No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-05-28 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE TECHNICAL PLAT REVIEW COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee was held on May 28, 2003 at 9:00 a.m. in room 111 in the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LSP 03-40.00: Lot Split (Parker, pp 564) Page 2 LSP 03-41.00: Lot Split (Hampton, pp 526) Page 3 LSP 03-42.00: Lot Split (Sweetser-Stafford, pp 293) Page 9 FPL 03-04.00: Final Plat (Cornerstone Subdivision, pp 402) Page 13 FPL 03-05.00: Final Plat (Legacy Point Phase I, pp 435/474) Page 17 PZD 03-05.00: Residential Planned Zoning District (Southern View Apts. Phase II, pp 519) Page 20 Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Matt Casey Dawn Warrick Jeremy Pate Craig Carnagey Renee Thomas Perry Franklin Danny Farrar Travis Dotson UTILITIES PRESENT UTILITIES ABSENT Johny Boles, Arkansas Western Gas Sue Clouser, Southwestern Bell Glenn Newman, AEP/ SWEPCO Mike Phipps, Ozark Electric Coop. Larry Gibson, Cox Communications Jim Sargent, AEP/SWEPCO Technical Plat Review May 28, 2003 Page 2 LSP 03-40.00: Lot Split (Parker, pp 564) was submitted by Alan Reid of Alan Reid & Associates on behalf of Kathy Parker Mastalerz for property located at 701 Huntsville Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 1.93 acres. The request is to split the property into two tracts of 0.42 acres and 1.30 acres with 0.21 dedicated as right-of-way. Warrick: Welcome to the May 28th meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee. I am going to turn things over to Jeremy Pate who will review the items. Pate: Johny Boles — Item number five under new business is a Lot Split for Parker, LSP 03- 40.00. Planning comments, we will need to verify that we actually have a legal lot of record. Provide verification of acreage splits from original larger tract to current 1.93 acres as a legal lot. Need to indicate new tract acreages on application. Ok, we will just go through utility comments since we've got written comments from staff to provide to the applicant. Arkansas Western Gas Boles: Mike Phipps The only thing I would like is for them to show a 20' utility easement adjacent to Huntsville. That is all I have. — Ozark Electric Coop. Any relocation of existing facilities will be at the developer's expense. That is all I have. — Cox Communications Any relocation will be at the developer's expense. By the way we do have across this one tract we do have existing overhead on those power poles. Phipps: Larry Gibson Gibson: Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: I agree with the 20' utility easement along Huntsville and any relocation will be at the owner's expense. Technical Plat Review May 28, 2003 Page 3 LSP 03-41.00: Lot Split (Hampton, pp 526) was submitted by Ron Hampton on behalf of Carey J. Hampton for property located at 650 S. Ray Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.61 acres. The request is to split the property into to equal tracts of 0.305 acres. Pate: Item number six is a Lot Split for Hampton, it is LSP 03-41.00. Can the applicant present state your name for the record please? Hampton: Ron Hampton. Pate: Comments from Planning, you need to label the adjacent zoning on the site map. Hampton: You will have to show me, I'm greener than green. Pate: Adjacent zoning should be labeled for surrounding properties with the zoning. Any existing easements on the site need to be labeled as well. Dockery Lane will require 25' right of way because it is a local street. Hampton: I have the information for that. There was some confusion, 25' is all that is required because she told me it would have to be 40'. Warrick: Right now there is an existing 20' from centerline. The requirement under the city's Master Street Plan for that to be a local street is 25' from centerline. That would be an additional 5' like you are showing over on Ray Avenue, a 5' additional dedication, that is going to be required on Dockery also. Hampton: Ok, they said at the time because of that street how it was, that 40' would be adequate. I got 40' total, 20' each way. That was the information I was given then. I got the dedication from the Dockerys to get that dedicated to the city because that was the big problem on that because that had failed to be done back when it was done in 1993 or 1994 so I got that information. Warrick: The research that we have done and we've also processed a different lot split southeast of this property. In fact, it is still in the process of going through approval, and the requirement on that was to dedicate 25' from centerline to provide for a 50' total right of way. North of the property there are duplexes and additional development and there is a 50' right of way. We are trying to be consistent to match the street widths all the way from Huntsville north. Hampton: Ok, so let me present this to you to show you what I've got here. This is the information that I got from the Dockerys to get that dedicated. That Technical Plat Review May 28, 2003 Page 4 hasn't been filed or anything yet. I was told to do that after the lot split is approved. Warrick: This is to create? Hampton: That had never been dedicated to the city. Warrick: What is this .19 acres that this description pertains to? Is that the street right of way? Hampton: That is the street right of way. That is actually on the Dockery's property. They had to be willing to give me that information so that I could get that