Scale Development (Rasberry, 366)
Page 30
PZD 03-1.00: Planned Zoning District (Jackson Place, 255)
Page 34
STAFF PRESENT
Matt Casey
Sara Edwards
Kim Hesse
Renee Thomas
Keith Shreve
Forwarded
Forwarded
Forwarded
Forwarded
Forwarded
Forwarded
Forwarded
Forwarded
STAFF ABSENT
Tim Conklin
Perry Franklin
Danny Farrar
Travis Dotson
Technical Plat Review
January 3, 2002
Page 2
UTILITIES PRESENT UTILITIES ABSENT
Larry Gibson, Cox Communications
Jim Sargent, AEP/SWEPCO
Glenn Newman, AEP/ SWEPCO
Johny Boles, Arkansas Western Gas
Sue Clouser, Southwestern Bell
Mike Phipps, Ozark Electric Coop.
Technical Plat Review
January 3, 2002
Page 3
LSP 03-5.00: Lot Split (Mersky, pp 102) was submitted by David Mersky and Harriet
Neiman for property located at 5911 Day Lilly Trail. The property is in the Planning
Area and contains approximately 4.05 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 1.5
acres and 2.55 acres.
Edwards: Welcome to the Friday, January 3, 2003 meeting of the Technical Plat
Review Committee. Since Alan Reid isn't here for item number two we
are going to skip to item three, LSP 03-4.00 submitted by Ira Zakariadze
for property located at 944 and 946 North Meadowlands. The property is
zoned R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential and contains 0.43 acres. The
request is to split into two tracts of .2 and .23 acres. This is Alan Reid also
so we are going to skip this one too. Item number four is LSP 03-5.00
submitted by David Mersky and Harriet Neiman for property located at
5911 Day Lilly Trail. The property is in the Planning Area and contains
approximately 4.05 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 1.5
acres and 2.55 acres.
Mersky: Am I supposed to present something?
Edwards: No. What we are going to do is go over staff comments, which are all
there in writing and then the utilities will go over any concerns that they
have or easements that they need to service the property. The first
comment from Sidewalks is that sidewalks are not required in our Growth
Area. Parks fees are not required in our Growth Area. Trash service is
not in the Growth Area. From Planning, what we are looking for is we
need you to add plat page number 102 somewhere near the signature
block. Add a floodplain reference, which basically says if the property is
affected by floodplain or not. Then, we have this county road that is on
our Master Street Plan. That is a minor arterial which is a total of 90' of
right of way. You are only responsible for 45' from centerline. What we
are looking at is another 25' right of way dedication along that entire
property line. Along with that we have a standard dedication block that
needs to be added to the plat in which the property owner signs that says
"We hereby dedicate this right of way to the county."
Mersky: Is the wording in this paper too?
Edwards: The wording is not. I can get that to your surveyor by email or however
they want it.
Mersky: Ok.
Edwards: You also have to obtain County approval following our approval. Right
now what we are looking at is if you can get all of that revised and back
into us by January 86 at 10:00 you can go onto the Subdivision Committee
meeting that is January 16`h.
Technical Plat Review
January 3, 2002
Page 4
Mersky: When is the Planning Commission meeting?
Edwards: You may be approved at the Subdivision Committee meeting but in the
event that you are not, Planning Commission is January 27`h. This is Matt
Casey, our Staff Engineer and he is going to go over some engineering
comments.
Matt Casey — Staff Engineer
Casey:
I just need for your surveyor to show the location of existing water lines. I
couldn't tell from our map how far down the road the water line extended.
Do you know if it comes to this tract 1 or not?
Mersky: It stops in the northwest corner.
Casey: It will need to be extended the 120' or so down to also serve this tract 2.
Mersky: On this plan?
Casey: You can show it on that but we will need to have that extended and done
before anything can be built on tract 2.
Mersky: Ok, not before it can be approved right?
Casey: Right.
Mersky: It just needs to be shown on here and then before any construction starts
that just needs to be in place right?
Casey: We will need that before the building permit so we will need some sort of
guarantee that that can be constructed.
Mersky: Do you have language for that too?
Edwards: What our guarantee entails, it can be a surety bond, a letter of credit, or
cash in escrow. If you deposit a check with me I will hold it in an escrow
account. It doesn't earn interest but once the water line is installed it will
be refunded back to you.
Mersky: How much do you need?
Casey: It will be the estimated construction cost of the line.
Edwards: Do you have any idea of how much it will be?
Technical Plat Review
January 3, 2002
Page 5
Casey:
Mersky:
Casey:
Mersky:
Casey:
Mersky:
Edwards:
Mersky:
Edwards:
Mersky:
Edwards:
Mersky:
Edwards:
Casey:
Mersky:
It won't be a whole lot, 120' of 2" line, I don't have a dollar amount.
There is a 2" line further north of there, there are two 3/4" stubs in this
corner right here that are just coming out of the ground with a little piece
of surveyor's tape on them. When I spoke to somebody from the water
department that came out there one time he said there was plenty of water
for that. There is just one house.
We only show a 2", those must be service lines. Typically we don't allow
that. What we need to do is have your surveyor verify the location of the
existing 2" line. That will be what needs to be extended.
A 2" line to service one house?
We can't have service lines crossing property lines. If it is just a 3/4" line
that is probably what it is, service lines. That is what runs to the meter.
We need more information on that.
What if I didn't have this lot going all the way to this point here? What if
I extended it over so I maintained my acre and a half and kept the little
piece right there and ran that on my property so it was coming right here,
would that be acceptable?
You have to have a minimum of 75' of street frontage per lot. You have
got 113' so you can't reduce it by too much. You can only reduce this
part down to 75'.
I understand but if what I said would work if it calculates out to an acre
and a half is that acceptable?
No because you wouldn't have the 75' of street frontage left for this lot
because you would be taking all of your frontage for tract 2.
No, there are two issues, one is getting the water over and one is
maintaining an acre and a half.
And 75' of street frontage.
Ok, three issues now. Ok, you are saying that wouldn't be street frontage
and a dedicated easement is not good enough?
No.
We don't allow service lines to run in a utility easement.
Or in the road easement but you do allow 2" lines to.
Technical Plat Review
January 3, 2002
Page 6
Casey: Yes, that will be a public main that needs to be extended.
Edwards: The best thing is to have your surveyor figure out where our 2" line stops,
you have probably got this 2" somewhere and then a service line coming
off of there prior to the city regulating it.
Casey: Was there a house or anything there?
Mersky: Yes. How do I get permission to go in here and do that work?
Casey: There should be an easement.
Edwards: The easement may stop up there as well.
Casey: You need to verify that as well.
Mersky: I am pretty sure it does so then what do we do?
Casey: We will have to see if we can get that information then we can make a
better decision of what needs to be done.
Mersky: I can't believe you have to run a 2" over for one house.
Casey: That is the policy. We are not allowed to have private service lines
crossing property lines which causes a potential for problems. Right now
you will own both of them but maybe not always.
Mersky: What if I did that first before this was approved?
Casey: That would be fine.
Mersky: So if I ran a 3/d' before this was approved then it would be ok?
Casey: No, it would have to be a 2", 3/4" is still a service line.
Mersky: If I had come to you without any of this going on and already had a stub
right here on this property would you be happy?
Edwards: The thing is you would've had to have got a water tap permit and we
would have never permitted that. We don't know when this went in, it
was obviously done before we permitted or before we had that regulation
in place. If this was done 35 years ago or something it would be different.
Mersky: I would have to have a permit to tap into this 3/4' line right here that is on
my property already?
Technical Plat Review
January 3, 2002
Page 7
Casey: That 3/4' line is probably a seryice line so it is probably a private line.
