Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2003-03-03 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE TECHNICAL PLAT REVIEW COMMITTEE A rescheduled meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee was held on Monday, March 3, 2003 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LSP 03-14.00: Lot Split (Gaddy, pp 257) Page 2 LSP 03-15.00 & 16.00: Lot Split (Gaddy, pp 218) Page 4 LSP 03-20.00, 21.00 & 22.00: Lot Split (Foster, pp 60) Page 6 LSP 03-23.00: Lot Split (Benchmark Automotive, pp 96) Page 7 Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded LSP 03-24.00 & 25.00: Lot Split (Lowes Home Center, pp 557/596) Forwarded Page 9 LSD 03-9.00: (Walgreens, pp 523) Forwarded Page 11 LSD 01-39.00: Large Scale Development (Combs Street Church of Christ, pp 524) Page 16 PPL 03-6.00: Preliminary Plat (Summerbrook Estates, pp 648) Page 21 PPL 03-7.00: Preliminary Plat (Bridgewater Estates, pp 219) Page 25 STAFF PRESENT Matt Casey Sara Edwards Renee Thomas Kim Hesse Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded STAFF ABSENT Tim Conklin Perry Franklin Danny Farrar Travis Dotson Technical Plat Review March 3, 2003 Page 2 LSP 03-14.00: Lot Split (Gaddy, pp 257) was submitted by John Rownak on behalf of Gaddy Investments for property located at 2980 N. Oakland Zion Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 8.53 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 3.00 acres and 5.53 acres. Edwards: Welcome to the rescheduled March 3, 2003 meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee. The first item is LSP 03-14.00 submitted by John Rownak on behalf of Gaddy Investments for property located at 2980 N. Oakland Zion Road. The property is in the Planning area and contains 8.53 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 3.00 acres and 5.53 acres. Jorgensen: John called and he is sick and asked me to try to help out on this so I am going to try to fill in. Edwards: From Traffic, there were no comments. From Planning, all we have is county approval is required before this can be filed. We can forward this on with no comments. Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: Dave, there is shown here on the northwest corner of tract "B" an existing water line and there is also an easement. I came across that a while back when we did a Lot Split to the north. We need that easement shown but there is a gap between the easement and the property line to the north, there is a 10' gap. We would like that to go ahead and be dedicated as an easement because there are water meters and service lines going to the north through that property. We would like to go ahead and cover it under an easement. The line is out here and then the meters are up here on the next property so the meters are crossing private property there. If we can just go ahead and close that hole up. Jorgensen: Ok. Casey: That is all that I have. Edwards: Utilities? Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop. Phipps: Dave, are you showing an easement along Zion there? If not, I will need a 20' along the east side of Zion. Any relocation of existing facilities will be at the owner's expense. That is all that I have. Technical Plat Review March 3, 2003 Page 3 Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: No comment. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: I agree with Mike for the 20' utility easement. If any of our utilities need to be relocated it will be at the owner/developer's expense. Technical Plat Review March 3, 2003 Page 4 LSP 03-15.00 & 16.00: Lot Split (Gaddy, pp 218) was submitted by John Rownak on behalf of Gaddy Investments for property located at 4188 Bridgewater Lane. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 7.03 acres. The request is to split into three tracts of 1.99 acres, 2.79 acres, and 2.25 acres. Edwards: The next items are LSP 03-15.00 and 16.00 for Gaddy submitted by John Rownak on behalf of Gaddy Investments for property located at 4188 Bridgewater. It is in the Planning Area and contains 7.03 acres. The request is to split into 1.99, 2.79, and 2.25 acres. Oakland Zion is a minor arterial which requires 45' from centerline to be dedicated pursuant to the Master Street Plan. You will need county approval prior to filing. Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: You just need to show the existing water lines along Bridgewater along Oakland Zion and also I wanted to point out that the septic system is across from the proposed property line. Edwards: We have looked at that and that was the only way they could do that so what we are going to do is an easement for it so they will need to show an easement for it. Jorgensen: You mentioned the water line on Bridgewater? Casey: Jorgensen: Yes, there is one on Bridgewater and Oakland Zion if you could show those. Ok. Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop. Phipps: Larry Gibson Dave, on that transmission line you may need to call and get the exact width of that line, I believe it is 50' but Jim can give you the right width. Any relocation of our existing facilities will be at the developer's expense. That is all I have. — Cox Communications Gibson: Dave, we have got existing on Bridgewater and Oakland Zion so if we have to relocate any of that it will be at the owner's expense. Technical Plat Review March 3, 2003 Page 5 Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: If anything needs to be relocated it will be at the owner/developer's expense and that 25' it seems to me that that was actually larger than that but if that actually is 25' that is fine. Jorgensen: It does look wider. Edwards: Because of our rescheduling this meeting revisions are going to be due this Friday, March 7`h at 10:00 a.m. Technical Plat Review March 3, 2003 Page 6 LSP 03-20.00, 21.00, and 22.00, Lot Split: (Foster, pp 60) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Mark Foster for property owned by B.R. Peoples and located at the southeast corner of Albright Road and Crossover (Hwy 265). The property is zoned R-0, Residential Office and R-1, Low Density Residential containing 10.01 acres. The request is to split into four tracts of 3.36 acres, 1.66 acres, 1.63 acres and 3.36 acres. Edwards: The next item is LSP 03-20.00, 21.00, and 22.00 submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Mark Foster for property owned by B.R. Peoples located at the