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.