Edwards: You have got a meter and then your 3/4" line so what you would've had is
both of these on one meter. That wouldn't work for selling the property.
Mersky: So get to you where the 2" line is and what else?
Casey: And if there is any easement along with that main.
Mersky: There probably won't be since this is stubbed out here already.
Casey: Typically when you get an easement it is all the way across the front of the
property so chances are that it is there and there shouldn't be a problem
with you extending that.
Mersky: If we don't have an easement then what do we do?
Casey: Well, we will have to cross that bridge when we get there.
Mersky: We have been working through the warranty deed and we didn't see any
easements.
Edwards: There might be one on the other side.
Mersky: On the other side of the road?
Casey: No, we are talking about the adjacent property where the line is located.
Mersky: Ok.
Casey: I will get some more information for you and get back with you if you will
give me your phone number.
Mersky: My work number is 571-1701 and the surveyor's is Arrowland Surveying
Mapping.
Casey: I will see if I can get some more information for you and give you a call
and try to work this out.
Edwards: Utilities?
Johns Boles — Arkansas Western Gas
Boles: I would like for you to show a 20' utility easement outside of the newly
dedicated right of way that you are being required to dedicate.
Technical Plat Review
January 3, 2002
Page 8
Mersky: Is this negotiable or is it if he says it has to be?
Edwards: It is negotiable. Johny, do you want to tell him why you need that?
Boles: For future use.
Edwards: Does this property have gas seryice right now?
Boles: To be honest, I haven't been out there to look and see.
Edwards: What they would need it for is to get electric, gas, cable, and phone to this
property and that is what they are looking for and then potentially even to
the south so that whatever happens down here they can extend that line.
Boles: It is so we don't have the issue that you are dealing with on the water line.
Edwards: That is why we typically get the easement across the whole property.
Mersky: What if we don't have any plans to use natural gas, if we want to go all
electric.
Edwards: Electric probably still needs an easement. Ozark Electric isn't here to ask
for that.
Mersky: They have that easement there right next to it already.
Edwards: What do they have?
Mersky: They have got high lines right there. When the representative came out to
the property one time we had already relocated the pole and I said what if
we do this and he said it wouldn't be a problem to come right across there.
We were thinking about going all electric.
Edwards: Pretty much if you don't want to give them an easement they have the
option not to extend the service to that property. That is something you
can work out with Ozark Electric. We have got cable and phone and gas
also.
Mersky: I just want to keep my options open.
Boles:
If you want to go on record, that is your option. Future customers to the
south may want the service and it is our policy that I don't lay lines on
county road right of way, I have to lay them on private property so that is
the reason I'm requesting it.
Technical Plat Review
January 3, 2002
Page 9
Mersky:
Boles:
Mersky:
Boles:
Mersky:
Boles:
Now there is service down here.
I haven't been out there.
Do you know where that perfectly good huge home was torn down on
Butterfield Coach that they just abolished?
No.
That house was about right here so this road is traveled extensively right
here and the other people don't use it very much. I know that there is gas
down here coming up from that direction. You want 20'?
Yes Sir, that is to be used by all utilities.
Larry Gibson - Cox Communications
Gibson:
Mersky:
Gibson:
Sue Clouser
Clouser:
Edwards:
Mersky:
Edwards:
Mersky:
Edwards:
Mersky:
That is the same thing I was going to ask for. If we don't have an
easement we won't build it.
You can share the 20' utility easement though?
Yes, it is a general utility easement.
— Southwestern Bell
I am requiring the same 20' utility easement for our service.
Ok, that is it.
Ok, so it is 45' plus 20' from the centerline of the road.
There is a variance waiver process for the right of way. We would have to
go onto Planning Commission and then go to City Council requesting that
waiver for the right of way. It would add some time. I don't know which
way it would go. At the least we would want a deed restriction so that in
the future if we were to pave and widen and annex that area then nothing
would be built on it. That is an option if you want to look at that.
Ok, is that it?
That is all.
Thank you very much.
Technical Plat Review
January 3, 2002
Page 10
LSP 03-3.00: Lot Split (Ruble, pp 436) was submitted by Alan Reid on behalf of Betty
Ruble for property located at 625 N. 54th Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low
Density Residential and contains approximately 2.12 acres. The request is to split into
two tracts of 1.06 acres and 1.06 acres.
Edwards: Item two is LSP 03-3.00 submitted by Alan Reid on behalf of Betty Ruble
for property located at 625 N. 54th Street. The property is zoned R-1,
Low Density Residential and contains approximately 2.12 acres. The
request is to split into two tracts of 1.06 acres and 1.06 acres. Solid Waste
has no comments. Sidewalks are not required for lot splits. From
Planning, adjacent zoning needs to be added, setbacks need to be added.
Note that impact fees are effective June 16, 2003 so be sure to tell your
client that so they are aware that if any permit is issued that date or later it
will be assessed impact fees. Matt is going to go over sewer. There is one
additional unit for Parks fees which is $470. Matt?
Matt Casey — Staff Engineer
Casey:
Alan, they are either going to need to extend the sewer main to serve these
two properties or obtain additional easements. The sewer line is off the
right of way some there and there is a gap between the right of way and
the easement. They have got the option of either obtaining all of that as
utility easement in between or extending the sewer across the road to serve
this lot. They can't have the sanitary sewer services running through that
side of the property.
Reid: Is there a reason why the city or whoever put that sewer in didn't put it
adjacent to the right of way?
Casey: I am not sure the history on that.
Reid: It is fairly new I believe, I don't think it is an old sewer line.
Casey: I am not sure of the reasoning behind that. They have two options though.
It will be a short extension if they are unable to get that easement but then
they would also have to get an easement for that extension too so I'm not
sure which avenue they would want to take.
Reid: Does the city not have any power to take that due to the fact that you have
to hook up if you are within so many feet?
Casey: I would have to get with our City Attorney's office to see.
Edwards: It is a long process.
Technical Plat Review
January 3, 2002
Page 11
Reid:
Casey:
Reid:
Casey:
Reid:
Casey:
Edwards:
Re id:
Edwards:
Reid:
Casey:
Reid:
Casey:
If they only need to get an easement why can't they just get an easement
for a tap then?
We don't allow an easement for services like that. If that was a general
utility easement that would be the same as it running parallel to the road in
an easement. That is why we gave you that option to fill in that gap there,
it is only another 10' or 15' of easement.
So if they can get an easement from where the sewer line is over to the
right of way from the neighbor, if they get the neighbor to dedicate that as
a general utility easement then they could go under the street and hook it
in.
That was kind of a stretch, that was an alternative that we came up with if
they did not want to extend that main.
If they extend the main don't they either have to buy the property or
something?
They will still have to get a 20' easement for that across that same
property.
It is a public easement and that would be a public main. Either way they
are public easements.
Ok, we will look at it then.
Is that house not on sewer?
I think it is. I am pretty sure it is tapped into that line across the street. I
couldn't find a cleanout and it didn't show up on the computer as any kind
of connection but I think everybody on that street is hooked into that
sewer line.
We need to check with the Water and Sewer Division and see. That is the
only easement you found for that?
It was like an easement that was so many feet each side of the existing
sewer manhole and why it runs at an angle I don't know unless they
encountered some problems digging the ditch.
I will check on that with our water and sewer division and see where those
taps are coming from.
Technical Plat Review
January 3, 2002
Page 12
Johns Boles — Arkansas Western Gas
Boles: No comment.
Larry Gibson — Cox Communications
Gibson: No comment.
Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell
Clouser: No comment.
Reid: I will work on trying to secure an easement or something.
Casey: Do you have the address to that property?
Reid: It is 625 N. 54th Street.
