Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-01-28 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE TECHNICAL PLAT REVIEW COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee was held on January 28, 2004 at 9:00 a.m. in room 111 in the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN LSP 04-08.00: Lot Split (Huddleston, pp 204) Forwarded Page 3 LSP 04-09.00: Lot Split (Bolinger, pp 599) Forwarded Page 5 LSP 04-05.10: Lot Split (Briggs, pp 485) Forwarded Page 7 LSP 04-10.00: Lot Split (Owen, pp 254) Forwarded Page 10 PPL 04-02.00: Preliminary Plat (Elder Apts., pp 401) Forwarded Page 12 PPL 04-03.00: Preliminary Plat (Grand Valley Stables, pp 103) Forwarded Page 16 PPL 04-04.00: Preliminary Plat (Grand Valley Estates, pp 104) Forwarded Page 21 LSD 04-05.00: Large Scale Development (Clary Development/Harp's, pp 401) Forwarded Page 23 LSD 04-06.00: Large Scale Development (Landers Hummer, pp 249) Forwarded Page 28 LSD 04-07.00: Large Scale Development (Walker Riding Arena, pp 716) Forwarded Page 33 LSP 04-11.00 & LSD 04-08.00 (Logan's Roadhouse, pp 173) Forwarded Page 34 Technical Plat Review January 28, 2004 Page 2 Matt Casey Jeremy Pate Suzanne Morgan Renee Thomas Alison Brady Craig Carnagey UTILITIES PRESENT Jim Sargent, AEP/ SWEPCO Mike Phipps, Ozark Electric Coop. Larry Gibson, Cox Communications Johney Boles, Arkansas Western Gas Sue Clouser, Southwestern Bell STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Perry Franklin Danny Farrar Travis Dotson UTILITIES ABSENT Technical Plat Review January 28, 2004 Page 3 LSP 04-08.00: Lot Split (Huddleston, pp 204) was submitted by Blew Land Surveying on behalf of Jon and Nancy Huddleston for property located at 3450 Hughmount Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 12.19 acres. The request is to divide the property into two tracts containing 9.22 and 1.59 acres respectively. Pate: We are going to go ahead and commence the meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee. It is Wednesday, January 28, 2004. We have twelve items on the agenda today. Hopefully we can get through these comments in a concise manner. Item number one is LSP 04-08.00 for Huddleston submitted by Blew Land Surveying on behalf of John and Nancy Huddleston for property located at 3450 Hughmount Road. Is there a representative present? If you can come on up please. Morgan: These are comments from staff. Planning comments are just a few things that need to be changed on the actual plat. Owner's signatures need to be added on the application form. This is the second split for this property. If you could submit a letter to the Planning staff stating the scope, nature and intent of your proposal. Some of the changes that need to be made on this plat are to include a note that all of the subject and adjacent properties are within the Planning Area. The right of way dimensions are 60' and this right of way has been dedicated and won't need to be dedicated with this plat. There was an older plat showing an easement line with south of the county road being an easement. If you can have the surveyor check that and address that on the plat. Blew: We did. I think the intention of that easement was to dedicate the right of way of the county road. Morgan: Ok. If you could show the location of the existing septic system on this lot. That is the bulk of the comments for Planning. Matt, do you have any comments? Matt Casey — Staff EnEineeC Casey: My only comment is sewer service is not available in this area. Morgan: Utilities? Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop. Phipps: No comment. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: No comment. Technical Plat Review January 28, 2004 Page 4 Morgan: If there are no other comments revisions are due on the 4`h of February at 10:00 a.m. If you have any questions please call. Johnev Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: I'm sorry, I did have a comment. We have an existing line on the south side of County Road 706 so you need to show a 20' utility easement adjacent to that county road right of way. It is on the west side of the north/south run of this road and then when the road bends back to the west it is on the south side all the way up through here. Blew: Does it run the full length of that road all the way through the property? Boles: I believe it does. Morgan: Ok, thank you. Technical Plat Review January 28, 2004 Page 5 LSP 04-09.00: Lot Split (Bolinger, pp 599) was submitted by Bill Jenkins on behalf of Randy Bolinger for property located at S. Brower Avenue and Razorback Road. The property is zoned RMF -24, Residential Multi -family, 24 units per acre, and contains approximately 0.52 acres. The request is to split the subject property into two tracts of 0.27 and 0.25 acres respectively. Pate: Item number two is LSP 04-09.00, a lot split for Bollinger submitted by Bill Jenkins on behalf of Randy Bollinger for property located south of Brower Avenue and Razorback Road. The request is to split the subject property into two tracts of .27 and .25 acres. Is there a representative present? Morgan: For Planning staff's purposes, just a note that this is the first split for this lot. If you could correct the zoning to RMF -24 and the vicinity map, if you could show a large area about one mile radius from that for the vicinity map. Also, if you could show the right of way line here and account for this piece of property. Also, show the owner and developer information on the plat, just include it right here. Those are all of Planning's comments. Matt, do you have any comments? Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: You just need to show on the plat the location of the new water line that was extended to the property on the south and the location of the existing meters and sanitary sewer services. We just need to make sure that the service lines aren't crossing that new line that you are creating. You need to show the new water line that is coming from the south from Mr. Moulden's property and show the approximate location of the water meters and also the sanitary sewer services. We just need to verify that those sewer services do not cross this new property line that you are creating. Morgan: Utilities? Jim Sargent — SWEPCO Sargent: No comment. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: No comment. Sue Clouser — SBC Clouser: No comment. Technical Plat Review January 28, 2004 Page 6 Morgan: There are fire comments included in your packet stating fire flow will be required if buildings or apartments are built, which they are. A fire hydrant may be required so you can get in touch with Captain Farrar about that. Morgan: Revisions are due on February 4`h at 10:00 a.m. Technical Plat Review January 28, 2004 Page 7 LSP 04-05.10: Lot Split (Briggs, pp 485) was submitted by Blew Land Surveying on behalf of Lucas Briggs for property located at 200 Fletcher and 195 Summit. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre and contains approximately 0.41 acres. The request is to split the subject property into two tracts of 0.18 and 0.23 acres respectively. Pate: Item three is LSP 04-05.10 for Briggs submitted by Blew Land Surveying on behalf of Lucas Briggs for properties located on Fletcher and Summit Avenue. For utility purposes, we have seen this Lot Split before. One of the main concerns is that the sewer line here, the service line for this house crosses the property line so they would have to relocate that or extend a sewer main to this house. What they are doing is instead of filing that Lot Split of record, is rearranging the lines so that the sanitary sewer service lines are coming to the houses off of Fletcher Avenue. That's why we are seeing this again. Planning comments are pretty straight forward. Everything is from the last plat Buckley. The only real comment I had was on these driveways in the legal description it talks about subject to and having common rights to ingress and egress rights of access. I talked to our land agents and we probably need to go ahead and show this as an access easement and actually call it out on the plat and describe a portion of that here and here to ensure that there is always permanent access to both of these lots through that driveway. If that is something that you want to pursue or if you would like to have access to this house from the existing drive for these property owners it is probably best to describe that and put it on the plat. That is really the only comment that I have. Matt? Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: No comment. Jim Sargent — SWEPCO Sargent: No comment. Johney Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: I am going to pass to Larry. