No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-01-03 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE TECHNICAL PLAT REVIEW COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee was held on Friday, January 3, 2002 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LSP 03-3.00: Lot Split (Ruble, pp 436) Page 3 LSP 03-4.00: Lot Split (Zakariadze, pp 439) Page 10 LSP 03-5.00: Lot Split (Mersky, pp 102) Page 13 PPL 03-2.00: Preliminary Plat (Salem Heights, pp 284) Page 15 PPL 03-3.00: Preliminary Plat (Salem Meadows, pp 245) Page 22 LSD 03-2.00: Large Scale Development (Lazenby, pp 560) Page 26 LSD 03-3.00: Large Scale Development (Rasberry, 366) Page 30 PZD 03-1.00: Planned Zoning District (Jackson Place, 255) Page 34 STAFF PRESENT Matt Casey Sara Edwards Kim Hesse Renee Thomas Keith Shreve Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded STAFF ABSENT Tim Conklin Perry Franklin Danny Farrar Travis Dotson Technical Plat Review January 3, 2002 Page 2 UTILITIES PRESENT UTILITIES ABSENT Larry Gibson, Cox Communications Jim Sargent, AEP/SWEPCO Glenn Newman, AEP/ SWEPCO Johny Boles, Arkansas Western Gas Sue Clouser, Southwestern Bell Mike Phipps, Ozark Electric Coop. Technical Plat Review January 3, 2002 Page 3 LSP 03-5.00: Lot Split (Mersky, pp 102) was submitted by David Mersky and Harriet Neiman for property located at 5911 Day Lilly Trail. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 4.05 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 1.5 acres and 2.55 acres. Edwards: Welcome to the Friday, January 3, 2003 meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee. Since Alan Reid isn't here for item number two we are going to skip to item three, LSP 03-4.00 submitted by Ira Zakariadze for property located at 944 and 946 North Meadowlands. The property is zoned R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential and contains 0.43 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of .2 and .23 acres. This is Alan Reid also so we are going to skip this one too. Item number four is LSP 03-5.00 submitted by David Mersky and Harriet Neiman for property located at 5911 Day Lilly Trail. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 4.05 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 1.5 acres and 2.55 acres. Mersky: Am I supposed to present something? Edwards: No. What we are going to do is go over staff comments, which are all there in writing and then the utilities will go over any concerns that they have or easements that they need to service the property. The first comment from Sidewalks is that sidewalks are not required in our Growth Area. Parks fees are not required in our Growth Area. Trash service is not in the Growth Area. From Planning, what we are looking for is we need you to add plat page number 102 somewhere near the signature block. Add a floodplain reference, which basically says if the property is affected by floodplain or not. Then, we have this county road that is on our Master Street Plan. That is a minor arterial which is a total of 90' of right of way. You are only responsible for 45' from centerline. What we are looking at is another 25' right of way dedication along that entire property line. Along with that we have a standard dedication block that needs to be added to the plat in which the property owner signs that says "We hereby dedicate this right of way to the county." Mersky: Is the wording in this paper too? Edwards: The wording is not. I can get that to your surveyor by email or however they want it. Mersky: Ok. Edwards: You also have to obtain County approval following our approval. Right now what we are looking at is if you can get all of that revised and back into us by January 86 at 10:00 you can go onto the Subdivision Committee meeting that is January 16`h. Technical Plat Review January 3, 2002 Page 4 Mersky: When is the Planning Commission meeting? Edwards: You may be approved at the Subdivision Committee meeting but in the event that you are not, Planning Commission is January 27`h. This is Matt Casey, our Staff Engineer and he is going to go over some engineering comments. Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: I just need for your surveyor to show the location of existing water lines. I couldn't tell from our map how far down the road the water line extended. Do you know if it comes to this tract 1 or not? Mersky: It stops in the northwest corner. Casey: It will need to be extended the 120' or so down to also serve this tract 2. Mersky: On this plan? Casey: You can show it on that but we will need to have that extended and done before anything can be built on tract 2. Mersky: Ok, not before it can be approved right? Casey: Right. Mersky: It just needs to be shown on here and then before any construction starts that just needs to be in place right? Casey: We will need that before the building permit so we will need some sort of guarantee that that can be constructed. Mersky: Do you have language for that too? Edwards: What our guarantee entails, it can be a surety bond, a letter of credit, or cash in escrow. If you deposit a check with me I will hold it in an escrow account. It doesn't earn interest but once the water line is installed it will be refunded back to you. Mersky: How much do you need? Casey: It will be the estimated construction cost of the line. Edwards: Do you have any idea of how much it will be? Technical Plat Review January 3, 2002 Page 5 Casey: Mersky: Casey: Mersky: Casey: Mersky: Edwards: Mersky: Edwards: Mersky: Edwards: Mersky: Edwards: Casey: Mersky: It won't be a whole lot, 120' of 2" line, I don't have a dollar amount. There is a 2" line further north of there, there are two 3/4" stubs in this corner right here that are just coming out of the ground with a little piece of surveyor's tape on them. When I spoke to somebody from the water department that came out there one time he said there was plenty of water for that. There is just one house. We only show a 2", those must be service lines. Typically we don't allow that. What we need to do is have your surveyor verify the