HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-07-30 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
TECHNICAL PLAT REVIEW COMMITTEE
A regular meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee was held on July 30, 2003 at
9:00 a.m. in room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain,
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
ITEMS CONSIDERED
LSP 03-47.00: Lot Split (Edens, pp 366)
Page 2
LSD 03-20.00: Large Scale Development
(Crossroads Mini Storage, pp 566)
Page 5
R-PZD 03-06.00: Planned Zoning District
(Benton Ridge, pp 527)
Page 13
STAFF PRESENT
Matt Casey
Jeremy Pate
Renee Thomas
Craig Carnagey
UTILITIES PRESENT
Mike Phipps, Ozark Electric Coop.
Johny Boles, Arkansas Western Gas
ACTION TAKEN
Forwarded
Forwarded
Forwarded
STAFF ABSENT
Perry Franklin
Travis Dotson
Danny Farrar
UTILITIES ABSENT
Glenn Newman, AEP/ SWEPCO
Larry Gibson, Cox Communications
Sue Clouser, Southwestern Bell
Technical Plat Review
July 30, 2003
Page 2
LSP 03-47.00: Lot Split (Edens, pp 366) was submitted by Mrs. Calvin Edens for
property located on the southeast corner of Leverett Avenue and Sycamore Street. The
property is zoned RMF -24, Residential Multi -family, 24 units per acre and contains
approximately 3.64 acres. The request is to split the subject property into two tracts of
1.01 and 2.63 acres respectively.
Pate:
Welcome to the Tech Plat Review Committee meeting for July 30, 2003.
The first item we will talk about is item number two, a Lot Split for Edens.
This is a lot split for 3.64 acres and splitting these two lots. Planning
comments, change the zoning designations that are listed here to our
current ones. The R-2 zone here is no longer in effect. It is called RMF -
24 so we just need to change those so they are requested correctly on the
plat.
Edens: That is Residential Multi -family, 24 units per acre, ok.
Pate:
That plat page needs to be changed from 405 to 366. I think you just have
the wrong plat page listed on there. The 100 -year floodplain needs to be
shown on the map as well along Skull Creek here. There are additional
comments too from the Floodplain Administrator, he has just a couple of
notes and those are in your packet. They are basically the same thing I
said and then there is one note that says change the floodplain note from
100 -year old flood to 100 -year flood. Property lines need to be adjusted,
right now they are showing in the centerline of the road and with the right
of way dedicated here your property line actually goes to the right of way
line then so you just need to show that.
Edens: Who do we have that is going to do this?
Pate: The surveyor. Most of these revisions will be for the surveyor.
Edens: Ok, so we give him this packet.
Pate: Yes Ma'am. We need to indicate the building setbacks for everything.
We will just go through all of the comments here so that you are clear on
everything. Any existing sidewalks along Sycamore go ahead and show
those including access drives. There is a parks requirement. Parks fees
are due because you created one additional lot and that is $393 for one
additional multi -family lot. That is due prior to issuance of a building
permit for that new lot.
Edens:
So if there is no building permit on that lot she doesn't have to worry
about it?
Pate: Not until you are ready to apply for a building permit. That is all we had
for Planning comments.
Technical Plat Review
July 30, 2003
Page 3
Matt Casey —
Casey:
Edens:
Pate:
Edens:
Casey:
Edens:
Casey:
Edens:
Pate:
Carnagey:
Pate:
Staff Engineer
Are you just going to sell the lot, is that the intent?
Yes, we are just going to sell the lot, I don't plan on building on it. What
about rezoning that lot eventually to C-1 or C-2? Who do we talk to?
That would go through the Planning office as well. There is an application
and we could sit down and talk to you about it if you wanted to go through
and just talk about that.
I don't see how it would be hard to get rezoned.
I need for your surveyor to clarify this sewer line. I didn't show it on my
map as being a public main, I need to know whether that is a service line
or where the public main is.
Ok.
If that is a service line in order to process this lot split we are going to
have to extend public sewer to the lot somehow because the Health
Department regulations do not allow sanitary sewer lines to cross property
lines. We would be creating a property line here so if that is a service line
it can't cross the property line. We will have to verify whether that is
public or a service line through here. That is all that I have.
