No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-06-18 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE TECHNICAL PLAT REVIEW COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee was held on June 18, 2003 at 9:00 a.m. in room 111 in the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN PPL 03-11.00: Preliminary Plat (North Hills Subdivision, pp 205/206) Page 2 LSD 03-17.00: Large Scale Development (Landers Auto Park, pp 248) Page 9 Forwarded Forwarded LSP 03-43.00: Lot Split (Hoskins/Brookhaven, pp 214) Forwarded Page 15 STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Matt Casey Dawn Warrick Jeremy Pate Craig Carnagey Renee Thomas Kim Hesse Perry Franklin Danny Farrar Travis Dotson UTILITIES PRESENT UTILITIES ABSENT Mike Phipps, Ozark Electric Coop. Larry Gibson, Cox Communications Glenn Newman, AEP/ SWEPCO Johny Boles, Arkansas Western Gas Sue Clouser, Southwestern Bell Technical Plat Review June 18, 2003 Page 2 PPL 03-11.00: Preliminary Plat (North Hills Subdivision, pp 205/206) was submitted by Tomlinson Asphalt Civil Engineering Division on behalf of TTM -LLC (Bud Tomlinson, Gerald Tomlinson and Mark Mahaffey) for property located north of West Salem Road, west of Salem Road and south of the west end of the Howard Nickell R/W on the Master Street Plan. The property is in the county and contains approximately 40.14 acres. The request is for residential subdivision with 24 lots of ranging in size from 1.06 acres to 2.27 acres. Pate: We are going to begin the Technical Plat Review meeting for June 18, 2003. The first item that we are going to talk about is the Preliminary Plat for North Hills. Would the representative come forward please? Would the representative come forward please? Hennelley: I am Tom Hennelley with Tomlinson Asphalt Pate: From Planning, add Plat Page 205 to the plan. For any of those lots having an area less than one and a half acre we are going to have to have individual septic systems approved by the Arkansas Department of Health for each lot. Warrick: We are doing those before approvals now. Hennelley: We had the soil analysis done for each one and the low grade you guys need a letter from the local sanitarian, is that what it is? Warrick: We need an approval letter stating that the system has been approved for those lots that are less than an acre and a half in size. Hennelley: Not that it is capable of handling a certain load, you actually need the septic system design? Warrick: We need a design approval. Hennelley: How do you do that not knowing how many bedrooms are going to be in the house? Warrick: I'm not sure what all information goes into that but they have been providing that on lots. They've got a method. Hennelley: Ok, everything below an acre and a half. Pate: We had a couple of questions on documentation on if it is a legal lot. From here over is part of another lot and we will need a lot split to actually create this section of that lot. Technical Plat Review June 18, 2003 Page 3 Warrick: We do a property search to search the parcel numbers on various tracts. The tract that lots one through eight are on is actually a portion of another 20 acre parcel. We need to split that out so that it can become part of this. Basically what we are looking at is the subdivision encompasses this parcel as well as a portion of this parcel and this parcel is all one right now so it needs to be split to divide that piece out. Hennelley: Ok. Pate: That can be processed through a lot split. Warrick: It would be an administrative lot split since it is such a large tract. Hennelley: Does that need to come through you guys? Pate: Yes. Hennelley: Can we do this concurrently? Warrick: Yes. Hennelley: Ok. Pate: We will also need an application for approval of vacation of this right of way that is existing here. That has to be approved by the City Council. Warrick: You can't vacate by plat, you have to go through the whole getting comments from everyone. Pate: So we need the legal description and everything for that Vacation. Pate: We will also need Planning Commission consideration and City Council approval for amendment to the Master Street Plan for Howard Nickle Road since it presently comes into this. It is also a principal arterial on the Master Street Plan and you have it shown as a 90' right of way and a principal arterial requires 110'. Hennelley: Ok, we have got a principal arterial on Howard Nickle it has got a 110' deed restriction on it right now. How do you guys want to do that because this one is not the same classification. Warrick: We need to somehow transition. Hennelley: What I had is I had the transition occur right here. I guess it is kind of six in one hand, half a dozen in the other. I had it occur right here at the Technical Plat Review June 18, 2003 Page 4 Subdivision boundary. I don't know if there is a better place to do it or if it makes any difference. Warrick: We can look at that. That is a good point. We need to determine the best place to transition it. It may actually be this intersection as opposed to the start of the subdivision. Hennelley: You've already got some deed restricted area to make it 110' total all the way to the intersection so whether you use it or not doesn't make any difference. Warrick: Let us look at that a little bit more. What we were trying to determine since the actual change really happens somewhere over here maybe that would be the place to do it. By amending the Master Street Plan to change the configuration of this connection your request could be to extend the reclassification of that also so that it is all considered minor arterial as opposed to half and half, a portion of it minor and a portion of it principal. Let me look at it a little bit closer. That is probably reasonable to do. We need to determine the starting point for it, we will get back with you and let you know what we find. The 90' right of way that you are proposing, that is consistent all the way up to this point isn't it? Hennelley: Yes. Pate: Warrick: The other thing we wanted to discuss is access to some of these lots. 1 notice quite a few of these access straight onto this. Whether it is a minor arterial or principal arterial we try to limit the amount of access onto those so that you limit the number of traffic conflicts that are potentially going to occur. We were looking to you to come up with some ideas or somehow provide us with some sort of feedback on restricting access to the interior streets. That is something that we will request. Would it be possible for this development to have shared drives for those properties that access Howard Nickle Road directly? You've got big lots. It wouldn't be all of them but we are trying to of course come up with a safer street access design. Hennelley: Could lot one access off of this existing right of way? This right of way has been dedicated all the way to here. There is an existing drive here that Dr. Bell has built, that comes up somewhere around in here. Warrick: They could access from that. The frontage is being provided. They aren't required to access off the frontage on Howard Nickle Road. The right of way vacation that we would be looking at, I was expecting that you would vacate all of this right of way. That way whoever owns the left over could Technical Plat Review June 18, 2003 Page 5 end up with half of that and half of that would revert back to this lot. I was just assuming that the whole corner was coming to being vacated rather than just a portion of it just enough to provide access that would be usable and then you could do a shared drive between two and three, four has access, seven has access, eight would probably be an exception. Hennelley: Really you are only talking about 20 and 21, 2 and 3, 16 and 17. Warrick: Yes, those are areas that we would look at shared access. Hennelley: Ok. Pate: Impact fees for water will be in affect, that is $308 per single-family dwelling unit. That is due at time of connection. Hennelley: That will be paid by whoever the builder is or the owner is that type of thing? Warrick: They will work it out. We really don't have a requirement on who the individual is. Hennelley: Right, but it is not done until the time that the water is actually turned on for the resident. Warrick: Right. When whomever comes to the business office to set up the account and to request a meter set the fee will be collected at that time. Pate: Those are all the comments from Planning at this time. Matt, are there engineering comments? Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: I don't know if you intended the setbacks along the streets to be utility easements but we need a minimum of 10' on each side of the water lines. Hennelley: Ok, we can just label those as setback and UE's. Casey: However you prefer to do it. It looks like you are going to need an offsite easement here across this Mr. Mills. We just need to see that and be able to review that. Hennelley: That would be Yoakum. Is that applicable if we do it within the dedicated right of way? Casey: If you put it in the right of way that is fine. Technical Plat Review June 18, 2003 Page 6 Hennelley: How does the deed restriction affect that? Is that available for that or not? The ownership hasn't actually taken place yet right? Casey: You would need an easement at that time. You had mentioned Dr. Bailey's Drive, does that come in here at this intersection? How are you going to handle that? Hennelley: He built his drive right in the middle of the 50' right of way. Is this intersection going to be made a through way? Casey: I just wondered if there were any improvements planned, I know you have got storm gutter there but as far as the actual curb. Hennelley: There is not a tremendous amount of traffic that comes down this road . The pavement