HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-04-13 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF
THE TECHNICAL PLAT REVIEW COMMITTEE
A regularly scheduled meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee was held on
April 13, 2005 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W.
Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN
LSP 05-1472 & 05-1473: (Cullers, pp 243) Forwarded
Page 2
LSP 05-1478: (James Sharp, pp 398) Forwarded
Page 4
FPL 05-1469: (Stonebridge Meadows Phase III, pp 608) Forwarded
Page 6
FPL 05-1477: (River Hills, pp 569) Forwarded
Page 13
LSD 05-1468: (TGI Friday's, pp 173) Forwarded at time
Page 16 Conditional Use is Submitted
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Johney Boles – Arkansas Western Gas
Mike Phipps – Ozark Electric Coop.
Sue Clouser—Southwestern Bell
Mike Moore – Cox Communications
STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT
Suzanne Morgan, Planning Division
Brent O'Neal, Engineering Division
Kyle Curry, Fire Marshal's Office
Matt Mihalevich, Parks Division
Technical Plat Review
April 13, 2005
Page 2
LSP 05-1472 & 05-1473: Lot Split (Cullers, pp 243) was submitted by Wendell
Cullers for property located at 3012 Hughmount Road. The property is in the Planning
Area and contains approximately 21.05 acres. The request is to divide the subject
property into three tracts of 16.75, 2.39 and 1.91 acres.
Morgan: Welcome to the Technical Plat Review Committee meeting of April 13,
2005. There are seven items on the agenda. The first two we will hear
together. Those are LSP 05-1472 & 1473 for Cullers submitted by
Wendell Cullers for property located at 3012 Hughmount Road. It is in
the Planning Area and they are proposing to split the total 21.05 acres. Is
there a representative for this?
Cullers: I'm Wendell Cullers.
Morgan: These are out comments for these splits. With regard to Planning
comments, the county records do show that you and your wife are both
owners of record so if you could just have her sign the application. I put in
a copy of the application there for you. With regard to the plat, I do have
a couple of comments here. The adjacent property will need to be noted
whether it is in the county or the city. All but this adjacent property to the
east is in the county. There is a strip of property here that is in the city.
That will just need to be noted and zoning on the plat. If your surveyor
has any questions he is welcome to call. The vicinity map will need to be
updated. There are some Master Street Plan streets that need to be shown.
Lierly connects to Adams Road, or it will eventually. We will need to see
those updates on this map. It looks as though the surveyor noted on here
that there was no research done on easements to find out the existing
easements on the property. In order to go ahead and process this survey
we will need to know what easements are existing on the property so that
we can make sure that we are not dedicating, requesting any additional
easements if they are already there, just to know what the layout of the
property is.
Cullers: Is the city water easement shown?
Morgan: There is a water line shown but not the easement. That will need to be
researched. I assume that this existing home has a septic system. That
will need to be shown as well. We have certain regulations for setbacks
from new property lines to septic systems. We just need to make sure that
if this tract is going to be split here and here we are meeting those
requirements for the septic system. I have also included this Certificate of
Ownership and Dedication block. It will need to be put on this plat and
then you and your wife will need to sign it before it is filed at the county.
With regard to right of way, it is shown right here the Master Street Plan
right of way so an additional 5' of right of way will need to be dedicated
on the property to comply with the 35' from centerline. Additionally, this
Technical Plat Review
April 13, 2005
Page 3
Cullers:
Morgan:
O'Neal:
Cullers:
O'Neal:
Cullers:
Mike Phipps
Phipps:
piece of the property will need to be dedicated. This is shown as part of
this overall tract. So you are in ownership of this.
Not anymore.
According to the survey it is part of the overall property boundaries so it is
not taken out of here. County approval is also required. Once this goes
through the city process the Washington County Planner will have to
review it as well. This is the first and second split on this overall tract so
there is one more lot split allowed. Any further divisions will have to go
through Preliminary Plat and Final Plat. Brent, do you have any
Engineering comments?
I just want to go back to the existing water line. It is stated here it is PVC,
I don't believe it is a PVC water line so that needs to be removed from the
label. The existing water line is located within the right of way at this
time.