Ok.
Craig, you didn't have any comments on this did you?
No.
Utilities?
Johny Boles — Arkansas Western Gas
Boles:
Pate:
No comment.
There are a few additional utility representatives that you will have to
contact. If you will go by the Planning office down the street you can pick
up a copy of all the utility representatives that you can contact to get any
easements that need to be requested. Again, your surveyor would get
those on the plat map.
Technical Plat Review
July 30, 2003
Page 4
Casey: From looking at it you are probably not going to be required to dedicate
any additional.
Pate: Everything looks like you're in good shape but we just need something
from them to say that.
Edens: I hope so.
Pate: Revisions are due August 6, 2003. That is also in your report but just to
let Mr. Blew know.
Edens: Then we come back here on the 146 correct, at 8:30 and will it be final
then if all these things are done?
Pate: Yes.
Edens: I have got that one place sold and we are suppose to close on it the 15th of
August, this here not including the lot.
Casey: We need to make sure to find out about this as soon as possible because
that could hold it up.
Edens: Go over this with me. Clarify if it is a service line or a public line.
Casey: If it is a service line then that will probably hold it up because you are
going to have to extend public sewer to the lot, to the new lot over here.
Edens: We bought all of this together. I don't know.
Casey: It would be great if it is a public line.
Edens: There must have been a house up there at one time surely because on up
this street there are houses up through there but maybe not, I don't know.
Pate: Thank you very much.
Technical Plat Review
July 30, 2003
Page 5
LSD 03-20.00: Large Scale Development (Crossroads Mini Storage, pp 566) was
submitted by Greg Webb of Freeland -Kauffman & Fredeen, Inc. on behalf of Greg &
Letecia Yarbrough for property located at 2469 E. Huntsville Road. The property is
zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.47 acres. The
request is for a mini -storage facility with 208 storage units and 31,120 SF total (680 sq.ft.
office, 30,440 sq.ft. storage) proposed.
Pate:
Next on the list is a Large Scale Development for Crossroads Mini Storage
submitted by Greg Webb on behalf of Greg and Letecia Yarbrough. This
is a mini storage facility with 208 storage units and a 680 sq.ft. office
proposed. We will go over Planning comments first and you can follow
along. The first one is just that it is not permitted by right and so it will
have to go through a Conditional Use and you do have your application in
for that. That will go through concurrently with the Planning
Commission. For plat requirements, we need you to include adjacent
property owners, names, addresses and parcel numbers on the plat here
itself. That is in writing. Add plat page number 566 to the site plan. We
need to indicate and label the 100 -year floodplain on the site plan and the
grading plan. Dimension and label the required right of way. You have it
here, we just need a dimension line here.
Webb: Ok.
Pate:
Label the building height and note the site plan. Go ahead and show the
building setbacks on the plat as well and indicate all of the easements that
are requested by the utility representatives. The waiver for the 20' is fine,
I think we have discussed that for the drive aisles. We do have a problem
with the 15' on drive aisles. There are some comments by the fire
department and by state law 20' is the minimum distance that you can
have on a drive aisle so that is something that we will need to look at.
Yarbrough: Which drive aisle are you talking about?
Pate: This one on the east side.
Webb: We are only required to have a 5' greenspace along this east side so we
might be able to make it work.
Yarbrough: So there is 5' and then 15' and that doesn't work?
Pate: I think you have more space here than you need.
Webb: We might be able to squeeze that out.
Technical Plat
July 30, 2003
Page 6
Pate:
Webb:
Yarbrough:
Pate:
Yarbrough:
Pate:
Yarbrough:
Pate:
Yarbrough:
Pate:
Yarbrough:
Casey:
Yarbrough:
Casey:
Pate:
Yarbrough:
Review
Right, as long as the grading would work out. The storage units, here I
notice that you have a screening fence. You will need to go ahead and
extend that the length of the structure along this residential.
Even though this is agricultural?
Yeah, residential doesn't go all the way back. There are two zonings here.
Right but R -A is still Residential Agricultural though. It is still considered
a residential land use type zoning.