Technical Plat Review
January 3, 2002
Page 13
LSP 03-4.00: Lot Split (Zakariadze, pp 439) was submitted by Ira Zakariadze for
property located at 944 & 946 N. Meadowlands Drive. The property is zoned R-1.5,
Moderate Density Residential and contains approximately 0.43 acres. The request is to
split into two tracts of 0.20 acres and 0.23 acres.
Edwards: Next is LSP 03-4.00 that was submitted by Ira Zakariadze for property
located at 944 & 946 N. Meadowlands Drive. The property is zoned R-
1.5, Moderate Density Residential and contains approximately 0.43 acres.
The request is to split into two tracts of 0.20 acres and 0.23 acres. There
are no sidewalks required for lot splits. No comment from Solid Waste.
The only thing from Planning is adjacent zoning. This is a Washington
County board signature block. If you do it that way then Tim is going to
have to sign it and that could delay him. The impact fees will be after
June 16, 2003. That is all that I have. Matt?
Matt Casey — Staff Engineer
Casey:
I would like to see the location of the existing water lines. You show the
sewer but they are going to have to extend the sewer line to serve this tract
because it will not have access to sewer on either side. Currently this
house, from our records, has service coming off this north line. That is
going to have to be abandoned and a new line laid and a service coming in
off of it so that those service lines don't cross the property lines.
Edwards: We have a provision to allow for him to go ahead and build without doing
a lot split because he has got enough room and he has proven that a lot
split is possible and that way if he wanted to go ahead and build, he is still
going to have to extend these lines but he wouldn't have to do it ahead of
time if he was interested in doing something like that and then we could
file the lot split afterwards. I am not sure how his financing works if that
is required but that is an option if you want to tell him that. I will tell him
the same thing.
Reid: So he could go ahead and build and then he could clear up the matter of
the sewer during that time?
Edwards: Yes. He is still going to have to meet those requirements but he wouldn't
have to do it ahead of time.
Casey: He wouldn't have to extend the line unless he ever split it.
Edwards: Right, that's true.
Reid: I am not sure if his intention was to split for financing or to split for future
sell or what. I can get with him and see.
Technical Plat Review
January 3, 2002
Page 14
Edwards: If he didn't do this in the future he couldn't ever split it until he did that.
Reid:
Right, if he is going to keep them as investment or income properties he
could have two houses with two sewer lines but he couldn't ever split it
until he had another main run down and another tap put on.
Larry Gibson — Cox Communications
Gibson: You put a 25' building setback and UE on the front of the property and
that should be plenty.
Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell
Clouser: I agree with that easement.
Edwards: Thanks Alan.
Reid: Thank you.
Technical Plat Review
January 3, 2002
Page 15
PPL 03-2.00: Preliminary Plat (Salem Heights, pp 284) was submitted by Leonard
Gabbard of Landtech Engineering, Inc. on behalf of John Alford of Palmco Properties for
property located on North Salem Road, south of Salem Village. The property is zoned R-
1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 30.96 acres with 87 lots
proposed.
Edwards: The next item is PPL 03-2.00 submitted by Leonard Gabbard of Landtech
Engineering, Inc. on behalf of John Alford of Palmco Properties for
property located on North Salem Road, south of Salem Village. The
property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains
approximately 30.96 acres with 87 lots proposed.
Hillis: Leonard Gabbard couldn't be here today. I am Don Hillis with Landtech
so I will be here representing this project.
Edwards: I will go ahead and start with Parks. The Parks Board has approved
money in lieu of land in the amount of $40,890 and that is based on 87
single-family units. That will be due before the Final Plat is signed.
Hillis: Ok.
Edwards: Keith, do you want to go over your comments?
Shreve: Basically, we just need the sidewalk requirements shown for each street,
there are no sidewalks shown at this point.
Edwards: We do need them to be shown and they will need to be shown on the Final
Plat also.
Shreve: On the comments page it lists out the streets by class and the widths of the
sidewalks and widths of the green space required for each class. Also,
sidewalks required on Salem Road with street improvements. Engineering
will go over street improvements. Rupple Road will have a sidewalk
requirement. The street doesn't currently exist but we would ask you to
put money in escrow.
Casey: It is under construction right now.
Edwards: Would you want them to go ahead and build it as part of their
development? It is probably a little late to add it into the contract. You
would need to build Salem sidewalks and Rupple sidewalks and then we
could allow the guarantee for the internal sidewalk. I am going to go over
that in my comments. Those will have to be built along with the street.
Shreve: Also, truncated domes and detectable warnings and access ramps will be
required. I have got some information here on that if you would like. It is
Technical Plat Review
January 3, 2002
Page 16
covered in the U.D.O. about the sidewalks being continuous through the
driveways for the houses. On the plat we will want a table with the street
names and right of way width and sidewalk width and that information. If
you have any questions about any of these comments give us a call at the
office.
Hillis: We will do it, we appreciate that.
Edwards: From our Landscape Administrator it looks like the tree preservation plan
needs to be revised to include the plan requirements as listed in the
ordinance and include a check list. She says that you can meet with her
for specific changes.
Hesse: Don, we can go out there and look at it. I think I faxed you the check list.
Hillis: You did. They went out there and shot it all. I have got a lot more
information on that now and so I will get with you. I can give you a call
on Monday.
Hesse:
Yes, before you revise the plan let's get it down. The other comment is
that you will have to mitigate for that 4,000 sq.ft. canopy that you are
removing.
Hillis: That is changing a little bit. The tree canopy is actually a lot more than we
thought it was. There are trees everywhere around those detention pond
sites and we showed everyone of them, shot them all so you will see a big
difference.
Edwards: There is no comment from Solid Waste. From Planning, we have got a
requirement that each lot be a minimum of 70' in width and how this
applies to Tots on a curb or a cul-de-sac is it is measured at the 25' setback.
I have listed all of these lots that are on a curb or a cul-de-sac and asked
that you dimension the length at the 25' building setback.
Hillis: They should all be at the 70' mark.
Edwards: Also, with your plans, typically what I see is the property line pins, on
these straight lines it isn't a problem, I understand 70' from there to there,
but when we get to these kinds of things I don't understand where the 17'
is and where the other is. Please show your pins.
Hillis: I saw that too and I couldn't tell either.
Edwards: Please add plat page 284. I think when you get your table in there that
Keith is asking for it will take care of our dimensions and street widths
and things. It looks like what happened is you went off an old plan for an
Technical Plat Review
January 3, 2002
Page 17
old Preliminary Plat that was submitted in this area. Since then, our
Master Street Plan has changed. Salem Road is still a collector but as a
collector, it requires 35' from centerline, you have got 30' shown. Rupple,
on the other hand, we already have the right of way from the subdivision
across Rupple. They went ahead and dedicated the whole 90' so the 40'
of right of way you have shown, we don't need it because we already have
all the right of way that we need.
Hillis: Ok, so our subdivision could go on out further.
Edwards: Yes. Also, previously this went to Planning Commission and City
Council, not this exact subdivision but a subdivision proposal, and there
was extensive discussion about a stubout to the south being provided. We
do need a street stubout to the south. It can be your option if you want to
continue this here or here, however you would like to do that is fine. We
are trying to get connectivity out there. With the impact fees, they are
effective on June 16, 2003. Anything permitted with a building permit
that date or later will be subject to impact fees. We will limit access from
Salem and Rupple at the time of Final Plat we will require a note be
placed on the plat that states that access will not be allowed from those
two streets. Also, at the time of Final Plat if there is any subdivision signs
proposed we will need to see elevations of those and locations of those
signs that needs to be approved by the Planning Commission. I did not
see any existing utilities on this site. Do you know if there is anything on
here?
Hillis: We are showing an existing water line right along in there, it is not labeled
but it should have been.
Edwards: Do you know if there are any overhead electric lines?