Are you talking about the city water line?
Yes.
It is a PVC, we just put a tap on it.
— Ozark Electric Coop.
The existing overhead power lines have a 30' UE with them, 15' on each
side. That is by prescription for those lines, 15' on each side. If we can
just note that that there is an easement with those lines. Just outside your
water line. We would also like to ask for a 20' easement outside the right
of way for any future service along Hughmount Road.
Mike Moore — Cox Communications
Moore:
I don't have anything else to add.
Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell
Clouser:
I agree with the request for that easement.
Morgan: Revisions are due April 20, 2005 by 10:00 a.m. If you have any questions
let us know.
Technical Plat Review
April 13, 2005
Page 4
LSP 05-1478: Lot Split (James Sharp, pp 398) was submitted by Buckley Blew for
property located at 1579 N. Sunshine Road. The property is in the Planning Area and
contains approximately 6.09 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into two
tracts of 5.03 and 1.06 acres.
Morgan: The third item is a Lot Split for James Sharp submitted by Buckley Blew
for property located at 1579 Sunshine Road. It is in the Planning Area.
Based on what I could find with county records, the property has been
subdivided once and then there are several different parcel numbers for
mobile homes. I believe some of them are void because the mobile homes
are no longer there. If there are any other structures on this piece of
property just have those noted. With regard to plat requirements, just note
the adjacent property owner information, with that, note if it is in the
county or if it is in the city, note the zoning. It looks as though this Tract 3
is within the city. The parcel number shows that it is in the county but the
zoning map shows that it is in the city. Note Plat Page 398. If you would
show the general location of adjacent property lines. On the vicinity map,
if you could update it I think Moonlight Drive is actually in a different
configuration than that. Also, if you could show the city limits line and
the Master Street Plan and then if there is any floodway or floodplain in
the vicinity show the bounds of that. Add a title block to the Lot Split.
Show in the title block that it is a Lot Split. There are several driveways
shown and I assume that they access adjacent properties. They look as
though they are shown to be within the property. This property owner can
leave it or if they want to grant an access easement along those drives to
the other people this is the time to do it if they want to do that. It is kind
of up to them. With regard to street requirements, Sunshine Road at this
location is a local street which requires 50' of right of way and there is an
existing 60' so no right of way is dedicated adjacent to the property line on
the existing street. However, there is a planned major arterial street that
actually bisects this property. You are familiar with the layout of South
Hamestring Creek Addition, that minor arterial is set to run along the back
of those properties, which would result in 110' right of way through this
property. That is what the Master Street Plan shows. Hopefully we can
identify that on the city map and where that is located. At this time staff is
requesting that right of way be shown. If you have any questions about
that I can help you. Washington County Planning approval is also
required prior to recordation of the Lot Split.
Brent O'Neal — Staff Engineer
O'Neal:
The first comment is to show the existing water line along Sunshine. I'm
not sure what size it is. It is fairly new. Show the existing water meter for
the house on tract "B" and show the existing septic tank for tract "B" and
we also need a letter of approval from the Health Depaitinent for that
Technical Plat Review
April 13, 2005
Page 5
system. Suzanne and I have been discussing access easements. I'm not
sure if they are obligated to provide access easements.
Morgan: I wouldn't say that they would be but if they wanted to, this would be the
time.
O'Neal: Also, just to confirm the Master Street Plan right of way that is adjacent to
the property and show all easements on the property.
Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop.
Phipps: Cox has an overhead line that runs across that Tract 5 down that access
road that needs to be shown on here. There is a 30' UE with that overhead
power line. Also, on Tract 5 is there an off site easement from the tract to
the north? You are showing a 10' building setback, is there another
easement on that other side or do you know?
Blew: I don't know.
Phipps: If there is not we are going to need that to be a 20' UE all the way from
Sunshine Road. That will get us back to that tract if we want to do
something in the future back there. A 25' easement up along the front
with the building setback would be good.
Morgan: Was that 20' UE along the north or south?