If we want to talk about that at some point can we talk about that later?
Have you actually done a site visit?
Yes. It is a requirement and mini -storage units are specifically addressed
in our code and I think we read that section at one point and talked about
that. It is something that the Planning Commission can determine. It is a
requirement by ordinance but if it is a request.
I won't go too much into it. Part of what I'm saying is right now since
you've been there you know that all of this is pretty dense trees.
I guess there is no real way to know that those will always stay there and
so I know we talked about your building was going to be your screen but it
actually says in the ordinance that the building must be screened.
By a fence as opposed to natural?
Actually, natural vegetation is preferred.
Which is what I think that is.
Is it on your property?
It is actually on the property line. I don't want to get too much into it
now.
Can she request a waiver of that?
Yes, definitely.
I would like to prepare my thoughts a little bit better because at one point
when we talked to the owners and they said we sit on the porch and we
kind of like to look both ways and if you put that fence up they are a little
bit opposed to the fencing. It does seem a little bit, if you are walking back
Technical Plat Review
July 30, 2003
Page 7
here, if there is a house back here and then there is all this natural stuff and
15' from the property line is going to be the back of the building.
Webb: It will be 8'6" high.
Yarbrough: I don't know which they would prefer to look at. There is all this
greenspace and the back of a building or a privacy fence.
Pate:
That is something that we can talk about I think the fact that this is going
to have to go through a Conditional Use and is not permitted by right in
this zoning district is going to be sort of a speaking factor as well because
the Planning Commission will make a determination based on our
ordinance with regard to what type of screening that we have. Because it
is specifically addressed in the ordinance, that is something that they will
make a finding on specifically.
Yarbrough: I certainly understand that the ordinance is there to protect residential
people and we want to protect them too. It just seems like when you get to
site specific and you have got the situation that it may be more desirable
not to have that there.
Pate:
If there is a means by which that vegetation will always remain, if it is on
your side of the property that is something that we can definitely take a
look at and the Planning Commission will view the site at the agenda
session.
Yarbrough: I think I understand where you are going and what your thinking is so we
will decide whether or not to request a waiver on that.
Pate:
Webb:
Ok. The monument sign, I think you showed an elevation on that. It does
need to be at least 10' from that right of way, I think it is right on the right
of way right now. Any proposed utilities need to be located under ground.
Any wall or roof mounted utility equipment needs to be screened by
incorporating it into the structure in a compatible manner. I think you
have addressed that. Trash enclosures shall be screened with access not
visible from the street.
Can I ask you about that one? For instance, we have got access on this
west side, does that mean that we need to gate it or does that mean that we
cannot have access on the west side because it is visible from the street?
Pate: Just as long as primarily the intent is to keep it screened.
Webb: Oh, so you don't have access on the frontage, ok, I understand.
Technical Plat
July 30, 2003
Page 8
Pate:
Webb:
Pate:
Webb:
Pate:
Review
Just as a note here, if you would indicate the percentage of the site covered
by structure, parking lot, sidewalks, private drive, any hard surface.
Ok, so I can just add that to the site note.
Right, you did break down the building site coverage but there is a
maximum coverage of 85% and I just want to make sure that we have that
number there. August 6th is the revision deadline and we need 30 copies.
Floodplain notes from the Floodplain Administrator, show or label the
floodplain on the grading plan and any development grading construction
within the floodplain will require a formal floodplain development permit
in addition to the grading plan. If you do intend on doing construction or
grading in the floodplain that would require an additional permit. That is
available in the Planning office.
So we are doing some grading right here at the rear property we will need
that.
Yes, that permit is available in the Planning office. There are park
comments but no additional requests are being made at this time.
Engineering?
Matt Casey — Staff Engineer
Casey:
Webb:
Casey:
I have several minor comments. I won't go over all of these, they are just
notes to be added and such. I do need you to show any proposed erosion
control. Also, any retaining wall more than 4' in height has to be designed
by a registered Professional Engineer and must have a safety railing on top
of it. We now require a concrete trickle channel through the detention
ponds so we need you to add that. The biggest comment I have is the
pond is located on top of our sewer easement and our 24" force main and
we don't allow any grading on those easements so that will have to be
pulled back off of that easement. That will change the plan some.
