HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-01-14 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
TECHNICAL PLAT REVIEW COMMITTEE
A regular meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee was held on January 14, 2004
at 9:00 a.m. in room 111 in the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain,
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
LSP 04-07.00: Lot Split (McDougall, pp 398)
Page 2
FPL 04-04.00: Final Plat (Skyler Place, pp 403)
Page 4
LSD 04-02.00: Large Scale Development
(DOCS Professional Building, pp 138)
Page 7
R-PZD 04-04.00: Residential Planned Zoning District
(Stonewood Gardens, pp 60)
Page 13
R-PZD 04-05.00: Residential Planned Zoning District
(Hickory Park, pp 294)
Page 18
STAFF PRESENT
Matt Casey
Jeremy Pate
Suzanne Morgan
Renee Thomas
Alison Brady
Craig Camagey
UTILITIES PRESENT
Jim Sargent, AEP/ SWEPCO
Mike Phipps, Ozark Electric Coop.
Larry Gibson, Cox Communications
Johney Boles, Arkansas Western Gas
Sue Clouser, Southwestern Bell
ACTION TAKEN
Forwarded
Forwarded
Forwarded
Forwarded
Forwarded
STAFF ABSENT
Perry Franklin
Danny Farrar
Travis Dotson
UTILITIES ABSENT
Technical Plat Review
January 14, 2004
Page 2
LSP 04-07.00: Lot Split (McDougall, pp 398) was submitted by Doug McDougall for
property located at 1187 N. 51" Avenue. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential
Single-family, 4 units per acre, and contains approximately 3.01 acres. The request is to
divide the property into two tracts of 2.40 and 0.61 acres.
Pate: We are going to start the Technical Plat Review Committee meeting for
Wednesday, January 14a'. We have six items listed on your agenda. The
last item, Wal-Mart Optical Lab has been pulled. They will most likely be
coming through with a different proposal, just so you guys know. We will
start out, the first item is a Lot Split for McDougall submitted by Mr.
McDougall for property located at 1187 N. 51s` Street. The request is to
divide the property into two tracts. This is Suzanne's project.
Morgan: Just a couple of items to address on the plat. If you could identify the rear
building setback, this 80' gas easement as a building setback as well.
Update the Lot Split number on the plat to the current Lot Split number.
Note on the plat that the existing structure on Lot 9A is to be removed.
McDougall: Ok, we just need to take that off?
Morgan: Yes. Remove both of the signature blocks that are not applicable. That's
all from Planning. Matt?
Matt Casey — Staff Engineer
Casey: No comment.
Alison Brady — Parks Planner
Brady: Parks fees will be due in the amount of $555.
Morgan: Utilities?
Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop.
Phipps: Any relocation of our existing facilities will be at the developer's expense.
That's all I have.
McDougall: Do you anticipate any?
Phipps: No, it is just something that we like to let everybody know. That's all I
have.
Johney Boles — Arkansas Western Gas
Boles: No comment.
Technical Plat Review
January 14, 2004
Page 3
Larry Gibson — Cox Communications
Gibson: No comment.
Sue Clouser — SBC
Clouser: Any relocation will be at the owner/developer's expense.
Morgan: Fire comments were added. They just mention the width of 51 s` Avenue.
I don't know what that comment is addressing. Revisions are due on
January 21a` by 10:00 a.m. Do you have any questions?
McDougall: I don't think so.
Technical Plat Review
January 14, 2004
Page 4
FPL 04-04.00: Final Plat (Skyler Place, pp 403) was submitted by Jorgensen &
Associates on behalf of Bleaux Barnes and Sam Mathias for property located south of
Deane Street between Sang Avenue and Porter Road. The property is zoned RMF -6,
Residential Multi -family, 6 units per acre and contains approximately 21.03 acres. The
request is to allow the development of 57 lots with 126 dwelling units proposed.
Pate: Moving onto item number two, FPL 04-04.00 for Skyler Place submitted
by Jorgensen & Associates. The property is located south of Deane Street
between Sang and Porter Road. It is a Final Plat to allow development of
57 lots with 126 dwelling units proposed. Suzanne?
Morgan: Something that I wanted to point out, if you could show the entire north
boundary from centerline so we can understand exactly where the right of
way is and have that on here. The question has come up, do you know the
amount of existing right of way right now for this?
Gilbert: I don't know what the right of way existing is now, 45' is what is required
by the Master Street Plan.