location of the existing 2" line. That will be what needs to be extended. A 2" line to service one house? We can't have service lines crossing property lines. If it is just a 3/4" line that is probably what it is, service lines. That is what runs to the meter. We need more information on that. What if I didn't have this lot going all the way to this point here? What if I extended it over so I maintained my acre and a half and kept the little piece right there and ran that on my property so it was coming right here, would that be acceptable? You have to have a minimum of 75' of street frontage per lot. You have got 113' so you can't reduce it by too much. You can only reduce this part down to 75'. I understand but if what I said would work if it calculates out to an acre and a half is that acceptable? No because you wouldn't have the 75' of street frontage left for this lot because you would be taking all of your frontage for tract 2. No, there are two issues, one is getting the water over and one is maintaining an acre and a half. And 75' of street frontage. Ok, three issues now. Ok, you are saying that wouldn't be street frontage and a dedicated easement is not good enough? No. We don't allow service lines to run in a utility easement. Or in the road easement but you do allow 2" lines to. Technical Plat Review January 3, 2002 Page 6 Casey: Yes, that will be a public main that needs to be extended. Edwards: The best thing is to have your surveyor figure out where our 2" line stops, you have probably got this 2" somewhere and then a service line coming off of there prior to the city regulating it. Casey: Was there a house or anything there? Mersky: Yes. How do I get permission to go in here and do that work? Casey: There should be an easement. Edwards: The easement may stop up there as well. Casey: You need to verify that as well. Mersky: I am pretty sure it does so then what do we do? Casey: We will have to see if we can get that information then we can make a better decision of what needs to be done. Mersky: I can't believe you have to run a 2" over for one house. Casey: That is the policy. We are not allowed to have private service lines crossing property lines which causes a potential for problems. Right now you will own both of them but maybe not always. Mersky: What if I did that first before this was approved? Casey: That would be fine. Mersky: So if I ran a 3/d' before this was approved then it would be ok? Casey: No, it would have to be a 2", 3/4" is still a service line. Mersky: If I had come to you without any of this going on and already had a stub right here on this property would you be happy? Edwards: The thing is you would've had to have got a water tap permit and we would have never permitted that. We don't know when this went in, it was obviously done before we permitted or before we had that regulation in place. If this was done 35 years ago or something it would be different. Mersky: I would have to have a permit to tap into this 3/4' line right here that is on my property already? Technical Plat Review January 3, 2002 Page 7 Casey: That 3/4' line is probably a seryice line so it is probably a private line. Edwards: You have got a meter and then your 3/4" line so what you would've had is both of these on one meter. That wouldn't work for selling the property. Mersky: So get to you where the 2" line is and what else? Casey: And if there is any easement along with that main. Mersky: There probably won't be since this is stubbed out here already. Casey: Typically when you get an easement it is all the way across the front of the property so chances are that it is there and there shouldn't be a problem with you extending that. Mersky: If we don't have an easement then what do we do? Casey: Well, we will have to cross that bridge when we get there. Mersky: We have been working through the warranty deed and we didn't see any easements. Edwards: There might be one on the other side. Mersky: On the other side of the road? Casey: No, we are talking about the adjacent property where the line is located. Mersky: Ok. Casey: I will get some more information for you and get back with you if you will give me your phone number. Mersky: My work number is 571-1701 and the surveyor's is Arrowland Surveying Mapping. Casey: I will see if I can get some more information for you and give you a call and try to work this out. Edwards: Utilities? Johns Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: I would like for you to show a 20' utility easement outside of the newly dedicated right of way that you are being required to dedicate. Technical Plat Review January 3, 2002 Page 8 Mersky: Is this negotiable or is it if he says it has to be? Edwards: It is negotiable. Johny, do you want to tell him why you need that? Boles: For future use. Edwards: Does this property have gas seryice right now? Boles: To be honest, I haven't been out there to look and see. Edwards: What they would need it for is to get electric, gas, cable, and phone to this property and that is what they are looking for and then potentially even to the south so that whatever happens down here they can extend that line. Boles: It is so we don't have the issue that you are dealing with on the water line. Edwards: That is why we typically get the easement across the whole property. Mersky: What if we don't have any plans to use natural gas, if we want to go all electric. Edwards: Electric probably still needs an easement. Ozark Electric isn't here to ask for that. Mersky: They have that easement there right next to it already. Edwards: What do they have? Mersky: They have got high lines right there. When the representative came out to the property one time we had already relocated the pole and I said what if we do this and he said it wouldn't be a problem to come right across there. We were thinking about going all electric. Edwards: Pretty much if you don't want to give them an easement they have the option not to extend the service to that property. That is something you can work out with Ozark Electric. We have got cable and phone and gas also. Mersky: I just want to keep my options open. Boles: If you want to go on record, that is your option. Future customers to the south may want the service and it is our policy that I don't lay lines on county road right of way, I have to lay them on private property so that is the reason I'm requesting it. Technical Plat Review January 3, 2002 Page 9 Mersky: Boles: Mersky: Boles: Mersky: Boles: Now there is service down here. I haven't been out there. Do you know where that perfectly good huge home was torn down on Butterfield Coach that they just abolished? No. That house was about right here so this road is traveled extensively right here and the other people don't use it very much. I know that there is gas down here coming up from that direction. You want 20'? Yes Sir, that is to be used by all utilities. Larry Gibson - Cox Communications Gibson: Mersky: Gibson: Sue Clouser Clouser: Edwards: Mersky: Edwards: Mersky: Edwards: Mersky: That is the same thing I was going to ask for. If we don't have an easement we won't build it. You can share the 20' utility easement though? Yes, it is a general utility easement. — Southwestern Bell I am requiring the same 20' utility easement for our service. Ok, that is it. Ok, so it is 45' plus 20' from the centerline of the road. There is a variance waiver process for the right of way. We would have to go onto Planning Commission and then go to City Council requesting that waiver for the right of way. It would add some time. I don't know which way it would go. At the least we would want a deed restriction so that in the future if we were to pave and widen and annex that area then nothing would be built on it. That is an option if you want to look at that. Ok, is that it? That is all. Thank you very much. Technical Plat Review January 3, 2002 Page 10 LSP 03-3.00: Lot Split (Ruble, pp 436) was submitted by Alan Reid on behalf of Betty Ruble for property located at 625 N. 54th Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 2.12 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 1.06 acres and 1.06 acres. Edwards: Item two is LSP 03-3.00 submitted by Alan Reid on behalf of Betty Ruble for property located at 625 N. 54th Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 2.12 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 1.06 acres and 1.06 acres. Solid Waste has no comments. Sidewalks are not required for lot splits. From Planning, adjacent zoning needs to be added, setbacks need to be added. Note that impact fees are effective June 16, 2003 so be sure to tell your client that so they are aware that if any permit is issued that date or later it will be assessed impact fees. Matt is going to go over sewer. There is one additional unit for Parks fees which is $470. Matt? Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: Alan, they are either going to need to extend the sewer main to serve these two properties or obtain additional easements. The sewer line is off the right of way some there and there is a gap between the right of way and the easement. They have got the option of either obtaining all of that as utility easement in between or extending the sewer across the road to serve this lot. They can't have the sanitary sewer services running through that side of the property. Reid: Is there a reason why the city or whoever put that sewer in didn't put it adjacent to the right of way? Casey: I am not sure the history on that. Reid: It is fairly new I believe, I don't think it is an old sewer line. Casey: I am not sure of the reasoning behind that. They have two options though. It will be a short extension if they are unable to get that easement but then they would also have to get an easement for that extension too so I'm not sure which avenue they would want to take. Reid: Does the city not have any power to take that due to the fact that you have to hook up if you are within so many feet? Casey: I would have to get with our City Attorney's office to see. Edwards: It is a long process. Technical Plat Review January 3, 2002 Page 11 Reid: Casey: Reid: Casey: Reid: Casey: Edwards: Re id: Edwards: Reid: Casey: Reid: Casey: If they only need to get an easement why can't they just get an easement for a tap then? We don't allow an easement for services like that. If that was a general utility easement that would be the same as it running parallel to the road in an easement. That is why we gave you that option to fill in that gap there, it is only another 10' or 15' of easement. So if they can get an easement from where the sewer line is over to the right of way from the neighbor, if they get the neighbor to dedicate that as a general utility easement then they could go under the street and hook it in. That was kind of a stretch, that was an alternative that we came up with if they did not want to extend that main. If they extend the main don't they either have to buy the property or something? They will still have to get a 20' easement for that across that same property. It is a public easement and that would be a public main. Either way they are public easements. Ok, we will look at it then. Is that house not on sewer? I think it is. I am pretty sure it is tapped into that line across the street. I couldn't find a cleanout and it didn't show up on the computer as any kind of connection but I think everybody on that street is hooked into that sewer line. We need to check with the Water and Sewer Division and see. That is the only easement you found for that? It was like an easement that was so many feet each side of the existing sewer manhole and why it runs at an angle I don't know unless they encountered some problems digging the ditch. I will check on that with our water and sewer division and see where those taps are coming from. Technical Plat Review January 3, 2002 Page 12 Johns Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: No comment. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: No comment. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: No comment. Reid: I will work on trying to secure an easement or something. Casey: Do you have the address to that property? Reid: It is 625 N. 54th Street. Technical Plat Review January 3, 2002 Page 13 LSP 03-4.00: Lot Split (Zakariadze, pp 439) was submitted by Ira Zakariadze for property located at 944 & 946 N. Meadowlands Drive. The property is zoned R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential and contains approximately 0.43 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 0.20 acres and 0.23 acres. Edwards: Next is LSP 03-4.00 that was submitted by Ira Zakariadze for property located at 944 & 946 N. Meadowlands Drive. The property is zoned R- 1.5, Moderate Density Residential and contains approximately 0.43 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 0.20 acres and 0.23 acres. There are no sidewalks required for lot splits. No comment from Solid Waste. The only thing from Planning is adjacent zoning. This is a Washington County board signature block. If you do it that way then Tim is going to have to sign it and that could delay him. The impact fees will be after June 16, 2003. That is all that I have. Matt? Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: I would like to see the location of the existing water lines. You show the sewer but they are going to have to extend the sewer line to serve this tract because it will not have access to sewer on either side. Currently this house, from our records, has service coming off this north line. That is going to have to be abandoned and a new line laid and a service coming in off of it so that those service lines don't cross the property lines. Edwards: We have a provision to allow for him to go ahead and build without doing a lot split because he has got enough room and he has proven that a lot split is possible and that way if he wanted to go ahead and build, he is still going to have to extend these lines but he wouldn't have to do it ahead of time if he was interested in doing something like that and then we could file the lot split afterwards. I am not sure how his financing works if that is required but that is an option if you want to tell him that. I will tell him the same thing. Reid: So he could go ahead and build and then he could clear up the matter of the sewer during that time? Edwards: Yes. He is still going to have to meet those requirements but he wouldn't have to do it ahead of time. Casey: He wouldn't have to extend the line unless he ever split it. Edwards: Right, that's true. Reid: I am not sure if his intention was to split for financing or to split for future sell or what. I can get with him and see. Technical Plat Review January 3, 2002 Page 14 Edwards: If he didn't do this in the future he couldn't ever split it until he did that. Reid: Right, if he is going to keep them as investment or income properties he could have two houses with two sewer lines but he couldn't ever split it until he had another main run down and another tap put on. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: You put a 25' building setback and UE on the front of the property and that should be plenty. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: I agree with that easement. Edwards: Thanks Alan. Reid: Thank you. Technical Plat Review January 3, 2002 Page 15 PPL 03-2.00: Preliminary Plat (Salem Heights, pp 284) was submitted by Leonard Gabbard of Landtech Engineering, Inc. on behalf of John Alford of Palmco Properties for property located on North Salem Road, south of Salem Village. The property is zoned R- 1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 30.96 acres with 87 lots proposed. Edwards: The next item is PPL 03-2.00 submitted by Leonard Gabbard of Landtech Engineering, Inc. on behalf of John Alford of Palmco Properties for property located on North Salem Road, south of Salem Village. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 30.96 acres with 87 lots proposed. Hillis: Leonard Gabbard couldn't be here today. I am Don Hillis with Landtech so I will be here representing this project. Edwards: I will go ahead and start with Parks. The Parks Board has approved money in lieu of land in the amount of $40,890 and that is based on 87 single-family units. That will be due before the Final Plat is signed. Hillis: Ok. Edwards: Keith, do you want to go over your comments? Shreve: Basically, we just need the sidewalk requirements shown for each street, there are no sidewalks shown at this point. Edwards: We do need them to be shown and they will need to be shown on the Final Plat also. Shreve: On the comments page it lists out the streets by class and the widths of the sidewalks and widths of the green space required for each class. Also, sidewalks required on Salem Road with street improvements. Engineering will go over street improvements. Rupple Road will have a sidewalk requirement. The street doesn't currently exist but we would ask you to put money in escrow. Casey: It is under construction right now. Edwards: Would you want them to go ahead and build it as part of their development? It is probably a little late to add it into the contract. You would need to build Salem sidewalks and Rupple sidewalks and then we could allow the guarantee for the internal sidewalk. I am going to go over that in my comments. Those will have to be built along with the street. Shreve: Also, truncated domes and detectable warnings and access ramps will be required. I have got some information here on that if you would like. It is Technical Plat Review January 3, 2002 Page 16 covered in the U.D.O. about the sidewalks being continuous through the driveways for the houses. On the plat we will want a table with the street names and right of way width and sidewalk width and that information. If you have any questions about any of these comments give us a call at the office. Hillis: We will do it, we appreciate that. Edwards: From our Landscape Administrator it looks like the tree preservation plan needs to be revised to include the plan requirements as listed in the ordinance and include a check list. She says that you can meet with her for specific changes. Hesse: Don, we can go out there and look at it. I think I faxed