That changes it a lot.
We have got a 50' sanitary sewer easement in there with a 24" force main
running through it. We can allow some minor grading but we don't allow
any of our utilities to go through the pond so that will have to be adjusted.
Just to let you know, an AHTD permit will be required prior to any work
done within the state right of way. I am hoping my map is wrong but I do
not show the location of the sanitary sewer line that you show. On the
map, and I went out there Monday and I didn't see a manhole either. I
saw some water meter boxes. There is one shown to come over here. It
looked like it was shown as existing, I didn't know if it was proposed.
Technical Plat Review
July 30, 2003
Page 9
Webb:
Casey:
Webb:
Casey:
Webb:
Yarbrough:
Casey:
Yarbrough:
Webb:
Casey:
Actually the manhole showed up on the survey but judging from some
cleanouts we assumed that there was a lateral that ran across the road
there.
You are showing that as a service line and you are wanting to use the
existing service?
Correct.
Just to serve the office only?
That is the only plumbing that will be on the site with just a restroom and
maybe a kitchenette maybe.
Yes, that would be nice.
What I would recommend is to contact our Water and Sewer Division and
have them take a look at the conditions of that and see if it can be reused.
If it can that will be great because you won't have to get a highway permit
and boar under the highway. That is costly.
Is that the best available and only available?
This is a force main correct?
Yes, there is a gravity line over on the other property there but still, that is
quite a ways away but that would be your best option if it is usable. I
would recommend getting them to verify that. That is all I have.
Craig Carnagey — Landscape Administrator
Carnagey:
Webb:
Carnagey:
Pate:
Greg, we spoke last Friday about resubmitting your mitigation form with
accurate replacement numbers. I also need you to identify the proposed
mitigation species and where they are going to be planted on site. We
talked about that on Friday as well. As far as your landscape plan, I need
you to show irrigation, either automatic or hose bibs.
Ok, it is shown on the utility plan but we can change that.
Yeah, put it on the landscaping plan as well as those landscape beds up
front are edged with a planting detail that needs to be placed on there as
well and then a note that they will be mulched inside those beds.
Utilities?
Technical Plat Review
July 30, 2003
Page 10
Mike Phipps
— Ozark Electric Coop.
Phipps:
Yarbrough:
Phipps:
Yarbrough:
Phipps:
Yarbrough:
Phipps:
Yarbrough:
Phipps:
Yarbrough:
Phipps:
Casey:
I only have one comment Any relocation of existing OECC facilities will
be at the developer's expense.
For instance there is some sort of pole there existing that they have a line
that goes to what used to be their shop, is that the kind of thing you are
talking about?
Yes. If it is idol now, it is not an active line it will be just retirement and
labor charges to take it out and remove it. Anything that is active and we
have to relocate to get to existing meters that are there to reroute
something it will be full cost to do something like that. Looking at this,
you've got this one overhead electric here, I guess this is where it is. If
that is gone then it will just be the labor to move it off site.
It is there right now but before we start the owner of the property is
removing all of the buildings so there will be an empty lot so there will be
a charge probably to deactivate that.
Just the labor for our guys to go out and remove it.
How do we get service for the office?
Yours is up here. We have got power along Huntsville. We could drop
over and serve you up here now. You will probably meter the office. Any
wiring that will have to be done your electrician will do it throughout the
buildings through there. Storage units you've got lights on the buildings
down through here that will be served. I don't think you are going to have
power run to every unit.
People tend to live in the units if you do that.
Right, so don't do that. Just meter up here by the office and something
like that you are probably looking at no charge from us to get that.
There is probably a meter there since it was a residence and office. It used
to be a used car lot and kind of a salvage yard.
The overhead line over here on Huntsville and this property is the 14.4 KV
line, it is over 12KV so it can remain overhead.
Anything 12KV and below will have to be put underground so we won't
have to worry about that on this one.
Technical Plat Review
July 30, 2003
Page 11
Johns Boles — Arkansas Western Gas
Boles: Is this an easement line you are showing right here?
