HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-01-29 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
TECHNICAL PLAT REVIEW COMMITTEE
A regular meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee was held on Wednesday,
January 29, 2003 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113
West Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN
LSP 03-7.00: Lot Split (Kelly, pp 180)
Page 2
LSP 03-8.00 & 9.00: Lot Split (Stratton, pp 557)
Page 4
PZD 03-1.00: Planned Zoning District (Jackson Place, pp 255)
Page 7
PPL 03-5.00: Preliminary Plat (Coger, pp 321)
Page 12
LSD 03-5.00: Large Scale Development (Shake's, pp 252)
Page 16
LSD 03-6.00: Large Scale Development
(Superior Industries, pp 682)
Page 24
Forwarded
Forwarded
Forwarded
Tabled
Forwarded
Forwarded
STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT
Matt Casey
Sara Edwards
Renee Thomas
Keith Shreve
Kim Hesse
Tim Conklin
Perry Franklin
Danny Farrar
Travis Dotson
Technical Plat Review
January 29, 2003
Page 2
LSP 03-7.00: Lot Split (Kelly, pp 180) was submitted by Alan Reid on behalf of Gerald
Kelly for property located at 4411 E. Davis. The property is in the Planning Area and
contains 3.0 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 1.50 acres and 1.50 acres.
Edwards: Welcome to the Wednesday, January 29, 2003 meeting of the Technical
Plat Review Committee. The first item on our agenda is LSP 03-7.00
submitted by Alan Reid on behalf of Gerald Kelly for property at 4411 E.
Davis. The property is in the Planning Area and contains three acres. The
request is to split into two tracts of 1.5 and 1.5 acres. Is anyone here for
this item?
Henry: I am Greg Henry.
Edwards: What we do is we go over the revisions needed for the survey and then the
utilities will go over any easements that they feel they need.
Henry: Ok.
Edwards: You don't have a copy of this but our Traffic Division didn't have any
comments so we are ok on that. Sidewalks are not required. There are no
parks fees or park land dedication in the Planning Area. Milholland did a
previous split on this property which split this back property which I know
you are aware of. The right of way was dedicated by that split so that
needs to be depicted on here so you need to take the acreage off of there.
What that does is it brings these properties to under an acre and a half
which means that we need to get an Arkansas Department of Health
permit on them to prove that a septic system will work. Our lot width has
to be 75' and it is taken at a 25' building setback line so I just want it
dimensioned here. It will probably be ok but I'm not sure. The vicinity
map, you can't really tell where it is so when we get to Subdivision
Committee that is going to be a problem and it needs to be fixed. County
approval is required. Also, there is a private drive running up here and I
am asking Alan to show that as well. This is all written in there. You can
give these to Alan and he can call me if he has any questions. That is all
that I have.
Matt Casey — Staff Engineer
Casey: The only additional comment is that sewer is not available.
Henry: Is that why I have to get it approved from the Health Department because
it is less than an acre and a half?
Casey: Yes.
Technical Plat Review
January 29, 2003
Page 3
Edwards: Like I said, this right of way is going to make it under an acre and a half.
Utilities?
Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop.
Phipps: We have power on that south side. Looking at that lot I don't think we
would need another easement out there. I have no comments.
Larry Gibson — Cox Communications
Gibson: No comment.
Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell
Clouser: No comment.
Edwards: Revisions are due by February 5`h at 10:00 a.m. to get to Subdivision
Committee.
Technical Plat Review
January 29, 2003
Page 4
LSP 03-8.00 & 9.00: Lot Split (Stratton, pp 557) was submitted by McNaughton
Realtors on behalf of Ron Stratton for property located at1295 S. Dinsmore Trail. The
property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential; C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial; and R-
2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 9.77 acres. The request is to
split into three tracts of 4.63 acres, 1.29 acres, and 2.47 acres.
Edwards: The next item is LSP 03-8.00 and 9.00 submitted by McNaughton
Realtors on behalf of the Strattons at 1295 S. Dinsmore. The property is
zoned R-1, C-2, and R-2 and contains approximately 9.77 acres. The
request is to split into three tracts of 4.63, 1.29 and 2.47 acres. Staff
comments are in writing. The utilities aren't in writing. I will start with
our Traffic Division, there are no comments. Sidewalks are not required
on lot splits however, they will be required at the time of development.
Right now tract A has an existing home so there will not be a parks fee
assessed, tract B has an existing home so there will not be a fee, tract C
there will be parks fees due at the time of development based on the
number of units, that is how those are assessed. Dinsmore Trail is on the
Parks and Recreation Trails and Greenway Master Plan. You don't need
any additional easement or anything for that as far as you know?
Turner: Not right now.
Edwards: From Planning, I need you to have your surveyor add the zoning on here.
They are kind of all over the place. I don't know where you are but it
looks like there is some C-2 and then there is this R-2 and R-1. The
reason I am asking for that is it makes a difference on the building
setbacks. C-2, which is wrong on here, it has it as 50' and then there is a
rear setback of 20'. R-2 has a rear setback of 25' and then R-1 has a rear
setback of 20' so it is all depending on the zoning so I want to make sure
who ever builds on there knows so they can get their setback right. Also,
all the surrounding zoning they are showing as R-1, which is not the case,
it is sort of a mixture out there as well so they need to come by the city
and check out a zoning map and get those corrected. Also, on the legend
this is a building setback and utility easement so I wanted to call out your
attention because what they have done is made everything that is a
building setback a utility easement and I just want to make sure that that is
your intention.
