Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-07-03 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE TECHNICAL PLAT REVIEW COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee was held on July 2, 2003 at 9:00 a.m. in room 111 in the City Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, LSP 03-45.00: Lot Split (City of Fayetteville, pp 439) Page 2 LSP 03-46.00 Lot Split (Copher, pp 396) Page 4 LSD 03-18.00: Large Scale Development (Mitch Massey, pp 363) Page 5 ACTION TAKEN Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded PPL 03-12.00: Preliminary Plat (Crofton Manor, pp 323)Forwarded Page 9 LSD 03-19.00: Large Scale Development (Regions Bank, pp 174) Page 15 R-PZD 03-04.00: Planned Zoning District (Lazenby Apartments, pp560) Page 19 STAFF PRESENT Matt Casey Dawn Warrick Jeremy Pate Craig Camagey Rebecca Turner UTILITIES PRESENT Mike Phipps, Ozark Electric Coop. Larry Gibson, Cox Communications Forwarded Tabled STAFF ABSENT Perry Franklin Danny Farrar Travis Dotson Renee Thomas UTILITIES ABSENT Glenn Newman, AEP/ SWEPCO Johny Boles, Arkansas Western Gas Sue Clouser, Southwestern Bell Technical Plat Review July 2, 2003 Page 2 LSP 03-45.00: Lot Split (City of Fayetteville, pp 439) was submitted by Bart Petray of the City of Fayetteville for property located at 4023 W. Wedington Drive. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and R -A, Residential Agricultural and contains approximately 3.98 acres. The request is to split the property into two tracts of 2.00 acres and 1.98 acres respectively. Pate: Petray: Pate: Good morning everyone. We will start the meeting for Technical Plat Review of July 2, 2003. Is there anyone here for the first item on the agenda, the Property Line Adjustment for Latta? We have an administrative item also for the Estates at Salem Hills and that can be approved administratively. The first item I think we have is the Lot Split for the City of Fayetteville. Do we have anyone here besides ourselves representing the city? We will go over this and take the utility comments. The only comment that we have about the Lot Split here is you need to go ahead and label from centerline that the right of way is 45'. We have the correct right of way on here. That should be 45'? Yes Sir. Water and sewer are obviously going to be extended to serve the development and I think that is in process right now. Matt? Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: Pate: Nothing additional. Utilities? Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop. Phipps: Any relocation of existing facilities will be at the developer's expense. Johny Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: I would like for you to show a 20' utility easement on the west side of Rupple Road. That is all I have. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: That 20' UE is the same thing I was going to ask for. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: That easement is fine. Technical Plat Review July 2, 2003 Page 3 Pate: Those are all of our comments, we need those revisions made as soon as possible, 30 copies of those by noon. Technical Plat Review July 2, 2003 Page 4 LSP 03-46.00 Lot Split (Copher, pp 396) was submitted by Vance Copher for property located at 6460 Double Springs Road. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single- family, 4 units per acre and contains .82 acres. The request is to split the lot into two tracts of 0.41 acres each. Pate: The next item is a Lot Split for Copher. Do we have a representative? Ok, it was submitted by Vance Copher for property located at 6460 Double Springs Road. Does anyone have any comments for this? I will take utilities comments on this since there is not an applicant available. Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop. Phipps: Any relocation of the existing facilities will be at the owner's expense. Johny Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: No comment. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: No comment. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: No comment. Pate: Engineering, did you have any further comments? Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: My main concern was was it feasible for septic. Unless they have just awesome soil I don't see it happening. Pate: We will contact the applicant about that. Technical Plat Review July 2, 2003 Page 5 LSD 03-18.00: Large Scale Development (Mitch Massey, pp 363) was submitted by Brett Watts of Engineering Design Associates on behalf of Mitchell Massey for property located in Lot 6, Pine Valley S/D Ph. V. The property is zoned RMF -24, Residential Multi -family, 24 units per acre (R-2, Medium Density Residential) and contains approximately 1.90 acres. The request is to build a two story 4-plex with 3 bedrooms each for a total of 12 bedrooms. Pate: Watts: Solak: Pate: Watts: Pate: Moving onto the Large Scale Development for Mitch Massey on Pine Valley Subdivision Phase five. Would you guys state your names for the record here? Brett Watts with Engineering Design Associates. Brian Solak with Engineering Design Associates. From Planning, I know when this came through as a Final Plat there were some comments about minimum frontage on this lot six. You are required to have 90'. I am not sure you quite make it as shown on here. I know the right of way needs to follow this street here. That is not the way that the Final Plat was platted. This lot just to our south in Phase I they have the right of way coming up and around to meet ours so I think it only gives us 60' of frontage. What we will need to do because it is an R-2 zoned district, we will have to go through the Board of Adjustment, which is another review process. We will need an application for a variance