HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-08-18 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
TECHNICAL PLAT REVIEW COMMITTEE
A regular meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee was held on August 17, 2004
at 9:00 a.m. in room 111 in the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain,
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
ACTION TAKEN
LSP 04-1169:
(King, 609)
Forwarded
Page 2
LSP 04-1170:
(Harp, 215)
Forwarded
Page 5
LSP 04-1171:
(Quality Life Associates, Inc., 289)
Forwarded
Page 6
LSP 04-1172:
(Mong, 519)
Forwarded
Page 8
PPL 04-1176:
(Clabber Creek Phases 3, 4 & 5, 283)
Forwarded
Page 10
LSD 04-1174:
(Metro Retail Center, 287)
Forwarded
Page
PZD 04-1175:
(Rivendell, 522)
Forwarded
Page
STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT
Matt Casey Perry Franklin
Jeremy Pate Danny Farrar
Suzanne Morgan Travis Dotson
Renee Thomas
Craig Camagey
Rebecca Ohman
UTILITIES PRESENT UTILITIES ABSENT
Mike Phipps, Ozark Electric Coop.
Jim Sargent, AEP/ SWEPCO
Sue Clouser, Southwestern Bell
Larry Gibson, Cox Communications
Johney Boles, Arkansas Western Gas
Technical Plat Review
August 17, 2004
Page 2
LSP 04-1169: Lot Split (KING, 609): Submitted by Buckley Blew for property located
at Hunt Lane and Tallgrass Ave. S. Of Hwy 16E. The property is in the Planning Area
and contains approximately 24.58 acres. The request is to split the subject property into
two tracts of 2.84 and 21.61 acres respectively.
Pate: Good morning everyone, and welcome the Technical Plat Review
Committee meeting on Wednesday, August 18`h. We have seven items to
review this morning. We'll start out with Item #1, Lot Split 04-1169, a
Lot Split for King submitted by Buckley Blew, this property's located at
Hunt Lane and Tallgrass Avenue, south of 16 East, it is in the Planning
area. Buckley, if you'd come up please. This is Suzanne's.
Morgan: Let me go over some Planning comments. This property currently has
frontage on Hunt Lane and the proposed Lot Split will create a tract on an
improved public right-of-way. The design standards for lots in the
Planning area require 75 feet of right-of-way on the through public streets.
Because Tract B does not have any improved frontage, staff will not be
able to recommend approval of this Lot Split without extension of the
street to fulfill the requirement.
I think its' the desire of the applicant that they're going to take this all the
way though Subdivision Committee and this is the first step of doing that,
for them to purchase this land. And I don't know how staff wants me to
do this. Jorgensen and Associates is going to design a subdivision for the
larger tract here. The land owner who owns the land currently will live in
the front portion. He wants to retain that, and that's for his house that
adjoins that piece of property. And this a future street extension here that
the city already had, so I don't know, this is for the sell of this property, I
don't know what staff would recommend us to do at this time.
Morgan: The right-of-way is dedicated for this stub out, however, staff would not
be able to recommend this unless it did have the 75 feet of frontage. That
is a requirement.
So how would we go about doing that? Would we have to bring an
easement across this other side? I mean I guess that's my question for the
sell of this property to happen, they have to have the split for them to be
able to develop this land, and they were planning on using the future street
extension which is already approved by the city and is already here and
they're going to extend the street into it at the 50 foot right-of-way which
is what the city already has it dedicated at. So would we have to require
more? Would we have to make this a 75 foot right-of-way even though at
Tall Grass it's a 50 coming off that? As a City street?
Morgan: Well these lots are already slatted, so.
Technical Plat Review
August 17, 2004
Page 3
Exactly, that's why it can't be 75.
Pate: Yeah, just a couple of things. Essentially the Lot Split should never be
filed until 75 feet of frontage was built onto this lot, or however that
occurred.
So the road would have to be built into it first.
Pate: Right. You could, as an option, create this tract just as you've shown, but
it would take the actual subdivision of land that you said Jorgensen was
doing. This would become essentially an out lot as part of that, or a lot
over that overall subdivision. Because then with the subdivision the
property you're showing the frontage that's going to occur, the street's
that are coming in, the utilities that are going to come with this property.
So you would not be creating a legal lot because you're obviously going
into construction plans after preliminary plot approval. That might be
something you could speak with the owner about.
I mean, that's their plan. It's what they want to do.
By doing that though, they wouldn't be able to purchase until the final
plat.
Pate: Until it was platted.
Could they come through simultaneously with the Lot Split and the
development plan?
Pate: I'm not sure without the street construction, essentially what it creates is a
tandem lot without any frontage whatsoever. We don't have conditional
uses in the Planning area because there's no zoning in the Planning area.
But obviously the county has to approve this split as well. Their
requirements are 75 feet of frontage. That's the damage, and we wouldn't
be able to recommend this lot without any frontage on that. And
obviously I know that the development's pending, and that's something
we really haven't been able to see yet and it's not really in process.
Could this be treated as a lot, if you planned the whole thing out?
Pate: Yes, this could b treated as a lot. It really depends on the property owner.
Well, that would probably be more of a problem, if would just be
acceptable here as a street coming into it since it was supplied originally
off this property and just leave these stub outs to the other property. The
other property owner's been contacted, but they're not willing to sell right
now, because we were trying to get a different route to this property. And
Technical Plat Review
August 17, 2004
Page 4
we were told in the future we could possibly do it, but right now there's
one person in the family who does have to sign and he does not want to
give out, even though the other five owners will. So I guess that's our
question if we treated this like a subdivision, and went ahead and went
through with everything, and just treated this like it's a partial that we
could cut out for the land owner to keep because he has his home on that,
is that something we can get through the staff, right now this would be,
until we could purchase that property.
Pate: Well again, our problem I guess, is recommending it, as it currently
doesn't have any frontage on this other street, and if you showed the
subdivision and you came in and processed the actual subdivision, this
could create an out lot or like a lot like Matt said, it's a private agreement
between you guys, a contract between the sellers if they can sell that lot.
Because it won't be technically platted until you put the infrastructure in
and then plat the lot. So, if that's something that you're open.
That's all we're trying to find out is what way can you make this work?
And we're fine with any way possible to make it work. And we know that
it is a limited access right now for this piece of property through here and
we'd love to go the other direction and bring something in off this other
road to be more of our entry. For right now, hopefully that will happen in
the future, but at the same time, this land owner wants to go forward with
something, to show that we're doing some progress. And we don't mind
coming back and having Dave relay the plan and start through the process,
but we didn't want to start through the process if it was a wasted situation.
If it'd be futile to try, we didn't want to do it.
Pate: Well, it looks like this lot would meet those requirements for frontage.
Now I don't know what your street layout looks like, but as an out lot I
don't really see a big problem with that being a lot in the overall
subdivision. Because with the streets shown in right-of-way to be
dedicated, the street could fill in. Is that something that you would just
like to drop the Lot Split at this time then?
If we need to. That would be fine, and we'll come back with the
subdivision.
Pate: You might have everyone sit down and take a look at it before you get to
that part of the process, to let you know if we're on the same page.
We will draw that in there and get back with you.
Technical Plat Review
August 17, 2004
Page 5
LSP 04-1170: Lot Split (HARP, 215): Submitted by BUCKLEY BLEW for property
located at 17 GREENBRIAR DRIVE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY
- 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0. 14 acres. The request is to divide the
subject property into two tracts of 0.06 and 0.08 acres respectively.
Pate: Item #2 is also submitted by Buckley Blew for property located at 17
Greenbriar Drive. The property is zoned RSF-4 with an existing structure.
And it's to be split in two. This is a lot located off a private drive. So
Buckley, a couple of comments I had. If you would just remove the right-
of-way, the note there is that it's not technically a right-of-way it's all just
a common accessing area. Add the Plat page #215 to the plans, otherwise
it's a clean plat and I appreciate that. I don't really have further
comments. Matt?
O'Neal: Brent O'Neal, Fayetteville engineer. You need to show the location of
existing water and sewer mains.
Ohman: No comment from Parks.
Sargent: Jim Sargent, SWEPCO. No comment.
Phipps: Mike Phipps, Ozark Electric. No comment.
Gibson: Larry Gibson, Cox Communications. The only thing is of course we'll
probably come back when you get ready to build on it and get the utilities
on each easement, and probably have some property probably between
those two lots.
Blew: This is an existing.
Gibson: Oh this is, okay. These two lots here, you're just going to split those up.
Blew: These aren't separate lots; that's just where we annexed that. This is the
25 foot utility easement. There's already an existing utility.
Gibson: Oh, I see what you're saying. Okay.
Pate: Okay. Revisions are due on the 25`h. Thank you.