Stratton: What are you saying here?
Edwards: They have dimensioned 10' which I need them to dimension at 25' for the
setback and they have all their setbacks as utility easements that they
would be dedicating. Utilities will have comments on what they need but
we don't need that great of an easement there. Hwy. 62 is on our Master
Street Plan which requires right of way to be dedicated at 55' from
Technical Plat Review
January 29, 2003
Page 5
centerline so we are going to have to get that piece dedicated as right of
way. Dinsmore Trail is also on our Master Street Plan which requires a
total of 70'. Right now you have got 50' shown so we are going to have
to get another 10' on each side and then your setbacks are going to come
back off that. The acreages, this survey list this parcel number, which
comes up as 9.77 acres and then the application lists another parcel
number which comes up as 1.9 acres. When I looked at the property
search I think both of those parcel numbers cover this property. However,
it makes the total acreage 10.99 whereas he has got the total acreage 9.77
and the tracts being split only add up to 8.39 so there is a discrepancy
somewhere. I just need to have you guys check into that and get it fixed.
That is all that I have from Planning.
Matt Casey — Staff Engineer
Casey: Are the existing houses on sewer?
Hooker: Yes. The last house is on sewer up Dinsmore.
Casey: Ok. We were going to recommend that they be connected if not. The
problem I have with the configurations of lots B and C is as it is shown
tract B doesn't have access to this sewer. We don't allow services to cross
other property to get to a main and tract C does not have access to the
water line along Dinsmore Trail. Is there any way that you can
reconfigure these in this area to where it would provide access to the water
and sewer for both tracts?
Stratton: Do you mean because of the creek that runs through there? It is connected
to the sewer now.
Casey:
Stratton:
Casey:
If it is connected to the sewer now I do need to add the comment that we
need to show the location of the service lines because we don't want those
sewer service lines crossing property lines. They can go through the
separate tracts but we don't want them crossing the tracts.
Ok, so I would have to move that one property line over because it would
be on the other side of that creek running behind the rink.
I am not sure where the creek is located on here. Depending on where the
location of that service line is. If it ran down here then you might want to
make that part of tract B so that you have got access all the way down to
your sewer line and the same thing out here if somehow you can extend
tract C to this water line that is running along Dinsmore Trail. I don't
think there will be a problem with this service line here because it is an
isolated tract. If your surveyor can show that then maybe there is a way to
Technical Plat Review
January 29, 2003
Page 6
Stratton:
Edwards:
reconfigure that otherwise you will have to relocate the service lines and
that is always a possibility if you have to.
Ok. I will just go to Buckley and let him know.
Have him call me if he has any questions. Utilities?
Glenn Newman — AEP/SWEPCO
Newman:
Stratton:
Newman.
That is a 161,000 volt line for that 100' easement along there and then we
have distribution that runs along Dinsmore. I don't see any problems but
any relocation will be at the owner/developer's expense.
Ok. I doubt if they plan on developing anything there. It is just an
individual building a house.
It looks like it would take some work. That is all I had.
Larry Gibson — Cox Communications
Gibson:
Sue Clouser
Clouser:
Edwards:
The only thing I would like to see different is this 10' UE on the east side
of tract C if they could change that to a 20' from Hwy. 62 north to the
corner of the lot on either side it would work to give us access off Hwy.
62. That is all I have.
— Southwestern Bell
1 agree with Larry's comments.
Revisions are due by February 5th at 10:00 a.m. to stay on the current
cycle. From here it will go to Subdivision Committee on February 13th
and that is at 8:30 in the morning so we will need you or a representative
to attend that.
Technical Plat Review
January 29, 2003
Page 7
PZD 03-1.00: Planned Zoning District (Jackson Place, pp 255) was submitted by Phil
Hagan 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 lots proposed.
Edwards: Third on our agenda is PZD 03-1.00 submitted by Crafton, Tull &
Associates on behalf of T -Crow LTD for property located at the southeast
corner of Crossover and Skillern. The property is zoned A-1 and R-1 and
contains 8.37 acres with 14 residential lots proposed. Our Traffic Division
is requesting some street lights every 300' at intersections and at the end
of street. What we will need is to have the street lights installed, they will
be required as he is requesting. From Sidewalks, Old Wire is a minor
arterial which requires a 6' sidewalk and a 10' green space. We are
requesting that the sidewalk be constructed at the new right of way line.
The new street will be a local street which requires a 4' sidewalk and a 6'
green space on both sides of the street. While we are talking about that,
the covenants that were suspended talk about a 2' green space and we will
need to have those amended to a 6' green space. The grading from right
of way line to right of way line for sidewalks must be done as part of the
street construction. There will be some access ramps required at the
intersection of Old Wire and the new street. Detectable warnings are now
required when constructing or altering curb ramps. Everything else is
pretty standard. For Parks fees, we lost a couple of lots from the original
plan therefore, the amount is amended to $6,110 and they will take care of
that for you so you don't need to go back to the Parks Board or anything.