for that. We can get that to you guys. They will have to grant the variance for that lack of frontage. We need to make sure the zoning is correct on here. I think to the east it should be I-1, Light Industrial. You need to add Plat Page 363 to the site plan somewhere. Include a legal description on this site plan also. Watts: Would that not just be lot six of Pine Valley Phase V? Pate: Do you have it listed somewhere here? Ok, I see it now. That should be good. Thanks. Go ahead and list the building height there if you would of that structure. Watts: I have it shown, it is 35 1/4'. Pate: We just need to make sure that all setbacks are ok for that. I think you are fine. Label setbacks front and rear 25' and the sides are 8'. Sidewalks along Wildwood Drive need to conform to local street standards with a minimum 4' sidewalk and 6' along the frontage. I think you guys have that shown. I think the concern there was I wasn't sure what the right of way was doing there. It should be ok. Again, the same comment about Technical Plat Review July 2, 2003 Page 6 the right of way. All utilities need to be located underground. July 9th is your revision deadline. We need 30 copies. Matt? Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: I just need you to show a drainage easement, a minimum of 10' on each side of this pipe and around the end. Most of my comments were standard on the sidewalk comments. The drainage report I would like you to clarify. On the map it shows the areas as one through four on the drainage areas and on the table it has them lettered, if you could clarify those and be consistent so we don't have to guess. Item number nine those aren't required for the preliminary drainage report but they will be on your final drainage report if you want to go ahead and provide them now that is ok. I can go ahead and review as a final with the concept to speed up the process as it is passed through the Planning Commission. Other than that, I only have standard comments. Pate: Landscape Administrator? Craig Carnage)/ — Landscape Administrator Carnagey: I am going to need the tree canopy square footage on here. It should tell what is preserved and what is removed as well as mitigation. On your note down here, tree protection fencing, I would like for you to say with signage as well. I need both fencing and signage to be installed. That is all I have. Rebecca Turner — Parks and Recreation Turner: As you may know, the Parks and Recreation is doing a trails and alternative transportation master plan. We've identified this as a trail corridor. Steve Hatfield will be contacting you about the possibility of providing a trail easement along that. Just to kind of let you know. Solak: Will that be on the south side of the creek? Turner: It will be on the south side of the creek. Solak: t think the owners of this property want that. Turner: Wonderful. That is great. Pate: I do have a couple of comments that are included in your packet from Planning. No work will be done within the floodplain without a floodplain development permit. We need to stake that floodplain. Finished floor must be 2' or higher above the floodplain elevations. Technical Plat Review July 2, 2003 Page 7 Comments from the Fire Marshall's office, there is a hydrant needed. The entry of the drive at the intersection of Wildwood and the drive on the east side. Solak: The closest one is on the other end of the block toward. Pate: You can call Captain Curry, 444-3449 and he will be able to help you out with that comment. There is also a comment from the Solid Waste and Recycling Division. It says we request that the plat show a designated area for two cubic yard trash receptacle. The division requires large trash receptacles for multi unit dwellings of four or more tenants. Outside should also meet specifications of 12x5 with a concrete approach of 12x8. That should be in your packet as well. Those are all the comments that we have. Utilities? Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop. Phipps: The 27' front setback should be front setback and UE. We stopped our tower when they built this development on lots five and six. Lots five and six there is a transformer there, it will be up to the owner to get his service from there to that transformer. Any relocation of our existing facilities will be at the owner's expense. Johny Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: Also at the time that we did this subdivision in Pine Valley, at the parking lot between five and six I believe we put up a six meter manifold at that point to accommodate the duplex on lot five, the four plex on lot six so our facilities are already there. They will have to run all of their lines to the southwest corner of this lot. I would also tell you that due to all of the construction in the past few years in this area our line cannot be located. Our tracer wire has been broken probably ten or fifteen times all the way down the stretch so you've got that issue to contend with. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: We are also just on the west side of this driveway probably about 4' from the electric transformer. We would ask for a 2" conduit from that area over to within 3' of the electric meter at the building. That's the only comment I had. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: Any relocation will be at the owner/developer's expense. If I need any conduit built I will call and let you know. I am assuming that we are with everybody else but I don't know for sure. That's all I have. Technical Plat Review July 2, 2003 Page 8 Pate: Revisions are due on the 9th. Thanks. Technical Plat Review July 2, 2003 Page 9 PPL 03-12.00: Preliminary Plat (Crofton Manor, pp 323) was submitted by Northstar Engineering on behalf of Aaron Nickel of Woodworks Plus, Inc. for property located at 3110 Mt. Comfort Road. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre and contains approximately 21.15. The request is for a proposed residential subdivision containing 56 lots with 56 single family dwelling units. Pate: The next item on the agenda is a Preliminary Plat for Crofton Manner submitted by Northstar Engineering. Please state your name. Blakley: Mark Blakley with Northstar Engineering. Pate: From Planning, you need to indicate all the adjacent zoning around the site just as a label. I noticed that the other streets have 50' right of way, I'm assuming you're making all of those? Yes, make sure you just get at least one label on all of those. You can talk to Jim Johnson in the GIS Department about street names specifically. He has got a couple of comments in your packet. His phone number is there also. A couple of street names have already been used so just coordinate that with him. Improvements to Mount Comfort shall include 14' from centerline with pavement, curb and gutter. It looks like it is reflecting that. Is that out lot completed in the subdivision? Blakley: No it is not. Part of the property Pate: From Planning, indicate all of the adjacent zoning around the site, just as a label. I noticed that the other streets have 50' right of ways, I'm assuming you are making all of those? Blakley: Yes, they are all 50' right of ways. Pate: Just make sure we get a label on all of those. We have talked to Jim Johnson in the GIS Department about street names specifically. He has got a couple of comments. His phone number is in the packet. He had a comment that a couple of the street names have already been used so just coordinate that with him. Improvements to Mount Comfort shall include 14' from centerline with pavement, curb and gutter. It looks like it is reflecting that. Is that out lot included in the subdivision? Blakley: No it is not a part of the subdivision. It is part of the overall property but it is not going to be a part of the subdivision. The owners are selling the land but are retaining this lot. Pate: Technically the legal right now though includes that? Blakley: Yes it does. Technical Plat Review July 2, 2003 Page 10 Pate: We will have to process a lot split to get that. It has to be approved by the Planning Commission to split that lot out to make this all a legal lot since you are not including that with this subdivision. That application is available in Planning. Sidewalks along Mount Comfort in accordance with Master Street Plan requirements for a minor arterial, 6' sidewalks with a minimum 10' greenspace. Right now all the interior streets are designated as local streets with 50' right of way. Those require a minimum of 4' sidewalk with 6' from the curb on both sides of the street. We will need to look at that. Blakley: Ok, I think I got that jumbled, I have a 4' and a 6' sidewalk. Pate: On both sides. I noticed that up here on the north side of some of these they are not located right now. Blakley: I thought the ordinance said one side. Pate: It is on both sides. Casey: For the exterior streets around, not the interior inside. We consider these to be local streets instead of residential. Blakley: So on Devonshire and Addison you need them on both sides and around Kenswick Terrace, Drakestone Avenue, and Hatterly could be one side? Casey: Yes. Kenswick, Drakestone and Hatterly on both sides and Devonshire and Addison you can have them just on one side. Blakley: Ok, I got ya. Casey: Just around the loop you need to have them on both sides. Pate: Are you going to submit covenants with this at some point with the Final Plat? Blakley: Yes, at some point there will be covenants. Pate: You just need to get that in. We are going to also require a note on the Final Plat that any access will be restricted from these lots that front on to Mount Comfort to restrict those to those interior streets. July 9`h is your revision date for 30 copies. That is on the second sheet there. Engineering? Technical Plat Review July 2, 2003 Page 11 Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: Blakley: Casey: Blakley: Casey: Blakley: Casey: Blakley: Casey: Blakley: Jeremy mentioned the street improvements out on Mount Comfort. That also includes storm drainage and there is not any shown on the plan as it is. You want it across the entire length of Mount Comfort? Right, unless that is the high point? No, the high point really is in front of this out lot. If there is water coming down the ditch here upstream of that then it is definitely going to be needed. If not, we are going to be looking at the calculations to make sure that the spread on Mount Comfort doesn't exceed what is required and if it does then you will need an inlet pipe downstream. Jeremy made a lot of my comments. Lot 20 did not look like it had access to a sanitary sewer. Ok, it looks like the line didn't show up. It should've been going across this manhole on lot 49. That is the intent of that. That really doesn't have access. We are going to need the main to extend over there and catch that some how. The access needs to be in the front of the lot and it is going to have to run at an angle across the intersection and over to get to that. I just need you to show the erosion control. The soil type needs to be on the grading plan. I have got several standard sidewalk comments. You need to add a table with the street name, street width, right of way width, greenspace width and sidewalk width on the plat. You need to include in your table for the drainage report the post development flow after the detention. It has got pre and post in the table and then it has the calculations but it needs to show in that table the post development