starts further to the south here about right at the Weir Road intersection and it is paved south over to Salem. What we had proposed doing until the improvements to Rupple Road further south of this intersection are made this would just be like an entrance basically off of West Salem and not intend for it to be a through road. It can obviously be used for that but the county is going to require us to pave West Salem where it is adjacent to the property and nothing will be done to West Salem south of that intersection so I don't know how you want to handle that. Casey: I was just curious. I don't have any requirements for that. Hennelley: We've had the county road department look at this and the only questions they've had have been about the islands at the entrances of it. One of them is there is a pretty good size tree at that south entrance which is a reason to put the island in. On the north that may or may not remain. We still haven't gotten final confirmation from them about whether they will let us do that or not. Casey: Ok, that is all I have. Pate: There are not any tree and landscape requirements and no comments from Parks because it is in the Planning area. Utilities? Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop. Phipps: I am going to go over the crossings first. 15 and 18 to 19 and 24. Hennelley: Right where I've got the easement on the back lot line there? Technical Plat Review June 18, 2003 Page 7 Phipps: Yeah. Six 4" crossings will take care of everybody. From 21 and 9 to 7 & 8. Hennelley: You need the easement between seven and eight also? Phipps: Yes, all the way back to 6. From 5 and 4 to 6 and 7 north and south six 4". A 20' UE between the lot lines of 21 and 22 coming south and continuing south on 9 and 10. Are we going to be able to get in this area? Hennelley: Are you talking about making an easement further up on the bank? Phipps: If they want the easement in the back through there. Hennelley: You want to do it up on maybe outside that tree line or something like that? Phipps: You have got a 20' UE shown through there. Hennelley: I am not sure how reasonable that is at the common comer between 3 and 4, it is pretty steep in there. Are we talking about maybe jogging this easement around the tree line and back up? Phipps: I like staying out of that area and coming in the front on 1, 2, 3 and four. What we can do is come up a lot line 25' or so the utilities aren't right against the road there. Come up the lot lines and set it back on the lots there. Hennelley: On lots one through four I don't think that will be a problem. It is pretty wooly back in there on the back side. That shouldn't be a problem. Phipps: Between 17 and 18 a 20' UE and then six 4" going across just getting over to lot 1. Any relocation of existing facilities will be at the developer's expense. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: That is fine, I think we did miss one between 6 and 7, a 20' UE north and south. Are they going to widen Salem Road? Hennelley: No, it is the existing width of the road. Gibson: I think the pole line pretty well sits back to the houses. You probably won't have to move anything unless you widen it. Hennelley: You should be in good shape Technical Plat Review June 18, 2003 Page 8 Warrick: We have a few utilities not here. You will need to get those comments from telephone and anyone else. Warrick: North Hills Subdivision, we have a North Hills subdivision, have you spoken with Jim Johnson in 911 about the naming? Hennelley: No. Warrick: Would you check with Jim Johnson and make sure that we're clear about the name of the subdivision? He will want to review the names of the other inside streets also to make sure there are no conflicts. Pate: We will need 30 copies by June 25th at 10:00 a.m. Hennelley: Thank you. Technical Plat Review June 18, 2003 Page 9 LSD 03-17.00: Large Scale Development (Landers Auto Park, pp 248) was submitted by Matt Crafton, P.E. of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Don Nelms, General Partner for Nelms, L.L.C. for property located at 1352 W Showroom Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and A-1 (A -R), Agricultural and contains approximately 42.82 acres. The request is for a 3,200 s.f. Hummer dealership in the seven acres of parking area approved in November 2002, , a 1,210 s.f. expansion of the Auto Body Shop with 55 additional parking spaces west of the Auto Body Shop, construction of a 1,210 s.f. Detail Building, additional parking for the display area and a new Greeting Station. Pate: The next item on the agenda is LSD 03-17.00 for Landers Auto Park. Crafton: Brian Black with Black, Corley and Owens, our architect on this could not be here. I will try to answer the architectural questions. Pate: Hwy. 112 here is a principal arterial on the Master Street Plan. You need to go ahead and dedicate the full 55'. Right now it