Hillis: I am sure there are some poles and things along Salem Road of course.
We will get them shown on there.
Edwards: We will need to know that and know the size of those lines. All new
utilities and possibly existing utilities, we will have to check, must be
placed underground. The maintenance of the wetland area and any
common open space must be provided for in the covenants. Then you
have the floodplain.
Hillis: You have got 500 -year flood and 100 -year floodplain here. We are
allowed to build the floodplain up a hundred years and we had planned on
building that up.
Edwards: What we have to do in the mean time is that all lots have to be one acre in
size. At such time that you go ahead and get that filled, you submit a letter
Technical Plat Review
January 3, 2002
Page 18
of map amendment to FEMA and that is approved, then you submit the
Final Plat. It can't be submitted until that is done and at that time we can
add these lines back in there. I don't want anyone thinking that they have
got approval for these lots as is, there is a minimum of one acre.
Hillis: Ok, until we get it approved.
Casey: If you are planning that fill you will need to show that grading on the
plans, which it is not right now.
Edwards: Let me say that along with the fill, the end result is that each lot has to
have 6,000 sq.ft. buildable area. Buildable area is area outside of the
setback and outside the floodplain and so that is what we need to end up
with at the end for these lots.
Hillis: Ok.
Casey: Don, we need to have a sheet labeled grading plan and back to Sara's
comments about the fill, all of that grading needs to be shown on that.
Please add your proposed contours to the street and they will tie into any
existing contours, we will need that tied together.
Hillis: The way we understood it was that we would submit a Preliminary
Grading Plan, which showed a few elevations and things like that. We
didn't know we had to do a full fledged grading plan. The actual roads
haven't been designed yet.
Casey:
Our grading ordinance lists everything that is required in the grading plan
and another comment is that we need all of those things included as well.
There is quite a list of all of the things that need to be included, an erosion
control method, treatment of disturbed areas, and all of those items. There
are some exceptions and they are noted in there which ones are not needed
with the Preliminary
Hillis: We will go over that.
Casey:
We are recommending that street improvements be made along Salem.
That is going to be a minimum of 14' from centerline but actual width
may vary. We need to work that out and make it align with the existing
improvements up and down Salem because it is kind of spotty down
through there and varying widths so we will need to work that out on our
actual construction plan with how that lines up.
Hillis: Ok.
Technical Plat Review
January 3, 2002
Page 19
Casey:
Hillis:
Casey:
You also need to show the grading with the existing detention pond. I
understand from a phone conversation that that is going to move?
It is going to move on out. As a matter of fact, it may end up with two of
them.
We will need a revised drainage report showing all that. Also, on the
drainage report, according to our manual, you will have to have a final
detention design and we are going to need all of the calculations
associated with that. We will need the detail of the drainage areas and
offsite drainage areas. The submitted drainage report didn't have any of
that. The water line here on the west side will need to connect to the
waterline under construction to this Clabber Creek. It is shown to stubout
here but it will also need to connect. The same thing for the street.
Hillis: Where is that water line being located at along Rupple now?
Casey: I believe it is on the west side if I remember correctly.
Hillis: We need to get it connected before that is paved.
Casey: The Engineering Division needs a copy of the wetlands delineation. I
know that the Planning Division has one, we need a copy as well. For
Rupple Road we are recommending an assessment of $15,380. The city
constructed a portion of Rupple Road from Mount Comfort up to the
school and we assessed previous developments for that construction. It is
based upon the projected traffic and the actual construction costs.
Hillis: How much was that?
Casey:
$15,380. We are also recommending an assessment for the future bridge
construction on the northwest corner of this. That is based on estimated
traffic and an estimated bridge construction cost which ended up being
$9,870. In addition, in 1995 the City Council passed an ordinance
assessing all developers connecting to the waterlines along Salem an
assessment of $200 per acre. That was from Mount Comfort to Salem
Village so the next one will be assessed that. That is $6,192. Also, I just
wanted to make you aware that we have had some concerns with the sewer
capacity with the Hamestring Creek lift station, which is downstream of
this. Currently we have contracted with RJM to study this area and make
some recommendations for improvements and expect to have that within a
few days so we will have some answers after that hopefully.
Edwards: Is there a possibility for an assessment on that sewer?
Casey: Not that I know of.
Technical Plat Review
January 3, 2002
Page 20
Edwards: I have one thing to add As far as the sidewalk goes, they can be
guaranteed by money in a city escrow account and with a contract that will
require total installation by the time that Yz of the lots are built on.
Utilities?
Johns Boles — Arkansas Western Gas
Boles: We have a 4" high pressure line running north and south on the west side
of Salem Road. We would like for you to show that.
Hillis: That is on Salem?
Boles:
Yes Sir. There is a 4" high pressure steel line and any relocation of that
will be done at the developer's expense if it is required. I guess we will go
through crossings first. Both entrances of the subdivision on Salem Road
we will need a quad. From the property line of lots 30 and 31 crossings
over to lot 46 G Street. On G Street from 58 to 87 and north a little bit to
the rear property line between 82 and 83 we want quads underneath that
drainage. From the southwest corner of lot 23 to the northeast corner of
lot 11 we want quads across there and that utility easement extended so we
can get across. I assume we can't go across from 13 to 37. Also, from the
southwest corner of 87 to the southeast corner of 5 we will need quads
underneath that discharge for that drainage and we need that 20' utility
easement extended through there. Quads from the southeast corner of 5 to
the northeast corner of 6 and from the northwest corner of 22 to the
southwest corner of 1 and we need a 20' utility easement, 10' from each
side of 47 and 46 and also a 20' utility easement across 54 and 51 down to
52 and 53.
Hillis: Do you want the total length of that?
Boles: Yes, to get down to 52 and 53.
Hillis: 10' on each side?
Boles: That would be fine. I will speak a little for Mike since he is not here. He
will probably want a 10' utility easement from the rear of the lots for all
the street lights to the front.
Edwards: Let me say that I don't think you have enough street lights. Perry has been
sick so he didn't comment but he will get you comments about this.
Boles: I think that is all I have.
Larry Gibson — Cox Communications
Technical Plat Review
January 3, 2002
Page 21
Gibson: The only thing I have additional is I would like you to show in there on
this Ozark Electric line that runs north and south there on the west side, I
have got a high count fiber optic line on that line overhead also. If you
would just note that on the print. If we have to relocate any of that it will
be at the owner's expense. That is all I have.
Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell
Clouser: If we have any utilities located on your property that need to be relocated
it will be at the owner's expense. We will require pull strings and
conduits and there is a possibility that we will be requiring the developer
to provide the trench for us to lay the cable in or we can go in with one of
the other utilities. Thank you.
Casey: I need to add that revisions for drainage calculations and everything will
need to be submitted prior to going to the Subdivision Committee meeting.
Edwards: The deadline for that, because of the holidays is kind of fast, it is
Wednesday. If you can't meet that that's no problem, we will just go for
the next one.
Hillis: It may have to be, there are a lot of things going on.
Technical Plat Review
January 3, 2002
Page 22
PPL 03-3.00: Preliminary Plat (Salem Meadows, pp 245) was submitted by Leonard
Gabbard of Landtech Engineering, Inc. on behalf of John Alford of Palmco Properties for
property located on North Salem Road, north of Salem Village. The property is zoned R-
1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 39.99 acres with 101 lots
proposed.
Edwards: The next item is PPL 03-3.00, Salem Meadows, the property is zoned R-1,
Low Density Residential and contains approximately 39.99 acres with 101
lots proposed. It is on Salem Road north of Salem Village. I will start
with Parks. The Parks Board met and voted to accept a combination of 1.9
acres of land and money in lieu in the amount of $11,750. This will
require a waiver from City Council, it is scheduled for January 7, 2003.