you the check list. Hillis: You did. They went out there and shot it all. I have got a lot more information on that now and so I will get with you. I can give you a call on Monday. Hesse: Yes, before you revise the plan let's get it down. The other comment is that you will have to mitigate for that 4,000 sq.ft. canopy that you are removing. Hillis: That is changing a little bit. The tree canopy is actually a lot more than we thought it was. There are trees everywhere around those detention pond sites and we showed everyone of them, shot them all so you will see a big difference. Edwards: There is no comment from Solid Waste. From Planning, we have got a requirement that each lot be a minimum of 70' in width and how this applies to Tots on a curb or a cul-de-sac is it is measured at the 25' setback. I have listed all of these lots that are on a curb or a cul-de-sac and asked that you dimension the length at the 25' building setback. Hillis: They should all be at the 70' mark. Edwards: Also, with your plans, typically what I see is the property line pins, on these straight lines it isn't a problem, I understand 70' from there to there, but when we get to these kinds of things I don't understand where the 17' is and where the other is. Please show your pins. Hillis: I saw that too and I couldn't tell either. Edwards: Please add plat page 284. I think when you get your table in there that Keith is asking for it will take care of our dimensions and street widths and things. It looks like what happened is you went off an old plan for an Technical Plat Review January 3, 2002 Page 17 old Preliminary Plat that was submitted in this area. Since then, our Master Street Plan has changed. Salem Road is still a collector but as a collector, it requires 35' from centerline, you have got 30' shown. Rupple, on the other hand, we already have the right of way from the subdivision across Rupple. They went ahead and dedicated the whole 90' so the 40' of right of way you have shown, we don't need it because we already have all the right of way that we need. Hillis: Ok, so our subdivision could go on out further. Edwards: Yes. Also, previously this went to Planning Commission and City Council, not this exact subdivision but a subdivision proposal, and there was extensive discussion about a stubout to the south being provided. We do need a street stubout to the south. It can be your option if you want to continue this here or here, however you would like to do that is fine. We are trying to get connectivity out there. With the impact fees, they are effective on June 16, 2003. Anything permitted with a building permit that date or later will be subject to impact fees. We will limit access from Salem and Rupple at the time of Final Plat we will require a note be placed on the plat that states that access will not be allowed from those two streets. Also, at the time of Final Plat if there is any subdivision signs proposed we will need to see elevations of those and locations of those signs that needs to be approved by the Planning Commission. I did not see any existing utilities on this site. Do you know if there is anything on here? Hillis: We are showing an existing water line right along in there, it is not labeled but it should have been. Edwards: Do you know if there are any overhead electric lines? Hillis: I am sure there are some poles and things along Salem Road of course. We will get them shown on there. Edwards: We will need to know that and know the size of those lines. All new utilities and possibly existing utilities, we will have to check, must be placed underground. The maintenance of the wetland area and any common open space must be provided for in the covenants. Then you have the floodplain. Hillis: You have got 500 -year flood and 100 -year floodplain here. We are allowed to build the floodplain up a hundred years and we had planned on building that up. Edwards: What we have to do in the mean time is that all lots have to be one acre in size. At such time that you go ahead and get that filled, you submit a letter Technical Plat Review January 3, 2002 Page 18 of map amendment to FEMA and that is approved, then you submit the Final Plat. It can't be submitted until that is done and at that time we can add these lines back in there. I don't want anyone thinking that they have got approval for these lots as is, there is a minimum of one acre. Hillis: Ok, until we get it approved. Casey: If you are planning that fill you will need to show that grading on the plans, which it is not right now. Edwards: Let me say that along with the fill, the end result is that each lot has to have 6,000 sq.ft. buildable area. Buildable area is area outside of the setback and outside the floodplain and so that is what we need to end up with at the end for these lots. Hillis: Ok. Casey: Don, we need to have a sheet labeled grading plan and back to Sara's comments about the fill, all of that grading needs to be shown on that. Please add your proposed contours to the street and they will tie into any existing contours, we will need that tied together. Hillis: The way we understood it was that we would submit a Preliminary Grading Plan, which showed a few elevations and things like that. We didn't know we had to do a full fledged grading plan. The actual roads haven't been designed yet. Casey: Our grading ordinance lists everything that is required in the grading plan and another comment is that we need all of those things included as well. There is quite a list of all of the things that need to be included, an erosion control method, treatment of disturbed areas, and all of those items. There are some exceptions and they are noted in there which ones are not needed with the Preliminary Hillis: We will go over that. Casey: We are recommending that street improvements be made along Salem. That is going to be a minimum of 14' from centerline but actual width may vary. We need to work that out and make it align with the existing improvements up and down Salem because it is kind of spotty down through there and varying widths so we will need to work