Webb: It is actually a 15' landscape strip that is required off of the proposed right
of way.
Boles: It looks like that is 20'.
Webb: We are granting 5' additional right of way and then the 15' landscape
buffer.
Boles: This is where your new building is going to be, is that right? Am I
looking at that correctly?
Webb: There are actually four new buildings.
Boles: Where is your office building?
Webb: Right here.
Boles: I would like for you to show a 20' utility easement outside of the 5' that
you are being required to dedicate.
Webb: So 20' additional?
Boles: 20' total outside of the 5'.
Webb: They are asking for a 20' easement that runs adjacent to the proposed right
of way so we will have a 15' landscape buffer so the easement will
actually encroach 5' over this paving.
Phipps: What that is if they ever come in and widen the existing highway then we
are going to have to move those utilities back over so we need an
easement to move it into.
Yarbrough: Right, I'm very familiar with that. My current mini -storage is on
Crossover Road.
Boles: The existing service for this property if I remember right sits on the
northwest corner of that old house, where are you wanting to service?
Webb: I think we are actually showing the existing gas service for gas company
requirements and then we will just go under the drive.
Boles: What is this gas line you are showing here?
Technical Plat Review
July 30, 2003
Page 12
Webb: That is an existing gas line that runs from the house out to the shop
building.
Boles: Ok, is that service active now? Is the gas still on at that location?
Yarbrough: I wouldn't think so. The only thing that is left is the phone.
Boles: There will be an estimated $250 charge to relocate that service from its
present location to the permanent location. The contract will state actual
costs and so we just collect $250 and they will either bill the balance or
refund the difference.
Yarbrough: Ok.
Boles: Just let me know what your time frame is on wanting that moved.
Yarbrough: Ok.
Boles: I also will need load information on that building.
Pate:
As far as other utility comments, we have a list at the Planning office with
their phone numbers and contact information to get any additional
comments if necessary.
Casey: Sue Clouser with Southwestern Bell would probably be the only additional
one you need to contact.
Boles: Unless you want cable TV in your office.
Thomas: Or high speed internet.
Yarbrough: That is a good point.
Pate: That is all we have. Thank you.
Technical Plat Review
July 30, 2003
Page 13
R-PZD 03-06.00: Planned Zoning District (Benton Ridge, pp 527) was submitted by
Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. on behalf of Long LLC for property located on the east
side of Crossover Road, north of Huntsville Road and south of Wyman Road. The
property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single -family -4 units per acre and contains
approximately 8.34 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to a Residential
Planned Zoning District with twenty-two residential two-family lots and 3 professional
office lots planned.
Pate:
The last item on the agenda for today is a Planned Zoning District for
Benton Ridge submitted by Crafton, Tull & Associates for approximately
8.34 acres. The request is to rezone the property to a Residential Planned
Zoning District with twenty-two residential two-family lots and three
professional office lots. I will start with Planning comments. I believe it
is two property owners that own this property, can we just get a copy of
the deeds for those?
Zimmerman: Yes, I think I turned those in with the first submittal. I can get you another
copy.
Pate:
I will look in the old file. If not, I'll just give you a call. Some of these
comments have to do with the two commercial lots. At this point with this
submittal all we have is basically building envelopes. We can't determine
parking requirements, landscape requirements, bike racks, we don't have
color elevations or anything like that. Basically the requirements are all
still at a stance with the two commercial lots. Obviously, you don't have
those same requirements with the residential. If you are not prepared, and
I understand that you are not prepared and don't have a builder yet and
don't know what's going on yet, we still need as much information as you
can provide us.
Kelso: I think I talked with Dawn and we are getting with the architect involved
and he is giving renderings and things like that.
Pate: That would be preferable.
Kelso: We will turn those in.
Pate: Great. We will need to see if possible a sample board of materials as well.
The Planning Commission likes to see that.
Kelso: I can give an explanation of it.
Pate: We have had numerous requests for material sample boards by Planning
Commission members specifically so I just wanted to give you a heads up
on that. The same with the signage, we will need to see any elevations of
the signage that is proposed for this entire development if there is such a
Technical Plat Review
July 30, 2003
Page 14
sign proposed. A copy of the covenants that we talked about would also
assist in addressing the issues that we discussed before in our meetings.