Morgan: Ok. FEMA acceptance of study for the Zone A floodplain is required
prior to filing of the Final Plat. If you could show all of that northern
property line. Add a note limiting access of lots 1, 10, 12, 22 and 34 to
interior streets. We need you to include street addresses for each dwelling
unit. Also, we need the final draft of the Bill of Assurance. Do you have
any questions or comments?
Gilbert: The only question on this is you have a note to show the location of the
existing pond on lot 53. That pond was removed as a part of construction.
Morgan: Engineering?
Matt Casey — Staff Eneineer
Casey: David, most of these are just notes that need to be added. Include a note
about the pond maintenance. Also, add the total linear feet of sidewalks
and linear feet of streets. Add a note saying that the maximum driveway
width is 24' at the right of way and the retaining wall setbacks. Lot 33
needs an additional easement. You need to have a minimum of 10' on
each side of water and sewer. We also need the information on the
floodplain. I need you to show the minimum finished floor elevations for
each of those lots affected by the floodplain. Number eleven I think has
already been paid for if not already done so that can be disregarded. The
main comment is number twelve, the FEMA approval of the study, that
was a condition of approval for the Preliminary Plat. Has that information
that Tom Hecox provided, has that been submitted to FEMA?
Technical Plat Review
January 14, 2004
Page 5
Gilbert: FEMA will not accept the theoretical as the final deal so we are waiting
for cross sections on the finished product before we submit to FEMA.
That's what they are going to want in the end to get this thing through.
Dave Jorgensen had spoken with Sara Edwards before she left the city and
had come to an agreement with her on some things that we need to visit
with you and probably with Dawn about to see if those are still valid as far
as being able to raise everything that is outside of the existing flood
boundary. Obviously, we understand that those lots that are impacted by
what is now showing as the flood boundary is going to take some
paperwork and some time but we need to set up a meeting to visit on that.
Casey: It being a condition of approval for that Preliminary Plat kind of
complicates it so we will need to talk with Dawn to see how we need to
address that. I kind of skipped around on here.
Gilbert: That's ok, I did pick up these notes after the last meeting and everything
on here is pretty routine. In fact, we have already taken care of most of it
as far as adding the things in. Beyond the FEMA issues I don't see
anything that gives us any concerns at all.
Casey: Ok. We also need the as builts for that detention pond. That's all I have.
Morgan: Craig?
Crai$ Carnagey — Landscape Administrator
Camagey: David, we just have payment required in the tree escrow account in the
amount of $27,225 and that will need to be paid before Final Plat.
Morgan: Alison?
Alison Brady — Parks Planner
Brady: Parks fees will be due in the amount of $47,915. I believe it needs to be
updated to reflect that amount. Also, the signature block needs to be
updated to read Director.
Morgan: Utilities?
Jim Sareent — AEP
Sargent: Ron Berstrom just asked me to tell you that the street lights are going to be
located 2' behind the curb.
Technical Plat Review
January 14, 2004
Page 6
Johney Boles — Arkansas Western Gas
Boles: No comment.
Larry Gibson — Cox Communications
Gibson: No comment.
Sue Clouser — SBC
Clouser: No comment.
Morgan: Revisions are due on the 21st of January. I have attached Fire comments
for your review.
Casey: Have you finished that lift station yet?
Gilbert: No, that's supposed to be installed by Friday morning. They are putting
the fence around it now.
Technical Plat Review
January 14, 2004
Page 7
LSD 04-02.00: Large Scale Development (DOCS Professional Building, pp 138) was
submitted by David Gilbert of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Randall Oates for
property located on Crossover Road (Hwy 265) at Hillside Terrace. The property is
zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 2.10 acres. The request is to
allow the development of a 10,318 s.f. Medical/Dental office building with 44 parking
spaces proposed.
Pate: Item three is a Large Scale Development for DOCS Professional Building
submitted by Jorgensen & Associates for property located on Crossover
Road at Hillside Terrace. The request is for the development of a 10,000
sq.ft. medical and dental office. Suzanne?
Morgan: From Planning, please provide a letter of intent for the submitted LSD.
Also, if you could include the number of doctors that will be operating at
the proposed office building. Correct the Plat Page number to reflect
#138. Include symbol for street lights in legend. Place right of way
dimension for hillside terrace in a place where it is legible. Provide
building height. There is an additional building setback in the R -O zoning
district for anything over 20'. Staff is concerned with creating two
additional curb cuts along this residential street that serves mainly
residential areas. We are recommending only one curb cut. Also, if you
could provide us information with sight distance for those curb cuts on the
west. If you could align the curb cut with one of the cuts on the west side
of Hwy. 265 it would probably provide a safer situation.
