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

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2003-09-17 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE TECHNICAL PLAT REVIEW COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee was held on September 17, 2003 at 9:00 a.m. in room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LSP 03-50.00: Lot Split (Ben Israel, pp 451) Page 3 LSP 03-51.00: Lot Split (Jerry Kelly, pp 610) Page 7 LSP 03-52.00: Lot Split (Brandon Mall, pp 135) Page 10 LSD 03-35.00: Large Scale Development (Brandon Mall, pp 135) Page 12 LSD 03.33.00: Large Scale Development (Elsass Plaza, pp 177) Page 14 LSD 03-34.00: Large Scale Development (Collision Repair Center, pp 287) Page 33 Tabled Forwarded Forwarded Tabled Forwarded Forwarded FPL 03-10.00: Final Plat (Salem Meadows, pp245) Tabled Page 41 FPL 03-09.00: Final Plat (Summerbrook Estates, pp 648) Forwarded Page 43 FPL 03-08.00: Final Plat (Legacy Pointe Ph. II, pp 435 & 474) Page 45 Forwarded PPL 03-12.00: Preliminary Plat (Crofton Manor, pp 323) Forwarded Page 47 PPL 03-16.00: Preliminary Plat (Remington Subdivision, pp 220) Page 50 Forwarded Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 2 R-PZD 03-04.00: Planned Zoning District (Lazenby, pp 560) Page 52 C-PZD 03-08.00: Planned Zoning District (Legacy/EGIS, pp 248) Page 60 Forwarded Forwarded STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Matt Casey Jeremy Pate Renee Thomas Rebecca Ohman Tim Conklin Dawn Warrick Suzanne Morgan Perry Franklin Travis Dotson Danny Farrar Craig Carnagey UTILITIES PRESENT UTILITIES ABSENT Sue Clouser, Southwestern Bell Jamie Boyd, Arkansas Western Gas Larry Gibson, Cox Communications Ron Berstrom, AEP/SWEPCO Mike Phipps, Ozark Electric Coop. Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 3 LSP 03-50.00: Lot Split (Ben Israel, pp 451) was submitted by Bevin Ford on behalf of Ben Israel for property located between 909 and 1011 N. Starr Drive. The property is in the Planning Area and contains 30.99 acres. The request is to split the lot into two tracts of 29.98 acres and 1.01 acres respectively. Pate: Welcome to the September 176 Technical Plat Review meeting. We do have a long agenda today so everyone bare with us. The first three items are in house only. Our first item that we are going to talk about today is a Lot Split for Ben Israel. If the representative could come up? Israel: Do you want me to sit at the end? Pate: Just wherever you feel comfortable. Take a seat. Basically, first of all, I believe I spoke with Bevin earlier about this particular project and I talked to your surveyor as well. The tract that is being split off, currently our records show that it has been split three times since 1985. Our ordinances only allow for three splits of a parcel of land. After that third split we have to go through a full Preliminary Plat process followed by a Final Plat. Israel: Can you tell me when the last split was? Pate: I don't know the date on that. Israel: I have lived out there for 14 years and it hasn't been split since then. I bought 30 acres next door to me. My daughter wants to build a house out there so my grandkids can be near by. I think it is the stupidest thing in the world to force us to go through some technical subdivision plat to break off one acre off that. I know there hasn't been anything done to that property in forever. Charles Mott has owned it up until two months ago or three months ago, he is out of Little Rock. I have been trying to buy it for 15 years so I know nothing has happened to it. Pate: We can do some more research. If you want to work with Planning staff we can find out. If you look in your packet there where we are getting our information is the county plat maps shows the parcel number there. That 003 at the end of your plat. If you look through your packets on this page that is basically what we are basing our information on. That was supplied to us by you or your surveyor. That parcel number indicates it has been split three times. Warrick: Whenever the county assigns parcel numbers and tracks a split typically an original parcel number will end in 000 and then when the tract is split they will assign 001-003 to indicate that it was part of an original larger piece of property. That is what we are basing that information on. On the plat itself it is not indicated as 003. At the county who assigns parcel numbers it indicated that it was 003. Some additional research and Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 4 Israel: Pate: anything record wise that you may have might help us to clear that up would be good. The house that is on there now is at least 40 years old. I don't know when it would've been split off. There are two houses up there on the front of it that look like they could've been split off. It is very disgruntling to have to do this I can tell you. What has to be done now? If you could supply us with that information. We need some documentation. If it hasn't been split three times we can go ahead and process a lot split just like we're doing right now. The other big issue with this proposal is this tract is considered a tandem lot. It doesn't have access except for this ingress and egress access easement so the city requires by ordinance that this go through a Conditional Use for a tandem lot. It is an approval process that has to be approved by Planning Commission. Israel: Even though it is in the county? Part of it is in the county. Pate: Yes Sir. We do have the application. If you want to meet and talk about this in the Planning office I would be more than willing to talk to you about that. Israel: There is no subdivision planned. There is one house planned. There is no way you can do anything but build one simple little house for my daughter and my grandchildren and her husband of course. Why is this necessary? This is 30 acres of land, you couldn't see the house from any neighbor's house. It is so ridiculous to be burdened with this kind of thing when we are just trying to utilize our land and have nothing to do with the city. We are not asking for sewer or trash pick up or nothing. We are going to hook onto water hopefully. Do you know why it's necessary? Warrick: It is an ordinance and if you want to talk more about the process we will be glad to set up a meeting that we can do that. As far as the review on this particular tract we need to finish talking about the requirements with regard to the utilities and easements. Pate: Other comments that Planning has have to do with the same issues, frontage requirements. We will need Arkansas Department of Health Permit for a septic system out here approved. Some of the plat comments, these are more for the surveyor. We need to coordinate the adjoining property owners that are surrounding this property either by key or somehow do that. They are listed here but we need to either put them here or somehow key them to that map. Label the project owner and developer on the site map which I'm assuming would be you. Israel: I'm lost. Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 5 Pate: I am on the second page. We also need a certification and dedication block on the plat and that is attached and in your packet as well. That is the bulk of the Planning comments that we have. I will ask Engineering to go over their comments. Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: I just have a couple of comments. On the flood certification it is called out as the 100 -year old floodplain, if you could just remove the old. Also, the water line is shown incorrectly. The plat shows that it terminates in this location. It actually continues on kind of at an angle there if you could have your surveyor locate that. Regarding the water line, the proposed split will either have to adjust the lot where it has access to that water line or you will have to extend the public main to the lot to provide water. That needs to be done prior to the filing of the lot split. It may be easier to just adjust that lot to the section that goes out to the existing water line. That is all I have. Pate: Utilities? Ron Berstrom — AEP Berstrom: No comment. Jamie Boyd — Arkansas Western Gas Boyd: It looks like we are probably going to ask for at least a 20' utility easement along tract A next to Starr Road and the 30' ingress and egress, are you going to have your private utilities run down that road or what? Israel: We are probably not going to use gas. Boyd: Ok, no comment. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: We have an existing overhead line running north and south there on the west side of Starr Road. I agree with Jamie on the 20' UE there. I guess I have the same question. If you are wanting cable back there I don't know wherever you want to put an easement we could live with it. Israel: It could be in that 30' wide ingress and egress? Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 6 Gibson: I don't know what they will say about it but if you will just label 30' wide ingress/egress, UE, just to give everybody a way to get back there. That is all I have. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: I agree with those utility easements. That is all I have. Pate: If you want to set up a meeting we'll be glad to. Just contact the Planning office to talk about any other process or what revisions are due. We would be glad to set up that meeting with you. Israel: Ok. Pate: Thank you Sir. Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 7 LSP 03-51.00: Lot Split (Jerry Kelly, pp 610) was submitted by Milholland Company on behalf of Jerry Kelly for property located at 1801 S. Mally Wagnon Rd. The property is in the Planning Area and contains 23.16 acres. The request is to split the lot into two tracts of 22.16 acres and 1.00 acres respectively. Pate: Our next item is a Lot Split for Jerry Kelly and Suzanne, our Staff Planner, is going to go over that project. Do we have a representative for this project? Morgan: The Planning comments are one that I failed to actually put on your handout but the proposed lot split is less than one and a half acres so we need to get the Arkansas Department of Health Permit for a septic system. Also, county approval is required prior to filing the lot split. That is all the comments from Planning. Engineering? Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: Milholland: Casey: Milholland: Casey: Milholland: Casey: Warrick: Mel, in order for this lot to be split water will have to be extended to serve the property. Just for your information, Mr. Martin who lives to the south of this property currently has an approved water line extension plan and the City Council has agreed to cost share from Hwy. 16 to the south and connect with the existing 2" line. If that happens they will have access to water. I don't know the status of that right now. It is in Mr. Martin's hands when that happens. You said it is an existing 2" line? There is an existing 2" line to the south across this property there is no water line currently but the proposed water line will cross in front of this property. So where does my client stand in the shared part? If this work proceeds you just have to get that under construction to file the lot split. If not, then this applicant will have to make plans to extend the water line himself. How far south is this 2" line? I don't show that here on the map. The extension will have to come from the north though. The line to the south won't provide adequate water. Casey: I don't think that 2" would be enough to handle it. We've had problems up here on the mountain anyway. Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 8 Milholland: Casey: Warrick: Casey: Milholland: Casey: Warrick: Milholland: Warrick: Milholland: Casey: Milholland: Casey: Morgan: His choice is to use a well, get Health Department approval to put a well in? Our requirements are regardless of whether it is going to use public water or a well, the water line has to be extended to serve the property. The ordinance requires a provision of adequate public water supply. Your client could work with Mr. Martin to accelerate that project, contribute towards it and coordinate that with his neighbor to get that under way. I was told last week that it was going to start within two weeks but I have not received any confirmation of that. That was from another neighbor who talked to Mr. Martin's son in law so I don't know how reliable that information is. You might speak with Mr. Martin or speak with Dave Jorgensen, I know he did the plans. I am just thinking about construction time. Since it is outside the city do you all have to issue a building permit? It is outside of our jurisdiction. We are not able to approve the filing of the split until adequate public water is supplied to the property. You have got options being outside the city limits but the split does have to be filed. Are water and sewer done on the same basis, 300' from the property? No. I knew a subdivision would have to. I didn't know you would have to do it for a single lot. A single lot is also a subdivision of property. Ok. That's all I have. Utilities? Ron Berstrom — American Electric Power Berstrom: No comment. Technical Plat September 17, Page 9 Jamie Boyd — Review 2003 Arkansas Western Gas Boyd: Milholland: Boyd: We would like a 20' easement across the frontage of both lot A and B on the west side of Mally Wagnon Road. Out of the right of way? I think that this property goes off the right of way, almost to the right of way on the north end but I think it will work out. Ok, that is all I have. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: Mel, I had the same comment. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: I agree with the utility easements as well. Morgan: Revisions are due by 10:00 a.m. on September 24`h Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 10 LSP 03-52.00: Lot Split (Brandon Mall, pp 135) was submitted by Brian Moore on behalf of Gary Brandon for property located on the northeast corner of the Northwest Arkansas Mall between Zion Rd. and Main St. Johnson. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 109.33 acres. The request is to split the lot into two tracts of 107.55 acres and 1.78 acres. Pate: The next item on the agenda is a Lot Split for Brandon Mall submitted by Brian Moore. Planning comments, we just need some documentation or authorization for Gary Brandon and Terry Webb to sign for the Robert Hoyt Perry Family Revocable Living Trust, they are the owner of record that we have. If it is a deed or if it is a power of attorney or whatever it is, we just need some documentation that they can sign as owners. We need to indicate the plat page and the plat plan. Hwy. 71B right of way is shown here as labeled. If we could somehow show the centerline of that or show the dimension from the center line at least on the plat so that we know. Basically the label the right of way for U.S. Hwy. 71B and dimension from centerline there if that is possible. There is a note stating that all existing utility easements are not shown. We need to make sure we get any existing utility easements on there. I am not sure what that note references. Any existing utility easements or utilities need to be shown on the plat. We need to indicate the setbacks also. There is an attached certification and dedication block for any utility easements and owner certification and I've included that in your packet. If you can include those on both sheets so once it is filed with the county it will be on both of these sheets. Revisions are due on the 24th of September by 10:00 a.m. Engineering comments? Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: My only comments are that water and sewer must be extended at the time of development. Pate: That is all of our staff comments. Utilities? Ron Berstrom — American Electric Power Berstrom: No comment. Jamie Boyd — Arkansas Western Gas Boyd: I don't have any comments on the lot split itself. We do already have gas service that exists to that building and there should be utility easements already in place. I will probably echo this comment after a while on your building, any relocation or damage to our facilities will be at the cost of the developer. It needs to be shown on the plat, our gas main exists on the property. That is all I have. Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 11 Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: I think your dotted line is showing the utility easement along the south side running east and west along the driveway there but it is not labeled. I don't know, that should be a 20' UE. We also have existing cable running east and west in that utility easement that services the mall. If anything has to be relocated we will have to charge the developer to do it. If you would just indicate where you've got your underground power located we are in that same ditch or right there by it so if you would just indicate that on the final print that Cox Cable does exist there. That is all I have. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: The lot split I don't believe I have any trouble with other than if there are utility easements they need to be shown on there. The building is a different story, I don't know if you want to do that now. Pate: We'll go over that in just a moment. That is everything on the lot split. We'll see you in just a second on the Large Scale. Warrick: We can go ahead and do that now. Pate: Ok, we can do that. Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 12 LSD 03-35.00: Large Scale Development (Brandon Mall, pp 135) was submitted by Brian Moore of Engineering Services, Inc. on behalf of Gary Brandon for property located at the northeast corner of the Northwest Arkansas Mall, between Zion Rd. and Main St. in Johnson. The property is zoned C-2, Commercial Thoroughfare, and contains approximately 1.78 acres. The request is to allow the removal of the existing buildings (Shoney's) and construct a 28,350 sq.ft. professional and sales building with 96 parking spaces proposed. Pate: Basically you will notice on the comments, we are not really going to go over detailed comments on this Large Scale as far as Planning staff. There are some things that haven't been submitted that need to be submitted for the Large Scale Development to process. We need to come back through and submit for Technical Plat on the next date, which will be September 22nd by 10:00 a.m. The deficient information primarily has to do with the Landscape Administrator comments. Warrick: I am Dawn Warrick, Zoning & Development Administrator, I'm sitting in for Craig Carnagey today. Craig has reviewed this project to the extent that he is able. A site analysis map and site analysis report were not submitted. You have the comments. We are still looking for more information to reflect ordinance requirements on the plan so that we can properly review the project. The proposed grading does need to be done with the tree preservation plan, all proposed mitigation species need to be identified. The Landscape Administrator would like to meet on site so that he can evaluate the project on site with either yourself, Mr. Moore or Mr. Brandon, whomever wants to participate in that. Craig will be back in the office on Monday if you want to call and set up an appointment we can schedule that for you. Pate: Basically the lot split can keep going forward. I don't think we have problems with that. Just the Large Scale has hit a stopping point here at least for now. Again, we did include comments for you that we had already made. Basically we are not going to go over those because it will come back to this same level of meeting again for the Large Scale but those are included in your packets for you. Pate: Right. I believe we will go over utility comments at that time if that will be appropriate. Warrick: Right, I think we will be looking at some revisions. It may not significantly change the plans but we will be looking at something that is a little more complete with regard to ordinance requirements being reflected. It might be easier to take utility comments with a more complete plan. Technical Plat September 17, Page 13 Pate: Casey: Boyd: Casey: Review 2003 There are two different revision dates for the Lot Split and the Large Scale. The Lot Split is the 24th. I have a question about the existing easement running through the building, it looks like an existing gas line. If that is going to be relocated you are going to have to vacate that easement and provide a new one I assume. Our gas line doesn't actually run through the building. Our gas main lays out to the east side and runs north and south along this, it used to be the old frontage road with the way the mall was originally shaped. Our gas main lays down below the guard rail on the north side of the road. We are about 8' or 10' below that guard rail directly north of the building. I talked to Brian yesterday, detention is required regardless of the location of the water shed. He has been informed of that and we will need a revised drainage report to provide detention. Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 14 LSD 03.33.00: Large Scale Development (Elsass Plaza, pp 177) was submitted by Milholland Engineering and Surveying on behalf of Kirk Elsass for property located on the northeast corner of Joyce Blvd. and Crossover Rd. The property is zoned C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial and contains 3.205 acres. The request is to construct a 32,344 square foot retail commercial building with 144 parking spaces proposed. Pate: Our next item is a Large Scale Development for Elsass Plaza submitted by Milholland Company. Suzanne will do this report as well. Morgan: One of our first comments is building elevations must be submitted for each side of the building and if you could indicate where they are on the building. I was having some trouble identifying which direction. Milholland: Where what is? Morgan: Which elevation is being represented along the building, it was kind of confusing to me. Elsass: We are going to do a colored rendering of the whole building from an elevated, like a helicopter shot down at the building. Morgan: Ok, there are some additional comments in there also. A materials board should be submitted. A vicinity map, we need to reflect the Master Street Plan. Jefcoat: Ok, I'm not sure that wasn't done. Morgan: I believe there are some master street plan streets not shown. Casey: Joyce extends to the east. Jefcoat: Ok. I remember we said that that was the new requirements and it would be accepted this time without that but we will add it with that comment. Morgan: On page three, parking requirements, maximum number of parking spaces is 169 and 130 is required. Those are a little different than what you have so if you could coordinate that. Staff is concerned with the traffic flow with this site. Specifically around what is proposed to be the ATM island. I don't know if you have any comments about that. Jefcoat: Not knowing what your concerns were I'm not sure what the comments would be. Warrick: We are concerned about you not being able to back out here and basically being able to exit. Basically, this vehicle will have to back all the way up here and turn out. We found that as potentially problematic. It is private Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 15 parking and it is going to be for your tenants to have to deal with but we see that as somewhat problematic. These spaces right here are going to have to back all the way up. Jefcoat: It is the direction of the flow that is the problem, it is not the distance or anything. We can deal with that. Elsass: It is problematic because of the shape of the property. There is not a whole lot you can do about the shape of the property. Casey: You could provide additional landscaping. Jefcoat: And do away with the parking? I don't think we would want to do away with the parking. Elsass: Not with the problems that we've got over at Millennium and that other subdivision right now. We don't have enough parking. Jefcoat: We are below the maximum here. Elsass: I'll make some comments to the landscaping here in a minute. Morgan: Ok. Five bike racks will be required for the amount of parking here. Jefcoat: We've got five. Morgan: Ok. Parking lot lights, I saw the symbol, I couldn't find any on the plat. Jefcoat: There is a lighting note that says that that will be provided at the time of development. All we did was make a comment that the lighting would be down lighting as required by the city ordinance. Morgan: Ok. Thank you. We are also requesting trees being planted on all right of ways. Jefcoat: Are they not indicated? Morgan: Well, along Joyce Blvd., I was not sure if they were. Jefcoat: This little short street? Elsass: There are trees there currently. There are trees in that area right now. That was one of the things that I wanted to address today. We were going to have to go over here on this portion of Joyce back here. There are trees all along Joyce Street that we have not touched. It would have been a lot more economical for us to take them out prior to this point but we haven't Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 16 done it. We knew that we were going to have to plant these. Our next step is we wanted to get all of this done with the dirt so we weren't getting wind blown or whatever, just because of all of the construction and trucks. Our next phase is to go in and clean that ditch out right there and remove all of those trees. At that time that brings up what you're talking about. There are trees currently in this area right here that we had planned on not touching at all and whenever the road was widened that be done or whatever they want to do. We are going to plant additional trees right in here too. Jefcoat: So as far as the number of trees for that footage, we have accounted for those. With that restricted area there that are currently saved that are coming out at some point. Pate: I believe there are some specific comments with the Landscape Administrator's comments that will address that to some degree. I believe Craig wanted to speak with you specifically on that and then the east side grouping of trees there. Warrick: Those trees that you are talking about are on public property. Jefcoat: Yes, those are in the right of way. Warrick: We are concerned about those trees remaining as much as possible. I am going to let you go forward and then I'll cover the comments. Morgan: Ok. If you could indicate the height and building materials of that solid screen wall. Jefcoat: Say that again. Morgan: Indicate the height and building materials of the solid screen wall on the north of the property. Jefcoat: If we say that that is just solid screen is that sufficient? Warrick: Is it going to be masonry, is it going to be a wood board fence or some other type of material? Jefcoat: Does it matter as long as it is solid screen? Warrick: I think it's important that we understand what material it is going to be to coordinate with the overall development. Jefcoat: The screening that you are going to do around the dumpster, is it going to be wood or masonry? Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 17 Elsass: No, no, no. What we will probably do on this one is my plan is to go ahead and brick or block all around it. Warrick: If you will decide what materials you are going to use and then call that out on the plan. Morgan: That is all Planning has. Engineering? Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: We need to extend the street improvements with curb, gutter and pavement along to the north property line. Right now it is shown just to stop at the driveway. Jefcoat: Up here at the very north of this property stretch? Extend it all the way up to the property? I think that this would be a good point, coming up with landscaping and that too. Jeremy was aware that there was an alternative that wanted to be presented here of a new entrance location at the south portion of that property. The reason for that new location would be traffic flow and circulation inside the property out of that south entrance. It would be in line with the current entry at the end of the building. Elsass: Let me make a couple of points of why and what happened here. I think we've talked to Jeremy about it. I was out of the country at the time that this was presented. My request was for it to be in the area that you are looking at now. There are several reasons for it. I think once you hear my reasoning it will make more sense why I'm really wanting this to be up here. This intersection right here is one of the hardest intersections on this side of town other than 45 and 265. Because of that and the congestion from the University of how Joyce is going to extend at some point. My request was to move it up at this direction because my experience has been when you put an entrance or an exit anywhere in the back of a building like this it gets used for service purposes only. It doesn't get used by the general public, they either don't see it, they don't want to go all the way back and they feel like they are going behind a business. My experience in real estate and that, I feel like if we put it up here where it was visible to the public, one of my biggest concerns is the traffic on 265 and a some point the traffic on Joyce Street. I felt like if you put it here you are going to have more people that are going to exit out this direction, come out and utilize that light. If you put it back here you are going to lose some of that. You will get some but you will get a big portion of that. I believe that by doing that was my other concern is that the trees that are there we would just as soon leave them there but because of improvements of the street back here those trees are going to have to come out anyway. We can leave them, I don't have a problem with leaving the trees in there and Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 18 letting the city decide who takes them and do what they want to with them but the problem I have is that of coming in and improving the street all the way back to the back portion of this property. We all know, I don't want to encourage any traffic, I guess is what I'm saying, to go back this direction other than what's already back there. There is a huge problem with this S curve up here in this area up here. If we can deter people from going back in this direction I think it is real important and it is also important that at some point when this goes through this road is going to be for people who live in this general facility. This exit right in here will allow more of this flow at this little intersection right here. There is a little steep of a grade, that is one of the reasons that Tom, as an Engineer, it makes more common sense to put it on a more flat and level spot and that is the reason that they did that, I understand that. For marketing purposes, for safety and for flow of traffic I believe you are going to get more use out of your stop light if we can look at possibly putting that entrance up here. I don't mind improving the road but when you start improving the road if we do that, we are going to have to go all the way up here and trees have to come out. That is something you all have to decide. I would rather put funds towards this road in the future and the capacity than spending the money here and taking the trees out. I prefer leaving the trees personally. I would like to thin out some of the cedars in there but some of the other trees that are in there I would like to stay. I would like not to remove any of these but I know some of them are in this right of way area down here. That is my reasoning for wanting this up here. I believe it is very valid with my experience in people are not going to use this. The one thing we are going to look at possibly doing is because of the size of this building we are