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: I've looked for utility easements for this along Fletcher and Summit Avenue and then on the south side of the property. I see some building setback lines, are they building setbacks and utility easements? Blew: We only have them labeled as building setback lines. All of the utilities are in the existing right of way. The right of way of Fletcher is 60' and of Technical Plat Review January 28, 2004 Page 8 Summit is 70' and the development of the road is a very narrow road. All of the utilities are run in that right of way. Clouser: I would like to see that a building setback and UE. Blew: The existing building setback is 25', how wide of an easement do you need? Gibson: 20'. Blew: It is probably going to touch that house. Gibson: It is about 15' from this garage to the west to that right of way line. You can just make that a UE right there and then on the other side the same way. Boles: It is not 27' from the edge of the right of way to the front of the porch? If you would show 20' down to the garage and then jog around to the west side of the garage and show that easement line all the way down there. We can do that. Gibson: Just make a general utility easement. Blew: On this other side you are not going to have it because the existing house is already sitting inside the 25' building setback, of course, at the time that this was a platted subdivision they didn't have building setbacks. Gibson: 10' would work, we are just trying to cover the existing. Blew: I think all of your existing stuff is in the right of way. Boles: My stuff is in the right of way but when I replace it I'm going to put it on private property, I'm not going to run it in the right of way so 10' along Summit off of the right of way would be fine. Blew: Ok, and you want 20' on Fletcher. Boles: Until you get down to the garage and then jog around the garage there. Blew: The building point of that garage is about 14 Yz'. Boles: I'm saying you can cover that 20' line to the garage and then just make the balance whatever you've got here between that and the right of way a utility easement. Sue Clouser — SBC Technical Plat Review January 28, 2004 Page 9 Clouser: I agree with that utility easement. Gibson: On the south side of this property, is that right of way? Blew: No. Gibson: The only right of way is just along Fletcher and Summit right? Blew: Yes. Gibson: If you could show a 10' on the south side right here that will keep it away from the back there. That's all I have. Pate: If there are no further utility comments revisions are due the 4`h of February by 10:00 a.m. Blew: Thank you. Technical Plat Review January 28, 2004 Page 10 LSP 04-10.00: Lot Split (Owen, pp 254) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Tanya and Ben Owen for property located at 2625 Warwick Drive. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre and contains approximately 3.39 acres. The request is to split the subject property into two tracts of 2.57 and 0.83 acres respectively. Pate: Item number four is LSP 04-10.00, a Lot Split for Owen submitted by Dave Jorgensen for property located on Warwick Drive. The request is to split into two tracts of 2.57 and .83 acres. Suzanne? Morgan: If we could get Mr. Owen's signature on the application. Also, if you could submit a letter to staff regarding the intent of this proposal. This is the third and final split for this property. Regarding modifications to the plat, some of the noteworthy notes here, show the centerline of Warwick Drive. There is currently 30' of dedicated right of way and access easement along Warwick Drive and in order to create a conforming right of way for residential, if you could dedicate an additional 10' of right of way along there to create a 40' right of way. Jorgensen: That would be 10', no problem for sure on ours but on the existing property? Pate: Just on yours. Jorgensen: Ok. Morgan: If you could show the lines for the septic system on the .83 acre tract and also identify the acreage under each tract. The lines I believe are supposed to be 10' from property lines. If you could submit a letter or get into contact with the Health Department about approval of a septic system on that size of acreage. The access drive here, I don't know if you are wanting that to be accessed by this property. You may want to consider putting that into an easement or removing this line. If you could add the appropriate signature blocks for right of way dedication. Those are included in here. Modify the vicinity map to show only the subject property. Those are the majority of comments from Planning. Matt, do you have any comments? Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: The only comment is, you all are aware that water will need to be extended to serve these lots. You show that on the plat, if you could just label that as proposed. Jorgensen: That's all I have. Technical Plat Review January 28, 2004 Page 11 Morgan: Parks fees in the amount of $555 will be due. Are there any comments from utilities? Jim Sareent — SWEPCO Sargent: I would like to see a utility easement somewhere along that north side. Jorgensen: You're talking about along the north boundary line? Sargent: If that is going to be a street then we will probably want it along the south side of that street. Jorgensen: Ok, 10', that will be in addition to the 40' right Jim? Sargent: Yes. Clouser: I would like to get in there too, is that possible? Jorgensen: They have to have a 25' building setback anyway. Clouser: If we could do a 20' that would be preferable. Morgan: Fire comments were included. Just a note that water values aren't visible on the plat and hydrant status not found. Revisions will be due February 4`h by 10:00 a.m. Jorgensen: Good deal, we appreciate it. Technical Plat Review January 28, 2004 Page 12 PPL 04-02.00: Preliminary Plat (Elder Apts., pp 401) was submitted by Engineering Services, Inc. on behalf of C & K Properties for property located north of Wedington Drive on Salem Road. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office, and C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, and contains approximately 8.32 acres. The request is to replat the subject property into two tracts of 4.77 and 3.55 acres respectively. Pate: Item number five is a Preliminary Plat for Elder Apartments submitted by ESI on behalf of C&K Properties. This property is north of Wedington Drive on Salem Road. Your packet includes all of the comments I mentioned. One of the items that is still unclear. The parcel number associated with this parcel is still listed as the Arkansas National Bank parcel. I know if has been split out but if you could clarify that the correct parcel number was put on the application. Also, the owner is listed as Midsouth Enterprises, I'm not sure who that is. The zoning on the south portion of the lot is C-1, not R -O. Humbard: Ok. Pate: That is going to change your setbacks. I included for you the setback requirements for both R -O and C-1 so if you would just reference those in your packet and put the correct setbacks on them. Just a couple of additions to the plat, adjacent property zoning classification, the plat page number, any requested easements from today. As I mentioned, the correct setbacks for each of the lots. Staff is going to recommend at this time pursuant to the requirements of an associated rezoning for this piece of property and the development of Arkansas National Bank, that right of way be dedicated with the plat extending from Salem Road and basically curving around down south to this Wedington Drive to provide for future access. Basically, in this location from this curb cut down to here a 50' right of way be dedicated. The associated rezoning and development of that bank lot conditions of approval originally were to construct a street all along this property boundary. Humbard: Can we come back and put it somewhere else if we tie it in? Pate: That is the recommendation right now. Originally discussion included a right of way and street to be constructed all along the entire property but it also included the ability for staff to make a recommendation at that time. There can be no more curb cuts on Salem Road or Wedington, State Hwy. 16, for this lot so these two curb cuts are the only ones that can be utilized for development of either of these lots. That is the reason we are looking at right of way dedication. If it is something that is a point of contention we do need to set up a meeting later and discuss that. It is something that is pretty important. Humbard: I'm not sure if it is or not. Technical Plat Review January 28, 2004 Page 13 Pate: Dedication of the right of way would then have to be vacated if something were to be built there. Other comments, if there are any signs they need to be located. Again, referencing that right of way, at the time of development that street construction will be required connecting both of the existing driveway stubouts. Casey: A question, I've not seen any kind of a preliminary layout for this but that could come in the