Technical Plat Review
August 17, 2004
Page 6
LSP 04-1171: Lot Split (QUALITY LIFE ASSOCIATES, INC., 289): Submitted by
QUALITY LIFE ASSOCIATES, INC. for property located at 2623 N GREGG
AVENUE. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE and
contains approximately 6.43 acres. The request is to split the subject property into two
tracts of 5.43 and 1.00 acres respectively.
Pate: Okay, revisions are due on the 25h. Item #3 is also a Lot Split for Quality
Life Associates. The property is on 2623 N. Gregg Avenue. Property is
zoned RMF -24 and the request is to split the property into two tracts of
5.43 and 1.00 acres.
Morgan: Previously this tract was, there were two Lot Splits on this tract in 1999
and those were never filed, so this is another new Lot Split proposal for
the tract. The applicant intends to, you're intending to use this as a sports
house for those with disabilities. A conditional use permit request has
been submitted for the, to allow this use. The current proposal is for a lot
split which will create a tandem lot or a lot without frontage. The
previous Lot Split that was approved on this tract showed it was actually
splitting this into three tracts and each of which had frontage on Greg
Street, they were all kind of fronting right here. If you would revise this to
have, to allow each tract to have a minimum 60 feet frontage to comply
with our zoning requirements. Therefore we would not have to process a
conditional use for a tandem lot on this location. And because it has been
approved with those other lots previously, I would believe I would
maintain what was approved before to show that lot split.
So they need to revise it to three.
Morgan: Each of these tracts just need to have a minimum of 60 feet of frontage, so
this could just be revised as a big lot. This back lot has frontage onto
Greg. As for plat comments, I can just run through these. On page 2, for
plat requirements, if you could show adjacent zoning to the west it is
actually will be within the city limits shortly, due to an ordinance that will
be effective on the 201h of August. If you could also note Plat Page 229.
The GAS has approved the legal description, however, thee are some
plane coordinates that appear to not be located. I just included hat report
in here. If you have any questions on that, I'll be in touch with you on
those. If you could also mention existing right-of-way for Greg Avenue
and identify clearly all existing easements and those requested by utility
companies. A revised plat was submitted soon after this was submitted,
and I think that all that changed was the location of this utility or this
access easement. I don't know if that was the only change, but if you
could just. On page 3, if you could just note that any signage that's
proposed for the property should be permitted in accordance with
Fayetteville City Ordinance requirements. Also, all proposed utilities
Technical Plat Review
August 17, 2004
Page 7
shall be located on those ground developments. And electric lines, if any,
shall be located underground.
Currently the lot has access to a water line, runs along the gravel road.
Sewer is not available to the property. Across the North Greg and through
a railroad. With this lot split, then, we'll need to extend sewer to each of
the lots that are being created. And also, we've got part of our Waste
Water Treatment plant construction on the west side and the new truck
lines that are going in all over town. Along the creek here is one of the
paths for one of those main lines. I'd like to request an easement for that.
Here's a description of that easement for the line itself, and if you could
create an easement for that, it's through the, it's actually located here
along the floodway along this easement that already exists for this gravel
drive. If you have any questions about that, just ask me.
Can we tap that sewer line? That new sewer line?
We can, I don't know what the plans are, I haven't seen the specific plans
for the lay out, but I know they're going to be having the stub outs off and
on throughout the line that allow for future extensions, you know, in
different areas. And I can find out if this is one of those areas. Yeah I
think we, that was one of our big questions if we're allowed to use that
sewer line, or if we've got to bore under to Greg Street.
Well this is a new one -it's about two years away, so I don't know what
your time frame is for construction.
That was a question we h ad too, whether we could do something
temporary until that line was through.
Well, we can look at that. Let me see if I can get some information from
our consultant on the locations with the nearest stub out and this property
could be one of those.
I'm almost sure one's right on the, right there.
If we could work that out, it would need to be a waiver from the Planning
Commissions for the requirement for the off-site sewer extension. You'll
have to request that in writing to the Planning staff. That's all I have. Oh,
I'm sorry, I've also got our Flood Plain Administrator's comments here
and I'll just read this. Sorry I haven't read them yet, I'm not familiar with
them. But I think the flood plain that note, the FIS map, indicate the
proposed minimum finished floor elevation for all proposed structures on
the site. And then on the floor elevation, it needs to be two feet about the
base flood elevation, and you've got those comments here. Property in the
flood plain must contain at least 6,000 SQ of buildable area, including
Technical Plat Review
August 17, 2004
Page 8
setbacks outside the special flood hazard area, or it could just be platted as
a one acre lot. I don't know, you might just verify the buildable area and
cut .96 acres so there's not 6,000 SQ buildable area. Make that one acre to
be in compliance. You've commented that there's going to be fill in the
flood plain and you need to submit a flood plain development permit and
plans to our Flood Plain Administrator for structures, fill, or changes to the
water course within the Floodway. Encroachments shall not result in any
increase in flood level. And this is more development and not necessarily
Lot Split requirements. Structures, fill, or changes to water course that
increase the base flood elevation, applicant must apply for conditional
letter for permit. If you have any questions about those, our Storm Water
Indicator and Flood Plain Administrator, I'm sure they'd be glad to help
you.
Ohman: Okay, there's going to be a Parks Fee of $555.00 for the additional single
family unit that you're creating in this Lot Split. And that will be due
before issuance of the building permit. Also on the map, the creek comes
along the western side of the property. That is slated for a trail, probably
in 2005. Steve Hatfield is our Trails Coordinator; he'll probably be
calling you about that. I'm looking at a significant pedestrian easement
along the western edge of the property. It may be something you can
work out with the sewer easement, we can combine a lot of those uses, so
it may be along that easement, and it may not.
On the west side of the property?
Ohman: I think so, it looks like it.
Sargent: Jim Sargent, SWEPCO. This overhead may require some room along the
east side of the property show utilities and the easement. And also, back
one part, we have an overhead line that stops and goes under the ground
across that line. I'd like for you to show that on that also.
Gibson: Larry Gibson, Cox, no comment.
Morgan: I don't know if the changes, which will occur due to frontage, or if lot will
result in a need for utility easements again. Revisions are due on the 25`h
of August. Thank you.
Technical Plat Review
August 17, 2004
Page 9
LSP 04-1172: Lot Split (MONG, 519): Submitted by WILLIAM RUDASILL for
property located at 523 SHILOH DRIVE. The property is zoned C-2,
THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 6.71 acres. The
request is to split the subject property into two tracts containing 3.01 and 3.70 acres.
Pate: Item #4 the Lot Split 04-1172 for Wong submitted by Rudasill, a property
located at 523 Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned C-2, and the request is
to split the property into two tracts, 3.01 and 3.7 acres. These comments
don't really reflect the fact that I do have those revisions in now. I did
want to mention that. For property line adjustment, to create the actual
6.71 acre tract that you're subdividing, has obviously not been approved
and recorded. We do have revisions in though, and we will look at those.
I believe Matt has looked at those as well. That does need to be recorded
prior to this item going to the Subdivision Committee. It does need to be a
legal tract of land before we can split it out. Let's see the plat comments
on page 2 should include the adjacent zoning district, the plat page number
519. The vicinity map, I don't know if it's just the copy that came out, but
it's really not legible, so help clean that up a bit. Also the legal description
titles, a parent tract, a new tract, and another parent tract. I think that
should be a new tract. And then if you could include all of the center lines
of Shiloh Drive and Old Farmington Road and mention the right-of-ways
from that. It's supposed to be a collector street, so that's 35 from center
line, so that will need to be dedicated with this Lot Split. Of course in the
existing utilities. I believe that's one of the comments, Matt on the
property line adjustment. The utilities do need to be included. I believe
you showed an easement here, but the actual utilities weren't shown, the
utility lines.
Casey: There's a 36 inch water line.
Rudasill: Is that the big one that goes right across there?
Casey: It's hard for me to tell on that, but...
Pate: That needs to be included both on the revisions to the property line
adjustment and also those comments here. Also this is within the Design
Overlay District, and you should include that boundary. It's available on
the GIS website. That's all the Planning comments. Engineering?
O'Neal: As Jeremy stated, you need to show all the water lines and the easements
and the sewer lines and the easements as well. Easements are required to
add another 10 feet to this existing water/sewer. You show all existing
buildings.
Pate: Utility comments?
Technical Plat Review
August 17, 2004
Page 10
Sargent: Jim Sargent, SWEPCO. I'd like to show that 20 feet utility easement there
along Farmington Road. And also there's an overhead electric line that is
on the east side of this property. You need to show that on there and show
a 20 feet utility easement for it. And then there's an underground that
goes to it, the transformer on the side of the hotel. You need 10 foot
easements where that underground is. And also, along your dividing line
between your Tract 2A and 2B show that 10 foot utility easement on each
side of that lot split line.