going to divide the building possibly down the middle which will allow some office spaces and more of a mixed use in here with R -O and C-1 and C-2 combination, more of a mixed usage in this property and by putting offices in the back people that don't have to have the frontage exposure, it is going to be a lot better for these people to come around here and exit out this way than it is to exit out this way. Casey: I think that location and the extreme grade is going to be a problem for fire access and also Solid Waste. They didn't have this plan to comment on but I'm sure that would've been their main concern once they have seen this. Elsass: Matt, one thing if you don't mind on that Solid Waste deal, I have sat in these rooms many of times and we have talked about how they wanted it and then when I get out there with the guys that are actually working the site I run into situations that no, we're not doing it there because we aren't going to make that turn. It is going to be very difficult for the guy to come in and make his turn. It is going to be very difficult for him to come in and make this turn with deliveries and things like that coming in back here. This Solid Waste guy is going to come in right here, there's no Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 19 question about it. I can tell you. I have watched them on the road for years. They do it at Zion, at Key Corner over there. I have watched them over at Evelyn Hills. I go in and I look at them. If you believe that these guys are going to come in here and wait for a bread truck or a delivery truck back here, they are going to have to wait for it but they have to get off road and getting in and out of here is not where I believe that trash man is coming. As far as fire goes, the fire truck is not going to come in from back here. Casey: He needs to. Elsass: But he's not going to. Casey: He needs to access that back. He's not going to be able to come in at a 33% grade. Elsass: The point is if a fire truck is coming you know where he is coming from. Casey: If the fire is at the rear of the building he is not going to come in at a 33% grade. Elsass: If the fire is at the rear of the building he is not going to pull into it Matt. Casey: You and I can sit here and argue it all day but you need to discuss it with the Fire Marshall and he can make those comments. Elsass: I'm just trying to look at common sense on that Matt. He is not going to pull a fire truck up within 25' of that building if it is on fire. He is going to leave it right there in the middle of that street. Casey: You can send your revisions to the Fire Marshall and let him comment but I don't think the Engineering Division is going to support that. As far as the street improvements are concerned, regardless of where the driveway is located, the street improvements will go all the way through. Milholland: Am I understanding, I can get up from this meeting, go talk to him, he will make a comment to you and at the time we submit these revisions that would be applicable? Casey: We also need Solid Waste. Milholland: We'll talk with them. Warrick: Planning is in favor of the proposed location of the plat that was submitted originally. We talked about conflicts and traffic movements in this area. We haven't really addressed the stacking distance and the amount of Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 20 traffic that does back up at this intersection. That is another factor that needs to be realized and discussed. Like Engineering, Planning staff is acceptable with the proposal that was submitted, which is 24' access at the northeast corner of the structure. A couple of comments that are somewhat related, we would recommend looking at these two access points for providing a one way in and two way out configuration so that people have an opportunity to come up. There is very little stacking distance for people who line up here. You would be able to get more vehicles preparing to turn onto that highway if you have a two way out. Jefcoat: Just designate it as a double in and a double out? Warrick: I'm recommending a lining for a one way in and a two way out. The location of them, we don't have a problem with, they need to be across from other driveways so people can see what is going on around them and coordinate that but that's not a problem. We keep talking about the back of a building. This is a side of a building that is facing the public right of way. The elevation that is proposed is a large, unarticulated, blank wall surface. That does not meet the city's ordinance requirements for commercial design standards and staff will not be able to recommend this elevation for Planning Commission approval. It does face a city right of way. I refer you to look back at that and determine what modifications need to be made to that to meet the ordinance requirements for commercial design standards because currently it does not. Elsass: The ordinance requires you to, if you don't have a back of a building, you will be considered to have two fronts? Warrick: Anything that faces a street right of way is a front. Our setback requirements hold as a front of a building. Elsass: I was just asking the question. When this was done we had not determined it exactly. All we have to do is just finish it. Warrick: When you mentioned that you might split it and have office space back here, I think that might change the nature of it. Elsass: That's what we are planning on doing. If this person that took this portion of the front of the building didn't want windows and glass across the front then we weren't going to do it. That is the reason we weren't going to go in here and show a bunch of windows through here if that wasn't going to be the case. This is the way we plan on doing it originally and then as we go in there, depending on what we put in each one, if this was a restaurant to this point we probably wouldn't want glass in the back of it. If this portion was a retail then the same bit or office. We will just go ahead and show windows down through there and complete it just like we did the Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 21 rest of this and show you what our plans are. We just didn't know exactly. There is no way to determine. This is going to be a shell, it is not going to be finished on the inside. Warrick: I would encourage you to get us some written description about that because what the Planning Commission sees on those elevations, if that is not what is built, complete when the structure is occupied, then you are going to have to come back and talk to them about it. Elsass: It is going to be built as we show it, and we will show it, but what I'm saying is there will be portions where we will have to go in there where there won't be a window and there's supposed to be a window and there's nothing you can do about it until you get to that point. There is now way to predetermine that. Warrick: The Planning Commission needs to understand what your proposal is to go through that process. There are structures in town that basically have fake fronts where the tenant doesn't utilize that front of the building, they have fake windows with walls. Casey: The drainage report states that the storm flow overtops the street during some storm events. According to the City of Fayetteville Drainage Criteria Manual, the storm drain systems for a minor arterial roadway must accommodate the 50 -year storm event. Either make improvements to the downstream drainage or detain the runoff to mach the capacity of the existing system. Jefcoat: What I meant to indicate was that the two existing drains, the two 24s and the 18", you will notice that the inverted elevation of the 18" is almost 2' below the 24's, because of the grade in there the 18 is not large enough to take it so it does tend to cross the road at 18 about the time it enters the 24. I think that what you mentioned before that this curbing down here, I don't know if you have got to that yet, would eliminate this problem, at least past the 18. Our detention is only taking care of what we're developing, we're not picking up any of this from above. Casey: In our ordinance it gives two options. Jefcoat: I guess what I'm asking is if we have to replace the piping under the Joyce for a 50 -year event, do we also have the option of increasing our discharge from our detention to accommodate the imposition for that. If we are planning this at 10 year can we increase this to 50 if we decrease this? What it will do is that it would reduce their detention a little. Casey: The detention requirements will remain the same, unless you over detain. The detention policy is post equals pre or less. Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 22 Jefcoat: So our only option there is to replace the piping there because you don't agree with the 50 -year event. Casey: The curb might be an option, this pipe work may be able to modify the flow line coming out to use the full capacity. Right now you've got three pipes and it is not functioning at a full capacity. There are some modifications that can be made to make them work that way. Our requirements is for a minor arterial to be able to accommodate the 50 -year storm event. Jefcoat: Alright, we will accommodate that. It may be that the curb will accomplish that. Casey: We do need a note on the plan that the existing driveway along Hwy. 265 will be removed. An AAHTD permit will be required for all work done in the highway right of way. I did have some retaining wall comments that are standard. Jefcoat: We show railing. It may not be that visible but it is labeled and it is in the legend. Casey: All of the storm sewer along Joyce and Hwy. 265 and also this area that we were just talking about that need to be included. The runoff calculations for the offsite areas needs to be calculated as fully developed under the current zoning. Jefcoat: The property north of us we are going to? Casey: Yes, it is off site, using the fully developed runoff value. It will be 50 for a minor arterial. Elsass: So I am having to capture fully developed flows, is that what you're saying? Casey: Your detaining would have to be enough to accommodate a fully developed off site even if it is not fully developed at this time. Elsass: Is that a new ordinance? Why is it when I did Millennium I had to accommodate the other direction when down below they didn't? Casey: That's what our Drainage Criteria Manual states and that is what we require. Milholland: Am I understanding that the person that develops the land north of this is not going to be required to put detention in if there is an increase? Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 23 Casey: Milholland: Casey: Milholland: Casey: Elsass: Jefcoat: Casey: Jefcoat: Elsass: Casey: Elsass: Jefcoat: Milholland: No, he will be. Then why should I have to accommodate him? Fully developed is our policy. Our current regulations dictate that. That is a double expense because he is having to pay for it and the other property is having to pay for it. We have to get the detention met, if your detention fails then what happens? White Oak is 6'under water. So we will increase our seed factor from 35 to 50? I think currently you might check that in the drainage report, but I think along Joyce you've already got 45 so it shouldn't, it sounds like a lot but it probably is not going to be. Ok. I have a question. Mel asked you if we discuss with the Fire Department and Solid Waste, your comments before that were you weren't going to go for this either way, is that what I understood? I said we wouldn't support that. I want full support of everybody so that is the reason I'm asking. If I go in and try to request that because the way I'm doing these projects from now on with the city is that if I come in and you are against it I'm not going to fight you. I am going to work it out. I am going to come back over here if we can and you'll work with us and we can go to the Fire Depaituient and the Solid Waste and they will say yes we can work with this would you consider working with this? If you say I can't support it any way then we are going to drop it right here. One other comment that I would like to add is that the distance from the center line of the road to where the proposed entrance is is 214' so that would require a waiver in itself and that is from the intersection. That is from the centerline of Joyce extended. If you go back to the intersection of Hwy. 265 it is way more than 250'. Technical Plat September 17, Page 24 Casey: Warrick: Elsass: Warrick: Elsass: Warrick: Elsass: Review 2003 I guess Dawn and I both will have some comments in addition to Fire and Solid Waste. I think with the grade of it as well as the traffic patterns that I'm not willing to make a finding on it unless there is something very compelling to convince me that this is a good idea. As it stands right now I'm going to stick with the northeast corner. The only thing I can compel either one of you all to consider it any differently is to go out and spend the time I have, which I know you don't have. The only way to do that is to see the traffic patterns that are in there. I have had this property for over a year now and I have spent a lot of time just walking the traffic from White Oak to over here and back over to here and watching the way it flows now and the changes that are going to be made right here are going to make a huge difference. This entrance will not be used. History tells me that it will not be used by the general public. If that's ok, my point to you is the only way I can convince you differently would be for you to sit out there for hours and watch the traffic. That is before this road is even widened. When this road is widened it is going to help some of this traffic move a little faster which is going to increase some of the speed of it, you are going to have people pulling out here where it is dangerous. In the past my experience is with everybody in Planning, this is a whole new group that I'm dealing with, but in the past it has been accident scenarios. This entrance has definitely got some grade to it. There is no question about it, that is the reason Tom put it down here when he started. He did what should've probably been done. For cause of what I'm trying to do and accomplish here to get the general public to utilize this stop light and by getting it up here you are going to get the general public to use it. Right here they are not going to and the only way I can convince any of you that that is correct is for you to go see the other centers I've built and to see what the traffic patterns are over there. I know you don't have that time. What if we were to look at potential for a compromise? If you are going to play out this edge of the building as a front and people will be advertising, businesses will be operating in this side of the building, is that likely? No, these are non -store front types of businesses. But they would have customers potentially. They will have some customers. Those customers, I agree, will use it I understand right now. The compromise, let me put it this way, to go from here to here I appreciate the possibility of a compromise but I don't know what it is going to accomplish. I am not trying to move it up here for any other reason other than visibility. Actually, what we first looked at was Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 25 for it to be sitting somewhere at this point. If we can't get it right in this area right here it really doesn't make a lot of sense for me to try to make a case for it because what the case is for strictly for me, there is more cost involved I would imagine in doing this than it is to do this but I believe that when you come down this road you are looking dead straight at this right here and you are going to see this flow. These are people that I'm concerned about. These are people, these people right here in the back, if it is an insurance office