straight. Warrick: This is prior description that is shown? Hampton: Yes. Warrick: That is fine and that takes care of the dimensions that are shown on here. In order for us to be able to approve your lot split in addition to this, we will need you to show a dedication of 5' along this property line. That won't negate any of this. It is perfectly fine that this comes first and this takes care of this existing right of way then it brings your property in compliance with the Master Street Plan with this additional 5' that is being shown here. Your surveyor can update your plat to reflect that. Hampton: Ok, so I need that 5' there. Warrick: Thank you for getting this because that is very important for us to be able to have proving right of way in this location. Otherwise, it remains piece meal, it has been partially already dedicated so this helps us clean it up. Hampton: Mr. Dockery told me this was supposed to have been done back when that was done and somebody dropped the ball. I want to ask one other question again. What about this one? Pate: This one is correct, you just need the 5' over here. Hampton: Ok. Pate: County approval will be required prior to filing for this lot split. Warrick: Is it outside of the city limits? Pate: Oh yeah, it is in the city limits, scratch through that. We will need 30 copies of the revised plat by 10:00 a.m. June 4" Technical Plat Review May 28, 2003 Page 5 Hampton: Ok. Pate: Parks comments, included in your packet, Parks fees are assessed at $555 for one additional single-family lot and they will be due before the issuance of a building permit for that lot. Hampton: Ok, so I am going to have to come up with $555. Pate: That concludes my comments. Utilities? Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: I have no comment. Johns Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: I would like to request a 20' utility easement to be shown on the east side of Ray Avenue and also on the west side of Dockery Lane. The one on Dockery Lane would be outside of the additional 5' that is going to be required, that the city is requiring to dedicate for that additional street right of way so it would just be a 20' utility easement parallel and adjacent to the property line there. Hampton. I am a little confused here. Clouser: He is asking for a 20' utility easement. You have to give 5' more off to the city. We want a 20' utility easement from this point back to here so where you have this 25' building setback that is where we want our utility easement to go so it will be 20'. Hampton: 20' instead of 25' like they want. Clouser: Right, and that will be utility easement, UE. Hampton: Now that is already there. That exists right now. Clouser: Ok. Boles: But it is going to change after you dedicate that 5' assuming there is 20' there if you dedicate 5' of additional street right of way now we are just stuck with 15' do you follow me? Hampton: No, I'm lost. Technical Plat Review May 28, 2003 Page 6 Clouser: Hampton: Boles: Hampton: Boles: Clouser: Hampton: Clouser: Hampton: Clouser: Warrick: Once you give up the 5' from the existing property line then if there is an existing 20' utility easement it is going to make it a 15' utility easement because we don't have a utility easement on public property. What we need is an increase of 5' for a total of 20' when it is all said and done and it needs to be shown on the plat. Ok. This total 40' that I got the dedication for there is an existing easement up there now for that for the utilities and everything that go through there. The only thing that didn't happen was that the 40' dedication to the city didn't take place but all the utility easements are there on that 40' right of way through there. Utility easements are on private property, not public in the street right of way. What I am requesting is a utility easement outside of the right of way on private property. That doesn't include that 50' from centerline over 25'. You are wanting from the edge, you are wanting an easement of another 15' beyond the 5'? No Sir. For example, on Dockery Lane you are being required to dedicate an additional 5'. The west edge of that 5' you are dedicating would be the east edge of a 20' utility easement. You dedicate 5' and that is where the utility easement begins and it goes west an additional 20'. Are you following me? This is going to be your new property line. Ok. We need 20' west of this to be UE. Then where the house would be built it has got to sit how far behind those utility easements? It doesn't have to sit behind the utility easement, as long as it is not in the utility easement, we don't care what you do outside of the utility easement. The only thing that will happen to your setback line in this location is when your property line shifts to this point for the 5' street dedication this 25' would just shift an additional 5' back so you will have a 20' utility easement and then an additional 5' of building setback and then you can build up to that point. Technical Plat Review May 28, 2003 Page 7 Hampton: I wish I would've known at the time. If they would've told me I could've taken care of all that up front. She is in Springfield. Warrick: Was it Sara that you were working with? Hampton: Yes. Warrick: Yes Sir, she is in Springfield. Are there any other comments from utilities? We haven't gone all the way around, I'm sorry. Hampton: Did you want 20' listed on each side? Boles: Adjacent to each street right of way, yes Sir. Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop. Phipps: Any relocation of existing facilities will be at the owner's expense. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: Those easements that Johny asked for is fine. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: Those easements are good and any relocation will be at the owner's expense. Warrick: The only other requirement that we have with regard to fee requirements is that we have adopted impact fees and those will become effective on June 16`h. They will likely affect your project at the time of building permit. I didn't bring a fee schedule but you can obtain a fee schedule probably at either the Building Safety Division office or the Planning office. Hampton: The adjacent zoning, does that pertain to what we just talked about? Warrick: That just needs to be noted on the plat. The information can be obtained if you go down to the Planning office, you can look at the zoning map on the wall. All of that needs to be noted on the plat. Hampton: County approval is not applicable right? Warrick: Right, that is not applicable. We will just need your revisions a week from today by 10:00. Hampton: Thank you all, I am sorry for being so dense. Technical Plat Review May 28, 2003 Page 8 Warrick: No problem. Thank you very much for coming, we appreciate it. Hampton: Thank you. Technical Plat Review May 28, 2003 Page 9 LSP 03-42.00: Lot Split (Sweetser-Stafford, pp 293) was submitted by Jo Hannah Sweetser-Stafford for property located at 2622 Azalea Terrace. The property is zoned R- 1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 2.72 acres. The request is to split the subject property into two tracts of 1.32 and 1.40 acres proposed. Pate: The next item on the agenda is LSP 03-22.00 for Sweetser. The site plan needs to be to a measurable scale, it looks like it has been reduced. Stafford: Ok, I have had it redone since I gave you this so I think I have that. Pate: We need any adjacent property zoning. We need all right of way dimensions labeled on the site plan. Azalea Terrace requires 25' from centerline right of way, you just need to show that and you need to show all building setbacks from the property line. Again, you will need 30 copies to go for revisions. Stafford: On the 25' do we show that on this one? Warrick: It would be a dimension from this line to the property line and it doesn't look like it has been dimensioned. It looks like it is right at 25'. It just needs to be dimensioned on there so there won't be an additional dedication. The existing right of way is adequate, it just needs to be labeled so that is going to be one thing that needs to be updated. Pate: Engineering comments are show locations of existing water lines. Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: There is a water line along Azalea Terrace, you just need to show that on the plat. Stafford: Ok. Pate: From Planning, you need to show a floodplain reference. Stafford: He did. Pate: Is that added to this? Stafford: Yeah, I made him go back and redo so I think maybe quite a bit of this has already been addressed. That is done. Pate: From Parks, you will have one additional unit there for $555 for one additional single-family lot. West Mud Creek tributary that flows through tract 2 is on the Alternative Transportation and Trails Master Plan for extending the Gulley Park Trail to the east. The Trails and Greenways Technical Plat Review May 28, 2003 Page 10 Coordinator would like to discuss the possibility of obtaining a 20' easement on the southern side of Mud Creek tributary. Stafford: On the south side? Turner: I will go over my comments. As you know, the Gulley Park extension ends right here. I know that Steve Hatfield and probably Connie Edmonston worked with you guys in the past to obtain property to the north and to the east of tract 1. We were interested in seeing if we could make a swap using this land to swap for land to the south of this Mud Creek tributary so that we could have a full connection of the trail that went through here rather than taking the trail up and then across these and then out. On this side I think it is Boxwood subdivision. Stafford: Boxwood is up here. This comes out. Mr. Ferguson donated this part and then it comes out. Turner: Right, so we have connection here and here and we are hoping to get it here. Stafford: Steve and I have had this conversation. I am in the process of selling this house. I actually close this house on June 12`s. I told Steve that it wasn't actually an option but what I have discussed with him is anybody from the city on this side is I'm not buildable on this side. That is one reason I was wanting to retain this piece of the property. This year wasn't going to be a good year for me to do it but the only people that are going to benefit from the 1.32 acres is the city. When it was feasible for me, to my tax advantage, which would maybe be next year I was going to donate the whole 1.32 acres and that whole side to you. I have already given you all, when we built Ashwood we had given this area and this area here for greenspace fees. If you look at it, you came in and they had to make the sewer easement where they came and did the whole length of the property where there is overflow. When it rains so much there is a sewer line and then they have overflow on top of it so that it overflows so there are actually two sewer lines, one on top of the other on this site. It is no benefit to me, no benefit to the people who will