Phipps: North. That's all I have.
Johney Boles — Arkansas Western Gas
Boles: No comment.
Mike Moore — Cox Communications
Moore: Along with the one on the north there is a 20' easement, we need to make
sure that it is on the south side too so we can get that south side served.
There is 10' off of this property line, I think we will be ok if it adds up to
20', if not, we need to make it a 20'.
Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell
Clouser: No comment.
Morgan: Revisions are due April 20, 2005 by 10:00 a.m.
Technical Plat Review
April 13, 2005
Page 6
FPL 05-1469: Final Plat (Stonebridge Meadows Phase III, pp 608) was submitted by
Gerald Tomlinson for property located at the southeast corner of River Meadows Drive
and Goff Farm Road. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units
per acre and contains approximately 20.44 acres. The request is to approve the Final Plat
of a residential subdivision with 61 single family lots.
Morgan: The next item is the Final Plat for Stonebridge Meadows Phase III for
property located along Goff Farm Road zoned RSF-4. With regard to
submittal requirements, when all revisions have been made please submit
a final project disk for your plat. I have some questions with regard to lot
width and lot area. If you could show the lot area on each of these lots. I
think it is something we missed with Phase II. That can be noted on a
chart. It looks as though there is enough room that you might be able to
put it on the lot. With regard to lot width, on Lot 114, 115, and 138 it
looks as though there are some areas that say 53.53.
??.
Morgan:
Tomlinson:
Morgan:
Tomlinson:
Morgan:
Those have been corrected, I found those yesterday.
Ok. With regard to the plat page, this is actually on pp 608. Dimension
the right of way in various places if you could. It is shown once down
here and it may be added a couple of other times so that it is clear as a
follow along. With regard to easements, there is a sewer line that comes
out to the very edge of that utility easement or manhole on Lot 137 so you
will need to have additional easement adjacent to that. We require 10'
from the line. You may be able to extend the utility easement around that.
We need to check the location of that manhole too, it may not be at the
very edge. You are going by looking at that circle with the utility easement
line?
Right, we need to get 10' from that line.
Ok, we will verify that.
Between Lots 100 and 101 the sewer line is offset from the property line
which creates an odd situation with the utility easement. Adjacent to Lots
75 and 76 that sewer line is on the property line. I don't know if it is
possible to shift the property line at this time to coincide with that sewer
line. It is difficult to know how much of the utility easement is on one lot
verses the other because it is not directly centered on the lot line. If it is
not possible to adjust lot lines there or adjust the utility easement so that it
is the same on both sides, then call it out specifically how large that is on
Lot 100 and how large it is on Lot 101. Another comment on the utility
easement, this utility easement needs to come out to the very edge of the
property. This future Phase IV needs to be a lot within the overall
subdivision. It is not shown at this time as a lot, it is just property that is
Technical Plat Review
April 13, 2005
Page 7
Tomlinson:
Morgan:
Tomlinson.
Morgan:
Tomlinson:
Morgan:
Tomlinson:
Morgan:
Tomlinson:
Morgan:
Tomlinson:
Meadows:
Morgan:
Tomlinson:
Morgan:
out there and was never incorporated. Everything that is south of the park
and north of these little lots needs to be one lot.
That is going to be in a different Phase, you wouldn't want to make a lot
of that would you?
You can make a lot in this and then come back through and subdivide it.
What if we don't want to do that?
It was part of the Preliminary Plat, overall subject property.
It wasn't ever shown as a lot was it?
It was shown as a future phase. You are right, it never had a lot number
on it I don't believe. But this needs to have it's own legal description or
else it is part of some tract out there. It needs to be designated as a lot
number.
I guess I don't understand why there can't be some land out there. There is
land out there everywhere.
That is true.
If you call that a lot and then you go back you are talking about possibly
having to go through Lot Line Adjustments and some other stuff then you
may have created more problems.
I don't think that would be the case. If this is called out as a lot within this
subdivision if you ever want to come back here and subdivide it, then it
would just be a Preliminary Plat on lot such and such.
Do you have any problem with that Bill?
It will be ok.