after detention as well. There are also some items we need in the report for detention design itself'. It is missing some storm events and some outlet structure details. I would also like to see some information on how it is going to be discharged from the pond and where it is going. We are in the process of possibly trying to acquire some drainage easements. I know it is a point of discharge but we are going to try to displace it so it will make the flow a little more to the pond. We are going to need information on that prior to Planning Commission approval on where it is going and what it is doing. Yes, that is still in the design phase. We have been talking about what we are going to do. Technical Plat Review July 2, 2003 Page 12 Casey: One more thing, this was the grading application submitted and it is not our application. There is a blank one there for you if you can resubmit that to me. Blakley: Ok. Pate: Craig, do you have landscape comments? Craig Carnage)/ — Landscape Administrator Carnagey: Around all trees being preserved I am going to need tree protection fencing shown on the plan. That will include trees e, g, h and j. As well as a note describing signage required for that fencing. I also needed a specification drawing to show the method of materials used for that fencing and you can find that detail in the landscape manual. As far as landscape requirements, you are required to plant trees along this frontage here every 30'. Blakley: Ok. Rebecca Turner — Parks and Recreation Turner: Parks fees are set at $31,080 for 56 single-family units. This went to Parks Board on June 2nd. Blakley: Ok, we will get that on there Pate: The comments we made again with GIS concerning street names are in your packet. The Fire Marshall also had a few comments. All roads and entries appear to be over 20' in width, that is ok. Hydrant spacing needs to be reduced to 500' or less between hydrants. If that is not acceptable you can give them a call and ask them about that. Their comments are there. He needs additional hydrants as well. The only other comment I have is all existing overhead electric lines under 12KV need to be relocated underground. Utilities? Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop. Phipps: Any relocation of existing facilities will be at the developer's expense. The street lights, I need a few easements for the street lights. Lots 28 and 29 a 10' UE, 5' each side of the line. 40 and 41 for that street light the same thing and 52 and 53 for that street light. They are on all of the corners it looks like. I will let Johny Boles go over the easements and crossings that I need. Technical Plat July 2, 2003 Page 13 Johns Boles — Review Arkansas Western Gas Boles: Blakley: Boles: Blakley: Boles: Clouser: Blakley: Clouser: Casey: Phipps: Clouser: I guess we will address casings first, the first two are quads, just 4". Up here underneath this drainage between lot 8 and lot 56 we would like casings under that. Ok. Then up at the north woods corner under the drainage there at the detention pond we would want quads there. Just under the pipe? Yes. To balance these casings that I'm getting ready to give you we will need six 4" crossings. We will start from lots 4 and 5 over to 44 and 55 and we will also need a 20' side lot easement between lots 4 and 5, 10' off of each side. Next will be from lots 1 and 2 over to the center of lot 43 just straight across and we will also need the side lot easement between lots 1 and 2. From lot 31 to lot 32 on the west side of Kenswick Terrace from lot 25 to 26 on the north side of Mount Comfort. From lot 22 and 21 to 37 and 38 and we will also need the side lot easement between 21 and 22. From lots 17 and 18 to lot 49 and 50 and also the side lot easement for 17 and 18. We also need side lot easements, 20' between the detention pond and lot 15 in between lots 8 and 9. I would like to see a crossing over at Mount Comfort at Kinswick Terrace. I don't need it right now but for future use we would like to have that in place. Just one? I only need one. I don't know if the other utilities might be interested in having it. I was also going to ask if we couldn't extend that UE into the out lot, that 20' UE. You can get that at the lot split. With our overhead there is existing UE right there right now. Ok, well if I could get that 4" under the road there that would be great. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: Those crossings and UE's that Johny just named off are fine. The only other comment I've got along Mount Comfort here on the north side we have got existing on poles. This may not be an issue but it may be Technical Plat Review July 2, 2003 Page 14 something you want to be aware of. When they cut these trees there may be a clearance problem there as far as getting underneath our lines. We have to stay 40" from power and we are really close to that right now. We may be a little bit less than 40" from power. We can't raise it. If we have to come in and pay Ozark to set a taller pole or something like that that is going to be at the owner's expense to get the clearance. That may not be an issue guys but I wanted to bring it to your attention that it could be. Clouser: Let us know early if that is the case because it takes a little while to get it done. Gibson: They are going to be lower than ours. We are going to have to keep 15' across there. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: Any relocation will be at the owner/developer's expense. I agree with the utility easements and crossings that we discussed. If you could have the builder notify me when they start foundations if that is possible I would appreciate it. Pate: If there are no further comments or questions, revisions are due July 9th by 10:00 a.m. Blakley: Real quick, is the drainage easement required to obtain? Casey: You don't have to obtain it. We need to know what your plans are for where that water is going to go and show it on your plans. Blakley: One more question, you need this back ASAP? Casey: Just some time before pre -construction. Pate: Ok, thank you. Technical Plat Review July 2, 2003 Page 15 LSD 03-19.00: Large Scale Development (Regions Bank, pp 174) was submitted by Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Regions Bank for property located at Lot 8A Vantage Square. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 3.822 acres. Pate: The next item is the Large Scale Development for Regions Bank. I noticed in your application it has a letter requesting a tree preservation plan waiver. Craig might be able to address that here in just a second. Zion to the east is I believe C-2. Does the City of Fayetteville own that parcel? Is that where the post office is? Kelso: The post office is over here across the road. Pate: Ok. You need to add plat page 174 to the site plan. All easements need to be shown. You need to go ahead and indicate the building height for this proposed structure. Elevations show up but they need to be on the site plan too. Joyce Blvd. requires 55' from centerline, it is dimensioned at 40' right now. Kelso: Ok. Pate: That will alter your building setback a little bit. I think you are ok on greenspace requirements and everything there, just make sure about that. Vantage Drive extension, which would be a collector, requires a minimum 6' sidewalk at least 10' from the curb. Kelso: That is the one I didn't show. I didn't know what we needed to do there. Pate: That is considered a collector. That needs to be constructed to city standards. There is a 30' cross section on there, t don't think that is standard. Kelso: My understanding was there was an agreement that we would dedicate a 70' right of way but we would build a residential street now. Casey: It would be 28'. Pate: We do need four bike racks per the ordinance. The Landscape Administrator will go over his comments. I think there are additional trees along Vantage and Joyce and also there are requirements in this lawn area of a tree strip between the parking and actually in the parking area, the parking lot. Any lighting shall be shielded and directed downward from adjacent properties and attached to the building where possible. The proposed monument sign shall be a maximum of 75 sq.ft. and setback a minimum of 10' from the right of way. Any wall mounted utility equipment needs to be screened in a compatible manor with the Technical Plat Review July 2, 2003 Page 16 architectural structure. Trash enclosures also need to be screened with access not visible from the street on three sides. Could we also indicate the percentage of the site covered by the structure and parking lot? You have a maximum of 85% coverage just to make sure we have that on a chart. Thirty copies are due in by 10:00 a.m. on the 9`h. Engineering? Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: Jerry, I need you to show that radius here at the south end of the street. We need to make sure that that meets our minimum street standards. Kelso: Casey: It probably doesn't. We can build it over that easement so we could probably straighten that out some. We also need a drainage easement a minimum of 10' on each side of the outlet pipe from the detention pond. I don't see a trickle channel in the bottom of the pond. Jeremy made the rest of my comments for me. Kelso: Ok. Pate: Craig? Craig Carnagey — Landscape Administrator Carnagey: I just need you to fill out that form so we can have a copy for future use. As far as the landscape, I am going to need some sort of landscape plan with a little bit more detail on here. You can put it instead of doing a tree preservation plan since we are not submitting one anyway, you can just put it on here. There are a list of things that we need to go over as far as requirements. I need you to show irrigation on here. There are a lot of notes about the trees and shrubs being indicated on the plans. I don't recommend using silver maples as well as some of the red buds out in some of these islands. You might want to pick more of a medium sized tree for that area. Note the sizing of the plants upon installation. The shrubs need to be at least 18" within three years of planting. There are a couple of tree islands in here that will need trees in them. On your right of way we will need a tree every 30'. Kelso: We are going to try to save these trees. I don't know if you want more trees along here or not, they are there right now. Carnagey: At the minimum we are going to need a continuous planting of shrubs in there. I will talk to you a little bit more about the trees. These may work. There are a couple of Bradford pears in there I see. Pate: Rebecca, do you have Parks comments? Technical Plat Review July 2, 2003 Page 17 Rebecca Turner — Parks and Recreation Turner: I do and at the same time I should give them. Vantage Avenue is on the Tree and Trail Transportation Plan. I know that it is going to come up here eventually one day. Steve Hatfield wants to talk to you about this. He is wanting 15' lane widths on the other side of the curb and gutter. Since you have the agreement with Matt I think we need to have a discussion with Matt before we move forward. Parks and Recreation will provide both signage and symbols to indicate bikeway. Please show Mud Creek on the Vicinity Map with plans. Pate: I have one more comment from the Fire Marshall's office. They recommend that the building be sprinkled and a free standing fire depaitment connection located in the island on the north side of the parking lot within 100' from the hydrant. I think that is all we have. Utilities? Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop. Phipps: Jerry, this is real close without getting a legal or getting it in AutoCAD for sure. I think the only thing we will need is instead of four 4" crossings make it six 4" crossings. That is all I have. Johny Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: Jerry, we have an existing 4" line paralleling Joyce Street on this same side of the road so if that has to be lowered it will be done at the developer's expense. Also, we need you to show a 20' utility easement outside of the new right of way. Kelso: There is an existing 25' there. Boles: There is but aren't you being required to dedicate an additional 15'? We will need to adjust that easement back to accommodate that. That's all I have. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: Jerry, we are about 450' from this lot. If they do want cable we would probably ask them to pay part of the cost to get there. Let me know as soon as you can if they do want service there. We have got some driveways and stuff that we would have to boar under to get there. That is all I have. Technical Plat Review July 2, 2003 Page 18 Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: Kelso: Clouser: Kelso: Clouser: Pate: Kelso: Pate: I agree with the utility easement out front. Any relocation of existing facilities will be at the owner/developer's expense. We have got the fiber and we also have the buried line under the copper there. You have got both of those shown. The conduit you show a crossing at the public street and then also I'm a little confused about the easement along the public street. Where you are getting a cul-de-sac here is that Vantage? Yes. Something may go in back here and this may be just a temporary deal. As far as this alignment and how it will end up going who knows? My concern is that it shows building that road, well it shows the property line. Never mind, I'm a little confused about the easement over there. You are not building in that 10' any roadway or anything, that is going to stay clear? Yes. Ok, thank you. We will need 30 copies by the 9`h Is there anything on the architectural features? The elevations look good. Make sure that monument sign is 10' off the right of way and less than 75 sq.ft. Thank you. Technical Plat Review July 2, 2003 Page 19 R-PZD 03-04.00: Planned Zoning District (Lazenby Apartments, pp560) was submitted by Landtech Engineering, Inc. on behalf of Bill Lazenby for property located on Razorback Road on west side between Baum Stadium and State Revenue Office. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial -Light Industrial and contains approximately 8.38 acres. The request is for a Residential Planned Zoning District with office and multi -family dwellings proposed. Pate: Our last item on the agenda is Planned Zoning District for Lazenby apartments. Would you state your name please? Gabbard: I am Leonard Gabbard with Landtech Engineering. Pate: Thank you. We do need colored rendered elevations for any proposed signage for the project. I didn't see that in our packets. We also need elevations for the contractor storage structures that were added from the previous submittal up here on the north side. The elevations that we do have if you could label which direction we are looking. Looking at the elevations that we do have, a number of them seem to be dominated by what I think is metal siding but without the labels it is hard to tell. Elements specifically stated is to avoid metal siding as dominating the main facade. They are also specifically this elevation is pretty unarticulated and we need to see something a little more articulated for those structures in keeping with compatibility with the surrounding properties. That is also part of the ordinance is that you try to provide compatibility and transition between adjoining developments. We have Baum Stadium to the south and the Revenue Office up to the north. Just a housekeeping thing, this still says Large Scale Development and we are not going specifically through the Large Scale process anymore so if you could change that to Residential Planned Zoning District. We do have to go through City Council for this as I'm sure you are aware. Please provide a breakdown of floor area percentages of residential and office use for the site. We need complete property owners, property lines and zoning for all parcels adjacent to the boundaries of the project on the plat as well. A graphic scale would be real helpful too. It states 1" = 40' down here but that would be helpful to have a graphic scale. You need to verify the label. It now says building area and surface area. It is currently the same as your last submittal that was tabled and I noticed that the acreages have changed a little bit and the building structures have changed. It may have stayed the same percentage but we just need to verify that and make sure it didn't come from the last plat. We also need a boundary survey and legal description with a surveyor's seal. We don't have a seal on here. We need that dated and signed so that we can know that we are looking at a true and accurate survey here. Label plat page 560 on the site map. The vicinity map too if we could locate these access drives to these contractor storage units I believe the street names are office storage and warehouse drives, if we could locate that on the vicinity map that would be helpful. Technical Plat Review July 2, 2003 Page 20 Gabbard: We need to do a blow up of that on the map so that you can see that a little bit better. Pate: That would be helpful. Just show the access here so we can tell how those are being accessed. Utility easements need to be dimensioned and located. All new utilities