From the Landscape Administrator, she is requesting that you locate
utilities along the proposed street frontage to the front of the lots in order
to preserve trees along the rear of each lot. She is asking that you confirm
that additional significant trees do not exist on site. The preserved canopy
line extends beyond the existing canopy, please confirm the square
footage of preserved canopy.
Hesse: Is this Ozark? Are you guys going to relocate the power line?
Phipps: Any overhead on the project we can relocate at the owner's expense.
Hesse: I don't know how it affects your lots but I noticed it as I walked
underneath it. I don't know if you are counting these areas as tree
preservation. I just really want to know how this large tree is affected.
Edwards: How big is that line?
Phipps: I know out on Hwy. 265 itis 14.4, that may be 7,200 there.
Technical Plat Review
January 29, 2003
Page 8
Edwards: Our requirement is all lines under 12 KV be placed underground and it
sounds like this is probably not a very good location and you will probably
be relocating it anyway. If so, I would request that it goes underground.
Regardless, if it is under 12KV it has to. I would like to point out that
impact fees are affective June 16, 2003. Anything brought in for a
building permit that day or later will be assessed impact fees. Any signs
for the subdivision we will address at the time of Final Plat and Planning
Commission will need to approve that. I already talked about the
covenants and the green space. Also, they need to provide for
maintenance of common areas including the detention pond. We will
make further findings which address the requirements of the PZD and a
report to that affect will be made at Subdivision Committee because in
affect this functions as a Rezoning of a subdivision so the findings is part
of the rezoning aspect have not been made yet. Did you bring your
wetland study? Can you summarize it for me?
Hagan:
The possible wetlands are down by the creek where we are not doing any
development. I also brought that which we need to discuss. There is not
any floodway analysis which you sent me, just a multiple profile plain
analysis. There needs to be a floodway analysis done. I told you that I
didn't see any negative surcharges but looking at it this morning the flows
goes up and then down if you look at ques, that is something that I
probably need to get with Matt on. Something is wrong. I don't have
enough information, I probably need to request from the Corp. some of
their data.
Edwards: Ok, maybe we can do a conference call or something and call the Corp.
because they require that all official requests come through me and I am
not real clear of what you need. It does look like this will be affected by
some floodplain there?
Hagan: Definitely floodplain, floodway I don't know.
Casey: We will definitely need to know where that floodplain is because you are
going to have to fill to get your minimum size for those lots.
Edwards: There is 6,000 sq.ft. required per lot outside of the floodplain and outside
of the building setbacks.
Hagan: Ok, 6,000 outside of the floodplain?
Edwards: Yes, either an acre or 6,000 sq.ft. outside of the building setback area.
You probably just need to get that additional information and you will
either have to combine lots to make them all an acre or come up with the
Technical Plat Review
January 29, 2003
Page 9
fill. That is why I requested this floodplain stuff because it is really that
important.
Casey: That comment is on my comments sheet but I scratched it out, it will still
be required.
Edwards: That is going to have to be something that we do before we go to
Subdivision Committee and hopefully we can get it all worked out but
there are just too many ifs at this point. If we can get it all worked out
then revisions are due February 3ra
Matt Casey — Staff Engineer
Casey:
We are going to recommend that street improvements be made along Old
Wire Road, a minimum of 14' from centerline including pavement, curb,
gutter, and storm drainage. We made a comment to that affect at the last
Plat Review and it is not shown.
Edwards: Have you talked to your client about those improvements and is he aware
of those? If he agrees to them we would like to have them shown on here,
if not, we need to know so we know how to proceed with that.
Hagan: I thought the last Tech Review we had followed what you requested be
done.
Edwards: We told Geoff.
Hagan: We were proceeding with the understanding that there wasn't going to be
any.
Casey: It was undetermined at Plat Review and then the next day or so we came
up with our recommendation.
Hagan: I heard a dollar amount that they passed onto our client that they didn't
object to.
Casey: We didn't discuss an assessment.
Edwards: What we were talking about initially was not street improvements but a
contribution for intersections and so what we have done is we have done
away with that number and just are trying to get the street improvements
to straighten that out a little bit.
Hagan: You said 14' from centerline with curb and gutter?
Technical Plat Review
January 29, 2003
Page 10
Casey:
That is a minimum. In order to smooth this transition out it might be a
little bit more. You don't have to stick strictly with the 14', it could be a
little wider in that area. Also, between lots 8 and 9 we have got a sewer
line going in between those lots, we need an access easement so we can
drive through that. If you can extend the sewer line to the northeast corner
for future expansion we require when sewer is installed in a subdivision
that it extends to the property lines. The storm sewer going between lots
13 and 14, we will need a drainage easement for that and that can either be
sized for the 100 -year storm or provide an overflow swale for the 100 -year
flow to get to the detention pond. The rest are just minor comments.
Edwards: Utilities?
Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop.
Phipps: We are going to go in front on this on the recommendation of Kim?
Edwards: That is what Kim is recommending.
Hesse: Have you discussed that with your client?
Hagan: No I have not. These are going to be some upscale houses.
Phipps: We are doing the same thing in that Clear Creek Golf Club development.
They did it to save the trees. In front I would like a 25' building setback
and UE, six 4" crossings up front and a 20' UE, 10' each side of the
property lines of lots 7 and 8 back to Brookbury Subdivision. We have
got an existing transformer on the property line of lots 14 and 15. I would
imagine street lights, one at the entrance, probably one on lots 3 and 4.
