Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-07-28 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE TECHNICAL PLAT REVIEW COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee was held on July 28, 2004 at 9:00 a.m. in room 111 in the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PPL 04-1148: (PIPERS GLEN SUBDIVISION, 374) Page 2 LSP 04-1155: (MOORE, 331) Page 4 PPL 04-1127: (SLOAN ESTATES, 258) Page 6 PPL 04-1161: (PEMBRIDGE SUBDIVISION PH. 1, 100) Page 8 CPL 04-1160: (GRAVES/VAWTER PZD, 208) Page 13 LSD 04-1128: (THETA TAU HOUSE, 443) Page 19 LSD 04-1149: (ELDER APARTMENTS, 40 1) Page 23 PZD 04-1154: (CLIFFSIDE R-PZD, 526) Page 27 PZD 04-1159: (BEACON FLATS, 445) Page 34 STAFF PRESENT Jeremy Pate Suzanne Morgan Renee Thomas Rebecca Ohman Matt Casey UTILITIES PRESENT Mike Phipps, Ozark Electric Coop. Sue Clouser, Southwestern Bell Jim Sargent, AEP/ SWEPCO Ron Berstrom, AEP/SWEPCO Larry Gibson, Cox Communications Johney Boles, Arkansas Western Gas ACTION TAKEN Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Tabled Forwarded STAFF ABSENT Danny Farrar Travis Dotson Perry Franklin UTILITIES ABSENT Technical Plat Review July 28, 2004 Page 2 PPL 04-1148: Preliminary Plat (PIPERS GLEN SUBDIVISION, 374): Submitted by DAVE JORGENSEN for property located at THE EASTERN BOUNDARY OF THE BARRINGTON PARK SUBDIVISION. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 10.49 acres. The request is to approve the preliminary plat for a residential subdivision with 9 single family lots proposed. Pate: We are going to start the Technical Plat Committee meeting for Wednesday, July 28`h. Item number one is LSP 04-1115 for Moore submitted by Kelly Moore for property located at 1548 Terry. Is there an applicant present for this item? Seeing none, we will go onto item number two, PPL 04-1127 for Sloan Estates for property located at Sagely Lane west of the intersection of Gulley Road. This property is in the Planning area and contains approximately 25 acres. The request is a Preliminary Plat for a residential subdivision with 54 single family lots proposed. Is there an applicant present? Seeing none, this item will be moved to the bottom of the agenda. Item number three, Pipers Glen subdivision submitted by Dave Jorgensen. This is at the eastern boundary of Barrington Park subdivision. The property is in the Planning area and contains approximately 10.49 acres with nine single family lots proposed. We will go over Planning comments first. The property is in the Planning area so there is no zoning. The lot nine currently has only got 27' of frontage approximate to the road. 75' is required within the county. Since there is no zoning, however, it will not go to the Board of Adjustment for a variance but it will need to be a waiver of our design standards. That will just go forward with this request with the Preliminary Plat to the full Planning Commission. If you could note if any of the structures are to be removed or to remain. Additionally, the existing house on Lot 8, are they going to retain this driveway to cross Hunter Road? Jorgensen: The driveway access is only going to be to Lot 9 and actually, he wants to probably move the house onto Lot 9 or rotate the house for aesthetics. He was going to sale off the lot and let someone deal with the house, whether that be rotate it or move it onto Lot 9. He wasn't real sure what he wanted to do with it. Pate: If you could include some written correspondence letting us know what the intent there is. The reason I ask is if the access is going to come from Fox Hunter Road and retain that access it needs to be an access easement. Otherwise, it is going to be a part of the outcast of that. If you could go ahead and include the 10' and 20' setbacks on the plat for the county. Locate any existing septic fields. In your correspondence you mentioned that Lot 8 and 9 are currently already served by sewer although it is in the county, per agreement. If we could show those lines. County approval is required. Technical Plat Review July 28, 2004 Page 3 Casey: Show the sewer extension. Show the existing water lines to the west and the proposed connection to those. Also, show how water will get to Lot 9. Sidewalks need to be shown at the right of way line. I'm not sure what the existing conditions are here but if there are sidewalks there we need to go ahead and extend along with the street extension. If not, the way you have shown is fine because otherwise, you will be stubbing out sidewalks half way across these people's lots with no connection, so you might as well chop them off as shown. I need some additional information there. Similar to one of your recent projects, because this is adjacent to city limits we are going to review it for entire streets, water, sewer, drainage, grading, etc at the time of construction drawings. That's all I have. Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop, Phipps: Any relocation of existing facilities will be at the developer's expense. We will do a front service on this particular development. For crossings we need four 4" conduits from lots 7 and 8 over to 1 and 2 and also four 4" across Gaston Drive at the front. That's all I have. Johnev Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: No comment. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: The same comments as Mike. Include us. Sue Clouser — SBC Clouser: The same comments as Mike. Pate: Revisions are due on August 4`h at 10:00 a.m. Technical Plat Review July 28, 2004 Page 4 LSP 04-1155: Lot Split (MOORE, 331): Submitted by KELLY ANGLEN MOORE for property located at 1548 TERRY. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.51 acres. The request is to split the subject property into two tracts of 0.28 and 0.23 acres respectively. Pate: We will go back to item one, that is a Lot Split for Moore for property located at 1548 Terry. Morgan: This property is Lot 5 in Creekwood Hills Subdivision. From Planning, if you could revise the plat to scale. Place plat page 331 on the plat. On the legal descriptions, if you could put which one is 5A and which is 513, that would be helpful for referencing. Also, staff is not recommending additional right of way in this location since these are existing intersections. But we do need to account for the master street plan setbacks which Township is 35' from centerline so we need to mark that master street plan setback and then the 25' building setback would be measured from that 35' line. Old Wire Road is 45' from centerline so that setback will be measured at that 45' master street plan line. Also, access for these two lots, if you could note on here limiting access from Old Wire and Township. The current driveway, if you could put an access easement around there so that both lots could access off of Terry. Reid: I know on the subdivision plat they allowed for that old house to have right of way to Township and Old Wire. I don't think they are ever going to use it because their driveway is already in place but that was noted on the plat that the owner could actually access that street. Pate: These are much smaller. At the time they probably weren't the collectors and minor arterials that they are now. Reid: I don't think it will be a problem because I don't think he wants to access off there. We will give an easement over that portion down there. Morgan: That would be great. Please show all existing and proposed utilities as requested by utility companies. All proposed utilities need to be located underground. Casey: There is an existing waterline along Terry that is actually on this property. Show the location of that and we also need an easement 10' on each side of that water line. You also need to show the location of the existing sewer service to the structure and make sure that that does not cross the property line. Reid: There is a water line on this property? Casey: Yes Sir. Our maps show an 8" water line in the right of way. Technical Plat Review July 28, 2004 Page 5 Reid: If we were to have a 25' building setback and utility easement would that take care of it? Casey: Yes. Morgan: One additional comment regarding utility easements. You can't have a utility easement crossing an existing structure. If there is a utility easement along here existing we can check that Final Plat for that. Any proposed utility easement would have to meander around that building from the proposed master street plan setback. Rebecca Ohman — Parks Department Ohman: Parks fees are due in the amount of $555 for one additional single family home. Jim Sargent — SWEPCO Sargent: Over on Terry if you could make that a building setback and utility easement. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: Any relocation will be at the owner's expense. Sue Clouser — SBC Clouser: Any relocation of existing facilities will be at the owner/developer's expense. Morgan: Revisions are due August 4th by 10:00 a.m. Technical Plat Review July 28, 2004 Page 6 PPL 04-1127: Preliminary Plat (SLOAN ESTATES, 258): Submitted by PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC for property located at SAGELY LANE, WEST OF THE INTERSECTION WITH GULLEY ROAD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 25.05 acres. The request is to approve a preliminary plat of a residential subdivision with 54 single family lots proposed. Pate: Item number two is a Preliminary Plat for Sloan Estates submitted by Project Design Consultants. This is located on Sagely Lane. Morgan: We looked at this project two weeks ago but it has changed somewhat. If you could please indicate on the plat that these properties are within the planning area and no ownership or certificate plots are needed at this time. This is plat page 258 and 259. The overhead electric, I think we mentioned this last time but I didn't see if there is any type of utility easement existing along there, if there is, please indicate that. It will need to be relocated underground with this development. If you could label the detention pond as a lot number as well as the leach area for the septic and note on the plat that those lots will be unbuildable lots. Lots 24-19 shall not access Gulley Road, but instead access interior streets. The master plan identifies the western extension of Sagely Lane as a minor arterial, which is requiring 90' of right of way. That's staff's recommendation. Scott: What I discussed with staff before is that this property to the west was only required a 70' with additional setback in the event that it ever does expand. That was Gaddy's property. Morgan: We will take a look at that. If that is what your request is if you will just submit that in writing so you can propose that to the Planning Commission. If you could clearly dimension the right of way from centerline for Gulley Road. I don't know if there is any additional right of way that needs to be dedicated, it would be 35' from centerline. County standards for roads are 60' of right of way for the interior roads. That may just be their recommendation. This will have to be heard by the county for approval. Also, if you could submit a waiver for lot width requirements for the area that does not have the required amount of street frontage. For your information, for the Final Plat, the owner of that area will need to sign as owner because that property will be part of this subdivision and included in the legal descriptions for it. Also, just a question of for this area it looks like it has a parcel number, I just want to confirm that this area is it's own legal lot of record and not just a portion. Scott: It is, we can prove that. Morgan: We will need Washington County Health Department approval for the septic. Technical Plat Review July 28, 2004 Page 7 Matt Casey — Staff Eneineer Casey: Art, if you can change the water line shown to be an 8". Also show the fitting and connections. We will need to have adequate easements for the water line, 10' on each side. That's all I have. Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop, Phipps: The overhead that is out there has a 30' easement, 14' on each side. Relocation will be at the owner's expense. As far as relocation of that, until we get the underground into the subdivision we are not going to take that out. You have some overhead in the southwest corner and pretty much the whole west side. We will need 10' UEs for all street lights. As far as street lighting, is that required by the city? Morgan: No. Phipps: Three will have to be a P.O.A. or something like that. Larry has the easements and crossings that we need on his plat. I will let him finish. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: This lot 24 through 18, 17 and 16, with that trickle channel in there can we go in back? Scott: We actually relocated that over here. Gibson: Ok, so that is not an issue. We will go in the back. What I have highlighted in yellow will be the 20' UE's we will need and the greens will be six 4" crossings. I think everybody else is ok with that. Pate: That existing 30' utility easement may change some of your lot layout unless you want to vacate that easement once you relocate that service. Otherwise you will have those lots that are covered by utility easements and won't be buildable. Morgan: Thank you. Revisions are due by 10:00 on the 4`h Clouser: I did have an additional comment. Any relocation will be at the owner/developer's expense. Thank you. Technical Plat Review July 28, 2004 Page 8 PPL 04-1161: Preliminary Plat (PEMBRIDGE SUBDIVISION PH. 1, 100): Submitted by MANDY BUNCH for property located at THE END OF GRAYSTONE DRIVE, EAST OF STONEWOOD S/D AND NORTH OF COPPER CREEK PH. 1. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 20.00 acres. The request is to approve the Preliminary Plat of a residential subdivision with 46 single family lots proposed. Pate: Item number four is a Preliminary Plat for Pembridge subdivision Phase I for property located at the end of Graystone Drive east of Stonewood subdivision and north of Copper Creek Phase I. This property contains approximately 20 acres with 46 single family lots proposed. Morgan: If you could submit a copy of the parcel map on record at the County. I saw it was checked off on the application. Bunch: We did the reduced parcel map that was actually a montage of all the county maps. There are actually five. Every side of this thing is on the crack of another map. That is why we did that. We had the county map scanned when we did that. Is that going to work? Morgan: I will take a look at that. If you could label lot width at building setback for all lots with less than 70' of frontage on a public street. That is mainly the cul-de-sacs. Bunch: Those all do have exactly 70' at the setback. Morgan: If you will show that. Bunch: Ok, we worked on that a little bit. Morgan: If you could identify adjacent zoning. You have the adjacent subdivision names on here, that's very helpful. State the building setbacks required for the RSF-4 zoning on the plat. Please identify the property owner. The county records indicate it is still the Nooncasters on the county records. Bunch: It is the NBI Group on this particular parcel. The surrounding parcels are under their personal names. Morgan: Ok. Also, if you could label the common area where the pond is with a lot number. Lots nine and ten are shown as the detention, if you could just label that as one lot. Bunch: The reason, right now we are working with the Corp. to work with the pond and we may actually use some of the existing pond for detention. The reason I have left it split is that we are hoping to pull one buildable lot back out of that pond for now. Can we leave it like it is for now? Technical Plat Review July 28, 2004 Page 9 Morgan: When would that be resolved? Bunch: By the time of Final Plat. Before we start construction. Morgan: If you could label the pond common area as a nonbuildable lot. If you could ensure that the proposed right of way for Running Springs Drive is in alignment with the right of way dedicated with Cooper Creek. It seems a little offset. Those need to line up. I don't know which one is off. Bunch: That is interesting because I think that Matt had a comment too that there was another sidewalk shown on the Final Plat and I don't think it was constructed down there. I'm not sure what ended up happening. We kind of have issues like that on both existing connections. Casey: If for some reason the sidewalk wasn't constructed we probably won't go in and construct it. We will look at it. Morgan: The two cul-de-sacs to the north of the subdivision are both longer than 500' in length. That is measured from Graystone Drive back to each of those cul-de-sacs. That will be a waiver request. Bunch: Are you talking about Queensway Court? Morgan: Yes. Proposed utilities need to be located underground. Matt? Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: Add valves on three leads of the proposed water main tees. There is a water main shown to stub out along Running Springs Drive, it needs to show a connection there also. Bunch: We had intended to do that. Casey: Extend the water main to the north property line along Pembridge Place also. Either adjust the manhole location at lot 28 to provide 10' of easement on each side of the pipe or provide an additional easement. The final plat of Copper Creek shows sidewalk on both sides of Running Springs Drive. This has some notes, we will need the sidewalks to extend along both sides within this development also. The detention pond will need to be sodded. Show how the pond outlet is proposed to discharge to the existing storm sewer system. If there is a utility going in there that is going to cause some problems. Bunch: Was there an intention there for that connection that you guys had in mind? Technical Plat Review July 28, 2004 Page 10 Casey: We can check the drainage report for Copper Creek. Bunch: I was wondering because we have noticed and the owners have noticed that the property owners who have purchased these lots are sodding over the concrete channel and building decks over them. Casey: I will look at that. If that is the case we will need to take some action. Bunch: I was concerned about it because if not we are going to have some things going on with them. It looks like it was installed for a reason. Casey: It could affect this property if it is not doing what it's supposed to do. Bunch: Ok. Thanks. The lot lquesiton about the storm sewer over there, I'm not sure what needs to be done. That is a 100' utility and drainage easement over there and there was a low spot created when the road ended. It is kind of an interesting situation. You and I will probably want to sit down and look at it closer. I'm not sure what we need to do with it. Casey: We have had discussions since day one about the sewer capacity issues with the existing lift station at the Stonewood Subdivision. The existing 4" force main will need to be upgraded to handle the additional flow from the development. The capacity of the new pumps will also need to be evaluated to determine if they are sized properly for the additional units. Bunch: We have that study that we talked about and Tom Hecox is working on that analysis. Casey: That is for downstream. Bunch: He is reviewing all of those lift stations out there to see what's what. We are going to need a meeting with you at some point as soon as Tom has sort of assigned our responsibility for that. Casey: You should coordinate that meeting with all involved instead of piece milling it together. That will make things easier. Rebecca Ohman — Parks Department Ohman: Parks fees will be due in the amount of $????? Prior to signing the Final Plat. Morgan: I just have a comment on tree preservation. We need to revise the tree canopy table. Trees located within proposed or existing utility easements and rights of way may not be calculated as preserved canopy. Tees Technical Plat Review July 28, 2004 Page I1 located to the south of the property may not be calculated as preserved, those are lots 7, 8 and 9 because the home owners can cut them down. Bunch: That was my original understanding of the tree ordinance and it kind of complied with the spirit of it and all of those things and we read the tree ordinance about three times and we did it the way that it seemed to say so you may need to sit down and look at it. I didn't believe that and then when I read it three times I started to believe it. As far as I understood it is that we were supposed to do all that we could to preserve during construction but that it couldn't be counted against us if they took it out. That's not in a utility easement, lots 7, 8, and 9. Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop, Phipps: Any relocation of existing facilities will be at the owner/developer's expense. Street lights will need a 10' UE between lots 13 and 14 and also between 24 and 25. Johney has the crossings and easements. Bunch: I think we have a call into you to talk about street lights and whether you allowed anything other than one type. Phipps: We only have two types. Bunch: We will need to catch up with you on that. Phipps: They can install their own, but they will need to be metered. Bunch: Ok, so it is metered if it is something custom. We'll try to catch up with you on that Mike. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: These are the easements that Mike wanted for street lights. The rest of them are 20' UE's and the green is the crossings. Lots 46 and 47 we are in front because of the trees, the same thing over here. Bunch: I was kind of hoping we could eliminate this and use this one back here to save these trees. That's why we had it like we did. It is 20' or 30' back there. There are really nice trees back here. Gibson: We might be able to work around them. Bunch: There is everything running back here. Gibson: We can probably service lot 1 and 2 off existing and then come up here. Technical Plat Review July 28, 2004 Page 12 Phipps: We may be able to knock it down to 10' but we still have to be able to get something on that property. Bunch: Would you be willing to wiggle 10' outside of that? It is just on lots 1 through 6. Gibson: I can work something out. Mike needs 10', if you want to take him around those trees that's fine, some type of easement there. Bunch: Is there any way to deem this a utility access easement rather than a general utility easement? Really, I don't think there will be any problem granting access for anything back here. Boles: I am going to serve it all off the back, we need to have our equipment back in there. Bunch: So those trees are probably gone. Boles: What I'm going to do is I'm going to come off of here and serve 1, 2, 3 and 4 and 5 and 6. I'm only going to dig in three locations back here. I've got existing line back here already. Bunch: So those trees have to come out of the counts right? Pate: Trees on lots can't be counted for preservation in a single family subdivision. Bunch: Ok. Sue Clouser — SBC Clouser: Any relocation will be at the owner/developer's expense. I believe that this is in the Springdale wire center, not the Fayetteville. Morgan: Revisions are due by the 4th at 10:00 a.m. Technical Plat Review July 28, 2004 Page 13 CPL 04-1160: Concept Plat (GRAVES/VAWTER PZD, 208): Submitted by MEL MILHOLLAND for property located at HWY 112 NORTH FROM 1-540 APPROXIMATELY 0.30 MILES. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL - AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 125.98 acres. The request is to review a Concept Plat for a proposed Residential and/or Commercial PZD. Pate: Item number five is CPL 04-1160 for the Graves/Vawter property. This is located along Hwy. 112 north of 1-540 also along portions of Deane Solomon. Just for utility's knowledge, this Concept Plat isn't a development plan per say. Essentially it is to bring before the utility companies and for staff to provide some comments when we actually do look at a development plan. The property currently isn't zoned this but this is kind of what they are proposing. The applicant/developer wants to take it through the Planning Commission to see what the reaction is and hopefully get some feedback. If you have any comments that you would like to make that is basically what they are going to do, just seeking general comments. Jefcoat: What we have done so far is we have met with the ward members in this area, Shirley Lucas and Lioneld Jordan and we also met with the Ward 4 constituents at their Ward 4 meeting Monday night. So far the concept presented to the public and the ward members along with the connectivity and other road systems around, we have identified some problems and worked out some solutions with intersections and different things and connectivity that they were concerned about. We have also met on the site with the Parks Department and have generally talked about what conditions might exist for park enhancements and what they may consider. We have done a wetlands study, we've met with the Corp. of Engineers and have their concurrence in identifying areas of wetlands and what might need to be mitigated for. Now we are at the point of continuing our due diligence and finding out what needs to be planned for a Preliminary Plat. What we are proposing is a development very similar to CMN and Wilson Springs where we lay the infrastructure. Provide most likely a three lane road through the extension of Salem Road, east and west Salem Road and also Wilson Springs from Trucker Drive. The east/west road, Salem Road, would be a major collector street connecting all the way from Hwy. 112 there over to Salem Road north and south from the school over there. There are land developments on this way for connecting that road and improving it all the way through. Commercial property in the middle, C-2, we will probably do some large box type companies. The C-2 and C- 3 zone we are seeing more theme or identity, not strip mall concepts but central downtown clustering of specialized commercial units. Of course down stepping from commercial to multi -family and single family in that connection. We realize that there is proposed sewer going to the south of us. We have water connection problems and our road infrastructure. We are proposing to install the road, water and sewer infrastructure and then Technical Plat Review July 28, 2004 Page 14 each of these lots come back for development as those LSDs. We know we are going to need gas and electrical services and all of the other utilities involved. We are hoping that representing this now you can do your homework and due diligence and help us in what we will need and how we will service this type of development. Pate: I have included some comments that I think will help once we get to Planning Commission with this. What we will do in process is we will probably just take this directly to the Planning Commission as opposed to Subdivision Committee that way we can just let everyone see it and talk about it at the same time. I won't go over all the comments that I included on this sheet. If you could potentially identify some of the delineated wetland areas and the stream channel, that tributary that flows through there. I think that would be helpful for them to understand why you have laid this out the way you have. Jefcoat: I did give you a letter of concurrence by the Corp. of Engineers. I'm not sure that I gave you a delineated wetlands or not. The Parks Department has that and I will be glad to provide you with it. Pate: Even on this sheet though they will likely be looking at more. It would help to have a graphic on there. A couple of things that have come up with Planned Zoning Districts lately that would be beneficial to you in your presentation to the Planning Commission if there is some sort of theme or concept like you are talking about for the overall development that sort of ties it in together that would be helpful. That can be done in several different ways, architecturally or by linear parks or common streetscape themes or something of that nature. Not really tying it to specific details but acknowledging that there is a concept that ties this development all together. Also, just like you mentioned with your explanation, identifying the actual uses in this C-2 and C -2/C-3. Jefcoat: We need to provide a written description of how we see those? Pate: Yes. That way you get more input from that as opposed as just looking at C-2 property because anything can go in there from liquor stores to strip malls to gasoline service stations. Those types of things would just need to be weeded out. Jefcoat: We don't want to exclude any of those. Pate: Street connectivity, we have looked at the collector street that you talked about. We will probably be looking at adjacent property as well. I know this isn't developing now but it will be beneficial to have some sort of connections to the north and potentially to the west as well for this overall property when it develops, obviously, all of this property around it is Technical Plat Review July 28, 2004 Page 15 developing to the south and your project to the west. Most likely a traffic study on the surrounding roads will be required. Jefcoat: Those connectivities that you are talking about, we don't intend to propose any. Truckers Drive is there so we are not intending to propose any that way. Pate: Correct. It is really more to the west and to the north. This is Lot 8 of springwoods, the wetland area. I just did some rough calculations and it might be beneficial if you could provide some areas for each of these types of uses. Right now I have