Some of these are specifically lined out here. I am also preparing a memo
going over all the comments that we did and I will fax that to your office
and so hopefully you can address a lot of the things that we talked about in
those meetings. I will put that in the file for the record. The City Council
must approve the associated rezoning. On the site plan you need to add
your plat page. Crossover Road requires a minimum of 55' right of way.
It looks like we have it in some places and in some places we don't. That
will have to be dedicated by warranty deed. Any easements as requested
by utility representatives need to be indicated on the next revision
submittal and all new utilities must be placed underground. Anything
under 12KV needs to be relocated underground. Again, on your
commercial structures you need to label building heights. Granted, it is
primarily for informational purposes because, as you know, in a PZD you
can set your own setbacks basically. Interior streets need to be
constructed to local street standards with a 50' right of way, 28' back to
back. It looks like it is 24' right now.
Zimmerman: Is that because of the traffic?
Pate: Because they are all duplex lots.
Casey: And commercial up front you will really need the sidewalks on both sides.
Pate: They are 4' sidewalk with a minimum 6' greenspace on both sides. A lot
of the comments on the next page are just what I talked about, about the
commercial areas. We also need to indicate the landscaping as required,
15' at least from the right of way from any parking lot on Crossover Road
if you are proposing parking out in front of the commercial structures.
Again, if you push your structure to the front, which we will talk about
maybe with Craig, this area here shows up on the tree preservation area as
almost an un -buildable lot because of tree preservation. It might be
advisable to push that up further and maybe work your parking around the
back here. Access does need to be limited to the interior streets. All the
elevations and the associated signage for the commercial structures need
to be verified. Commercial design standards will apply as well. I am
going to go ahead and go through the rest of the comments. When we get
to Craig we will have quite a few of tree preservation comments. Matt, do
you have any Engineering comments?
Casey:
Jeremy already mentioned the 28' wide street. The utility easements, a
minimum of 10' on each side of water and sewer. The existing sewer line,
you might take a look at that.
Zimmerman: The existing sewer line is 25'.
Technical Plat Review
July 30, 2003
Page 15
Casey:
Zimmerman:
Casey:
Zimmerman:
Casey:
Kelso:
Casey:
Pate:
Ok, that will be fine. I thought I saw it was less than that.
No, it is 25' here and all the way here.
Ok, thanks I need a drainage easement for the proposed storm drain at the
rear of lots 6 through 11. Retaining walls more than 4' high need to be
designed and inspected by a registered P.E. and also has to have safety
railing. I don't know if we have anything to prohibit that large of a lull
there but it is like 9'. Just my personal opinion, I don't think the Planning
Commission or the City Council is going to like that.
I may be able to make that smaller and get more water around the edge. I
will look at that when we do our next submittal.
Even if it was a berm out there that tall I think it could be landscaped and
it would be more acceptable. That is just my opinion and advice. I don't
know that I have anything to prohibit it but being a PZD and going
through that process and onto City Council that could come up. You
might look at placing some fill in there to make a berm instead of a wall
but I can't require that. There are a lot of standard sidewalk comments
and grading plan comments. AHTD approval will be required for any of
the work done within the highway right of way. That is all I have.
How do you all determine whether you go from a 40' right of way with a
24' street to a 50' right of way 28' street? Is it traffic counts and things
like that that you make that requirement?
We can use traffic to base it on, 300 vehicles per day is kind of the break
on it. Being a PZD with duplex lots and the commercial that is what we
are going to recommend because there will be on street parking. The
parking is going to be a big issue so we can provide that in the street as
well as in the driveways. I think that will help your project. That, and we
really, really want to see sidewalks on both sides in addition to that just
because they are duplex lots with commercial.
I do have a couple of additional comments from Parks. This went to the
Parks Advisory Board and they agreed to accept money in lieu of land in
the amount of $17,292. Craig, tree preservation comments?