Gibson: Larry Gibson, Cox Communications. Those easements that Jim has asked
for are fine with me.
Rudasill: And some of those already exist. There's already a utility that comes right
up in here, and around it's a 35 footer.
Pate: Revisions are due on the 25`h. Are there any questions?
Rudasill: When is the Subdivision Committee? Three weeks?
Pate: Subdivision Committee for this round is September 3ra
Technical Plat Review
August 17, 2004
Page 11
Preliminary Plat (CLABBER CREEK PHASES 3, 4 & 5, 283): Submitted by
GEOFFREY BATES for property located at W OF RUPPLE RD & SALEM VILLAGE
& N OF CLABBER CREEK PH. 1 & 2. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE
FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 75.11 acres. The request is to
approve a preliminary plat of the subject property with 259 single-family lots proposed.
Pate: Item #5 is Preliminary Plat 04-1176 for Clabber Creek subdivision pages
3, 4, and 5. Property's located west of Rupple Road and Salem Village,
north of Clabber Creek phases one and two. The property is zoned RSF-
4, single family- 4 units/ace and contains approximately 75.11 acres. The
request is to approve a preliminary plat of the subject property with 259
single-family lots proposed.
Bates: That's a little large, it's 75.
Pate: I'll get that changed on the agenda as well.
Morgan: I'll just run through the Planning comments. If you could for those lots in
the cul-de-sac that's a lot width less than 70 feet right-of-way, identify that
the lot width at the building setback and identify the lots that need to be
shown. Include the adjacent property zoning on the plot. We need to see
that identified.
Bates: It's all in the County. Except for down here.
Morgan: Salem Village also. Let's see. Indicate Plat Page 283. If you could also
on each of these pages include a smaller map of the entire subdivision
with the area described on each sheet highlighted on that map so we know
exactly where we're looking at.
Bates: It's going to have to be pretty small.
Morgan: Just to give us an idea of exactly where we're looking. Also if you could
give us some right-of-way from the center line of the street. Revise
zoning classification on page 1, if that's already done, then that's fine, I
didn't notice it. On the first page the zoning classification's RI, if you
could update that. I have a note here to identify phase numbers, I just
noticed that those are identified on the first page. You can see where
they're cut, I just didn't know. Street J, Birch Street, is identified as
having a 24 foot street width on the chart on sheet one, however the plat
indicates a 28 foot width.
Bates: I think it's 24.
Morgan: Okay, it's shown as a 28, so change that so we can evaluate. I just wanted
to mention that it's been discussed and found that long, straight streets
Technical Plat Review
August 17, 2004
Page 12
seem to encourage higher speed of traffic through these streets, the
applicant may wish to consider alternative street patterns so to avoid high
speed traffic. Also design standards for those residential lots require the
size and shape of lots to be practical and arranged as to permit logical
locations and openings of future streets. Lot 259 is not allowed for further
development, nor does it allow for a standard lot configuration within this
development. Staff does recommend that the possible solution to the
configuration of the lot that the lot lines be adjusted as to remove it from
the subdivision.
Bates: We already tried that, remember? It's been split like 15 times or
something. Because we were going to split it off because they're trying to
buy this to do another subdivision, but it just doesn't fit for this. And the
whole thing basically doesn't fit.
Morgan: Well, whether split with a Lot Split previous to Preliminary Plat or split
out with the Preliminary Plat, it does create a long, somewhat
dysfunctional lot. I don't know if it's possible to lot line adjust that, into
two, or out of other property.
Bates: That's what they'd like to do if they can purchase this back here, is do a
lot line adjustment and make that part of the next subdivision. Right now
I don't know what in the world to do with it.
Carnegie: You can give it to us.
Bates: They're working on it.
Morgan: Well I think that that will certainly be discussed. And if you do propose to
come through with this as far as the subdivision, we will need to see that it
does meet our.
Bates: Now what are options again? What can we do with it?
Morgan: You're certainly welcome to process a lot line adjustment to adjust it into
another...
Pate: Well it wouldn't be splitting a lot out, it would just be essentially giving it
to this property owner or an adjacent property owner.
Bates: So we've got to sell it or give to an easement?
Pate: Currently it's not a developable lot. You're creating a lot without any
frontage that I can see. Maybe on the lane, but...
Technical Plat Review
August 17, 2004
Page 13
Bates: Maybe I'll do that since they tore down their chicken house accidentally.
They thought it was on their property. It wasn't in use, it was an old one.
Morgan: Also if you would the plat needs to reflect dedication of 45 feet from
center line of Rupple Road. It currently indicates a less than that amount.
If you could adjust that to show a dedication of 45 feet from centerline.
Bates: We dedicated 90 feet. The whole thing.
Morgan: Currently it's showing 35 feet from center line. And what is identified and
highlighted in bold here is 70 feet.
Bates: From here to here is only 70?
Morgan: Design standards for those dead end streets that would be a maximum of
50 feet. I believe this street G is greater than 50 feet of length, 500 excuse
me, so we'll need to waiver request for that. And those are Planning
comments. Engineering comments?
Casey: Geoff, on your water line, you just need to add valves to all the leads of
the tees and crosses. I'd also like to see the water main extended south
along Rupple Road to connect with phase one. Construction to the south.
You need to add a note saying that detention ponds are sodded.
Bates: On the water line? Why do I need to do that? Is there a new main around
here that we add on to?
Casey: You're connecting into the Salem Village there, but Clabber Creek was
stubbed out into the north to connect to this development. So it needs a
connection somewhere. I think it's on the west side just south of the
creek. So the detention pond will need to be sodded; concrete trickle
channels added to the ponds. We need to see how the pond outlets are
going to discharge across the park property. There's currently not any
discharge shown here. You need to extend the sewer main to serve Lot
#256; currently it does not have that extent, as it shows the long service,
the roadway. Right here at the junction of F and K. See the force main is
currently shown to come in and add an acute angle to the gravity line. If
you can bring that in at a 90° or greater, not having to shoot up against the
back wall of the manhole. You need to show location of the handicap
ramps on Rupple Road. Show the location of the proposed storm sewers.
And relocate the proposed lift station site to 194 and 195 like we discussed
yesterday.
Bates: The problem is the bottom one, I guess at this corner where we discussed,
but it's a low point in the street. There's also a curb in right there, can we
Technical Plat Review
August 17, 2004
Page 14
move it to the other side? And move that over here and it would still be
on the other side of the pond.
Casey: For your information, what Geoff and I had discussed yesterday was the
possibility of a lift station right here and that way when our trunk lines
come through here it'd be very easy to abandon the lift station and come
directly into our trunk line, which is located here at the end of the
detention pond where there's not very good access between the two. So
you're saying you want to do it here, that looks like that would accomplish
the same thing. Yeah, I think that would work. What we end up doing,
though, is creating an additional lot. A movable lot. Right now this one
will be ... and this one would be carved out of here.
Bates: How big does it have to be? Is it 50 x 50 or I can't figure out, I can't find
a size.
Casey: I think 50 x 50 would probably work, but one thing we will need though is
a paved.
Bates: Does it have to be paved or gravel?
Casey: The access will need to be paved. But since it's going to be abandoned,
I'm not sure that we're going to pave the whole site, which is what our
future requirements will be for a lift station. I'll work with you on the
design on this. What we can do is refer to the Clabber Creek Phase 1, and
check out how they have a backyard side on that one too, it would be
similar to this. We can take a look at that.
Bates: Would you flip over to page seven while you're there? At the detention
pond what I was anticipating or planning on doing was just discharging
right into that existing ditch going through there. I might have to slide the
pond back just a little to be able to get some riff raff or something to make
an outlet. Same thing on page 8, there's a big ditch through there. A
native stone.
Casey: Okay, well, we'll make sure to work closely with our Parks staff for those
discharges to make sure that future plans don't interfere with that
dedicated parkland. Okay, where were we? We'll need to coordinate with
RJN who's our consultant for the waste water project for the location of
the easement in the proposed, for the proposed sewer trunk lines across
this property. We discussed that yesterday, and I'll get RJN a copy of
your plat so maybe we can get some new feedback from them. Along the
north front and that's maybe the third time that it shows the storm sewer.
The drainage report indicates the swale catches everything from the north.
Well the contours look like it ends right here at the street, so it looks like if
coming down and discharging.
Technical Plat Review
August 17, 2004
Page 15
Bates: It actually goes down to this 32, and I was planning on putting a pipe right
there.
Casey: The contours look like it stopped here.
Bates: I'm planning on picking it up right there and making a pretty big pond.
Casey: Well we'll probably; we'll need to look at that and decide that that's
working on the gradation of it and make sure it's going to be adequate.
We may need to concrete line that along there and maybe along here as
well, and cut off swale to catch everything coming down on these lots, and
divert them into the storm sewer. We'll have a large area draining in these
peoples' back yards. In the drainage report, it didn't include the sizing of
the pond and the details of the pond.