We are requesting that you shade the park land dedication area a different
shading than the detention pond shading, we don't want it to be confused.
This plan also shows trees in the park land. If trees are to be donated by
the developer the tree plan must be approved through Kim Rogers first.
We are also requesting park boundary signs be erected by the developer or
surveyor. Parks will provide the size, poles, bolts and screws. The
property owner's association is to exclude the park land dedication area
from the covenants. Construction debris or dumping on park land will
not be tolerated and will be fined. The fee will be due prior to signing the
Final Plat.
Kim Rogers — Parks and Recreation
Rogers: Sara, are you going to want a lot number to be on the park property?
Edwards: Yes we will.
Rogers: Also, clarify if the water line is on park boundaries.
Hillis: I need to put an easement around that.
Rogers: Please clarify that along the park boundary. That is all I have.
Edwards: While we are talking about lot numbers, I need you to number the park
and the detention pond, that way they can be described by a clear legal
description. For sidewalks, you need to add the table with the right of
way, green space and sidewalks. All of your interior streets are local
streets, which is a 4' sidewalk and a 6' green space. Rupple requires a 6'
sidewalk and a 10' green space. Right now we are not building Rupple
with this one, do you still want a sidewalk Keith?
Shreve: We want a contribution for future construction. I don't think they need to
build it at this point. It will be built when the street is built.
Technical Plat Review
January 3, 2002
Page 23
Edwards: We will figure an assessment up for the sidewalk for you. Salem is a 6'
sidewalk and a 10' green space. Show the sidewalks with the plat. I think
we went over everything else with the other one. Do you have anything
else to add?
Shreve: No.
Edwards: From the Landscape Administrator, she is requesting that you indicate
ownership of wetlands and tree preservation area and note on the plat for
future reference. The preservation area needs to be in the covenants of the
subdivision. She is requesting that the tree preservation plan be revised to
include the plan requirements as listed in the ordinance and checklist, the
same as before. It looks like there is no mitigation required on this one.
From Solid Waste, they don't have any changes requested. From Planning
again I have listed the lots that we need to dimension at the 25' setback
line to make sure that it is 70' wide. We need the plat page added. Add a
street table. Again, Salem is 35' from centerline. Rupple we do need 45'
from centerline on this one. It just happened on that last one that they took
the whole dedication. On this development you do have some difficulty
with your proposed street alignment. What we are requesting is that your
northern street be aligned with Crystal Drive and that your southern street
be aligned with the entrance to the school so there isn't a traffic conflict on
Salem. Also, I am asking for a street stubout to the north. I was
considering saddling the property line between Coles and Foster here, that
would be a good location somewhere in the middle here. Impact fees will
be effective June 16th. Again, we will be limiting access on Salem and
Rupple. All subdivision signs have to be approved by the Planning
Commission. I need the utilities shown on the plat and all new utilities,
and possibly existing, will be placed underground. The maintenance of
the common areas and wetland areas should be provided for in the
covenants. The same thing on the sidewalks as well.
Hillis: Lining up those streets with the school and Crystal Drive is going to be
difficult.
Matt Casey - Staff Engineer
Casey:
A lot of these comments that I have made are just repeats of the previous
project. There are the same requirements for the grading plan and also on
the drainage report and the contours for the streets that you are going to
connect and the existing contours. Again, we are recommending that
street improvements be made along Salem with a minimum of 14' and
also to line up with what is out there. I need a copy of the wetlands
delineation. I also need a minimum 10' easement from the water line
across the park property. Another comment is the sewer is looped so I
don't know if that is a drafting error.
Technical Plat Review
January 3, 2002
Page 24
Hillis:
Casey:
Hillis:
Casey:
I think it is because there's more than one manhole
We have got it all around here and here as well. You can eliminate some
of those lines.
You can cut it off and cross it here and connect them all. We just elected
to have a dry line, it is a little extra line but we can look at it.
I need a 12' wide gravel or paved access to the detention pond in the
Rupple Road right of way, a 20' access easement back to the detention
pond. We are going to be recommending an assessment for the future
construction of Rupple Road. I haven't determined an amount for that but
I will get that to you before the Subdivision Committee meeting. I would
also like for the water lines to loop over here and connect with the existing
6" line that is running along the northwest corner of this property to be
extended out to an 8" along Rupple Road. That is another loop. I would
also like a sewer stubout along the street stubout to the north that will be
water and sewer.
Hillis: That's for future connection?
Casey:
Yes. Also, to the west you can extend the line on out. Again, we are
going to be recommending an assessment, it is $11,429 for the
construction of the bridge over Clabber Creek. That is based on projected
traffic and estimated construction costs of the bridge. Again, the concerns
with the Hamestring Creek lift station and the sewer capacity that we are
working on.
Hillis: Are you guys planning on keeping that lift station?
Casey: Hopefully we will have some answers within the next month or two and
hopefully start construction.
Hillis: That area is really booming out there.
Edwards: We know. Utilities?
Johny Boles — Arkansas Western Gas
Boles:
The 4" high pressure line that exists on the other property, that crosses
from the west side of Salem Road to the east side and to the southeast
corner of your project. There is a large area that is wetlands, the city has a
20' sewer easement in there, is there any way we can go through there?
Hillis: We are proposing an easement.
Technical Plat Review
January 3, 2002
Page 25
Boles:
I would need to utilize that also. You can lay it out as a general utility
easement. I will start on A Street from 56 to 55; 73 and 74 to 51 and 52;
24 and 23 to 42 and 43; Across the page to 38 and 39 across the street;
back down to B Street from 22 to 96; C Street 75 to 92; 78 to 91; now we
will go to G Street, 11 to 83; 5 to 82; 1 to 64; back up in the area of the
detention pond, we would want a casing underneath that drainage from 41
to 13; How much water are you going to have running across there?
Hillis: I think it is going to be pretty deep.
Boles:
The minimum coverage is 48". The same thing between 30 and 31 on the
other side of the detention pond. Back to A Street, for all of those
crossings, side lot easements 20', 10' off of each side between 42 and 43;
Toward the bottom of the page, 51 and 52; between 74 and 75; 78 and 79;
between 4 and 5; 10 and 11; 22 and 23; I think that that is all I have.
Larry Gibson — Cox Communications
Gibson: The only other comment that I have got is that fiber extends along that
side there too.
Hillis: That is good to know.
Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell
Clouser: I would like pull strings and conduits and any of our utilities that may
need to be relocated will be at the developer's expense and we may
require the developer to provide a trench for us.
Technical Plat Review
January 3, 2002
Page 26
LSD 03-2.00: Large Scale Development (Lazenby, pp 560) was submitted by Landtech
Engineering, Inc. on behalf of Bill Lazenby for property located west of Razorback Road
and north of Baum Stadium. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light
Industrial and contains approximately 7.99 acres with office & multifamily residential
proposed.
Edwards: The next item is LSD 03-2.00 submitted by Landtech Engineering, Inc. on
behalf of Bill Lazenby for property located west of Razorback Road and
north of Baum Stadium. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy
Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 7.99 acres with
office & multifamily residential. I will start with Parks. You haven't been
to the Parks Board. The requirement is that it has to be to the Parks Board
before we can review it. We didn't realize that so we are going to go
ahead and review this but it does have to be pulled and reviewed again at
Plat Review pending their decision. Right now she is not sure if she is
going to want money or land. So I don't know where we are on that.
Hillis: We plan to make something really look nice.
Edwards: From Sidewalks, Razorback will require a 6' sidewalk and 10' green
space. Sidewalks will need to be continuous through the driveway. We
do have a bicycle parking rack ordinance. Seven bicycle racks are
required, two at the office site and five for the apartments. We do have
specific requirements for those, are you aware of the U bike racks?