Edwards: He said one every 300' and one at the entrance and one at the end.
Phipps: You would probably have a street light at 12 and 11 and then one back at
the back of the cul-de-sac.
Edwards: You need to show those on there as well.
Phipps: Any relocation of existing facilities will be at the developer's expense.
That is all I have.
Larry Gibson — Cox Communications
Gibson: Those UE's that Mike called for are good. We need six 4" crossings
across the entrance for all utilities. Also, we are joint usage on Ozark
Electric poles out here, we route the same way they do so any relocation
Technical Plat Review
January 29, 2003
Page 11
Sue Clouser
of those will be at the owner's expense. We just ask for notification when
you break ground on that street. That is all I have.
— Southwestern Bell
Clouser:
I agree with those crossings. I would also like to see a 20' utility easement
running along Old Wire Road. Any relocation of existing facilities will be
at the developer's expense. We are also asking that the developer provide
us a 24" deep trench to place our cable or else we need to go in joint with
one of the other utilities. That is something new that we are requiring. I
would like 30 days notice before the trench will be opened and I would
also like to be contacted when you start breaking ground. That is all I
have.
Technical Plat Review
January 29, 2003
Page 12
PPL 03-5.00: Preliminary Plat (Coger, pp 321) was submitted by Bill Rudasill on
behalf of James Coger for property located north of the 4300 Block of Mount Comfort
Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 18.35 acres with
nine lots proposed.
Edwards: The next item is PPL 03-5.00 submitted by Bill Rudasill on behalf of
James Coger for property located north of 4300 Mount Comfort Road. It
is in the Planning Area and contains 18.35 acres with nine lots proposed.
The Traffic Superintendent is requiring street lights every 300', at
intersections, and at end of street and he is concerned about sight distance
in both directions. He just wants you to meet with him about that to
ensure that there is adequate sight distance at that entrance. That is Perry
Franklin.
Rudasill: Is the city going to pick up the electrical for the lights? This is in the
county.
Edwards: Perry could probably tell you that.
Rudasill: I would have to discuss the burden of that with my client before I can
commit to it.
Edwards: Sidewalks aren't required in the growth area. There are no parks fees in
the growth area. An Arkansas Department of Health permit must be
submitted for each lot prior to Subdivision Committee. The reasoning for
that is we do not allow private streets so that street going up there needs to
be a public street so when you take the right of way off of those lots they
are going to be under the 1.5 acre requirement.
Rudasill: Ok. So we need to either make that change or enlarge the lots and take
more out of this.
Edwards: Add Plat Page 321. The legal description does not have adequate state
plane coordinates with the southwest corner. I didn't review that so I'm
not sure specifically what that is. The new street must be a public street.
Mount Comfort requires 45' from centerline to be dedicated. We are also
recommending that street stub outs be provided to both the east and west.
Our policy is connectivity. This is adjacent to the city limits. We do fully
expect for a subdivision to come in over in this area so we are asking for
street stub outs to be dedicated and constructed. Gates will not be allowed
on this drive, it will be public and not be gated. County approval is
required after you get our approval. With all those requirements being
made, we have decided that we do not want this item to be forwarded to
the Subdivision Committee. We want all revisions made and submitted in
accordance with the submittal requirements for the Plat Review meeting.
Technical Plat Review
January 29, 2003
Page 13
With the street construction meeting city standards, there is just too much
to review. Matt is going to go over fire hydrants and water lines. We are
recommending that this be tabled to the next Plat Review.
Rudasill: You are requiring that these be public streets?
Edwards: Yes we are. Our suburban subdivision regulations do not provide for
private roads and we don't allow them.
Rudasill: That is because we are within a mile we fall under city requirements?
Edwards: You are immediately adjacent to city limits.
Rudasill: Anywhere within a mile of the city limits?
Edwards: Where we can enforce our city regulations, yes. However, our city
regulations are a little bit different, we only require regulations when it is
adjacent to the city limits, which this is.
Rudasill: Is the width of the street sufficient for what you are asking? We propose
24' from back of curb to back of curb paved.
Casey: We are going to be requiring a 24' residential street and it has to meet our
minimum street standards.
Rudasill: Ok.
Edwards: The Fire Chief is requiring additional hydrants, one at the northeast corner
of lot two and one at the southwest corner of lot nine.
Rudasill: 45' right of way from the centerline of Mount Comfort?
Edwards: Yes. That is all that I have.
Matt Casey — Staff Engineer
Casey:
We have already covered the streets but also the storm drainage has to
comply with all the current city standards. We will need to see the
drainage report.
Rudasill: I was told it wouldn't be because it does not fall within city limits.
Casey:
The section in our U.D.O. says that streets and storm drainage must be
built in compliance with city standards for suburban subdivisions adjacent
to the city limits.
Technical Plat Review
January 29, 2003
Page 14
Rudasill: Ok, so you are saying that I have to have storm water detention.
Casey:
We are also recommending street improvements along Mount Comfort, a
minimum of 14' from centerline including pavement, curb, gutter, and
storm drainage. I noticed the water line is labeled a proposed 4".
Rudasill: It is an 8".
Casey: That is all I have.
Edwards: Utilities?
Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop.