that out on our actual construction plan with how that lines up. Hillis: Ok. Technical Plat Review January 3, 2002 Page 19 Casey: Hillis: Casey: You also need to show the grading with the existing detention pond. I understand from a phone conversation that that is going to move? It is going to move on out. As a matter of fact, it may end up with two of them. We will need a revised drainage report showing all that. Also, on the drainage report, according to our manual, you will have to have a final detention design and we are going to need all of the calculations associated with that. We will need the detail of the drainage areas and offsite drainage areas. The submitted drainage report didn't have any of that. The water line here on the west side will need to connect to the waterline under construction to this Clabber Creek. It is shown to stubout here but it will also need to connect. The same thing for the street. Hillis: Where is that water line being located at along Rupple now? Casey: I believe it is on the west side if I remember correctly. Hillis: We need to get it connected before that is paved. Casey: The Engineering Division needs a copy of the wetlands delineation. I know that the Planning Division has one, we need a copy as well. For Rupple Road we are recommending an assessment of $15,380. The city constructed a portion of Rupple Road from Mount Comfort up to the school and we assessed previous developments for that construction. It is based upon the projected traffic and the actual construction costs. Hillis: How much was that? Casey: $15,380. We are also recommending an assessment for the future bridge construction on the northwest corner of this. That is based on estimated traffic and an estimated bridge construction cost which ended up being $9,870. In addition, in 1995 the City Council passed an ordinance assessing all developers connecting to the waterlines along Salem an assessment of $200 per acre. That was from Mount Comfort to Salem Village so the next one will be assessed that. That is $6,192. Also, I just wanted to make you aware that we have had some concerns with the sewer capacity with the Hamestring Creek lift station, which is downstream of this. Currently we have contracted with RJM to study this area and make some recommendations for improvements and expect to have that within a few days so we will have some answers after that hopefully. Edwards: Is there a possibility for an assessment on that sewer? Casey: Not that I know of. Technical Plat Review January 3, 2002 Page 20 Edwards: I have one thing to add As far as the sidewalk goes, they can be guaranteed by money in a city escrow account and with a contract that will require total installation by the time that Yz of the lots are built on. Utilities? Johns Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: We have a 4" high pressure line running north and south on the west side of Salem Road. We would like for you to show that. Hillis: That is on Salem? Boles: Yes Sir. There is a 4" high pressure steel line and any relocation of that will be done at the developer's expense if it is required. I guess we will go through crossings first. Both entrances of the subdivision on Salem Road we will need a quad. From the property line of lots 30 and 31 crossings over to lot 46 G Street. On G Street from 58 to 87 and north a little bit to the rear property line between 82 and 83 we want quads underneath that drainage. From the southwest corner of lot 23 to the northeast corner of lot 11 we want quads across there and that utility easement extended so we can get across. I assume we can't go across from 13 to 37. Also, from the southwest corner of 87 to the southeast corner of 5 we will need quads underneath that discharge for that drainage and we need that 20' utility easement extended through there. Quads from the southeast corner of 5 to the northeast corner of 6 and from the northwest corner of 22 to the southwest corner of 1 and we need a 20' utility easement, 10' from each side of 47 and 46 and also a 20' utility easement across 54 and 51 down to 52 and 53. Hillis: Do you want the total length of that? Boles: Yes, to get down to 52 and 53. Hillis: 10' on each side? Boles: That would be fine. I will speak a little for Mike since he is not here. He will probably want a 10' utility easement from the rear of the lots for all the street lights to the front. Edwards: Let me say that I don't think you have enough street lights. Perry has been sick so he didn't comment but he will get you comments about this. Boles: I think that is all I have. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Technical Plat Review January 3, 2002 Page 21 Gibson: The only thing I have additional is I would like you to show in there on this Ozark Electric line that runs north and south there on the west side, I have got a high count fiber optic line on that line overhead also. If you would just note that on the print. If we have to relocate any of that it will be at the owner's expense. That is all I have. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: If we have any utilities located on your property that need to be relocated it will be at the owner's expense. We will require pull strings and conduits and there is a possibility that we will be requiring the developer to provide the trench for us to lay the cable in or we can go in with one of the other utilities. Thank you. Casey: I need to add that revisions for drainage calculations and everything will need to be submitted prior to going to the Subdivision Committee meeting. Edwards: The deadline for that, because of the holidays is kind of fast, it is Wednesday. If you can't meet that that's no problem, we will just go for the next one. Hillis: It may have to be, there are a lot of things going on. Technical Plat Review January 3, 2002 Page 22 PPL 03-3.00: Preliminary Plat (Salem Meadows, pp 245) was submitted by Leonard Gabbard of Landtech Engineering, Inc. on behalf of John Alford of Palmco Properties for property located on North Salem Road, north of Salem Village. The property is zoned R- 