middle over here if it comes out. Pate: There are no additional curb cuts allowed on Wedington. Both of these are existing. The bank, when the bank developed they were aware of that as well. This was all part of one tract here at that time. When they developed they stubbed both of these curb cuts out so that could allow for access for these two lots. I have been in touch with Brian Moore about this. That is really the bulk of our Planning comments. Matt, do you have anything additional? Matt Casey — Staff Eneineer Casey: Phil, I really don't have any comments. The infrastructure is in place. We will be looking at grading, drainage and sidewalks at the time of development of each of these lots. Craie Carnagey — Landscape Administrator Camagey: The only comment I have is I need you to submit a tree preservation plan waiver form. There are trees however, on that western edge. I would request that any future street improvements or Large Scale Developments proposed for either of these sites that a tree preservation be submitted at that time. Humbard: Ok, those are off our property. Camagey: They are right on the property line and there is actually significant canopy that overhangs the property so I want to be sure that those trees are protected. Humbard: So you want to show the canopy that overhangs onto our property? Camagey: Right. Humbard: Ok, and the tree preservation form. Camagey: Right. Technical Plat Review January 28, 2004 Page 14 Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop, Phipps: The 15' building setback, if you could make it a utility easement on the north side and then a 10' UE on the west side of the property with that 25' building setback. Humbard: That may interfere with those trees too. We will just have to look when we do that. We will put an easement through there. We may have to move it out away from that line. Phipps: We have a power line there now. Humbard: Ok, that is the existing overhead. Phipps: The underground power you've got shown coming from the bank, we've got a 15' utility easement there. I will go back and check it out but I don't remember running that way. At one time it was all one piece in here. I will have to look at that. Any relocation of any existing facilities will be at the developer's expense. Humbard: If we relocate that line they are going to have to pay for it in other words. Casey: If there is an easement we will need to vacate it if the building is proposed over it. Phipps: That's all I have. Johney Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: No comment. Gibson: We've also got a line coming down the west side of Salem and it turns behind Arkansas National Bank, goes west and then comes right down here and services the bank. We are also on this overhead power line that comes out here. We will have to relocate that when we get ready to place everything underground. Humbard: You are inside that easement over here aren't you? Gibson: Yes. I'm fairly sure we are inside that easement just on the north side of the Arkansas National Bank property too. We will have to get a locate on it just to make sure but that is where our prints show it run. That's all I have. Technical Plat Review January 28, 2004 Page 15 Sue Clouser — SBC Clouser: I agree with the utility easement requests and we do have a line here and anything that would need to be moved will be at the owner/developer's expense. Humbard: Do you have a lot of things to move? Clouser: I am going to have to check that out. I imagine that it either extends down this way, if there was an easement through there, that's probably where it goes. Humbard: There may be an easement through there. Clouser: It's beyond this easement so I will have to check. As I said, any relocation will be at the owner/developer's expense. Pate: Revisions are due the 4`h at 10:00 a.m. Thank you. Technical Plat Review January 28, 2004 Page 16 PPL 04-03.00: Preliminary Plat (Grand Valley Stables, pp 103) was submitted by Engineering Services, Inc. on behalf of Terminella & Associates for property located along the north side of Guy Terry Rd. at Howard Porter Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 70.29 acres. The request is to allow development of a residential subdivision with 24 lots and 24 single family dwelling units proposed. Pate: The next item, number six, is PPL 04-03.00 for Grand Valley Stables on Guy Terry Road and Howard Porter Road. Morgan: This subdivision contains four parcels, if you could submit verification that all four parcels have been transferred ownership, it is still not showing on county records. If you could also submit correspondence in the form of a written letter describing your proposal. Also, if you could address, staff was concerned with four large tracts. Item two of the section addresses lots that are somewhat out of proportion with the rest of the subdivision. Humbard: That just falls off into a ravine. Do you want that in a letter? Morgan: That would be good if you could just address that in the letter. If you could also locate the location of the entire site on the vicinity map and location maps. I believe that you can clearly hatch that in and it looks like on the location map that you are excluding that small parcel just to the north by Guy Terry. Humbard: It looks like it but it is not. Morgan: Also, there is a typo in the legal description. It won't close, it is just changing south to north. That is in the packet. Right of way for Guy Terry Road is 35' from centerline, if you could clearly dimension that on the plat. City requirements for building setbacks are 10' sides and 20' for rear in the Planning Area and need to be noted on the plat. I believe there may be some discrepancies in what is shown. Also, on Preliminary Plats signature blocks are not needed. There are three existing buildings on here that are noted but are not noted to be removed to remain. I don't know what the intent there is so if you could show that. Also, county approval is required. Staff is concerned with the connectivity provided. Our recommendation is that this northern street two be stubbed out to the east and west to provide for future connectivity. Humbard: I can see it going east but west, that goes off in a hole. The contours show there is 80' of difference there. Pate: Potentially there may be a different location. Humbard: That is very steep. Technical Plat Review January 28, 2004 Page 17 Morgan: Our concerns that we are having these two tracts developed that are going to be only accessing Guy Terry and to provide a future connectivity across there. Whether that is located along Street two or further south. Obviously, we need to consider topography but staff's recommendation is that connectivity be provided. Humbard: It is going to be hard to do on the west side. We have already got Guy Terry there, that is a quarter mile back there. Casey: This may be very difficult because of the same terrain. To the east shouldn't be a problem. Would that provide the connectivity that you are looking for? Pate: This property will be developed at some time in the future. What we have to anticipate is that development will occur on that tract of land so we need to provide connectivity. To the south, again, you are looking at a situation that is really similar to your really large lots. This is real similar to these larger lots. Humbard: Right, it falls off into a hollow. Pate: Terrain is obviously something that we are going to consider, we are not going to stubout a street that can't ever be built. Humbard: Can I work with Matt and let him bring a recommendation to you or something like that on the connectivity or the total topography or something like that? Morgan: We can discuss that further. Humbard: We will get out a topo of the whole area there and look at it and see if it is practical to go down in that big dip there and come back out of it. Morgan: Do you know the size of the electric lines? Humbard: No. Morgan: Electric lines 12kV and below have to be relocated underground. Phipps: I think that is 25kV. Morgan: Ok. Matt, do you have ay comments? Casey: Just a couple. As you are aware, an 8" water main will need to be extended to serve this site. I know I talked to Brian about it. I think you Technical Plat Review January 28, 2004 Page 18 are going to have to come from quite a ways off. It may even be all the way to George Anderson to be able to get an 8". Also, within the development they need to either adjust the water line locations to provide 10' easement on each side or provide additional easements shown. You can scoot it over towards the right of way more if you would rather and have a 5' or 10' easement on the right side. We don't need the easement on the right of way side of course. That water line could be located within the right of way. That's all I have. Morgan: Are there any comments from utilities? Johney Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: Can you tell me what's planned for the four lots to the north? Humbard: They are single family houses, it is just so steep on the back side of them. Boles: We can assume that facilities along the north side of the drive would be adequate? Humbard: You mean serving them from the front? Boles: Yes. Humbard: I think that would probably be preferred because of the distance that you would have to come back off the back lot line to get to them. You are going to need an easement probably running along that east/west line from the found stone to the set iron pin. You have got a 20' there. Phipps: Until we can request easements that we will all need we will wait for the property owner to build and get an easement from the property owner to get back to the house. We have no idea where the house is going to be on something like that. How far back do you think they can build? Humbard: I wouldn't think they would build on the other side of the draw. I don't know, it is up to them. They could put it all the way on the backside of that. Boles: Could you change your easement on the north side of Street two running east and west from 15' to 20'? Humbard: Ok. Boles: Also, the easement running east and west between four and five, twenty and twenty one, increase that to a 20', you are showing a 15'. Technical Plat Review January 28, 2004 Page 19 Humbard: All the way through, ok. Phipps: On these streetlights there has to be a P.O.A. to pay for those. Humbard: Is it required to have streetlights? Morgan: Not in the Planning area we don't require streetlights. Phipps: They are not required. Humbard: If they are there will have to be a P.O.A. to pay for them. Phipps: Yes, if they want them they will have to be setup through a P.O.A. Boles: I have one other thing. My records show measuring from the center of Guy Terry Road going north from the centerline of that road, I show a 3" high pressure line running east and west through lots 14, 15, 24 and lot number 1. Humbard: That's how far from the centerline? Boles: 100' is what is scaling off my records. I don't know if it is accurately drawn or not. If that needs to be relocated it will be at the developer's expense and it will be a great expense. It probably would not be worth the effort. Casey: Is there an easement with that? Boles: There probably is a blanket on the existing 40 acre tract. We will request a 20' utility easement with the location of the line in the new easement. If it turns out to be a blanket then we can release some of it. Casey: At least you have large lots. Humbard: We will look at that. Boles: It is also the same case on your next project also. Clouser: Is this building in the southwest corner coming out? Humbard: Yeah, it probably will. I don't think the Lot 14 person will want it. Clouser: Good. Morgan: Are there any additional comments from utilities? Technical Plat Review January 28, 2004 Page 20 Humbard: The difference in Lot 9 and 10, that 10' easement. When you service lots 6, 7, 8 and 9, are you all going to just go from the front next to the road all the way from lot 10 and then go up to the north? Boles: Between 10 and 11. We will do the same between 4 and 5. Clouser: I would like to request a conduit coming across here so I can get over to these lots, from between 19 and 20 over to 7. Phipps: Make that six 4". Clouser: The 15' utility easements along Guy Terry, if we could change those to 20'. Any relocation will be at the owner/developer's expense or any damage to existing facilities, will be at the owner/developer's expense. Could you let me know when you start building out there please? Humbard: Ok. Clouser: Thank you. Morgan: Fire comments were included. It states that they recommend 26' access road that will have a fire hydrant located on it. Revisions will be due February 4`h by 10:00 a.m. Humbard: The county only requires a 20' street. Technical Plat Review January 28, 2004 Page 21 PPL 04-04.00: Preliminary Plat (Grand Valley Estates, pp 104) was submitted by Engineering Services, Inc. on behalf of Terminella & Associates for property located along the north side of Guy Terry Road, east of the intersection of Howard Porter Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 77.67 acres. The request is to allow development of 24 lots with 24 single family residential dwelling units proposed. Morgan: Item seven is PPL 04-4.00 for Grand Valley Estates submitted by submitted by Engineering Services. Comments from Planning are pretty much exactly the same as before. Humbard: It looks almost identical doesn't it. Morgan: It does. You would get confused if you didn't know. Something I didn't mention before, notes one and three are the same. Also, I was wondering about the sheds. You have the chicken houses to be removed but the sheds and barns. Humbard: They will be removed. Morgan: I will spare you from going over the same comments over again but connectivity is something that we need to still look at. Matt, do you have anything? Matt Casey — Staff EnEineeC Casey: I have exactly the same comments. Extend the 8" water line and provide easements for the water line, which it looks like you are. Morgan: Comments from utilities? Boles: This is very similar to the last project. Phipps: That 10' UE you've got between lots 10 and 11 and 7 and 6 for streetlights, can you just change that to a 20'? Humbard: Ok. Phipps: Just on the north side of the street you've got a 15', can you change that to a 20' too. Then, on the west side of Street One next to Guy Terry you've got a 15' there. Boles: That is along the south property line of lot one. Phipps: Just make that whole thing 20' down along the north side. Technical Plat Review January 28, 2004 Page 22 Clouser: Are we going to go on the front? Phipps: These four big lots with this on the back I want to wait on that until they decide what they would like to do with their houses. Sue Clouser — SBC Clouser: The same thing, any relocation or damage to facilities will be at the owner or developer's expense. Morgan: I didn't receive any comments from Fire on this but revisions will be due the 4`h of February. Technical Plat Review January 28, 2004 Page 23 LSD 04-05.00: Large Scale Development (Clary Development/Harp's, pp 401) was submitted by Brian Moore of Engineering Services, Inc. on behalf of Clary Development Corporation for property located at Lot 8 of Wedington Place Addition. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 4.61 acres. The request is to allow the development of a 31,118 sq.ft. commercial building with 125 parking spaces proposed. Pate: Item eight is LSD 04-05.00 for Clary Development, Harp's on Wedington in Wedington Place Addition. Morgan: There are several comments. I am going to try to hit the main ones. Colorado Drive is platted at 55' of right of way. If you could dimension that. I have also included in the notes with your packet the Final Plat for this subdivision has several easements associated with it, make sure all of those are accurate. My understanding is that there will be a future development here. If you could show these accesses as access easements for future property development. Humbard: All the way from this right of way all the way over to this lot show them as access easements? Morgan: Correct. Here as well. Humbard: You want that shown as an access easement? Pate: Right now there is only 7 '/2' or 8' there on this property. That drive will have to be constructed at a full 24' drive all along that property there to allow circulation to get through there. It is the same owner. Morgan: Something I spoke with Brian Moore about, parking requirements, the required amount is 125 for this site and 163 is the maximum with the 30% overage. You have shown more than that. If you like that 189 number then it would require a Conditional Use permit that would have to come in on the same tract as this. This would be tabled if you want to stilt show that amount of parking until the Conditional Use came in. We spoke and it was mentioned that you may take out that row of parking. I don't know if that is something that you would consider. If that is the case, there would be enough for a drive aisle right here which would allow that other requirement. If you could show the actual location of the ATM on the plat. We've already talked about parking, the drive aisle, the number of required bike racks is five and you have two shown. You can also submit elevations of the proposed monument sign if you are proposing a monument sign and just to let you know, monument signs for this lot must meet the Design Overlay District requirement. That is also noted in the copy of the Final Plat. Technical Plat Review January 28, 2004 Page 24 Humbard: Did we show a sign location? Morgan: I didn't see a sign location. If you are proposing a monument sign you should call that out. This development is subject to Commercial Design Standards