Phipps: Bill, the easements around the 20' encompassing this project is fine. Until
we see how this street is going to connect to Clabber Creek or how it
connects to this property to the east I really can't tell you anything else
other than we do have a transmission line on the east side of this property.
Coming in from that street I would make sure I didn't have to relocate one
of those transmission line poles because that could run you up to $15,000
per pole. We will get it through there where we don't have to do that.
That is all I have at this time.
Rudasill: Ok.
Phipps: It is a three phase line, it is a transmission like so it can remain overhead.
Any relocation of anything up front or existing facilities we may have on
this property will be at the developer's expense. That is all I have.
Larry Gibson — Cox Communications
Gibson: Like Mike said, those UE's on both sides of these lots are fine. We will
just have to wait and see what happens up here when they connect.
Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell
Clouser: I agree with those easements. I might need a crossing at the mouth of your
private drive right now.
Rudasill: Ok.
Clouser: Any relocation will be at the developer's expense.
Rudasill: We will put at least a quad in there.
Technical Plat Review
January 29, 2003
Page 15
Clouser: We are now requiring the developer to provide a trench with a 30 day
notice. I ask that you also call me when you break ground.
Technical Plat Review
January 29, 2003
Page 16
LSD 03-5.00: Large Scale Development (Shake's, pp 252) was submitted by Mel
Milholland on behalf of Springdale-MarketPlace, LLC for property located at 2785-2835
N. College. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains
approximately 1.66 acres with two buildings proposed (6000 sq.ft. & 1038 sq.ft.).
Edwards: The next item is LSD 03-5.00 submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of
Springdale Market Place LLC for property located at 2785 through 2835
N. College. It is zoned C-2 and contains 1.68 acres with two buildings
proposed. There is no comment from our Traffic Superintendent. College
is a principal arterial which requires a 6' sidewalk and a 10' green space.
That needs to be at the back of the right of way. Abandoned driveway
curb cuts shall be closed and replaced with a standard curb. Two bicycle
parking racks are required.
Jefcoat: We have 46 parking spaces total, isn't it one per every 25?
Shreve: On non-residential 25-31 is one and 31 to 50 is two. The standard
expansion joints. I think the main point would be the existing driveway
approaches that are being utilized will need to be closed. That will be a
state highway requirement also. That is all.
Edwards: There are no Parks comments. From our Landscape Administrator, the
construction of the retaining wall along the southwest portion of this site
will affect canopy. She is asking that you confirm that the wall can be
built outside of the canopy or investigate the possibility of moving storage
and the associated drive to the north side of the operation center where the
slope is less severe and canopy does not exist.
Jefcoat: We won't flip the building, we will leave it where it is.
Hesse: You have 20' of canopy obstructed if not more.
Jefcoat: Ok.
Edwards: Kim, can this plan serve as a landscape plan or do we need another?
Jefcoat: We are in the process of preparing one. We are doing the irrigation
system with that too.
Hesse: At a minimum if that is not prepared by the time Subdivision comes
around at least have this.
Jefcoat: The planting part will be done.
Technical Plat Review
January 29, 2003
Page 17
Edwards: If you choose to do it separately we just need the 15 copies to give out to
the Planning Commission.
Jefcoat: Ok.
Edwards: Right of way dimensions need to be shown on the site plan. That is
dimensioned from centerline. College is a principal arterial which
requires 55' from centerline which has not been depicted on this plan
which is going to cause everything to shift back. The sidewalk has to be at
the back of right of way, your 15' of landscaping comes off of that 55' of
right of way, setbacks come off that 55' of right of way.
Jefcoat: It has been taken into account, it just wasn't shown.
Edwards: I am not following how you got these parking spaces. My code book has
office at one per 300 required and it is 6,000 sq.ft.
Jefcoat: It is a two story building.
Edwards: Then we have the restaurant.
Jefcoat: We used the outdoor patio.
Edwards: Ok. That works, did you use one per 100?
Jefcoat: Yes.
Edwards: Please dimension the parking stalls. I think that the circulation on this site
is not going to work. Starting with the inbound driveway, we don't allow
for a double inbound driveway. It is going to have to be scaled down to
15' wide. You can ask for a waiver on that if you want to. You have two
way traffic on this front aisle so you can get out. You have the one way
traffic here, there is a maximum of 15' on that and all around.
Jefcoat: We have got the matter of the utility truck as well as deliveries.
Edwards: How is that going to circulate?
Jefcoat: They will come in the entrance, park in the 18' space in the back. The
trash truck can come in and pick this up and come out, the same way with
the delivery trucks for delivery both ways.
Edwards: We could still take this down to at least 18'.
Jefcoat: You could but part of this is for two way traffic here.
Technical Plat Review
January 29, 2003
Page 18
Edwards: Ok, put that on there as a delivery lane and that might work. How about
here?
Jefcoat: There is for turning radius as much as anything else to get in and out. You
have got the maneuverability to get in here and around.
Edwards: Really we could take all of that off since you are not using that.
Jefcoat: You could but when I ran the program the 18 wheeler needs to come up as
far as he can to cut back out. That is the reason I cut this down on this
side.
Edwards: You are just going to have to request a waiver on anything over 15' with
an explanation.
Jefcoat: It is tight but to make it usable we had to do that.
Edwards: Throat length, there is a 40' minimum throat length and you have got a
34', that is the throat length before you can start these aisles. The free
standing sign, I didn't see anything on that.