It will change your legal description and your legal description will
include that now.
I guess I don't see the need for it right now. It is shown as a future phase
and it is shown that we are going to use part of this land for parks
dedication.
I guess the situation that we have is whenever this came through as a
Preliminary Plat all of it, this phase and this phase, we were given a
certain legal description, this is the subject property for the phases that we
Technical Plat Review
April 13, 2005
Page 8
Tomlinson:
Morgan:
are going to be doing. This was included in that description so we were
working under one legal description that would be dedicated and finaled
as Phase II, which was the part of the overall legal description and then
this would be the remainder of it to include this area. We don't want to
create a situation, several times we have found that people want to split
lots that in our records had never been split before, and we have to find out
where it came from. If this is not going to be a lot within the subdivision,
it is part of another tract or it is just a random piece of property that has no
identity, description.
1 am just thinking you are adding a lot so is it going to increase any kind
of fees?
It doesn't increase parks fees, those are based on units and you have
already dedicated a sufficient amount of parkland for it. I can't think of
any way in which it would increase any fees. Because this is a potential
future phase, go ahead and remove these lines. I don't want you to bind
yourself to anything. You wouldn't be committing yourself to this layout.
I don't know if you are planning on a subdivision sign in this area?
Tomlinson. No.
Morgan:
I believe you have got the street names approved by Jim Johnson, the 911
Coordinator. Those are all of my comments.
Matt Mihalevich — Parks Department
Mihalevich:
The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board accepted land dedication on
June 2°d. The deed has been received by the Parks Department for 5.62
acres for Phases I, II and III. Please coordinate with the Parks Division to
pick up boundary signs. The developer is responsible for installing those
signs and putting those on the property line so a survey is required for that.
We have those signs there and can give them to you. Those are all of my
comments.
Brent O'Neal — Staff Engineer
O'Neal:
First, I will read the comments from our Interim Floodplain Administrator,
Mr. Matt Casey. Lots 116, 117, 118, 137 and 138 need to have minimum
finished floor elevations established. Along that boundary there has been
established based flood elevations and so those elevations will need to be
2' above that. You can contact Matt for any questions about that. On my
comments, for comment number two, I do have confirmation that the final
inspection was done. I do have a punch list here. We just need to make
sure that all of those are addressed before we sign the Final Plat. If you
could show the water line a little bit darker and the sewer line a little bit
Technical Plat Review
April 13, 2005
Page 9
darker, it is hard to pick them up on the plat. The 20' utility easement
along the north property line, if you could extend that on to the east to
intercept the east property line. Show the water meter locations and the
sewer tap locations. We need to add a table for the street width, right of
way, green space and sidewalk. Also, show any floodplain on the vicinity
map. The rest of the comments are standard comments. Number twelve
through twenty one are standard notes that need to be added to the plat. If
you would also note on there detention was provided for within Phase II.
Kyle Curry — Fire Marshal's Office
Curry:
The only thing I have, since it is Final Plat, it is too late but in the future,
hydrant spacing shouldn't be over 500'. You are good to go on this but I
just wanted to let you guys know.
Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop.
Phipps: We have already designed this. I don't have the design on this so I need to
get with the construction manager and see what we've done. We need a
10' UE on street lights. I'm not sure where we are in the back where
we've got service to these. I can come by today after I get a copy of that
and we can look at that.
Johney Boles — Arkansas Western Gas
Boles:
We have also already done a design layout on this and I talked to you
yesterday about the easement that we need between Lots 115 and 116. We
need 20' on each property line between 115 and 116 on the front and rear
property. If my understanding is correct, the only front lot service lots
will be Lots 116, 117, 118, 137 and 138, is that correct?
??: Correct.
Mike Moore — Cox Communications
Moore: I've got my design in on this also.
Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell
Clouser: If you can just give us a call when you start your first home on this Phase,
it will probably be done before you start on this one, but just to let us
know that you are building.
Boles:
I have a quick question, what are these dashed lines that you are showing
along this south property line beginning at the center of Lot 112 going east
to the east property line of 116?