approximately 30 acres of multi -family yielding a maximum of 700 units, approximately 15 acres of single family for 58 units, approximately 50 acres of C-2 and 13 acres of the C -2/C-3 and approximately 18 acres of the buffer/detention/wetland area. That is a rough estimate. That significant amount of development will significantly alter traffic patterns and add a lot of traffic to these surrounding streets. I believe engineering is on board with that as well, that it is likely a traffic study will be required. I have included some of those comments for you. Additionally, the General Plan 2020 identifies this as all residential currently. Once this is submitted as a PZD and is in the process, we will likely be taking to the City Council concurrently an amendment to that General Plan. That is much like we did the CMN area when they rezoned that entire portion. The Future Land Use map would need to change if that is the desire of the Council to do that. That is something that I just wanted you to be aware of. Jefcoat: We have been talking to them so we are moving in that direction. Pate: A couple of the design issues, we are not to that point yet really in this proposal but I believe we have had a meeting about RSF-4 along Hwy. 112, a principal arterial. Some sort of buffer and not really facing the backs of those lots onto public rights of way. We recommend against that if at all possible. Jefcoat: That is directly contrary to what you normally say because you want collector streets, you do want backs of properties facing collector streets. One alternative that we have considered that may improve that or change that and it is something that you can help us work for, is that some configuration here is taking this road out, which might be a real consideration with your assistance. This neighborhood could connect through here some way and maybe a short cul-de-sac on this end so that all traffic comes here. It may be a major change in traffic circulation if we eliminate this bad intersection here. With this property being annexed, if hey improve this curve it would be a real consideration. We have talked about that and that might be an answer. In doing so it may change this configuration. Certainly a small buffer would not be a problem. Technical Plat Review July 28, 2004 Page 16 Eliminating that intersection would be a definite help for that situation. It is a consideration. Pate: The reason I mentioned that is that both of the springwoods lots down here, Lots 3 and 5, that was probably the biggest topic of discussion on Monday night is that the houses were backing on Deane Solomon. I just wanted to make you aware of that as well before you get into your design phases, just so you are aware of that. Jefcoat: I think that that would come through as an individual LSD. There may be smaller detail other than including some outline for the development of that. Pate: As you mentioned, all the commercial and multi -family lots will be required to come through as Large Scale Developments. You guys will all see these again. This is really sort of more general comments. Single family lots will of course, be coming back through the subdivision process. Matt? Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: Jeremy touched on a lot of them. A 36' wide street will be recommended between Deane Solomon and Hwy. 112 with 6' sidewalks located at the right of way. It sounds like you are planning on that already. Jefcoat: We are going to ask the city to cost share for some of that. Casey: I don't know if we can do that. I think you will be generating plenty of traffic in there to generate that road. 6' sidewalks will be needed on all street frontage. Improvements will be recommended for a minimum of 14' from centerline along Deane Solomon. A left turn lane may need to be installed at the intersection with Hwy. 112. It may also need to be slightly realigned. We would like to square that up a little bit to have a 90° instead of a skewed intersection. That will take place in the design issues at the time of the development. Right now we have an existing 6" water line along Hwy. 112 on the frontage to the east and the north. We need an 8 loop through the system and also a connection will need to be made to the south to the proposed line for the springwoods subdivision. Jefcoat: We may want to go down to Deane Solomon and hook up to an 8" rather than that one. Casey: Again, that is the time of development. Jefcoat: That is only connecting to a 2" and if we connect this across we connect the 6" to the 2" because we are already connecting an 8" down there. Technical Plat Review July 28, 2004 Page 17 Casey: Regardless of where those connections are made it will need to continue our grid. I would prefer it down here. There is an existing 8" sewer main along Hwy. 112 on the east side of the project. The capacity of this line and the receiving lift station will need to be studied to verify hat it is adequate to handle the additional loading. Jefcoat: What about the 36" main? Casey: I don't know. It is not in the ground yet. It just depends on your timing. A traffic study is recommended to look at the impact of the development on Hwy. 112 and Deane Solomon because this will be a major impact on our traffic system. Rebecca Ohman — Parks Department Ohman: As we mentioned out on site, we are looking for a neighborhood park in this area. We are going to be looking for land within the subdivision within the development, that is contiguous land, as well as land that is fronted by hopefully a local street rather than a collector street. We are also looking for some property that is located nearest available to potential units and if at all possible, not connect to adjacent commercial uses. This will go to Parks Board on Monday. If you could add the wetlands as well as the tree preservation areas or the canopy that you know of as well as a letter for the Parks Board that we can include in their packets. That would be great. Thank you. Pate: Utilities, do you want to make any comments at this time? Phipps: No. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: We have overhead fiber optics line, I would have to look at it again, I believe it covers the east side of this project, the west side of Hwy. 112 and also over here on the south side of Hwy. 112. If there is a requirement to be placed underground that fiber won't be cut so everything will have to be open cut and buried. The reason I'm telling you that is because conduits across drives isn't going to work. We will have to open cut that and place it underground and apply for the state permits to work along the state highway we will need approximately 60 days notice up front from the time that you start the project. It is just going to be a coordination thing more than anything. Technical Plat Review July 28, 2004 Page 18 Sue Clouser — SBC Clouser: My only comment is any relocation will be at the owner/developer's expense. Technical Plat Review July 28, 2004 Page 19 LSD 04-1128: Large Scale Development (THETA TAU HOUSE, 443): Submitted by RON HOMEYER for property located at 1322 W. CLEVELAND AVENUE. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.93 acres. The request is to approve the development of a 3,680 s.f. fraternity house with 12 rooms and 26 parking spaces proposed. Pate: Item number six is LSD 04-1128 for Theta Tau House submitted by Mr. Homeyer for property located on Cleveland Avenue. The request is for a 3,600 sq.ft. fraternity house with 12 rooms and 26 parking spaces proposed. This one came through at the last Technical Plat and was tabled. As you may or may not know, the applicant has submitted a Conditional Use for the parking areas so we have that in hand. If you could on the actual site plans include the zoning of the adjacent properties. Add plat page 443. Dimension the right of way from centerline. 25' required from centerline for a 50' total. I'm not sure what Cleveland has in this location. It may be a situation where the street is offset in the right of way. I'm not sure how much right of way exists, if 50' is existing that's really all that we require. We just need to verify that your side is dedicated. Also include the building height along the property sides. Any building exceeding 20' in height at the side lines must be set back from the side boundary an additional 1' for every foot in height in excess of 20'. For instance, if there was 25' here you would have to be an additional 5' off the line. The rear setbacks for the RMF -24 zoning district are 25'. Also, if you could include the owner/developer information on the site plan. As I mentioned, for the 26 parking spaces a Conditional Use request has been submitted and that will be processed in tandem with this Large Scale Development item, 12 spaces for 12 rooms are allowed by right. I understand that this is potentially more than one development and that is why they are requesting more parking. The standard specifications for our parking stalls are 9x19 in the City of Fayetteville. They may be reduced to 17' in length when you are fronting onto greenspace. If you could include the trash enclosure dimensions on the site plan. I did attach our specifications from Solid Waste. They had some concerns about what the actual dimensions were there and I included that. Also, include a note stating that the dumpster shall be enclosed with access not visible from the street. If there is any proposed signage we will need to see that at this time as well. Matt, do you want to go through your engineering comments? Matt Casey — Staff EnEineeC Casey: If you could communicate with the Fire Marshall's office to verify the requirements for fire protection for this project. A fire hydrant may need to be installed. Cleveland will need to have a 6' sidewalk located along the right of way line. There is a typo on the finished floor