Jefcoat: We discussed that.
Hooker: The owner wanted to possibly put a monument sign.
Edwards: Ok. What we need is the location shown and then an elevation of the sign
dimensioned with height.
Jefcoat: We can do that. We talked about the signs on the building elevations
whether those are going to be sufficient or not.
Edwards: There is a dumpster screening fence there. I am going to recommend that
it not be wood. Is there a way to do it concrete or masonry?
Hooker: I think the enclosure will be masonry, the door will probably be wood or
something.
Edwards: Ok. Utility equipment has to be screened. Is that going to go on the roof
or side of the building, transformers, meter boxes, condensing units,
freezers?
Hooker: Rooftop for the condensers and then utilities will be in the back and
screened.
Technical Plat Review
January 29, 2003
Page 19
Edwards: Are those shown on the elevations?
Hooker: No.
Edwards: You are telling me that the freezer is going to go in the back?
Hooker: Yes, it is internal.
Edwards: Ok. We have a requirement for cross access. Typically what we do is
require cross access to be constructed and at the time adjacent properties
redevelop they tie into that.
Jefcoat: With the slope to the north we probably won't need one.
Edwards: We will check and see if we agree with that analysis. There will be
nothing remaining from the original development, the fuel tanks are
coming out?
Jefcoat: Yes.
Edwards: There are a lot of signs on this building. Our sign ordinance
administration has changed which is resulting in some issues on the
building. I want to talk to Tim and resolve those issues before I tell you
what we need to do but there are some regulations that are being
interpreted differently now than they were in the past. I think that some
things may change from how they were in the past.
Hooker: Sara, this is going to be their corporate office. It is going to be very, very
nice.
Edwards: I need elevations of that too. The second page was blank for some reason.
That is all that I have.
Matt Casey — Staff Engineer
Casey:
It doesn't look like the grading plan showed any post contours around the
site. I know there won't be any back by the retaining wall of how this
connects in. After I talked to you on the phone the other day you added
these on the parking lot, if we can get it around the site too.
Jefcoat: They will be minimal around there and at the retaining wall on that side.
Casey: My major concern is where this trench forms and how that is going to all
tie together.
Technical Plat Review
January 29, 2003
Page 20
Jefcoat: On the north side up there there are already existing retaining walls, it is
that area up there by the back.
Casey:
Any retaining wall more than 4' in height needs to be designed by a
registered professional engineer. Safety railings will be required. Also, it
looks like the wall is going to exceed the 10' maximum, is that correct?
Jefcoat: Yes. That layer must've been turned off. If that is 10' on build and 15' on
cut, we do have room to do that.
Casey:
If you need more than 10' you just need to request a waiver. The drainage
report mentioned a channel being cut on the west property line. You need
to show that on the grading plan.
Jefcoat: We have really got this little point here, this is almost off site. Because of
where that is located we are thinking we will meander more of a hand dug
trench through here. What is happening right now is these two neighbors
are concerned and at present even undeveloped they are getting some
sheet flow across there and we thought we would help alleviate that by
hand trenching something along both sides. We talked to Kim about
saving the trees and doing a very shallow ditch because there is not much
discharge but they feel like they are getting some. We addressed that as
something to try to alleviate their preconceived problem.
Casey: Where is it going to go?
Jefcoat: There is an 18" pipe here and a 30" pipe down here. It flows either way
and it breaks at this high point here. We were just going to redefine and
make it a little more obvious that this ditch comes over and that this one
comes on up a little bit. We will do some contour lines there to depict that
a little bit better.
Casey:
I would like to sit down with you and go through the drainage report. You
broke it down into numerous areas, which is good. When I was adding
them all up there may have been either my misinterpretation of it or they
may have been added together incorrectly. I am unsure about that but I
would like to sit down with you and go through those concerns with you.
Jefcoat: We combined a few areas.
Casey:
I could follow it pretty good but some of the numbers didn't add up the
way I thought they would. Also, there wasn't any information as far as
what was input for the outlets for the parking lot detention. I know you
stated in the report what it was but I would like to see a report from your
program so I know what that information was and how much area that this
Technical Plat Review
January 29, 2003
Page 21
pond is going to see in the parking lot. I can visit with you about that
when we get together.
Jefcoat: I think you have the summary in your report.
Casey: That is all I have.
Edwards: Utilities?
Jim Sargent — AEP/SWEPCO
Sargent: Tom, I need to figure out a transformer location somewhere to serve these
two buildings and we will need a utility easement to that location.
Jefcoat: Since the store is shifting is the transformer location on the north area
existing not sufficient?
Sargent: I was thinking in terms of your building back here. That is going to be a
long way.
Jefcoat: You think we may need another one in the back somewhere?
Sargent: I would think so. Your electrician is not going to want to run service that
far from the front all the way to the back.
Jefcoat: There is an issue that we haven't addressed. That building to the north,
there is an encroachment there and we will need to do some research and
see where the existing utility easements are on that site or what has
happened there. I am not sure.
Sargent: Ok. Of course we will need some load information at some point in time.
Hooker: The existing Shake's is going to stay in operation while the proposed store
is being built. Are we going to run into some issues about getting across
that pavement or something? I wonder if it would be easier to try to come
off the south side somewhere. Maybe we could go ahead and put a
transformer in back in here to service that.