and I have listed those standards in here. The elevations submitted do not meet the requirements. We have particular concerns with large, blank, unarticulated wall surfaces, especially for the north and west elevations. If you could address those with the next submittal. Also, if you could submit an additional, you have three sides shown with the anticipation that this be connected onto future. If that does not happen however, we will need to ensure that this side be a fagade that is appropriate and suits Commercial Design Standards. Finally, on these elevations, I know that you are proposing a fuel station here, we need to see that on the elevations also. I just kind of added in pen, a variance for a zero building setback will be required and February 9`h is the next submittal for Board of Adjustment for your information. Those were the majority of Planning comments. Matt, did you have any comments? Matt Casey — Staff Eneineer Casey: The only comment I have Phil, the only thing I can see is that the sidewalk needs to be shown continuous through the driveways. You should remove the curb line that is shown to go through the driveway approach. Other than that, the grading plan looks good. The detention pond is existing for the site. Morgan: Craig? Craie Carnasey — Landscape Administrator Camagey: We have your waiver for your tree preservation plan that has been approved. There are no trees on this site. On the landscape plan, I have a checklist of items that are attached for you to comply with, off street parking, commercial design standards, buffers and screening. I will mention that your proposed tree species for planting, both in the parking lot and along Colorado Drive are not recommended species for those locations and we would request that you refer to our Landscape Manual for appropriate street trees. Also, to the north we are going to need a screening, a combination of both a fence and evergreen screening to screen this proposal from adjacent residential developments. That is north of the existing detention pond. There is a residential subdivision adjacent to this property. Humbard: I thought there was still some area up there. Do you want it on the north side of the detention pond or on the north side of this lot? Technical Plat Review January 28, 2004 Page 25 Camagey: I would prefer it to be on the north side of the detention pond. Humbard: Fence and screening? Camagey: Right. That is my only comment. Morgan: Utilities? Jim Sargent — AEP Sargent: Do you know where the transformer will be located for this? Will it be on the north side of the building, do you know? Humbard: I do not know. Your services are on the front isn't it? Sargent: We have a primary tap cabinet down on the southwest corner of that property. We will need two 4" conduits from that tap cabinet to wherever your transformer location is going to be. Humbard: That's in this area right here? Sargent: Where you've got the electric box at. Humbard: So you are going to want conduits to the transformer? Sargent: Yes, two 4". You've got that 25' utility easement on Colorado. Humbard: So you can run up Colorado and then turn 90 to the building. Sargent: It depends on where they go. We may need one or two turn ups for pull boxes or something. Humbard: You are going to need them from this point here and then over? Sargent: Yes. We will need load information, voltage and load information. I think that's all I have. Johney Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: Phil, our existing line right now is on the west side of Colorado Street. We would be serving that off of that line. At the northeast corner of the proposed building you are showing a compactor. North of that compactor running east and west is a 40' utility easement. Just follow that dotted line on the south edge of that utility easement it goes so far and I don't know where it goes. Can you tell me what happens to that? Technical Plat Review January 28, 2004 Page 26 Humbard: It runs into space there. Boles: At the north it turns southwest. Humbard: I don't know if runs along the edge of that curb. Boles: It goes from the west property line all the way to the east property line do you think? Humbard: I will find out. Boles: I am assuming that they will want their point of entry somewhere along that north side of the building. Humbard: Yeah, that is the dock area and their storage area. Boles: We could utilize that utility easement and then need an easement from that point over to the building. That's all I have. Humbard: On the electrical if we ran up to that point, came over and served from the side, are we going to be ok? Sargent: It depends on where we end up with a transformer. Humbard: You are still going to need a transformer location. Sargent: Yes. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: You probably don't know where the phone room or anything is going to be. If they will run me a 2" conduit from the electrical room, the communications room, west out here to this island between your north and middle driveway somewhere between here and here, whichever one it winds up being and turn the ends up you will come from the west side over to here, we are on that overhead power line on the west side of the building. I can work with either one, if you come off this stop here or the next one down, either one, whichever one works out best for you. That's all I have. Sue Clouser — SBC Clouser: I would like to see crossings at each of these drives along Colorado. Does anyone else need conduits there? Boles: Do you have cable on the west side of Colorado? Technical Plat Review January 28, 2004 Page 27 Clouser: I don't think we do. Gibson: We've got existing, I don't think we are going to need crossings. Clouser: Ok, one 4" conduit. Don't steal them when you all want them now. You can bring my conduit out the same way you are running Larry's for Cox. I prefer two 4" conduits and turn them up and gap them with pull strings please. I will need a backboard with a #6 bare ground in the phone room. If there is any relocation it will be at the owner/developer's expense. Also, they will need to run a 3" conduit to the ATM from the utility easement. If they are going to have any communications out there at the gas station, have them run a conduit back to the phone room also. Humbard: A 3" conduit from the communication room to the ATM? Clouser: Is that owned by the same? I was thinking the gas station wasn't and the ATM run off the utility easement because I think they also own that. Morgan: Comments from the Fire Department are included with your packet. Revisions are due February 4`h by 10:00 a.m. Technical Plat Review January 28, 2004 Page 28 LSD 04-06.00: Large Scale Development (Landers Hummer, pp 249) was submitted by Matt Crafton of Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. on behalf of Don Nelms of Nelms, LLC for property located at 1352 W. Showroom Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 42.82 acres. The request is to allow development of a 3,900 sq.ft. Hummer dealership, a Hummer Test Track and additional parking. Pate: Item number nine is LSD 04-06.00 for Landers Hummer submitted by Matt Crafton of Crafton, Tull & Associates. We will begin, for utility purposes, we've seen this in a previous form before but we have some changes and additions. There is an easement plat in process right now for all of the easements that were approved with the last Large Scale. This is it. If there is anything additional you need it should be noted on that plat. Plat comments, this portion up here is also zoned C-2, not A-1. Include the plat page number and easements. The building setbacks, you need to show it on this lot as well because it is a part of the subject property. Obviously, it can't be built on because of the tree preservation area. Page two, the right of way is in the process of being dedicated so that is not a problem. All of this will have to be taken care of prior to building permit. That colored parking graphic that was supplied last time, if you could update that I think that would really help the Planning Commissioners understand how it is being used back there. We have the old drawing if you need that back or if you need to update that somehow. Again, all lighting shall be shielded, directed downward and away from adjacent properties using full cutoff fixtures. The waiver that the Planning Commission granted for the metal halide will carry forward with this. That waiver has been granted so there is no need for additional information on that. Crafton: There is no additional lighting planned other than what is out there right now. Pate: Something else that I think would benefit us, the Hummer monument sign I'm assuming is going to be moved to somewhere in this location, if you could take a photo of that and I can include it in the Commissioner's packet so they understand exactly what monument sign