Bates: Show the volume?
Casey: The volume that's required. We just need to make sure that what you
show is going to be adequate and not having to make adjustments after the
Preliminary Plat.
Bates: They're a little oversized actually.
Casey: Brent's going to go through Mike Rozell's comments.
O'Neal: 1. Verify all lots have 6000 square feet of buildable area outside the flood
plain limits or are at least one acre in size. Lots less than one acre will
need to be filled to two feet above the base flood elevation and a letter of
map revision received from FEMA prior to filing a Final Plat.
2. Indicate the proposed minimum finished floor elevations for all
proposed structures on the site. The minimum finished floor elevation
must be 2' above the FEMA Base Flood Elevation at the location of the
structure.
3. Indicate the elevation of the Base Flood along Clabber Creek.
4. In the event it is necessary to fill designated flood plain areas, the
following criteria must be met prior to issuance of a building permit:
a. Submittal of a flood plain development permit and plans
designed by a licensed engineer, architect or landscape architect in
a accordance with the Flood Damage Prevention Code.
b. For structures, bridges, fill or changes to the water course
within the regulatory floodway, a certification from a registered
professional engineer must be provided stating that the
encroachments shall not result in any increase in flood levels.
c. For structures, fill or changes to the water course that will
increase the base flood elevations, applicant must apply for a
Technical Plat Review
August 17, 2004
Page 16
conditional letter of map amendment through FEMA prior to
issuance of a permit, and the applicant must apply for a floodway
revision through FEMA once the project is complete.
d. The bridge proposed across Rupple Road shall be designed to
accommodate the design storm by providing at least a 1 foot of
freeboard from the lowest chord of the bridge to the design storm
water surface.
Bates: What's the design storm, 100?
Casey: I would imagine so. Might want to talk to Mike.
Bates: I'm going to meet with him. He's working on all that stuff right now as
we speak. Speaking of Rupple Road bridge, does the City still got a little
fund there that they're putting in on that?
Casey: We've got very little basically. We can give you what we've got.
Bates: $5.00?
Casey: Maybe a little more.
Bates: I was just wondering because I know that's going to come up later on.
Casey: It'll be the assessment that we've received from Fayetteville Heights,
Fayetteville Meadows, Clabber II and Wildflower. And you'll get all of
that. It might cover some.
Pate: Some of this is not provided yet.
Casey: Clabber II would be the only one. But hopefully by the time your final
plat comes through, they'll be finding out just how much.
Bates: Okay.
Morgan: If you could note the unbuildable note on here that those lots where the
detention is, that they are unbuildable. That's it.
Ohman: Geoff, really quickly, your Parks Dedication was taken care of with the
37.75 acre donation of land. We do need to coordinate parkland design
still, so you could probably be working with Allison Jumper on that. Do
you have her phone number?
Bates: Do they get them on the south side already?
Technical Plat Review
August 17, 2004
Page 17
Ohman: I think they did, so it'll just be the northern border. And then if you guys
could just include a copy of the conversations regarding the drainage not
going across the park property. That would be great.
Bates: What was the lady's name?
Ohman: Allison Jumper.
Morgan: Utility comments?
Phipps: Mike Phipps, Ozark Electric. Geoff I want you to look at Larry's plat here
on these crossings and easements. We do have a crossing of the line at the
25 easement this side of the center of it running along the west edge of the
property. That's going to need an outside duct. Transmission line.
Doesn't need to be 20, it can be 15, but we can't have a utility printed.
The transmission line is 69 K.
Bates: You want another 15 feet outside of that.
Phipps: If it makes it unbuildable there for that, Geoff, we can go in the rear.
Bates: Just on that stretch?
Phipps: Putting an easement there makes no loss.
Bates: It won't meet the minimum square footage I don't think.
Pate: I've got some problems too. I haven't made my comments on Tree
Preservation yet, but that's the really the only significant area that has
huge 30 inch oaks and elms along there. If there's a way to go to the front
on those, it would be highly preferable.
Bates: Where is that?
Pate: Along that western boundary.
Bates: You're talking about lots 4-202?
Pate: It's really 202-213 all along that edge there.
Bates: We'll probably just go in the front there with the utility easement.
Phipps: This whole thing or just this part right here?
Bates: I think just from here down. There's no trees right here.
Technical Plat Review
August 17, 2004
Page 18
Phipps: I'm going to let you have this print. So we can come around here and
come right back to the back. You can have this, where the yellow is, the
pole's route, and that's where we'll need the 20 foot UE and then where
the drain is the 6 Is conduit. I wanted to ask you about, is there any kind
of easement coming out of Phase I, right here going up the west side of
Rupple?
Bates: I don't think so. You'll have to get the parks to give it. You want to give
us an easement?
Phipps: I just wanted to ask that.
Bates: No, I don't think there is.
Phipps: I made easements out of one here, and I probably should have done
something else.
Bates: I gave the right-of-way and the park and that's it. You don't have an
easement.
Phipps: Alright. You can have this.
Pate: On your Tree Preservation, comments are included. There are quite a few.
Based on the findings from our ordinance, we may need to look at
potentially realigning some of these lots so that, I know that you put the
swale down through here, if there's a way to align both of those lots so
that the lot line goes along the swale. That would provide a lot better of
an area. All of this is drainage easement and then this area here ... I'm not
sure how much space.
Bates: It's got to be 8,000 SF minimum doesn't it? And those are all 80 X 100.
Pate: These would be of higher priority and just some general comments before
I get too much in here.
Bates: I think somebody snuck out over the weekend and cut everyone of those
down. Can you believe that?
Pate: I hope not. As noted that general health and condition of the trees are
good. Most of them are considered high priority on this side. Those trees
are amazing. They're huge and in really good condition. Also in your
staff report or in your site analysis, they are scattered throughout the site.
There's not any big clumping, so any means to align lot lines like we're
talking about here, easements. I haven't looked at what the utility
companies need for easements. Those need to be looked at in such a way;
these plans are supposed to develop with those existing trees in mind. At
Technical Plat Review
August 17, 2004
Page 19
this point it doesn't look like any care you're taking to that degree with
that regard. This is the only other big grouping here. These are a couple
of 40 inch elms and oaks. You could look at even, taking one of these
entrances out and creating a loop here as opposed to three entrances all
along that line. That could be an option, you could save them, the high
priority along the frontage here. That's one option. I've included that the
design layout needs to more adequately address groupings of elms and
oaks. Along the western property, which we just talked about. Hopefully
you can do some changes to the front.
Bates: That won't be a problem on those.
Pate: You might look at an increased setback. I'm not sure, again I'm not sure
what it does, this street really isn't, I mean, it's based on your lot layout
and your dimensions and how many lots you need, but nothing else really
on the property.
Bates: Most of the trees are pretty close to the back of lot. It's just the east side,
that's the problem side. Most of them aren't that, most of them are either
on a lot line or...
Pate: Which those are fine, I mean that's something that if the homeowner takes
out, it's really their loss, and we don't count that against you. It's really
the areas that you're developing as part of the subdivision. I'm still a little
concerned about, even with moving that easement to the front here,
because there's just not a lot of buildable area outside of the existing
canopy. I don't know if you wanted to increase your setbacks initially,
that might affect how many SF of house you're looking for those lots.
You know if you're looking at the canopy, moving this setback here.
Bates: Well this line, it could be a little off. I don't know where they actually
located the trees. We'll look at it.
Pate: We talked about the drainage flow. Any of the preserved trees you needto
include tree protection fencing. If you could also identify onsite areas for
delivery and storage of construction materials, on site parking, and any
soil piles, that type of thing to ensure that it's not within any areas that are
being preserved. On your Tree Preservation Plan we also need to have
labeled all the utilities and the utility easements, show on there, it's
difficult to see what's calculated and what's not. And to that point, look at
your calculations and ensure that what's in your easement, I think you're
counting right now what's in the easement, all this canopy that's shown on
the 20 foot easement and the 25 foot easement. None of that canopy can
be counted as preserved. And I think it is right now based on what I've
figured out. So that needs to be looked at as well. The significant tree
chart that's on there, there's only about four of them that say remove.
Technical Plat Review
August 17, 2004
Page 20
Revise that chart. And the other comments: Trees proposed for
preservations should not be located within areas likely to be built or
disturbed from construction activity. We'll be looking at a payment into
the City's Tree Fund for lost trees, for mitigation. On Lot 181, is there
any way you could increase the size of that lot? The utility easements
aren't on the plan, so it's hard to see if it would interfere. I'm not sure if
your drainage structure's going through here. Is there a way we could
preserve that canopy, maybe increase the size of that lot?
Bates: We might take that lot line out and hinge it on to that.