Shreve: Don, I have information on those if you need it.
Hillis: Ok, that would be great.
Edwards: Apparently from our Fire Department, building number 10 is over 16 units
and therefore, has to be sprinkled.
Hillis: No, it is 16 units, it is 24 bedrooms. We tried to indicate that each one of
these are 16 units but there is 24 bedrooms to each unit so there are really
only 16 units. That has been a confusion, we were trying to make it clear
to everybody and it didn't work.
Edwards: Ok. They are recommending an additional hydrant at Unit 8.
Hillis: We have one there now, do they want another one?
Edwards: I encourage you to go ahead and call him and find out what they are
talking about. From Solid Waste, they are recommending each
commercial container pad be constructed with 8" thick concrete 12' wide
and 20' deep with a turning radius of 32' or ample backing area. They
went ahead and illustrated that request.
Technical Plat Review
January 3, 2002
Page 27
Hillis: I need to get with them too and find out where they would like to have that
located at really. I will call them also.
Edwards: I know that this property was previously submitted for a rezoning for the
C-3 zoning district and we did not recommend that. We had talked to the
developer about an accessory residential use being allowed. I think that
what we had was a misunderstanding because we heard mixed use
development and thought more mix than what is proposed. For an
accessory residential use to be accessory it has to have 49% or less of the
gross floor area of the buildings on the site. This is like 15 times the
commercial. What we would be looking at as accessory residential to get
apartments and commercial would be 51% commercial square footage,
49% residential square footage. With that being said, we have got a
couple of different options. Of course what we have done right now is we
have got a Conditional Use and a Large Scale that we are going to
recommend denial of. It is the developer's option to go ahead and proceed
with that. Secondly, the property may be rezoned with a zoning consistent
with multi -family residential. I think what we had talked about before was
an RMF -18 or RMF -12 or R-2 or something, depending on what the need
would be but we are not supporting C-3. Then we have a new option in
our ordinance which is a Planned Zoning District, what that does is allows
you to basically process your Large Scale and your zoning together. This
property would be it's own zoning district subject to the requirements of
this development, it wouldn't fall under any R requirements and you have
different setback options, different street widths, etc. With a PZD there
are some requirements that have to be made. You need to say how you
developed this site with regard to tree canopy and the natural features.
There are quite a few things that need to be met and we would need a
letter addressing how that has been met and how it is consistent with the
purpose of our Planned Zoning District Ordinance. Those are three
options that we can do. You still need to go to the Parks Board. If this is
the plan that we are going to use to do that, that needs to go first.
Hillis: We didn't know a Large Scale Development went to Parks.
Edwards: All residential units go to the Parks Board. Really, you need to explore
with your client what they want to do and we can decide where to go from
there, if it is a rezoning how that will fit in with the Parks board. With that
being said, we did go ahead and review it as it is shown. We are looking
for adjacent zoning to be added, a plat page to be added, a floodplain
reference. Also, we are requesting a wetlands delineation on this
property. There might be some wetlands here. The vicinity map is
lacking many of the existing streets. You need to get that added so
everyone understands where it is. There needs to be a site coverage note,
building height. Also, I would like to explore the option of connecting
Technical Plat Review
January 3, 2002
Page 28
this development into Lazenby's mini storage to the west and see if that
would be possible. We do have a requirement of 15' of landscaping
between front property lines and the Master Street Plan right of way. You
have got 5' shown.
Hillis: Ok, we can make that work.
Edwards: The curb radius needs to be dimensioned. The minimum is 30'. I am
looking for a description of what kind of lighting is going to be used. As
far as with the PZD and with the Conditional Use option we do require
elevations of all of the residential buildings, all four sides. Regardless of
what option we used the Commercial buildings you do we will have to
have elevations of all four sides. Right now I think it has got one. Any
signage for the apartments or the commercial needs to be reviewed as
well. Again, we need the existing utilities shown. New utilities have to
go underground. All dumpsters must be screened. Again, the impact fees
are effective June 16`h. If you need to talk about those options just give us
a call.
Hillis: We will try to set up a meeting with you Sara the first of next week.
Edwards: Ok.
Matt Casey — Staff Engineer
Casey: Don, just like with the other projects, we are needing the grading plan with
the those items.
Hillis: There is a grading plan here that is pretty intense.
Casey:
Also, the things for the drainage report, the detention pond calculations.
There were some submitted but it was for only one pond and there are
three or four ponds on here. We would need the inflow and outflow of
each one plus the area of the sheet flow that is going into the pond. We
need that all separated.
Hillis: They are out there right now shooting that existing one that is to the west
of us.
Casey:
We will need that information as well. We need easements 10' on the
proposed water and sewer lines. I think there was 15' total width
easements shown and those need to be 20'. That is all I have.
Technical Plat Review
January 3, 2002
Page 29
Glenn Newman — AEP/SWEPCO
Newman: Don, is there any way we could get a meeting to arrange for easements
within the complex?
Hillis: Yes Sir. Once we figure out how we are going to go on this thing. We
have several options on this thing. We have been hashing this thing
around for quite a while. We were under the impression at that time that
this was the way to go with this thing but we may have a problem with
that so I would be happy to set up a meeting with all the utilities.
Newman: The building setback 25' around the perimeter is a good place to start. As
far as trying to locate my transformers and the telephone and the cable
company, if we could just let us all get together at whatever time you want
to set it up.
Hillis: It may be just a good thing to get together with everybody.
Boles: We agree with Glenn.
Hillis: We will get with all of you.
Boles: Does Mr. Lazenby want gas?
Hillis: As far as I know, yes.
Technical Plat Review
January 3, 2002
Page 30
LSD 03-3.00: Large Scale Development (Rasberry, 366) was submitted by Dave
Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Henry Jordan for property located east
of Leverett at the north end. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and
contains approximately 1.18 acres with a 24 unit apartment development proposed.
Edwards: The next item is LSD 03-3.00 submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen
& Associates on behalf of Henry Jordan for property located east of
Leverett at the north end. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density
Residential and contains approximately 1.18 acres with a 24 unit
apartment development proposed.
Gilbert: Just for the record, Rasberry appears to be misspelled but it is actually a
person's name and that is the correct spelling. It does not have a "P".
Edwards: Starting with Parks, $9,000 was decided upon by the Parks Board for
money in lieu of land. From our Landscape Administrator, she is
requesting that you clearly depict which proposed trees are for mitigation
and which are for landscape requirements. Also list the size and species of
the proposed trees on the plan. From the Sidewalk Administrator,
Leverett is a collector which requires a 6' sidewalk and a 10' green space.
Sidewalks will be continuous through driveways with a maximum 2%
cross slope and elevated 2% above top of curb. Two bike racks will be
required.
Gilbert: Is that two U's?
Shreve: Yes, two U's that will hold four bicycles.
Edwards: Solid Waste has no comment. I need you to verify the building height.
Setback increases with height over 25'.
Gilbert: I did talk to the man involved with putting this together yesterday and he
did say that the buildings would not exceed 25' in height. We will verify
that to be sure.
Edwards: Ok. We are going to recommend that Leverett be constructed to the
nearest property line. I knew that you guys were aware of that. Curb
radius for the driveway, you need to add a dimension. Do you know if
they are proposing a sign?
Gilbert: They are, I don't have any details on the signage just yet but we have got a
location shown at the southwest corner. I believe it will be something
similar to what is shown on Leverett Gardens now but I will have to check
for sure. I have mentioned that to Mr. Jordan but I haven't got this
anchored down yet.
Technical Plat Review
January 3, 2002
Page 31
Edwards:
Gilbert:
Edwards:
Gilbert:
Edwards:
Gilbert:
Edwards:
Casey:
Gilbert:
Casey:
Gilbert:
Edwards:
All utilities will have to be underground. Impact fees are effective June
16, 2003.