end up buying the house, other than they would just have to mow it like I do. I want to retain this for my family purpose. I have four boys and my husband takes them camping on this piece right here and just when it came to my tax advantage then I was going to donate that whole section where that you would have that and that and you would still have that whole connection problem over here but you get that whole piece of property that connects to the Gulley Park property. Turner: Ok, great. Technical Plat May 28, 2003 Page 11 Stafford: Casey: Stafford: Casey: Pate: Warrick: Pate: Review The water line is the only thing? Yeah, if that is going to be a park that doesn't really matter. We just like to show access to the water and sewer infrastructure for each lot that is being created. If that is not ever going to be built on then it doesn't really matter. There is absolutely unless I build a small shack in the corner, there is actually no way you could build anything over there. That is no benefit to anybody but myself and my family at this point just to play on. So he does need to show that? No, it's not important. Impact fees for water and wastewater will be effective on June 16`h. That would only be applicable if you were building something, it shouldn't affect you. Utilities comments? Johns Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: No comment. Glenn Newman — AEP/SWEPCO Newman: Stafford: Newman: You don't intend to build anything on it? No. We have service to everything that is there so I guess I have no comment I am going to let Larry say his part about this. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: Warrick: Gibson: Warrick: I would just like to see those utility easements on the east. It would be the back of tract 2 and then on this south corner out here where all the utilities come up, just show those on the plat. They are existing on the property line. I am thinking there is a 20' easement there. It would be a 15' minimum. Do you run all the way up tracts 1 and 2 on the east? Technical Plat May 28, 2003 Page 12 Gibson: Stafford: Gibson: Stafford: Gibson: Stafford: Gibson: Review Everybody does. There are more houses right over here and we come right up the back of them. I can't show the exact point but I think it stops right there because of that creek and all that. There are two houses here. It probably only goes to about % way on that side. I think you are right. There are actually two houses here, there is a house here, a house here, and a house here and it runs up between those two houses. This one faces Azalea and I think these two face Country Way I believe. Right. All the utilities come up right between them in this easement right here and then they turn back east and then north. More than likely it stops right here because of the sewer lines and everything in that creek and all of that. I am thinking about 'h way up this line is where it stops. As long as it shows those utility easements it will be fine. That is all I have. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: Pate: Warrick: Stafford: No comment. Revisions will be due on June 4`h. We will need 30 copies. Ok, I actually have 28. Thanks, I appreciate it. Technical Plat Review May 28, 2003 Page 13 FPL 03-04.00: Final Plat (Cornerstone Subdivision, pp 402) was submitted by Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of Lindsey Properties for property located west of Porter Road and south of Megan Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and RMF -12, Moderate Density Multi -Family Residential and contains approximately 15.34 acres with 10 lots proposed. Pate: The next item is a Final Plat for Cornerstone Subdivision. Would the representative say their name for the record? Brackett: Yes, my name is Chris Brackett, I am with Jorgensen & Associates, I am here representing the owner today. Pate: Planning comments, add adjacent zoning to the Final Plat. Property ownership. Brackett: We haven't added those on Final Plats, is that something new? We can add it, it just gets so cluttered we normally don't. Warrick: On the final for filing purposes that is fine to leave those off since it is already shown on the preliminary. Pate: We do need to show addresses on each lot. Warrick: Jim Johnson can assist with that. Brackett: Ok. Warrick: You will need proof of payment for street lights prior to filing as well as guarantees for incomplete improvements, final layer of pavement or sidewalks and landscaping that may be required. The right of way will be shown to be dedicated. I think that is dimensioned. You do need to have the final inspection complete prior to Subdivision Committee meeting. If you don't know whether or not that is going to happen we need to know. Brackett: It is kind of iffy, we have to have it by the 11`h, is that correct? Warrick: It would be a week from today. Brackett: That is when we submit the revisions but in the past we have done it before the meeting. Warrick: What we have been doing is ensuring that the final inspection is complete prior to putting notice in the newspaper and us expending the funds to do that. I will be willing to work with you to some degree on this because I know that there is a time issue on the Large Scale lot but I need to know at what point they are going to be a week from today so call me and let me Technical Plat Review May 28, 2003 Page 14 know when you are. We have to put a notice in the newspaper and we need to know at that time. Brackett: We will get with you before we resubmit as far as if we are going to be able to get it done within that time frame. Warrick: From this point on we really want the inspection done at the time that the revisions are due in from Plat Review. Brackett: Ok. Warrick: Sidewalks must be installed or guaranteed prior to Final Plat approval and I think that covers Planning comments. The impact fee statement, I think you are aware of that. Pate: Do we have any comments from Engineering? Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: Chris, if you could just add something on the plat about the responsibility for the maintenance of the detention pond. She has already commented about the final inspection. One comment that didn't make it in the comment letter that you've got, you need to add a drainage easement down this pipe that goes through the middle of the pond and then around the outlet structure, just a 20' drainage easement. That is all I have. Pate: Tree and Landscape? Craig Carnagev — Tree & Landscape Administrator Carnagey: No comment. Pate: Floodplain comments, all lots must have 6,000 square feet outside of the floodplain, verify that on the LOMR of 1999. Warrick: When are you guys amending the map? Brackett: I don't know. I know that there have been some meetings in the office concerning that and I will check on that. Warrick: Really that needs to be amended and complete prior to the Final Plat being filed of record. Pate: Parks fees are assessed for nine single-family homes with the previous park land dedication formula, fees are set at $4,230 and that will be due prior to recording the Final Plat. Technical Plat Review May 28, 2003 Page 15 Warrick: We have already gotten the Parks fees on the Large Scale, is that correct for lot 10? Turner: Yes, it was permitted. Pate: Comments from utilities? Johny Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: Chris, are you going to do anything in this area of lot 10, the west side of Porter Road? Warrick: Lot 10 is under construction with an apartment development. Boles: Ok, I don't have any other comment. Glenn Newman — AEP/SWEPCO Newman: We have existing underground facilities on the north property line up there and that is going to be the least cost of service. By virtue of the fact that we have to come on the front property line it presents problems. There will be some charges. Clouser: Can we get UE along here? Brackett: No, I think that tree precludes that. Newman: Jim told me he mentioned this. Gibson: There is an existing UE off of that property. That is where all of the utilities are. This is meeting the edge of it. Casey: I think the discussion during preliminary is they didn't want to disturb all the trees in the area. They agreed to move it to the front even if it was a pain. Brackett: We understand the least cost and all that stuff? Newman: Ok, you understand the least cost and all that stuff, that is fine. Are you going to install the street lights? If not, we will need some easements. Well, it will be along the front so disregard that. Brackett: Ok. Newman: I have no further comment. Technical Plat Review May 28, 2003 Page 16 Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: I was told that this lot 1 through 9 are going to be single dwellings right, they are not going to be duplexes or anything? Brackett: Yes. Gibson: That is all I have. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: No comment. Pate: Revisions are due a week from today. Thank you. Warrick: We have reduced the number of re -submittals, give us a call and we will give you those numbers. We are trying to save some trees. Technical Plat Review May 28, 2003 Page 17 FPL 03-05.00: Final Plat (Legacy Point Phase I, pp 435/474) was submitted by Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of Charles Sloan Properties, Inc. for property located east of Double Springs Road and south of Owl Creek. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and RMF -6, Low Density Multi -family Residential and contains approximately 36.53 acres with 66 single family and 24 duplex lots proposed. Pate: The next item on the agenda is FPL 03-5.00 for Legacy Point. Will the applicant's representative please say his name for the record? Brackett: Chris Brackett with Jorgensen & Associates. Pate: The same comments as before about the zoning and the ownership, we will not need that for the Final Plat. We will need the Final Plat to show addresses, payment of the street lights and any guarantees for incomplete improvements. The right of way for Persimmon for all phases will be dedicated at the time of Final Plat for Phase I. Required street and drain improvements to Double Springs Road shall also be constructed with Phase I. All tree preservation fees shall be paid to the tree preservation fund prior to Final Plat approval. Park land dedication or cash in lieu of land shall also be paid prior to Final Plat. Final inspection needs to be complete prior to revision submittal. Warrick: Will you have final inspection for this by Wednesday of next week? Brackett: No, but before the meeting. I talked to the contractor yesterday and they said there was no way they would be done by Wednesday but they said that a week from that Wednesday they shouldn't have a problem getting that done. They are moving in tomorrow to finish it up so by next Wednesday I should have a real firm date of when they will be done so I can do the same thing as the others and give you a firm date. They will know for sure by