Technical Plat Review
April 13, 2005
Page 10
Tomlinson: I think at one time that was a drainage swale. I don't think that is in
included in there now.
Boles: If it is, is it going to be concrete?
Tomlinson: No.
Morgan: Revisions are due April 20, 2005 by 10:00 a.m.
Technical Plat Review
April 13, 2005
Page 11
FPL 05-1476: Final Plat (Maple Valley, pp 363) Was submitted by Dave Jorgensen for
property located at 2809 Mount Comfort Road. The property is zoned RSF-4,
Residential Single Family, four units per acre, and contains approximately 5.69 acres
The request is to approve the Final Plat of a residential subdivision with 19 single family
lots proposed.
Morgan: Next is FPL 05-1476 for Maple Valley submitted by Dave Jorgensen for
property located at 2809 N. Mount Comfort Road. For plat requirements,
please include the church lot on the vicinity map. Add a lot number for
the church property as opposed to out lot for future reference. Also,
change the note reference on Number 7 to Elderberry Road and add an
additional street light on Elderberry to meet the maximum 300' space
requirement. An assessment for an additional street light on Mount
Comfort will be part of the Mount Comfort assessment. Remove the
existing driveway to the church from the Final Plat. The driveway will
need to be closed and relocated prior to Final Plat recordation. The
change of the condition of approval for the improvements to Mount
Comfort Road will require Planning Commission approval. Staff will be
finalizing the amount of assessments for these improvements including
pavement to centerline, curb, gutter and sidewalks. All of the normal
requirements. This amount will need to be paid prior to signing the Final
Plat. An assessment in the amount of $3,975 shall be paid for the un -
constructed portion of Sauter Lane. Also, prior to signing the Final Plat,
the sidewalk along the eastside of the church will need to be constructed
from Mount Comfort to the intersection of Lot 20. That is mainly because
there aren't going to be any new homes or anything built. That is really
the only way that we can be sure that that will be done. Locate any
subdivision signs.
Brackett: Can that just be bonded?
Morgan: We would rather see that it is completed at this time. It may be an option
since this has to go before the Planning Commission, they may be able to
make that recommendation. Have you received your final inspection?
Brackett: No we haven't, we are still working.
Morgan: We can take a look at that. Locate any subdivision signs outside of the
right of way and coordinate that with the utility companies if one is
proposed.
Matt Mihalevich — Parks Division
Mihalevich: September 13, 2004 the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
recommended accepting money in the amount of $10,545 for 19 single
Technical Plat Review
April 13, 2005
Page 12
family units. Those fees have not been paid and must be paid before the
issuance of Final Plat.
Brent O'Neal — Staff Engineer
O'Neal:
First I will read the comment from our Interim Floodplain Administrator,
Mr. Matt Casey. Include a floodplain statement on the plat. On my
comments, I neglected to put one on here, but for the offsite utility and
drainage easement, if you could reference a document number. The rest of
my comments are fairly standard. The sidewalk along the church lot, if
you could make sure the alignment is coordinated with Chuck Rutherford.
The assessment along Mount Comfort, if you could provide a final cost
estimate with that for review then we will get that taken care of. Also,
there are a couple of references to Elder Road, it is Elderberry. Label the
100 -year water surface elevations. The rest of my comments are straight
forward. Comments 13 through 22 are standard notes that need to be
added to the plat.
Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop.
Phipps: Chris, this is single family isn't it?
Brackett: Yes.
Phipps: That's all I have.
Johney Boles — Arkansas Western Gas
Boles: No comment.
Mike Moore — Cox Communications
Moore: No comment.
Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell
Clouser: Just have them call when they start building. We will need crossings
along the south there too.
Technical Plat Review
April 13, 2005
Page 13
FPL 05-1477: Final Plat (River Hills, pp 569) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen for
property located at Highway 16 East south of the David Lyle subdivision. The property
is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 6.91 acres. The request is
to approve the Final Plat of a residential subdivision with 18 single family lots proposed.