need to be placed underground. If you could on the labels with the elevations list the elevations of what the structures are and make sure we know how tall those buildings are. Do you know where we are on the wetlands delineation out here? Gabbard: Yes, we submitted the EGIS report with the very first submittal. I may have to get another copy but it has been delineated. So on that comment it is ok to say it's ok? Casey: You might provide a copy to my office. Pate: Any tree preservation trees that are being used as your tree preservation canopy we need a specific plan that says tree preservation plan. I think Craig will go over that in just a second so you can direct any of those questions to him. For street requirements, Razorback Road is a principal arterial and requires a 6' sidewalk and a minimum 10' of greenspace. The rest of those comments are basically standard sidewalk regulation comments. Determination of Razorback Road improvements. Matt can go over that in a little bit more detail. Casey: We went out there and looked at it yesterday and we are going to be looking at the need for a left turn lane on Razorback. Gabbard: We would have to coordinate with Shane down at the Highway Department, has this determination been made? Casey: Not yet. We will have to make a recommendation to the Planning Commission on this. Gabbard: Is that something that we need to get Shane involved with? Casey: That is probably a good idea. Gabbard: He usually comes up here on Tuesdays so maybe I can get him. Casey: That would be great, let's do that. Pate: Your proposed lighting we just need to make sure we follow the standards for that. They need to be installed on each cul-de-sac on one side of the street no more than 300' apart and indicate all existing and proposed street Technical Plat Review July 2, 2003 Page 21 lights. If you have any names for your private streets those need to be coordinated as well. Gabbard: See Jim? Pate: Yes Sir. The radius for any centerline curve for all proposed drives needs to be shown as well just so we know what those radius are so we can make sure we can get service vehicles back in there. Parking and driveway requirements, we need two bike racks for the office parking based on the square footage proposed here and five racks for the residential development. Also dimension the curve radius of the entry off of Razorback Road. I will let Matt go over the engineering comments. Any trash enclosure needs to be screened on three sides and not visible from the street. Also locate any signs that are proposed. I have also attached the section of the ordinance that refers to the Residential Planned Zoning District and if you could provide a letter addressing the purpose and intent of the Residential Planned Zoning District is so that we can understand how this project complies and meets that intent and purpose of the PZD. Gabbard: Ok, thank you. Pate: Engineering comments? Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: Leonard, a lot of these comments were made the last time and haven't been met yet. We are still asking for the connection for this water line to connect to just over the property line here to create this loop. Also, the detention design, we don't quite have all of the information we need. Our manual requires a final design and I have listed several things that it needs to be a final design. As submitted I couldn't do a complete review on it. You need to submit the drainage area maps. There was one inlet report but I couldn't read it and it wasn't detailed enough. It probably needs to be on a plan sheet. More pond information. It is an irregular shape and we have only got two elevations shown in the report and the areas for that. The grading plan didn't have any contours on it so I need a complete grading plan. Our grading ordinance is pretty specific on what is required. Gabbard: We will also show contours. Casey: The retaining walls, next Tuesday if we meet you and I need to discuss the retaining wall there on the south side because right now it doesn't meet our setbacks. We have got setbacks from utility easements and setbacks from property lines. We need to see if we can work out a solution for that. That comment is not no the sheet there. Technical Plat July 2, 2003 Page 22 Gabbard: Casey: Gabbard: Casey: Review Ok, so we need to meet on the retaining wall as well. Yes, if we are going to be meeting we might as well throw that around. I think we all concurred at our in house that numerous things were lacking on this so we probably want to see this at this level again with these revisions. I guess what I wanted to do is make sure, we've batted this thing around quite a bit and I wanted to make sure that the layout is finally getting satisfactory and then I will go on with this in much more detail. We have started off on this trying to give you guys what we thought you wanted to see. If I get a thumbs up with this plan right here then we can move forward with this. At any rate that is my response to a lot of those comments. Ok, those are the only comments I have. Craig Carnagey — Landscape Administrator Carnagey: Gabbard: Carnagey: I am in the same situation as Matt. I have more questions than answers. I need a site analysis plan which hopefully once you get this surveyed will start to give me some conclusions about things such as land area. It looks like it has shifted from the last time you submitted it has gone down. There are several trees that you previously submitted as existing that are no longer shown on your plan. I need to find out a little bit more about the exact parameter of the site and what is there. I am going to give you a site analysis check list. I also need a tree preservation plan showing where the trees are that you are