is 53.81' existing. Warrick: I am not sure why that hasn't been done in the past. We didn't find any record or specific reason. Some of it may have been reclassified but I don't really think that is it but the requirement is 55' from centerline. Pate: We also need to move this 50' building setback. I know we sent a letter to you guys talking about that a little bit but we need to go ahead and just remove it from the plat. Crafton: Just all together, don't show any setback at all? Pate: There on the northern side. Any setbacks from the property line may not contain any structure 30" above the ground. This is in regard to primarily this structure here that is in the setback. We are going to need some elevations or photos or some information about that Hummer test track down there. If it is 30" we can't allow it in the setback. Warrick: We assumed people would want more than 30" to play on a Hummer. Crafton: It will be well over 30". Warrick: It is probably going to need to be relocated behind the structure somewhere off of that setback area. Pate: Do you know if this parking area was intended to be a display? Crafton: No, I don't believe so. It is for the auto body shop. Technical Plat Review June 18, 2003 Page 10 Pate: We are going to need the landscape requirements for that including tree islands per the tree ordinance. Staff is requesting a break down of all the parking on this Landers Auto Park to see what is display and what is actually for use just to verify that we have all the interior landscape islands and those requirements are met and the number of parking spaces are met. I have looked at them and you are required four spaces for each enclosed service area. Those comments are in the ordinance as well. A chart on the plat would be real helpful for that. No part of any building expansion or parking lot expansion shall be permitted within the regulatory floodway. This area here for the proposed auto body shop is in the floodway. I know you guys have been talking with Jim about getting the CLOMR and LOMR done. That is something that floodplain has comments on as well. You need to get that in action. Crafton: We are in the process of getting the CLOMR done. Warrick: Do you have any information as far as documentation that you sent that we might be able to put in the file to show progress on that? Crafton: We will have it. We don't have it yet but we will have it. Do you need a submittal letter or something? Warrick: We need something that shows that you are moving forward with that progress. Pate: Until the map amendment is made we can't permit the structures within the floodway. Part of the application here does fall under the Design Overlay District, the Hummer dealership and this new parking here and does need to comply with the Overlay District requirements. I have listed them out here for you, I won't go over all of them. As far as elevations, elevations will be required for all buildings. We do have those. The north and south elevations need to reflect the existing structures a little bit more and have a little more articulation. This looks like a shadow line. This needs brought out, they need to do something with these two elevations so it looks like that as well and wrap that around the building at some point. The ordinance specifically states you can't have any unarticulated buildings. I think we need to modify these elevations just a bit to help with that. Warrick: We probably need to go through some of those comments with the architect. Will he be available some time this week or next? Crafton: I'm sure he can. Warrick: If you would let him know that we would like to do that. Technical Plat Review June 18, 2003 Page 11 Pate: Just a reiteration, we will need some information on the test track, whether it is elevations or a letter stating what the intended use is out there. Crafton: The intended use is for Hummers They don't test drive Hummers on city streets. They build their own test drive area on site. Pate: Anything facing a right of way will need to be architecturally made clear. On signs, I noticed that the Hummer sign looks like it is on the roof and that is not permitted so we will have to alter that. It also can't be more than 20% of the actual facade that it is on. Crafton: That is Hummer's standard but we understand the city's requirements and will comply with those. Pate: All lighting shall be shielded and directed downward to the parking lot and shall not exceed 35' in height and utilize sodium lighting fixtures. Any other type of fixture will need to be a written letter of a waiver request and it will have to be approved by the Planning Commission. Warrick: 1 think in the past they have requested metal halide and to be consistent with the lights in this new parking area then a written request for that waiver will need to be brought forward. Casey: Isn't the lighting approved for this already? Warrick: They did talk extensively about the lighting for those new areas. Casey: I think they would have to have approval for this and the new parking area. Warrick: I guess that would be for the new lot, the body shop. When they did the large scale for the parking lot along I-540 they did address lighting I remember that specifically. With this new large scale I would like them to be specific with their requests and keep all of our documentation together. Pate: Our landscape requirements, the 25' UE that you have shown along here is also an area where you will be planting required landscaped. That is something that might not be allowed. You will have to shift that back out of the utility easement which may alter a little bit of your configuration here. We will also need shrubs planted where the parking lot faces out towards the right of way. A continuous row of shrubs all along any parking areas facing public right of way. Crafton: In addition to the trees that we have done? Technical Plat Review June 18, 2003 Page 12 Pate: Yes. Carnagey: Those trees can be planted in groups as well. You have a continual line. Crafton: We've got some groupings within the site. Pate: I will go to Engineering at this point. Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: Matt, the detention pond, we talked about this the other day, it shows the trickle channel through it, remove that. I had a question about the water line on sheet four. The water line shows the ending with the two valves but the new line will be coming as a tap off of that instead of connecting to the end of the line with valves. Is there a reason for that? I think that was intended to be stubbed out there to be connected to that valve, we can provide that. Also, if you could replace the 90° bend with two 45's, that has been a policy that we have adopted. The rest are just some minor comments on the drainage report. I went ahead and reviewed these as if it was final construction plans. You submitted enough information for us to go ahead and review it as that. I just made that requirement for that. It is not required for preliminary but we will go ahead and get them approved as long as they don't change through the process and after Planning Commission you will be ready to go. Crafton: These other comments then are on the drainage report itself? Casey: Yes. Craig Carnagey — Tree & Landscape Administrator Carnagey: I spoke with Brian Black on Monday and went over all of my comments for tree and landscape. Jeremy went over a few just now and I will follow up with Brian when we meet again later in the week. Pate: There are no comments from Parks. If you will notice in your packet there are quite a few comments from Jim Beavers, the floodplain administrator. Basically what we talked about before, the update on the status of what you are doing here for the wetlands for that Clabber Creek map amendment. No construction shall be authorized without a floodplain development permit and no buildings shall be permitted within the regulatory floodway. Do you have any questions about those? Black: Please clarify the base flood elevation? Technical Plat Review June 18, 2003 Page 13 Pate: You can talk with Jim about those. Utility comments? Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop. Phipps: No comment. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: I think they are going to place an electric transformer out here just on the other side of this drain. I would ask for a 4" from this transformer running back from there to the inside of the Hummer building. Approximately 6' or so on either side of this transformer. As long as it is not in front I can swing out of the cabinet and inside the Hummer building to the equipment room. Also our D Mark for this whole project is actually the Toyota building. From the Toyota building we ran from there to everyone of these buildings with a distribution line and we were requested to come up inside the buildings so we did. The only D Mark that we have for distribution for this is actually inside the used car building. We would also request that when they start this the electrician or somebody gives us an exit point out of this out to this easement either with a conduit or we can furnish the wire and they can get it up in there to the end of where our distribution line is now. Crafton: Let me make sure I understand exactly what you are asking for. We have a transformer down here, you want additional conduit ran from here to the inside of the used car building? Gibson: Right. It is not going to be easy. I don't know exactly how or what they are going to do but we need to get out of that building out to this easement and then from here we will take it. Of course they've got cable TV in all of their waiting rooms and they are using our data service and everything so I am sure they probably will want to make sure that it gets put in