Pate: Is there a way to stop that easement? Does it need to go all the way
through? That's the kind of thing that we're looking for to see what you
can do to help that situation. And then on the site analysis it says an
existing 3.9% but your tree preservation plans show 10%. The 10% looks
more correct. But, just look at that. Goeff, I don't know what kind of
timing most of these comments will add on until you can get them back. It
depends on how much change there is, if we have to come back to this
level. We can give you that date if you need to get back to this level. It
kind of depends on how much shift and you know if these streets change
or anything of that nature. That's all.
Bates: Thank you.
Pate: Thank you.
Technical Plat Review
August 17, 2004
Page 21
LSD 04-1174: Large Scale Development (METRO RETAIL CENTER, 287):
Submitted by MEL MILHOLLAND for property located at MCCONNELL AVE, EAST
OF I-540 AND NORTH OF FAIR PARK APARTMENTS. The property is zoned C-2,
THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 2.39 acres. The
request is to approve a commercial development of 27,502 s.f.
Pate: Item #6 is LSD 04-1174 for the Metro Retail Center, Fair Parks Center
now, submitted by Milholland Company for property located at
McConnell Ave, east of I-540, north of Fair Park Apartments. The
property is zoned C-2 Thoroughfare commercial and the request is for a
commercial development of 27,000 SF. Utilities for your information,
we've seen this before, but it's just a different project. They decided to do
something different with the site and so it has to go back through the large
scale development process. Tom, I spoke to Tracy yesterday. He called
and asked me about the project, the owner/developer. And based on his
comments, it looks like there's going to need to be a conditional for this as
well, because he's saying that a lot of this space will be utilized for
storage. And in a C-2 district, storage or warehousing is a conditional use.
Tomorrow's the deadline to get that in. Obviously you have most of the
materials already here with the Large Scale Development. We just need
get that application in. If you can confirm that. If it's 51 % or more retail/
commercial area in the overall development, then we don't have to process
that. But I think in his mind it's just an unknown right now. And what I
don't want to see is that there's still any, the first person that comes in to
try to permit something, has to get a conditional use for that unit, and he
could only do it for that unit. So that's the concern right now that we
have. That's the biggest thing on the project, really.
Jefcoat: Okay.
Pate: He talked about this idea to be able to utilize just a small portion of the
front for retail, and storage for the rest of it. That's what Wal -Mart's been
required to do and any other commercial development was required to do.
Once you reach that threshold where there's more storage and
warehousing than...
Jefcoat: 51%.
Pate: So that's something to consider in getting in on the next round.
Jefcoat: It won't be on the next round.
Pate: Okay. We did receive architectural elevations yesterday, I believe, or the
day before. This report was generated prior to that so I haven't any time
to look. From what I see, it looks fine. It meets Commercial Design
Standards in the Design Overlay District requirements. One thing I might
Technical Plat Review
August 17, 2004
Page 22
ask Mr. ? to do is let us know what this rear looks like. Is there a south
fagade that is facing onto residential? And if there's screening necessary
that's something we need to discuss before the Planning Commission.
I've already talked about page 2 really. Plat comments, if you could just
remove the "Preliminary Plat" label from the plans. Page 3 under street
requirements, the waiver of the 200 foot separation between curb cuts in
the Overlay District was approved with the previous large scale. We're in
support for the same waiver. The situation hasn't changed, so we will be
in support of that for this project as well. There's no signage currently
located on the plan. If you do propose any signage, the Planning
Commission will need to see that at the time of approval and the location
of that. Keep in mind where the utility easements are, those monument
signs can't go over utility easements. Of course, the property's in the
Design Overlay District and must comply with those requirements. That's
really all I have. Engineering?
Casey: Tom I was just looking at your vicinity map. That line doesn't line up.
Number 1, I think the answer's no here, but if the units for some reason
were going to be sold off, individually, they would need individual water
meter and sewer.
Jefcoat: Yeah, they won't be sold.
Casey: I didn't think so, I just wanted to make that known. Right now you're
showing a retaining wall along the north side by the parking. You need to
put a traffic rated guard rail in there. And I've listed as an option maybe
to take that retaining wall up a couple feet higher than the curb and that
could act as a guard rail.
Jefcoat: Oh yeah, okay, right. On the north side.
Casey: Number 3, the existing street needs to be improved immediately. I know
we've talked about that.
Jefcoat: Yeah, have you gotten me a letter?
Casey: Right here. This project will not be placed on the Subdivision Committee
agenda until this is fixed. Street improvements are just what was
required in the last meeting, 14 feet from the centerline including storm
sewer, pavement, and curb and gutter.
Jefcoat: Of course if we don't turn in a conditional use for another period of time,
we won't repair the street for awhile.
Casey: The proposed sewer main is shown as a 6 inch main and it needs to be 8.
And the drainage appears to be no different than the previous submittal.
Technical Plat Review
August 17, 2004
Page 23
Jefcoat: No.
Casey: The preliminary drainage report looks fine.
Pate: Tree Preservation comments, as you know Tom, the tree preservation plan
was approved and easements filed with the previous Large Scale
Development. And I've included those numbers for your information.
The landscape plan, I just neglected to include the checklist here, but it
needs to be submitted. I'll fax those over to you for the landscape plan.
The Fire Department has comments as well. Drives on the sides and on
the back need to be marked as "Fire Lane." The structure needs to be
sprinklered. Existing hydrant on the east side is for the "Fire Department
Connection." Free standing FDC to be located in the same area as existing
hydrant and facing McConnell Ave. An additional hydrant needs to be
located on the north side of the parking lot in the island that is located
mid -way of the structure. Captain Curry is who to contact about this in
the fire marshal's office. Utility comments?
Phipps: Mike Phipps, Ozark Electric. Tom, do you know if it's single phase or
three phase for developing?
Jefcoat: No I don't, but I would assume that the Metro Repair Center was there
before. And that was going to be three phase. I don't see for this not to
be.
Phipps: Okay, but you know, multi -meters then, if we're going to have a meter
rack somewhere on the building? Are they going to put individual meters?
If it is three phase, I think we've got what, 500 feet? You know, put a
transformer in front, and then a long secondary run through there. The
meters would have to be racked somewhere through there. You'd have to
run your wires from over the meter rack here to the transformer location.
We have an underground from the comer of that Rental Realty. It depends
on where they want their transformer now.
Jefcoat: I would think it would be on the south side. I mean, we could even come
down the middle there somewhere.
Phipps: We'd need a 20 foot along that south side. It would certainly look better
there then it would back out here.
Jefcoat Sure, right. I'll have to find out about the actual needs and...
Phipps: Yeah. See if it's a single phase or a three phase. If we do a multi -meter
and you know, 200 amps on each one, we don't need any large power,
Technical Plat Review
August 17, 2004
Page 24
you're maybe looking at a low cost. But if anything gets over 45, there
might be larger costs for the developer.
Jefcoat: And it may not be, I'm just saying that I don't expect any heavy users,
but...
Phipps: They didn't start any structural work on the other project, just the
foundation? The collision center. That's all I have. Tom, if you kind find
that out for me and maybe we could go over what would be the best way.
Gibson: Larry Gibson, Cox Communications. If we're going to set a big
transformer back in here somewhere, probably about 3 feet to the east of
it, or 4, if they take me a conduit from there over to the closest meter base,
and close to the center of that building. Just a 2 inch conduit turned up on
both ends, then I can come from this corner, and I think this telephone
pass right here, I believe that's mine. I can come down through here and
get that. And get underneath this driveway. About 4 foot or so to the east
of that transformer so they can have room to work on it and everything
else.
Jefcoat: What we'll do, we'll actually put one underneath, we'll show one where
the pad's going to go and then come across.
Gibson: That's all I have.
Pate: Tom, revisions are due the 25`h to get to the next Subdivision, but
obviously you need to...
Jefcoat: Well, I'll let you know what Tracy says, because I'm not aware of the
actual, how those units may be utilized. But I'm leaving to go out of town
shortly, and I won't be back until Monday so it won't be filed. And I
don't trust anybody else in the office to do it while I'm gone. I'll just wait
until I get back.
Pate: Very good, thank you.
Jefcoat: Thank you.
Technical Plat Review
August 17, 2004
Page 25
PZD 04-1175: Planned Zoning District (RIVENDELL, 522): Submitted by DENELE
CAMPBELL for property located at THE NE CORNER OF CENTER STREET AND S.
GREGG AVENUE. The property is zoned I-1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL/LIGHT
INDUST and contains approximately 0.67 acres. The request is to approve a C-PZD,
Commercial Planned Zoning District with 4,675 s.f. commercial/retail area, 13 dwelling
units and 26 parking spaces proposed.