southeast corner of Albright and Crossover. The property is zoned R -O and R-1 and contains 10.01 acres. The request is to split into four tracts of 3.36, 1.66, 1.63, and 3.36 acres. There are no comments from our Traffic Superintendent. From Planning, it does look like this property was split before in 1987 which makes it over the maximum lot splits allowed. The first option there is to take one lot off. The second option is we can just have you fill out a new application and the required fees and just flip it over to Preliminary Plat. I guess we can wait and see if we have any required improvements first of all. But if we don't have any required improvements we can switch it over to Concurrent Plat. We can look at that. Please add plat page 60. A floodplain reference needs to be added. Right of way needs to be dimensioned from centerline. Crossover requires 55' from centerline dedication and Albright requires 25' from centerline dedication. Revisions are due Friday by 10:00 a.m. Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: Dave, are we going to be seeing some Large Scales on these? Jorgensen: Probably so on tract one. Tracts 2 and 3 are residential and potentially tract 4 will remain a LSD. Casey: So these will be for single homes? Jorgensen: Right. Casey: They do not have access to sewer. They have Springdale water though. Water and sewer will need to be extended to serve each of the four tracts. I was going to say if we were going to see Large Scales for these we could wait and do it at the time of development but you are going to have to extend it to tract 2 and 3 anyway so we might as well get them all. You have got existing sewer right here at the end of tract 4 and there is water also. We will need to see plans for that prior to splitting. Edwards: It looks like what we will be doing is a Preliminary Plat and then construction and then a Final Plat. Technical Plat Review March 3, 2003 Page 7 Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop. Phipps: Dave, I need you to show a 20' easement along Albright Road. We have existing power in Stonewood along the north side so there shouldn't need anything along there. Any relocation of that overhead may be at Mark's expense. I will check with them on that one. That is all I have. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: That 20' on Albright looks good to me. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: I would also like to see a 20' UE along Hwy. 265 also. Technical Plat Review March 3, 2003 Page 8 LSP 03-23.00: Lot Split (Benchmark Automotive, pp 96) was submitted by Cynthia Haseloff on behalf of Benchmark Auto for property owned by Haseloff Family Trusts and located at 4636 N. College. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and A-1, Agricultural containing 18.10 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 0.99 acres and 17.11 acres. Edwards: The next item is LSP 03-23.00 submitted by Cynthia Haseloff on behalf of Benchmark Auto for property located at 4636 N. College. The property is zoned C-2 and A-1 and contains 18.10 acres. The request is to split into 0.99 acres and 17.11 acres. Here are your comments. What we do is we go over revisions that need to be made to your survey in order for us to approve it. Porter: I am Dan, not Cynthia. Edwards: On the first page, starting with Traffic there are no comments. From Planning, the purpose of this vicinity map is so we can tell where the property is located and we can't really tell on that vicinity map so we need to get that fixed. We need a floodplain reference on here. Even if there is not any floodplain we just need to see a note that says that the property is not subject to any floodplain. We do have a requirement that adjacent property owners be shown. Plat page 96 needs to be added, that is just a city reference. 71B, we do need the right of way dimensioned from centerline. I am not exactly sure how that is going to work because I think this is private property between the highway and where the private drive is so we may need to get some additional right of way dedicated. The requirement is 55' from centerline. We also need building setbacks added to this plan. Then we just need the owner's address. Revisions are March 7th at 10:00 a.m. to get this all added and turned back in to go to the next Subdivision Committee meeting. Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: We just need the existing water line running along 71B shown. Also, I need to make a comment that sewer is not available in this area. Edwards: Is the existing building there on septic now? Porter: Yes. Edwards: Ok, we need to show the location of that septic system and make sure it is on this lot. Technical Plat Review March 3, 2003 Page 9 Glen Newman — AEP/SWEPCO Newman. We would like to have an easement for that line that goes back to the old driving range to protect our interests there if we could. That line that runs up there and serves the existing car lot office it appears to be on this other lot so in order to kind of protect us there it wouldn't hurt if we had an easement there as well. Any relocation will of course be at the owner's expense. That is all I have. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: Sue Clouser Clouser: Edwards: Newman: Edwards: Porter: Everything we have got is on the west side of 71B. Unless I'm missing it, I am not seeing an easement going up at least parallel to this permanent roadway. I would like to get a 20' easement along there so if we have to go across the highway and then down we would have a place to do it. — Southwestern Bell Any relocation will be at the owner/developer's expense and I would also like to see that 20' utility easement along here. Glen, were you also asking for a 20' easement along 71B? Yes Ma'am. Ok, are there any questions? We will get that all taken care of. Technical Plat Review March 3, 2003 Page 10 LSP 03-24.00 & 25.00: Lot Split (Lowes Home Center, pp 557/596) was submitted by Initial Point Surveying, Inc. on behalf of Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. for property located at the southwest corner of Highway 62 and Finger Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, R-2, Medium Density Residential, R -O, Residential Office, and R-1, Low Density Residential containing approximately 80 acres. The request is to split into three tracts of 13.58 acres, 7.93 acres and 58.49 