Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-12-28 - Minutes (2)MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE TECHNICAL PLAT REVIEW A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Technical Plat Review Committee was held on December 28, 2005 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED LSP 06-1888: Lot Split (DEAL, 490) Page 3 FPL 06-1890: Final Plat (SASSAFRAS S/D, 221) Page 5 LSD 06-1882: Large Scale Development (PLAINVIEW AVE. PROF. BLDG., 213) Page 7 LSD 06-1885: Large Scale Development (BELLAFONT PHASE I, 175) Page 9 PPL 06-1886: Preliminary Plat (GENEVA GARDENS, 60) Page 18 R-PZD 06-1884: Planned Zoning District (WESTSIDE VILLAGE CONDOS, 439) Page 26 Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded R-PZD 06-1881: Planned Zoning District Not heard; Planning (SKYVIEW HEIGHTS, 291): Commission to hear R-PZD 06-1883: Planned Zoning District (ASBHIER HEIGHTS, 407) Page 13 Forwarded Technical Plat Review Committee December 28, 2005 Page 2 UTILITY REPS PRESENT Sue Clouser/SWBT Mike Moore/COX Mike Phipps/Ozarks Electric STAFF PRESENT Andrew Garner Jesse Fulcher Brent O'Neal/Engineering Sarah Patterson/Urban Forester UTILITY REPS ABSENT Kenny Sullivan/AEP Johney Boles/AWG STAFF ABSENT Suzanne Morgan Technical Plat Review Committee December 28, 2005 Page 3 Garner: Welcome to the Technical Plat Review Committee on Wednesday, December 28, 2005. Just a note before we get started that number 7 that was on the published agenda, Skyview Heights, will not be heard at this meeting because it is a Master Development Plan and it will go straight to the Planning Commission. LSP 06-1888: Lot Split (DEAL, 490) Submitted by BLEW, BATES & ASSOCIATES for property located at 360 N. VAUGHN ROAD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 6.21 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into two tracts of 5.75 and 0.46 acres. Thomas: I am Derrick Thomas with Blew, Bates and Associates. Fulcher: On the first page, I think Jan spoke to Karen Deal yesterday, but we still haven't had the property owner come and sign the application. I think she is supposed to come up to take care of that. I have checked with the County — we've got Vaughn Road listed as a local 50' right-of-way with 25' dedication from center line, although the County may require 30' for it's standards. I will verify that with them so it will be correct in our plats. I have minor notes on page two just about some information to add. GIS is still reviewing the legals on this, adding some dimensions, building setbacks. Most importantly right now is getting septic system approval prior to this going to Subdivision Committee for the of the lot, plus an acre and a half. Once we get that, this can be forwarded to the Subdivision Committee. That's the main item with us. O'Neal: I had the same concerns about the septic. If you could just show the approximate location of any septic systems. Also, show the locations of water meters. It looks like you are showing one meter down there, around the area on the west property line. Also, if you could show the water line and label the size on that water line along Vaughan. I'm not sure how far north it goes. That's it. Patterson: No comment Phipps: Mike Phipps, Ozarks Electric. Of course relocation of the existing facilities will be at the developer's expense. The overhead power line has a 30' UE that can be . I don't know if they are looking at any relocation of that.... 20' UE along Vaughan would be good to relocate, too. We have it there and we could do that — 20' outside the right-of-way. Moore (Cox) No comment. Technical Plat Review Committee December 28, 2005 Page 4 Clouser: Sue Clouser with Southwestern Bell. I agree with their request for the utility easement and also if we have anything (inaudible) O'Neal: Is there a water line running up Vaughn? Thomas: That's been kind of a gray area, because we just give the one to the south of this as well. They had a water meter in the middle of their property. It does not show that line. It shows it actually stopping another 600-800 feet south of our property line, and it doesn't show anything coming in from the north. But all of these places have water. I don't know if they are coming across this property, but there is nothing in the records showing where the water is coming from. O'Neal: We will have to investigate that a little bit further. I wasn't sure either, how far north that line came. We will just have to look at that a little closer. Garner: Revisions are due by 10 a.m., January 4`h Technical Plat Review Committee December 28, 2005 Page 5 FPL 06-1890: Final Plat (SASSAFRAS S/D, 221): Submitted by PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC. for property located at N. OF MISSION ON SASSAFRAS, S. OF ESTATE VIEW RD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 9.17 acres. The request is to approve the final plat of a residential subdivision with 8 single family dwellings proposed. Garner: Suzanne Morgan is the planner on this. I will go over her comments. DeCuzna: George Dequesna with Project Design Consultants. Garner: Comment on page one that all improvements are required to be completed and the inspection completed prior to this item being placed on the Subdivision Committee agenda. I'm not sure where we are at on that, but it is a standard comment. Page two — please include all the information on one sheet, signature blocks and the plat....standard comments about including the zoning of adjacent property owners; add a note indicating signs, future street extension west of the site. The plat calls out Marlboro Lane as a private drive; I believe this is a public street when I was looking back at the preliminary plat. You may have a different thought on that, but the comments are to make it a public street. The cul-de-sac shaded area should be labeled "Temporary Access Easement" and add a note to the plat that pavement for this cul-de-sac would be removed and temporary access easement shall be void at the time of future street extension. Right-of-way dedication comment. Include the addresses of all lots on the final plat as approved by the City 911 coordinator. We need septic permits for all lots under 1.5 acres. These are required to be submitted with revisions prior to the Subdivision Committee. That is all the comments I had. There are comments from Chief Curry from the Fire Department in your packets. He just had a question about the fire hydrant spacing. O'Neal: We should probably restrict access to lots one and eight to Marlboro and not to Sassafras. Not a whole lot of comments on this one. You need to show the proposed water meter locations and also add a note on the plat that no irrigation meters will be allowed. Show the water line