Gilbert: That is going to get into some tree protection issues but we will look at
that.
Morgan: Show streetlights along Hillside Terrace and Crossover Road. The ADA
parking should be changed from two to three since you are providing
three. Parking stall depth can be reduced two feet to seventeen feet along
those spaces that overhang on landscaped area. If you are requesting any
waivers please submit those in writing.
Gilbert: I'm not aware that we are seeking any waivers. Is there something that
brings that to mind?
Morgan: The retaining walls.
Casey: One of my comments is a waiver is required for a retaining wall in excess
of 10'. Ten feet is the maximum height.
Gilbert: Ok, sorry I missed that one.
Morgan: Coordinate trash service with the Solid Waste Division. Matt, do you
have any other comments?
Technical Plat Review
January 14, 2004
Page 8
Matt Casey — Staff Engineer
Casey: A waiver is required for a retaining wall in excess of 10'. We have
already talked about the 6' sidewalk required along Crossover, we need to
show that. A couple of comments, some that you won't like. The
retaining walls, some of those are intruding into the easement and they
cannot be located in the easements. Hopefully your grading can be
adjusted to accommodate for that. We can't have any structures in the
easement.
Gilbert: We can adjust for that, it is probably the architect that is going to not like
it.
Casey: Also the detention pond cannot be located in the easement and it looks like
a big portion of it is. There may be some comments later on about
removing some of those easements that may help accommodate that but I
will let our Tree and Landscape Administrator handle that one. Other than
that, the pond needs sodded. That's all I have.
Craig Carnagey — Landscape Administrator
Carnagey: David, you know we talked last week and you have my comments, I will
indicate that for the record. First of all, on the tree inventory, I know that
you identified which trees you intend on removing. I need you to
graphically show that, some sort of graphic differentiation. I have some
questions about the canopy calculations. I don't know if you included
trees that are in the easement but based on my calculations I only show
12,108 sq.ft. of canopy being preserved and you've got 19,616. We need
to confirm that one way or another. That is based on my calculations of
what you submitted. If you have a block layer or a Cad drawing I would
appreciate it if you could send that over. We talked about the Swale
cutting through that preservation area.
Gilbert: It is no problem, we have removed that.
Carnagey: I haven't saw those plans. As well as the easement on the east side?
Gilbert: Yes, we have removed the easement on the east side.
Carnagey: Based on that, as far as tree preservation area my recommendation based
on what I see right now is going to be to modify the site's design in order
to increase tree preservation areas. I want you to be aware that that's
going to be my report forwarded to Subdivision. As far as a landscape
plan, you have a run of parking spaces that are over twelve on the northern
edge. You will need to show a tree island in there. I talked with Chuck,
Technical Plat Review
January 14, 2004
Page 9
we went out and took a look at the recommended street improvements on
Hillside Terrace Drive and we agree that if you can somehow swing that
sidewalk inside that tree line that is going along Hillside Terrace Drive
that would be fine with him and it would certainly save that whole row of
trees.
Gilbert: When you say swing it inside do you mean closer to the curb or further
from the curb?
Carnagey: Further from the curb, inside on the property.
Gilbert: Which I'm assuming then would require a sidewalk easement?
Carnagey: No, it will be on your property.
Gilbert: If we do that then also Craig we are going to be encroaching on that tree
preservation area, it seems like kind of a mixed bag.
Carnagey: As you show your preservation area now Chuck and I measured it out and
I think you would be less than 20' from the centerline of the road based on
that buffer that we would like to see if we can save. We have had some
neighbors call and they have specifically requested that so anything we
can do to show saving that little edge would be great. There is a little bit
of a space between that existing street edge of trees and some of the other
groupings.
Gilbert: Now, related to that that we discussed the other day. Typically the
Sidewalk Administrator is very strict with the 2% from the back of the
curb to the outside of the sidewalk, are we going to be able to modify that
in order to work better with these trees or is he going to hold us to that?
Carnagey: Let's see how it plays out. When Chuck and I were out there he didn't
seem to think that that would be a problem.
Gilbert: If we go 2% up from the back of the curb we've got to fill over those trees
and if we put the sidewalk further from the centerline we are going to be
filling completely through those trees with about 2' or 3' of fill, it is
probably going to kill them all and we would rather not do that.
Carnagey: Sure, that's not the point. My understanding from talking to him is that he
is open to options. Let's just see where that design falls.
Gilbert: Good.
Technical Plat Review
January 14, 2004
Page 10
Carnagey: We will need a detailed landscape plan before building permit approval
and we will want to show some additional screening on that southern edge
if that parking lot is going to be in there. That's all of my comments.