Pate: The last item this morning is Item #7, PZD 04-1175 for Rivendell,
submitted by Denele Campbell for property located at Center Street and
Gregg Avenue. The property is currently zoned I-1, Heavy
Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 0.67 acres. The
request is to approve a C-PZD with approximately 4,600 SF of
commercial/retail area, 13 dwelling units and 26 parking spaces. The first
comment, obviously you guys are aware of the property line dispute with
the Longers. We received correspondence from Lamar Pettus, the
attorney regarding location of that property line. I've included all of that
for you and you probably have a copy anyway.
Campbell: Actually, we've conceded to their line.
Pate: Okay. Very good. Well, that's something I was not aware of.
Campbell: They should have retracted all of their communication with you.
Clark, S.: Apparently this was the fence line that was in dispute here. And we pulled
the line back to match the fence line. This line reflects that property.
Pate: Comments are there for you to look over, so I just included all of the
correspondence. I wasn't aware of that. There's a memo from Kit, simply
stating that it's really a private matter and condition of approval for the
project would be stated such that if there's a difference in the legal
situation there, in the legal decision made on a private matter, that's
something that can be conditioned on that. So that the rights of the
property owner wouldn't be hindered by the development. Let's see.
Obviously a minimum of 51% of the project must be commercial in
nature. You're looking at Commercial Planned Zoning District, and
changing that would essentially have to be a rezoning request. So if all
your properties end up being residential then you need to come back in
and go through a different process. Also there's specific regulations that
put you through the same development cycle that we're in now, as well as
going on to City Council. So it'll go from here to Subdivision Committee,
Planning Commission, City Council. And a review of all the
developments as shown as well as the rezoning request from I-1 to C-
PZD. The project does need to meet all appropriate development
ordinances as well as those ordinances indicated specifically in the PZD.
I've included those for you. Your developer has probably looked at them
Technical Plat Review
August 17, 2004
Page 26
already. It looks like most things are in compliance with that. I just
included that for your review. If you could on the plat list the specific use
units that are allowed within this Planned Zoning District, and there's a
list that you have to choose from essentially. And that's in here, about
page 5. A little chart there. Permit uses specifically for a C-PZD. If there
are ones that you'd like to keep out or take away, you're very welcome to
do that. I don't know if you want a gas and service station here. If you
don't want that ever, take it out. So you just kind of pick through this list
and tailor the project through that.
And I think you did include that list in your correspondence but you want
it actually on the document. Is that correct?
Pate: In the correspondence, I just listed an example of the type of uses that
you're allotted.
Campbell: Actually, I e-mailed it to you, but I didn't know where it was supposed to
go.
Clark, S.: Okay, I'll add it here.
Pate: You can copy it from the left side and then all the information's on the left
side. Be sure to mention the dimensions of the right-of-way from
centerline along all the streets.
Clark, S.: Are you reading these from the...
Pate: Yes. Page 2, at the bottom.
Clark, S.: Oh, okay. From your comment section.
Pate: As you know, and as I know, this right-of-way that you're looking to
vacate. I understand that you're in the process of sending those forms out,
you sent those forms out to appropriate personnel?
Clark, S.: Yeah. Can we process this through?
Pate: The process will be a condition on there, the vacation has to be approved
by City Council prior to anything happening on the site. A couple of
comments about the dimensions of the existing right-of-way. Center
Street has plenty of right-of-way there. There's no problem, I think it's
even edged up. Meadow Street doesn't. There's only 36 feet currently of
right-of-way along Meadow Street. Dedication of right-of-way is
required, 25 feet from centerline, if that's something that becomes a
problem, then obviously it takes another request if lesser dedication of
Technical Plat Review
August 17, 2004
Page 27
right-of-way is required. And the center line's shown on here. I'm not
sure if that's the centerline.
Clark, S.: Well, that isn't the centerline. Either it's a stray line or it's...
Pate: Looks like a stray line to me. I don't know if Parks would agree with me,
but I would prefer to see a multi -use permit access easement along the
trail, wherever that ends of being located, just as an easement. Some of
it's within the waterline easement, but not all of it.
Ohman: Okay. See, we had a question to clarify exactly where the waterline needs
to go and if it's been approved by Mr. in the water department.
Pate: For instance, if it does come outside this waterline easement here, this will
be described as a waterline easement and multi -use, if it does stray outside
that line ni this location, we just need to make sure that that's also an
easement.
Clark, S.: Okay, and we may want that written as two separate easements because
we may want to have a waterline easement. Because they don't coincide.
And we don't necessarily want the trail to be able to be put anywhere
within the limits of the waterline easement. Because it does start to
encroach, so we probably will write it as two separate easements.
Pate: As long as it's covered.
Clark, S.: Right. We'll have one that would be waterline or utility and we'll have
another one that would be for the trail easement. Separate. That works
better and keeps it cleaner.
Ohman: We just wanted to verify the location.
Pate: If you could include the building height on all sides of the property,
obviously they're different based on adjacent grade, so the building height
here and here, here and here. Also the proposed building setbacks. I was
looking on your plan there, I don't think those really corresponding to this
project. So change that. And reference those as north -south -east -west.
That'd be really helpful. The fonts here are a little hard to discern. Also
include a sight coverage note including % open space, impervious and
building on site. As I mentioned, a separate request for vacation of right-
of-way will be a condition of approval of this project for Gregg Avenue,
which will become an alley hopefully. That will be what we recommend,
that the Master Street Plan be amended to that. I mentioned already
Meadow Street. If you could explain the parking to me. I'm a little bit
confused on exactly how many, are these all utilized for just private
residences or are they open to anyone visiting this area? How are you
Technical Plat Review
August 17, 2004
Page 28
going to delineate that? Anyone driving through this iste, where will they
be looking to park?
Clark, S.: I think as I understand it, these would be open, they're not going to be
reserved. If customer's come in, they can park here, residences are here.
And the idea is that the time frames will probably not overlap as much as
you might think. We have 22 spaces that would be parked underneath
here and we only have 12 or 13 residential spaces or apartment spaces, so
there should be some access there.
Pate: I don't know if it's just your map or your design. Could you make it 8 'h
X 11 if you could. Probably a lot of this information you could get from
the website. Show the location of where the public parking lot is in
relationship to where this is.
Clark, S.: Are you talking about the Walton? It's right here.
Campbell: No it's not. It's a block. This is the back of Nadine Baum, but that's not
considered a public lot. The public lot is on the front of Nadine Baum and
then there's also one right across here.
Clark, S.: I'll give you a little 8 '/z X 11 addition.
Pate: That's fine. Just something to put in the Commissioner's packet so they
understand. Because I have a feeling that may become an issue. I don't
think it's going to be a big issue, they just want to understand that if
you're visiting here in a car, not everyone's going to walk to the site.
Where are they going to park? There's not really on street parking
available on any of the concurrent streets. And if there's a way to even
identify the streets that do have on street parking, a couple blocks here,
then that would be helpful. Loading aea, is this alley going to serve as a
loading area? I know in the comments, I think you noted that one of these
spaces would be a temporary drop off. Is there a specifically designated
loading area for commercial uses?
Clark, S.: We have not. The alley would be the primary use or place where it would
be utilized. I think that's another allowable use withion an alley ism' it?
Pate: It is, sure. I'm thinking about planning of that, and people are trying to get
in and out. It is a public street, and blocking that would be a problem. No
sign of your landscaping. We do need a landscape plan as part of your
PZD. And that can either be on the site plan or a separate plan.
Clark, S.: We showed all the details.
Technical Plat Review
August 17, 2004
Page 29
Pate: Any signage, that does need to be permitted subject to our sign ordinance
requirements. On the utilities, of course they need to be located
underground and anything under 12 kv needs to be relocated underground.
The rest of these are just kind of information here. The letters that I sent
to you.
Casey: Steve, I just have a few, and actually they've changed since I've written
that up, a couple of them, so the street improvements need to go ahead and
be shown all the way through the property line, that curb and gutter and
your culvert there also. I put on my comments that the sidewalk along
Meadow as well, but I got word from Chuck that he would prefer the
money -in -lieu payment instead of the actual construction along here. That
sidewalk along the center, you need to go ahead and show that located at
the right-of-way line.
Clark, S.: And we talked with Chuck and I think he said he would accept it down
here against the street. Now, we'll need to verify that.
Campbell: Well, he was iffy about it.
Clark, S.: Oh he was? I thought that you had worked that out with him.
Campbell: Well he encourage me strongly to tear up the current sidewalk and move it
in and put a green strip between the sidewalk and the curb, but at the time
I didn't realize that there were two major problems with that. One of them
is the utility pole for an electric line that would end up in the middle of the
sidewalk if we do that. And the other one is the sewer easement that I
gave to the Longer Properties comes along my east line and there's a pipe
that comes to the surface of the ground and would end up in the middle of
the sidewalk also.
Casey: Well we can certainly work with you on that. I'll visit with Chuck and
see. Normally we just go around those construction.