valves, the stub valves. In the pre -construction meeting, we moved that one stub for a future fire hydrant to that lot line, so if you would show it in it's correct location. Also, if you could confirm a firm panel date, there may be an up-to-date firm panel. This may be the most up to date, if you would confirm that. Phipps: On the plat that we had utility crossings that are not shown here. They are from lots 1 and 2 to lots 7 and 8. You can see them on here. We will need that additional map Auto Cad 14 Windows 2004, to the gentlemen - his e- mail address is at the top of that. We are having problems - The quicker Technical Plat Review Committee December 28, 2005 Page 6 we can get that, we can get a design and cost on this. We like to get in before any of the utility does, especially the gas company. We go the deepest so we need to be in first. The problem is the developer is paying for this and the gas doesn't charge, so they hold it and hold it and then gas goes in there. When they finally do pay us and we have to go in there around gas, it is hard for us to install our utilities. There could be an extra charge if the gas is in there before we are. The price could go up per lot. We need that disc as quick as we can get it on a final. We've got those crossings; we could go along the front or we can go around the exterior of the subdivision which is a little more expensive, but it looks better. Looking at that subdivision, there are quite a few trees that they would have to clear out for us to go that way. Mention to him that he needs to let us know which way he prefers. Moore: I would like to see those crossings on the final plat also, for the designers. I'm going to need Auto Cad 2002 or older. If you would e-mail it to me at the e-mail address on that card. I don't have the capability of opening 2004. Clouser: I agree with the previous comments regarding the crossings. If we have anything out there that needs to be relocated, it shall be relocated at the owner/developer's expense. Garner: Revisions are due by 10 a.m., January 4th Technical Plat Review Committee December 28, 2005 Page 7 LSD 06-1882: Large Scale Development (PLAINVIEW AVE. PROF. BLDG., 213): Submitted by MCCLELLAND ENGINEERING for property located at SE OF MILLSAP AND PLANVIEW. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1.96 acres. The request if for an 8,500 SF professional building. Morgan: Mike Morgan from McClelland Engineering. Fulcher: We need to get some colored elevations for this building and material sample board to help us write the report, recommending on commercial design standards for the Subdivision Committee. GIS is still reviewing the legals. If anything comes up with that, we will get that to you as soon as possible. On page two, there are a couple of notes: plat page, adjacent zoning property owner information; to ---- right-of-way from center line. On some of the building setbacks, there is 20' UE with a 0' setback. It doesn't necessarily matter, but since there is no building setback, it may just cause confusion in the future. If you want remove the building setback notation, just leave it as a UE, we can work it that way. It looks like Plainview Avenue is a collector, so dedication 35' from center line would be required. It looks like you are showing 18' parking stalls — I assume that is with a one foot overhang that will be landscaped. If you could show the approximate location of the curb cuts across the street, I think I aligned up right on those. The 15' required front landscape along the right-of-way, it looks like it varies from five to ten feet along the frontage. That needs to be 15'. Sarah may have some comments about the landscaping. It shows Crape Myrtle, but there are also some other species shown in the legend, but we don't know if it was meant to be Crape Myrtle, but it should be large specie street trees along the right-of- way. Location of outdoor lighting and cut sheets prior to building permits — we will need to review those for compliance with outdoor lighting ordinance. I am assuming that something may develop here. I don't know if you need to do an access easement here, so there is not problem with access for the rear property there. O'Neal: Label the right-of-way with the Master Street Plan. Show the sidewalk along the frontage at the right-of-way line. Also show drives and the correct width for.... It should be six instead of five. If you could provide a statement in regards that the detention has been provided for and reference that document. The 16" waterline that cuts across this back lot that you are creating, you need to confirm that it is abandoned at this point. Some of it is live and that is the main supplier that goes to the Washington Regional, so we can make sure that it is abandoned at that point. Call out the water line connection, the water mains are 8" minimum diameter. The sewer, I believe what is shown there is a sanitary sewer Technical Plat Review Committee December 28, 2005 Page 8 service that was stubbed out for this property. Since you are converting it to a main, you will have to extend the main to serve this back lot — it needs to be an 8". That will have to be changed. Also on that water line on the north property line, we have a 20' utility easement, I believe it is showing 10' utility easement on the north side of the adjacent property. Also back here it is showing a water line, I'm not sure what this is. It is shaded back. If there isn't adequate easement here, I'd provide that easement on your property. I'll e-mail this to you. Morgan: We will verify the easement - GIS and the survey have different easements illustrated. Patterson: I think you got my landscape comments yesterday. All I need from you on tree preservation if you would change the note — it says no trees exist to say they exist within utility easement. Did you get a waiver? Morgan: I do have a waiver, I don't have one with me today. Patterson: You can e-mail it to me or something. I will get with Planning about the other issue. Phipps: This is SWEPCOs. Moore: On your plan, you have us as a 3" conduit. I need a 4" conduit. Do you know how many units are actually going to be in the building? Morgan: I do not. It is a two-story building, but don't know how many units. Moore: I will need to know that - possible units, not actual units. Clouser: Inaudible Fulcher: There is a copy of the Fire Marshall's comments. Garner: Revisions are due by 10 a.m., January 4`h Technical Plat Review Committee December 28, 2005 Page 9 LSD 06-1885: Large Scale Development (BELLAFONT PHASE I, 175): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at N. OF JOYCE BLVD., W. OF VANTAGE DRIVE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1.63 acres. The request is