Gilbert: I have a question. You are stating that your recommendation to
Subdivision Committee is going to be to modify the plan to save more
trees. That is fairly vague and really doesn't help me out much as to what
to do. We spent a great deal of time and effort to put this thing in as
carefully as we could working with the terrain and trying to save the
maximum number of trees already. To be told basically no, redesign it,
I'm not sure that I'm going to be able to get where you want to go without
something a little more definitive than that.
Carnagey: Right. Based on what I have in front of me right now that's my
recommendation. I talked about some of the elements that needed to be
moved, for instance, the easements and that swale. Based on what I see
right now I think that the canopy reduction isn't justified. I have that 15
point criteria in the tree preservation ordinance that I will be compiling a
report on and that is going to be turned into Subdivision at that time. As
soon as I get that report done I can certainly fax that over to you if you
would like. What I see right now will be my recommendation. You are
not preserving an area that has enough integrity to be qualified as
preservation. What you've told me is that you intend on removing this
easement on the east side and taking that swale out, those are two elements
right there that wilt help me in my report. All I'm making
recommendations on right now is what I see in front of me.
Gilbert: Ok, so we have already been over a lot of the elements then, that helps,
thank you.
Carnagey: Right.
Sue Clouser —SBC
Clouser: Can we get a crossing on the entrance?
Gilbert: Yes.
Clouser: Any relocation will be at the owner/developer's expense. I would like to
request two 4" conduits with pull strings. Are we going to be putting the
system inside I assume?
Gilbert: That would be my understanding, yes.
Clouser: Ok, then I will need a backboard and a #6 bare ground back to power. We
can discuss later on where we want the two 4" conduits out to the
Technical Plat Review
January 14, 2004
Page 11
easement. I'm not sure where our facilities are out there. I imagine it is
going to be on Hwy. 265. That's all.
Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop,
Phipps: Any relocation will be at the developer's expense.
Gilbert: We will put crossings in at all the drives.
Phipps: Make it six 4" at each one. This utility easement does come around the
front here on the west side doesn't it?
Gilbert: Yes. There are two lines setback from the western property line, one is
way back about 50', it is a building setback. Here is a 20' utility easement
shown on the west side. Gentlemen, remember, just so everybody is clear
on this, this plan shows a 30' utility easement on the east side, that will be
coming off so that we can do better tree preservation over there.
Clouser: Totally or are you leaving 20'?
Gilbert: No, we are taking it off . That's our plans Sue, sorry, I sounded a little
more firm than what I meant to but our plan is to remove it completely.
Phipps: If they do that and we have to serve on the east side of Hill Terrace I may
just set a transformer there and it will be up for them to go under and over
to it to serve it. It is going to be expensive.
Gilbert: We will work it out.
Phipps: That's all I have.
Larry Gibson — Cox Communications
Gibson: This Sterling Court that is just south of this, a little circle court that comes
off Hwy. 265, do those lots actually back up to the south side of this?
They are showing the lots here.
??: They do not. There is a lot in between from the utility right of way to this
lot.
Gibson: Ok, that makes sense. Those crossings that Mike called for on this
entrance is fine. I would like you later to see for sure where we are going
to service this from then we will ask for a 2" conduit into the equipment
room. That's all I have.
Technical Plat Review
January 14, 2004
Page 12
Johney Boles — Arkansas Western Gas
Holes: David, we will have to serve this from the existing line of the east side of
Hillside Terrace. Our other facilities are on the west side of Hwy. 265.
We would rather boar on Hillside Terrace of course than Hwy. 265. The
meter will be placed out here at the property line on the west side of the
road. That's all I have.
Morgan: Fire comments are fire flow requirements will be required for the building,
access is ok and fire hydrants will be required. You can call Captain
Farrar if you have any questions. The revisions are due January 21" at 10
a.m. Thank you.
Technical Plat Review
January 14, 2004
Page 13
R-PZD 04-04.00: Residential Planned Zoning District (Stonewood Gardens, pp 60)
was submitted by David Gilbert of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Mark Foster for
property located on Crossover Road, immediately north of the Stonewood subdivision.
The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 3.36 acres.
The request is to rezone the property to an R-PZD to allow the development of 14 lots
with 12 single-family dwelling units proposed.
Pate: Item number four is R-PZD 04-04.00 for Stonewood Gardens. This was
also submitted by David Gilbert of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of
Mark Foster for property located on Crossover Road immediately north of
the Stonewood Subdivision. The request is for 14 lots with 12 single
family dwelling units proposed. If available, architectural building
elevations for the proposed structures are helpful for the Planning
Commission to look at. We do review this type of PZD as a Preliminary
Plat since you are dividing up land. The PZD ordinance does specify
though that overall development standards will need to be addressed.