is being approved out there. I know signage is a big issue out there because there are so many of them and we want to understand exactly what is going on with that. Of course the site is subject to the Design Overlay District requirements. The only thing I noticed, is between the drive aisle here in front of the Hummer dealership and the right of way. If you could just dimension that, it needs to be 25' minimum from right of way to that curb there. If you could just dimension that to ensure that you have that 25' road. The wall signage is something that is a concern I think. On the elevations specifically this falls under our out of scale large flashy signs. That is a big sign that dominates that structure. I guess something that Technical Plat Review January 28, 2004 Page 29 would help would be to know the actual square footage. There are square footage requirements for the signage. That is the only thing really that makes this an unarticulated wall surface. That is something else that we need to address. The previous structure that was approved had much more glass and some of these columns. Obviously, it had the different roofline. It is more in keeping with this. It was more articulated than even this is. In the Overlay District, basically, if a site is visible from the right of way it needs to be addressed as a front and be well articulated. Staff has concerns about some of these. Obviously this faces into the parking lot but it is very visible, obviously, that is why the sign is placed there. It is very visible from I-540, that's something that we just need to look at. Crafton: Would it be helpful if the architect came and sat down with you before the next meeting? Pate: Sure. Commercial Design Standards, any mechanical and utility equipment needs to be screened and again, commercial structures shall be designed to avoid square box like structures, metal siding dominating, again, the large, blank, unarticulated wall surfaces and large out of scale signs. That is something that we definitely need to address and I think a meeting with the architect would benefit everyone. Also, the Hummer building, because it is part of an overall development that has multiple buildings, some features of this other development need to carry through to the Hummer building as well as an identifiable recurring theme to bring all these structures together. That is something that we need to look at and at least identify for staff what those elements are. That is the bulk of Planning comments. Matt, do you have anything? Matt Casey — Staff Eneineer Casey: I don't have any comments. We've been through this so many times I think we've got our drainage the way we need it. There won't be any additional grading. Craie Carnasey — Landscape Administrator Camagey: On the tree preservation plan my understanding is you are staying within the original lines so there are no additional trees that are being proposed for removal, correct? Crafton: There are no trees of any significance. There may be in the very back by the Hummer test track. Camagey: So you actually are extending this to the north a little bit from what was originally proposed? Technical Plat Review January 28, 2004 Page 30 Crafton: No, not at all. Camagey: On your tree preservation plan that you submitted the figures remained the same from what was originally proposed and approved last summer. Crafton: Right. We identified the trees with any significance. None of those will be removed. Camagey: The main thing that I want to be certain about is that the tree preservation plan that was approved last summer has not changed. That is what you have committed to me and I want to make certain that that is the situation. Crafton: That is the situation. Camagey: Ok, great. In regards to the landscape plan, the only thing that I would request is that you take a look at some of the species that were submitted to be planted. There are a few in there that I have concerns about and I would really like to see some larger canopy species placed in there that are recommended in our landscape manual. Crafton: We are talking about just along the front then? Camagey: Really throughout the whole site. The majority of the species are fine but there are a few species selected in here in the tree islands that are of smaller canopy size and I would like to get some larger canopy trees in there. We have a recommended list in our Landscape Manual. If you could just relay that message. Crafton: What was submitted previously was approved and they are out there. They have bid the job and they are out there constructing. If we are going to need to change something we will need to do that fairly quickly. Camagey: I appreciate that. That's all the comment I have. Pate: Utility comments? Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop. Phipps: We are still in the process with AEP of trying to obtain a release for this area to serve this. Sargent: We have to justify a release now so I will need some load information. The section line that comes down through there is the territory line between Ozark and AEP. Technical Plat Review January 28, 2004 Page 31 Crafton: I haven't been out there but we are building a transformer that was previously approved with the thought of just running that line over to the Hummer building. That transformer will be on the west side of that line and then the Hummer building is going to be on the other side. Phipps: The last time I spoke with you a couple of weeks ago we thought it was going to be released to us. In the meantime, apparently something has come down from Ohio higher ups looking at whether or not they should do it. Crafton: What do we need to do? Sargent: What I have to do is do a cost estimate to serve it, we will need load information to figure and what kind of revenue is there. Crafton: Are the two of you optimistic that something is going to be worked out here? This could be a deal killer. Sargent: It goes up the ladder from me. We thought that we had got everything worked out. Casey: Where would you have to serve it from? Sargent: We have a 12kV that comes up just on the east side of the interstate. Crafton: On the other side of the highway? Casey: Would it be the developer's expense to get the line to the lot? Sargent: That's what I have to look and see, what it would cost to serve this revenue. Crafton: If I can get your cards later we might need to talk about that. Phipps: For us it is about 350' from the used car building. Johney Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: It is your lucky day, that gas line down here is mine. We dead-end at the used car building, you just have to make an extension from there along that east/west easement along the south property line and I also need load information. That's all I have. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: Is that drainage already in there? Technical Plat Review January 28, 2004 Page 32 Crafton: Yes. Gibson: We have a little bit different situation on this. We are servicing each and everyone of these buildings with data services and cable TV. The closest thing we have, and I believe I brought this up the last time this went through, is inside the used car building. If we could get a conduit coming out of that building out to the easement and then one coming out of the Hummer building out to the easement we will link it together. We can't go in there and put the conduit in their building. There will have to be an electrician to do that. Sweep it up out here somewhere in this back easement somewhere. If we can get those two conduits, the reason I was asking if that drainage is already in, if you are putting a pad over here you can go ahead and run it over here by it but if that drainage is already in you are probably not going to want to cut across there. Crafton: That was the intent to put conduits out. Gibson: It is just a little bit of a different situation coming out of the building, it is not something that we normally do. On this one it would be the only way. It's the only way we have to service it. Everything else out there is under asphalt. Sue Clouser — SBC Clouser: I don't remember when we looked at this last but is this all one piece of property? Pate: Yes. Clouser: I'm assuming that our main dmark is in the used car building, is that what we discussed before? I will have to check on that. You will need to either run conduit back wherever the main dmark is or you could have a second dmark and we would charge you for doing that work. All you would have to do in that case would be to build the conduit out to the utility easement and then depending on how far you have to go back to the existing cable. If there is any existing facilities that need to be relocated or damaged, it will be at the developer's expense. Pate: The only remaining comments are from the Fire Department and they recommend sprinkling for the showroom. Revisions