for a 9,104 SF retail building with 30 parking spaces. Henley: Tom Henley with H2 Engineering. Garner: Page one, the property line adjustment for creation of this lot is required to be recorded prior to this large scale development. Henley: We haven't heard anything back on that. You guys do have that? Garner: It was just in house; there were some minor comments on that. I will check on that and get back to you. I think I am waiting for it to be stamped. These comments are pretty straight forward. On the bottom of page two, a 10' trail is required instead of a 6' sidewalk. There is a trail in this area that will eventually connect with Mud Creek. Henley: Is that on Joyce or coming down Vantage. Garner: On Joyce. I am not that familiar with the overall master plan for this. The curb cut is shown at about 55' width which would be a waiver from our regular curb cut requirement so I would need a waiver request for that. We would also recommend that sidewalk be provided along that entrance so someone could walk or ride a bike back to phase two eventually. It is not a requirement because it is a private drive, but it is something to think about. For this particular property when the easement plat is filed, we will need an access easement to get to the lot through the lot to the north. The bike racks have to be within 50' at a public entrance to the building. I'm not sure where your entrance is proposed. If it is in this area, it may be a little too far away. A standard comment, the exterior lighting will be required to comply with the City's lighting ordinance. If area signage is proposed for this whole phase, it has to be for five acres or more for a site, we will have to coordinate on that on the timing when the signage is proposed and what will be allowed. Henley: So the signs we have proposed here on either side of the entrance probably will have to wait until the next phase comes through? We should be submitting the rest of this on the 15`h. We can submit a concept plan with this if that would help. Garner: We don't have to have it but if you want to provide that, it might be useful for the file. Just our standard commercial design type comments on mechanical and utility equipment needs to be screened; the building Technical Plat Review Committee December 28, 2005 Page 10 O'Neal: elevations will need to show the other sides of the building as well — all four sides; we need to have the materials and colors called out on the building elevations; prior to Subdivision Committee, we need a full size board and material samples as well; landscaping — include the landscape plan in the title of the grading/tree preservation plan or include the landscape plan on a separate sheet; we need the standard notes for landscaping on there; keep the parking lot lighting in mind when designing the landscape plan to make sure the trees that are planted don't block the parking lot lights. There is a packet of comments from the Fire Chief — pretty standard comments about the sprinkler system, fire protection and alarm system and that sort of stuff. If you have questions, contact Chief Curry. We need all items from the large scale development application, including a complete survey. We need a survey included with your submittal; label all the names and rights-of-way of the public streets. I understand these are all private streets around the building? Henley: Right. The ones that are shown here are. O'Neal: Same comment on the sidewalks per the Master Street Plan. Make sure that they are shown at the right-of-way and show that trail along Joyce continues to the drive. This development is within the assessment area for a traffic signal at Joyce and Vantage. We will get that amount to you at a later date. On the water line that you are showing, if you could stub that to the north so it can be extended. So put a T valve and stub it to the north instead of just ending it. The sign on that east side of the entrance is in the utility easement — it will have to be shifted over. Is you could reflect that it is a single story on the plans. Also, on the grading, if you could remove it from the first sheet and leave it on the grading plan. Make sure you have all the items on the grading plan checklist. On the pond, I haven't finished the review on the trash report, we just need to make sure it is outside of any utility easement. Henley: That pond probably won't ever be built or used as a detention facility. We will be providing detention in another area. Patterson: I just have few standard comments. I need a site analysis report from this area, just a paragraph or two. We are asking that you show tree protection fencing for tree #2 and #10. They are off your property but could possibly be affected by the sidewalk trail and such. So maybe just a half circle or some type of fencing that will keep disturbance off of those. The rest are pretty self explanatory. Just let me know if you have questions. Technical Plat Review Committee December 28, 2005 Page 11 Phipps: I have to see if it's in our territory or SWEPCO's; it is real close to that line. Henley: Which line is the dividing line for you guys? Phipps: About where that creek is. We have a vicinity map. I know the line is very close to that creek that runs all the drainage area that flows back into Mud Creek. I will have our drafting department look at that. Henley: It may mean we have split coverage on this property, unfortunately. Phipps: Yes. Henley: Is there a possibility that you guys have some sort of agreement that you can take total service of the project? Phipps: If it is outside our territory, no. SWEPCO will have to come from the west and we will have to come from the Post Office and come under Vantage to get to this site. If it isn't in our area, we will need to see a transformer location. Henley: I will have to e-mail you a copy of the Master Plan, too. Moore: Do you know how many units — will it be a multi -unit? Henley: This one building here will be just a single tenant. Moore: Do you know where they will bring the utilities into the building? The reason I am asking, you are only showing a 20' building setback on the north side; if they are wanting to bring the power into the north side, we will need that to be a UE and we will need the crossings underneath the driveways. I would also like to see a six 4" across your main entrance off of Joyce Blvd. I'm pretty sure they are going to need a way to feed that street light there, too. Is Phase II going to be north of here, or east of here? Henley: It is all the way north up to the apartments and all the way east to the other side of Vantage to the apartments over there. Moore: Do you know if this utility easement will extend all the way up to Stems? That is the closest I've