Let me ask you a quick question on that. You said that it is all permits
issued after June 16th, is that building permits?
Do you understand how that works Matt?
It doesn't apply to grading permits though.
It is when you get your tap I think, I'm not real clear on that but we will
figure it out. We are going to have to come up with a plan for that.
The grading permit probably doesn't have an impact fee right?
No. Tim is the Impact Fee Administrator so if you have any questions he
will be the one to ask. That is all I have.
David, as you know all of the grading has to be setback a minimum of 5'
from the property line unless you get permission from adjoining property
owners. You must feed the 100 -year water surface elevation in the
detention pond. I notice that the new street improvements are wider than
the old. You need to transition that so that it meets the current city
standards.
Did you get the letter that I sent you about grading within 5' of the
property line?
No.
The grading on the east and south side does encroach in the 5', there is a
letter. I will get another copy of that and send that to you. I am sorry if it
didn't get included in the packet, I thought I had that but we will get you
one. The same family owns both pieces of property so of course they are
ok with grading next to each other.
Utilities?
Jim Sargent — AEP/SWEPCO
Sargent:
The utility easement along Leverett, is there a 25' building setback and
UE note to go along with that?
Gilbert: Yes there is a note that is kind of covered up here.
Technical Plat Review
January 3, 2002
Page 32
Sargent:
Gilbert:
Sargent:
Gilbert:
Sargent:
Gilbert:
Rasberry:
Gilbert:
Ok. Over on the east end of the property, are you indicating a utility
easement across there?
We haven't because there is not much room. To the north of this property,
to the south is an existing apartment complex, to the north is what will, at
least on the Master Plan, someday be a street, and then the University's
farm is just immediately north of that so we had not planned to show
anything in that order.
I was thinking of that for service to the apartment building and coming
around this side and coming in.
Ok, well what kind of width are we looking at there?
If you could afford 10' from there to the building across from there.
Maybe you could designate a 10' utility easement right there. There may
be an easement on the other side, I don't know.
There is not. Right now there is not even a property line there.
Does Mr. Rasberry own that property?
Yes. I will have to visit with him on that.
Larry Gibson — Cox Communications
Gibson:
Gilbert:
Gibson:
Gilbert:
Gibson:
Sue Clouser
Clouser:
Gilbert:
That is part of that existing complex isn't it?
It is Larry, I think it is a house, I'm not sure if the manager lives there or
what is going on. It looks like a clubhouse when you look at it but when I
talked to Mr. Jordan he said it's not a clubhouse, it's got a backyard and a
fence.
In fact, you have got an asphalt playground behind it.
You've got me, I'm not sure where it is.
I have got the same comments.
— Southwestern Bell
I have got the same comments but I would also like a crossing across the
driveway.
Do you all care if our service point to serve this building is on the east side
or the south side?
Technical Plat Review
January 3, 2002
Page 33
Gibson: On the north would be better I think.
Sargent: At least for us it would be better.
Gilbert: Ok. Then do you need the 20' utility easement on the south side?
Gibson: I don't think there is anything in there right now.
Gilbert: Ok, well we will iron this out.
Boles: I need 5' separation from the power.
Edwards: Revisions are due back by 10:00 a.m. January 8, 2003.
Technical Plat Review
January 3, 2002
Page 34
PZD 03-1.00: Planned Zoning District (Jackson Place, 255) was submitted by
Geoffrey Bates of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of T -Crow, LTD for property
located at the southeast corner of Crossover and Skillern Road. The property is zoned
A-1, Agricultural and R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 8.37
acres with 14 residential units proposed.
Edwards: This is our very first Planned Zoning District. It was submitted by
Geoffrey Bates of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of T -Crow, LTD
for property located at the southeast comer of Crossover and Skillern
Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and R-1, Low Density
Residential and contains approximately 8.37 acres with 14 residential units
proposed. This has been an interesting process for all of us.
Kelso: I know he has met with you all a lot on this one.
Edwards: He has, we do have some changes but I will get there. Parks Board has
recommended to accept money in lieu for $6,580. The Landscape
Administrator is recommending that you evaluate an alternative design for
the rear lot drainage in order to preserve trees in the rear setbacks of lots
five through eight. The current design must be proven necessary prior to
recommendation to approve the removal of high priority trees in the rear
lot areas. Utilities are to be proposed for the front of lots in these locations
if preservation is useful.
Kelso: Ok.
Hesse: On that swale, I didn't know exactly what that was.
Kelso: I will have to get with Geoff on it but briefly looking at it, it looks like a
lot of drainage comes from that way, which would be east and kind of
sheet flows across there. It looks like he put that there to try to pick it up
and take it around the lots. It may be a possibility to put a pipe in there, I
don't know. It looks like it is sheet flowing from the east and coming
straight onto lots one through six so we put a ditch there to route it around
the lots to keep it from going into the back of people's houses.
Casey:
We don't like them to run large amounts of offsite water through their
detention pond and so they are trying to pick it up. It looks like it is going
into their detention pond maybe but it is supposed to go around it.
Hesse: Into the street?
Kelso: Yes. Like I said, you don't want all of that going into the back of your
houses either, you want to try to divert that if you can some way.
Technical Plat Review
January 3, 2002
Page 35
Hesse: I just need to look at it some more and know exactly what you have in
mind.
Edwards: From Sidewalks, there will be a sidewalk required along Old Wire, a 6'
sidewalk with a 10' green space. That is going to be subject to the Master
Street Plan. Everything else is pretty common Solid Waste had no
comments. From Planning, in accordance with the flood damage
prevention code, all subdivisions greater than five acres must do a study.
These studies include the 100 -year floodplain, floodway, and base flood
elevations. I have the preliminary study from the Corp. It is finished, I
don't know if you know about this but they have included negative
surcharges, which now the reviewing agency for FEMA will not allow any
negative surcharges. Basically, what has to be done to this data, which is
what we are asking you guys to do, is redo it minus the negative
surcharges.
Kelso: How do we get a hold of that data?
Edwards: I have emailed it to Geoff. He should have it but if he doesn't, I can send
it to him again. What we are looking for is that study to be complete to
delineate the boundaries before we can go further with this.
Kelso:
All you need us to do is to go in and fix it to where there are no negative
surcharges but the Corp. of Engineers will work with FEMA to finish it
up?
Edwards: Right.
Kelso: All we are needing to do is just satisfy the city that we have taken care of
the negative surcharges, here is our delineation modifying the model.
Edwards: PBS&J on the FEMA website has got criteria, you can run your program,
Checkraz, you download it from their website, it checks all of the data to
make sure it meets all of their requirements so it is going to be approved.
We are asking you to do that and that way it won't change. The Corp. is
going to have to go through and redo all of their stuff.
Kelso: All I am saying is that we don't have to go through PBS&J to get their
approval and then FEMA writes the letter of map change.
Edwards: This program gives you a printout that says you have met all of PBS&J
requirements. That is what we are looking for on that. Based on that, we
are going to look the acre or 6,000 sq.ft. requirements outside of the
floodplain. We are not going to support lots 15 and 16. In our design
standards, and I think we told Geoff this but in our design standards we
Technical Plat Review
January 3, 2002
Page 36
discourage lots fronting on our Master Street Plan streets. This is
definitely a case where it is a safety issue.
Kelso: Is Old Wire Road an arterial?
Edwards: It is a minor arterial, which one of my next comments is that it does
require 45' from centerline to be dedicated. A PZD does not have to have
a public street, it does not have to have 25' setbacks, it is all pretty open.