are due on the 4`n next Wednesday, if you want to meet before then that's probably best if that is possible. Technical Plat Review January 28, 2004 Page 33 LSD 04-07.00: Large Scale Development (Walker Riding Arena, pp 716) was submitted by Kim Hesse of Engineering Design Associates on behalf of John M. Walker for property located at 1657 Sunrise Mountain Road. The property is zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural, and contains approximately 365.67 acres. The request is to allow the construction of a 30,500 sq. ft. private horse riding arena. Pate: Item number ten is LSD 04-07.00 for Walker Riding Arena submitted by Kim Hesse of Engineering Design Associates. This is a little bit of an Atypical Large Scale, it is a private use, just a riding arena, but because it is larger than an acre obviously, and larger than 10,000 sq.ft. we have to process it as a Large Scale Development. I didn't find the subject parcel number on the plat. We had all the adjacent ones but if you could just include that. The Plat Page number, 716, the vicinity map doesn't really show really well. Sufficient right of way exists and the streets aren't in detrimental need of improvement. Because it is private use that is all the comment I have. Matt, do you want to add anything? This was Clyde's mark up of the legal, there are a couple of typos in here. Craig, do you have anything additional? Carnagey: No. Pate: The Fire Department says fire flow needs to be calculated. It also says a freestanding fire department connection away from the building is required. A hydrant within 100'. Are there any extensions of water lines to serve this structure? Hesse: It is a private line. Pate: Utilities, do you have any further comments? Seeing none, revisions are due February 4`" by 10:00 a.m. Technical Plat Review January 28, 2004 Page 34 LSP 04-11.00: Lot Split (Logan's Roadhouse, pp 173) was submitted by Tennessee Design and Engineering on behalf of Logan's Roadhouse for property located at Lot 16 in CMN Business Park IL The property is zoned C-2, Commercial Thoroughfare, and contains approximately 4.53 acres. The request is to split the subject property into two tracts of 2.43 and 2.10 acres respectively. LSD 04-08.00: Large Scale Development (Logan's Roadhouse, pp 173) was submitted by Tennessee Design and Engineering on behalf of Logan's Roadhouse for property located in Lot 16 of CMN Business Park II. The property is zoned C-2, Commercial Thoroughfare, located in the Design Overlay District, and contains 2.43 acres. The request is to allow development of 8,060 sq. ft. restaurant with 147 parking spaces proposed. Pate: Item number eleven is a Lot Split for Logan's Roadhouse submitted by Tennessee Design and Engineering for Lot 16 of CMN Business Park. Gore: I'm Jessica Gore with Design and Engineering and this is Roberta Holton, she is with Logan's. Pate: There are not a whole lot of comments on the Lot Split. CEI is processing this Lot Split. There are really just some basic plat additions, provide adjacent zoning classification, the plat page, if you could label the 100 - year floodplain. The building setbacks are labeled here, with reference to the Lot Split I think we can just disregard that comment. If you could include the project owner and developer information on the plat as well. Right now we have it labeled as Lot 16A and then the remaining Lot 16, choose 16B or something that would help as far as calling out this lot in the future, just to give it a designation, whichever you would like. Also, due to the nature of the Large Scale that follows this, to record this if we could show a shared access easement over that drive that is going to be on the Large Scale and I have the same comment on the Large Scale Development plans as well if you could show a shared access easement. Gore: Would that need to be 30'? Pate: Whatever the driveway width is basically. For that we will need you to include just a separate legal description on this Lot Split plat to record that. That is all of our Planning comments for the Lot Split. Matt, do you have anything additional? Casey: I just need to see the location of the existing water and sewer mains and the base flood elevations on the plat. Pate: Fire Department comments I think really apply to both the Lot Split and the Large Scale Development. It is Captain Danny Farrar, his number is listed down there if you have any questions. Fire hydrants need to be Technical Plat Review January 28, 2004 Page 35 shown within 100' of the Fire Department Connection. Fire flows need to be calculated. Utility comments on the Lot Split? Jim Sareent—AEP/SWEPCO Sargent: Our service is turned up in the northwest corner of Lot 16 so we will be needing to bring conduit from that location over to Lot 16A for the electric to get to that route. I don't know the best way to go about it. It seems like a long ways to go around to the other side but I don't know if there is going to be room to get a utility easement across the west edge of that property without getting into the brush to some degree. Gore: You are saying we need to run conduit from the top of Lot 16 down to 16A? Sargent: That is correct. We need two 4" conduits. Gore: From the north property line along Mall Avenue is what you are saying? Sargent: Like I said, we are kind of at the northwest corner over here. It is not quite all the way to where that ditch area is. Gore: There is a sewer easement that is proposed in that northwest corner. Do you all ever share? Casey: It would be a general utility easement. Sargent: We do share sometimes, where is the sewer easement proposed to be? Gore: It is in the northwest. Sargent: How far down in the ditch is that easement? Gore: It is outside of the floodplain, the wetland area. Gore: That just needs to go the entire length of that Lot 16? We show that on our survey but we don't show the whole lot on the C3 sheet. Sargent: Yes it needs to go the whole length. Gore: I should say the entire length of 16B. We just need to bring it to our property line or to our transformer? Sargent: We will need an easement to at least get to the transformer. Technical Plat Review January 28, 2004 Page 36 Gore: You will need a utility easement all the way to our transformer on our property? Sargent: Yes. That's all I have. We will probably need to turn up and have a tap cabinet there by the property line between 16A and 16B to serve future out of that tap cabinet. We will provide the tap cabinet, we will just need conduits run up to it. Johney Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: You are also showing us running across 16B. That is an abnormal application for us. They want me to parallel streets and come off of the streets. Gore: Do you bring that all the way to us? Boles: We can go ahead and set the meter on this location you are showing on the plans but we will have to have load information and calculate rate return to see what type of contribution will be required, if any. I am probably going to have to come off an existing line at the southwest corner of Van Asche and Mall Avenue and then extend south to get on this property and then extend over to the northwest corner of the building. I am going to need a 4" casing underneath this drive coming off of Mall Avenue. Clouser: I would like to have a crossing there also. Boles: Where is your point of entry for the telephone? Gore: Our telephone board is shown kind of in the back, the north side. Our mechanical room is where that floor is 6" lower. Boles: This will possibly be a joint trench with Southwestern Bell and us. Sue, where is your nearest facilities? Clouser: We are on the other side of Van Asche on the north side of Van Asche. I will come down along Mall. Boles: You can do a joint trench with us from Van Asche to down Mall? Clouser: Yes and then extend to the west. Boles: I would like a 4" casing if you could provide it from Mall Avenue within about 10' of your desired meter location with pull strings. If they would please contact me prior to breaking ground with load information. Is there any way that that meter can be set on the north wall rather than the west wall? Technical Plat Review January 28, 2004 Page 37 Gore: I will have to get with planning engineer on that. That is just our prototypical building. Our mechanical room and meter is usually there but I can ask. Boles: That small area, that mechanical room may also affect that north wall, that would be my preference. That's all I have. Gore: I just want to make sure I understand your comments since I don't have them in writing. You are saying that you need a 4" conduit across our driveway. Do you need it across Mall? Boles: No Ma'am. Gore: Ok, so you just need it across our driveway and also to within 10' of our meter. Boles: From the utility easement to within 10' of the gas meter. Just a straight line from here to here. Gore: Ok. Boles: I