next Wednesday whether they will be done in a week or not. Casey: That will include the Double Springs Road improvements as well? Brackett: Yes because the curb cannot be bonded, correct, just the final layer of pavement right? Warrick: Correct. Brackett: Do you have something that goes through what can and cannot be bonded? Warrick: Yes, code section 158.01, I will get that to you. Pate: Engineering? Technical Plat Review May 28, 2003 Page 18 Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: I think you have covered just about everything. I do have maintenance of the detention pond. That is all I have. Craig Carnagey — Tree & Landscape Administrator Carnagey: Mitigation will need to be paid prior to filing. Brackett: I know that we discussed this with Kim. She said we could break this into phases and do the mitigation. We would have to redo the calculations to show how it was per phase but we could pay to the fund as far as how they develop. I think what we will probably do is pay the whole thing. I am just saying that in case. Carnagey: I will have to check with her notes on that one. I just saw the total figure for mitigation. Brackett: I don't think we are going to do that because it is a pain but I just want you aware that there is an option to do that so you can check on that. Pate: Rebecca, do you have Parks comments? Rebecca Turner — Parks Division Turner: Yes. For 108 units it is 2.59 acres for land dedication and for the 48 multi- family units it is 1.2 acres so a total of 3.69. We will go out and check out that wall. Brackett: I am having an inspector right now check out that head wall and if not we will get out there. Turner: In respect to the head wall you may need to go ahead and add a guardrail because the fall right behind it. Is there is a possibility of kicking this corner this direction? Brackett: No because of water. Turner: We will probably put a hand rail there for pedestrian safety. Then the typical stuff about park land not being included in the covenants and then also that the owner is to maintain the park property for two years. Pate: Utilities? Technical Plat Review May 28, 2003 Page 19 Johns Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: I believe all the easements are fine. Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop. Phipps: No comment. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: No comment. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: No comment other than the ones were made at Preliminary Brackett: Thank you. Technical Plat Review May 28, 2003 Page 20 PZD 03-05.00: Residential Planned Zoning District (Southern View Apts. Phase II, pp 519) was submitted by Crafton, Tull & Assoc., Inc. on behalf of Lindsey Management for property located at Shiloh Drive and Old Farmington Road. The property is zoned C- 2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 6.7 acres. The request is for a Residential Planned Zoning District for mixed use with 74% residential floor area (85 bedrooms) and 26% commercial (retail) floor area proposed. Pate: The last item on the agenda today is PZD 03-5.00, Residential Planned Zoning District for Southern View Apartments Phase II. Comments that Planning has is I saw a bicycle parking rack required in your legend but I couldn't locate it anywhere in the plans. Kelso: Well, we didn't put any on there. We'll get those on there. Pate: Placement of those should accommodate both commercial and residential. Warrick: We recommend kind of scattering them around. Pate: Please indicate landscaping. 25' of landscaping is required between the parking stalls and Futrall right of way. We noticed that your stalls are dimensioned at 19 72'. Kelso: To the back of curb so 19' to face of curb which is what you all require. Pate: We will allow 2' of overhang to the greenspace along this area. Warrick: You can save some pavement if you choose to reduce your stall length from 19' to 17'. Depending on what type of landscaping you have, that might just save you some money on pavement. Pate: We will need elevations of all four sides of the buildings including signage. Fugitt: You should have those, I personally brought those by. Warrick: Does this represent this structure on all four sides? Fugitt: Yes. The front and back are the same and both ends are the same. Warrick: Ok, all of your structures will have the same material and everything? Fugitt: Yes. Pate: This is in the Design Overlay District and there are some additional requirements. There is a minimum 25' landscaping exclusive to right of way and all streets in which the development has frontage. The parking Technical Plat Review May 28, 2003 Page 21 lot shall be screened when abutting a required greenspace area. There is one tree per 30 linear feet of greenspace. Any mechanical utility equipment shall be screened. Anything over 30" tall shall also meet setbacks. Signage shall also meet Design Overlay District requirements. Lighting shall be shielded and directed downward. All structures shall be architecturally incorporated. No metal sidewalls on the building shall be allowed. 25% of the site needs to be left in open space with 8% of that landscaped and that does meet the requirements. Warrick: Can you provide that in your site coverage numbers on your legend somewhere? Kelso: Sure, I think we should be ok with that. Warrick: There is a 6' sidewalk required on Old Farmington. Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: First, provide a 6' sidewalk along Old Farmington Road. Number two you aren't going to like very much. The ponds, the bulk of them are in that utility easement and the drainage structures are right on top of that 21" sanitary sewer. Kelso: t saw that drainage structure there. Casey: I don't know about the rest of you but I wouldn't want a detention pond in our sewer easement. Newman: We don't have anybody that can hold their breath that long. Casey: For some reason there is a 50' UE along there. Kelso: I didn't know what was all in there. There is a huge easement in there and the question is what is it being used for. Boles: A huge gas line. Casey: In a portion of it we have got a 24" water line in and a 21" sanitary sewer. Boles: I believe that is running east and west on the south side of Old Farmington Road alongside the body shop and then I think it turns northwest along the east side of Futrall and it goes down even with I believe Old Farmington Road on the west side of I-540 and then it goes under the bypass at that point and goes west. It is a transmission line. Kelso: I wonder why it wasn't located. Technical Plat Review May 28, 2003 Page 22 Boles: It was at one point. It was flagged all the way through there because I had a request from One Call that they had difficulty locating it and I had some of our representatives go by and physically flag it so I know at one point it was flagged all the way through there up to I-540 pavement actually. Kelso: Ok. Boles: I believe it is either a 4" or 6" line. Kelso: It may be on a layer that is just froze or something. Maybe they did locate it. If they didn't we may have to get it located again just to make sure we know where it's at. Boles: We do need it shown. Casey: Jerry, along the east side of this building number four you have some conflicts with storm sewer and sanitary sewer. We need a minimum 5' separation. The detention ponds need to be sodded. Just like the last phase we are going to need a waiver of the 100' setback from the water surface elevation. On the grading plan I just need erosion control shown and also I am requesting that you extend this water line to the east along Old Farmington Road. That is all I have got. Pate: Tree and Landscape? Craig Carnagey — Tree & Landscape Administrator Carnagey: There are no trees so you are exempt from tree preservation but this will be under landscape review so I need to see a landscape plan. Warrick: Did you guys just not tum on that layer? Kelso: That one we didn't do yet. I didn't know how much of a landscape plan we needed to do with this first submittal but we will go ahead and put it together. Pate: I have a note from Rebecca at Parks that your project is scheduled for he June 2nd Parks and Recreation Board meeting and those minutes will be forwarded to us. Kelso: Ok. Pate: Utility Comments? Technical Plat Review May 28, 2003 Page 23 Johns Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: Jerry, do you have any plans for natural gas in the retail part of these or are these going to be all electric? Fugitt: We probably should make arrangements for that if we get a restaurant type use or something like that so we could have that ability. Boles: I have got all the gas you will ever need there. I am going to have some issues with above ground pressure reducing stations so we will need to work out locations for those because it is off of a 400 pound line. We probably need to do some work on this a little later. Can you give me a breakdown on each building on how many residential for each building and how many commercial for each building? Kelso: It is kind of broke down a little bit over here to the left. Fugitt: There is about 5,000 feet commercial per building and 17 dwelling units per building. Boles: This 5,000 square feet could carry multiple tenants or what is the worst case scenario for tenants per building for commercial? Fugitt: I don't know that we have ever discussed that. I don't know, it all depends on how it flies. Probably worst case would be 5 tenants, a thousand feet each. We will probably just have one tenant per building. Boles: That is all I have. Glenn Newman — AEP/SWEPCO Newman: Jerry, the easement all the way around is 50', you have it dimensioned over here. Kelso: It goes all the way around and I believe it is an existing easement is what it is. Newman: Those detention ponds, electricity and water just don't mix. We are working on it but just haven't finalized it. I guess if we could visit we will work with you. I don't know what options you have. Kelso: We are talking about a 50' easement there. Can we have any of the detention pond in that 50' easement? It depends on how close we are to stay away from the gas obviously. I don't know how close we can have it to the gas line. Technical Plat May 28, 2003 Page 24 Fugitt: Boles: Casey: Boles: Warrick: Fugitt: Warrick: Newman: Boles: Kelso: Boles: Review What are the possibilities of reducing the easement? I would have to appeal to a higher authority for that. I can check on that. The drainage criteria manual says that detention can not be in dedicated right of way or utility easements. Let's get it located and see how close that line is. A vacation will have to be processed if you are vacating any of that area. What we are trying to do is from I-540 there is create some visual draw to this and really that is what the water features are as much as detention. Instead of just having the typical situation there on I-540 trying to get some visual. We are not opposed to that. We just need to work around them as we can. That is all I have. We have the voltages to provide you whatever you need there. That is the line that feeds Farmington, Prairie Grove and Lincoln. Ok, so don't cut it. Please. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: Clouser: Kelso: Clouser: Gibson: Newman: On the interior you've got your water lines and stuff marked in these easements on the west side of say on one, two and three, can you put a similar easement on the east side of buildings one through three? I haven't talked to Southwestern Bell or Glenn, is that the way you all want to service them? The opposite side is the water line. Does this continue? I believe so. I was going to ask for the 20' UE here on this side of the parking lot and have them bring us conduits out through there. There is an existing overhead. On the east side of the building there is an existing 20' easement along that street. Technical Plat Review May 28, 2003 Page 25 Kelso: Gibson: Sue Clouser I think there is another 20' easement that runs along the east side of the property line. I think it was dedicated when we did this lot split I think. Maybe something similar to what you've got on the west side of these buildings with your water lines and put it on the east side so we can get right over close to the buildings. On building five I would like to see one on the west side of it. Of course now I guess you don't know exactly what you are going to have to do with the ponds. I am just trying to stay away on the opposite side of the building from the water lines. Four, if we could get something across maybe on the south side of one or between one and two over to four, something like that. This UE on the east side of one, two and three could just cross between one and two or come down on the south side of one either way. I would like to get with the builder when they start these and see where their meter locations and everything are going to be on them. If they are going to be three story buildings then that is a little bit different. I will be glad to meet with them as far as how the wiring goes and all of that. That is all I have. — Southwestern Bell Clouser: Kelso: Fugitt: Clouser: Fugitt: Clouser: Fugitt: Clouser: Jerry, that was my question since you are going to have commercial in here and they are considerably larger are you going to have us bring the telephone into the building or are you going to have an equipment room? That is probably a question for Kim. What is the advantage of either or? More secure for one thing to bring d mark into the building and we are talking about getting pretty sizeable boxes on the outside of the building. It generally seems to be the practice if you have a storage room this size with the commercial/residential mix to bring it inward to protect it. How big of an area do you need? A 4x6 plywood on the wall. What is the depth? A foot deep, just so somebody could get in there and open the door so they could work on it. Let me know then if you want to do that and then we will need conduit into the building and if not we'll need conduit from the utility easement to each building. I would like to see this a utility easement and bring the conduit out to here because you know we won't run our cable under pavement. You will have to provide us conduit Technical Plat Review May 28, 2003 Page 26 Kelso: Clouser: Kelso: Clouser: anywhere that you are going to put us under pavement. If this is going to be greenspace we will need this to be better. It doesn't make any sense to make that a utility easement so we will just need to have everybody agree to clear everything out there. I don't know if we have anything existing here right now. I know that we do over here. I don't know if it extends down Futrall but if you could build a conduit from here to these two buildings also we could stay out of putting anything new in this area. Just conduit all the way from here to there? Yes, then we could just feed everything off of this to that. It would need to be 4" and have a pull string. Like any other buildings we need a #6 bare ground to where we put our terminal whether it is inside or outside. I don't think there is any relocation but if something comes up it will be at the owner/developer's expense. Pate: Jerry, on Phase I your sidewalks are located on your side, are you doing that for sake of continuity? Kelso: Yes. Warrick: With regard to the Planned Zoning District, there is a list of permitted uses. I would encourage you to go through and determine if any of those uses are things that you would not want to see in this Planned Zoning District so that it would narrow down the uses that could be permitted. There are things like commercial recreation, that is specifically to provide a golf course, and maybe some of the items under cultural and recreational facilities, which would include some things like hospitals or crematories or some other uses that are in those use units that may not be appropriate for this particular mix that you are proposing for the PZD and do it would be important when the Planning Commission and City Council are considering the zoning component of this project to understand which uses or which use unit can be in this development and then eliminate those that are not appropriate. There may be some and it may be that you just want to leave it open to those things. That is just something that the developer needs to kind of understand what the uses are here. Pate: Ok, meeting adjourned.