Jefcoat: That is where most of the initial construction is going to go with removing
those tanks and cleaning up the area and preparing the site.
Sargent: We require that the customers put in the conduit and provide the
transformer pad.
Jefcoat: I haven't shown any of the conduit yet.
Technical Plat Review
January 29, 2003
Page 22
Sargent: Ok. If there is any relocation of existing facilities that would be at the
developer's expense. There is a pole here in this northeast corner that has
a couple of lights on it that does have overhead secondary to it which I
don't know if you have thought about your future lighting needs.
Jefcoat: We have shown the internal parking lot lighting.
Sargent: That is all I have.
Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell
Clouser: I am going to need a 4" conduit with pull string from your operation
center. Since this is one piece of property I would suggest that you build a
piece of conduit from the store back to the corporate office because we
will only give you one D mark on the property so when they go to feed the
store they feed from the D mark in the operations center. I assume there
are going to be more phones in there than in the store.
Jefcoat: I am sure they will want internet connection and all of that.
Clouser: So you need a 4" conduit from the utility easement back to the operation's
center, we are D marking that building and that will be where we stop.
Then to get lines into the restaurant will be up to you. That is why I am
recommending a 3" to pull a drop through to feed the store then.
Jefcoat: We will probably put lots of quads because we are going to run irrigation
too.
Clouser: Ok. If we need to relocate any existing facilities that will be at the
owner's expense. I assume you are going to have a phone room or
something in here so we will need a back door and a #6 bare ground also.
Hooker: The operation's center is going to be built after the front store being
opened before the operation's center is open, probably open before the
foundation is even started.
Clouser: Then we will need to look at possibly a temporary feed or something. I
haven't really thought about that since I am trying to think of a way that
we can do it without it becoming expensive for you because once you
have a D mark on a location then you will be charged for anything that is
moved or transferred. I will give you my phone number and you can give
me a call. Do you have any idea what your time frame is between the two
buildings?
Technical Plat Review
January 29, 2003
Page 23
Hooker: The architect hasn't even started any design work yet other than
preliminary for this.
Cooper: There are going to be quite a few in here for use with credit cards.
Hooker: Probably what we need to do is build a conduit from there out to the front
to feed that until it is set up. That is all I have.
Edwards: I am going to ask that we get together and talk about those aisles and
turning radius before Subdivision Committee so I can be comfortable with
it.
Jefcoat: We discussed it internally a lot.
Edwards: Revisions are due February 5, 2003 by 10:00 a.m.
Technical Plat Review
January 29, 2003
Page 24
LSD 03-6.00: Large Scale Development (Superior Industries, pp 682) was submitted
by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Superior Industries for property
located at 1901 Borick Drive. The property is zoned I-2, General Industrial and contains
approximately 43 acres with 544 parking spaces proposed.
Edwards:
The last item is LSD 03-6.00 submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull on
behalf of Superior Industries for property located at 1901 Borick Drive.
The property is zoned I-2 and contains 43 acres with 544 parking spaces
proposed.
Love: I am Mark Love, Jerry Kelso is assisting.
Edwards: From Sidewalks, Borick requires a 6' sidewalk with 6' of green space
continuous through the drive.
Kelso: 1 can't remember if there is a sidewalk out there right now or not.
Shreve: There is nothing on that side of the street at this point. We are wanting to
get the sidewalk constructed the entire length of the Superior property at
this point with this development.
Kelso: That is a lot of sidewalk.
Shreve: They have a couple of buildings that are pretty good size that would kick
in the requirement and also the parking lot would kick in the requirement.
Edwards: Bicycle racks are also required. Our ordinance kicks in with any parking
lot over 29 spaces so it comes to 9 racks. From Parks, they do not need
this road to be extended to service the city property. With the cost share,
Ray doesn't have $50,000 in the economic development budget so the
only way we can have a cost share is with our CIP funds.
Kelso: Do we need to approach that or do we just need to tell Superior that if they
want to build the street they are going to have to do it their selves?
Edwards: I don't know right now. Ray and Tim are meeting. Ray is putting
together a proposal to see if there is something we can do.
Kelso:
We will just show it with what we've got because this is what they are
wanting to do with trucks.
Edwards: I am hoping to have the information I need tomorrow. From the
Landscape Administrator, a site analysis drawing, a brief analysis report,
and tree preservation plan are all required for this development prior to
Subdivision Committee. On the tree preservation plan the site area
Technical Plat Review
January 29, 2003
Page 25
Hesse:
included in the development is to be calculated to determine the percent of
canopy existing and preserved.
I don't want you to show the whole Superior site. I just want the site area
of this and the other little building that you are putting in there and that is
the area of your development and then figure your canopies that way.
Your tree preservation plan, you have got the information. I just need that
little chart that lists existing canopy square footage, site development
square footage, etc. On the landscaping, I made a comment that for
commercial design standards we need to have a tree every 15' between the
parking lot and the right of way. You are showing the trees in the right of
way it looks like so I am not sure how to address that. You either need a
waiver or build them.
Edwards: Right now that is right of way.
Love: So we need to move the trees out of the right of way?
Hesse: You could ask for a waiver.
Edwards: You can just point out that that is what you are proposing to do because
that is going to be a better planting area.