proposing to preserve, the ones that you are proposing to remove, square footage and percentage of existing being removed. Based on the current number you submitted there may be some mitigation requirements which we need to talk about. Basically I am going to hand you a check list as well on tree preservation plan requirements. Instead of going down the list of things that I need to see other than those we can get together and talk about things if you need to talk to me more about specifics. Some of that stuff on the sheet you are looking at there is obviously preserved and existing canopy. I guess that we just need to get together and Don and I need to get this in a format that you want to see. I went over the large stuff. The check list should give you more specifics. I just need a lot more education on what is going on out there. On your tree chart you are showing all of these trees being low priority which I am going to double check on the wetlands report and figure out exactly where we are on that whether they are low or medium. What I have seen out there the very minimum is medium trees. We will need to talk a little Technical Plat Review July 2, 2003 Page 23 more about that. I am more than happy to meet with you and go over some details. I have a whole other series of landscape requirements. Parking lots in front of buildings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 require interior landscaping. Types of trees and shrubs need to be indicated on the plan. The trees planted along the right of way every 30' linear feet with a continuous planting of shrubs. There are several other notes here. Do you have a copy of the tree and landscape manual? Gabbard: Yes. I am sitting in for Don Hillis and he has worked through this before. We just need to get you what you want to see. Carnagey: Like I said, I think that the notes you have here should give you a general idea and there are specific check lists to help you out. If we need to meet just let me know. Gabbard: When he gets back off of vacation I am going to give him this and say make you happy. Rebecca Turner — Parks and Recreation Turner: This was heard at the May Parks Board meeting but with the new revisions, it is scheduled to be heard at the July 7, 2003 meeting. Gabbard: I think Mr. Lazenby would be more than happy to do like we did before and do the money in lieu of or combination of money and land. Right now we don't show any land for parks. At this point he wants to get going with this. Turner: Ok, the Parks Board will need to review it with this new layout. Can you write a letter requesting that the Parks Board review it so that we have that request to give to them? Gabbard: Yes, we can get that there tomorrow. Pate: I do have another comment from Solid Waste and Recycling, your container locations, any doubled up or side by side locations need to be 24x10 minimum and those comments are in your packet as well. Dawn? Warrick: Did you all want to comment now or wait until we see this back at Plat Review? Gibson: We are going to wait. When we see exactly where the buildings are and the trees and everything else then we will. I think right now we would just be wasting our time. Technical Plat Review July 2, 2003 Page 24 Warrick: Turner: Gabbard: Turner: Warrick: Turner: Gabbard: Pate: The last two things that I have are impact fees are now in effect for the City of Fayetteville for Water and Wastewater connections. In order for us to determine appropriate impact fees for this project I need for you to contact the meter operations division and get the appropriate sizing for meter sizes for anything that is non-residential within the development. Those sizes need to be noted on your plat so that we know what the requirement will be at the time of permit and we can get that into the system so there is no problem with payments when the permit comes through and the meter sets are requested. The residential fees will be based upon the number of units and there is a break out of the fees schedule on the front desk of the Building Safety Division or scattered around in various other locations if you need that. Leonard, there is a lot of information that we still need in order to give you the answers that you are looking for as far as whether or not this layout is going to be completely acceptable the way that it is. Because of the information that is still needed with regard to Engineering and Tree Preservation we are not able to say yes this is it, this is what we need to take to the next level. What I am requesting is that you go back and review the comments that you received and I would request that we set up a presubmittal meeting before you bring revisions back to go into a next review cycle. At that point in time I would expect that Parks will have seen it and made a final determination on what they wish to do. If there is another change to the layout they are going to have to see it again. I would caution that it may be in the developer's best interest to wait until you guys have had a presubmittal meeting. I think it is in the developer's best interest to wait. Every time that this goes through it does have to go to the City Council if it is a waiver of our park land ordinance and if it is money in lieu of land. It is quite an effort that is wasted if the layout is going to be changed. What you are saying is we're not going to hear it on Monday. We will hear it if you want us to hear it. We need to have that presubmittal meeting to understand that everything is basically in the layout that it is going to state in before Parks Board decides, is that where we're going? I do think that would be best. Ok, so we are going to wait until Don comes back and satisfies these things. Thank you all. Meeting adjourned.