There are some in the covenants that are addressed and if there are any
more particulars that you can address as far as the architectural site detail,
landscaping and those types of things that would be appreciated as well.
Of course this is a rezoning request as well for the full City Council. A
couple of site comments, adjacent zoning does need to be labeled. Include
the use units to be allowed. K, I believe it will be Use Unit 8, which is
single family, also if there are ones that you would not like to allow in this
area make sure all of those are excluded. A Final Plat will be required for
this. Label lot 13 as Detention on the plat so it is clear. Just a
recommendation, home construction should be clustered and locate to
minimize disturbance to existing tree canopy. Infrastructure for alley way
impacts much of the site; other options include side garages with shared
drives between units entering from the primary street, etc. We will require
6' sidewalks along Hwy. 265. For the private drive we will most likely
make a recommendation for that as well. If there are any existing street
lights along Crossover if you could locate those.
Gilbert: I don't think there are any in that stretch but I will look again.
Pate: If not, it is a requirement. We talked about the gated community, this is
the first one that I've seen processed here. I went through some of our
City Council policies, they talk about specifically that perimeter walled
communities are discouraged in the City of Fayetteville. I talked to the
Fire Department about access. If there is a gate proposed and approved
they need a lock box or something to be able to get into that 24 hours a
day for emergency access. That is going to be a point of contingence, just
to let you know about the gated. Include a note on the plat stating that all
residential driveways shall have a maximum width of 24' measured at the
right of way line, it's not at the right of way line here but I'm assuming it
is probably at the setback line. If you could include some more detailed
Technical Plat Review
January 14, 2004
Page 14
information on your fencing. I think it says masonry on here, if that is the
extent of it that's fine. All proposed utilities need to be located
underground. Al electric lines below 12Kv need to be relocated
underground. That's the bulk of Planning comments if you have any
questions. I included the Planned Zoning District ordinance for your use.
Matt?
Matt Casey — Staff Engineer
Casey: As Jeremy already mentioned, there will be a sidewalk required on
Crossover. We are also going to be recommending to the Planning
Commission that sidewalks be installed on Stonewood Court. The sewer
line going through the proposed detention pond will need to be relocated.
The detention pond must be sodded.
Gilbert: There are about four notes on here that indicate this is a wet pond, do you
really want a trickle channel in the bottom of a wet pond?
Casey: No, you can remove that final comment. Sony about that.
Gilbert: I tried to make this very obvious.
Casey: That's all I have.
Craig Carnagey — Landscape Administrator
Carnagey: David, first of all, on a PZD the minimum percent canopy is 25%, you've
got 20% down here so that is going to change that minimum square foot
required.
Gilbert: I want to visit with you on that later, there is a question there but we can
take that up later.
Camagey: Based on what you currently show as protected trees on the site I see a
little over 2,000 sq.ft. of canopy that qualifies as protected based as what
you are showing in the tree preservation fencing areas. That is the only
thing that I have to go off of. We need to delineate exactly what you are
preserving to make that more clear. I went out there and took a look at the
site, there are several other trees that I would say are borderline but I
would say that they are probably more significant trees. There are several
oaks, a pine. We might want to take a look at that and do a little more
verification on what that canopy is. My only other concern is the fact that
the trajectory of the road is ruing straight up the middle of the primary row
of existing trees. You are removing several significant trees. Also, your
easements, you've got this 30" oak showing right in the middle of this
utility easement on the back of the property. You are showing it as tree
Technical Plat Review
January 14, 2004
Page 15
preservation, that is not going to qualify as tree preservation. Then the
layout of the wall doesn't seem to reflect the trees at all, you are showing
protection down here off of Crossover Road. The trees are actually in the
right of way. I'm not exactly sure what's over here. I'm going to need a
little bit better documentation on where that wall falls in relationship with
the trees. That's all of my comments.
Brady: Parks fees are assessed in the amount of $6,600 and will be due prior to
signing Final Plat.
Sue Clouser — SBC
Clouser: Where were you planning on having the utilities on here?
Gilbert: The bulk of lot 14 is designated as a utility easement. It completely
surrounds all of the houses including the space used for a private driveway
in the back. That cluster of lots 2 through 11 is surrounded by lot 14
which is designated as a blanket utility easement.
Clouser: Probably everybody will need a conduit under that private drive.