there. You may want to let the electrician know that there is an issue with this and when he starts this building I will be glad to meet with him. Crafton: We will have our electrical engineers give you a call. Do you have a card? Gibson: 717-3765, Larry Gibson. That is all I have. Casey: I have a couple of comments that I just thought of. That water line crosses the floodway and the wetlands, you need to make sure that you get the appropriate permits for that construction and also we will need an easement a minimum of 10' on each side of that. Technical Plat Review June 18, 2003 Page 14 Crafton: Casey: Crafton: Casey: Crafton: Casey: Pate: Crafton: Pate: Crafton: We ran the sewer line across it as well. The same thing, both of those comments would apply. I think we can get gravity sewer all the way to the north with a man hole up here. I do want to clarify though with this being reviewed as a final that water and sewer will need detailed plans for that and get Health Department approval prior to pre -construction conference. Right, we will need a 20' easement? Yes, around the line. Coordinate with any other utilities to get their comments back and we will need 30 copies by June 25th at 10:00 a.m. If you will just let Brian know as well. Are you available any particular days this week? We will look at our calendars, just give us a call. Thank you very much. Technical Plat Review June 18, 2003 Page 15 LSP 03-43.00: Lot Split (Hoskins/Brookhaven, pp 214) was submitted by Mel Milholland of Milholland Company Engineering & Surveying on behalf of Tracy Hoskins for property located at Lot 32, Brookhaven Estates. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential (RSF-4), and contains approximately 47,581.21 s.f. The request is to split the tract into two tracts of 13,406.43 s.f. and 34,174.78 s.f. Pate: Warrick: Milholland: Warrick: Pate: Milholland: Warrick: Next on the agenda is the Lot Split for Hoskins at Brookhaven. From Planning, we will need the waiver requests for street frontage improvements and access to a residential lot will have to be determined by the full Planning Commission. This waiver that you are requesting about this frontage will have to go to the full Planning Commission. Can we get a written request stating the ordinance section on that? Do you have one? The ordinance section is 164.16. It is in your comments. We will also need you to contact the Solid Waste and Fire Department to see if there is safe turn around. Solid Waste needs a turn around. I thought this went through In House. We have not received comments from those divisions at this point in time. Code Section 164.16 states that the Planning Commission can only grant a waiver if adequate preventions for fire protection and service turnarounds are provided so we are requesting that you get those comments from those divisions so that they can analyze this request and make a determination and a recommendation to the Planning Commission about adequate access. Milholland: I need to get written response from them? Pate: Milholland: Warrick: Pate: Yes. You can talk to Travis Dotson with Solid Waste. Fire and Solid Waste, and just provide them to you? Right. You can provide them to me before or with your written request for a waiver. We also need a floodplain reference stated on the site plan somewhere. Dimension and label the right of way since we do have frontage on to Bellshire here on this original lot. Milholland: I'm not following. Do we not have the dimensions on here for you? Technical Plat Review June 18, 2003 Page 16 Warrick: This 25', if this is a 50' right of way we need it dimensioned here. Pate: You also need to indicate the property owner and developer on the plat somewhere, that is part of the requirements from the check list. Milholland: It is in the title block. Pate: Strike that. Which drive does this existing house access? Milholland: I'm most certain it is this one here. Warrick: Could you show the driveway location? Pate: The septic system, Matt will make some comments on that. We have that on file in the county. We just need to make sure we have county approval prior to filing the lot split. Milholland: Are you talking about the sanitarian? Warrick: We need approval of the septic system prior to approval of the lot split. Pate: We also need a written request for street frontage, which I already talked about. We need to connect this lot to water prior to filing of the lot split. Casey: It looks like you could shift that lot line a few feet and get the water line on the created lot. You can either do that or extend the main, whichever one you prefer. Milholland: It would be easier to draw the line than it would be to extend the main. Our setback, we have got a 20' setback. Warrick: It is actually an 8' setback because that is a side, you have got two fronts. This is a 25' setback and this is a 25' setback. This is an 8' and this is an 8'. Milholland: Ok. I think that our Final Plat calls for it to be 30' here. If it is 8' here and 8' here, that would be great. Warrick: City requirements require it to be 8' but if the covenants require more that is fine. Pate: Are there any other comments from Engineering? Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Technical Plat Review June 18, 2003 Page 17 Casey: Milholland: Casey: You've already talked about the septic. I know I've talked with Mr. Hoskins and I guess the soil was exceptional out there. They have already performed this test, it was submitted with the application. That shouldn't' be a problem then as long as they are approving that. You and I have both talked about the street extension. I agree that if we construct that if that is ever connected it is going to be torn out. As long as we can satisfy the comments of the Fire Department and Solid Waste then I will support the driveway as proposed. Kim Hesse — Park Coordinator Hesse: Pate: It is one additional lot, $555. Utilities? Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop. Phipps: Milholland: Gibson: Milholland: Phipps: Milholland: Phipps: Milholland: Gibson: Mel, we have got a transformer down right here at 32. It would be up to this person to supply conduit wherever they are building to this point. Utility easements would go in, that is their point of access that they are going to have to get to. It's on top of a manhole? No, that is not exact. It is not on top of anything. You are saying from that transformer through here. It looks like they would need a UE from here somewhere. He owns this here. We could make that an 8' UE. He doesn't own this lot here. Also, this whole 30' right here is a UE too. He'd have to go up front and then he has got a driveway that he is going to have to boar under. Is 8' sufficient for you all to put conduit in there? I don't know about Mike but I would ask him to supply conduit from here to my pedestal location is right next to the transformer. If he wants to go Technical Plat Review June 18, 2003 Page 18 in there and put one in for electric and then one in for us and just dig one time and turn it up. Phipps: I am not going to dig it, I'm not going to do anything. He is going to have to do everything but before we put our wire in it, it will be in a designated and recorded utility easement. Milholland: Ok, so is 8' sufficient? Gibson: If he can get all of his conduits in there that is fine with me. Milholland: Will we need two or three? Phipps: Depending on what size we would request a 3". Gibson: I could use a 3" also. Where they bring them up on these comers here just make sure there is separation between them. We can't go inside an electric transformer or anything. Milholland: How much separation do you need? Gibson: Mainly this one back here. We have got an existing pedestal right here that you could bring it up beside it. Just make sure they are 3' or 4' away from where the transformer is going to set. If he wants to dedicate that as an 8' UE and then he can get his conduits in there within that 8' that is fine with me. Milholland: I don't know what the Gas is going to say. Gibson: I don't know where their gas meter is set. Their telephone is right here by these, all three of us are right there. Wherever he puts them that does need to be dedicated as a UE. Milholland: Just use the same depth pattern we used on the other details put two on top of the other? Phipps: It is going to be 242' here, he is going to have to go at least 48" for us because what we are going to do is probably have to put another transformer up here. Milholland: I think the detail I have is 48" for two conduits and then put separation and put two more conduits in it. Gibson: We can come up to a minimum of 30" in depth. Technical Plat Review June 18, 2003 Page 19 Milholland: I will put two more conduits with a 3' separation or something like that. All of them 3"? I would rather use a 4". Phipps: Fours are probably easier to get to. That is pretty standard, two 4". Milholland: Ok, I don't know what the other two want so I am going to just put four in. Pate: Mel, is this sidewalk constructed already? Warrick: It says a proposed sidewalk, is it sidewalk along Bellshire that that would connect to? Milholland: I think there is sidewalk down to here, we're just adding this piece to it. Warrick: The alternative would be to request a fee in lieu of sidewalk construction which would be $630 for the new. In this case it would probably be reasonable to do that. Milholland: Do you want that in writing too? Warrick: No, we'll make it a staff condition. Milholland: Ok. Pate: That is all we have for this one. We will need 30 copies by the 25th at 10:00 a.m. Milholland: Did Fire and Solid Waste just not come to the meeting? Warrick: They didn't show up. They have been distributed the plat so they have the information. Milholland: Ok.