got right now. Henley: The best bet is for me to e-mail you a copy of the Master Development Plan, so we can get all of these taken care of. Technical Plat Review Committee December 28, 2005 Page 12 Moore: That way we can do some future planning on this, too. I'll probably have to bring in some 3/4'. Henley: I think there is an existing utility easement along this line that we will need to show and vacate. You can dedicate it wherever you need it. Moore: I'll just need to know when they decide which way they are going to come in; I will need a 4" conduit coming from the UE to the building. Clouser: E -mailing that Master Plan will be very helpful. I would like a 4" conduit if you could bring it out to the 20' UE on the west side. Henley: Coming underneath the entrance extending all the way to the UE? Clouser: Yes, if you could get out to that UE for me, that is where I'll feed it from. If we have anything existing, it would need to be relocated and would be at the owner's expense. I agree with the crossings that were recommended. O'Neal: One thing I neglected to mention is that we need a cost estimate for adding that turn lane on Joyce. Henley: There is going to be a proposal brought forth for improvements to Joyce? O'Neal: Include it with that. Garner: One of the issues we were talking to Mr. Pate and Mr. Petrie about what street improvements are going to required at this time for this development and at this point they wanted to add in comments to submit a cost estimate for a turn lane along this project frontage and we'll just go with that for this Phase of it. O'Neal: You are showing a water line having to connect underneath Joyce? I believe there is a water line that stops right up here on the north side, on the other side of the proposed entrance for Lindsey. So you could probably extend that and go underneath Joyce. Henley: These guys were nice enough to let #8 go. Garner: We will move on to #8 on the agenda. Technical Plat Review Committee December 28, 2005 Page 13 R-PZD 06-1883: Planned Zoning District (ASBHIER HEIGHTS, 407): Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located S. OF EVELYN HILLS SHOPPING CENTER ON ABSHIER AND HILLCREST. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 4.11 acres. The request if for a Residential Planned Zoning District with 30 multi -family dwelling units. Henley: You have these comments on here about the disks; I think I have been e - mailing you the drawings. Garner: I think we include that in there just to make sure whenever it is approved. Henley: Is it okay for us to e-mail them to you or would you rather have them on a CD? Garner: On a CD. It will get routed to the GIS Division. Fulcher: Before I get into the typical comments, I went through the booklets; it seems that's the way they have been doing it on the Master Developments — going through the booklet and making comments on that. Following that, GIS had two comments on some of the legals; tree preservation comments; Jim Johnson from 911 made a comment about giving a name to the private drive; two of Chief Curry's comments on the Fire. Some of the more important ones are: structures of three or more floors may change your drive aisle widths — your private drive widths. We do have these colored elevations and I don't know if you have any material boards to clarify how these different colors will fit between the commercial and residential existing developments out there. Henley: That needs to be submitted anyway with the revisions for Subdivision Committee. Fulcher: I am sure that is going to be one of the first questions the Board is going to have — a little more detail on how exactly these are going to look on these different structure sites. Prior to building permits, we will be looking for cut sheets for outdoor lighting. The right-of-way has been called out for the utility easement. If you could provide the building heights. I assume we were looking at the four larger 4-5 unit — I assume all of these will be the same height. I don't know if they are going to use dumpsters or individual trash carts. Henley: We are planning on using individual trash carts for each unit. Fulcher: Within the parking table, it might help — I was trying to count the number of parallel spaces and I think there is room for driveway spaces and garage spaces. If that could be broken down, we could understand the Technical Plat Review Committee December 28, 2005 Page 14 O'Neal: relationship between all of those numbers. If you could dimension one of the parallel parking spaces, I think I measured them out as 22 x 7 'A. Two bike racks would be required. The last few comments are on page four — I was wondering if there is a way to remove some of the information on the first page, such as the contour lines and any grading information. Maybe create another first page and making this the second and third page with just a basic site plan - the buildings, private drives, the streets, maybe the landscaping — maybe not even the landscaping. Just pretty basic, this is what's there. With all the different line types, it gets very difficult to read and you can be able to count some of the information such as the parking spaces. Also on page four, what it is going to be real important when it gets to the various Boards to review this, is the relationship between this elevation here and the elevation of the buildings and the elevation down here and how that is that is going to change. I know you addressed that in the booklet, but to actually be able to look down at the plan, to provide a few more elevation marks, closer to the buildings and the existing homes will help someone reviewing this. From what I understand, my comment on page four, try to be real consistent with the location of all the information putting the north arrow and the graphic scale to the bottom right hand comer, so it is always consistent. Comments from the booklet: it looks like in the description of the planning area, your project consists of 22 multi -family units and eight two-family units. It also includes 9 which is two family dwellings. I think it is listed as the only permitted use other than the two basic ones we put in there is multi -family. If you put those two ----9 in there. We may be going into off-site improvements. I know we have been looking at that for Abshier and Hillcrest. We are reviewing that. It didn't appear that there would be any conditional uses other than home occupation. If you can throw in a conditional use chart over here and add that one in there. Include a lot width minimum and lot area minimum. I believe it states a 4.11 acres which is the whole project, you can break those down to individual lot minimums. There are more comments in there. This was very difficult to read. If