Phipps: There is no easement there. If we go over to lot 14 whoever builds is
going to have to dig back under that private drive to get to us, we are not
going to go under that, there is no easement on the inside for that.
Basically, transformers and all the utilities will sit in that lot outside of that
private drive and whoever builds will have to dig under the private drive
to get to us.
Clouser: I will need conduits for us. If we are going that way I will need a conduit
across the court at the gate in the utility easement. Those conduits,
probably 2" will do since we are just putting drops in there. We will need
to figure out the number of pedestals, probably one per two lots. If there
is any relocation it will be at the owner/developer's expense.
Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop,
Phipps: At that entrance off of Hwy. 265 I'll need six 4" conduits there. The
overhead line on Hwy. 265 is above 12.5 kV. The overhead coming
through lots 3 and 4 back to serve the residents to the east, we could take
that out but we will need the underground in first to tie back into the
overhead on this side of the property because we have to keep it hot there
until we get that done. If we need to relocate a pole or something like that
so construction can go on for the private road then we will do that, there
will just be a labor charge to come in and do that.
Technical Plat Review
January 14, 2004
Page 16
Gilbert: We are showing streetlights on Stonewood Court. We have not shown
them on Hwy. 265 and apparently they will be required there so we will be
adding those. On Stonewood Court I believe there are three and I think
those are the only three.
Phipps: If we are outside of that, we are going to need a 10' easement there.
Gilbert: Stonewood Court lies within Lot 14 which is all designated as a utility
easement. We took 9 lots and wrapped them in a 60' utility easement.
You've got access to at least two sides of every lot there with easement.
Phipps: My transformer is going to set here and here is the light, we need to get
here to here. I'm not going to dig down Stonewood Court, I'm going to
go the shortest way, which would be this light here which would be a
transformer set back here.
Gilbert: I can appreciate that Mike, we may need to work on this a little bit, I'm
concerned about cutting easements between these lots, specifically
because the density on these houses are going to be very close. They are
going to be very close together, that is the whole point in clustering them
together like this. If we start putting easements down between the houses
it kind of defeats the purpose of the whole design.
Phipps: Coming down Stonewood we are going to defeat what the city wants
because you are going to have transformers up here, they won't be sitting
in the back, it is going to be right there on Stonewood Court, an above
ground transformer.
Gilbert: That may be what needs to happen. We will just need to work through
that. I will have to check with the owner and see what his feeling is about
cutting these in between. If he is ok with it then we will do it. I will just
have to check with him.
Phipps: Just for the record, that existing overhead line does have a 30'UE with it
now, 15' each side.
Pate: Mike, do you know how large that line is?
Phipps: It is 72, we will take that out. That's all I have.
Larry Gibson — Cox Communications
Gibson: I have some of the same issues. This overhead line is going back to Mr.
Roman's house, we are on it too and he is actually a customer off of it.
This pole that you are showing at the back of lot 8, his services are buried
from there to his house. As far as being able to pull something out of the
Technical Plat Review
January 14, 2004
Page 17
way why you are building your street probably won't be possible. We will
need to keep that active until we can get in there. Once we place our
pedestals, when they start their homes, if our pedestals are going to be on
the outside diameter we will ask the home owner or developer/builder to
place a 2" conduit with 36" radius sweeps from our pedestal location to
within 3' of the electric meter on the house with pull strings to service
them off that. That's all I have.
Johney Boles — Arkansas Western Gas
Boles: Of course David I've got the same issues everyone else has if we run
around this perimeter. I don't have a problem placing services on the
interior of that drive but I'm going to need conduits under every other
property line. Otherwise, our meters are going to be placed out on the
opposite side of the road and the plumbers are going to have to get under
that private drive so if you will just let me know which direction you want
to head with that. Also, at the time this entrance is constructed we are
going to want to have someone on site to watch this high pressure
transmission line that we've got running up the east side of Hwy. 265. It
probably will be a good idea prior to construction if they can provide a
backhoe and operator and we will send someone out if they want to dig it
up and shoot depth grade on that line.
Gilbert: Our plan through there is to fill all of that. We are not planning on making
any cuts over there. I appreciate your concern and certainly with a high
pressure gas line everybody needs to be careful but if it helps ease your
mind any we are not planning to cut that area.
Boles: Ok, that's all I have.
Pate: The last comments in your packet are from the Fire Department. They
mention the cul-de-sac, the inner circle will impede turn around and needs
to be removed. That is a recommendation from the Fire Department. I
would recommend that you talk to those guys specifically. They are
aware that it is a private drive but they are also aware that they need to
serve these homes in the event of an emergency. It may end up being a
wider radius to get around that. If you would just get something from them
and then with the revisions in your letter of transmittals let me know what
came out of that discussion. Revisions are due the 21" at 10 a.m.