Morgan: Next on the agenda is the Final Plat for River Hills submitted by
Jorgensen & Associates for property near the David Lyle subdivision off
of Hwy. 16 East. The request is to approve a Final Plat with 18 single
family lots proposed. Fees are due in the amount of $10,750 for
mitigation requirements. Tree preservation comments were included in
the packet. If you would like to do an on site mitigation you will need to
submit a planting plan. Again, a final inspection shall be performed prior
to the revision for Subdivision Committee.
Brackett: It has been done.
Morgan: A Warranty Deed shall be submitted for review and approval for recording
the dedicated right of way along Highway 16 East prior to signing the
Final Plat. Single family homes are allowed on this property subject to a
Bill of Assurance amended by the City Council. Two family units are
not allowed on any of the lots. If you could put a note on the Final Plat
stating this requirement. Also, the density is 2.6 units per acre. Is the
sidewalk on the west side of Falcon Road connecting north? Please show
the existing sidewalk, if so.
Brackett: I don't think they are in but we will show it.
Morgan: Locate any proposed signage outside of the right of way. Coordinate all
addresses and street names with the 911 Coordinator. Parks?
Matt Mihalevich — Parks Division
Mihalevich: The original owner of this property previously dedicated land for Bayyari
Park so we went to the Parks Board assuming that that would be the
dedication for this property. Now that that ownership has changed, we are
kind of re -looking at this and it may have to go back through the Parks
Board. Right now we are reviewing it and would like to set something up
with you guys.
Brackett: As soon as possible.
Brent O'Neal — Staff Engineer
O'Neal:
I do have the punch list for the final inspection. I heard that they are well
underway and most of these have been done. My comments are pretty
straight forward comments. Label the 100 -year water surface elevation of
Technical Plat Review
April 13, 2005
Page 14
the detention pond. The sidewalk along Hwy 16, you need to coordinate
the alignment with Chuck Rutherford, the Sidewalk Administrator. Show
the floodplain on the vicinity map. Comments 11-20 are standard
comments that need to be put on the Final Plat.
Kyle Curry — Fire Marshal's Office
Curry: It is a Final Plat so no big deal. One thing I noted is the island at the entry
point.
Brackett: That was in before this.
Curry: You are good to go with us.
Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop.
Phipps: You have these utility crossings here, are we coming through the back? If
we are, we need one between 19 and 20. I thought we had crossings
across these entrances.
Boles: It is already built.
Brackett: There may be crossings, it may be part of David Lyle, but I don't know if
there are or not. As far as those crossings, that was put there because of
our pond and not having enough room for easement there. I assume it is
going to come down and across in front of 20 and move around. If you
have a better way to do it, if you want to go between 19 and 20 that
shouldn't be a problem to get that easement.
Phipps: I know on 10 and 11 I need a 20' UE to get back to that existing 70 lot
subdivision. Where you have that crossing, if I go into the back, which
would be between 13 and 14, a 20' UE there, 10' on each side and then
between 11 and 12, the detention pond lot, to get me back to Lot 149 in
the existing subdivision.
Brackett: Do you want 19 and 22 also?
Phipps: Yes. I think our design is to go in the back. 17 and 18, I need a 10' UE for
that streetlight. For all the street lights I will need a 10' UE. Do they have
the sidewalk there?
Brackett: No.
Phipps: If they start it we will need 2" conduits to access those streetlights.
Technical Plat Review
April 13, 2005
Page 15
Mike Moore — Cox Communications
Moore: I don't have any further comments.
Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell
Clouser: I agree with the utility easement comments. If you could call us on this
one as well when they start building.
Morgan: Revisions are due April 20, 2005 by 10:00 a.m.
Technical Plat Review
April 13, 2005
Page 16
LSD 05-1468: Large Scale Development (TGI Friday's, pp 173) was submitted by
McClelland Consulting Engineers for property located at Lot 16B, CMN II, 463 E. Van
Asche Drive. T he property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains
approximately 2.10 acres. The request is to approve the development of a restaurant with
approximately 5,914 sq.ft. and 117 parking spaces proposed.