acres. Edwards: The next items are LSP 03-24.00 and 25.00 submitted by Initial Point Surveying on behalf of Lowe's for property located at the southwest corner of Hwy. 62 and Finger Road. The property is zoned C-2, R-2, R -O, and R-1. The property contains 80 acres and the request is to split into 13.58, 7.93 and 58.49 acres. Good morning. Millian: My name is Mike Millian, I am with Initial Point Surveying. Edwards: The first page, there are no comments from the Traffic Superintendent. From Planning, we do need to see the adjacent property owners with the zoning on there. Millian: Across the street also? Edwards: Yes. Also, I am asking for city plat page numbers 556 and 557 to be added. I am looking for a floodplain reference and show any floodplain. Hwy. 62 needs to be dimensioned from centerline. The requirement is 55' from centerline to be dedicated for the entire length of this property so we need to make sure we show that and get that. We do require a dedication block to be added to the survey to dedicate that right of way. We need the building setbacks to be added. Millian: How far should they be? Edwards: You probably need to show the zoning lines first because it is different on the zoning lines. C-2 is 50' and R-1 is 25' so we need to get that first. Part of this is in the county so you do have to get county approval. We did move the deadline to March 7th at 10:00 a.m. for revisions. Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: You show the location of existing water and sewer. The sewer is only available there at Finger Road so lots one and three will not have access. I know we are going to see a Large Scale Development for lot two so we will be looking at a sewer extension at that time. We will also want that to serve lot three so that will need to have access to the sewer line. Technical Plat Review March 3, 2003 Page 11 Glen Newman — AEP/SWEPCO Newman. Millian: Newman. Phipps: Newman: Since we don't know exactly where the facilities are going to be built, we will request the easements at that time rather than right now. I would agree. There are some that will be done by separate document also that will be in place to cover things as they arise. Ok. Some of this may be in Ozarks service area. Once you get to the back part of the 80. Each of us may have some requests at that time. Any relocation will be at the owner/developer's expense. That is all that I have. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: Millian: Gibson: Sue Clouser I was going to make sure we have a 20' UE there on the south side of Hwy. 62. I am fairly sure there is an existing one there. Yes. At the time you bring it through Large Scale we will probably be asking for an easement between lots one and two or on the west side of lot one but we can wait for that. — Southwestern Bell Clouser: I am positive there is an existing easement. You need to show that because we have fiber and copper cable running along there. Any relocation will be at the owner/developer's expense. Technical Plat Review March 3, 2003 Page 12 LSD 03-9.00: (Walgreens, pp 523) was submitted by Geoffrey Bates of Keystone Consultants, Inc. on behalf of BENCOR for property located at the northeast corner of 6th Street and South School Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.0 acres with a 14,560 sq.ft. building proposed. Edwards: The next item is LSD 03-9.00 submitted by Geoffrey Bates of Keystone Consultants on behalf of BENCOR for property located at the northeast corner of 66 Street and South School Avenue. The property is zoned C-2 and contains two acres with a 14,560 sq.ft. building proposed. Good morning. We did contact you about a more traditional urban design type development and I'm not sure where we are with that. Bates: 1 think the Mayor is working with them on it right now. Edwards: What we have done is reviewed it as is. I am not up to speed on how that is going. From Traffic, street lights are required every 300', at intersections, and at the end of streets so you need all new street lights in there. There might be some existing so you can get with him on that. At least one of the ADA spaces must be van accessible. Planning Commission does review the sign as well. We will need color elevations with dimensions, height, size of sign and all of that. We need adjacent property owners across the street added. Plat page needs to be changed to 523 or add it. Right of way should be dimensioned from centerline. Right now you just have the straight right of way and it may or may not make a difference. Specifically 6"' Street does require 55' of right of way from centerline so depending on the centerline. On School Street we need 55' from centerline. Setbacks, I think you called me and asked about those. All streets require a 50' setback. It looks like you are in it with the drive thru canopy. We did, as staff, discuss supporting a Variance because this property is unique with having streets on all four sides. You will need to get a Variance from the Board of Adjustment, which is also the Board of Sign Appeals so you can hear both those items at their meeting. I am concerned with the spacing on School Street. I know you know north of this is where it turns into that corner and School is coming in. We need to look into that. Right now I am thinking that the better thing would be to put an entrance onto 56 so that way you don't have the two points of entry right there. That depends on sight lines and sight distances. All four sides require a 15' landscaped area. Specifically 56 and Locust is where you are missing that. I am thinking with the 2' overhangs on the parking spaces, it looks like all of your parking spaces are 9' x 19', you could dimension those as 9'x17' and allow a 2' overhang on all three sides with the parking which would give us 2' to work with there and that may fix it, I'm not entirely sure. Two bike racks are required. We are interested in the lighting. We have residential here and we want to make sure that we aren't going to disrupt them. All utilities must be placed underground Technical Plat Review March 3, 2003 Page 13 unless they are over 12KV. If there is something that is over 12KV you just need to have it labeled. The rest will go underground. For the dumpster screening we are asking for brick or a split faced block wall. I did move the revision deadline to March 7`h at 10:00 a.m., which is Friday. Matt? Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: School Street is a principal arterial and requires a 6' sidewalk and a minimum of 10' greenspace. You need to locate that back at the right of way line and remove that existing asphalt strip along the curb. Bates: That existing sidewalk. Casey: If you want to call it that. Also, 5th Street and Locust are both locals with a 6' sidewalk and a minimum of 6' greenspace. We are also recommending street improvements there 14' from centerline with curb, gutter, and storm drainage. Bates: For Locust and 5th? Casey: Yes. We are not recommending anything for School or 6th. Also, you are picking up this drainage that is coming down this channel and filling it with force and routing it around, I would like to see a drainage easement around that pipe, 6' on each side. You might look, I haven't gone to check this yet, there might not be enough cover over this pipe. It looks pretty shallow, make sure that you are going to have cover there. We need the full pipe shown on the grading plan. On the drainage report you are including all your offsite flows, which is what we need to see for the sizing of this pipe but don't combine it for the onsite flows for the detention calculation. That is all I have. Edwards: I need to go over our Landscape Administrator's comments. Onsite mitigation is in addition to other landscape requirements. Please indicate the size, species, and location for mitigation trees on the tree preservation plan and on the landscape plan. Mitigation trees are to be delineated from other landscape requirements on the plan. She is just saying that you can't use landscaping for your mitigation trees. Those are going to be in addition and then she wants them called out separately as mitigation trees. It looks like your mitigation has been figured. She is asking that the tree mitigation form be submitted with the tree preservation plan. For the landscape review, again she says that the 15' landscape buffer is required between the development and rights of way. Trees required along the adjoining streets may be in groupings not exceeding 25%. Trees along School and 6th are to be spaced a minimum of four groupings verses three groupings as shown on the plans Two additional islands with trees are Technical Plat Review March 3, 2003 Page 14 Casey: required in the parking lot adjacent to the building. Seven additional trees are required for onsite mitigation. These seven trees are in addition to those for landscape requirements. Please add mitigation trees to the plan and be sure to label those. Also we have Fire comments. He says that all rows and entries shall be a minimum of 20' width. The northeast corner of the store might not have that. He may be talking about this area right here in between the drive thru and the curb. Also, since this is a mercantile occupancy it is required to be sprinkled. They also want a free standing fire department connection outside of the collapse zone at the northeast corner of the property and an additional fire hydrant in that same location. Edwards: Utilities? Glen Newman —AEP/SWEPCO Newman. We have an overhead line that runs along the south side of 5th Street. I would like to request an easement 20' wide along the south side of 5`h along the north side of this property. I would assume that the transformer location is going to be somewhere in the vicinity of the compactor? Bates: They want it right off of 5'h kind of where the existing lines are coming off now. Newman: Ok, so it will be set up right near the street? Bates: Yes. Newman: Good. I was going to say we were going to play with some clearance problems if we didn't do something there. The overhead facilities that are existing, we will remove those and start over. It looks like this pole on 5th in the middle of the block there may be in conflict with your drainage. Bates: I think it is far enough away. Edwards: What size are those lines? Newman: It is 12KV on 6th Street and then along Locust it is 7,200. Edwards: Locust is going to have to go underground. Newman: Any relocation will be at the developer/owner's expense. Otherwise, we will clear the property of anything that is there that goes on through the property and start over. That is all that I have. Technical Plat Review March 3, 2003 Page 15 Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: Sue Clouser — I agree with that 20' utility easement on the south side of 56 Street. I suppose they are going to set their transformer at the base of that pole right there by your headwall, is that the plan out there? About 3' either side, probably to the west would be better, I would like to get a 2" conduit over to within 3' of the electric meter, just put a 36" sweep about 14" above grade on each end so we can find it. We have also got existing overhead on AEP's poles there on the south side of 5th Street running east and west so if we have to relocate any of that that will be at the owner's expense. That is all that I have. Southwestern Bell Clouser: Newman: Edwards: Clouser: Newman: Edwards: Bates: Newman: Gibson: Edwards: Gibson: If there are any relocations it will be at the owner/developer's expense. I agree with the 20' utility easement along 5`h. I would like to see if it is possible for a 20' utility easement along School also if we can put that in there for the future. I would like to see, I assume you are going to want your telephone inside. I will need two 4" conduits running out. Is this power pole going at the northeast corner? You mentioned this on Locust to be underground, that is existing overhead now. I know, it has to be put underground if it is under 12KV on the site only. Ok. If it is out on the street right of way? It still has to go underground if it is on the street right of way. How much is that going to cost? That is going to get expensive because there are transformers out there that serve residents across the street on the east side of Locust. We have got the same issue then and we would also have to go across Locust to get to some of those homes. That will be street boars. This pole has got to go anyway because it is in the drive. Somebody is going to have to make those underground at the developer's expense. Technical Plat Review March 3, 2003 Page 16 Edwards: Newman: You are allowed to leave one pole so you could leave this one which is serving across the street. It is 12KV along the