Gibson: If you will notify us when they break ground on that we can start working
on relocating our overhead service. I think it is just going to take several
conduits. It can be done though.
Technical Plat Review
January 14, 2004
Page 18
R-PZD 04-05.00: Residential Planned Zoning District (Hickory Park, pp 294) was
submitted by Millholland Company on behalf of St. John's Lutheran Church of
Fayetteville for property located at 2730 E. Township Street. The property is zoned P-1,
Institutional, and contains approximately 4.429 acres. The request is to rezone the
subject property to a Residential Planned Zoning District to allow the development of 14
residential lots.
Pate: Item number five is a Residential Planned Zoning District for Hickory
Park submitted by Milholland, Mr. Tom Jefcoat is here as the
representative, on behalf of St. John's Lutheran Church on Township. It
is approximately 4.4 acres to allow the development of 14 residential lots.
This is Suzanne's project.
Morgan: This is the accompanying property line adjustment for this, we won't talk
about that here. Please note the density for the proposed PZD on the plat.
Also, the vicinity map needs to be changed to show the correct project
area. Include the building setback line in the legend. Clearly designate
the 55' from centerline as proposed right of way and 40' from centerline
as existing right of way. The dedication will need to be by Warranty Deed
since Hwy. 265 is a state highway. Remove the RSF-4 requirement block
on the plat. It is my understanding that you are not going to be using those
but you just put it on the plat for comparison.
Jefcoat: That was just for reference.
Morgan: The two requests for variances noted on the plat aren't necessarily needed.
We do have a standard for a 40' right of way and 24' street from curb to
curb. Also, the second request, for Planned Zoning Districts setbacks can
be adjusted to whatever the proposal is so if you can just make a statement
stating that the front setbacks will be at. Include the project owner
information on the plat. Show the proposed location of the driveways for
lots 6, 7, 11, 12 and 13 just for information to see the distance and spacing
for those. They are pretty close together. Note that driveway widths may
be a maximum of 24' at the right of way line. If you could also include a
note on the plat indicating that all lots shall access interior streets only. If
you could also include on the plat what use units you are allowing for this
R-PZD. A Final Plat will be required.
Jefcoat: Which units?
Morgan: There are different Use Units for Single -Family and Multi -Family.
Jefcoat: They will be single family.
Morgan: Ok. Indicate street lights on Hwy. 265 at no more than 300' apart. We
have a recommendation that a street light be placed at the end of this
Technical Plat Review
January 14, 2004
Page 19
Mockemut Crossing. Also, if you could submit the elevations for the
proposed brick wall and signage. The plat indicates that you will have a
sign and a brick wall.
Jefcoat: You mean an elevation view?
Morgan: Yes. Please note that notification requirements must be met for the
Planned Zoning District. That entails notifying adjoiners, anyone
adjoining within 100'.
Pate: The last Planning Commission we had one tabled because of notification
requirements so we are just kind of letting everyone be aware that PZDs
require more than just the typical Preliminary Plat because it is a Rezoning
request also. That's real important, we can't hear it without that.
Thomas: Tom, I might just note that we have had several calls about this project
from the neighborhood surrounding this and you might want to meet with
this prior to the next meeting.
Pate: That will be something that will be asked at Subdivision as well is if you
have had a neighborhood association meeting or met with those property
owners adjacent. A lot more detailed questions are asked with a Planned
Zoning District so that flexibility on the developer and the city is there.
Jefcoat: Well, the neighbors think that that is their property. We have had
neighbors move lot corners 15' or 30' into the property saying that they
own the property. It is their backyard, we are going to have problems.
Morgan: Matt, do you have any comments?
Matt Casey — Staff EnEineeC
Casey: Tom, lot 11 needs the water line extended all the way to be served. The
sewer in the backyards, we require a 12' gravel access drive for each of
those manholes. Also ,we are going to be recommending that a left turn
lane is installed to turn out onto Crossover, remove that landscape island
to do that. That's all that I have. The proposed sidewalks need to be
located at the right of way.
Jefcoat: Instead of the foot space being there?
Casey: The foot flat space is actually outside of the right of way. That's all I
have.
Technical Plat Review
January 14, 2004
Page 20
Craig Carnagey — Landscape Administrator
Carnagey: Tom, the percent minimum for preserved canopy in an R-PZD is 25%, that
needs to be indicated on your canopy tables.