Craig Carnage) — Landscape Administrator
Carnagey:
Basically several of these lots you are showing tree preservation in the
area within the building setback, which essentially in accordance with the
ordinance will require that the tree preservation canopy be sited in areas
with the least possible impact. Essentially on lots 2, 5, 24 and 18 you have
Technical Plat Review
July 30, 2003
Page 16
Zimmerman:
Carnagey:
Zimmerman:
Carnagey:
Casey:
Carnagey:
Zimmerman:
Kelso:
Pate:
got tree preservation right in the center of the building area. Also, you are
removing a 24" Osage down in the southwest corner of the lot which
would be considered a high priority tree. I haven't actually gone out and
taken a look at that specific tree. I have seen the rest of the trees on the lot
but I need to take a look at that tree and see what it's condition is. Do you
have an assessment on that?
It looks like it is in good condition. It is a nice, pretty tree.
There is no on site mitigation allowed for subdivisions so all of these
mitigation trees need to be removed.
If they write it in their covenants for the PZD can we preserve them along
the property line and mitigate them? We will use them as mitigation and
have them planted along the side as a buffer and then between.
As of right now the ordinance states that all subdivisions are required to
pay into the tree fund. I haven't seen any other documentation other than
that. Basically, all of these mitigation trees need to be removed and based
on the amount of trees that you are removing now it is going to be
required to replace with 38 trees and that comes to $8,550 for payment
into the tree fund.
That can be offered as a part of a Bill of Assurance with that being
considered outside of your mitigation, above and beyond that.
Just to reiterate regarding the landscape plan, the commercial development
will be required to comply with the city's landscape requirements which
include the planting of trees along the frontage of Crossover, one tree
every 30 linear feet including a continuous row of shrubs, and those need
to be evergreen. I think what Jeremy said, we would like to see some of
the building footprints on these commercial lots or a reconfiguration of the
tree preservation area. We talked about moving some of these driveway
entrances off the cross way, we talked about several things in a couple of
meetings but we haven't seen any sort of resubmittals on that at all.
Right, we will on August 6"
One thing we don't want to do is designate a tree preservation area and
then the lot is not useable. We don't want to do that and I think it is in the
developer's best interest if he has to pay money to the tree fund I think he
would be better off.
Some of the comments that I will have to you later today is more just an
overall concept of the project and kind of summarizing the things from
when we met. We were a little hesitant to bring it forward since we didn't
Technical Plat Review
July 30, 2003
Page 17
Kelso:
have any changes except for that letter and the greenspace document.
Staff is still concerned with the same issues. I think overall the concept is
there, I think the development is just not quite following it. Specifically in
the fact that obviously we have voiced concerns about the drainage with
the 9' detention wall, that retaining wall for the detention when the natural
drainage patterns sort of go this way I think when we first met we had an
idea of the detention down here which would sort of preserve this natural
drainage channel some what. Those are issues that we will probably bring
up in that letter. Because it is a PZD it has a little bit higher of standard
for development guidelines. The other concern being again, what Craig
mentioned, that a lot of these lots as shown right now are just un -buildable
and so basically if a home owner buys this lot and goes in and cuts those
trees down the fact that it is preserved is moot because it is shown on this
plan as a PZD but there is no real way to prohibit other than outside of the
setbacks and the things that we talked about with the covenants doesn't
really prohibit those owners to cut the trees down so really the lines here
become negated.
In the past with a typical subdivision we have tried to show as much tree
preservation area as possible and with these lots and stuff you never really
know and that is the way that the ordinance is set up. That is typically
how it has always been done in the past is we just show as much tree
preservation with residential lots as possible. Whether it is preserved or
not when those lots are sold, until you all come up with a way to have a
tree preservation plan for a particular lot I don't know that there is a whole
lot that we can do in a residential setting. Commercial, yes.
Carnagey: I think even in the residential, the ordinance for the tree preservation
should generally be in an area that you know they are not going to site
their house right in the middle. For instance, an entire treed lot you know
there is going to be some taken out for building so that would be
considered being an impact on those trees. I think areas that are out of the
buildable area of that site make the most sense for preservation. There are
some lots in here that clearly they will be taken out.
Kelso: All we can do is just not show them and give to the tree fund. I don't
know what else to do.
Pate: Utilities?
Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop.