Morgan: Our final item is LSD 05-1468 for TGI Friday's submitted by McClelland
Consulting Engineers for property at Lot 16B of CMN II. The property is
zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.10
acres. With regard to submittal, one of the things that is required is
elevations. The elevations that were submitted were not in color, as
required. Please resubmit elevations in color for a full evaluation.
Additionally, a full size color elevation, board mounted, and material
sample board is required for Subdivision Committee review. Please
submit these items with the revisions. The labels on the architectural
elevations need to reflect north, south, east and west and not front, rear,
etc. The rear elevation does not contain a great deal of articulation, which
is one of the requirements of the commercial design standards. If the
applicant could review this elevation to better address the visible rear,
including the incorporation of materials used to articulate the other three
facades, as well as removing the wood board screen fence and substituting
a material utilized in the building. Also, if you could reduce the amount of
pages submitted with the Planning Commission review. The required
information may be reduced to the site plan, grading/drainage/erosion
control on one sheet, and the landscape plan. Please retain the cover sheet
or transfer owner/developer information to the site plan. This will make it
easier to handle. With regard to this development, they are proposing 117
parking spaces, 59 spaces are required for the development with a
maximum of 76 spaces utilizing the 30% increase. The applicant is
requesting additional spaces over the 30% required, it will require a
Conditional Use Permit and this will have to be approved at the same time
or prior to this application. This will be delayed then until that application
is submitted and then be put back on the same round. Please submit the
appropriate application and staff will evaluate that request and make a
recommendation to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission
has approved similar requests in the past or with a parking ratio over that
which is permitted in this area, averages about 36% and this request is
about 54% over the maximum which is allowed, which would make this
the highest in the area, and perhaps in the city. With that in mind, please
revisit the need for the number of requested spaces and take this
information into account for consideration of the Conditional Use.
Morgan, M.: With the number of spaces we have, we are required 30% over the
minimum, correct?
Technical Plat Review
April 13, 2005
Page 17
Morgan:
No, it is 30% over the 59. The ratio is 1:100 sq.ft. and then you can go
30% above that, which brings you to 76. You are requesting 54% more
than the 76. Typically it has been about 36% average in this area.
Remove signage on the architectural elevations to meet the ordinance
requirement. This is in the Design Overlay District and a maximum of
two wall signs are permitted not to exceed 20% of the wall area or 200
sq.ft., whichever is less. Only indirect lighting may be used for
illumination of signs. If any neon or LED lighting is proposed on the
building, please indicate it on the architectural elevations. With regard to
plat requirements, please label the floodway and floodplain as well as the
restricted areas. For street requirements, please supply a letter from
Logan's acknowledging this cross access to the west that was previously
not planned with the Logan's development. We are in support of this
access. However, we need to verify that the adjacent property owner has
allowed it. Also, show existing sidewalks on the site plan. For the
driveway and parking lot areas, again, a Conditional Use is required for
parking over 76 spaces. The project will be tabled to track that initial use.
If you could locate the four bike racks on the site plan. A minimum of 5'
landscape area is required adjacent to the side property line along the
south. You may be able to decrease the length of your parking to 17' to
accommodate that. By reducing the length to 17', which is something that
we allow in order to meet that landscaping requirement, you could have
some compact in there if you are not able to get that 5', you could have up
to 35% of the parking compact. Also, in the parking lot landscaping
ordinance, we allow for a maximum of 12 consecutive spaces without a
tree island. Please add a tree island to the north side of the property line.
You could request a waiver, but we would not be in support of a waiver.
Morgan, M.: We are looking at adding additional landscaping around that area to soften
that. What we are doing is bringing the sidewalk connection through an
island break, that is not a landscape island per say, but we are adding
additional landscape to that to soften it.
Morgan: We have seen something like that before, but it was just a larger island
where it had the sidewalk in there and the area for a tree.
Morgan, M.: We are trying to retain the maximum number for parking that we can.
There is a marketing problem out here today, these restaurants are filled
up and there is no place to park out there and so that is what we are trying
to address.