north at that corner, what happens at the corner? At the corner it dead ends and then there is a 7,200 volt line that runs north and south along the west side along the west side of Locust and it serves everything up here for the residential customers to the north. Edwards: So really we would just be looking at this corner. Newman: It runs south along Locust. The way I understand Sara, you are requesting that all of that south of 5th Street west of Locust be reinstalled with underground facilities and those people across the street are currently being installed overhead. What you are doing is you are involving a lot of residential customers if, in fact, we have to go underground. That is my only point. Edwards: I will look into it for you. Clouser: We need conduits with pull strings and then I need a bare board and a #6 bare ground back to power and we need 30 days advance notice before you start construction. Technical Plat Review March 3, 2003 Page 17 LSD 01-39.00: Large Scale Development (Combs Street Church of Christ, pp 524) was submitted by Clark Consulting on behalf of Combs Street Church of Christ for property located at 209 E. 7th Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 1.49 acres with two buildings proposed totaling 4,700 sq. ft. Edwards: The next item is LSD 01-39.00 submitted by Clark Consulting on behalf of Comb Street Church of Christ for property located at 209 E. 7th Street. It is zoned R-2 and contains 1.49 acres with two buildings proposed totaling 4,700 sq.ft. There are no comments from Traffic. From our Landscape Administrator, she is requesting that you review the landscape requirements and add the needed information to the plan for the next submittal. Lighting is shown in the landscape islands with trees on either side. Please consider moving lights since the trees will eventually obstruct the light and trees cannot be removed later to solve future lighting problems. A buffer is required along the south boundary and may be either a privacy fence or a row of vegetation that will reach 6' in height in two years. Clark: Can we get a waiver from the property owners on that buffer? If the property owners say we don't care to have anything is that acceptable or is it required whether they want it there or not? Edwards: Right. It is a requirement in our code. You can always ask for a waiver from the Planning Commission and see what they say. Clark: If I ask for a waiver do they typically give that if the property owners adjacent don't want it? Edwards: I have never had that requested before so I can't tell you. She also says she does not believe that all of the trees proposed for preservation can feasibly survive the amount of construction proposed within the critical root area. I have discussed the areas of concern with the engineer and ask that the plans reflect the adjusted tree preservation and mitigation numbers. Mitigation is required and recommended to be planted on site. Please add the additional trees for mitigation to the plan and differentiate between mitigation trees and trees proposed for other landscape requirements. The tree preservation plan is to be a part of the review plans for subdivision committee members when revisions are submitted. From Planning, the minimum right of way is 25' from centerline for all streets. Sidewalks must be constructed the entire length of the street. The parking lot violates the 15' setback, that is the landscape setback. All utilities must be placed underground if it is under 12KV. A Conditional Use is required, which I think has been submitted. The plan must differentiate between existing and proposed. Technical Plat March 3, 2003 Page 18 Clark: Edwards: Clark: Edwards: Clark: Edwards: Clark: Edwards: Review I will get you better line types. We do require color elevations of the proposed buildings. Approval will be subject to the Vacation which must run concurrently with the Large Scale. I am going to get delayed on this one. We do need the owners to authorize you to represent the project. What is the height of these structures? I will check with the architect. We do need a site coverage note added. Two bike racks are required. I am looking for an explanation on the parking lot lighting. What are you looking for? I am looking to see if they are full cut off, if they are sodium or if metal halide, that type of thing. All utilities need to be screened. The deadline is March 7th at 10:00 a.m. Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: Clark: Casey: Edwards: Clark: Casey: Steve, we have already talked about Washington Avenue, Fourth and Willow all need to have their existing sidewalks redone and those are going to be 4' sidewalks and 6' greenspace. I know you said you thought some of these things didn't meet cross slope, is it city's policy to require someone to tear out sidewalks that met the standard when they were constructed in order to build new ones? Yes, if it comes through a Large Scale process. It is kind of like street improvements. Of course if a street was built to the standards required at the time and you change your standards sometimes that is not quite fair. I am just expressing my opinion. All grading must be setback a minimum of 5' from the property lines. Existing contours should be dashed lines. Add the acreage to the plan. Show the location of existing water lines. Also, show where the storm sewer will be tied into because we don't show that on our map. What are these undergrounds for? Technical Plat Review March 3, 2003 Page 19 Clark: Casey: Clark: Casey: Clark: Casey: Clark: Edwards: Casey: Clark: Casey: Clark: Those are left over from a previous design that didn't get erased. I think part of what happened here is my computer crashed. I had a lot of these things addressed I think and then I lost it in a revision. I remember deleting these things and fixing the line types and it didn't happen. It will be corrected. That is all I had from engineering. Fire comments are all drives and entries shall be a minimum width of 20'. They want you to make the circle drive 20' to allow for aerial apparatus. I don't know that even with 20' they can get that. That is a fairly tight drop-off. If I go to 20' there is no question I'm losing this tree. I moved buildings and adjusted the site and the grading to try to save those maples that are in that circle drive. If I go to 20' there is no question that is gone. You