elevation of the building. Label the height of the proposed retaining wall. The maximum Technical Plat Review July 28, 2004 Page 20 is 10'. Grading must be setback a minimum of 5' from the property line unless written authorization is submitted from the adjacent property owner. Label one of the sheets as grading plan and include all of the required checklist items. It is the policy that if any increase of runoff occurs due to a development, detention is required to reduce the flows to equal or less than the predevelopment flows. Provide the necessary drainage calculations and plan for the required detention. Homeyer: There is not a good location to discharge so that is why I'm trying to figure out what to do with it. It is going to that existing apartment complex to the east. Casey: That is one of the reasons because we don't want to increase the amount of flow that they receive. Rebecca Ohman — Parks Department Ohman: Parks fees will be due in the amount of $1,965. Pate: I will go over our tree preservation and landscape plan requirements. There are quite a few deficiencies in the tree preservation plan. I'm not sure who prepared that. There needs to be some coordination there. The tree preservation plan and the grading plan need to be on the same plan or at least, the tree preservation plan needs to show the grading on it. The area shown in this tree preservation area for instance, here are shown to be preserved. Obviously, that grading doesn't coincide with that. Those need to be taken into account. Also, the tree preservation plan that is submitted doesn't have all the information that we need on the plan. We can get you a copy of the landscape manual. There are specific details, notes that need to be included on the tree preservation plan and those need to be addressed before we get to our next meeting. As I mentioned, many of the trees that are proposed to be preserved are actually being disturbed by grading or utilities, retaining walls, etc. Tree canopy within existing and proposed easements and right of way may not be considered in preservation calculations so that needs to be addressed. If you could designate the location of the event parking. It is included as a note somewhere but I'm not sure exactly where that is supposed to be. I think it is in the correspondence, but obviously, that couldn't be out here under these trees as well because it would compact the soil and potentially damage those roots. Homeyer: Even though it's been going on for years? Pate: If you could just identify that location. Include a graphic on the preservation plan for fencing and we do need to show that fencing on the plan. Technical Plat Review July 28, 2004 Page 21 Homeyer: That is preservation fencing during construction? Pate: Yes. Essentially that area is what is allowed to be preserved and counted in your preservation calculations. Anything below your percentage for this area would need to be mitigated for. On the landscape plan, there are two tree islands that are shown that do not have trees in them. They need to be shown on the landscape plan. We do have recommended street trees in the appendix of the landscape manual so they can be medium to large canopy trees. Call out the 15' required greenspace along the right of way. The parking lot is required to be screened with a continuous row of shrubs. Homeyer: Just along the front? Pate: Yes. I think essentially, once the grading plan and the tree preservation plan are superimposed a lot of these issues will be worked out. Utilities? Jim Sargent — SWEPCO Sargent: We do need to show a utility easement up there on the west side of that property. Homeyer: How wide? Sargent: 20'. Sargent: Does that show a utility easement along the street there? Homeyer: No. Sargent: If you could show a 20' UE along the street also. That's all I have. Johnev Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: No comment. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: No comment. Sue Clouser — SBC Clouser: I agree with the easement requests. Do you know if the University is going to need the telephone service? Homeyer: No, this is independent. Technical Plat Review July 28, 2004 Page 22 Clouser: If you could let me know when you're ready we will need a 4" conduit into the building from the utility easement. Homeyer: I will have the architect call you. Pate: Revisions are due August 4`h at 10:00 a.m. Technical Plat Review July 28, 2004 Page 23 LSD 04-1149: Large Scale Development (ELDER APARTMENTS, 401): Submitted by ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC for property located at SALEM ROAD, N OF WEDINGTON. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 4.77 acres. The request is to approve a multi -family residential development with 58 units and 145 parking spaces proposed. Pate: Item number seven is a Large Scale Development for Elder Apartments submitted by ESI. This proposal is a multi -family residential development with 58 units and 145 parking spaces proposed. Apple: I am Jason Apple with ESI. Pate: Remove note number five on the site plan. It is not going to be a public street constructed in that area. Also, the proposed use that says commercial/residential subdivision, if you could change that on this plan for a multi -family development. Another question I had is that it came up at Final Plat, you guys are calling this Elder Apartments, we got some correspondence saying it is potentially condominiums, do you have any idea what that is going to be? Apple: It is going to be a horizontal property regime. Pate: So it is going to be condominiums? Apple: Right, condominiums. Pate: If you could change your title block to reflect that. We are going to have to change our documentation too. That came up initially when this project was first going through as well. I just want to make sure everyone is on the same page there. Going through our comments here, I did attach the staff report for both the Conditional Use for this property and the Final Plat so if you would review those conditions of approval and make sure you are in compliance with all of those. I have looked through them briefly and I think everything is good but you are also subject to those conditions of approval. If you could on page two note the building height on the plan. For any building height that exceeds 20' it needs to be set back 1' for each foot in height above 20'. This property to the north and to the west is residentially zoned. Staff will be recommending stub outs to the south most likely in this location. The grading doesn't currently show that. Right now you essentially just have one means of access back here with this being developed at a later date. The residents of this particular property will benefit them as well as trying to maneuver in here to have another means of access. If you would just take a look at that. If it is not here obviously you have another opportunity in this location as well. It just needs to be a stub out, not a street obviously, but just another means of access. We also recommend a planting, some sort of buffer along this Technical Plat Review July 28, 2004 Page 24 northern boundary. It is not a requirement because these are both residentially zoned but at the Preliminary and Final Plat of the Walnut Heights subdivision a lot of these neighbors came to that meeting and were talking about the impact of this development on their single family homes. It is zoned for multi -family but they are developed as single family. We are just going to be recommending a screen of some sort along that back edge between these two developments. Apple: More than fence? Pate: Yes, more than just the wood board fence. It could maybe just be a combination thereof. Locate any proposed signage if you have any proposed signage for this project. Any utilities need to be placed underground. Any existing utilities under 12kV need to be relocated underground. The architectural elevations will be reviewed. This is Atypical because it is a multi -family development but per the Conditional Use the elevations will be reviewed by the Planning Commission as a condition of approval. If you will just read over that, they will be looking for articulation of wall surfaces and things of that nature. That is essentially a transition between this development and other development. I believe that is the bulk of our planning comments. Under tree preservation, your plans, this area is your only area of existing canopy along the western boundary. You are showing grading through those trees. As Landscape Administrator, I will be recommending a retaining wall to save those trees. Most of them are actually offsite on someone else's property. You are responsible for that because your development is impacting that. We might sit down and look at what is possible but I will be recommending a retaining wall there as opposed to grading into that tree canopy there. These are all considered significant trees in our priority list and additionally, they are on someone else's property so that makes it even more of a priority. Tree canopy within existing and proposed easements and right of ways may not be considered in preservation calculations. I think your table needs to be revised to show that. Root pruning will be required along the western boundary as part of the development when you get to construction as a protective measure. Part of the ordinance is talking about off site trees the roots or canopy of which extend onto your site shall be protected with tree protection measures. We also need a site analysis report and plan. On the landscape plan, along this edge here you are calling out a 7' landscape area and it needs to be 15'. Tree species need to be looked at too. If you could just refer to the recommended list of tree species in the landscape manual. Dogwoods and red buds do not qualify as tree species, they need to be large canopy, especially in this area. Because these are smaller islands we will look at possibly a medium canopy tree. Engineering? Technical Plat Review July 28, 2004 Page 25 Matt Casey — Staff Eneineer Casey: Jason, you need to show a 6' sidewalk along the proposed private street. The private street should meet the applicable requirements of the minimum street standards. Replace any damaged or broken portions of sidewalk that are along Salem Road. Verify that you will not be backing up water on the lots to the north where the site is being filled. The detention pond needs to be sodded. The post development drainage area map does not properly identify the areas flowing into the detention pond. There are several deficiencies in the preliminary drainage report. Please address those. Our drainage criteria manual requires that a final design be submitted for a pond at this submittal so we know that the sizing is proper and we won't have to make any major changes to the layout of the plan. Rebecca Ohman — Parks Department Ohman: Parks fees will be due in the amount of $22,794 for 58 multi -family units. Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop, Phipps: I will need to see where they are going to meter these buildings at so I know where I am going to have to set the transformers through here. These street lights are not required by the city are they? Pate: The ones along the frontage are. Phipps: But on the interior that's just a private street through here? Pate: Right. That is essentially just a parking lot area. Phipps: If we install them we will need easements to them. When we relocate that overhead underground that will be at the developer's expense. It does feed Walnut Heights subdivision so we can't take it out until we get something set in there. It could be down for a half a day. That's all I have. I will need easements from the transformers. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: I would like to see six 4" across that main entrance. We already have existing in there. This UE along Salem Road, on the west side, it is labeled a 10' UE but that is a 20' existing. Phipps: It is 30'. Gibson: We've got the same issues that Mike has got with this overhead power line right there. Before we can take that out we are going to have to get all of Technical Plat Review July 28, 2004 Page 26 this relocated underground. I would like to ask for a 20' UE on the west side. I will also need a 20' UE on the south side of the property from that construction material delivery going west and then off this easement we can come up between these two buildings. When this came through a Lot Split everybody agreed that this easement that is coming up through the middle, it pretty much comes off this north side east and then turns south and kind of makes a square around that property. I don't think there is anything in there. You need to get a locate on that. That is all I have. Sue Clouser — SBC Clouser: I agree with Larry on the utility easements. I will also need a 3" conduit from each building out to the utility easement. It will need to have a pull string and we need a #6 bare ground at each building and we will only put one D mark per building. In one of the other Elder buildings they put two but we will only put one. If there is any relocation it will be at the owner/developer's expense. We are now requiring developers to tag the inside wiring when it is pulled out of the building. If they could call me when they start building I would appreciate it. Pate: Revisions are due on August 4`h at 10:00 a.m. Technical Plat Review July 28, 2004 Page 27 PZD 04-1154: Planned Zoning District (CLIFFSIDE R-PZD, 526): Submitted by PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC for property located at THE EAST SIDE OF HAPPY HOLLOW ROAD, SOUTH OF THE CLIFFS APARTMENTS. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 26.30 acres. The request is to approve a Residential Planned Zoning District on the subject property with approximately 46 two-family and 20 single-family lots proposed. Pate: Item number eight is PZD 04-1154 Cliffside submitted by Project Design Consultants for property located on the east side of Happy Hollow Road south of the Cliffs Apartments. Morgan: I will go over Planning comments first. Just to let you know the letter authorizing PDC to represent the owners refers to Springdale so that will need to be changed. If you could address the overall development standards for the proposed development and submit covenants. If we can get covenants, at least in a draft form for the Planning Commission and Council. Regarding zoning requirements, this is a proposed R-PZD so the rezoning will be in conjunction with the development proposal. The rezoning does need to be heard by the City Council. The property is currently zoned RSF-4 and lot width and area are determined by the developer at the time of PZD. The letter describing the proposal stated a development of 46 duplex lots and 20 single family lots for a total of 66 lots. I was only able to identify 65 lots on this project. Scott: We combined two lots at lot 19. Morgan: Ok. With revisions the lot layout may change so if we could just get a revised letter. The actual density is determined by the rezoning request. The total number of units are 112. If you could provide the maximum number of units allowed by the current zoning district on the plat and the proposed density so that that can be prepared. A home owner's association must legally be established to maintain the common areas prior to approval. If you could also address building setbacks with regard to development on each lot. Basically specify what you propose the building setbacks to be for each lot. I don't know if they are common for all of them or if they are unique for each. Also, the building pad, a concrete pad identified encroach on the building setbacks shown on each lot so we just need to make sure that those are compatible with one another. For instance, on lot 65 and 62 the setback encroaches into the building pad. The site plan is a little difficult to read and decipher. If you could remove the grading from that. Specify and indicate the plat page on the plat. If you could also clearly indicate the centerline and right of way for Happy Hollow Road. When Cliffs apartments were developed there was 80' of right of way dedicated for Happy Hollow Road. That is a collector and staff s recommendation is that that 80' continue through this development. Technical Plat Review July 28, 2004 Page 28 Scott: 40' on our side? Morgan: I'm not exactly sure where this lines up. It may be more than 40' off on your side depending on where that centerline is. Scott: We had surmised that due to this ordinance on the trees and the hillside, that this really wasn't functioning as a collector at all and probably never would so we were going to try to make that narrower, more like a 60' so we will have to work that out. We can maybe prove it with a traffic study or something. Morgan: Sure because there will be a lot of traffic generated on Happy Hollow with this development, as well as the Cliffs and any lesser dedication would have to be taken to the City Council. Indicate all easements as requested by utility representatives as well as include on the site plan and within the covenants submitted the use units that would be allowed in this R-PZD. Also, identify which lots are to be developed as single family and which for duplex. Identify any pedestrian trails. Please show street lights at intersections and cul-de-sacs as well. Traffic flow within this development is a concern. We are concerned with the connectivity and the access from this development. Several connections are shown to all cardinal directions, can you verify that these are possible connections? I believe that these lead into a tree preservation area so that no connection would be possible. If that is the case then this will need to be reconfigured so that those don't stub out because it will never extend any further. The same with the street to the south. Scott: I think that goes to the school at the south. That possibly could connect in the future. Ray dead ends there. Morgan: If that is the case then we just need to make sure that that is aligned so it could connect straight through to Ray and then the other street, I'm not sure if that would be a possible connection. That is a concern regarding access and the amount of density that will be generated by this development. Also, if you could include a note on the plat stating driveway widths a maximum of 24'. I don't know exactly how you propose to access these duplex lots. Also, all electric lines below 12kV need to be relocated underground and all proposed utilities are to be located underground. If there are any proposed signs for this please show those locations. This will need to be tabled and come back to Tech Plat. We will set up a meeting to discuss the issues with you. Scott: Why would we table? Cul-de-sacs can get rid of the connectivity issue. I think we are a little short on tree preservation area, which is kind of a shock. I thought we had a ton of it in here. Technical Plat Review July 28, 2004 Page 29 Morgan: That is another comment on tree preservation we will need to have 25% preserved. Scott: What we did was maintain the corridors through all the drainage areas and the wildlife type corridors. Morgan: They do align very well. Scott: I think what we are going to do Suzanne is probably put a lot of it in the back of lots here that we are showing real deep buildable areas. I think we are just going to extend it into those areas. Boles: Then at the same time will you eliminate those that go all the way out to the street? Everywhere I look we are blocked from getting lot to lot. Gibson: For example, lot 37 and 38 if we came through in the front there is no way to get