No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-10-01 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE TECHNICAL PLAT REVIEW COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee was held on October 1, 2003 at 9:00 a.m. in room 111 in the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LSP 03-55.00: Lot Split (Red Robin, pp. 174) Forwarded Page 3 LSD 03-25.00: Large Scale Development (Red Robin, pp. 174) Page 6 Forwarded LSP 03-54.00: Lot Split (Cliffs Cabin, pp. 487) Forwarded Page 11 LSD 03-36.00: Large Scale Development (Meyers Learning Center, pp. 212/213) Page 13 LSD 03-35.00: Large Scale Development (Brandon Mall, pp. 135) Page 22 Forwarded Forwarded LSP 03-53.00: Lot Split (McDougall, pp. 398) Forwarded Page 26 LSD 03-38.00: Large Scale Development (Stearns Apartments, pp. 136) Page 28 LSD 01-39.10: Large Scale Development (Combs St Church of Christ, pp. 524) Page 34 LSD 03-37.00: Large Scale Development (Fayetteville Athletic Club, pp. 138) Page 40 PPL 03-17.00: Preliminary Plat (Stonebridge Meadows Ph. II, pp. 608) Page 44 PPL 02-13.10: Preliminary Plat (Stone Mountain, pp. 488/489) Page 52 Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 2 Matt Casey Jeremy Pate Suzanne Morgan Craig Carnagey Rebecca Ohman STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Perry Franklin Danny Farrar Travis Dotson Renee Thomas UTILITIES PRESENT UTILITIES ABSENT Mike Phipps, Ozark Electric Coop. Jim Sergeant, AEP/ SWEPCO Larry Gibson, Cox Communications Johney Boles, Arkansas Western Gas Sue Clouser, Southwestern Bell Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 3 LSP 03-55.00: Lot Split (Red Robin, pp. 174) was submitted by Brent K. O'Neal of McClelland Consulting Engineers on behalf of Alex Kanapilly for property located east of the intersection at Van Asche and Mall Ave., Lot 17. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains 18.25 acres. The request is to split the lot into two tracts of 16.22 acres and 2.03 acres respectively. Pate: We are going to go ahead and start this morning. We have another long agenda. I don't think everyone is here so we might have to skip around a little bit. Is there anyone here for the first item, a Lot Split for McDougall? We will not go over that one yet. We will come back to it. The next Lot Split I don't think anyone is here for that either. Is anyone here for the Red Robin? Ok, we will go over that one first. A lot of these comments are going to go along with the Large Scale. I will go over the Lot Split first and then we can go over the Large Scale comments. From Planning, include adjacent and subject property zoning on the plat. Put the plat page on the plat with the owner/developer information. What we need to do since this is a split is I know the Preliminary Plat has gone through and the road is being constructed but what we'll need to do is file a temporary access easement for the width of the property from a public right of way to provide access to that. We will need an access easement in the file as well. That should be filed at the county. Just make sure that all of the calls are coordinated with the Large Scale Development so we are looking at the exact same information and the Lot Split will need to be filed prior to the Large Scale being approved. That is basically all the comments that we have from Planning. Matt, do you have any further comments? Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: No comment. Pate: Utilities? Craig Carnagey — Tree & Landscape Administrator Carnagey: I have a comment. First of all on your landscape plan right in front you show a row of 13 parking spaces. Pate: This is just the Lot Split. Carnagey: Ok. Jim Sergeant — AEP/SWEPCO Sergeant: There should be a utility easement shown there along the front of the property. Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 4 Johnev Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: Pate: Boles: O'Neal: Boles: O'Neal: Casey: Boles: Sergeant: Boles: I have the same comment as AEP. Is this middle lot 17C that is not labeled? I do believe so. I want to make one more comment relating to that lot. I don't know if it affects you or not. We came off of the east side of Mall Avenue and extended across the Olive Garden property and ended our line at the northeast corner. I have visited with Sweetser on several occasions. They are attempting to make a cut down that property line for a driveway I guess for shared access and we are going to have some conflict with utilities at that location. I have received no request for any relocation. Are you talking about the property line between 17A and 17D? 17A. Ok. That may apply to this lot as well, is that what you're saying? I just need someone, if you are in this loop to let me know what they are going to do. Apparently the shared driveway is coming off of 17A and 17C if I'm looking at that correctly and I know that there are power transformers and everything else sitting right there right on that property line. They did contact me and I gave them an estimate to relocate my stuff but I haven't heard anything back from them. I have received no notification at all so you might just pass that on. If I receive notification today they are probably two months out. That's the reason I'm bringing it up. That's all I have. Thank you. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: I have the same comments. We also end right there to service Olive Garden so I need to be contacted also. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: t agree with their comments. We have utilities there as well. Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 5 Pate: These revisions will be due at the same time as the Large Scale on October 8`" by 10:00 a.m. Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 6 LSD 03-25.00: Large Scale Development (Red Robin, pp. 174) was submitted by Brent K. O'Neal of McClelland Consulting Engineers on behalf of Alex Kanapilly for property located east of the intersection at Van Asche and Mall Ave.; Lot 17D of Steele Crossing. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains 2.03 acres. The request is for the construction of a 2,656 sq. ft. restaurant with 125 parking spaces proposed. Pate: O'Neal: Pate: We are going to do the Large Scale for Red Robin now. This is a Large Scale Development for Red Robin for the same lot so I'm sure a lot of the comments will be the same. Obviously, the lot is not currently a legal lot of record so that's why we are going through the Lot Split. That does need to be filed prior to Large Scale Development approval. If there is any monument signage we need to see that in our elevations as well. There is going to be a monument sign but we have been trying to find a good location for it. That's why it was not reflected on the Large Scale Development. Ok, just with your revision if you could get that decision made and then include those with revisions of your elevations. I have included in the packet that you have the requirements for the signages in the Overlay District. Monument signs can be a maximum of 6' tall and 75 sq.ft. Again, just a reminder that the legal description needs to reflect the exact description of the lot split so that everything is coordinated between these two and we can process this simultaneously. If you could indicate the dimensions from the centerline of Van Asche Drive there at the proposed driveway. Indicate any easements as requested by utility representatives. We actually have a formal setback reduction form if you could provide that to us for the setback reduction along Fulbright there on the front from 50' to 25'. I included that information in there too. You can come by the Planning office and pick up that form if you would like. Put a site coverage note, you did pull those out but if you could break those into percentages. Include a scale on the site plan. Proposed curb cuts utilize shared drives approved by the Preliminary Plat. That is just a reference back to this Preliminary Plat that has been approved for this lot and I think you are utilizing those shared drives as shown on the plat. The curb cut maximum length in the Design Overlay District is 200'. These are 175' and they were approved with the Preliminary Plat. If you could just provide a letter or a note or something stating that you want to coordinate the same curb cuts, utilize the same curb cuts that are less than required we can put that in our files. With required parking stalls, we realize a Conditional Use request has been submitted and I do want to say that we appreciate the letter you provided us. That was very informative and very detailed. The parking lot facing the right of way needs to be screened with a continuous row of shrubs. If you could include a note that lighting shall utilize full cutoff fixtures, be shielded and directed downward and have a Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 7 height no greater than 35'. That is also part of the Design Overlay District requirements which I included in your packet. Trash receptacles shall be screened on three sides with access not visible from the street. The last comment that I have is again, monument signage, indicate the location. Currently the elevation drawings indicate three wall signs. By ordinance you are only allowed two. This has two frontage on Van Asche, once that's dedicated as right of way, and then on Fulbright so you are allowed two wall signs with either 200 square feet or 20% of the wall area. I recommend just removing one of those. It doesn't matter which front you put those on. You can put those on any of the four wall faces you like. Revised elevations, including signs, should be submitted with your revisions on October 8`h. Matt? Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: I included our standard retaining wall comments in here. One additional one, if you will label a few various points on the retaining wall the height. That makes it easier for the Planning Commissioners to know what they are looking at. Right now with the Preliminary Plat for the subdivision all of the water on the south side goes to this culvert, which it needs to continue to do. Your piping that you are discharging from this area, you need to bring it out here to tie into this wing wall or this headwall structure and not discharge directly onto 17E because when this development comes through they are going to have to take care of your private storm drains so if you can bring that over here and take it directly into the culvert. Also, this comment didn't make it onto my sheet. There is flow right here behind this proposed sidewalk on 17C that is going to come to this area and there is no way to intercept that so you need to accommodate that flow somehow . This entire lot will come to that area and then there is nothing to catch it with the construction of that driveway there. O'Neil: The flow in that swale is why we didn't locate the monument sign out there because it was being used for drainage so we were looking at different options. We do have to pick that up? Casey: Yes, catch that and bring it over to this post storm sewer. I did notice when I made these comments, I assume this is some sort of flume out of your parking lot? O'Neil: Yes it is. Casey: I didn't catch that before, it looked like the water was flowing directly into the street, which we need to avoid. You need to try to get everything to this storm sewer as was proposed in the Preliminary Plat. The drainage report indicated that there might be detention in the pipe, you need to provide calculations for that. Reference the report for the Preliminary Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 8 Plat. They have accommodated for so much runoff for this lot in this detention pond, we need to know if you are meeting that or if you are exceeding it then detention will be required. We will need a formal design for that. That's all I have. Craig Carnagey — Landscape Administrator Carnagey: The tree preservation plan has been approved for the entire Steele Crossing Subdivision Lot 17. On your landscape plan, the parking lot ordinance requires a tree island for every run of 12 spaces. On the front you are showing more than 12. O'Neil: Oh, I see because this is handicap. Carnagey: Right. Then on the southwest corner you have a bank of parking of nine spaces there and the ordinance does require a planting of trees and shrubs along that. That's all I have. Pate: Rebecca, do you have anything? Ohman: No. Pate: We will move onto utilities. Jim Sergeant- AEP/SWEPCO Sergeant: Right now we have a tapping cabinet back over by the northeast corner of the Olive Garden. That is where we will serve this from. This print is showing the transformer out near the street. I don't know if that is actually where it is at or not but that's where it is showing. It does closer to the building towards that location so at some point in time we need to figure out where that goes in that location. Also, I would like to ask for a conduit under this new drive that you are putting in between there and 17E. Gibson: Six 4" would probably cover everybody. Sergeant: We will need load and voltage information. That's all I have. Johney Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: That 20' easement on the south side of Van Asche, I want to make sure I'm looking at this correctly. From the back of curb to the north edge of the easement would be 20' behind the curb, is that correct? Because you are showing a 14' greenspace and a 6' sidewalk? Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 9 Casey: Boles: Pate: Boles: Casey: Boles: Pate: Boles: Clouser: Boles: Clouser: Boles: Clouser: Pate: Boles: Larry Gibson The easement should be outside of the right of way. The right of way is coming all the way back to the back of the sidewalk isn't it? Yes. The north edge of the easement would be the south edge of the sidewalk which is 20' back from curb? Yes. That's uncommon, that's why I was asking. I just wanted to clarify that. It is a collector street right of way width and they are building it to local street standards to 28' but the right of way will allow for a collector if they need to put a turn lane in or anything like that. I think that's why it is such a big area. Ok, I just want to make sure we didn't get underneath it. Didn't we already have a 20' utility easement along all of Van Asche? Yes, it has been requested multiple times but it has never been shown. I remember requesting it but I haven't seen it on anything yet. I don't know that it was ever filed. Every time that we have done a lot split on this we have asked for that 20'UE. The Preliminary Plat that has been approved, once they bring that for the Final Plat, that's when it will get filed. We are also going to have to pull from the northeast corner of the Olive Garden's lot, use those casings that we requested and the gas meter will be located out in the greenspace at the street just like Olive Garden. That's all I have. I will need load information on this at the time construction begins please. — Cox Communications Gibson: The crossings that Jim asked for are fine, the 4" crossings should cover everybody I would like to get a 2" conduit from the northeast corner of Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 10 this property back to the building within approximately 3' of the electric meter. Just turn both ends up and we will get in there. That's all I have. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: I agree with the utility easements and the crossings. Those will be fine. Be sure the conduits are in the utility easement rather than that right of way and I would like to see two 3" conduits will pull strings from the utility easements along the north to the building. You can place them within 3' of the electrical transformer and then turn them up unless you are going to have the telephone service into the building. You can do the building conduit into a phone room in the building and in that case I will need a #6 bare ground back to power. If there is any relocation or damage to existing facilities that will be at the owner's expense and if you can have them contact me when they get started I would appreciate it. Pate: Ok, thank you. Hunter: Can I ask a question? Pate: Sure. Hunter: One of the things is we have understood that the city wanted to preserve these trees and we have been working with the city to do as much as possible. We were hoping that in exchange for that we could have leniency on the third sign. Pate: If you want to keep the third sign basically what we will have to do is the Planning Commission will have to determine, it is non-compliant currently with the Design Overlay District requirements. If you want to present your case for that you are welcome to do so. Planning Commission will make the determination regarding that and it may go to another board, the Board of Sign Appeals that that would have to go through I believe. I will check on that. It is in the Design Overlay District so it may just be a Planning Commission determination but I can let you know if you need to go to a second board as well. Hunter: Do you want us to remove the sign now and then ask for it at Planning Commission? Pate: If you are requesting to keep it I would go ahead and keep it on there and we will make a recommendation. Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 11 LSP 03-54.00: Lot Split (Cliff's Cabin, pp. 487) was submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull, and Assoc. for property located on 2099 Cliffs Blvd. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family 4 units per acre and contains 36.77 acres. The request is to split the lot into two tracts of 35.37 and 1.4 acres respectively. Pate: We are going to go back a little bit and go over item number two for the Cliffs Cabin Lot Split. They are requesting to split off this lot for tax purposes. This was required to be saved with the development of the Cliffs This will have to go through a Conditional Use as well to be approved by the Planning Commission and they have submitted everything required for that. Tandem lot development is limit4ed to single family use. Kelso: It will all remain the same, they are just taking the cabin off of there for tax purposes. Pate: Just some basic comments Jerry, include adjacent zoning. Add the plat page. Include Cliffs Blvd. and other streets identified on the Master Street Plan on the vicinity map. Include setbacks for the tandem lot. We will need the correct ownership dedication block for that access easement because they will have to dedicate that access easement. That is all from Planning. Do you guys have any further comments? Ok, utilities? Jim Sergeant — AEP/SWEPCO Sergeant: No comment. Johney Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: I think I recall you writing an easement between building 124 and 154 over to the cabin. Kelso: I think we did. Boles: Do you think that should be shown on here? If it is not necessary that's fine, I just want to make sure that it's a matter of record. Kelso: I do remember getting that recorded. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: No comment. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: No comment. Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 12 Pate: Revisions are due on the 8th Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 13 LSD 03-36.00: Large Scale Development (Meyers Learning Center, pp. 212/213) was submitted by Steve Clark of Clark Consulting on behalf of Meyer's Pediatric Learning Center for property located at 3419 Plainview Ave. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains 1.48 acres. The request is to construct a 13,000 Sq. Ft. educational facility Pate: We will go ahead and move down to item five now. It is a Large Scale Development for Meyers Learning Center. Suzanne will be handling this one. Morgan: Building elevations need to be submitted. Clark: Yes, I've been after the architect for ten days now but they are coloring them today so we're there. Morgan: Ok. A materials board is highly recommended. Clark: But it is not required? Pate: It is not by ordinance but we have had instances in the past where the Planning Commission has said we're going to table you until we can see some material samples because they want to know the colors and types of materials you're using. Clark: I know it is a requirement in the Overlay District but since this isn't in the Overlay District it is not a requirement. I will pass that onto the architects. Pate: If they want to plead their case and take that chance they can do that. Clark: That's not my job, I'm the engineer side of it. Is that in your comments? Morgan: Yes. If you could label the adjacent zoning as well as the adjacent property owners on the plat. On the vicinity map if you could include the Overlay District boundaries on that. Clark: Ok. Morgan: Then label the right of way from centerline. These are all written comments. Also, regarding the building, if I could get the building height. Plainview Avenue is a collector street which requires 70' not 50'. Clark: Ok, is that the way it was originally platted? Morgan: That is what the Master Street Plan indicates. Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 14 Clark: I am not arguing, I am just asking are we going to have to dedicate additional right of way? Pate: Yes, 35' from centerline. Morgan: Lot 15 to the north when that went through for the Preliminary Plat cross access needed to occur from the north so that it going to be a requirement. Clark: I don't have an issue with that but you know that's where they are putting the dumpsters. Pate: We will have to address that. Clark: Again, I saw that and I appeared that that was the intent there but I'm not sure and I will double check I think it is 22' and not 24' and I think that it is the grades on it are going to be such that you are going to be going down and then flat. Functionally it is not going to work very well. It looks like whoever did that one didn't do a real good job in planning how the future access was actually going to function. Is there any, again, I can do it. It is not an issue at all from my perspective. As a matter of fact I looked at that and thought do I want to but functionally it ain't going to work very good. Pate: We can take a look at it. Clark: Again, it is one of those things that you all say let's do it, I can make it work but what's going to happen is it isn't going to be a very good driveway. People won't use it. Morgan: We'll address that but just to let you know that was a requirement. In your letter that was submitted you mentioned outdoor play area, if you can identify where that is going to be and also if you could identify the purpose of the dashed lines north of the proposed building. Clark: Ok. Morgan: The parking requirement for 210 children and 26 staff is 36 parking spaces and 2 accessible spaces. Clark: I still will have plenty. I just need to change my numbers here. How do you arrive at that because I didn't know how the beck you guys were getting that. According to daycare requirements it was 1 per 1,500 plus overflow. Pate: Ordinance requirements are basically one per four. Technical Plat October 1, 200 Page 15 Clark: Pate: Clark: Pate: Morgan: Clark: Morgan: Clark: Morgan: Clark: Morgan: Thomas: Clark: Thomas: Clark: Pate: Review 3 One per four employees, is that it? I remember daycare is different than schools. School requirements are different. I am not arguing, we've got the parking and it is great because it justifies our numbers. One per employee plus onsite loading and unloading spaces at a rate of one per ten children accommodated so it is one per 10 children accommodated. You have changed that then from what I have because for childcare it was one per 1,500 plus overflow is the way it was stated. Do you mind reading that again? Sure. It is one per employee plus onsite loading and unloading spaces at a rate of one per 10 children. That is also in the staff report. Oh, what a good job you've done. Thanks. The second item, it's on page three. Are we through with this? Yes. Another item for parking is this comment. It seems from the intent of the use of the building that children with disabilities will be here receiving physical therapy and wheelchairs are needed. There will be children in wheelchairs there and so because of that we are going to have to abide by the 10% of total parking need to be accessible stalls. What is that again? The ordinance is right here on page five. Do you have a copy of the Unified Development Code Steve? I don't think I do. It is online at accessfayetteville.org. That is my problem, I'm working from old stuff. I will review that and comment if we have a problem with it but I don't think we will. 10% would be about four. Technical Plat October 1, 200 Page 16 Clark: Casey: Clark: Pate: Clark: Pate: Clark: Morgan: Clark: Morgan: Clark: Morgan: Clark: Morgan: Review 3 It may squeeze me because I don't know that I can find enough space for two more parking places but I will look at it. If it becomes an issue I will argue my point. This is shown as future parking. That is for future. I guess I can always put it in there but for some reason they were talking about moving the building north by 10' because of some childcare issues and I don't know exactly what and if so we were going to end up losing some of those spaces. You could also utilize some of the existing parking as accessible spaces. But the width of them increases. Right so you would have to increase that by 5' and lose a space. I can share these I guess and then I only need 2', I can find 2', yes, that works. I can do it. If you could also show the curb cut to the north, I know there is one to the north and to the south just kind of see where those fall. Staff is wondering about traffic flow with loading and unloading children will work and where that will happen. It will happen at the front door. This will be employee parking back here, primary employee parking, and this will be the drop off area. I don't want to make an absolute commitment because there are people who know better than me how childcare circulation works. Presumably they would come in here, drop off and then leave this way. That is the obvious way. Ok. Also, locate any signs proposed. I don't know where that is but I did show a small sign somewhere kind of ground mounted at that point. Ok. Also, if you would finally just indicate what type of fencing will be used. Ok, you mean where I show it around here? Yes. Ok, those are all of Planning's comments. Matt? Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 17 Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: Steve, if you can label one of these sheets grading plan I think this one was intended to be grading plan wasn't it? Clark: Yeah, it is everything, Large Scale Development, Grading, Tree Preservation. Casey: If you can put that on there. Clark: It has to have the word grading on it too? Casey: Yes. Clark: Ok. Casey: All of the grading must be setback 5' from the property line. Some of these comments Suzanne just made. If you can just show the location of the existing water line along Plainview, I think it cuts over to the other side at this location. The sidewalk that is shown, is that existing? Clark: I don't believe so. Casey: Ok, I just need to clarify that. Clark: I don't think there is sidewalk there but if there is. Casey: I haven't been out there to check. Clark: Let me ask a question because you are about to kill us on the additional right of way. If I have to do an additional 10' of right of way and my 15', when was this added to the Master Street Plan? Pate: The Master Street Plan was adopted in 1996. Clark: It's been on there that long? Pate: Yes. Casey: It will take approval from the city council for a lesser dedication. Clark: I guess what brought that up is if we are going to dedicate an additional 10' of right of way then the sidewalk that I've shown needs to shift back to that new right of way location am I correct on that? Casey: Yes. Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 18 Clark: Ok, now I'm sorry, go ahead. Casey: You are showing that the west half of the site goes to this corner but there is not anything shown as far as discharge. We need some information on that and where it is going. Clark: It is going to go down that ramp between me and that point. Casey: That thought crossed my mind too so we are going to have to get some clarification there. Also, it looks like there is a little bit of flow here and it looks like it is going to be dumping off on this retaining wall. I need some information about where this is going. Clark: Actually, this is where it is going to sort of go today. It is just going to sort of go over there and disappear. Casey: I just need some information there to know how that's going to be accepted. The other half of the site you are showing to go right into the street. We need to collect it somehow and put it into the storm sewer instead of bouncing it right into the gutter because currently we are not getting anything right there. Clark: Currently we've got the fire department that's dumping onto us. I don't know if you all knew that. Casey: I saw these pipes here. Clark: They have just chosen to dump it out onto me. I don't know that I grade wise can get past the sanitary sewer and into the storm sewer. I looked at it at one time up in here trying to make it work and I don't know that I can do that physically. Casey: You can always bring it back down to here and pipe it from here. Clark: I can carry it all around here and dump it onto this guy which seems to be the method that they have used to address drainages to carry it all internal just to dump it on the guy that is downstream of you. Casey: That's what we're trying to avoid. We are wanting to get that out into the storm sewer somehow. Clark: The only way I know to do it is to put it out onto the street quite honestly. Casey: You will have to provide calculations to show that that doesn't exceed our spread on the street. Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 19 Clark: I have kind of got my hands tied in that the methodology that was apparently used when this subdivision was developed was to dump it on the guy downstream and I am trying to avoid putting more water over here and causing flooding or potential flooding of the parking lot. Casey: Clark: Casey: Clark: Casey: That is why we are asking for some more information here because we may need some offsite drainage to carry that. It is parking Tots, that's the way they are doing it. Everybody dumps it onto their neighbor's parking lot. That may have been how they did it at the time but we can't do that now. If provisions weren't made for that downstream when the subdivision was developed then we don't have any choice but to continue to follow that same pattern. I disagree. The bottom line is if we are going to take it out to Plainview we are going to have to take it in storm sewer. This that's coming down here we are going to have to know where it is going and what it's dumping into and make sure there's not any damage down stream. If you can't do that then we will have to, even though this is CMN Phase I and no detention is required, we may have to do that to limit that. Clark: When did the fire station go in? It is one of those things that each and every person, the fire department has dumped their water that used to probably go out here to the street, moved it around the building and dumped it right here at point source. I am trying to avoid taking their water and dumping it on the guy downstream by taking it back to your system. Casey: We need to make sure that where you're dumping it is going to be able to handle it. Clark: Why didn't somebody make sure that that was going to happen when the fire department came on? You can't come back in after the fact and try to make them handle the city's water too, that's not fair. Casey: Yes we can. Clark: It's not fair. Casey: I'm sorry, we have to take care of things as they come up. I wasn't involved in the fire station review and I'm not sure when that came Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 20 Clark: Morgan: through or who handled it. I have to take care of the pediatric learning center and that's why those comments were made. I understand. Craig? Craig Carnage)/ — Landscape Administrator Carnagey: Jim Sergeant Sergeant: Clark: Sergeant: Johney Boles Boles: You can have your tree protection fencing shown over in the legend. There may be a couple questions about the trees and about maybe some in the utility easements, we can address whether we can allow that or not. On the landscape plan, the first comment X that because provisions were already made with the CMN Business Park. I just need a complete landscape plan that indicates all of the requirements for parking lot landscaping and I need you to provide a checklist after the meeting if you like or fax it to you. It is just some notes and some minor things that need to be shown on the plan. That's all I have. — AEP/SWEPCO Steve, we have an overhead line just south of your property there. Do you have three phase on that? I don't think we'll need it but I assume three phase is available. That's what I remember. I didn't go and look at it but I assume it is three phase. I just need load and voltage information. — Arkansas Western Gas Steve, we will also feed this facility from the existing line in the 20' easement along the south property line. — Cox Communications Larry Gibson Gibson: Clark: Gibson: Steve, right there on the south side of this property where you've got it labeled here that says gas meter, there is a pole just west of that. I would like to ask for a 4" conduit from the base of the power pole into the electronics room of the building. Is this a multi -story building? I think it is going to have a little bit of space up on the second floor, they have some storage in it. If it is going to be storage I'm not going to worry about it. That will be fine if you will just tum this up and make sure it sweeps up on the ends so Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 21 we can find them on both ends and we will pull the conductor in. That's all I have. Clark: Is that where you will pull from also? Gibson: I believe that all is three phase. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: Any relocation of existing facilities will be at the owner/developer's expense. I would like to see, and I don't know if anybody else wants it, but for future I would like to see a couple of 4" conduits under the drive in the utility easement along Plainview. You can run my conduit on the south, I need two 3" conduits with pull strings and I will need a #6 bare ground back to power source in the electronic room. Clark: I will let the contractor worry about getting those things for you. Clouser: I need to tell you anyway. That should do it. Clark: Thanks. Morgan: Revisions are due on the 8th at 10:00 a.m. Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 22 LSD 03-35.00: Large Scale Development (Brandon Mall, pp. 135) was submitted Brian Moore on behalf of Brandon Mall for property located at the northeast corner of the Northwest Arkansas Mall on Zion rd. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains 1.78 acres. The request is to develop a 28,350 sq. ft. office building. Pate: The next item on the agenda is a Large Scale Development for Brandon Mall. Can you state your name for the record please? Moore: Brian Moore with Engineering Services. Pate: Thank you. Planning comments first. For this sign here we will need to see color elevations. Revisions for the Subdivision Committee need to include a 24x36 color board for elevations. Moore: I thought we turned that in already. Pate: If changes are necessary, signage will be the same thing. Of course the lots are currently be split out and will need to be approved and filed with the county prior the issuance of any permit. On page three, just a recommendation to maybe save some space and maybe help with some later tree preservation comments. You can utilize 17' stalls here and increase the amount of greenspace to allow for 2' overhang over the greenspace, that lessens the impervious surface coverage there. Trash receptacles need to be screened on three sides with access not visible from the street. I talked with Craig on this comment as well. Typically we require a buffer here, a 15' landscape buffer off the right of way line but because this is all forested and there are thick trees here we aren't going to require that so it's a waiver. Staff is in favor of what you have shown there. Mechanical equipment on the wall, roof or ground needs to be screened by incorporating screening into structure utilizing materials compatible with the supporting building. It needs to look like it is part of the building, not just screened. That's pretty much all of the comments that Planning has. Matt? Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: I don't have any comments. Everything looked really good. Tom does a good report, tell him that. I like his work. Moore: I don't like having to put it, I don't think it's really practical but we'll do it. Casey: Nobody does. Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 23 Moore: On top of a hill with a creek right next to you and having to put underground detention just doesn't make any sense to me but we've got it. Casey: It is what our division heads have deemed appropriate. Moore: I understand. Craig Carnagev — Landscape Administrator Carnagey: Speaking of being on top of a hill with a creek down flow from you. You guys are taking quite a bit of trees out of there that are high priority canopy. At the last Tech Plat I requested that we get together and talk about how we can incorporate some of these trees in the parking lot design. That comment stands, I would like to meet with you and see what we can do to increase the canopy I think there is some wiggle room and as Jeremy mentioned, some of your stalls don't need to be quite as long which will help a little. I am also going to need a mitigation proposal for any removal of tree canopy that meets the requirements outlined in the tree preservation ordinance. No mitigation trees are able to be used for your parking lot landscaping requirements. You show quite a few mitigation trees being used in that situation. As far as your landscape plan, I need a complete landscape plan so if we can get together on that as well I can get you a check list. I think there should've been one handed to you at the last Tech Plat. Moore: Ok. I have been out of town. Carnagey: There are quite a few notes and details that are missing. As far as that landscape buffer that Jeremy is referring to, that will need to be approved by the Planning Commission but I am willing to make that recommendation. Moore: That is existing right now. With the curb that's existing we are not going to redo anything that's there. Carnagey: It is just something that the Planning Commission will have to make the final decision on but like Jeremy said, we are willing to make that recommendation. That's all I have. Rebecca Ohman — Parks Department Ohman: No comment. Jim Sergeant- AEP/SWEPCO Sergeant: Mike and I aren't sure who's territory this is in. Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 24 Moore: Which one is cheaper? Sergeant: I don't know that. I thought it was in his territory. Phipps: Is this the old Shoney's? Moore: This is exactly on top of the old Shoney's. Phipps: We had the old Shoney's. I will have to look at it but I think that overhead power line is probably a transmission line. I can't remember where we served the old Shoney's from. Wherever it was, we are going to need a 20' easement through the transformer wherever they are going to locate it. Moore: Ok, that's not a problem. Phipps: I will have to go by and look at it and give you a call. Moore: That will work. Johney Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: What about this 25' blanket easement, where did you discover that? Moore: I don't know, I was not here when it was prepared. Boles: I know that on the west side of North College I believe we have got a 6" steel line that used to be high pressure but was converted to intermediate several years ago. I am thinking that that line is further east than you are showing the blanket easement but I could be mistaken on that because I think it is just west of the highway. Moore: I will get it. Boles: Actually, just for your information, this is going to be in Dairy's work territory. Joyce Street is our dividing line. You might let Dairy know what, if anything, we need to go with the existing service. I believe it is up against the building, that's all I have. Casey: If there is an easement there though you need to vacate it if you are going to put your building in that location. Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 25 Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: Brian, just west of that entrance there you have got it marked existing TV riser. To service this I would just ask for a 4" conduit from that location right there over to the building. Moore: Can we pull this further to the west? Gibson: It's possible. I would have to go over there and see where we have a pedestal. We do have some underground through there and I am thinking we do have one to the west before it comes back up and goes overhead. Moore: That's what I'm going to need to do because that's not part of our property. Gibson: Ok, we should be able to do that. Part of this driveway is not on your property, is that right? Moore: That's correct. Sue Clouser- Southwestern Bell Clouser: You can route me two 4" conduits with pull strings, the same way you're going to put cable in and any relocation will be at the owner's expense. I need a #6 bare ground back to power. Pate: There is a fire comment that should be included. Basically, fire flow requirements apply and an additional fire hydrant may be required. Revisions are due on the 8th at 10:00 a.m. Moore: Super, thank you. Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 26 LSP 03-53.00: Lot Split (McDougall, pp. 398) was submitted by Douglas McDougall for property located at 1187 N. 51st Ave. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family 4 units per acre and contains 3.01 acres. The request is to split the lot into two tracts of 1.96 acres and 1.04 acres respectively. Pate: We are going to go back to item one which is a Lot Split before we go to the final larger items. Morgan: Planning comments are the following: Label the adjacent and subject property on the plat. Include the plat page number, which is 398. Vicinity map needs to reflect the Master Street Plan. There is a planned street that comes through here and then Rupple Road extends further south. Also, we have legal descriptions for the proposed lots but we need a legal description for the existing lot. Also, if you could label the centerline and the associated right of way to make that a little more clear on where that centerline is and then the right of way. Label all of the setbacks from the existing structures and finally, show the street names on the plat. Those are all of the Planning comments I have. Matt? Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: Your surveyor will need to show the location of the existing water and sewer lines and the approximate locations of the taps for the sewer line and where your water meter is. The reason we ask for that, I show on our maps that there may be a tap coming out of this manhole which may be in the northern part, it will be on the split part of the lot. Regulations prohibit that sanitary sewer services cross property lines so you may need to come down here and get another tap to tie into your house to prohibit that from happening. That tap can still be used for this house back here so it is not going to be wasted. It is the same thing with the water line. I am not sure where your water line is. If you could show that. Morgan: Craig? Rebecca? Rebecca Ohman — Parks Department Ohman: There will be parks fees in the amount of $555 for one additional single- family unit. Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop. Phipps: No comment, the same for Johney Boles. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: No comment. Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 27 Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: No comment. Morgan: Revisions are due at 10:00 a.m. on October 8`h. Thank you very much. Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 28 LSD 03-38.00: Large Scale Development (Stearns Apartments, pp. 136) was submitted by Jerry Kelso of Crafton, Tull, and Assoc. on behalf of Stearns Street Apartments Limited Partnership for property located at the southwest corner of Vantage Dr. and Zion Rd. The property is zoned RMF -24, Residential Multi -family 24 units per acre; and R-0, Residential Office and contains 23 acres. The proposal is to construct a 276 unit apaitment complex. Pate: We will move on to Stearns Apartments. Jerry, do you want to come up? I will go over Planning's comments first. Please provide documentation authorizing Mr. Lindsey to sign as the owner of the property. If you have a deed or something you could provide a copy to us just saying that he is authorized to represent Stearns Street Apartments Limited Properties. Also, when we did a property search it showed that James and Mary Ray and Don and Debra Harris are also owners in this property. I am not sure if they are partnering with Mr. Lindsey or if he has bought that and it has not been filed with the county yet. Kelso: He has purchased it all. Pate: Kelso: Pate: Kelso: Pate: We just need to make sure we have that documentation that he can sign for all of the property involved. A Conditional Use obviously was approved back in April for a portion of this property to be utilized as multi -family with specific conditions placed upon the applicant at that time including additional requirements for off site and on site improvements, sidewalk installation and architectural facades and things that we talked about earlier on the phone. I included the minutes here in your packet. If you want to look over those and get back with us. Basically, the elevations submitted, the Planning Commission will have to make a determination if this is meeting that condition or not. As staff we can make a recommendation but the Planning Commission will determine that if this meets that condition. That is why I have included those minutes for you and at the beginning of Technical Plat just make you aware that that is going to be an issue that needs to be addressed. Is that something that we need to get with staff beforehand? It's probably advisable considering some of the discussion that we have had in the recent past. Ok. We have read the minutes and I think we can take care of what's required based upon what the minutes say. Ok. It probably would be a good idea to visit with staff and talk about that sometime in the next week. Basic plat requirements, include the plat page, indicate any Master Street Plan streets on the vicinity maps. Label the building heights to verify the building setback. Indicate percentage of site Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 29 Kelso: Pate: coverage with impervious surface. Stearns Street is extended as an off site improvement with this development. Vantage Drive is proposed to be constructed with boulevard cross sections all the way up to Zion here. It doesn't go all the way to Zion, we have to transition back into the existing. That's all we could do working with the adjacent property owners and we have worked with Matt on that. The interior collector street is on the Master Street Plan. Obviously, it requires 70' of right of way. Staff is in support of what you have dedicated, the 50' for the construction of the standard 28' cross section with 50' of right of way. If you could write us a statement in letter form requesting a Master Street Plan amendment and why basically. A number of factors are involved with this including Stearns Street extension down off site. I think that is a big plus. Staff is in support of that at this time. One recommendation I would have on this boulevard section here we might want to investigate doing some boulevard cuts so we can allow for traffic. Any intersection that's applicable. Here, here, here. Kelso: There is nothing there right now. There is a proposed street where right of way is dedicated. Pate: Kelso: Casey: That is just something we may want to look at, feasibility if that is still on the Master Street Plan we probably want to plan for that. On page three, we will want to investigate the street connection to the west later with this commercial development. Right now this is a through street and obviously, this is not part of this project but it will need to be constructed as a through street with future development of that parcel. Just to let you know up front that we will be looking at that. If we could include a note saying that lighting will again, utilize full cut off fixtures be shielded and directed downward, that is a standard note for any parking lot lighting in the city. Trash receptacles need to be screened on three sides and should not be visible from the right of way. Signage needs to comply with ordinance requirements. Those are just standard comments. If you could include a materials sample board along with your elevations that you submit including building materials, colors, etc. That is really all we have. For Subdivision Committee we will need the full 24x36 elevations to display them to the public and the Commissioners. One question on the sidewalk. It was our intent just to install sidewalks through our property and adjacent to our property. I don't think it was our intent to install sidewalks for the off site street improvements. We are going to recommend that it go to the north. I wasn't aware that the streets were going to be extended to the south until late. Are you all going to propose an additional development to the south there north of Stearn? Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 30 Kelso: There will be eventually but you know, we don't know what is going to go on and whenever that happens you are going to have a Large Scale and have to require sidewalks for that at that time. Our intent is just to make the connections for the street. Casey: I would like to get with Chuck Rutherford on that. Kelso: That would be our request. That's what we are asking. Casey: At the minimum we are going to ask that it be extended up to Zion. Kelso: I think that is doable. It is just a lot more expense when you are not developing. Casey: Jerry, a lot of these comments are not required in the Preliminary. I went ahead and looked at some of the final requirements but those don't have to be done before revisions of Subdivision Committee. Kelso: Do I need to highlight what has to be done? Casey: I am going to hit some of the highlights here. A lot of these you are familiar with from the other Lindsey developments. The building setback is 100' from the pond so you will need to request a waiver from that. We are also going to recommend, like Southern View, that a safety fence be put around that. Also, the maximum allowed retaining wall height is 10' so you will either need to terrace that or request a waiver from the Planning Commission for that excess in height. Fugitt: What's the height around that detention pond? Kelso: 4' is what we have done before. Casey: We don't have a requirement for that, it is just something that we recommend. Kelso: 4' wrought iron is what we have been doing. It is attractive and yet you still don't have something too tall. Casey: Is that what you put out on Southern View? Kelso: We don't have anything right now. I think that was the intent. Casey: Just something to try to deter the kids from playing. If you can show the outfall structure from the pond on the grading plan and how that will be piped. Also, the storm sewer pipes will need to convey the 100 -year storm Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 31 Kelso: Casey: Kelso: Casey: to the pond. The excess flow designed to go to the pond cannot bypass the pond. I think there is only one spot where we have that problem. We have already talked about the sidewalks, they need to be 6' sidewalks located at the right of way. The sidewalk needs to be continuous through your driveway here on the north entrance. The minimum intersection radius is 30', you are showing 25' here. I don't know, I didn't see anything on the Master Street Plan. We will look at that. We probably need to put that on there. I recall that as 25' so you need to increase that to 30'. The rest are required grading checklist items that need to be added to the final submittal. Kelso: Ok. Casey: That's all I have. Pate: Craig? Craig Carnagey — Landscape Administrator Carnagey: Jerry, we talked yesterday but the minimum canopy requirement for this site is 20%, you guys are going from 47% of the site down to 16% and I need for you to try to find any way you can to get up to that 20% in order for me to recommend it to the Planning Commission. Kelso: We have got as far as mitigation we can't use that? Carnagey: The ordinance is pretty explicit about preservation being the top priority and we do have some high priority canopy in here, medium to high priority and some canopy slopes. I don't have a basis to justify a reason for coming down below 20% on this site. If you give me one that's fine but the one that we talked about yesterday basically I don't think will work. That is for the Planning Commission to determine. Kelso: Some of the things that we have to consider on this one is we have a public street that we had to build through the middle, which is on the Master Street Plan. We are building a boulevard instead of just a 36' so that takes up more room. You have got the utility lines running through it which has canopy in it. If you start adding all of that you are going to be at 20% or greater. Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 32 Carnagey: According to the ordinance that isn't able to be calculated for. Kelso: We'll just have to look at it and see. Carnagey: On the landscape plan the only comment I have is that there is one bank of parking in front of building 16 that has a lot greater than 12 spaces without an island. Kelso: Ok. Rebecca Ohman — Parks Department Ohman: The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board met on September 8, 2003 and voted to recommend money in lieu of land. Parks fees are assessed for 276 multi -family units at $108,468. A waiver to the Park Land Ordinance is required and will be reviewed by the City Council at the October 7th meeting. This has already placed on the consent agenda. Also, if you could label the bike lanes that are proposed on Vantage Drive, where they will be built. Thanks. Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop. Phipps: Jerry, as soon as I know where those meters are I can work with you about that. Any relocation of our existing facilities will be at the developer's expense. Kelso: Is that your line that runs through there? Phipps: Yes, it is a big line. Kelso: Matt, I think some of our contours are bad in that spot. Phipps: That being a 69KV regulations between the width between poles and our clearance above ground is real important that we keep that. Kelso: The only thing that we might do is some of the ground may be cut under it. That pole right there the contours got messed up, our intent was not to mess with that particular pole. I guess it would be just west of that pole there may be a little cut underneath it. Phipps: Cut is fine fill would bother us. That's all I have. Boles: I will let that stand for everyone else. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 33 Gibson: I had the same as Mike. Especially with something like this that is kind of off the beaten path, if they would just be sure to let us know when they break ground on it. I will get with the project supervisor and find out where those meters are. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: If you can just notify me as well. Phipps: Jerry, when are we looking at a construction date to start this project? Kelso: Immediately after we get our approvals. Fugitt: Our plans are immediately after the approval process. Gibson: We need about 30 days. Phipps: Ordering transformers for a project like this is 8 to 10 weeks. Boles: I am certain they are going to want gas on this right? Kelso: Here is the architect, ask him. Fugitt: I'm all for gas, you know that. The owner is the guy we need to talk to. Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 34 LSD 01-39.10: Large Scale Development (Combs St Church of Christ, pp. 524) was submitted by Steve Clark on behalf of Combs St Church of Christ for property located at 350 S. Comb St. The property is zoned RMF -24, Residential Multi -family and contains 1.49 acres. The proposal is to construct a 4700 sq. ft. expansion of the existing church. Pate: The next item is a Large Scale Development for Stone Street Church of Christ. Morgan: Staff recommends that building elevations be submitted for this project. Clark: On the other one it was shall be submitted and on this one it is recommended. Morgan: The zoning needs to be updated to our new zoning designations and if you could label the adjacent zoning. Label the right of way as either current or proposed. You have a proposed right of way and then this right of way 19.51, I didn't know if that was existing. Clark: That's existing. Morgan: Ok. Clearly label the street names. Clark: Ok. Then the other was site coverage note, building setbacks. Morgan: On page three, the parking required shall comply with the ordinance. It is one stall per four seats in the main auditorium or one per forty square feet of assembly area, whichever provides more spaces. If you could provide us with the square feet of the assembly area. Clark: Is that the main part of the church? Morgan: Yes. Also, between the accessible spaces that strip needs to be striped. Label the compact spaces. Those are all of Planning's comments. Matt? Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: Steve, if you could label one of these grading plan. The proposed access ramps at the intersection of Willow and Fourth need to be adjusted so they meet the current details. Also, you need to show the street improvements there on the north side of the new portion of the street. You call that as 28' back to back but the improvements are only shown on the south side as far as curb. Clark: Why do we have to curb the other side of the street? Casey: The street currently exists doesn't it? Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 35 Clark: Yeah. It exists as a chipped sealed driveway basically. We are not proposing a new street there. Casey: That is a bit different than what I remember from the last time this came through. I thought the entire street was going to be constructed there. Clark: Casey: No, that street exists. We talked at one time about vacating that easement or vacating the street right of way totally for that section but the police or fire or somebody thought that they wanted to keep that as an access. Right now as it exists it is a very narrow but chipped sealed street. Ok, I will have to check on that from our previous minutes. I remember that the other way. A lot of these are just standard comments. We need access ramps constructed here at the corner of Fourth and Washington from that sidewalk. Can you add the flow line of this existing pipe that you are going to be tying into? Ok, you've got it. Clark: I need to get it on the grading plan. Casey: If you don't mind. We will need you to add the finished floor elevations of the existing building and the proposed building to compare with the 100 -year water surface elevation and the pond area. Clark: I see them on here. Casey: I need to get that sheet. We will need to label those 100 -year water surface elevations. A floodplain reference should be on the grading plan. Also, this large area here is not accounted for in the drainage report. If you can revise your areas to include that and show where that's going. Morgan: I just wanted to note that there is an existing right of way along the property that is requested to be vacated. Clark: It is being processed. I have got sign offs from all of the utility companies. It is the adjoiners now that I'm getting those and the deadline is Monday. Casey: I was working on that yesterday. Our water and sewer superintendent had a lot of concerns with vacating that through there. What we are requesting is that it be vacated as right of way but everything except what is located on the building be rededicated as easements. Clark: I don't think we have a problem at all with that. My question is though I don't think his facilities are falling in that. Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 36 Casey: He is looking at it for future, rehabbing this area. He has provided some comments. Clark: We swapped messages that he had sent you all something. I have not got a copy of what it is but I don't think we have a problem with leaving it as easement at all. Casey: I think it will accomplish both purposes. Clark: It let's us put our parking lot on it and it gets the right of way out of the building. We probably want to set 5' from the building or something with the easement and come around the building. Morgan: Ok. Craig? Craig Carnage)/ — Landscape Administrator Carnagey: Steve, as you currently show the design right here in the tree islands, there are a couple of trees where you are encroaching a little too much into the critical root zone of those trees so we are not going to allow you to qualify those as preservation. That being said, I went down there and took a look at some of the trees and there are a couple of them that I have concerns about becoming hazard trees anyway. There is this 15" silver maple multiple trunk, in order to preserve that in a parking lot I think that you might be asking for trouble down the line or pretty quickly after this construction goes in. I don't want to see any hazard trees placed in the parking lot so I think you need to reconsider these islands. Clark: Just take them out? Carnagey: The 20" maple and the 12" maple are in fair condition if you want to try to reconfigure this design to preserve their critical root zone. Right now I think the 20" maple is fairly well covered. The other few tree is what I was mostly concerned about. The multiple trunk silver maple should definitely come out. Obviously, your canopy calculations are going to change some but I just noticed a few errors in the calculations so you need to double check on that. Clark: I guess the issue that I'm going to have that is going to come up now is where do I put replacement canopy? There are a few areas but all of this area that we might have used up here on the north side is now going to become a utility easement. I can stick a shit load of trees in places but it is not going to look particularly attractive. I don't have room to mitigate particularly. Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 37 Carnagey: Right, and there are provisions in the ordinance for that as well and we can talk about that. On the landscape plan it looks like you've got some areas where spacing is a little bit further than what's required by the ordinance. It is 30 linear feet for trees along the right of way and as well as the line of shrubs. Right now you are showing them spaced a little too far apart. Clark: I thought I had the trees, are there some that you think are more than 30'? Carnagey: Yes there are. You have a couple of runs of parking spaces over 12 spaces that will be used for tree islands. Include a landscape plan, the same comments as we spoke of in your previous project. There are a lot of notes and details that need to be placed on the landscape plan. Clark: If we have to take out the tree or have to add more spaces I'm afraid that when I start looking at the 40 sq.ft. we are probably going to have to take out all of the trees and completely asphalt this whole thing. I don't see that we are going to have much choice probably. I am real tight on parking as it is. I thought you were allowed to have the islands running lengthwise through. Carnagey: A tree line every 10 spaces. Clark: Not an island for the trees but in between parking bays that doesn't count is that right? Carnagey: No, these are fine right here if that is what you're referring to. Clark: I know those, I'm talking about if you have between bays of parking. Carnagey: Ok, that's all of my comments. Rebecca Ohman- Parks Department Ohman: No comment. Jim Sergeant — AEP/SWEPCO Sergeant: I would request utility easements along Willow and Washington, 20' easements. Also along the south side of Fourth Street. Clark: 20' all the way around is that right? Sergeant: Yes, except for whatever you can't get there because of the existing building. We've got one pole that you are showing there to be relocated. The owner will have to pay for any relocation cost. You show a couple of street lights, the developer will have to pay for the cost of installation of Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 38 those. I will need to know what size will need to go there as well as what voltage and load information is going to go on. That is all I have. Johney Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: Clark: Boles: Steve, you have shown the existing services on the northwest corner of the existing building. I would assume that they wanted to serve everything on the south at that location is that right? I wouldn't think that they would want an additional service. Probably not. If the meter and line serving it will be adequate. The line size will be adequate but the meter will not be based on load information and physical dimensions and size of the increase. The downstream pressure of the meter may also increase so if they could have someone contact me about load information. That's all I have. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: Sue Clouser This AEP/SWEPCO pole that is going to be relocated, we are also on that. If you would just notify us when they get ready to go out and start their work on it. We can service this new building off of the east side of Willow Street, it will actually be the southeast corner of the property so I don't think there will be any problem there. That should be greenspace there so we can get over to the building. That's all I Have. — Southwestern Bell Clouser: Clark: Clouser: Morgan: Clark: Sergeant: Clark: If there is anything that needs relocated it will be at the owner's expense. I don't remember what we talked about the last time it came through. I think I was going to feed out to here also but I will need a conduit for that. Just one? Yes. I have a couple more comments. All utilities must be placed underground if it is below 12KV. Do you know what the load is, that is over 12KV isn't it? From what I remember, that pole is service to the church only. I am not sure that we've got anything else on this property now. Isn't there an overhead on the east side? Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 39 Gibson: There is an overhead pole line on the east side of Willow Street running north and south. Clark: That's across the street then. Gibson: You come from the north down to this. Sergeant: That is the only thing that we have on this property but it is secondary voltage. Their service will have to go underground. Morgan: Also, I was wondering are there any signs proposed? Clark: If there are they haven't told me. Morgan: If they are they will need to be shown Thank you very much. Clark: Thank you. Morgan: Revisions are due by 10:00 a.m. on the 8`h Casey: Steve, I might add that those street improvements if it is chipped sealed is going to require asphalt. Clark: All the way across or just our half? Casey: Just your half. Clark: I knew that. Thank you. Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 40 LSD 03-37.00: Large Scale Development (Fayetteville Athletic Club, pp. 138) was submitted by Jorgensen and Assoc. on behalf of Bob Shoulders for property located at 2920 E. Zion Rd. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, and R-0, Residential Office. The proposal is to construct a 10,800 sq. ft. gymnasium, a 2,550 sq. ft. tennis pro shop and 6 full size tennis courts. Pate: Three more items. Item number ten is a Large Scale Development for Fayetteville Athletic Club submitted by Jorgensen. Planning comments, as you are probably very well aware, the zoning on this property is split between C-1 and R -O and the Conditional Use is in process. It will go concurrent and will have to be approved just prior to Large Scale Development so it will be heard at the same Planning Commission meeting. Plat comments, you need to add the plat page to your site plan. Just remove that note off of the bicycle racks. Include site coverage percentages on the site plan as a percentage number if you could. Matt will go over street improvements that we are going to recommend. Craig will also go over any landscape comments. I know that we have worked with the Conditional Use to provide for additional parking lot islands as required when you do a Large Scale Development in conjunction with existing development. There is a certain percentage and that methodology is left up to the developer. I think we are pretty happy with what we've seen so far as far as interior islands. If we could just put a note stating that any parking lot lighting needs to utilize full cut off fixtures shielded and directed downward. Trash receptacles need to be screened on three sides with access not visible from a public street. This existing dumpster here is probably going to need to be relocated. The trash trucks will tear the sidewalk up so you probably need to locate that somewhere else. You can coordinate that with Solid Waste. A space for that will need to be screened when you do relocate that. If you have additional signage you need to indicate that. Any utilities need to be placed underground. If you could submit a materials sample board and then by Subdivision Committee deadline full color elevations. This does fall within commercial design standard guidelines for the commercial structure. The only comment I had about that are the large, blank, unarticulated wall surfaces need to be avoided on the west elevation and the east elevation. Specifically, the elevations of the gymnasium are pretty unarticulated, granted it is a gym. I think there are some improvements architecturally I think you can do to help with that since there is going to be traffic right there on it and it will be very visible from public right of way as well so if you could help articulate that a little bit more whether it is a full facade or different materials or something. That is the bulk of our comments from Planning. Matt, do you want to go over your comments? Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 41 Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: Garrett, I drive through here all the time but I can't remember, is this curb existing down through here? Hafemann- Yes. Casey: Other than that, the only comments that I have are our standard retaining wall and sidewalk comments. We met with Dave prior to submittal on this and it looks like everything that was asked for is provided. I have no additional comments. Pate: Craig? Craig Carnagey — Landscape Administrator Carnagey: On the southwest corner are you guys moving canopy out of there? Hafemann: We are removing two elm trees which forgive me, I think there was a layer not left on for the plotting of this sheet. There are two elm trees right in the center of that new parking lot in the southwest corner, elm trees that are to be wiped out. The only grading to the canopy will be for the detention pond so it is down there in the low. As much of the canopy that we can salvage we are. That's why we are showing the tree protection fencing around it. Carnagey: I just need you to add the canopy table. Hafemann: I have the canopy table. It is approximately 30%. Carnagey: Anything you remove below the minimum you will need a mitigation method. Hafemann: Right, 20% is the low. Carnagey: Ok. As far as the landscape plan, I need a continuous row of shrubs located between the parking lot and the street right of way. I wasn't absolutely certain if it was these little black dots. Hafemann: Yes, they show up. It is in the legend as a shrub. It is 40 scale so it is small to see. Carnagey: The symbol is a little different in the legend than what's on the drawing. If you could make that a continuous line of shrubs. Hafemann: How many shrubs do you want between each tree? Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 42 Carnagey: Just a continuous row is what the ordinance calls out. There are a bunch of other notes that need to be included on the landscape plan. It is in the manual, I can show you where it is instead of me going down and reading each one. I can either talk to you afterwards or just give you the manual and let you see what's required. The only other question I have is about planting trees on this eastern edge of the parking lot. I would like to take a look into that. I know it is going to require Highway Department approval but I think it is appropriate for the modifications that you are taking to the landscape of this existing parking lot. I am going to make that as a recommendation to the Highway Department. Hafemann: Ok. Pate: Utilities? Mike Phipps- Ozark Electric Coop. Phipps: Any relocation of existing facilities will be at the developer's expense. We will need to see a copy of the electrical load calculations. Also, we will need to see the metering points of those new buildings somewhere. Hafemann: Right, we are working with the architect and the contractor that have already been selected for this and we are trying to tie everything to the breezeway. When we get that we will certainly let you know. Phipps: The overhead out there is a 14.4KV so it is above the requirements for underground. That's all I have. Johney Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: As shown in the plans our existing meter is at the northwest corner of the existing building. We will just have to do a finished load on that to see if that needs to increase or not. That's all I Have. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: Your existing driveway here on the north side of Zion Road, about 60' to the west there is a power pole up there. I would like to get a 2" conduit from that location over into the equipment room of the gymnasium, sweep it up on both ends and we'll pull a conductor in. Hafemann: There is nothing we can tie from the existing facility? Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 43 Gibson: I'm almost positive we are coming from Randall Road on this and it comes just inside this building where we're servicing the front part of this thing. The distance would be a problem, it would be an issue with us. Hafemann: Ok, I understand that. Gibson: That's all I have. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: Any relocation of existing facilities will be at the owner's expense. We will need to go off of the existing for the new building. Pate: Garrett, I have included the commercial design development standards in your packet there to refer to some of the landscape requirements but more specifically, to the elevations and what they should look like or not look like. Revisions are due on the 8th at 10:00 a.m. Hafemann: Ok, thank you. Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 44 PPL 03-17.00: Preliminary Plat (Stonebridge Meadows Ph. II, pp. 608) was submitted by Tom Hennelly on behalf of Bill Meadows of Meadows Enterprises for property located south of the intersection of River Meadows Dr. and Goff Farm Rd. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family 4 units per acre, and contains 53.74 acres. The request is for a residential subdivision with 153 lots. Pate: Item number eleven is a Preliminary Plat for Stonebridge Meadows submitted by Mr. Tom Hennelly and Suzanne will be going over that plat. Morgan: If you could label the adjacent zoning on the plat. Update the property zoning from R-1 to RSF-4. Right of way dedication for Goff Farm Road, a collector requiring 70', so 35' of right of way from centerline is to be dedicated. Staff is requesting an access easement with the utility easement between lots 9 and 4 and 9 and 5 for pedestrian access. Hennelly: Morgan: Hennelly: Morgan: Matt Casey — That will probably change after we get with Parks. We don't have a problem putting an access there. Required setbacks for RSF-4 are 8' for side setbacks, it says 10' on your plat. If you could place a note on the plat indicating that lots 1, 42, 43 and 153 shall have limited access to interior streets. Just not off of Goff Farm? Correct. Those are all of Planning's comments. Matt, do you have anything additional? Staff Engineer Casey: Hennelly: Tom, like we discussed yesterday, we are going to recommend that street improvements be made along the south side of Goff Farm Road for the entire length of the property including the existing golf course. The drainage easement across lots 30, 31 and 54 and 53 must have separate drainage and utility easements. You also need to extend the water and sewer mains to the property lines along the street stub outs between lots 61/62 and 72 and 73. I think one of them has water and sewer and then the other one doesn't have either. This one has sewer and no water and this one doesn't have either one. The drainage easement between lots 137 and 138 and 110 and 111 would be a minimum of 20' centered. Also, there may be a conflict, I know these are preliminary layouts. There may be a conflict between the sewer and the storm sewer of lot 89. I see, the manhole. We can take care of that. Casey: The minimum allowed horizontal curb radius is 150'. If you propose a reduced radius up there by 88 and 89 then you need to provide one of Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 45 those eyebrows like you did just south of it. I don't know what the official term for that is, I call it an "eyebrow". Hennelly: We've got it at 100'. Casey; You can reduce it further than that if you want to, just put the little bow on it and that will be acceptable. Also, your pond calculations show that there was an increase in some of the design storms so they need to tweak the outfall a little bit to show no increase. That's all I have. Morgan: Craig? Craig Carnage)/ — Landscape Administrator Carnagey: I have several small comments just about clarity on the plans with the canopy. I think they are pretty clearly shown on here on one through three. Number four is trees proposed for preservation should not be located within areas likely to be built or disturbed from construction activity. I have a question about lot 26. I am just not absolutely sure. These trees are right in the middle of a lot that is likely to be built on. That is something that is going to need to be considered. Hennelly: If I understand it right, the only ones we can count as preserved have to be permanently put in a preservation easement. Carnagey: No, they just need to be put outside of the buildable area on the lot. They don't have to be in a permanent easement. Hennelly: I assume a lot of these houses will be built further back. Meadows: The first phase they tend to build toward the front. Hennelly: I will adjust them. Carnagey: In the area that you are going to call preservation, I need that to be shown clearly on the drawing and in the legend. As far as mitigation for removal of trees, right now the ordinance requires subdivisions to pay into the tree fund. There is no provision for on site mitigation. Whatever dollar amount you need to calculate on the plans for mitigation proposal. Hennelly: How does that work if he is going to do on site mitigation throughout the golf course or in the area, is that not allowed for subdivisions? Carnagey: Not in the ordinance right now. Subdivisions are required to pay into the tree fund for canopy removed. Technical Plat October 1, 200 Page 46 Hennelly: Carnagey: Hennelly: Carnagey: Hennelly: Carnagey: Hennelly: Carnagey: Ohman: Hennelly: Ohman: Hennelly: Review 3 Is there a provision for an appeal on that? Yes there is. We will probably want to do that I imagine. It does require a pretty comprehensive mitigation proposal on your part to be submitted and that needs to go all the way to the City Council for their approval. Just because of the nature of the project and it being on the golf course. It is an obvious place for him to mitigate with trees. I may have mentioned that when we met out on site. I was under the impression after we met out on site that we were going to have the option to plant on the course. There are a couple of proposals that seem to be working pretty well right now that Council is taking a look at. We are working on an amendment to the ordinance right now to allow that to occur but it may be several months before that comes through. That's all I have. Since I met with you yesterday I have spoken with Dawn Warrick and there may be an easier way for us to do this park land. Because there is the potential that Eagle Park was not legally lotted with Phase I. It was given a legal description but may not have been legally lotted as Phase I. More or less in a large mass of land we may be able to exchange it and move the land over and accept the new park land dedication as a lot in Phase II. If you can get with me and Dawn so we can get this laid out. I can probably describe it to you. I did some figuring this morning before I came up here and if you look on the northeast corner of that 14.97 acres that is for the school, at that northeast corner if you come over 360' and then strike a line do south that will provide the 5.65 acres of total park land dedication. We talked about an easement, that's the reason I said that because that piece of property doesn't adjoin it so we will probably come up to one of these other lot lines. If we do that are you still going to want an easement through there? Probably. We will have to work that out with Dawn to see what is necessary as far as Planning and Zoning goes. If this is the way that we end up doing that he and I will need to sit down and come up with some type of preliminary layout. If the schools don't want this property we will lay lots out on it and we will need to make sure Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 47 that you still have access available and that a lot is not destroyed by an easement and whatever. Ohman: I will get with you later this afternoon. Morgan: Utilities? Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop. Phipps: We're all going to kind of go through this with you. First off, a 20' easement on the south side of Goff Farm Road with crossings at the entrance. Hennelly: Ok. Phipps: On lots 144 through 148 is going to be park land? Hennelly: No, that is currently park land that is going to be deeded back to Mr. Meadows. They will be lots. Phipps: There are quite a few utility crossings. All of these will be six 4", 48" depth finished grade. Across both entrances into the development. Lots 45 and 46 on the back line under that drainage. Also, lots 54 and 55. Hennelly: Run that by me again on lots 45 and 46. Phipps: In the back where you have the pump station. If it extends into that easement somewhere where we can't dig through there then we are going to need crossings underneath it. Hennelly: I got ya. We will probably have to just move the pump station because we will have problems getting crossings under it. I will just pull that up to the northeast a little bit and that will allow you your 20' all the way through there. Phipps: 54 and 55. Boles: Between 61 and 62 across the street we'll just go east. 72 and 73, go north a little bit from there from 132 and 113 to 131 and 114. That one is already shown. We need a 20' utility easement between 18 and 19 out to the street to that crossing. Hennelly: Can I move the one between 19 and 20 over? Boles: You are probably going to need to reduce that to 10' because you've got a street light shown there. Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 48 Hennelly: I can move the street light too, I will just move the whole thing. Boles: Did we get the casing underneath 15 and 16 under the drainage there in the back? Under the drainage to the east between 137 and 138 in that utility easement. 138 and 137 to 110 and 111. A 20' utility easement, let me ask a question real quick. Lots 84 through 88 over there on the other end, I assume you are going to run service in front for those four lots? Hennelly: We probably need to. Boles: Ok, so we are going to need a 20' utility easement between 83 and 84. At that point we will go back to the rear easement. Hennelly: You will come out from the rear easement at 88 and 89 and then go across the front? Boles: We will be on the front on 88 and then between 88 and 89 we will go back to the back and go behind 89 through 94 back to the west. Hennelly: Bill, do you want your easements along this back line Bill along the ravine or is it ok to have these lots with their utilities up front? Do you have a problem with it being on the back line there by that ravine? Boles: What kind of slope is it? Hennelly: It is pretty flat. It is just a bunch of scrub trees that grow up in a ravine. Boles: I don't know that we have a problem with being back there. We just want to make sure that we are on flat ground. Sometimes we show an easement adjacent to a rear property line and that winds off being under the hill. I have a line out there as a matter of fact, in your current subdivision, all of the utilities I think are out of the easement. Hennelly: Are you talking about in the bluff? Boles: Yes. I have got to move where the utility easement was platted off the rear property line and that is way down into the hill. I just want to make sure that that doesn't happen on these lots. Gibson: If you do want it in the back could we change this UE to get through here? Boles: Yeah we can. Gibson: If you want it in the back instead of between 83 and 84 you can put that easement between 87 and 86 if you want it in back. Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 49 Hennelly: Gibson: Hennelly: Boles: Hennelly: Boles: Hennelly: Boles: Hennelly: Boles: Hennelly: Boles: Hennelly: Boles: You will need one coming out if it is in the back. Right, that will get us where we can come across the street. Either way is ok with you guys? Yeah. If we go straight across and go in the back we are going to want a crossing there between 87 and 86, 122 and 123 I think we can eliminate the one between 76 and 77, 127 and 128 that crosses. If you will go north from 94 and 95, 117 to 118 we can probably eliminate that one too. The one that crosses between 94 and 95 and 117 and 118? Yes, I think you can eliminate both of those. I thought I was being pretty smart putting those in. You are. It is a good deal but I don't think we are going to run north and south there if we can loop everything. We need a 20' easement up the east property line of 144, 10' off site would be fine. From the northeast comer of 104 to 144 crossing that street up there in that park area again. From the northeast corner of lot 9 over to the northwest corner of 143. Ok. I think you are showing an easement along the south property line of 152 up there at the top but it is not labeled, is that 20 also? Yes, 10' either side. Ok. He is going to need to get from the southwest corner of 152 back along the north property line of 151 back out to the street, give him a 20' all the way across there. Can we get 10' off site on that other property? Probably not. Bill is trying to buy that property. Hopefully we will have that resolved by Final Plat but I will get with you guys if that does happen and allows us to incorporate that. It kind of just really goofs things up with that thing cut out there, it would be a lot nicer if we could incorporate that into the subdivision. One of the comments that I have, I have an existing line I believe Tom across both of these proposed entrances. It is existing that goes up the south side of Goff Farm Road. It may be necessary to lower those. I am not sure if there is going to be some undercutting for the installation of those streets. Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 50 Hennelly: Boles: Hennelly: Clouser: Boles: Phipps: Clouser: Hennelly: Phipps: Boles: Hennelly: Phipps: Casey: Hennelly: Casey: Hennelly: Boles: There will be under cutting. I think we have got everything Tom. Sue, do all of those include you also? Yes. Are you ok with all of your street lights? Yes, 10' to all of those street lights. Hopefully we will be going in with gas. If I locate the street lights at those 20' easements where we need to get to the back line and they are crossing, it's ok to have other utilities in with it isn't it? Sure. If you could do it and maintain every intersection every 300' throughout the subdivision you can do that. Like between 100 and 101 Tom you are showing 20' going out to that light, those could be probably all reduced to 10'. If that is the only thing they are needed for. Just remember six 4" at each one 48" in depth. Tom, something I forgot to put in my comments. Lot 152 up here, how are you going to provide sewer for that lot? I am hoping we will be able to work this out. If not, we will have to do a test pit on it I guess. It is over an acre. I don't know, I think we will probably recommend extending the sewer back to the lot line then since we are making sewer improvements anyway. I don't think we would be comfortable with a septic there when we have the option of extending sewer and it would be within 300'. Ok. Tom, I have one other quick comment. Please make sure that where casings are installed where sidewalks are an issue that the casings extend beyond the edge of the sidewalk. We are having a lot developments now Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 51 that they are terminating the casings at the edge of the curb and then they construct the sidewalk and their casing is under the sidewalk. Morgan: Also, if this piece is part of the property are you going to give it a lot number? Hennelly: Actually, that is not included in the legal description. Morgan: Ok. Gibson: The only other thing that I can add is when they break ground on this Phase if you would please notify all of us. Boles: Mike is the only one that frequents that area. Morgan: Just remember that your street lights need to be every 300'. Sue Clouser — SBC Clouser: Any relocation will be at the developer's expense. Morgan: Revisions are due October 8th at 10:00 a.m. Thank you. Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 52 PPL 02-13.10: Preliminary Plat (Stone Mountain, pp. 488/489) was submitted by Jorgensen and Assoc. on behalf of Bill Conners for property located South of Hyland Park and east of Crossover Rd. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family and contains 82.74 acres. The request is for a residential subdivision with 114 lots proposed. Pate: The last item on the agenda is a Preliminary Plat for Stone Mountain residential subdivision. Suzanne will go over this one. Morgan: The first thing I wanted to ask about this is to verify sight boundaries. I think the comments that were made at the last Tech Plat meeting a year ago I think that there is a bit of confusion to make sure that this is one legal lot. We want to make sure that the property south of here is not a part of this. Pate: This is all one parcel number, we need something showing this. Brackett: The parcel boundary is right here. Pate: Are these lines just kind of drawn in? Brackett: They are drawn in to match the subdivision. Pate: You need to do either a lot line adjustment, you can probably do an adjustment or add that as another lot. I am not sure if you own this property as well. Brackett: This is Phase I and then this will be a different phase. We will probably do a lot line adjustment. Can we go concurrently with that? Pate: A lot line adjustment is just an administrative process. As long as you're not creating a new lot. Brackett: They own further down. We can do an adjustment of that deed to this line. Pate: We will start processing because that can be processed a lot faster than this one will be. Morgan: There needs to be an amendment to the Master Street Plan because there is a road going through here. That road I guess is supposed to be Stone Mountain Drive, which is called out to be 90' of right of way according to the Master Street Plan. You have 70' shown. Brackett: That was worked out with the initial submittal due to the fact that that road is never going to go down to this road. You can call it a Master Street Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 53 Plan if you want but because of the geometry of this it is not going to ever do that. Morgan: I have not seen an amendment approved by the City Council. Pate: We probably just need to process that as a Master Street Plan amendment. Brackett: To go to the 70' of right of way? Pate: And to change the alignment of what the Master Street Plan currently calls for. Brackett: Currently we are building this portion of it and we are not necessarily required to. Pate: Right. Anything for the property, for instance, if the Master Street Plan does this right here. Brackett: It does. Pate: You are amending it to go down here correct? Brackett: Yes. Pate: That is what the amendment request is for to change the designation from 90' right of way to 70' and then also amend the actual location of it. Brackett: So we can show 50' going out to the south part of it? Pate: I would be consistent with the way you have all the way through. There is probably not going to be a street, this one comes down south. Really you are moving the whole thing up. If you are going to request it I would be consistent. Just detail that in a letter as a Master Street Plan amendment request saying we want to amend the right of way width for lesser dedication that needs to be approved by the City Council and then amending the actual location. You are still fulfilling the purpose I think. Brackett: Ok. Morgan: If you could indicate limited access for lots 5, 6, 8 and 9 to Stonebridge Road. Limit access to interior streets. Brackett: Ok. Morgan: All of the comments from the Tech Plat meeting of May 14, 2002 remain applicable. Those are attached. Sidewalk crossings between lots 5 and 6 Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 54 and 4 and 63 shall be striped and require a pedestrian crossing sign per the Planning Commission decision. A waiver of the sidewalk requirements for Stone Mountain Road and Stone Bridge Road require Planning Commission approval. Matt? Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: Chris, I know we have talked some about this before this meeting. I have included Ron's comments from last year. A lot of them still apply. I couldn't find anything additional to add beyond what he has already commented on. The water issue is going to be the main thing. Before we go to Subdivision we need to have something definite. The actual water study or something showing the options that you are going to perform and you are going to be consistent with. Right now we don't have anything more than what we did last year. Brackett: I think from our conversations with Hugh Earnest we worked out that we could come through knowing that it is in short order. The study is not going to be done by the time that we submit for Subdivision. Casey: Have you been in contact with McGoodwin, Williams & Yates at all? Brackett: Not in the last week. Casey: Maybe they can give you a memo or something providing you information that you can get to us. Brackett: I guess my point is that we don't have a definite proposal now until the study is complete. By the time that this is approved there are several options regardless of how the study goes. Depending on how the study goes is which option we choose to go by. I guess that is what we're looking at. Casey: We may be able to go to Subdivision. I am not sure at this point about approving the Preliminary Plat without a definite water supply. I am not sure that the Planning Commissioner's would want to do that. I don't know what correspondence you have had with McGoodwin to see if maybe we can get something that is going to assure us the different options. Brackett: Like I said, there are different options. How bad the situation actually is is which option we have to go by. Let me get with them and I will call you. Casey: We can sit down with Ron as well. I know he handled all of this last year. This is all new to me. That is just taken from a conversation that I had about this. Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 55 Brackett: We've been in contact with Hugh Earnest about this. Casey: I think we need to get another meeting about that with the people who were actually involved. I have several comments. The water sewer superintendent will require that the downstream sewer lines to get from this lift station. We may also need to see a traffic study to make a recommendation on traffic analysis. Rain catchers are required for all new sewer manholes. Craig Carnagev — Landscape Administrator Carnagey: In your tree table you note that trees that are significant are listed up here as canopy. On this northern half of the subdivision I just want to make sure that the canopy that is located in the easements aren't counted as preservation in your calculations. Brackett: No, we don't have any canopy in the easements. Carnagey: I know you had this in your tree protection notes for excavation around roots of trees. You may want to make that kind of a highlighted note for that tree 15, that 36" oak that root pruning needs to be required for that. I just want that to be called out for sure. Brackett: That root pruning will be required? Carnagey: Yes. Everything else looks pretty good. You do have payment into the tree fund. I have calculated it at $3,150. Brackett: Alright. Rebecca Ohman — Parks Department Ohman: The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board met on January 15, 2002, since that date the requirements have changed so you actually get a larger banking credit. For 112 single family lots dedication is 2.68 acres and you guys have dedicated 8.19 acres so you have a banking credit of 5.51 acres. If you could also label the park property with a lot number. If the detention pond, we would like to review that for potential flow on the park property. Brackett: It discharges into the park there into the ravine. Ohman: We'd like to check that out. That's all I have. Morgan: Utilities? Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 56 Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: Brackett: Gibson: Boles: Gibson: Boles: Gibson: Boles: Brackett: Gibson: Brackett: Gibson: Brackett: Let's go over the crossings first Chris. These will all be six 4" from lot 5 over to 6 we need six 4" across this drainage sewer right here in the back of six. That sewer is like 6' deep. If the top of it from the top of the pipe to finished grade is more than 48" we won't need it. The same thing up here below the drainage pond. These are all six 4". We are going to need a UE between 31 and 30 and between 80 and79, between 26 and 25 and then that crossing right there between 26 and 25 over to 77 and 76. 20' between 108and 72 and then a crossing between 108 and 72 over to 73 and 107. You had a crossing right here between 99 and 100 over to 112 and 1 l 1. Larry, would it no be easier to just come straight down through here? On 112 and 111? Yes, instead of making this jog around the corner. Yes, we need a 20' between 112 and 111. You can just leave that crossing in. Can we go back the other way? We have some trees that we are saving there. Ok. Let's just right there on 99 from 99 over to 113 make that crossing right there so we can come back around along the bottom of 99 and x this out. We need six 4" out here on the front. On 56 through 52 and 53 did we need to stay in the front along those? No because there is an existing drive that comes through here and we will have an access drive that comes down to here. There is flat area in there. Ok, so in the back of 55 and 56 we are going to need six 4" underneath that drain where that 20' UE is. We have this crossing right here between 95 and 94 over to 48. We will be in that 20' UE. Whoever builds that house is going to have to dig across that drainage to access. We may look at putting them in the front. Technical Plat Review October 1, 2003 Page 57 Gibson: We need six 4" between 84 and 85 over to 45 and 46. In the back of 41 and 40 underneath that pipe I need six 4" right there. I need a 20' UE on the east side of lot 33, you have that one marked. How about this little extension street out here. You have one crossing between 1 and 2, are you going to put anything on the north side of that drive Mike or are you going to come in where that 20' UE is? Phipps: I'll stay along the south side with that. Gibson: He's got a crossing marked here between 1 and 2 going north that doesn't really need to be there. You can take that one out. You've got one across this entrance, go ahead and leave that one. I think that's it. Morgan: Revisions are due by 10:00 a.m. on the 8`h. Thanks. Pate: Meeting adjourned.