do not require a utility easement from Mall Avenue to the building. Gore: I will check and see if it is a problem to move the gas meter to that north side. You were saying that you also want a 4" conduit, do you need two or just one? Clouser: I will need one for crossing under the drive with pull string and if you could have them cap the ends too. We've been having a lot of problems with them. I would need preferably two 4" conduits. What do you normally use at a location for telephone, how many lines? Gore: We use seven. Clouser: Two 4" conduits would be preferable. Those will need pull strings. I will need a backboard in the telephone room and a #6 bare ground back to power. If you could lay Johney and my conduit start it at the same point out at the utility easement that would be good. Normally I would say that any relocation would be at the owner/developer's expense but I don't think we have anything over there right now. Gore: You want a 4x4 telephone board with a #6 bare ground? Clouser: Yes. And again, cap the conduits. Technical Plat Review January 28, 2004 Page 38 Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: I would like, if you would, show on the prints so when they get ready to come out and cut these driveways they will be sure to notify us on the street side of Mall Avenue all the way around this property on the south side and the west side we have underground cable. Gore: Is that inside that utility easement? Gibson: Yes, it is in the utility easement. Also, on the southwest corner of your property here we have got a square box marked with a "T" in it for telephone. Is that marking an existing facility? Gore: Yes. Gibson: I think that's ours. We have a housing right there and I would like to ask for a 4" conduit from there in as straight of line as you want to place it into the electrical room and sweep it up on both ends. Gore: Do you only need one conduit? Gibson: Yes, one 4" conduit and sweep it up on both ends with a pull string and we will pull the conductor and everything. I believe that's all I have. Technical Plat Review January 28, 2004 Page 39 Pate: I am going to go over the comments for the Large Scale as well. Both of the revisions are due at the same time for both the Lot Split and the Large Scale Development. As far as Planning goes, some of the comments are the same as far as zoning, property owners and that kind of information. If you could on the vicinity map, this site is within the Design Overlay District, if you could include that boundary. Legal description for this subject tract that the Large Scale is on needs to be included on the site plan as well on the plat and include a legend. Sufficient right of way exists so there is no dedication of right of way required. Again, show the access easement for that northern portion. The curb cut I believe I just saw a dimension, it was 39', that's the maximum allowed. If you could show the turn arrows, I'm assuming there is a left turn lane there. There are some existing street lights on there as well out on Mall and Van Ashe I believe. If you could show those along your property boundary. They may be on the other side of the road but I would have to verify that. They are either on this side or this side, I don't really remember. Sargent: On Mall they are on the east side. Pate: We have received a Conditional Use request for additional parking. We really won't discuss that until Planning Commission but we do review it so it keeps it on the same track. It will be heard directly prior to this Large Scale Development being heard. Something that I have noted, there is a provision in our ordinances for parking space dimensions, the stalls, anytime they are facing out onto greenspace those can actually be reduced to 17' which reduces the impervious surface potentially and the costs for the parking lot for the developer. That is an option, it is not required, but it would be nice to see these at 17'. Bicycle racks, there are some details that we have with our ordinances, I can send those to you if you could include those in your detail sheets. Gore: Is that also online? Pate: It is online at accessfayetteville.org under City Code. If you have any problems I can direct you to where that is. If you could include a note on the plat stating all parking lot lighting shall be shielded and directed downward utilizing full cutoff sodium lighting fixtures, maximum height 35'. That is the requirement in the Overlay District. I would like to see it on the plat as well. If you could include all of the proposed parking lot lighting on the site plan. Another Overlay District requirement is that pedestrian access needs to be located or shown on the plat from the existing sidewalks here to each structure. It can be a designated walking trail or something of that nature that needs to be shown. All utilities shall be located underground. Any mechanical or utility equipment on the wall or ground has to be screened with materials that are compatible with the structure. The elevations that are submitted, this is a big thing with the Technical Plat Review January 28, 2004 Page 40 Planning Commission, if you could label them north, south, east and west. Front, left, right and rear gets a little confusing, especially when you have a site that has two fronts because you are fronting onto Mall and Shiloh. If you could do that. The larger elevations, I think commercial design standards are met here, I don't think we have any problems with the elevations of the structures at all. Staff feels that they are compliant with all of our requirements. You have been through the architectural review committee as well. The labels on the larger board, if you don't want to reprint that, you can just get that board from us and change those labels out to north, south, east and west as opposed to resubmitting a large board. We have done that in the past. Those are all of our comments for the Large Scale. Again, revisions are due at 10 a.m. on February 4`h along with the Lot Split. It is a fast turn around. Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: I have included several standard comments. You can review the ones that I thought might apply and if you have any questions call me. I've also got a copy of our checklist that will be required for the final construction documents, the drainage report and also items that need to be on the grading plan. If you have any questions feel free to call. Craig Carnagey — Landscape Administrator Carnagey: On the tree preservation subject, a tree preservation plan was previously approved for the Steele Crossing Subdivision. The deed restricted area identified on the western edge of lot 16 is this site's tree preservation area. Please clearly identify this area as a tree preservation area on the plat and on the landscape plan as well. Both graphic designations and a legal description of this area should be placed on an easement plat. The trees located on the south end of this property, I'm wondering if you have had a chance to evaluate these trees and if preservation is really desired. Gore: Actually, upon the last client review they want to take those out. Carnagey: I haven't had a chance to evaluate them closely but when I did take a look at them they were leaning. I think any development around those is going to create a hazard situation. Gore: We didn't expect to hear you say that but we are ready to take them out. Carnagey: You've got this tree preservation area on your western edge and we don't want to preserve trees that are going to possibly fall over so that is my main concern is to avoid any hazardous situations. On your landscape plan I have given you a checklist for a few minor items. As Jeremy mentioned, you do have that option to add 2' of vehicle overhang and Technical Plat Review January 28, 2004 Page 41 shorten your parking to increase your greenspace. You might look into that option. Pate: I would mention too, I included the bicycle parking rack requirements so they are available in your packets. They are also available on line. Fire Department comments are the last page. A Fire Department Connection shall be freestanding away from the building. Again, fire flow is required to be calculated. The fire hydrants shown on the plan need to be within 100' of the fire department connection. Captain Farrar is listed on here at the bottom so if you have any questions just give him a call. Are there any additional utility comments on this one? Sargent: The only thing I've got is I will need load and voltage information when you get ready to build. Gore: We actually have that in our notes. On C3 note B. Sargent: Thank you. Pate: One additional thing, if the utility room does change to the other side it will need to be reflected on these elevations. Gore: Most likely the actual location of the room won't change but the meter location may change. Pate: Thanks, meeting adjourned.