1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 39.99 acres with 101 lots proposed. Edwards: The next item is PPL 03-3.00, Salem Meadows, the property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 39.99 acres with 101 lots proposed. It is on Salem Road north of Salem Village. I will start with Parks. The Parks Board met and voted to accept a combination of 1.9 acres of land and money in lieu in the amount of $11,750. This will require a waiver from City Council, it is scheduled for January 7, 2003. We are requesting that you shade the park land dedication area a different shading than the detention pond shading, we don't want it to be confused. This plan also shows trees in the park land. If trees are to be donated by the developer the tree plan must be approved through Kim Rogers first. We are also requesting park boundary signs be erected by the developer or surveyor. Parks will provide the size, poles, bolts and screws. The property owner's association is to exclude the park land dedication area from the covenants. Construction debris or dumping on park land will not be tolerated and will be fined. The fee will be due prior to signing the Final Plat. Kim Rogers — Parks and Recreation Rogers: Sara, are you going to want a lot number to be on the park property? Edwards: Yes we will. Rogers: Also, clarify if the water line is on park boundaries. Hillis: I need to put an easement around that. Rogers: Please clarify that along the park boundary. That is all I have. Edwards: While we are talking about lot numbers, I need you to number the park and the detention pond, that way they can be described by a clear legal description. For sidewalks, you need to add the table with the right of way, green space and sidewalks. All of your interior streets are local streets, which is a 4' sidewalk and a 6' green space. Rupple requires a 6' sidewalk and a 10' green space. Right now we are not building Rupple with this one, do you still want a sidewalk Keith? Shreve: We want a contribution for future construction. I don't think they need to build it at this point. It will be built when the street is built. Technical Plat Review January 3, 2002 Page 23 Edwards: We will figure an assessment up for the sidewalk for you. Salem is a 6' sidewalk and a 10' green space. Show the sidewalks with the plat. I think we went over everything else with the other one. Do you have anything else to add? Shreve: No. Edwards: From the Landscape Administrator, she is requesting that you indicate ownership of wetlands and tree preservation area and note on the plat for future reference. The preservation area needs to be in the covenants of the subdivision. She is requesting that the tree preservation plan be revised to include the plan requirements as listed in the ordinance and checklist, the same as before. It looks like there is no mitigation required on this one. From Solid Waste, they don't have any changes requested. From Planning again I have listed the lots that we need to dimension at the 25' setback line to make sure that it is 70' wide. We need the plat page added. Add a street table. Again, Salem is 35' from centerline. Rupple we do need 45' from centerline on this one. It just happened on that last one that they took the whole dedication. On this development you do have some difficulty with your proposed street alignment. What we are requesting is that your northern street be aligned with Crystal Drive and that your southern street be aligned with the entrance to the school so there isn't a traffic conflict on Salem. Also, I am asking for a street stubout to the north. I was considering saddling the property line between Coles and Foster here, that would be a good location somewhere in the middle here. Impact fees will be effective June 16th. Again, we will be limiting access on Salem and Rupple. All subdivision signs have to be approved by the Planning Commission. I need the utilities shown on the plat and all new utilities, and possibly existing, will be placed underground. The maintenance of the common areas and wetland areas should be provided for in the covenants. The same thing on the sidewalks as well. Hillis: Lining up those streets with the school and Crystal Drive is going to be difficult. Matt Casey - Staff Engineer Casey: A lot of these comments that I have made are just repeats of the previous project. There are the same requirements for the grading plan and also on the drainage report and the contours for the streets that you are going to connect and the existing contours. Again, we are recommending that street improvements be made along Salem with a minimum of 14' and also to line up with what is out there. I need a copy of the wetlands delineation. I also need a minimum 10' easement from the water line across the park property. Another comment is the sewer is looped so I don't know if that is a drafting error. Technical Plat Review January 3, 2002 Page 24 Hillis: Casey: Hillis: Casey: I think it is because there's more than one manhole We have got it all around here and here as well. You can eliminate some of those lines. You can cut it off and cross it here and connect them all. We just elected to have a dry line, it is a little extra line but we can look at it. I need a 12' wide gravel or paved access to the detention pond in the Rupple Road right of way, a 20' access easement back to the detention pond. We are going to be recommending an assessment for the future construction of Rupple Road. I haven't determined an amount for that but I will get that to you before the Subdivision Committee meeting. I would also like for the water lines to loop over here and connect with the existing 6" line that is running along the northwest corner of this property to be extended out to an 8" along Rupple Road. That is another loop. I would also like a sewer stubout along the street stubout to the north that will be water and sewer. Hillis: That's for future connection? Casey: Yes. Also, to the west you can extend the line on out. Again, we are going to be recommending an assessment, it is $11,429 for the construction of the