you could remove the trees and the grading from this, even the proposed grades from this first sheet, it would probably make it easier. We will need a complete survey for this. We will be looking for street improvements to College, Abshier, and on Hillcrest on your side. To the intersection of College and Abshier. It appears that you have a retaining wall shown at the south end. We will need to make sure that is outside the setback. These are going to be individually owned? Henley: Yes. Technical Plat Review Committee December 28, 2005 Page 15 O'Neal: We will need to make sure they are individually metered and sewered. You are showing water meter balls. What you may want to do is group meters in smaller numbers, like a group of four meters, instead a group of six to eight. That way it puts them closer to the units that they serve. I am assuming they will be owning just what is in the building footprint. Other than that, there is not a whole lot. But I will re -review this and get you full copies of this. Henley: So you guys recommend street improvements for the entire length of Hillcrest and entire length of Abshier from the north side? O'Neal: Yes, just from center line. I need to confirm that. Fulcher: We didn't have any firm discussion about it in our in-house meeting. We will look into that. Patterson: I have questions from Allison Jumper, the Planner of Parks. It looks like Parks and Recreation Advisory Board voted to accept money in lieu for this project November 7th Fees were assessed in the amount of (tape cut out — missing verbiage) One thing you can do is put the tree inventory on a separate page and e- mail or turn it in to me. I don't know if that would give you any more space to make the plan larger. By ordinance you only have to depict significant trees. Looking at your inventory, you only have six. So by just putting the tree symbol on those six trees and using a cloudy -like outlining figure might make it easier for everyone to read that along the thick area along Hillside. I do like to see all the trees, though, if you do it, so that's why I suggest you give me the report if you can. Please include the type of mitigation you are requesting. It looks like you are only going to have to do six trees. I suggest doing an on-site, maybe a note saying that on- site mitigation will occur. The overhead utility line that is there on the back of Evelyn Hills, are you going to have to relocate that underground? Henley: We weren't planning on doing it underground because they have the retaining wall and drainage going on there. But we will need to raise the very northern end of it so we have to do some vertical adjustment on that drive there. Patterson: In that case, I would take into consideration that overhead line. There looks like there are landscaped trees to be planted there — large species trees, which will affect that overhead line sooner or later. Moving them further away or picking a smaller species would make everyone happy. I looked at my GIS imagery and it looked like there is a little more canopy along Abshier Drive and along the sloped part towards Evelyn Hills. I don't know if that is the case or not. It might be underbrush that is Technical Plat Review Committee December 28, 2005 Page 16 causing a shadow. But if there is any kind of canopy off-site as well along that slope, if you could show that the cloudy -type figure. Just as a reminder, canopy found within existing easements and right-of-way doesn't count for or against you. Moore: I agree with all the comments. Do you know if there is an existing UE with that aerial? Henley: I believe there is. Moore: We can feed off that power line there. We can come over and hit the buildings with an aerial drop or put 2" conduits underneath your drives to each unit. Henley: That is probably what they want to do. Moore: That will work on this northern section of it. But on the three town homes that you have down here, we will have to work out something to get something there. Maybe along the building setbacks along Hillcrest and Abshier, make that an UE and hit those buildings from those UEs. Henley: That slope is pretty steep. Moore: If you wanted to create a UE along the backside of these buildings, maybe a 20' UE, maybe we could feed from there, that might work. But we will still have to have a way to get to that UE. If they do want to go underground with this pole line, that is going to cause a problem. There is not access underground back to the Evelyn Hills Shopping Center. Henley: We will probably leave that overhead existing. Are you guys going to have a problem with the overhead? Phipps: That's SWEPCO. Moore: I don't know what size it is, but we are talking about expensive because we will have to replace the drops over to Evelyn Hills and we are talking about the pavement and under the retaining walls. Fulcher: The ordinance requirement is 12. ?? So these are going to be the two end buildings and the 4 and 5. They are not going to be town houses? Town house, you are going to sell the land with the building? Henley: No, these will be condos that will just be the building itself. Technical Plat Review Committee December 28, 2005 Page 17 Fulcher: On this parallel parking, I've heard two stories on this. Jeremy made a comment on it. Henley: We are going adjust that to tangent sections, so you could park on it instead of an arc. We will just make a series of tangent sections. Moore: Tom, there is possibility that we could these other three from this power pole here. But we will need some crossings. Other than that, we'll have to work that possibility out. Clouser: Any relocation will be at the developer's expense. The buildings with six or more units will need a 4" conduit to them from wherever we decide to feed from. I will need a 3" conduit to the buildings with five or less units. I'm not really sure where we are going to feed it from. I don't know if any of existing facilities either coming from behind Evelyn Hills or Abshier Avenue, I don't think we have enough capacity to feed that many units. So we will have to take a look at where we are going to feed from. I think Mike's idea about putting the UE right behind these buildings over here is good. ?? Is this a retaining wall here? Is it possible to move it back to get the full 20 between the building and the UE? Henley: We should be able to, but we'd have to check and see. Clouser: Are you going to want gas in these too, do you think? Henley: I think they do want gas in there as well. Clouser: Then you'd need the bigger UE. Garner: Revisions are due by 10 a.m., January 4`n Technical Plat Review Committee December 28, 2005 Page 18 PPL 06-1886: Preliminary Plat (GENEVA GARDENS, 60): Submitted by CRITICAL PATH CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, INC. for property located at CROSSOVER AND ALBRIGHT ROAD. The property is zoned RSF-4 SINGLE FAMILY — 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 2.97 acres. The request is for a residential subdivision with eight single family dwellings. Fulcher: We have had some discussion between Jeremy Pate, engineering and myself about lots nine and ten I think we have done waivers for detention pond lots that there will be minimum area requirements. That may be up to date. Jeremy had made a comment about lot ten — it says that lot ten will be a common area, a private street, a private drive and utilities. What is the private street and private drive portion of that? CPCM Rep: It is just an open green area that is not going to be used for a street. Fulcher: CPCM Rep: Fulcher: CPCM Rep: Fulcher CPCM Rep: Garner?? Fulcher: Maybe you want to make that a part of Lot five; take away another waiver request for lot area and possibly lot width for that. I did make a comment on it. We have an entrance gate that goes through that into the court yard area. If that is incorporated into Lot five, the owner of that lot would have a landscaped area and fence going through that is part of the subdivision. The fence running along the right-of-way? Actually, it is curved — it's denoted. But it's not going to across a right-of-way or anything? Right. If a RSF-4 zoning district has a requirement for a lot area — a vacant lot has to be 8,000 SF per lot. Since these lots are that square footage, it just would require a waiver. That's pretty easy to handle. We have done that before for lots that aren't like this. I think I have made a note on here, the first note on page one. If you decide to keep these both as lots, you will need to submit a waiver form and make a note somewhere on here Lots 9 and 10 are unbuildable lots. On page two, basic comments and some dimensions to add to the right-of- way from center line; building setbacks. One of the comments I had was on the right-of-way. Some of this might be left over from when we did the first preliminary plat out here. We followed the right-of-way line along Albright all the back into the cul-de-sac. There are various line types stacked on top of each: dash lines, solid lines, various thickness. If we Technical Plat Review Committee December 28, 2005 Page 19 CPCM Rep: Fulcher: CPCM Rep: Fulcher: CPCM Rep: Fulcher: CPCM Rep: Fulcher: could get that to one line that is clear and shown in the legend, it would help. Remove some of the right-of-way comments on it. Just one here and there would help clear it up a bit. Between lots six and seven, the right-of-way lines shift a little bit to the south a few feet and the very north comer of six and seven. If you follow seven around the curve, there are two lines shown there and also directly across on lot three, there shows two lines running — I just think that is an overlap of two layers. Between four and eight the lot line doesn't close. Typically on a cul-de-sac, how is the right-of-way distance handled? On the street coming up, I have a right-of-way set that is, if you look on the north side of the right-of-ways would be a 9' and on the south, 7' from the back of the curve, because I have a sidewalk on the north side. So as you come around the cul-de-sac the 9' on the north so that's why it doesn't match up on the south end, as you are going around the right-of-way, to keep it succinct. How is that typically handled? It is usually handled because the sidewalk needs to go all the way around the cul-de-sac so it's uniform. I guess still, when the sidewalk ends, though, even if the sidewalk was drawn in inside of that right-of-way, you'd still have a right-of-way line that stuck out another two feet. I couldn't find a good example of how that may have been tackled before. I'm not sure I am understanding the question. Basically, you go to the center point of your cul-de-sac and go 50' radius on the cul-de-sac and that's where your right-of-way line is. From the center point of the cul-de-sac if it is a cul-de-sac of what size? This is on a 24' wide street, correct? I believe if you have a 28' wide street, you have a 50' foot right-of-way, the cul-de-sac is at 50' radius. For a 24' wide street, you have a 40' right-of-way. I believe it is a 45' radius. That sounds right. We will get it figured out if you run into problems with this. On page three, it looks like the length of the cul-de- sac is just under 500'. If it is longer than 500', a written waiver request must be submitted, or if it is more than 500', you can continue the street through back over to here. There are a few options there. Is that from the beginning of the entrance to the back of the curve? We start at the center line of the street to the center of the cul-de-sac. There are comments from Fire Department — pretty basic things. That is all I have. Technical Plat Review Committee December 28, 2005 Page 20 O'Neal: Do you provide a drench? drainage report? CPCM Rep: Nothing separate than what notes would be included on page four. O'Neal: We need the preliminary drench drainage report per our guidelines. Do that before Subdivision Committee, so you'll have to have that to me as soon as you can. For preliminary plats, we need a complete boundary survey per our requirements. Also add a note to show curb and gutter and sidewalk be continued to Crossover on the south side of Albright. Show the subdivision sign, you show it in the detail, but not where it is located. This dark line is a fence along the detention pond? Is it going to have substantial columns? CPCM Rep: We were looking at using stone columns and using wrought iron in between. O'Neal: How big are the columns? CPCM Rep: Average. O'Neal: In a utility easement, and I'm fairly certain that the utility companies will request an easement along Albright, so the pond needs to be modified to get it out of any utility easement or setback. That fence will probably have to be located outside of that as well. You will have to look at that. You need a street table, showing street width, right-of-way, sidewalk width, curb width, etc. per the master street plan. The sidewalk needs to be continued all around the cul-de-sac, so you will have a street crossing where the cul-de-sac starts. You need to show the existing water and sewer systems around the site that you are connecting into. You need to show the proposed locations for water meters and sewer services. We need street center line curb data for this curb at your main entrance. On the sewer system, you need to show all the manholes and I believe where you are crossing with your sewer is right on top of where you are showing this utility crossing. You will have to shift that away from the sewer