We are going to look for compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods and
that is the developer's responsibility to prove that case so if something
needs to be done with that, that's fine. If you need to maintain these lots
we would be looking for a street with a cul-de-sac coming back and
providing the access. It is pretty flexible because this is a PZD and we
don't have to meet our standard requirements. We did some traffic counts,
we don't have all of them, we haven't had enough time to analyze them
with the holiday. We have talked to Geoff some about two issues. We are
looking at possibly wanting that street to come into this intersection,
possibly not, we are still doing some studies. The other thing is there is
150' requirement offset of streets and this is off by 25' I believe. We are
going to hopefully get that information on Monday and what we are going
to recommend on that. Furthermore, street improvements to Old Wire, we
are probably looking at something there. I am assuming Matt isn't making
a recommendation yet and we will get with you guys on that too based on
what we are looking at with our traffic counts. Adjacent zoning added,
plat page added. I am concerned with the acreages of the Tots are not
reflected correctly once we take the right of way out. Like I said, it is 45'
from centerline. We do need to make sure that that all works to and at
least by the Final Plat move the subdivision boundary in and get all of that
worked out. Impact fees are effective June 16th. You might not know
about the signs, but if any signs are proposed then you need to approve
those with the Final Plat. All utilities are required to be underground. I
don't know if you have a copy of our PZD ordinance, I think that we gave
Geoff one. There are two sections, 161.22(a) which is the purpose of the
PZD in general; and 161.22(c) which is the purpose of the residential
PZD. There are a list of things like flexibility, compatibility, etc. What I
would like is for you guys to address each of those with reasoning of why
you meet all of those so that we can make all of the findings and get this
approved. It talks about tree preservation, water conservation,
preservation of natural site amenity, protections of water courses from
erosion and filtration, you need to tell us how you have done all of that.
Kelso: Is it like a list of items one through five?
Edwards: Yes.
Kelso: So kind of like a letter form that addresses each one of those items?
Technical Plat Review
January 3, 2002
Page 37
Edwards: Yes, and hopefully it will be you're right, we agree and we can approve it.
Covenants, and we talked to Geoff about this as well, in part of illustrating
how this development is compatible with adjacent development Jon
Brittenum had talked about establishing minimum square footages,
architectural requirements, and that sort of thing. What we would be
looking for is sample covenants which address all of that, if he wishes us
to consider that which he told us verbally, we just need it in writing. Here
is what I would like to see, Kim, I didn't talk to you about this. Because
we have to talk about tree preservation and with our tree preservation
ordinance in a Preliminary Plat, which we are addressing this, basically we
just take out the street and call everything else preserved. What I would
like to see is the exact locations of the structures so that we can get a better
idea of which trees will actually be preserved. I think that will help us
with the PZD. That is his option.
Kelso: You mean actually putting the residential building footprint on there?
Edwards: Yes. I don't know how far he has gone in that but it sounds like he has
gone pretty far and it might be something that he could possibly do.
Kelso: Maybe. Typically a developer wouldn't have any idea but he might as far
as what size.
Edwards: I agree with that. We are going to have a pretty extensive report prior to
Subdivision with all of the considerations I have talked about that I am
asking you to put in the letter. I am hoping that we can recommend it
based on that, but like I said, this is the first PZD we have done and it is
kind of messy.
Kelso: Is a PZD an actual zoning or is it overlaid over an existing zoning?
Edwards: No, it is it's own zoning.
Kelso: Ok, so this whatever acreage it is, is zoned PZD?
Edwards: I think it is going to be zoned PZD-1 and that's going to be it's own
zoning. Hopefully over time we will get the process refined and it will be
easier for everybody. This is our first one. That is all I have.
Matt Casey — Staff Engineer
Casey:
The grading needs to be setback a minimum of 5' from the property line
unless you get permission from adjacent property owners. The proposed
detention pond can't be located on top of existing water and sewer lines.
We have got two 24" sewer lines and a water line.
Technical Plat Review
January 3, 2002
Page 38
Kelso:
Casey:
Kelso:
Even if it is a dry detention pond we still can't put detention ponds over it
and water and sewer lines?
Right. We need an easement a minimum of 10' on each side of the
existing water and sewer lines, as well as any proposed extension. I don't
think there was one adjacent to the existing. We are going to be making a
recommendation for improvements along Old Wire. We will try to set up
a meeting with the Engineering Division, Planning, and Traffic Safety and
try to determine what will be best for this area. Historically Old Wire has
been the major road here but according to the traffic counts that have been
submitted to us, it is not the case anymore. We are going to try to get
some additional traffic counts and look at this intersection and see what
we want to do with it. We may want to cost share or do a separate CIP
project redoing this intersection.
Would it most likely be a CIP project that we would give money for
whatever improvements that will be required of this developer or would
you actually see the improvements happen right now or you don't know
yet?
Casey: That is what we are going to determine.
Kelso:
Casey:
Ok. We have to be careful with these little subdivisions, it wouldn't be
feasible for him to do it if he had to put out a lot of money for something
like that.
I am fairly confident that he wouldn't be responsible for the entire
intersection. We will make a recommendation on that. I did notice that
the contours along the street are backwards. The fall is this way so the
contours need to be this way, otherwise it reflects a valley in the centerline
and not a crown. We need a soil type on the grading plan. I think she
mentioned a wetlands delineation.
Kelso: We are working with our Environmental Control on one.
Casey: We need a copy of that. She mentioned the floodway and floodplain. The
detention pond where it is shown now, of course it can't stay there because
of the sewer and water lines, but I have a feeling it is in the floodway as
well.
Edwards: It can't be in the floodway either.
Kelso: Ok. That would be a good place for lots 15 and 16 since we can't build on
them anyway.
Technical Plat Review
January 3, 2002
Page 39
Casey:
Edwards:
Casey:
Edwards:
Kelso:
Edwards:
There is a sanitary sewer manhole between lots 8 and 9, we need an access
easement and access drive to maintain that.
Jerry, I'm not sure that I was clear but if he wanted to do some redesign
and put another street coming back here to get these lots or something then
that is possible.
We need access to the detention pond.
I was looking at the Corp's data and it looks like it might have gone down
some, that was just a preliminary look though.
Ok.
Utilities?
Larry Gibson — Cox Communications
Gibson:
Kelso:
Gibson:
Hesse:
Gibson:
Kelso:
Gibson:
Edwards:
Gibson:
Edwards:
Kelso:
Gibson:
The issues with the trees on the back of lot seven and also the drainage
between 8 and 9 would it not be better if the telephone, cable, electric, and
gas went in the front on these lots?
It may be with that ditch back there unless we can work something else
out. It may be with the pipe in there.
Itis just not with the ditch, we have got issues over here too.
I think it would be easier for approval.
That might solve all of your problems.
If the utilities would put their pedestals underground it would be great.
It is a little sore on the eye but at least it would get your project through. I
would ask for a quad crossing across the street there.
Can anyone come off of Brookbury?
Behind Summer Shade you mean?
I think that is Brookbury back there.
Let me get with Geoff and the owner.
Also, there are electric lines coming across Old Wire Road here that
comes over to the center of the front of lot one, Ozark Electric and Cox are
Technical Plat Review
January 3, 2002
Page 40
both on that and I'm sure that is going to have to be relocated. Other than
that, that is all I have until we know for sure if they are going to put them
in the front it just needs to be dedicated as a 25' setback and UE. They
may want to show a UE there just to get through those lots that you aren't
going to build.
Kelso: There may be a detention pond there, we may try to get another lot, I don't
know. Most likely this will be a detention pond and that will be it.
Gibson: That is all I have.
Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell
Clouser: I agree with the quad and if you can give us this 20' utility easement along
Old Wire and we may require the owner/developer to provide a detention
for us.
Edwards: Thank you.