Jefcoat: What do we have 20%?
Carnagey: Yes.
Jefcoat: I think your format is probably messed up unless you all have corrected it
because it goes from 25% to 20% and back to 25%.
Carnagey: In an R-PZD it is clearly stated that the most restrictive shall apply. In this
case it is 25%.
Jefcoat: I just think that the chart is wrong.
Camagey: You may want to look at the updated ordinance on line. What I would like
you to show on each of these lots, it doesn't have to be graphically shown
but just a statement about the buildable area. We need to remove that
buildable area from the preserved canopy. I went through here just for my
own purposes and gave an estimate of approximately 5,000 sq.ft. per lot
and that should still be well above that 25%. I also need you to
graphically indicate on the drawing all the significant trees that will be
removed. I know you've got them in the table, I just need them shown
graphically on here. In relationship to Matt's comments, if he is requiring
gravel drives along this whole sewer line I won't be able to recommend
this project based on that. I would recommend that that 8" sewer line be
placed somewhere else, not along that back edge. I've been contacted
long before I was even made aware of this project by the neighbors. That
would significantly take out this whole buffer along this whole edge. That
would be my recommendation.
Jefcoat: I think the gravel drive is a little harsh to go all the way around there for
that. We will see what we can work out, between lots would be a lot
better, I'm not sure.
Casey: As long as we can access each manhole.
Jefcoat The one existing manhole in the back corner you won't have to access
anyway because you don't have access to it now and it is an existing
manhole. We are really only talking about the new ones right?
Casey: Yes, we could do that.
Jefcoat: Good. We will see what we can work out.
Technical Plat Review
January 14, 2004
Page 21
Casey: Another thing Jeremy and I were just discussing, the brick wall that is
shown, it is kind of a catch 22, it can't be in our right of way but then
again since it is a brick wall it can't be in the easement, you may have to
leave like a 5' gap between the right of way and the utility easement since
it is not allowed to be built in either one of those.
Jefcoat: It could be built in an easement with the knowledge that it could be tom
down can't it?
Casey: We can't allow any structure to be constructed in an easement and a wall
is a structure. I don't know how big that wall is going to be, if you can
just leave a gap between the easement and the right of way, unless that
conflicts with water and sewer that may be existing. That may be a matter
to deal with.
Jefcoat: If we are going to have a turn lane in there we may be pulling back. A left
turn lane?
Casey: Where your landscape island is now it would just be a lane.
Jefcoat: Oh, not an acceleration lane or a deceleration lane but a double lane, I got
you.
Casey: Not on Crossover.
Jefcoat I see what you are saying.
Morgan: Alison, do you have anything?
Alison Brady — Park Planner
Brady: Parks fees in the amount of $7,770 will be due before Final Plat.
Sue Clouser — SBC
Clouser: We need six 4" crossings on Shag Bark Lane. A 20' utility easement
between lots 12 and 13 to get us over there to serve 14.
Jefcoat: Would you not come up between lots 10 and 11? All of the utilities and
everything are along those back property lines.
Gibson: We could come between 10 and 11, you've got a 20' UE right there but
then around this bend there in the front we would also have to place a 20'
UE to get over to 14. 1 can do it either way.
Technical Plat Review
January 14, 2004
Page 22
Jefcoat: Ok, between 12 and 13
Clouser: Also on those conduits be sure that they extend beyond the sidewalk on
either side of Shag Bark.
Jefcoat: Ok.
Clouser: Any relocation or damage to existing facilities will be at the
owner/developer's expense.
Larry Gibson — Cox Communications
Gibson: I agree with that UE that Sue was asking for between 12 and 13 and also,
this 25'UE and setback on the north side and on the west side, unless
you've got something in mind for that we don't need 25'.
Boles: It can be reduced Tom. I know that's an uncommon access but that's
enough easement.
Gibson: I think gas, myself and probably Sue also have got existing on these lots 6
through 11 so if you need to you can shrink that down.
Johnev Boles — Arkansas Western Gas
Boles: No comment.
Morgan: Fire comments were that front entrance has two 14' width, one needs to be
removed.
Jefcoat Putting the turn lane in there will take care of that. Just because they
require 20' doesn't mean that it has to be.
Morgan: If you can call them and talk to them about that.
Casey: The Planning Commission is going to see that recommendation and that is
something that carries a lot of weight.
Morgan: Details about notification are in §157.02 of the Unified Development
Code. Revisions are due by January 21" at 10 a.m. Thank you.
Pate: The meeting is adjourned.
Meeting adjourned: 10:03 a.m.