Morgan: We would advise the addition of a landscape island. If you would request
a waiver from that requirement staff would not be in support of that. Also,
include a note on the site plan stating that all parking lot lighting shall be
shielded, directed downward, utilize sodium halide lighting and meet the
ordinance requirements. Coordinate the placement of a monument sign
Technical Plat Review
April 13, 2005
Page 18
Brent O'Neal
with the utility representatives. Also, the wood board fence material noted
on the rear elevation needs to be changed to materials that are on the
architectural elevations. If you have any comments or questions with
regard to screening the enclosures, please let us know. Also included in
here are comments with regard to the tree preservation and landscape plan.
The tree preservation plan has been waived, there were no trees or
significant groupings of trees existing on this property. There are about
five landscape comments for you to review.
— Staff Engineer
O'Neal:
First I will read the comments from our Interim Floodplain Administrator,
Matt Casey. You need to show the floodplain on the grading plan. Label
the base flood elevations, the base floor elevation of the building must be
at least 2' above the base flood elevation and proper erosion control
measures must be installed at the discharge points to prevent damage to
the wetlands. In regards to that, my comment number eight, we would like
to see a different proposal that would reduce the impact of the discharge
that would spread it out. One of the other restaurants that just came
through has a proposal and you can contact me and I can get you some
information on what we have proposed. The rest of my comments, you
need to show the existing water and sewer mains adjacent to the property.
You can show them on every sheet. I believe that is the utility easement
along Mall and Van Asche, it shows that your monument sign is within the
utility easement and will have to be removed. Label the sewer that crosses
Van Asche as existing or proposed, I believe that it is existing at this point.
Also, if you could clarify that existing sewer line along the western
boundary. Indicate the method that you are proposing to connect to the
water main along Mall and the size of the surface and the proposed
location of the water meter. On the drainage report, if you could revise the
report to show any offsite areas. I believe there is a little bit of the flow of
this parking that will be entering this site, so if you could just confirm that
and revise that report. I would like to have that signed by a Professional
Engineer. Also, on Exhibit "2", "3" and "4", if you could provide a bit
more clarification on those. Also, on the summary reports for the
hydrograph, you are showing that you are proposing detention but there is
no detention proposed for the site, so if you could clarify that as well.
Also, on the access point on Van Asche, if you could show the sidewalk
continuous through the drive.
Kyle Curry- Fire Marshal's Office
Curry:
Just the general stuff, all access roads shall carry 75,000 pounds and 20' in
width. As far as the hydrant locations in that area, we might need to sit
down and map those out. I didn't see anything very distinct. I would like
to verify hydrant locations. I am going to go on site. I would like to have
Technical Plat Review
April 13, 2005
Page 19
one on the property adjacent to the structure. A fire alarm detection
system to the structure and a Knox box. That's all I have.
Jim Sargent — SWEPCO
Sargent: We have got an existing primary tap cabinet in the northwest corner of the
property we will serve this from. We will need voltage flow information
and we will need an easement from the tap cabinet location to the location
of the transformer. That is all that I have.
Johnev Boles — Arkansas Western Gas
Boles:
You are showing the gas location at the northeast corner of the building,
this conduit that you are proposing is fine. We would prefer that it just be
installed along this north/south run with pull strings and then we will take
it from this point to the building. The extension from the main to the
building will be charged at $2.75 per foot. That's all that I have.
Mike Moore — Cox Communications
Moore: We will come in the same way electric does. I would like to have at least
a 3" conduit from the pedestal. You have it shown here on utilities, from
that pedestal I need into either to where they are setting up transformers or
if they are going to have a communications closet, bring it all the way into
the communications closet.
Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell
Clouser: I will require a 4" conduit and I believe we have a pedestal sitting by Cox
and I will need it into the building or to the rear wall if there is a terminal
mounted outside. I also need a #6 bare ground for bonding. If anything
does need to be relocated it will be at the owner/developer's expense.
Morgan: This will be tabled until such time as you submit a Conditional Use
request for the parking and then be put back on the same schedule with
that, it won't have to go back through Technical Plat Review Committee
again though.
Technical Plat Review
April 13, 2005
Page 20