from 37 to 38 without going through the tree preservation area. Boles: Same with 11 and 12, 2 and 3. Scott: We are not counting tree preservation in this right of way or easement here. Gibson: How about lots 1 and 2 and 3. Is that the same thing? Anywhere where there is a right of way or easement the tree preservation is excluded? Pate: Correct. It can't be counted in rights of way or easements. Boles: We are going to want an easement outside of that right of way. Pate: Easements are the same thing. Scott: Let me know what kind of easements you are wanting. Can we keep all of these in front on these? That would maximize the tree preservation because it will all be graded. Gibson: Probably if you put a 20' UE all the way around these streets in front on both sides that would cover most of it. Scott: That won't be a problem at alt. Gibson: Then we will need some crossings. Boles: I would like to see a copy for utilities just showing the lots and tree preservation area. Technical Plat Review July 28, 2004 Page 30 Gibson: That's a busy plan. Scott: We wanted to leave the contours in there to show the challenge. We can screen them out or just have one sheet with them on there. Morgan: Another comment regarding tree preservation, it is called out that tree #6 is to be removed. That isn't called out in the chart so we just need a determination on that. The tree numbering really isn't legible. If you could just make that more clear. Identify all easements. The tree preservation canopy needs to be revised. Also, you are proposing tree protection measures, if you could include the detail about that. Pate: Art, when we mentioned tabling this project it is really going to be what comes back and I would recommend that we all sit down in a meeting. Matt has some significant comments as well. I think the connections here that we are talking about and changing the configurations, obviously, without there being a potential for connections here, this is dedicated greenspace and there is a school right below this that a street will most likely not develop through then we are looking at essentially one way in and one way out for 112 units. That's a pretty significant number. There are a lot of those issues that we need to sit down and talk about. Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: On the grading plan if you could show the 100 -year floodplain and floodway on the grading plan. A floodplain development permit is required for any construction activities within the 100 -year floodplain . A 404 Permit is required for any construction within the floodway. Mike Rozelle is the city's Stormwater Engineer, contact him to discuss the requirements for the construction of the roadway across the floodway. Include easements a minimum of 10' from each side of he proposed water and sewer mains. Include drainage easements a minimum of 10' on each side of the proposed storm sewer outside the right of way. Where is the drainage for lots 22 and 23 proposed to go? It will not be allowed to flow over the sidewalk. We have touched on the street improvements to Happy Hollow to 14' from centerline including pavement, curb and gutter and storm sewer. The pavement in this area is in poor condition. The administration may be willing to cost share, I'm not sure if you would want to do something like that or not. Scott: If we widen that street to that extent we are going to be 100' or 150' in just grading it because it drops off pretty quick there. Casey: I will get back with you on that. Happy Hollow will require a 6' sidewalk located at the right of way line. Also, the drainage criteria manual requires a final detention pond design for the preliminary submittal. This Technical Plat Review July 28, 2004 Page 31 is to ensure that the area shown for detention will be adequate and avoid having to bring back substantial changes to the Planning Commission. The plan does not show how any of the site is draining into the detention pod. How is this planned to function? Scott: I think we have it sized. This is actually probably too big what we're showing. Casey: We just need to see how the water is getting into the pond. I don't know if it is storm sewer going to the pond or what's going on. You need to show the grading within the pond also. You also have the sewer main going adjacent to it, you need to make sure that the pond is not located within that easement nor can it be within the 100 -year floodway. Scott: We tried to put it off on the side here. We will work with that so it's not in there. Casey: There are several slopes that are labeled as 3%. Is that supposed to be 3:1? Scott: Yes. Casey: Sidewalks need to be located at the right of way at an elevation '/4" per foot above the top of curb. There are areas that do not indicate this grade. Why is concrete paving proposed? Scott: I didn't see that note before I sent it out. I saw it after that and it is going to be asphalt. Here is what we had initially, we had that not on there because this street that went through on that power line easement and it was very steep so it was going to have to be concrete. That's where that note came from. We eliminated that street right before we turned this in. There was also a 20" water line somewhere in there. Casey: We haven't found that on the maps. If you could do some checking and find out if it is even there or if it has been abandoned. I can get with Dave Jurgens on that. Scott: Up here on the very east end of this street there is a manhole that is actually a big water valve. Casey: We just need to check more into that. Make sure that the required checklist items are on the grading plan. Access ramps will be required at each corner and at "T" intersections. Detectable warnings are now required when constructing or altering curb ramps. Also, if you could add a note or some sort of plan to provide information on the proposed offsite Technical Plat Review July 28, 2004 Page 32 water and sewer extensions. We need to know what is planned to supply this development with utilities. Scott: I think that note is on here. It is about 900' to the south of us for the sewer. We are working on getting an easement from this landowner. We are intending to go along that new construction, the four lane street to the north of us there is an 8" line all the way up there at that intersection so we are going to have to go that far. Casey: You need to provide a loop somewhere. That's all that I have. Rebecca Ohman — Parks Department Ohman: Parks fees are due in the amount of $47,250. Also, parks board requested the possibility of connecting the trail to this property. If you could just clarify where that goes in. Scott: We intend to do that. Morgan: I do have one more thing. I just noticed that there is a sewer line in the middle of a tree preservation area. Scott: That is probably 20' taken out of there. That may be why her number is calculated. It doesn't look like as much area as we really have. I was kind of disappointed that that number wasn't larger and that may be why. She may have taken that out of there too. I will confirm that. Ron Berstrom — SWEPCO Berstrom: Along that utility easement where the lots are adjacent to the north like lots 14 and 18, those aren't to be built into the easement at all. If you can make a note or show that facilities can't be put in that easement. The same thing with 48 and 49. Maybe if you revise the streets or something you can shape the lots to stay out of that easement. Scott: We already knew that. I'm not sure why it showed up this way. Lot 50 for instance, Lot 49 has the same size buildable area. Underneath there is just going to be yard. Berstrom: The other comment I have is on Happy Hollow Road if they do widen it our existing facilities will have to be relocated to the back of the right of way so we can be just behind the right of way. Scott: It is very close right now. Technical Plat Review July 28, 2004 Page 33 Berstrom: If you are going to serve these with front lot service it would be a good idea if you could make the building setbacks utility easements, that would save a lot of confusion and make it easier for all the utilities to access. Of course I am going to need street crossings. Lot 2 to 3 that is tree preservation area, either we cross the street in front of those or have some kind of easement through there. That's all I have. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: I have a lot of the same comments Ron has. We also have existing facilities on the east side of Happy Hollow Road running north and south, we will have to relocate that. If we could have a 20' UE setback along the street sides. Scott: We'll include that as the setback over here. Berstrom: I do have one more comment. These transmission poles are expensive to move so if you do have one that is going to be in the street. The pole at Lot 54 it looks like that is going to have to be relocated. Scott: On that one we set up where the curb is real close to the pole, I don't know if that is going to be ok with you or not. Berstrom: As long as it's not in the street. Sue Clouser — SBC Clouser: I agree with the prior utility easement comments and if there is any facilities that need relocation it will be at the owner/developer's expense. Morgan: Revisions are due, we can set up a meeting but this does need to come back to Plat Review. Scott: Ok, thank you. Technical Plat Review July 28, 2004 Page 34 PZD 04-1159: Planned Zoning District (BEACON FLATS, 445): Submitted by MORGAN HOOKER for property located at 867 N COLLEGE AVENUE. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 0.69 acres. The request is to approve a Residential Planned Zoning Development with office space and 9 dwelling units proposed. Pate: The last item is R-PZD 04-1159 for Beacon Flats submitted by Morgan Hunter for property located at 867 N. College Avenue. This is a request for office space and nine dwelling units. This is the old Nick's Auto Lube. Scott: There were some homes south of it that are gone now. Pate: I will go over Planning comments first. If you could in this parking chart and on the site utility plan reference this as RMF -24 for parking requirements. This is a rezoning. Also, on the plat I've requested a couple of tables in here for information. If you could include the proposed residential density for the project, the square footage sort of in one table kind of thing. I believe the square footage actually is shown already on the land use. Plat page #445 should be added. Add the building height if you could and the building setbacks that are proposed. Dimension the rights of way from centerline. I noticed on this Master Street Plan right of way it shouldn't be 100', it should be 110'. I know that you guys are going to request that that be reduced but we need to show the correct dimension there. It should be 55' from centerline is what our principal arterial requires for. Scott: We talked with Dawn about that. We were wanting to go with a constraint principal arterial which is where that wall is now. The canopy line is up here. The existing canopy line is up to that 100'. Pate: The only thing we have on our Master Street Plan right now is we have a minor arterial, which is 90' and a principal arterial, which College is, which is 110'. Again, you are going to request to change that. It shouldn't be too much. Include the owner/developer information on the plat. As I just mentioned, a lesser dedication of right of way will need to go forward through the Planning Commission and the City Council for that specific area. If you could provide us a letter and 8 'h x 11 graphic depicting this area, the 110' that is required by the Master Street Plan and then exactly what you are requesting. If you could just put that in both a graphic and letter form justifying your proposal and justifying the need to reduce that. Pollard Avenue actually requires 25' from centerline. It is currently at 40'. It doesn't look like that alters any of your development plans at all. I don't think any of that is within the right of way but if you could just verify that. Cleburn Street is fine. It actually has more right of way than we require there. If you could revise the curb cut on Pollard Avenue driveway approach to a maximum of 24'. It is showing 25' now. Technical Plat Review July 28, 2004 Page 35 Our last conversation is you are proposing to remove the stairs down to Pollard Avenue, down through that retaining wall, if you could just show that. Scott: They are not in very good shape. Pate: That will of course be included in your permit. Staff is recommending adding at least one or two bicycle racks in appropriate locations, just based on the use of this property. I included comments from Solid Waste. They didn't see trash receptacles. I'm not sure how you are planning on solid waste disposal. They typically would recommend a residential cart for the residential units and then some sort of dumpster pad or you can do a shared pad. They have different sized containers. Any proposed utilities need to be located underground. Anything under 12kV will need to be relocated underground. All mechanical and utility equipment does need to be screened from view. If it is attached to the building it needs to be incorporated into the architecture of the building. Any trash enclosures, if you do end up doing trash enclosures, need to be screened as well utilizing materials that are complimentary to the building. If you do propose any signage we will need to see that as well. It may just be conceptual at this point but just kind of a general location. The pole sign that is out there, if that is going to be removed include a note to that affect on the site plan. For tree preservation, I met with Amy Scott and have a memo from her stating she will get that report to me on the condition of the trees. I could not remember from my site visit, if there were any offsite trees in which the canopy encroaches into this site. If so, there will need to be appropriate tree preservation measures taken. That is all of my comments. Solid Waste and Recycling Division would like to have the opportunity to lace a centralized trash receptacle at the office spaces as well as one centralized trash receptacle for the apartment dwellings. Matt? Matt Casey — Staff Eneineer Casey: College is a principal arterial street which requires a 6' sidewalk located at the right of way line. The City of Fayetteville drainage criteria manual requires a final detention pond design for the preliminary submittal. Please provide a final detention pond design for the next submittal. Show the proposed outlet for the detention pond and how it will discharge. The sidewalks need to be located at the right of way and n elevation '/4" per foot above the top of the curb. There are areas that do not indicate this grade. Provide all of the required checklist items on the grading plan. Detectable warnings re now required when constructing or altering curb tamps. A 24 inch wide strip of detectable warning (truncated domes) should be installed at the bottom of a curb ramp to indicate the transition from the sidewalk to the street. The sidewalk shall be continuous through Technical Plat Review July 28, 2004 Page 36 driveways with a maximum of 2% cross slope and elevated 2% above top of curb. Scott: You can see we have those wheel stops there instead of curb. We had intended for that to just flow through that area. We are intending to demo this building and use this existing floor for parking underneath so it actually probably should be built up on top. Maybe I can put a slide drain on there or something to satisfy. Casey: We can work with you on that. Remove lines representing curbs through the sidewalk section from the drawing. Remove the shading of the parking lot on the grading plan. The existing waterline along Pollard is a 2" line and will not be adequate to serve this development. An 8" water main will need to be extended to serve the site. The sewer service cannot run along the street right of way. Extend a sewer main to the parking area. Each building will have to have its own sewer service. Scott: There are existing lines there. I'm not sure if the capacity is going to apply for that. Casey: Those are pretty old. I'm not sure if they can be used to service this. Scott: What we will probably do is run a manhole down here, coming across the street and then tie it into that. Casey: I think that would be the best solution. That is all I have. Pate: Utilities? Jim Sargent — SWEPCO Sargent: I would like to see a utility easement along Pollard from the edge of the street. Scott: There is not much on Pollard. Cleveland won't be an issue. Sargent: Ok. Any relocation will be at the owner/developer's expense. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: Do you know right now where the electric meter is going to go on this building? Scott: It is planned on the side of the buildings. Technical Plat Review July 28, 2004 Page 37 Gibson: On this relocation cost on this overhead, because we have a power line that runs north and south here on the eastside of Pollard. If I have that I can service these buildings and at the same time maybe we might be able to put in some conduits and relocate that overhead line. Is this a single story building? Hooker: Yes. Gibson: So they are going to have an electrical room or something like that? Hooker: Yeah probably. That is actually not going to be demolished, that is going to be an addition and this will be removed. This is all new. Gibson: Let me work on this. I think if you guys will run some conduits under this hard surface we can eliminate relocation of overhead cost. If, at the same time, we drop something off so we can service these. Pate: It will be depending on the size of those lines too. Gibson: If this is placed underground from here to the south end of the property your property would be the only one we would have. Sue Clouser — SBC Clouser: I will need conduit to each of the buildings. How many square feet are you having in this office building here? Hooker: Around 2,500. Clouser: We will need conduit if you are going to go inside or conduit to the rear if you decide you don't go inside. We will do one for the apartments and probably only need a 2" conduit to the building wherever you are going to run the inside wires into. This line will need conduit to the outside terminals. We are now requiring that the inside wiring from apartments be labeled so we know which apartments the wires go to. That way our splicers can get everything terminated. Any relocation will be at the owner/developer's expense. I am going to have to take a look and see where we are at and see where we will have to put pins if any and where our conduits will be to the easement. That's all I have. Pate: Depending on where this 5' takes you, if it takes that out, we would probably just recommend removal of this parking. It is a little bit iffy anyway just because of safety, backing out and trying to get out of that space. You have above the parking right now that you are required to have so just take a look at that. One most likely will have to be removed anyway. We would probably just recommend removing the other one for Technical Plat Review July 28, 2004 Page 38 safety. There is not any stacking distance whatsoever and I'm a little bit worried about someone coming out if someone is backing because I don't think you would be able to see anyone. Scott: This is going to be all open on the bottom. Pate: In this location? Scott: Yes. Hooker: There will be a couple of windows on that side. You will see motion and that's about it. Pate: Ok. Revisions are due August 4th at 10:00 a.m. Thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned. Scott: Thank you.