Clark, S.: You'd probably be better off leaving that where it is even if it's not quite
in conformance to your normal standards.
Casey: Well we'll need to coordinate that with the construction. The last
comment I have is the retaining walls. They're shown within the utility
easement along Center Street. Our ordinances don't allow any structures
existing in a utility easement. So those will have to be adjusted back.
Campbell: When I had talked with Dave V about that utility easement there, he felt
that he didn't need to have that utility easement. He wasn't sure why it
got...
Technical Plat Review
August 17, 2004
Page 30
Clark, S.: There's a lot of other utilities that have a say though. Even though they
may not care, the others may. We'll have to look at that because I don't
know what that'll do to us.
Casey: And I'm not sure how, I don't know if that could be a waiver. I don't
know that Planning Commission has the authority to waive that
requirement or not. So I need to find out what the process would be.
Pate: Where in the location here are the existing retaining walls for the existing
parking? Because there are existing structures I know out there right now.
Clark, S.: Are you talking about this one here? Yeah, we've got some in there also.
There's already existing walls and stuff down in here.
Casey: We might be able to, if we can get some sort of sign off by all the utilizes,
Planning may be able, that's going to Council anyway. I don't see any, if
there's utilities there already, I don't see any problem with that.
Clark, S.: I don't know that there's any utilizes within that utility easement.
Honestly, that's along Center Steret. I think we just put 20 foot, well that
has to do with this one doesn't it.
Campbell: Right. When I granted them the utility easement, it came down and made
an L turn. But they don't use it.
Clark, S.: That's just because the City says, "We want a 20 foot utility easement
along every right-of-way. That's pretty much a standard. I don't mean to
speak for the City but. There's a reason for it. Even though there may not
be any existing utility within that. Because you're all, most of you guys
area out on Center Street.
Phipps: Yeah, I don't think we have anything.
Casey: Because you're vacating a portion of that, is it a portion of that that's
being used?
Pate: And in a recorded utility easement, are you positive of that?
Clark, S.: No, I think it was something that was done at the same time that this utility
easement was dedicated and so I think it probably is, but I can't. When
you say positive, I can't say positive. I'm 90+% probably, but.
Pate: Parks, do you have any comments?
Technical Plat Review
August 17, 2004
Page 31
Ohman: Yeah, we have a couple quick provisions. If you could call that walking
trail a multi -use trail. And then of course we'll coordinate with the utility
easement where that's located. And then to the top of the property where
the trail easement meets the curb right by the parking lot, right by the
handicap parking, you can see across the street that the trails don't really
match up. And since this is Center Street and since Center Street is what it
is, we'd really like those two to match up as much as possible.
Clark, S.: It is.
Ohman: We may want to look at a smaller radius on that curb into the parking area.
Clark, S.: I don't know that I can move our trail anymore to the east than what it is.
And since the one on the south isn't really built, we were hoping that
maybe you guys could kind of straighten that curb out just a little bit and
come closer to hitting us on our location. And the reason is, if you look,
our parking spaces are butted just as close as we can get them. And so,
it's a packed spot.
Ohman: I would suggest that you contact Steve Hatfield and really work out those
details. Work out the easement with him and then also work out how
those can line up. I know that we had our engineers and we might have
some room that we can move that.
Clark, S.: What's your minimum radius on this drive? Is that a Planning issue? Can
I go to 10 foot, 5 foot.
Pate: We'll find that out for you.
(Tape Switch)
Ohman: I think you have shown that this is a 14 foot wide trail, it's actually a 12
foot wide trail with 2 foot shoulders.
Campbell: Well, we struggled with Steve about that, and we just can't give him 16
feet.
Ohman: Well maybe it would be better as 12 foot with one foot shoulders on either
side.
Campbell: There had to be some give because we just didn't have room.
Ohman: Okay, and again all these are issues that you should call him about. His
number's on here if you don't already have it.
Technical Plat Review
August 17, 2004
Page 32
Campbell: And actually, when he was down here working with a contractor across
the street on that trail, he and I talked about coming straight across Center
Street. And he said that wasn't a problem, so, it's just a matter or making
the drawings reflect.
Ohman: Okay, I think those are the only ones, Multi -Use trail, the note, and then
the realignment and the cross section.
Pate: Thank you, Becca. The Tree Preservation/Landscape comments, if you
just want to flip way back, right after Matt's comments, that's where you
can locate them. Sorry we don't number those pages for you. Okay
Landscape Plan I already mentioned. The Tree Preservation Plan, what
you submitted with your Site Analysis actually needs to be on this Tree
Preservation Plan, the canopy here, the existing trees that are being
removed. This Tree Preservation Plan here, there's nothing on there to do
with trees at all. We need to see the canopy lines and all existing canopy;
I included a checklist, that's probably the simplest way to go through this
is just go through that checklist of Tree Preservation requirements. It does
need to be included, the location and percentage of existing, preserved,
and removed tree canopy. All the significant trees are to be identified and
included in a chart. And you can see how that's done here. They're
numbered and the diameter, canopy spread and a recommendation about
whether it will be removed or not. Number 2, prior to construction of the
retaining wall along the eastern edge of the trail, all tree protection
measures do need to be in place including root pruning, which will likely
need to occur. There are existing there that will be right along that
retaining wall and trail area.
Clark, S.: And realistically, that's going to pretty much be just, right now, the bank
is like this, so I don't know that it is going to take any actual dirt removal.
Pate: Okay, great.
Clark, S.: It will be very nominal if anything.
Pate: All the better for the health of those trees. I'm assuming the bank here, it
comes up to a bank here and then it slopes down, and the slope there is
where...
Clark, S.: Right. If you go out and look at it, the contours, they take a shot here and
a shot here and make them connect. But it goes up and then breaks.
Pate: That's something that any tree construction, make sure that's indicated in
the plan. And then of course, the number 3 comment, just make sure you
get all that's on our revisions, otherwise we can't proceed in the process.
Those are my comments. There are some significant trees out there that
Technical Plat Review
August 17, 2004
Page 33
I've seen. I went out there yesterday and was looking at those trees,
looking at all of Craig's comments because he had been out there and
making comments as well early on in the process. And with the removal
of a couple of these, and I'm not sure what percentage you're going to be
left with here, but it's pretty significant. Hopefully you'll be above....
Clark, S.: We're way above 20%.
Campbell: We're around 60%.
Clark, S.: Well I don't know that it is quite 60%, but it's probably 35%, just kind of
eyeballing it there.
Pate: Very good. On your last two sheets there, the Fire Department submitted
comments as well and hopefully this isn't the worst comment out of the
day, but what they said to us is that they need on this alley, a minimum of
26 feet for a three story building. They've got to have room for their
equipment to put down there. All their associated fire department.
Clark, S.: When they mean 26 feet, that doesn't have to be contained within the alley
easement, they only need to have 26 feet of space, is that correct?
Pate: I believe that's correct. It doesn't necessarily have to be right-of-way.
They need to be able to get in here and that requires 26 feet to put their
gear out. I would highly recommend that you talk with Captain Curry
about that. He's got some other comments here as well. It will need to be
sprinkled. Free standing Fire Department Connections, additional hydrant
at the intersection of Center Street, those are pretty standard comments.
The access road is the really big one because I know you're really tight for
space in here. It's not something I have any control over whatsoever.
That's something that they need to understand exactly what they can get in
there and they have their adequate room. Speaking of that, this west right-
of-way line here, is the alley actually outside of the right-of-way.
Clark, S.: Well, it's outside of what my surveyor says the right-of-way is. I'm not
sure, and Allen does good work, but who knows. This is the best we can
determine where the right-of-way is based on this over here. And we
didn't go through an extensive break down to figure out where it is, but
yes, the existing alley falls outside of what he has identified as the west
right-of-way.
Pate: Matt, would that, would we need to have permission from this owner, Mr.
Miller, to be able to utilize that? It's not really a property. The street is
there currently.
Clark, S.: There is a prescriptive easement there.
Technical Plat Review
August 17, 2004
Page 34
Casey: I think you're right.
Pate: Do we need to formalize that by any means and show an access easement
granted by that property owner?
Casey: It certainly wouldn't hurt to get permission to have the easement along
that, the City has the ability to maintain it.
Pate: The only concern I have would be redevelopment of this property when
that occurs.
Clark, S.: Well when it occurs, you best ask what right-of-way ya'11 want from him.
Pate: Okay. Utility comments? Anything?
Sargent: Do you have any idea how many ?? or which planes are going to require
starting easements.
Clark, S.: We were just talking about that, on where we might try to set
transformers, and I don't know that I have a good answer yet. It may end
up, this area in the center is starting to get pretty cramped. We're gong to
put back ?? in there and trying to fit a dumpster in there. And I don't
know if there'd be room for the transformer in there also. What's your
requirements as far as clearance around you transformer?