probably can speak with Captain Curry. This is where you are going to have a building overhanging it. If we have to we have to but it is not likely that they would be trying to fight the fire from inside that circle I wouldn't think. They would either do it from Willow or they would do it from the parking lot. If they start trying to fight it from there inside that circle drive it is awful close. I am not a fireman, I don't know everything they do. Call Captain Curry, his number is 444-3449. I did not get a copy of the fire comments. I will get that to you. He is also asking for a free standing FDC located outside of the collapse zone. Locate it in the area west of the circle drive. Is he talking about one of these islands? He says he needs an additional hydrant located in the same area as the FDC. Ok. Glen Newman — AEP/SWEPCO Newman: Clark: We have overhead facilities on the east side of the property. On the west side of Willow? Technical Plat Review March 3, 2003 Page 20 Newman: Edwards: Newman. Clark: Newman: Any relocation or movement of those facilities will be at the owner/developer's expense. Do you know the size? 7,200. Are you sure it's not 12KV? It is a little shy. That is all I have. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: Clark: Gibson: Sue Clouser We are also on that AEP line there on the east side of the property so if we have to relocate that it will be at the owner's expense. When they get ready to do this they may want to contact me. It doesn't look like there is going to be any parking between it and Willow. If there is not we probably won't even need conduits for it. Do you guys need utilities on that side? Nobody has mentioned that. You may want to note a 20' on the west side there but I bet there is one already there. That is all I have. — Southwestern Bell Clouser: Clark: Clouser: Clark: Any facilities that we have that need to be relocated will be at the owner/developer's expense. I would like to see a 4" conduit out of the building. I don't know what they are planning on using as far as lines. We will need pull string in the conduit and if you could have the contractor give me a call when he is ready to start the foundation I will meet him out there and we can talk about where we are going to feed it from. Are you overhead also? I don't think we are over here. We may have to come from across the street. One of the things that we just brushed on is that we are trying to vacate part of the street right of way on the north side. That street right of way currently runs right through the corner of the building is where the existing right of way runs right now. We are trying to vacate that right of way so I need to get a release from utilities for any easements that you might have on that north side. What I would propose is that we show a new right of way and then we have a 20' utility easement adjacent to that right of way with the exception of where it gets down here and conflicts with the Technical Plat Review March 3, 2003 Page 21 building and I would keep the utility easement 5' off of that. There is a little diagram here that shows that. Newman: I don't think I would need that but let me look though. Clark: If you guys can get these things signed at your earliest convenience and get them back to me I would appreciate it. I didn't think Ozarks needed one. Phipps: I just put no objection. Clark: Larry, back in the 1970's the city decided that they wanted a connection through here and said they would just call it 4`h Street and they just came in and said we want 50' and they got it off the north side of this property and that 50' line actually runs right through the corner of the existing building. What we are proposing to do is to shift the right of way to give 25' off the centerline of the street and then have a 20' easement along this portion of it and it would be whatever right of way easement we could get in this area where it doesn't overlap into the building. The sketch there shows what we are proposing. Edwards: Ok, that's all we have. Technical Plat Review March 3, 2003 Page 22 PPL 03-6.00: Preliminary Plat (Summerbrook Estates, pp 648) was submitted by Milholland Company on behalf of NLC, Inc. for property located on Hunt Lane south of Hwy 16 East. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 28.35 acres with 12 lots proposed. Edwards: The next item is PPL 03-6.00 for Summerbrook Estates submitted by Milholland Company on behalf of NLC, Inc. for property located on Hunt Lane south of Hwy 16 East. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 28.35 acres with 12 lots proposed. An adjacent property owner came up with some things that I would like to address if we could on lot 3. It looks like you have already done a perk test on it. He is requesting that you show the location of the septic and the lot acreage because of that large easement he wanted to make sure that it all can fit. As long as you make sure that is ok that won't be a problem. Jefcoat: Of course that won't happen until the time of Final Plat. Edwards: We are asking for it now. Jefcoat: If we show the location of field lines now we can do it by just an area designation and note on the drawing? Edwards: Also, if you could add the acreages of all the property. Jefcoat: It is on there. Edwards: We do not have a representatives signature on the application at this time. It is printed as Melvin Milholland so he needs to sign the application. Add plat page 648 somewhere on the plat. Summerbrook Place must be a public road. No gates will be allowed. Jefcoat: They are planning on doing columns. Edwards: That is fine, just nothing prohibiting public access. County approval is required prior to construction. Final plat approval is required prior to filing. We did move the deadline to March 7`h at 10:00 a.m. Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: Tom, we are going to require the extension of an 8" water main down to serve this property. We can't serve the subdivision off the 2" that is out there. We are going to need to upgrade that to an 8". Jefcoat: What we are proposing is a 6" off an 8". The 8" is located at the corner. Casey: You need to make that an 8". Technical Plat Review March 3, 2003 Page 23 Jefcoat: Is that an 8" all the way from the fire hydrant to the back of the circle or can we bring an 8" down and stub it and then run a 6" in it? Casey: You need to make the whole thing an 8" all the way through. Jefcoat: Ok. Casey: Those are my only comments. Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop. Phipps: Tom, I just saw this from the road, I didn't drive back through those fields last week to see how deep that floodplain was. The overhead along Hunt Lane is 14.4KV. Any relocation of that line will be at the owner/developer's expense. I am really not sure how to serve this. What is giving me trouble is lots 10, 11, and 12 in the back. I will take a 20' easement along that north property line all the way to the back, the same thing on the south property line. Also, along the east property line a 20' UE to just encompass this whole piece. Probably between 1 and 2 and 1 and 5 over to 6. Jefcoat: Why don't we do a 10' utility easement on each side of all property lines? Phipps: That would take care of it. Depending on where the house is built they could be too far from that transformer for me to serve it adequately. We may have to go up the property line to get close enough to the house to serve it because these are all big lots. Jefcoat: That seems the most reasonable thing to do, a 10' UE each side of the property line. Phipps: Looking at this, I was wondering how deep that was in there, is it a gradual dropdown into that floodplain? Jefcoat: It is. Those are actually existing contour lines on there so you can see it is about 8' through there. What we have found out, we talked to Sara about it a little bit and we talked to the Corp. of Engineers about it some, is that their data is about a 15' error in this location because they stopped going off of city contours and they converted to quad maps and they know there is a mistake here too. We tried to work it out. Phipps: With those easements and as long as I can dig through the floodplain without locating a transformer in it. Jefcoat: Like I said, it is about 8' across there. Technical Plat Review March 3, 2003 Page 24 Edwards: Phipps: Larry Gibson Gibson: Jefcoat: Gibson: Phipps: Jefcoat: Gibson: I will just add that this is not subject to city regulations. It is subject to county regulations so I am making no comments with regard to that. A 20' easement around it and 10' each side of the property line should be sufficient for us to work out a plan. That is all I have. — Cox Communications Those easements will be good for me. We have also got existing overhead along Hunt Lane on Ozark Electric's pole so if we have to relocate any of that it will be at the owner/developer's expense. After I get a chance to go out there and actually look at this floodplain I might even have to ask for a 4" conduit from one side of that thing to the other in an easement. That is really all I have. We have shown those three lots with areas across the front. There are some tree issues along that raised side that we want to save I think that there is going to be a common access, they will all go together. If they come off of Summerbrook Place and come back with a common access to all three of these lots I don't know how Southwestern Bell and Ozark feel but we may be better off to service those things from the front. We can get these from the back and down that road or whatever that access is. It is tough. This is about 700' and I need that transformer at least within 100' of the meter. I have got to get back to the house. Personally I would rather have mine in the back. Let's plan on doing it from around the perimeter because until those lots are sold and an agreement is reached you don't know how they are going to want to access those lots. Somebody may not want a common access. Ok, that is all I have. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: Jefcoat: I would like to get a crossing, a quad along the front. If there is any relocation it will be at the owner/developer's expense. Southwestern Bell is now asking the developers to provide a trench for us and I would need 30 days notice before it is opened. Can you send me a letter of the new requirements and things? I think that is a change that you are saying that you are making that you are requesting. Technical Plat Review March 3, 2003 Page 25 Clouser: It is not a requirement, it is a request and what you will gain from that is we will get in there on your time schedule rather than ours as far as getting telephone service. If I can get you a letter I will, I don't know that we actually have anything in writing. As I said, that probably just benefits everybody as far as getting us in with the development as opposed to after a house goes up. Phipps: I have one more requirement. Our new policy on underground as of August of 2001 is the developer will pay half the total cost of construction for this. Looking at this, I am going to guess it is between $1,000 and $1,500 per lot so before he starts pricing the lots he may look at that to factor that in. Jefcoat: Do we have something in writing on that also? Phipps: Yes. I can send you a copy of the policy. Jefcoat: That would be great. This is a new developer looking to do some things. Edwards: Ok, thank you. Technical Plat Review March 3, 2003 Page 26 PPL 03-7.00: Preliminary Plat (Bridgewater Estates, pp 219) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Bridgewater Estates, LLC for property located north of Bridgewater Lane and west of Gulley Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 74.22 acres with 31 lots proposed. Edwards: The last item is PPL 03-7.00 submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Bridgewater Estates, LLC for property located north of Bridgewater Lane and west of Gulley Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 74.22 acres with 31 lots proposed. From the Transportation Division, they are recommending street lights every 300' at intersections and the end of streets. These are not required in the county but are recommended. Please add plat page 219. Bridgewater will be a public road. No gates will be allowed. County approval is required prior to construction. Final plat approval is required prior to filing. There is a little strip between lots 12 and 13 and Bridgewater Lane, do we know what that is? Jorgensen: That is owned by Gerald Jones. Edwards: Bridgewater at that point is going to be an access easement? Jorgensen: That is a county road. Edwards: Ok. The requirement is for Gulley Road to have 35' from centerline dedicated. It is not shown on here. There is a minor arterial located to the west of this property. My understanding is that the applicant has requested that the Master Street Plan be amended for that minor arterial to be relocated to the east to reduce the right of way to 70' instead of 90'. For Bridgewater Lane they propose to relocate the east/west streets. It would go to Planning Commission and would have to be approved by the City Council for approval so this will be subject to that being submitted. Revisions are due March 7th by 10:00 a.m. Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: From the Fire Depaitinent, all roads and entries shall be a minimum width of 20'. All cul-de-sacs shall have a minimum diameter of 96'. He says that they are presently 80' all hydrants shall be a minimum distance of 500' apart. Hydrants are not space appropriately. Jorgensen: Do they have a new standard for the diameter of cul-de-sacs? Casey: It might be to accommodate their big truck. Edwards: Our standard is 80'. Technical Plat March 3, 2003 Page 27 Casey: Jorgensen: Casey: Review The only comment is that this is in the county and sewer is not available. No grading or drainage is required since it is not adjacent to the city limits. One comment, I would like you to show that water line that you are tapping into and label what size it is. I looked it up but I didn't know what it was. I think you show the one on Gulley, if not, show it along Gulley as well. Ok. Sidewalks are not required in the county. Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop. Phipps: Jorgensen: Phipps: Edwards: Jorgensen: Phipps: I didn't get out to look at the site but looking at the easements that you have, they look good. Is there a lot of timber on this site? No, it is cleared. I need to check and find out if the developer is interested in front service because if they are that would simplify things. It really would on this one. Maybe where you have this 70' right of way, probably we would like to get utility crossings there on that future street to the north, six 4" right there for everybody. We can just go around the cul- de-sac, we have to get those lots anyway. The overhead line to this existing pole on this parcel that Gaddy has, probably the charge for that would be the retirement cost it takes to get it out. Once we get the underground in we could take that overhead out. It is going across lot 11 now. It probably goes along their drive back there I would imagine but we would have to get power into the development before we could remove that overhead. It would probably be just the cost of the retirement labor. We have got 14.4KV along Gulley Road. Any relocation of that overhead would be at the developer's expense. Are there going to be streetlights for this? We recommended them but they are not required. I think they are going with them but they haven't decided the style and all of that good stuff. With it being a front service it would be a lot cheaper. That is all I have. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: If they are going to go front easements just like Mike said, that one crossing right there would be good. It probably wouldn't hurt to go ahead and put one across this main entrance down here. If they go back I am looking at lots 26, 27, and 28 if they go back easement we may have to Technical Plat Review March 3, 2003 Page 28 Jorgensen: Phipps: Jorgensen: Phipps: Jorgensen: Phipps: Jorgensen: Phipps: Jorgensen: Phipps: Jorgensen: Phipps: Jorgensen: Gibson: Sue Clouser have something up there to run it on the northeast side of that to get back in there to those lots. If they go front they won't have to have them. Just let us know what they are going to do. You mentioned the cost of electric service on that last project Mike, is that front service or rear? This front service will be cheaper. The more lots you have, the smaller lots you have it will be cheaper. Those were big lots. Normally something this size you might have 100 lots and you are probably only looking at $400 per lot. This right here will still be maybe $1,000 per lot? Looking at this, it may not reach that. It kind of depends on the front or rear service. What is it per linear foot? I think it is about $11 by the time you total up the transformer, conduit, wire and everything. The more I can serve off one transformer the cheaper it is. These being two acre lots it is not feasible. That doesn't include any lights right? No. Half of that is to be paid by the developer? Yes. Is that something that just came out? No, the first was I think Gary Brandon. How about Cox, is there a charge now? Mark has paid it. Not right now. Our composite price is about $10 a foot. We are about a dollar less per foot than they are. Right now though they are not charging anything. — Southwestern Bell Clouser: Right now we don't charge but we are asking for the developer to provide a trench for us with 30 days notice before the trench is opened. Which brings me to my comments. If anything needs to be relocated it will be at the owner/developer's expense and we do ask that you provide us a trench Technical Plat Review March 3, 2003 Page 29 and at least 30 days notice. If you could have the contractor contact me when he is getting ready to get started on this I would appreciate that also. Jorgensen: Can you go in anybody else's trench? Clouser: We would be open to that. We have an agreement now to go in with gas. That is another option as well. If we go the front lot lines I would like a conduit across Astoria and from lot 20 to lot 8. Then the ones that were mentioned by the other utilities. I would probably need one across from 25 to 26. That should do it. Gibson: One other comment that I have got too, if they would just notify us about the time they break ground on these. Some of these are so far out there and they get back behind other subdivisions and things I just happen on them sometimes but I don't drive out there everyday. If it is right here in town and it's on a highway I can kind of keep an eye on them. Some of them will have streets paved by the time I even know they have started on them. Jorgensen: Sara, do we have a lot split on this? I know John submitted the documents for it. It was on this lot that Robertson built here. Edwards: It was part of Gaddy's splits. It is a little confusing what is going on so Alan is coming in. It is administrative so we will get it worked out. Meeting adjourned: 10:38 a.m.