Hesse: I don't mind recommending that.
Kelso: Just when we resubmit we request a waiver to put the trees in the right of
way.
Hesse: The road is going to be off the parking lot?
Edwards: Yes it is. Our right of way goes around that cul-de-sac like that and we
would probably be willing to do some sort of swap and trade that back. I
need to look at the information he gave me to try to line that up straight
somehow. Maybe we need some more up here to line it up straight and
give some back here. I will get that to you. The plat page needs to be
added on here somewhere. The parking calculations, based on the gross
floor area I am coming up with a maximum of 872 allowed, I assume that
is how you got it and you are going for a waiver of additional parking
spaces based on manufacturing one to 1,200.
Kelso: Wasn't there a stipulation of one per employee?
Edwards: No.
Kelso: I can tell you for a fact that a lot of people work there.
Technical Plat Review
January 29, 2003
Page 26
Edwards: It had a lose of abstracted uses but I'm thinking that we just should do a
parking waiver.
Kelso: Ok, so just do it per square foot and then get a waiver for the parking?
Edwards: Yes. Just talk about their shifts and numbers of employees. Please
dimension the parking stall, aisle widths, and driveway widths be
dimensioned to verify those.
Kelso: They are.
Edwards: Ok, thank you. All waivers must be in writing. Tim requested a wetlands
delineation. I will get you that information on that. Depending on the use
of building sprinkler does meet code definitions unless it prevents a safety
roof. You need to figure out what classification it falls under for fire code.
Kelso: There are going to be a lot of building permit details to be worked out that
we don't know.
Edwards: He wants a 20' access around the building.
Casey: There is 20' coming to it and then 40'.
Edwards: Relocate PIB to appropriate areas.
Love: There is a ton of utility relocation that will go on with this.
Casey: The fire hydrants, they didn't show that on our maps, is that a private line?
Love: I would imagine that it is.
Edwards: He is asking for some hydrant relocations with the east hydrant to the
northeast corner of the addition, the southwest hydrant to the southwest
comer of the addition.
Love: There is a ton of that that will need to be worked out. Utilities are thick
and a lot of them. Superior has done a lot of adding on and splicing.
Edwards: We are not looking at any Vacations are we?
Kelso: No, that is all private in there.
Matt Casey — Staff Engineer
Technical Plat Review
January 29, 2003
Page 27
Casey:
Do you all have information for this existing parking lot for as far as the
curbs? I was looking at the drainage and was wondering how that is
coming through if it is coming through the curbs or what it is doing.
Love: It is virtually not curbed now and it is sheet flowing right now through part
of this.
Casey: Ok.
Love: We are going to intercept it here and then send it on and detain everything
that we are going to do here.
Casey: I just couldn't tell what was going on here. You need 10' separation
between the sewer and the water. We need an easement 10' on each side
of this proposed sewer.
Kelso:
Casey:
Love:
All it does is it goes up there and serves that building. It will probably be
built like a public line, I don't know whether you want it a public line or
not.
The problem we have is their maintenance. They go out there and see
manholes and they don't know what is private and what is public so if
something goes wrong our maintenance is going to be taking care of a
private line. Normally if manholes are required we ask that it be a public
line. I would think Superior would like that because that relieves them of
the maintenance responsibilities too but I can get some more information
on that for you. If we are going to make it a public line then I need an
easement around it.
We will ask them if they desire it to be public or private or whatever. The
manholes are there for maintenance and there was a way that we could do
this with cleanouts I'm sure that they would be a lot cheaper.
Casey: Just find out what they have done in the past. It is a maintenance issue as
far as just being able to tell who is responsible for that.
Kelso: I can't see anything coming out of a maintenance bill.
Casey: We need a concrete trickle channel to the pond and the pond does need to
be sodded. That is all I have got.
Edwards: Are they adding employees with this expansion?
Love: I don't know.
Technical Plat Review
January 29, 2003
Page 28
Edwards: Utilities?
Glenn Newman — AEP/SWEPCO
Newman: All of this is behind primary meters and they own the facilities so I guess
the only thing that I think I need is some kind of a calculation of total load
adding to the existing so we can make sure that our service going to it is
sufficient.
Kelso:
Newman:
Sue Clouser
We do have one relocation where we take that street across because those
poles are right there in the way.
You can do that, that will be at the customer's expense. They will
probably serve this thing from existing utilities from within the plant.
That is all I have.
— Southwestern Bell
Clouser:
Kelso:
Clouser:
Newman:
Kelso:
Edwards:
Clouser:
Edwards:
I would like to see a 20' utility easement along the existing street and the
proposed street extension. You have got a building setback anyway so I
don't think it will cause any problems.
The question is where would any utilities go.
I don't know. I haven't been out there so I don't know.
It is on the north side of that street, I believe there are some utilities on the
north side of that street. I believe along the south side of Hanna's Candles
we have a three phase transformer in a couple of locations there.
You are headed right into a giant floodplain that won't ever develop.
They are talking about soccer fields.
If it is a problem that is fine. If it is not a problem and you can give it to
us I would be more comfortable but if it is going to cause you trouble and
it is a floodplain I could see where it wouldn't be needed. You will be
feeding that from your existing telephone and if there is any relocation of
anything existing it will be at the owner's expense. That is it.
Ok, meeting adjourned.