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.