or if it is an accountant or engineering firm or whatever it is, these guys are going to be using the entrance, that's not even in question. These people in the back, if we're able to accomplish that, this is a new concept. They are going to use it either way wherever we put it. These people are the people I'm trying to shoot for. I am trying to get them into this flow because when they come in it is going to be very, what's the word I want to use, let's say if you've got a restaurant here and these people here, they will come in here but they are really going to like it better if they can get out. I live just down the block here, I've seen the traffic for Hwy. 45 and Hwy. 265 back up within a couple hundred yards of this intersection. Warrick: The ATM is going to be difficult with this flow. Elsass: The ATM can go. This is that important to me. I can either take the ATM out, move it over here and get rid of it. It is just another thing that makes a business successful and they use it. ATMs increase traffic. It makes it convenient for customers. It may convince them from having to go out here, to go over to the light at this other spot. That can go if it needs to go. All I'm saying though, all I'm asking is that if you guys cannot consider this now and see what I'm saying because I know you don't have the time to go out there and do what I've done. I can preach to you all day long about how it is but if you can't see what I'm saying right here then we won't even waste the time in trying to go back over here, trying to fight it. We are not going to waste the time with the Fire Chief. Matt, you and I have worked on different projects, if we can't look at this and say yeah, let's go forward, if you say no, I can't support it I'm not going to carry it on. Warrick: If it is important to you staff will look at your alternate proposal and we'll get with either you or Tom by the end of this week with our thoughts. Casey: Could you not accomplish that with a sign? You have a retaining wall with a hand rail, could you not have a sign with an arrow saying exit? Elsass: It is possible you'll get some takers. It would help and that is probably what we will do if we can't get a consensus of everybody agreeing on it. I am just saying, you know, you go to the mall and see which places you've been to. If you've been to the mall in the last five years there are some Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 26 places you have never even crossed just because of the way the mall is, the way it is laid out. This is one of those things that I don't guess I can explain it anymore than they are going to use. For an example, one of the reasons that we're trying to do this is over at one of the centers we've got at Zion, one of the big issues has been I put a retail here, I put an office such as Healthcare Financial, we've got Four Seasons Cleaners, we have got an insurance office and we've got dentists. Here is what happens. These people up here that have no retail customers are using the retail front. All of their employees park as close to the front as they can and the consumer has a fit. So you've got this huge friction. My idea was let's put the non -consumer type businesses back here where we don't have any retail, let's put the retail up here and let's combine them all into one unit. Fortunately, I've got two fronts so I can do that with this particular project. That is the reason for this idea. Hopefully, these people are all going to use whichever route we put back here. You are going to get some to take it with signage but generally if they can't just automatically see it and respond to it and react to it they aren't going to use it. Warrick: We will look at that for you and see if we can talk over some things. You might get the same answer but we'll certainly look at it. Jefcoat: Try not to make it too late towards the end of the week because these have to be turned in on Monday and I've got a lot to do to make sure that this curb for drainage and all of that is there. Warrick: I am going to go ahead and go through Craig's comments. A tree preservation plan must be submitted for this project showing all existing tree canopy. There was canopy removed prior to grading and these trees need to be calculated for in the preservation table. Jefcoat: No, no, no, no. We had a grading plan that is already approved that shows all of that removed already. That is separate from this project all together. Elsass: There were only four little trees out here and all we did was transplant them to another location so there wasn't any trees. Warrick: He is specifically talking about the trees along the eastern property line. Those trees need to be shown. If you could get with him and coordinate that information. He does have the pre -approved plan, he does have the comments from the grading plan approval but he does need a landscape plan for this project. His comment specific to the trees along the existing property line is that the trees currently provide a buffer between uses of the proposed development and the residential zoning on the other side of Joyce. It will be recommended that every effort be made to preserve large sections of these trees within this existing landscape buffer. He is recommending that every effort be made to preserve large sections of the Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 27 trees. We do understand with the street improvements that there will be trees that have to come out but we will want to work with you to do whatever is possible to save trees along that eastern property line. Jefcoat: There is no way. Those trees are in the right of way and they are on that ditch. If we widen the road and you can see where the proposed pipe is going right behind the curb, all the trees come out. Elsass: Those are cedars and a willow tree. The only possible change of any tree that might be worth saving is in this area, which we were going to try to save anyway. You widen this road and there is not a tree in here that will be able to stay, they've got to go. Either we leave the road the way it is and leave the trees. Warrick: No, we're not going to do that, we will coordinate the comments. We are not going to conflict with Engineering staff. What needs to happen is the street needs to be improved in that process if anything can be saved we want to look at the potential of that. Jefcoat: I understand Craig is coming in late into this project but some discussions have taken place that he is just not aware of so we will re -hatch those. Warrick: Kim's original comments did discuss preserving those trees until the time of development and then reviewing it again. That is where we're at. Elsass: I think part of the pain was when this was looked on as a separate project, being the liquor store that was looked at before, one of the things is that the entrance here they weren't accounting for the street improvements. I think part of the comments here is that the street improvements were only going to come up to where the entrance was from what I understood you weren't going to require it to go the full length of the property, it was going to be here which in turn, if we did put the entrance here then we would be able to leave the trees at this point here for the buffer. Currently it would make a big difference. Down the road when this is all doubled you will probably want to change off there but that is the reason that I think there is a conflict there. If the road was here or if it was here, that is the reason we proposed only improving to the road to here was that would lead whatever room right here. Warrick: We are looking at a completely different project. Staff rezoned one of the two lots that are being shown so we are reviewing it for what it is. Elsass: I understand that. I think that's part of a reason that there is a complication or miscommunication there. Warrick: This illustrates why it is problematic to preempt the grading plan prior to project plan and staff does not currently encourage that. Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 28 Jefcoat: That was not the intention but yes, we understand. Warrick: I don't have anything else. Pate: That's all of staff's comments. We can take utilities comments. Ron Berstrom — American Electric Power Berstrom: No comment. Jamie Boyd — Arkansas Western Gas Boyd: We would like a 20' utility easement on the east side, the north side and the west side of this property and at the entrances we would like crossings. That's all I have. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: I agree with Jamie's UE's and I would also like to as for a 4" PVC to cross the driveways. Another issue that I think we're going to run into, and I talked to Mel about this before when this property went through with the liquor store that was proposed. Where these driveways are going to be placed, a commercial driveway we have to be 18'6" high. There is no way that's going to make it. We can't raise on the poles because we still have to stay 40" from electric and we are crowding that pretty close right now. The two choices I see is to place it underground and sorry, that's going to be at the owner's expense, or if Ozarks could respace those poles. There is a pretty long span right now, if they would agree to come in and take the pole out and set a couple more to respace them we might be able to get that clearance without a problem. Right now it is not going to. This south entrance, there is a pole about 30' or 40' north of that south entrance and I doubt right now that it is 12'or 14'high right there. Elsass: One of the things that we had talked about at one time was the possibility of having to go in and put that underground. I was told several times by Mike Phipps with Ozark that there is no way that these things are ever going to go underground. Gibson: I don't know what the size of his electric is there. Elsass: He said the size of it dictates and there is no way this is ever going to be able to be buried. Gibson: Our cable line is going to be too low, you are not going to be able to go underneath those driveways without hitting it. Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 29 Casey: You can put your line underground and leave Ozarks overhead. Gibson: I'm sorry, I'm with Cox Communications, we're on Ozarks' poles. We are joint use on their poles and our line is the one that's too late. Well, it's not too low until the driveways are cut. Milholland: Since he is lower than Ozarks Electric who has the poles is he can go underground and that would resolve the problem. Gibson: I can go underground or respace the poles, whichever one. Elsass: Can't you go above them? Gibson: No. With what they are filling in out there right now that is going to make it even lower. That is something that we need to talk about and to probably know for sure as soon as possible what you want to do with this. Elsass: When you say go underground how much, what kind of line are you talking about? Gibson: I'm talking about a .500 inch diameter and a .750 inch diameter line and it would need to go from. Elsass: Entrance to entrance? Gibson: No, not necessarily. We could probably do it from entrance to entrance but it would be silly to do that I think. I think you just need to come from down here on Joyce and go to the north corner of the property and just put it all underground the length of the property on Joyce Street. Jefcoat: That's twice as expensive for him. Are you going to share the cost? Gibson: Well it would be yeah, if he wants to dip off one of these poles and then come back overhead for a ways and then go underground again. Elsass: No, why not just span between here and here, I don't understand why we need to do this or this. Gibson: Well we can but we'll have to go from, I can't see the next power pole, let's say we're coming from this direction wherever that next power pole is to the south of that south entrance we need to go from there, dip underground, go up and go past this driveway to the next pole and then come back up. It would save some but I don't know how much. Elsass: Well, I'll tell you like I told him, if it is a dollar it's a dollar. Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 30 Gibson: There's a pretty long span right there. We can't raise the line. Milholland: If I'm reading this right, the existing overhead electric is on the right of way of the road, I don't know if we're raising that up. If it is the existing right of way we're not raising that up any. Gibson: We can measure it but I'm still not thinking it's going to be high enough. I would be glad to measure it. If we can save, we don't want to move it either. Milholland: I don't think you'll have to worry to much about that because your poles are along the right of way. Gibson: If you can just stick it, stake your right of ways and then go out there and stick it with an 18" fiber glass and if it clears then hey, that's great. We have got a lot of other things we could be doing. Jefcoat: Your minimum clearance is 18'? Gibson: Yes, for a commercial driveway. Milholland: We can get someone to do that, it will take about 20 minutes. Gibson: I'd just find the center of these driveways, go to the center and stick it right there. If it clears there it is going to clear the sides. One more comment, do you have any idea right now where your electric meter is going to be on this building? Milholland: No, I imagine it will be on the east back corner. Gibson: I imagine what they will do is dip off one of these overheads and dip off there underground. If you would place me a 4" conduit over from that pole to within 3' or so of that electric meter. That's all I have. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: I agree with the 20' utility easement that Jamie asked for. If we could extend that also to the south end I have along that south end there. It will pretty much be 20' UE around the north property. Gibson: There is a lot of stuff in there. Clouser: I need a dedicated easement there on the south. If I am the only one you're giving it to 10' is ok but 20' would be preferable. If anything does need to be relocated it will be at the owner/developer's expense or if Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 31 Elsass: Clouser: Elsass: Clouser: Milholland: Clouser: Morgan: Jefcoat: Elsass: Gibson: Jefcoat: Elsass: Gibson: Elsass: anything that is out there presently is damaged it will be repaired at the developer's expense. I need a 4" conduit coming into the building also with a pull string. The #6 bare ground. Are you going to have just one "D" Mark here or are you going to be looking for two "D" Marks because of the shape of the building? I don't know what a "D" Mark is. The telephone terminal where it comes in, the cable where your inside line hooks to the outside line. I don't know. If we do there will be conduits. Ok, we will need conduit to both coming out to the east side of the property. You're going to serve it from the east side? Yes. I will also need 4" crossings underneath the driveway, you are probably going to put a quad in there I would imagine and make sure they are back in the utility easement rather than in the driveway. If the ATM is going to stay we will need conduit to the ATM, 3" with a pull string will be fine. It is hard to get in there once the casings are in. If you can give me a call we'll probably need to talk to decide exactly where the conduits are going to go but once they are in place I can get a job opt to get cable in there. I just wanted to note that Fire comments are in the packet. Revisions are due at 10:00 a.m. on September 24`h. Thank you. The fire comments are almost redundant. Matt, will you and Dawn get together and get with them and let them know? My concerns have been pretty well spoken. Give me a call and let me know. It takes a while to get a job started. We'll let you know, I don't think it is going to be but it is. If we do have to bury it where would it be located? It would be located within the 20' utility easement. There's plenty of room because there is going to be dirt work down there anyway. Currently at this time there is no dirt in there, we wouldn't even have to dig unless it is going to be 2' or 3' under ground. Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 32 Jefcoat: You will have to dig. Elsass: Why? Jefcoat: Because you aren't filling in that much there. Even if it's a foot, you'll have to dig some. Gibson: It will need to be at least 30" deep. Pate: Thank you. Elsass: Thank you. Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 33 LSD 03-34.00: Large Scale Development (Collision Repair Center, pp 287) was submitted by Milholland Engineering and Surveying on behalf of Tracy Hoskins for property located south of 2787 N McConnell Ave. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains 2.39 acres. The request is for the construction of a collision repair center. Pate: The next item is also submitted by Milholland Engineering. It is a Large Scale Development for a Collision Repair Center, item eight on our agenda for Tracy Hoskins. We will go through Planning comments first. The proposed sign here, we will need to see elevations of that. It is required by ordinance, just like elevations of the structure is. Jefcoat: I don't know that the sign will be placed there. We put that on there for an option for the owner to make that decision. I don't know if he's still putting that sign there or not. Hoskins: We don't have any intention of putting the sign there at this time. Pate: Ok, just remove that from the plan. In your notes for the building height of the body shop I think I saw a couple of typos. The storage area to the north of the body shop, is that outdoor storage? Jefcoat: Oh, along the north side of the body shop? Hoskins: There is no outdoor storage. Pate: I just wanted to make sure. The setbacks should be indicated on the plat. This is in the Design Overlay District so it will require a waiver for your curb cut. You really don't have an option here though so just to let you know. They are supposed to be 200' apart but I don't think that you have an option here. You will just need to do a waiver request and it will probably be a staff condition of approval. Currently I think you are at 105'. Any proposed parking lot lighting needs to be shielded and utilizing full cutoff lighting fixtures, sodium halide. Jefcoat: The same comment as before, there should be a note on the lighting. Pate: I saw the note and I thought I saw one street light out here. Just so that you are in compliance with all of the Design Overlay District standards, not exceeding 35' in height, sodium fixtures, full cutoff fixtures, a note to that affect to make sure you get all of those conditions in there. Jefcoat: I think that covers all of those. Pate: I believe it does and I will read it again to make sure. For parking, currently our ordinances deal with sales of vehicles for display parking, Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 34 Jefcoat: Pate: Jefcoat: Pate: Jefcoat: Hoskins: Pate: Milholland: Pate: Hoskins: Pate: we will have to track a Conditional Use for this because you are over your maximum number now. You have 131 total allowed and 148 provided. Because of those numbers that is going to require a Conditional Use. I believe Monday is the deadline to file that Conditional Use. We need to fast track this as soon as possible. It will be the same time, it will have to be approved before the Large Scale is approved. Our parking spaces is for maximum use of the building in the rear of the building which are not really parking spaces. You have to realize that that is not parking, that area is strictly storage for vehicles being worked on so that is. I know that Craig, the Landscape Administrator, has been working with you on landscape requirements as well. I think he has some comments specifically addressing that and so those need to be coordinated as well. It may end up that landscape requirements are such that parking won't be an issue. I will go over those comments. All of our staff comments are to be coordinated. As proposed, because it is not for sell and rental of these vehicles, we don't have an option. We have to track a Conditional Use request. Are any of these vehicles for sale? Yeah, that's what this is. It is just like a used car dealership but it is with leased cars. We buy and sell leased cars. It is the same principal as Landers across the street, it is just not a franchise. That has never been conveyed to us. Currently it has been a repair shop. We need a letter to that affect stating that and describing that, we can probably work with you on that. If it is not then it will be a Conditional Use? That is correct. If the vehicles are for sale we'll just need a letter. You can check our current site on North College. There isn't anything on it. Ok, we just had no idea about that. We do need five bike racks for this number of spaces. I saw a bike symbol but we just need to make sure there are five of them. Technical Plat September 17, Page 35 Jefcoat: Pate: Jefcoat: Milholland: Pate: Milholland: Casey: Hoskins: Pate: Jefcoat: Pate: Jefcoat: Pate: Review 2003 There again, we considered the spaces in the back non -customer use. You are talking about bike racks for customer use. It is required with any car dealership. With any dealership the number is determined by ordinance the number of bike racks that are provided and that is the requirement. Like I said, we provided for what is for customer use and not for storage. Is it possible that we could write a letter on that requesting Planning Commission to waive that requirement since it is understandable? I don't think it can be waived. You might appeal, let me check on that for you and find out. I'm just trying to find out, this is not a normal LSD. They would be there for your employees. Customers may not be the intent here. Well, people who wreck cars may need alternative transportation. The equipment storage area note, I think we have already discussed that. The waiver is required for parking and if we get that letter make a determination there. If we can get that as soon as possible so that we know whether a Conditional Use is going to be required or not. If so, if you want to keep this on the current review cycle you will need to submit that Conditional Use by Monday. I think he will write a letter describing the nature of his business. We do have a letter from the property to the south, the Lindsey property about grading and construction at the property line. I haven't yet received a letter from Southwestern Bell in our files. Have you submitted one? I haven't been in contact with Southwestern Bell but we can. Any mechanical or utility equipment needs to be screened using materials compatible with and incorporated into the structure. This is a commercial structure, it falls under all commercial design standards and it is also in the Design Overlay District. I included some information specific about these requirements so if you will just read over those and make sure you are compliant with them. Most of them you are, I just want to make sure you're aware of them. The trash enclosure does need to be enclosed, which I believe it is if I'm reading the symbol correctly, with access not Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 36 visible from the street. That is the bulk of the Planning comments. Matt will go over Engineering comments. Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: Jefcoat: Casey: Milholland: Casey: Milholland: Casey: Jefcoat: Casey: Jefcoat: Casey: Hoskins: Casey: The property to the north and the south of this currently has a through street that this property goes on. I haven't been able to visit the site yet but some street improvements will be required. Do you know what the distance is from centerline to those curbs are? I think it would be best to label it there. We normally require 14'. When Lindsey built his to the north it is short and the one to the south is wide and some of the lanes don't match up. We just are matching up to the existing curb here and down here so actually it probably varies by a foot. I don't have the actual width on there but you can see the variation occurs. What we have done is just skewed the line up on this side. We'll do that, if you wouldn't mind just putting a dimension on that. What we did Matt was the curb and gutter at each end was not exactly the same. I had crews to locate the curb and gutter north and south, split the curb here and split the curb up here and that is the new centerline that will match so it is going to be flared there about a foot and a half or two feet. It would look nice that way. I think that would be a better option than to have a jog. It does meet the minimum standard. The ordinance calls for the centerline from the existing street. The proposed sidewalk needs to be 6' instead of 5'. What about the sidewalk on Lindsey's side? Just taper off from there. How come he can build 5' and we can't? I don't know if the requirements have changed since he built his. Our requirement is 6' on multi -family or commercial. Matt, you don't think that would look better if we just kept with theirs? During construction you can work with our Sidewalk Administrator who will be inspecting it and all of that. Technical Plat September 17, Page 37 Hoskins: Casey: Jefcoat: Casey: Jefcoat: Casey: Jefcoat: Casey: Jefcoat: Casey: Jefcoat: Casey: Review 2003 We can widen it or make it narrow or whatever but I mean I understand the ordinance is 6' but aesthetics should be considered as well. I think you can work with Chuck during construction. He'll let you know if that's an option. It will have to be on the south side and then flair it out to the road anyway but we will work with him. Also, you show a trickle channel through your detention pond, you will need to extend that on up through the length of your pond so that can function up through here as well and then grade the pond to the trickle channel. That is to help drain and eliminate any standing water after the storm is done. That is something that we have been doing recently to eliminate any health hazards associated with standing water. Ok. The pond also needs to be sodded up to the 100 -year water surface elevation. You have got some retaining walls on both the north and south side, is there a way that you can clarify the location? Can you make them bolder or something where they stand out and are noticeable? I'm afraid when the Commissioners get their copies they may not notice. I don't know what else I can do, I've got them labeled. They kind of get lost, I don't know if they can be any more bold where they can stand out where they will know and also know the height here in quotations. That is so our commissioners will know whether it is a 4' wall there or a 12' wall there. We only propose one on this side. Ok. That's right, that particular retaining wall is right on the curb, it is on the property line, I've got it. We have our standard retaining wall comments. The rest of it is just standard grading with the exception of the pond doesn't match what is shown in the drainage report. We just need to make sure that the volume and elevations match. The shape isn't all that important as long as those volumes and elevations are correct in the report. That's all I have. Jefcoat: The report may be slightly wrong. Technical Plat September 17, Page 38 Casey: Pate: Jefcoat: Pate: Jefcoat: Pate: Jefcoat: Pate: Hoskins: Jefcoat: Pate: Review 2003 Ok, it wasn't shown to go around the tree preservation area so you may have your volume there but we just need to clarify that. I am going to briefly touch on the tree preservation plans from the Landscape Administrator since Craig is not here. They are provided in your packets and I don't have a tree preservation plan in front of me. His comments are to illustrate more clearly on the plan the trees that are proposed for removal. The design of the parking lot should try to integrate as many of those trees along the edge of the property line as possible in order to provide a buffer between the apartments and the proposed collision center. That was a comment that I was specifically addressing earlier. We've got a letter from Lindsey saying we can grade and fill right up to the property line for proper use of the street. In that letter it also says that we can use his property for placing additional trees, we will do that on his property. Ok, you need to coordinate that with Craig. Currently he is recommending a tree line along that edge. We are putting them on that edge it is just that it is going to be off the property and we have got the property owners to agree to that. Are they shown on the plan currently, is Craig aware of that now? Yeah, he should be but we will double make sure. He made a specific comment, there is a 40" locust tree, he and another certified arborist are going to make a determination on the health of that tree prior to it being removed and prior to him making a recommendation on that specific tree. He just wanted to make you aware of that as well. The locust tree is the one with the big balls that dent cars and pop tires, oh yeah, we'll try to save that one. Our comment to that is it is incompatible with the use so it needs to come out. Grading lines around the locust on the western edge of the detention pond and several trees on the north property line needs to be pulled out of the critical root zone in order to consider these trees for preservation. Based on current canopy removed the number of mitigation trees required is 45 trees. The mitigation proposal that meets planting all required trees will need to be submitted with any future plan revisions. Again, he mentions the tree lawn along the southern property line that may provide space for Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 39 these trees. Again, you need to coordinate these comments with him specifically. He is in the Planning office so we are very much aware of what's going on and we all talk about what each other is doing so if you will coordinate those with him. Another comment from the Fire Marshall's office, specifically they noted that this gated access has to be a minimum of 20'. I am not sure, the gate doesn't measure 20' currently but to get access back there it should be a minimum of 20' and have a 24 hour access to that whether it is a code access or however they work that out. Just contact the Fire Marshall's office and your proposal will need to show that 20' clear. Utility comments? Ron Berstrom — American Electric Power Berstrom: No comment. Jefcoat: One comment is access from the north side of the building. Pate: Danny Farrar came by and talked about this with me specifically, which is why we talked about the gated access. He wasn't sure if that was supposed to be a street or what that was in the equipment storage area. He just wants to be able to get as far back here as he can. Jefcoat: There again, comments have been provided and it is in letter form, that Southwestern Bell's entrance road is paved right up to the property line and I met with him and indicated that that paved road was the access, just to reiterate that. Jamie Boyd — Arkansas Western Gas Boyd: We have an existing 2" plastic gas line that runs along the eastern property line that is in a utility easement that will serve this building if you need gas. Any relocation or damage to our facilities will be at the expense of the developer. That's the only comment I have. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: We don't have anything down there right now, if they are thinking they might want cable in the office or something like that, if they would provide us a 2" conduit from the southeast corner of the office to the southeast corner of the property just south of the property and turn it up. Hoskins: We need a lot of cable modems. Gibson: We are going to have to come from the north edge of the Lindsey property to get to it. That's all I have. Technical Plat September 17, Page 40 Sue Clouser — Review 2003 Southwestern Bell Clouser: Hoskins: Jefcoat: Clouser: Pate: Milholland: Boyd: Milholland: Boyd: Milholland: Boyd: I would like to see a 20' UE along that west side of McConnell to match up with that UE that Lindsey has at the apartments there and I would also like to see a 4" conduit under the drive there in that utility easement incase we needed to get back there with cable in the future. Any relocation or damage to existing facilities will be at the owner's expense and if I could get a 4" conduit from the offices out to the proposed utility easements along the roadway with pull strings. Do you have any idea about how many lines you are going to be looking at in there? Not at this time. Ok, if you want to go ahead and put a 3" in there. We will put a 4" six pack. Under the driveway crossing I just need one 4" under there. I believe that's all the comments we have for you. I have a question. Does Arkansas Western Gas have a line along the front of this property? You said you have a line on the west side along this property? There should be. I show an underground telephone but I don't show an underground gas, I see water. You probably need to look it up at the courthouse. We had the one call on this and we didn't pick it up. That doesn't mean a thing. The best thing to do is go to the courthouse and request for right of way easements running down through there. Pate: Revisions are due on the 24`h at 10:00 a.m., call me if you have any questions. Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 41 FPL 03-10.00: Final Plat (Salem Meadows, pp245) was submitted by Landtech Engineering, Inc. on behalf of Palmco Properties and John Alford for property located on Salem Road, across from Holcomb Elementary and north of Salem Village. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre, and contains approximately 39.95 acres. The request is to approve the development of 89 Single-family lots. Morgan: The next item is a Final Plat for Salem Meadows, it was submitted by Landtech Engineering, Inc. After reviewing the Final Plat as well as the Preliminary Plat that was approved by the Planning Commission we have determined that there are significant enough changes to require another Preliminary Plat and that this Final Plat proposal should come through as a Preliminary Plat. Hillis: We have talked to Matt about that. I just got word just a few minutes ago as a matter of fact that there may be another revision to it and that they've bought some other property to this. It might extend the street going up to the other property so this is falling in really well. Morgan: Ok. Pate: You don't need to make a practice of it though. There was a plan approved. Hillis: There was a plan approved and everything was talked about and EGIS report was all done and the detention pond was moved into that area right there and everybody was aware of that. We had no idea that it had to go back there as well. Pate: Planning wasn't contacted. The responsibility is yours if you want to change your plat you need to contact us so that we can show you the proper procedures to go through and have that approved by the Planning Commission. We are doing things after the fact now so basically our requirements are going to be that you need to submit from a new plat for the next Technical Plat Review so we are not going to go over our comments now. We did provide you with some comments. Morgan: That packet also includes the staff report from when the Preliminary Plat was approved in February as well as the minutes and the packet for Preliminary Plat submittal is in there, the application packet. Hillis: This whole thing started out with a significant wetland area and tree preservation and then EGIS got involved so this went through a process that was unbelievable. Pate: Has a wetland delineation been done? Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 42 Hillis: Yes there has been. Pate: Would you supply that? Hillis: It has been supplied. Pate: Very good, thank you. Hillis: We are aware of it coming back, that's not a problem. Morgan: Ok, the next submittal date is September 22' at 10:00 a.m. Hillis: Ok. Casey: Don, just for your information, something that staff has discussed, the cul- de-sac now exceeds the maximum allowed so we are looking at access to this park from here these people are going to have to walk all the way around here so we are going to be asking that on the revised Preliminary Plat that this easement here also be made an access easement and a sidewalk be constructed from this cul-de-sac over to this other street to provide access to that park. Pate: Rebecca, do you want them to come back through to Parks Board if they are adding additional lots? Ohman: No. I think that can be administrative. Morgan: Ok, that's it for now. Thank you. Gibson: Let me make a comment real quick if you don't mind because I've seen them putting drainage right here. These quad crossings that we asked for to go across those entrances, would you put those on the west side instead of the east side? I don't know if that matters to you right now or not. Hillis: They are working on that out there. Gibson: I saw that. That's all I have. Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 43 FPL 03-09.00: Final Plat (Summerbrook Estates, pp 648) was submitted by Milholland Co. on behalf of NLC, Inc. for property located at Hunt Lane, approximately 0.5 miles south of Huntsville Rd. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 28.35 acres. The request is to approve the development of 12 Single- family lots. Morgan: The next item on the agenda is the Final Plat for Summerbrook Estates submitted by Milholland Company. I wanted you to notice that notes one and two are conflicting on the plat so if you could correct that. Pate: The comment there is it says it is in a floodplain but then it says it is not in a floodplain. Morgan: The Final Plat needs to bear the correct signature seals as well as signature blocks and I've included those in the packet. Some of which are not going to be applicable because it is in the county so you need to disregard those. Jefcoat: Do you have that in email form? Morgan: Yes, I will get your email later. Jefcoat: it is tjefcoat(c@swbell.net. Morgan: Ok. Also, streets need to be shown on the Final Plat, it is a little confusing where those are. For Final Plats addresses need to be indicated on each lot. Septic system approval needs to be given for lots less than 1.5 acres. Those are all the comments I have. Engineering? Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: Tom, if you can add finished floor elevations for the lots affected by the floodplain. She has already commented about the note for the floodplain. Also, you might add a note stating that each one of these lots, driveway construction may not be in the floodway. They are going to have to have a permit through the Corp. of Engineers. They just need to be aware when they are purchasing lots that it will have to be approved by the Corp. of Engineers. That is all I've got. Jefcoat: A note stating Corp. approval and that's it. Ok. Ron Berstrom — American Electric Power Berstrom: No comment. Jamie Boyd — Arkansas Western Gas Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 44 Boyd: Tom, I'm not sure which way this subdivision is going to go. You are showing a 64' wide street. Jefcoat: That is the right of way. Boyd: Have you talked with our Engineering Department about the gas mains? Jefcoat: Yes. We have located those and cleared them, one reason is the road is off center of the right of way. Boyd: Ok. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: Your UE's and crossings look good. The only comment I would have on that is lots 10, 11, and 12 if we are going to service it from the front or back we are probably going to ask the builder to supply the cost from the line to the house because they are so big. That's a long ways in there. That is something that you may want to keep in mind or pass on to the people buying the lots or whatever. That's all I have. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: No comment. Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 45 FPL 03-08.00: Final Plat (Legacy Pointe Ph. II, pp 435 & 474) was submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Charles Sloan for property located on Double Springs Road south of Wedington Dr. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single- family, 4 units per acre, and contains 13.25 acres. The request is to approve the development of 42 Single-family lots. Morgan: The next item is a Final Plat for Legacy Pointe Phase II which was submitted by Jorgensen & Associates. Planning comments are that zoning on the plat needs to be updated from R-1 to the current RSF-4 and the correct signature block for the Final Plat needs to be added. That is a standard comment to make sure you've got them all. New street names need to be approved by the 911 Coordinator. The rest are standard comments. Engineering? Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: Chris, you will need to have a final inspection prior to approval of this. Also, you need to add a note to the Final Plat that all retaining walls shall be setback a minimum of 2' from the right of way. All retaining wall construction shall be on the building permit and have the approval of the City Engineer. All residential driveways shall have a maximum width of 24' measured at the right of way line. Pate: Is this Phase II and III Chris? Brackett: There isn't a III since we did this all at once. We are going to call this II and then he has an additional 30 acres here that we are going to call III. It was called II and III on the Preliminary Plat and he had intentions of doing it in three phases but due to the cost he just did it all at once. I am assuming this would all be II. Pate: We'll check on that. This may need to be called II and III because it was an approved plan and it was Phase II and III specifically. Brackett: Just let me know and we will adjust it however. Rebecca Ohman — Parks Planner Ohman: I have some comments too. Prior to signing the Final Plat the parking lot must be built and reviewed. Morgan: Craig's comments are that Developer's variance petition is under consideration next month by City Council. Pending the decision of City Council, the develop is currently required to pay into the City's Tree Escrow Account for the removal of trees. I was also wondering what date the inspection is scheduled for. Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 46 Brackett: It is not scheduled right now, the curb is down and I'm not sure what date it will be paved. We will revisit that Monday and schedule the final. I understand that it has to be scheduled before the resubmittal. Morgan: Utilities? Ron Berstrom — American Electric Power Berstrom: No comment. Jamie Boyd — Arkansas Western Gas Boyd: No comment. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: No comment. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: No comment. Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 47 PPL 03-12.00: Preliminary Plat (Crofton Manor, pp 323) was submitted by Northstar Engineering for property located at 3110 Mount Comfort Rd. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre, and contains 21.15 acres. The request is to modify the approved preliminary plat of 56 Single-family lots to allow for 2 additional lots. Pate: Item number thirteen on our agenda today is a Preliminary Plat for Crofton Manor submitted by Northstar. Just for utilities purposes, this is sort of an amendment to this plat. They already came through once about a month ago and they are basically splitting this larger lot down here. Gibson: Ok. Pate: I think that's the only change other than the lots have been renumbered to reflect that. Most of these comments are taken directly off of what we talked about and also the Planning Commission approval of the project including the note that was on the last Preliminary Plat that went through. Sidewalks along Mt. Comfort and Kinswick Avenue will be constructed along with the other sidewalks in the project pursuant to Master Street Plan requirements with minimum greenspace. Lot one will be constructed at the same time. Any existing overhead electric lines need to be placed underground if they are under 12KV. A note restricting access to Mt. Comfort Road, I think you updated your note here. Any other comments from previous reviews apply. 30 copies of this revised plat needs to come forward for Subdivision by 10:00 a.m. on the 24`h Blakeley: I do want to make a comment about the trees we have shown out on Mt. Comfort Road. I met with Craig out there last week and he said that was just an option that we can or can't put them in. We are going to take them off for now and see if the developer wants to put them on later. Pate: The ones along lot 1? Blakeley: Yes, all the trees are still proposed along the road for aesthetic purposes and we can or we can't put them there so we're going to take them off for right now so when you don't see them on there next time you'll know why. Pate: Thank you. I will go over his comments real quick. He says per the discussion last week that you need to amend the tree preservation canopy table on the tree preservation plan to reflect the accurate number of trees required for mitigation. Note that a payment will be made into the City's Tree Escrow account for the number of trees removed. That number will probably change from the last one since more trees are affected. Blakeley: Right. Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 48 Pate: Then I think there needs to be a fencing detail added. Matt has a question. Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: What's the status of your offsite drainage? Blakeley: We haven't got an easement written yet but we have worked with the Kimbroughs up north and they are allowing us a 20' easement for a drainage ditch and we are putting that ditch out to Salem Road and it will sheet flow across this property. He is ok with it, we're putting oil catchers in. The last storm box here is going to catch oil. Casey: Can we get a letter from him saying that? Blakeley: Yes. Casey: Just that that is confirmed. Blakeley: I haven't spoken with James that lives over here, just with Les, but he says that they are all on board including his mother. I will get a letter stating that they are ok with what we have planned down here. Casey: Before construction we will need something showing that offsite drainage easement. Ohman: The Parks Board saw this project on June 2nd and voted to accept money in lieu of land to meet the requirements. For 58 lots the fee due will be $32,190. The alternative transportation and trails plans has established Mt. Comfort Road and an on street linkage. In effort to provide a 12' wide trail in the future we are requesting that you construct your sidewalk at the northern most edge of the right of way. Blakeley: Ok. Pate: Utility comments please? Ron Berstrom — American Electric Power Berstrom: No comment. Jamie Boyd — Arkansas Western Gas Boyd: The only thing that I can see is on your eastern entrance you are showing two 4" conduits, can you bump that up to four conduits? Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 49 Blakeley: Yes, I sure can. Clouser: Move them up to utility easements, they are in the right of way. Boyd: All of these should be shown in utility easements, not on the offsite property. That's all I have. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: I am looking at that last entrance there and I think Mike Phipps is the one who requested six, because he's wanting two so you may want to bump that east end to six. Blakeley: Right, prior to this we didn't have any utility easements along what is now lots 1, 2, and 3 so we weren't planning to go that way. Gibson: You may want to ask him that. Four would cover me. Your easements look fine though. Move them up to utility easements. Have they started any work on this? If you would notify Cox the day they break ground on it. The way everything is going right now when they break ground that would be a good time for us to get started on it. That's all I have. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: Just the same comments about the conduit. If you could let me know that would be helpful for me when you break ground. Thank you. Pate: Revisions are due in the 24th at 10:00 a.m. Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 50 PPL 03-16.00: Preliminary Plat (Remington Subdivision, pp 220) was submitted by Jorgensen and Associates on behalf of Terry Gulley for property located on the 3400 block of Gulley Rd. The property is located in the Planning Area and contains 58.81 acres. The request is to approve the development of 51 Single-family lots. Pate: Item fourteen is a Preliminary Plat for Remington Subdivision submitted by Jorgensen on behalf of Mr. Wheeler. Morgan: My first comment is the name of the subdivision, Jim Johnson that name has been used so it may be changed. All street names should be labeled on the plat and we are requesting that a note be placed on the plat indicating that lots one and two will have limited access to interior streets. Also, if you could verify the dimension of lot 17 at the setback line to ensure the proper lot width for that specific lot. Locate any signs for the subdivision or other that may be posted and you will need to get an Arkansas Department of Health approval for the septic systems on lots than 1.5 acres. Those are all of Planning comments. Engineering? Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: No comment. Morgan: Utilities? Ron Berstrom — American Electric Power Berstrom: No comment. Jamie Boyd — Arkansas Western Gas Boyd: There is an existing gas main along Gulley Road on the west side. I just wanted to make you aware of that. Jorgensen: Do you know what the size of that is? Boyd: It is a 3". I have some crossing comments. First, between lot 1 and 5 I would like for you to give a 20' utility easement along the west side of five. Also, between 12 and 13 a 20' UE. 31 and 20, a UE shown there. We are probably going to need something between 19 and 18 because it is a great distance around the back side of this to get to 17 and 14 and you are probably going to want to go somewhere between 19 and 30. For casings, I need one from 26 and 25 over to 24 and 27. From 37 and 38 over to 39 and 36. At the end of these rows where they come to an end let's put a casing. Do quads on that. From 42 and 33 to 43 and 32. From 30 and 21 and from 13 and 12 to 20 and 19. From 6 and 7 over to 24 and 40. Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 51 Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: Those crossings and UE's are fine with me. That's all I have. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: I agree with the utility easements and if anything existing needs to be relocated it will be at the owner/developer's expense. Morgan: Revised plats are due on September 24th at 10:00 a.m. Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 52 R-PZD 03-04.00: Planned Zoning District (Lazenby, pp 560) was submitted by Landtech Engineering Inc. on behalf of Bill Lazenby for property located on the west side of Razorback Rd. between Baum Stadium and the State Revenue office. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial, and contains approximately 8.79 acres. The request is to rezone the property to a Residential PZD (Planned Zoning District) to allow for the construction of 112 Multi -family residential units with 168 bedrooms and 168 parking spaces, a 10,400 sq.ft. office space with 35 parking spaces proposed, and contractor storage utilizing 5.4% of the building area. Pate: Item 15 is a Residential Planned Zoning District for Lazenby on the west side of Razorback Road. Don, a lot of these comments have been carried forward, some of them are standard. Any signage that is proposed. Hillis: There is no signage going on out here. Pate: Any office building signs shall also need to be shown. Hillis: Right. Pate: This of course will have to go to City Council for approval of the zoning and recommendation of the Planning Commission as well. When this is finally approved it will need to have a surveyor's seal, signature and date. You need to include a note on the plat explaining the access to the contractor storage units as part of the existing storage facility. It is obviously fenced off but I think a note would be real helpful to see how this is accessed. Any easements requested, if any, need to be shown. New utilities need to be placed underground. If you could on your notes somewhere over here or in your chart label the proposed building heights of the structures. I am assuming they are two story. Hillis: Yes. Pate: A draft of the covenants, we would like to see those if possible. There is a discrepancy between the setbacks that are labeled on the plan. As you know, with a PZD you can basically set your own setbacks and it looks like you've done so but you show 20' setbacks on the site plan but on your chart over here you're still showing several different ones. Razorback Road is a principal arterial, I believe you've met with the State. Can you update us on what the outcome was? Hillis: I called the State Highway Department and they have no intentions of doing any improvements along that road at this time. They don't want any improvements. Matt was wanting to meet with them also and Shane Reed was out of town at that time. Matt, we will get together and see if we can't get him out here. He is usually up here on Tuesdays. Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 53 Pate: We need to show the sidewalks along that road though. Casey: That will need to be 6' located at the right of way line. Hillis: I think I had it on there, it might have just got turned off. Pate: There is a sheet in here from Jim Johnson about the private drive. You need to submit at least four street names to Jim Johnson for a private drive within a project. Those need to be approved as well. Bike racks, we need two racks for the office parking and five for the residential development and those five, if not more, if you want to provide more I think that is probably a good idea simply because there are quite a few units here. You are promoting in the letter and in some of our correspondence that this will service a lot of university and college students around here and I think that bike racks throughout the project would be important around here. This is called out as office or retail. Parking requirements are a little different for office than they are for retail. Hillis: It is going to be a combination, more of it will be retail. Pate: If so, just alter your parking space data over here to reflect that. I think you are still within your numbers. We just want to make clear what's going on. Hillis: It is just hard to tell until you get people to come in you just don't know. They are talking about it would be great to have a pizza place in there. Right, that takes different parking but you don't know until you do it. Pate: Any trash enclosures need to be screened with access not visible from the street. Hillis: I have a note on that that all trash enclosures should be screened. Is there any particular type of screening that you want me to denote on that? Pate: Not typically. Just to make sure that they are screened and if it is a vegetative screen it needs to be fully screened within two years. If you are going a typical board fence. Any additional pedestrian connection, Matt or Rebecca may want to comment on this as well, basically our pedestrian connectivity to the site is along Razorback Road currently. I don't know if it would be advantageous to have a connection through this contractor storage area over to this street over here or not. Casey: I would recommend connecting the sidewalk out to the sidewalk on Razorback Road. Technical Plat September 17, Page 54 Pate: Review 2003 Commercial design standards, I included what our commercial design standards are. Looking at the elevations submitted that we've seen before we still have some concerns. I don't think you are meeting the commercial design standards presently with some of these elevations. We have those on file. Specifically the side of these office structures are pretty unarticulated. I know these are a little unique. They are storage buildings, they are in keeping with the adjacent development. You have done some things to screen that including a fence and vegetative purposes, which I think is a good idea. These are a lot more visible and these are in the public right of way so anything that can be done to help with that to minimize those things that are listed there in your report I think would be helpful. Those are all of the Planning comments that we have. Matt? Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: Hillis: Casey: Hillis: Casey: Hillis: Casey: Hillis: Casey: We have already discussed the 6' sidewalk along Razorback, that does need to be located at the right of way line. We need an easement a minimum of 10' on each side of all proposed water and sewer lines. You are showing 15' total right now. This connection to the existing water line here in the southwest corner, if we could move that back to the west a little bit so that the line will come around that retaining wall instead of under it. Sure. You just need to get it out from under that retaining wall. You show proposed drainage improvements off site here t the south on the U of A property, you need to get some drainage easements in writing from them. We were under the impression that there were already some existing easements there. Ok, well show those. We discussed this before but we still need to see contours for all grading. I couldn't do a complete review of the grading plan so there may be some additional comments. We will need that before the next submittal. He is doing that right now. Any retaining wall more than 4' in height shall be designed by a registered professional engineer. It is only 2', 24". If you could just label that at various locations, the height of the retaining wall. Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 55 Hillis: It is probably going to be the split faced block that looks nice. Casey: That's all that I have. Pate: Rebecca? Rebecca Ohman — Parks Planner Ohman: Parks Board reviewed this on April 7, 2003 and decided to accept money in lieu of land. This requires a waiver by ordinance because it is over 100 units. It was scheduled to go to the City Council but it was pulled by the applicant. In addition, this plan is different than what the Parks Board saw and the Park Board was under the impression that the detention area would be created in a park like setting. Because of that, Parks staff would like this to be heard again by the Parks Board. We have a special meeting tonight already planned and that will occur at 4:30 this afternoon. We will be meeting on a different project site but we will review these plans and get an understanding of what the Parks Board wants, if they want money in lieu of land or if they want to look at some different options with regards to land dedication. If they approve money in lieu of land we'll go onto October 76 City Council meeting. If not, we will have it come back through the process and meet here at Tech Plat. Pate: Is that understood? Hillis: I understand that but the client is not going to be very happy about it. This has been held up three times already by the staff. Pate: If the Parks Board agrees with what is being provided then this can continue through the process as long as City Council approves that. Hillis: I understand that. Everything was done per the staff's recommendation and staff has changed, we had a plan that looked fantastic, everybody liked it but they didn't want a park out in that detention area. So now we go to take the detentions off and they didn't want it, they didn't want us to touch this area so we took it off and now we're coming back and now you guys might decide you want a park, it just isn't going to work. Ohman: Parks staff and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board voted to not take park land improved upon. Hillis: That is correct. Ohman: Based upon that standard we voted to take money in lieu of land with the condition that the developer would provide a park like setting in the area for detention. Because that recreation has been taken away based upon city Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 56 recommendations, whomever, that has changed so the Parks Board needs to review that based upon that change. Hillis: Right, because city staff asked for that change. Ohman: It was your responsibility to come back to us with that change and request to get back on another agenda. Hillis: I also have heard during this meeting that staff talks between each other you know, and all of the sudden something has come up here that wait a minute you guys aren't talking, that was a year ago. Ohman: It is the responsibility of the developer to come back with park land or ask for an acceptance of money in lieu. Ok? Thanks. Hillis: We'll fix it. Pate: There were some comments from the Landscape Administrator as well. Submit a site analysis map. That has been a comment that has come through from the very first submittal in 2002. Indicate the location of tree preservation fencing both on the drawing and in the legend. Mitigation numbers need to be indicated on the tree preservation table as well. Required mitigation numbers currently equal 96 trees. Indicate on the tree preservation plan that mitigation requirements will be met on site. I am assuming that just needs to be a note. For the landscape plan comments: No mitigation trees are allowed to be used to meet landscaping requirements. In the eastern parking lot at least two mitigation trees are currently planted in tree islands. Those are required by the landscape plan so not the mitigation plan so two additional trees need to be added to that. Indicate on the planting plan the size of shrubs at the time of planting. These need to be a least 3' tall within two years. Three gallon containers or larger are recommended. In our meeting we discussed two weeks ago to add another species of shrub to the plant list to increase diversity. Hillis: Pate: Hillis: Pate: I put two of them there. No, we just have two shrubs, a holly and a dwarf. I understood that two were requested, I only had one before so we added one. Ok, you can coordinate that with Craig. It is just to provide more diversity within the development so it is not just one or two shrubs. Utilities? Technical Plat September 17, Page 57 Ron Berstrom Review 2003 — American Electric Power Berstrom: Hillis: Berstrom: Hillis: Berstrom: Pate: Berstrom: Hillis: Berstrom: Pate: Berstrom: Hillis: Berstrom: Hillis: Berstrom: I would like a 20' utility easement along the north side. Do you know what the voltage of the contractor storage facility is? I sure don't but I can get it for you. I would like to see a 20' utility easement on the south side and the east side of that contractor's building along here. Also, between apartments 2 and 5 a 20' UE from that corner to the edge of that number five. Between the office and apartment building number six to tie back into the south utility easement. These buildings up front have different uses? Yes they will. Ok. Are these going to be private streets? Private. I haven't looked at the streetlights. Staff commented they wanted streetlights. Will the city be paying for the streetlight costs or will the developer pay the cost? The developer. I will need a 10' UE for those streetlights and that will be at the cost of the developer. We have to put them in. The developer will be responsible for the cost between the overhead and underground. Do you know if this property is going to be all electric? I don't know. I will get with you later on to find out the load requirements. That is all I have. Jamie Boyd — Arkansas Western Gas Boyd: Those utility easements that Ron asked for we'll take. We have an existing 2" gas main that runs within that 20' utility easement on the west side of Razorback Road. Also, off site on the south side we have existing gas Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 58 main. You are showing some drainage boxes to be out on this site so the best thing to probably do is to contact the engineering division and have him locate that for you there. Any relocation to our equipment or lines will be at the developer's expense. That's all I have. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: Hillis: Gibson: Clouser: Berstrom: Gibson: Sue Clouser Clouser: Those UE's that Ron asked for are fine. There is only one thing that I would like to add to that if I could. Building 16, that 20' UE he asked for there in the back, can you extend that from the northwest corner of building 16 to the west to adjoin with that 20' UE? That makes sense. Also, I would like to ask for a 4" crossing across both of those entrances that come out on Razorback Road. Ron, do you want a quad there? I will be needing. We've already got a line there. Ok, I may only need one. That's all I have. — Southwestern Bell I agree with the easements and if there is any relocation of existing facilities it will be at the owner/developer's expense. I believe the way that we have the easements laid out now you shouldn't have to supply conduit because it looks like there is going to be an easement up to every single building. I may come on the south end along here, I may utilize this utility easement under the street on the south side there and if I do that I will need a 4" conduit with pull string under there. I don't know yet until I actually get it laid out. I think I asked this before but the contractor storage is not going to have telephone? It is strictly storage or do I need to plan that? Hillis: They will probably have some telephone. I would plan for it just in case. Clouser: Pate: Ok, very good. Of course we will need a #6 bare ground wire at the building where you bring the lines out. I have one additional comment that came forward from the last time, we need architectural elevations for this office as well. Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 59 Hillis: They are working on those. They should have them by the time of the next meeting for sure and I will have them look at the sides of the office buildings. Pate: If you want to call we can talk about that. Revisions are due on the 24`h Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 60 C-PZD 03-08.00: Planned Zoning District (Legacy/EGIS, pp 248) was submitted by Joe Tarvin, P.E. of EGIS Engineering, Inc. on behalf of Collins Haynes for property located on the southwest side of I-540 and Arkansas Highway 112. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial, in the Design Overlay District and contains approximately 289.26 acres. The request is to rezone the property to a Planned Zoning District to allow for development of Residential and Commercial sites. Pate: Pate: The last item on the agenda is a Commercial Planned Zoning District submitted by Joe Tarvin of EGIS Engineering, Inc. As with all Planned Zoning Districts, we need a detailed letter describing the proposal's intent, purpose and qualifications by which it meets the Commercial Planned Zoning District. You provided a brief letter kind of describing it, if we can get something a little bit more detailed with what the intent behind this project is. What I did was I included for you in the back of your packet what a Commercial Planned Zoning District is according to our ordinances and specifically, we ask this of all applicants for Planned Zoning Districts, to address some of these items and how this project meets some of those requirements and some encouraging mixed use. For instance the Commercial Planned Zoning District says to accommodate larger scale suburban developments with mixed use and home owner's relationship. To encourage commercial development which is consistent with the General Plan. Items specifically of nature to the Commercial Planned Zoning District, if we could address those with this project. You can do it point by point or in a letter format. That would be very much appreciated. Of course again, this property has to be rezoned and heard by the City Council as well with a recommendation from the Planning Commission. On the plat itself if we could indicate each of these large lots. Currently we have seven, we've actually asked in one of the comments to include this interior lot as lot 8 so it's part of the subdivision as well. Basically, if you turn to this page, in a Commercial Planned Zoning District there are specific units that are permitted. Because there is not a specific zoning, for instance, you listed lot 6 as C-2 and lot 5 as R-1. It is actually going to be zoned C-PZD, whichever number is assigned to this. If you could list with each lot number which one of these use units applies to that particular lot. That is how we determine what use units are allowed to be permitted within that particular lot. For instance, lot 5 is R-1, you could allow use unit 8, which is single-family dwellings. Whatever you do decide to do it will be binding to that lot so any further development will have to be using those for permit in the future. If you could include the current zoning classification, which is I-1 I believe for this entire project in the note somewhere on the plat. The rights of way for streets on the Master Street Plan all need to be indicated for dedication pursuant to the street classification. I think most of them have been made. It is such a big plan it is hard to find them all but I never saw it for Shiloh. I did note on Deane Solomon and then 35' which is Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 61 required on the portion of property that you don't own on the other side, half of that right of way needs to be dedicated. It is our understanding that these Master Street Plan streets that are currently shown are to be amended. That will have to be considered as individual items on the agenda. This will track through as individual Master Street Plan amendments. Of course indicate all utility easements as required. All new utilities must be placed underground and any wiring under 12KV will need to be relocated underground. Again, indicate that interior lot as lot 8 so that we have all of the property so it is not just a big parcel of ground. Tarvin: Is that on perimeter streets or is that just on interior parts where you have to relocate underground anything over 12KV? Pate: Basically, it is the entire property is what my understanding is. Any lines that are under 12KV on your property have to be relocated underground at the developer's expense. Tarvin: I guess what I'm wondering, I don't know if it is a problem or not. Like Deane Solomon Road for instance, is a 50' right of way and it is going to be 70'. If it is not on the 25', if it is on the public right of way right now would we have to do that too? Pate: Yes. Gibson: I don't think there's any there right now, we normally route the same way electric does and so if there is there is very little. Pate: Particularly 12KV lines are usually service lines, not always but usually. The wetland delineation, I know we've talked about this quite a bit. We need documentation on that. It has not been provided, any delineation that is being done or that is in the process, we just need an update of any delineation that is being done or is in the process. We just need an update on where that is and get some information for our files for that. The 100 - year floodplain, highlighted so it is a lot easier to see, I had some problem finding it before. Maybe you could use a darker line type or a little better labeling just to show where that is would be real helpful and then to reference the proper FIRM panel and reference number and date. If there are any existing known natural springs on site or wells we need to locate those as well. I am going to leave the street requirements comments up to Matt. Mine are pretty much echoing bis I believe. The interior street locations and names are to be determined basically with the development review. Each one of these larger lots will be required to go through a further development review process, either Preliminary Plat and Final Plat submittal or a Large Scale Development. Actually, it could go through both of those if lot 1 is subdivided further into smaller lots that are one acre and above they would have to go through Large Scale Development. Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 62 Part of this is in the Design Overlay District too and that line needs to be included. Parking and driveway requirements: Parking lot requirements, including number, greenspace/landscaping requirements, and bicycle rack requirements will be evaluated with each development proposal that comes through for each of these lots based on the use and number proposed. All lots are required to access public water and sewer supply. Street lights will be required pursuant to ordinance requirements. I have included in the comments a letter dated in July, 2003. Most of these concerns remain applicable with the specific lot layouts we have here and I just mentioned some again. Each of the eight lots will be required to be submitted as Preliminary Plats and Large Scale Developments and there will be more thorough investigation as each of these lots come through. We will basically make more detailed comments on rights of way, layout of lots, size and those types of things. That is where the use units become real important in this process what you identify in each one of these lots. Matt, do you want to go over your comments? Conklin- Jeremy, I was just going to add that this is eight lots and one of those lots is identified for preservation Pate: Right, if we can identify that. Conklin: Right, identify that and specify what type of uses may occur on that one lot, that is 144 acres. List the type of land uses and if it is for preservation you need to identify what can occur on that individual piece of property because this is a master development plan as part of the Planned Zoning District. Pate: Thank you Tim. Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: The only comment that I have for this particular phase of the project is that water and sewer will need to be provided at the time of development. The rest of the comments are for the conceptual layout. Those will be required at the time of development. We've gone over most of these. One more time, improvements to Shiloh Drive will be required. This will include the addition of curb and gutter, sidewalks and storm drains. That will need to be done at the time of development of lot 1, the commercial lot. Tarvin: Once before we were talking about extending the curb all the way down and I suspect the reason they stopped it was to feed the wetlands with water so the water can just runoff in there. Do you still want to go with the curb? Technical Plat September 17, Page 63 Casey: Tarvin: Casey: Tarvin: Pate: Tarvin: Conklin: Tarvin: Conklin: Taryin: Review 2003 We can look at that, drainage improvements will be required as well with discharges and everything. Improvements to Moore Lane will be required as well, a minimum of 14' from centerline the entire length of the property. The development of lot 2 will need to connect to Moore Lane will need to connect to Moore Lane with a standard intersection alignment. Lot 2 and 3 may need to be private streets. The current layout does not meet the minimum street standards. A waiver may be requested from the Planning Commission for these requirements at the time of development Improvements to Deane Solomon will be 14' from centerline. The improvements will be for the full width of the street for lot five How do you handle that centerline? We do 14' and the city pays the rest? Actually, we make it the full cost of the developer. Anything above the 28' section then we will go to City Council and get a recommendation for a cost share. Right now all we're asking is paving 14'. On Deane Solomon we also must take a look at the capacity f the culvert. I am not sure what size that s but it must carry the 25 -year storm event. Also, bring the curves at the north end of the property up to current standards. I know with developments in this area that this has come up. The majority of it is on the development so we are going to be looking at trying to help that curve. How is access going to be provided for lot 7? Right here. This is actually part of the project now. That is why the name is not on here for adjoining property owners. That will be done over the Large Scale Development. Are you going to call this an additional lot then? It is not a part of the PZD. It is not in the survey and the acreage is not included but it is going to be included in the overall plan but it will be handled separately. You will need to show how access is being provided to that. You can use Truckers Drive through there or if you want to avoid the channel come that way to avoid putting another structure over Clabber. Just for the record, that's not going to be included as a part of this Planned Zoning District? Not now. Ok. It would have to be surveyed in as part of the overall boundary and that hasn't been done yet. Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 64 Conklin: Ok. The Planning Commission and the City Council will be looking at this. Casey: I have only one further comment here. The extension of Truckers Drive must meet the current minimum street standards. Tarvin: Is that from center line Matt? Casey: That would be from centerline. I don't know if you need that for the conceptual layout or not. Rebecca Ohman — Parks Planner Ohman: With regard to your residential development the Parks Board will have to review these and determine whether they want money or land dedicated. This is adjacent to Clabber Creek. The alternative transportation and trails master plan proposes an on street linkage along Shiloh Drive and a trail corridor along Clabber Creek. Tarvin: As far as we're concerned we don't have any problem with that at all. Audubon has to approve it and they want to control access. I am sure they would like to work with you. Ohman: Ok, for the on street linkage here we are looking for a wider street section here and here to provide bike lanes on either side. That is to access through here, that's the entire length of the property. Are you going to be doing any improvements along Shiloh? Tarvin: Yes, per Matt's comments. Pate: Casey: I might add that because of the grade here we may have to do a grade separated trail so we can just coordinate those efforts when the development occurs. Yes, the sidewalk should be at the bottom of the slope. Since this is all wetlands there may be an additional 5', right now it is extended to the curb, gutter and sidewalks. Conklin: We'll discuss that as staff and give you a recommendation. Pate: Utilities? Newman: I don't really have any concerns other than like I said a while ago, we don't have anything along Deane Solomon in this direction, do you? Technical Plat Review September 17, 2003 Page 65 Clouser: Not here yet. Newman. There will have to be some sort of UE off of Moore Lane. There is really nothing along here, there's no cable and electric that I've seen. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: To be honest I didn't get to review this. Is this the technology park? Tarvin: Yes. Clouser: We have some fiber optic cable in there. Of course any relocation will be at the owner's expense. I assume that we will be able to look at easements as each of these develops. That's all I have. Meeting Adjourned: 12:05 p.m.