Phipps: Those utility easements will be cleared of everything. If they are not and
we have to preserve trees in there and we have to boar the developer will
absorb 100% of the cost of boaring. We will not split the cost. Along the
north line up here you have got those trees along there, either they are
Technical Plat Review
July 30, 2003
Page 18
Zimmerman:
Phipps:
Zimmerman:
Kelso:
Carnagey:
Phipps:
Kelso:
Boles:
Phipps:
Zimmerman:
Kelso:
Phipps:
removed out of that easement or if we have to bring a boar out there we
will boar it but you are looking at $4.00 a foot to trench, $16.00 a foot to
boar.
Would it be possible to put all of the utility easements along the street and
preserve the back?
The city likes the utilities in the rear of lots and not in the front.
But is a PZD.
We have done that in the past, put them in the front to save trees. I
understand the city likes them in the back but then also they like to save
trees.
In a situation like this that would make sense.
To save those trees we would much rather go in front. It is a lot easier for
us. Instead of using those pedestals we use we will just set the
transformer, we will go back to the meter on the house where I don't have
the meter pedestals that we set out. They are alright in the rear of the lots
but aesthetically they are not that great up front. That way we will just
have the transformer out front for these smaller units. We won't have a 5'
grade, which will look a lot better. I don't know how the gas company
feels but I would much rather go in the front.
We have better access and everything else.
You have got four gas meters Jerry sitting at every other property line.
The only concern I have are driveways getting too close to those facilities
could be a hazard.
Through the center of this I don't think we have much. You have got an
existing 25' UE through here. What kind of trees do we have?
This easement actually turns up here so it will be extended back to here
where we could probably run through here.
That is what I was hoping.
It could be put in the back and then go up here around the front and
actually just go on around.
Kelso: If we could do that I think that will save trees and everything else. Let's
do that.
Technical Plat
July 30, 2003
Page 19
Phipps:
Zimmerman:
Boles:
Zimmerman:
Phipps:
Zimmerman:
Phipps:
Boles:
Zimmerman:
Phipps:
Review
I need a 20' along Crossover outside of the right of way.
There is a 15' gas easement here that stops.
You can just add 5' to that and label it general and we will be fine. Am I
correct in assuming that lots 1 through 13 would be served in the front, is
that correct?
Yes.
I need a quad crossing from 23 and 17 over to lot 1, straight across two 4"
48" deep finished grade. From 14 and 22 to lots 9 and 10, four 4". Right
here on this drainage here, is there any idea how much coverage we are
going to have on that? I need to get to the back to tie into this overhead
line back here.
I think I have 3' of cover.
If it is 3' I am going to need a crossing underneath it to tie into this
existing overhead I have back here and we will need a 20' easement along
lots 9 and 10 right here all the way back.
You have got 25' right there already.
It basically makes an L right now.
Ok, just the crossing here and I would just go ahead and put four 4" in
there too. One street light easement, we have got a street light here
between lots 19 and 20, I just need a 10' easement to get to the street light,
5' each side of the line of 19 and 20. One more 20' UE for me will be
between 12 and 13 all the way back, 10' each side of the line. Any
relocation of existing OECC facilities will be at the developer's expense.
That is all I have.
Johns Boles — Arkansas Western Gas
Boles:
I would like to request that no driveways be constructed until the utilities
are in between lots one and thirteen. I am running into some issues with
different developers where I went by and there was no activity and then
within two weeks houses are framed and driveways are poured. That kind
of makes it difficult. We have a meeting this afternoon with SBC and if
things come together I would say a great percentage of what we are going
to do in the future with them is going to be all joint trenching. I don't
know about their layouts Jerry and where they are going to want things. I
am going to have to wait because Sue is not here this morning. I am not
really sure from their design standards, for example, for lots one through
Technical Plat Review
July 30, 2003
Page 20
Kelso:
thirteen what they are going to want. I would just get in touch with Sue. I
will know more after this afternoon.
After meeting right now we have a pretty good idea of what we would like
to see and what the city would like to see so I think we can get that
worked out.
Pate: Contact Larry Gibson as well. We will need 30 copies by August 66
.
Thank you. Meeting adjourned.