Sargent: We require 10 feet for a transformer.
Clark, S.: That won't work then. Those are about 20 feet apart.
Sargent: That causes a problem. We can't go in there. We can work on that later.
Do you know if this is going to be three phase or is it all going to be single
phase?
Clark, S.: I don't think there would be any need for a three phase. You tell me,
standard small scale kitchens, there wouldn't be any need for a three phase
on that. I mean, three phase is for when you get into big motors and stuff
isn't it? Big electrical. This is going to be a tea room. It will be very
small scale.
Sargent: We can work with you later on that. I'm just going to ask for a 20 foot
utility easement along Meadow Street.
Clark, S.: The only issue is putting a wall in it. We show a wall extending nearly to
Meadow and I'm not sure if that's actual or if that's just more graphical.
But I don't have a problem with it.
Technical Plat Review
August 17, 2004
Page 35
Sargent: Do you know how tall that retaining wall is?
Clark, S.: 1 V2 feet, 2 feet. This is going to be a little stack -blocked wall. And it's
something where the slopes are going off and just to try to, we can't quite
make the grade transition there.
Sargent: A small wall like that doesn't affect your easement.
Clark, S.: Only in the sense that it does for the City's rules. Now we had also e-
mailed you or faxed you a copy of this alley vacation and we hadn't got it
back from you.
Sargent: I haven't looked at it yet.
Clark, S.: Well it went out two weeks ago. I need SWEPCO and I need
Southwestern Bell and Dave ?? is who we're lacking still for utility
companies.
Sargent: Yeah, I haven't received one.
Clark, S.: Well let me refax it. But do you see anything, any issues with reducing
the street right-of-way back to just an alley?
Sargent: No.
Clark, S.: You had asked for just a 15 foot easement.
Gibson: Well, I didn't know how you were going to service the buildings, and I
was just asking for something just to get up through there on that east side
of that alley.
Clark, S.: As close as we're trying to build this, we're trying to build within like 5
feet of what the alley would be.
Gibson: Yeah, I can see now the way you got your buildings. The way the
buildings are set in there. You know, that's going to be a problem.
Clark, S.: Right now, are you overhead on this pole?
Gibson: As a matter of fact, this has been commercial and storage, there's never
been any cable service down in there. But now that it's going to be
residential, I am sure they are going to want them.
Clark, S.: If we make this a utility easement along this trail, right now the water
department wants it as a waterline easement because they have an existing
Technical Plat Review
August 17, 2004
Page 36
4 inch here and it's two tight in there for them. If we put a 20 foot
easement, can you run down the side of this with a waterline?
Gibson: Yeah. I think they require 10 feet for the waterline? What do you think
Jim, can we come between the walking trail and the building? Requires us
to bond to power, so it just makes sense that wherever he sets his
transformers, I'm probably going to have a pedestal there too and go to
that same portion of the building to the entry and bond right there.
Sargent: I'm looking at probably serving somehow off these landings across the
alley there Larry.
Gibson: Is it coming over right behind the buildings or in between them here if you
can? If there's enough room. I think he said there's 20 feet. If you set a
transformer in here and it's less than 20 feet, if they put a little wall around
that, won't that.
Sargent: Depends on what the walls are.
Gibson: Can't you set closer to the buildings if they have a safety, a flash wall.
Sargent: If the walls on the buildings are not combustible and no doors and
windows, we can get closer.
Clark, S.: So the 10 foot is a safety precaution. You also have to have, don't you
have to have certain clear space to get in with your poles.
Sargent: Yeah, from the front of the transformer.
Clark, S.: That's from the front of the transformer. So if we face it out this way and
have room to get in and the dumpster's in there and protect the building
from a safety standpoint, then you can be closer?
Sargent: Right. That's if the building does not have any doors on that wall.
Gibson: If he does that then I can, three feet from this transformer to one side of
the other of this transformer, I can service the two buildings off of one. It
puts one there, instead of two or three or whatever it is going to take.
Clark, S.: We may need to look at someplace else for the dumpster. That would be
the other option, but we'll take that and try to come up with a solution.
Gibson: Just let me know then. I'll need to know for sure where they're going to
wire the outlets out of there when they go in and start building those
apartments inside. Is there going to be like 6 apartments in one and 7 in
another?
Technical Plat Review
August 17, 2004
Page 37
Clark, S.: And then there's commercial.
Gibson: I'm calling them apartments because I don't know what else to call them.
I'm sure you've got another...
Clark, S.: This is actually three levels. And if you have the alley level is parking,
which will be down here, then you have, this is commercial area and then
this is a residential area above it.
Gibson: But there will be six residential and let's say in this building there will be
six residential and what four commercial or two?
Clark, S.: Something like that. Five maybe. And when we say commercial the idea
is that they'd be small shops.
Gibson: Eight units? Something like that in each building?
Clark, S.: Yeah. This one where it has the tea room has a smaller, because the tea
room is a little bit bigger.
Gibson: Yeah, for the phone, I mean if Jim says he can do it there, if we can do it,
that's one location for everything.
Clark, S.: Which size transformer might you need? Physically, what's the, if we've
got 24 different meters on this thing, does that limit the transformer or do
you have to go with something bigger to get that many services off of it?
Sargent: We wanted Jeff to look at transformers sometime, but we'll have to put a
pedestal conjunction box so that the transformer can have additional
connections.
Clark, S.: Physically, what does that do to us?
Sargent: If it's single phase, you're talking about a 4 X 4 transformer.
Clark, S.: 4 X 4 transformer plus an additional pedestal. Okay.
Gibson: Where you're talking about putting the dumpster, is that going to be grass?
Clark, S.: Well if has a dumpster, it'll be paved.
Gibson: Okay. That might be another issue. We'll have to come in and sit
something there, and maybe get a two inch conduit from there over to each
building or something like that if you're talking about...
Technical Plat Review
August 17, 2004
Page 38
Clark, S.: If we end up with your transformers in there, then we may have to locate
the dumpster somewhere else and it'll be grass.
Gibson: Okay. I'm sure they're going to want cable for the apartments and also
commercial, with data services, I don't know if you're going to need...
Clark, S.: Well they may go satellite, you never know.
Pate: Revisions are due on the 25`h and if you have any questions about, for
some reason it doesn't go into the next cycle, we can let you know how to
schedule it in.
Clark, S.: I guess the question is, I think we prefer to try to process this and the
vacation all together.
Pate: That would be more clear and understandable for everyone.
Clark, S.: What's the deadline for, I mean I know the original submittal for vacations
is the same as our original submittal for formal projects, so. I've got to
have all of their documents before I can do that submittal. The question is,
I've got to go back to an original time frame?
Pate: Correct.
Clark, S.: And go through this process again? On the street vacation?
Pate: The vacations actually won't be heard at this level. But it's tracked in the
same development process, the same cycle. Everything's broken into
cycles, all developments. We used to have them all over the place, and no
one understood what was going on, so, now everything's submitted on one
date, and you'll be on the next cycle is number 18, it has a corresponding
date that it goes to Planning.
Clark, S.: And that's due tomorrow. So I'm not going to do that one.
Ptae: September 2nd would be the next one. And then we can just pull this, and
get revisions in whenever you want to.
Clark, S.: And when would that go to Planning Commission if it's September 2nd?
Pate: October IIth
Clark, S.: There's no way to, since it doesn't, the vacation doesn't have to go back
through all of these steps specifically. Is there not any way for us, since
we've already been through it on this one, to come back in when we have
those and get back into the cycle at Subdivision submittal.
Technical Plat Review
August 17, 2004
Page 39
Pate: The issue is the vacation doesn't even get published on this agenda. So
it's got to be published on this agenda and advertised.
Clark, S.: For this meeting.
Pate: Correct. Because it's part of our in-house. We don't hear them, but
they're published on the agenda. I'll talk to Jan and Dawn in our office to
see if there's anything we can do for you, but.
Clark, S.: We've already sent out the notifications on those to our adjoining
properties, we sent those at the same time that we sent our original
notification on this. Obviously is too concerned if they're not here today.
I didn't know if we could jump that.
Pate: Best case scenario, go ahead and submit your vacations tuff tomorrow.
Clark, S.: Even if I don't have everybody's.
Pate: That's what I'll talk to Jan about.
Clark, S.: We've got it ready and I've got several back, but I don't have everybody's
back. I guess the other question on that one is, and ya'll don't have to sit
for this is we're done. As far as I'm concerned, I'm. The only people that
I need to get notifications back on this alley vacation would be this guy
and this guy. These people, we own this property. These guys even
though they're adjacent to our property and it depends on how you read it.
We've sent these guys out, so all I need to do is get something back from
them and get back something from him.
Pate: Okay. Thank you. Meeting adjourned.