Loading...
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.