main, especially if gas is going to come through there. They have to be 10' off. CPCM Rep: Would you repeat that please? O'Neal: Where your sewer comes in and connects into the subdivision onto the west, there is also a utility crossing, basically right on top of it. That utility crossing needs to be shifted to either side of that on either side of the easement. CPCM Rep: Is that our utility? Technical Plat Review Committee December 28, 2005 Page 21 O'Neal: You are showing a utility crossing which is usually four 4" conduits for phone, cable, electric. It is right on top of the sewer. It needs to be shifted at least 10' away from the sewer. There is 10' separation between gas and sewer. We need you to provide information on the modification of the proposed lift station that you are connecting into. If you could label all the setbacks and utility easements on the lots, that would be helpful. The rest of my comments are standard comments. I will e-mail this to you. Patterson: I have comments from the Park Planner. On December 5th, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommended money in lieu. The fees were assessed at $4,440. Those need to be deposited before signing the final plat. I will give you this report. On tree preservation, I wanted to note that any canopy found in the right-of-way on Albright Road should not count for or against the developer. There are some of those big trees on site that we looked at, so keep that in mind. For ease of getting through this and making a smaller packet, remove sheet five. When you have a site like this with so many trees, you can include this as a report (8 '/z x 11 report) turned in with your plan, so you can shrink that page down. For future projects, you can shrink it down. If you have only a few trees, you can easily fit it on the same page. If it has to be a separate page, I would turn it in separately, maybe with your site analysis. What you and I had discussed about some of the additional trees that you are going to try to preserve, I made a note that, at the time of final plat, you and I will need to do an onsite visit and look at some of those areas and determine whether or not we are going to raise your reserve canopy numbers. Phipps: Are you going to have street lights for this? Street lights probably at the entrance off of Albright and on lots one and two and then at the end of the cul-de-sac.... I would like a 20' UE along the north property line of the development and a 20' UE along the south property line and a 20' UE along the east side property line; and also a 20' UE between lots two and three. You are showing a crossing from two and three over to six and seven. Those will need to be 44" — schedule 40, and a depth of 48" at final grade. Also a 20' UE between lots six and seven — that will get us to the back. CDCM Rep: Is there not way to do front service? When we originally did this plan, the trees were a giant problem with the neighbors, the developers... Here are the trees, they are everywhere and they are large and significant, especially along the back property. They have been working to try and keep the disturbance concentrated along there. The neighbors in Springdale were really upset about the widening of Albright. Not that we can't work through it... Technical Plat Review Committee December 28, 2005 Page 22 Phipps: CPCM Rep: Phipps: Patterson: Phipps: Moore: Clouser: Garner: CPCM Rep: Phipp: Patterson: Phipp: This lot 10, that's basically all UE? There possibly is — a front service would throw in 12' UE, it would have to be a 25' UE. Even with the water on the other side of the street.... It is the sewer that is the problem. What you've got down here, you have a five foot separation between gas and sewer and that just doesn't work. They have to have a 10' separation. A 12' UE just is not enough room to have everyone in. I've got to have 18" of separation between electric. The whole scale here does not work. Something that we might be able to do is to get everyone on one side and do a street crossing which will eliminate some of the tree problems there. They typically are just trying to preserve trees along the back. They are going to be building these homes as well, so if we could keep all of that. What would you say Mike if we could have 25' on either the north or south, but if you are going to put sewer on the north side, I think we would prefer to be on the south. That way you don't have that separation problem between gas and sewer. We'd have to have crossings. If I have to tie together, it's got to come from Albright come through and tie back in. It has to have loop system. I wouldn't be very comfortable giving up that 20' UE along Albright even for future development. That is something that we would really need to have there. I don't know how that affects it. Did we have a utilities map the first time this came through, along Albright? No, as far as I know, we were working with getting the sidewalk around those trees and the street improvements, so we didn't look at utility easements. A front service and crossing, we'd need a 20' UE along one to get us through here, cross this and we could run along the south side. But I have to come back out here to get back up. Would it matter where you came? Could she work with you to see if you could come through the front? Looking at your trees, it probably would be better to come through there. Patterson: Maybe this warrants a meeting with utilities. We will talk about that. Technical Plat Review Committee December 28, 2005 Page 23 O'Neal: Phipps: CPCM Rep: Phipps: CPCM Rep: Phipps: CPCM Rep: Phipps: Moore: O'Neal: One thing I forgot to mention is that we do need the water and sewer stubbed out to the east property line, so we will have to have adequate easement on lots four and eight. That's going to be a little bit more easement that you can work in. This is not my project; he is on vacation. I need to go out to the site and see what it is. It was one of those deals where we had to meet on site and really work around the sidewalk and the widening of Albright in order to get Subdivision/Planning Commission approval along with these neighbors. It is a really pretty road to drive through. Something else that would help the developer — with Southwestern Bell and Cox, sometimes we do a joint trench with them. If they could get a schedule where we could get our contractor, phone, power and cable all in the same trench, you're not running three backhoes through there and everyone digging a different ditch. Takes up a lot less room, but it needs to be coordinated right with phone and Cox cable. That's an option to look at. Is boring an option as well, at the owners/developers expense? Oh yeh, it is full cost. Trenching is $4 a foot; boring is $20 a foot. But the concentrated area along lot three near the sidewalk — that's the area we were working to try to do this with the sidewalk. That might be an option. If you look at coming from the south in the back here, we aren't doing anything along there. Looking at Albright, I believe we are on the north side with our overhead. We just have to drop over to hitch these areas, or bore. I think you would lose less trees if we had a 20' along the west side of lot one; we could have a crossing back over to lot five and have this run in front from the easement along five, six and seven. But we are going to need crossings back over to two and three. We would need actually 25' along the front. Then another 20' along the west side of lot four. I am going to need 30' between four and eight. Just for separation for water and sewer. You might as well with 20' on either one, that way it gives everybody room — 20' on eight and 20' on four. Does that make Technical Plat Review Committee December 28, 2005 Page 24 sense? Does that eliminate the need for the easement along Albright, too, or are you still going to need that. Clouser: I would like to see it, but if we can't it is Springdale wire center, I won't have to deal with that. Fulcher: Contact Springdale wire center and see if they need a 20' easement along Albright. Clouser: You don't need to that. We can eliminate that. Moore: You will need to get that one particular section of the detention outside of the UE there though. Phipps: If you are going to need a streetlight that is going to be here, we are going to have to dig to pick it up. Moore: There is a possibility that we could come out of Stonewood Gardens so you wouldn't need that 20'. Clouser: I'd have to look at it, but it may be possible. Moore: I'd have to study it more, but there is a possibility. Fulcher: Are there any questions for us? CPCM Rep: Mr. Curry is not here; I looked at having an island in the center that doesn't show up on the preliminary plat. You can see it on the grading sheet. I understood that with that 20' wide road, he could get a Fulcher: I know we looked at an island; it is going to be a right-of-way going to be maintained by the POA. The Fire Department said that if it is 20' wide all the way around the island, that he can make that radius. CPCM Rep: He referred back to Arkansas State guidelines which are I think exactly what Fayetteville has adopted, but we'd love to have an island. There are trees everywhere and if we can incorporate anything inside the center island, we'd sure like to do it. There are several trees. The Tree Preservation plan shows the one tree that will have protection fencing around. Fulcher: The problem with that is that you have utility running right through there so you can't count that tree as preserved. That is a 30" oak? Technical Plat Review Committee December 28, 2005 Page 25 CDCM Rep: Patterson: Where we had the water and the sewer, it did dip into the canopy, we felt like we would attempt to preserve it. So the sanitary sewer is going to go right on the edge? Not with the water line right there, I don't think I'd be able to. With it being an oak. CDCM Rep: If there is any way to shift the water line... O'Neal: CDCM Rep: Fulcher: CDCM Rep: Patterson: Garner: You can just make bends to the water line. The best thing to do is bend it around the cul-de-sac, into the right-of-way. You have to make sure you have adequate easement along the right-of-way and then come back and stub back to the east. That means you are going to have some long services to serve those lots — three and four. But it is possible. As far as the radius it will be okay with ---- and you guys? I would say show it on your revisions. I didn't even notice it on the other sheets. If it is okay with Fire.... I don't even know the last time we did an island. Just show it on the revision — at worst it can be remove. Is that tree #96 that we want to preserve? That is one of those trees that we might consider "iffy". We will wait and see what happens once we get that street put in there, just to make sure it survives. Revisions are due by 10 a.m., January 4`h Technical Plat Review Committee December 28, 2005 Page 26 R-PZD 06-1884: Planned Zoning District (WESTSIDE VILLAGE CONDOS, 439): Submitted by CRITCAL PATH DESIGN for property located at S. OF WEDINGTON, E. OF RUPPLE ROAD. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY — 24 UNITS/ACRES and contains approximately 21.91 acres. The request is for a Residential Planned Zoning District with 366 attached single family dwelling units. Jacobs: Todd Jacobs with Critical Path Design Garner: Comments from the Planning Division: The way I have formatted this is: comments on the actual Master Development Plan, on the Project Booklet, and Master Development requirements for PZD; standard development checklist comments; landscaper comments, tree preservation, Fire Department comments. Mainly the big comments are as far as the Master Development Plan — we are okay with the density, curb cuts and that sort of stuff, entrances. The development level plans had a lot of comments to be addressed, so that is general. I noted comments have to be addressed prior to revisions for the Subdivision Committee. The booklet items are mostly straight forward. We need building elevations that depict representative views of the structures. The one elevation that just shows just a couple attached units. Where is this elevation going to fit on the site? We need to flush that out in more detail. Jacobs: Is a material board needed for that? Garner: It is not an ordinance requirement right now. Just show what the elevations are going to be. We understand the concept of what you are proposing, but need more of the details. It will help the Planning Division make a decision. They would like elevation boards, but it is not an ordinance requirement, so you don't have to provide one. It is only required for commercial design standards. On the zoning criteria, you showed Use Unit eight for single family dwellings, I was thinking that no single dwellings were proposed, so I said to take that off of there. Jacobs: Single family would be detached..... Garner: Most of these are pretty straight forward. On some of these sheets you have building setbacks that look like they are off private drives. Jacobs: Do we need to give a setback off a private drive? Garner: If you want to, you need to specify. You are showing one right there. Specify on the private drives where you would measure the building setback if there is one. If not, you could say setbacks off of public streets. On one of the sheets I thought you were proposing to divide these up into large lots. Technical Plat Review Committee December 28, 2005 Page 27 Tape Ended.