bridge over Clabber Creek. That is based on projected traffic and estimated construction costs of the bridge. Again, the concerns with the Hamestring Creek lift station and the sewer capacity that we are working on. Hillis: Are you guys planning on keeping that lift station? Casey: Hopefully we will have some answers within the next month or two and hopefully start construction. Hillis: That area is really booming out there. Edwards: We know. Utilities? Johny Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: The 4" high pressure line that exists on the other property, that crosses from the west side of Salem Road to the east side and to the southeast corner of your project. There is a large area that is wetlands, the city has a 20' sewer easement in there, is there any way we can go through there? Hillis: We are proposing an easement. Technical Plat Review January 3, 2002 Page 25 Boles: I would need to utilize that also. You can lay it out as a general utility easement. I will start on A Street from 56 to 55; 73 and 74 to 51 and 52; 24 and 23 to 42 and 43; Across the page to 38 and 39 across the street; back down to B Street from 22 to 96; C Street 75 to 92; 78 to 91; now we will go to G Street, 11 to 83; 5 to 82; 1 to 64; back up in the area of the detention pond, we would want a casing underneath that drainage from 41 to 13; How much water are you going to have running across there? Hillis: I think it is going to be pretty deep. Boles: The minimum coverage is 48". The same thing between 30 and 31 on the other side of the detention pond. Back to A Street, for all of those crossings, side lot easements 20', 10' off of each side between 42 and 43; Toward the bottom of the page, 51 and 52; between 74 and 75; 78 and 79; between 4 and 5; 10 and 11; 22 and 23; I think that that is all I have. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: The only other comment that I have got is that fiber extends along that side there too. Hillis: That is good to know. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: I would like pull strings and conduits and any of our utilities that may need to be relocated will be at the developer's expense and we may require the developer to provide a trench for us. Technical Plat Review January 3, 2002 Page 26 LSD 03-2.00: Large Scale Development (Lazenby, pp 560) was submitted by Landtech Engineering, Inc. on behalf of Bill Lazenby for property located west of Razorback Road and north of Baum Stadium. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 7.99 acres with office & multifamily residential proposed. Edwards: The next item is LSD 03-2.00 submitted by Landtech Engineering, Inc. on behalf of Bill Lazenby for property located west of Razorback Road and north of Baum Stadium. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 7.99 acres with office & multifamily residential. I will start with Parks. You haven't been to the Parks Board. The requirement is that it has to be to the Parks Board before we can review it. We didn't realize that so we are going to go ahead and review this but it does have to be pulled and reviewed again at Plat Review pending their decision. Right now she is not sure if she is going to want money or land. So I don't know where we are on that. Hillis: We plan to make something really look nice. Edwards: From Sidewalks, Razorback will require a 6' sidewalk and 10' green space. Sidewalks will need to be continuous through the driveway. We do have a bicycle parking rack ordinance. Seven bicycle racks are required, two at the office site and five for the apartments. We do have specific requirements for those, are you aware of the U bike racks? Shreve: Don, I have information on those if you need it. Hillis: Ok, that would be great. Edwards: Apparently from our Fire Department, building number 10 is over 16 units and therefore, has to be sprinkled. Hillis: No, it is 16 units, it is 24 bedrooms. We tried to indicate that each one of these are 16 units but there is 24 bedrooms to each unit so there are really only 16 units. That has been a confusion, we were trying to make it clear to everybody and it didn't work. Edwards: Ok. They are recommending an additional hydrant at Unit 8. Hillis: We have one there now, do they want another one? Edwards: I encourage you to go ahead and call him and find out what they are talking about. From Solid Waste, they are recommending each commercial container pad be constructed with 8" thick concrete 12' wide and 20' deep with a turning radius of 32' or ample backing area. They went ahead and illustrated that request. Technical Plat Review January 3, 2002 Page 27 Hillis: I need to get with them too and find out where they would like to have that located at really. I will call them also. Edwards: I know that this property was previously submitted for a rezoning for the C-3 zoning district and we did not recommend that. We had talked to the developer about an accessory residential use being allowed. I think that what we had was a misunderstanding because we heard mixed use development and thought more mix than what is proposed. For an accessory residential use to be accessory it has to have 49% or less of the gross floor area of the buildings on the site. This is like 15 times the commercial. What we would be looking at as accessory residential to get apartments and commercial would be 51% commercial square footage, 49% residential square footage. With that being said, we have got a couple of different options. Of course what we have done right now is we have got a Conditional Use and a Large Scale that we are going to recommend denial of. It is the developer's option to go ahead and proceed with that. Secondly, the property may be rezoned with a zoning consistent with multi -family residential. I think what we had talked about before was an RMF -18 or RMF -12 or R-2 or something, depending on what the need would be but we are not supporting C-3. Then we have a new option in our ordinance which is a Planned Zoning District, what that does is allows you to basically process your Large Scale and your zoning together. This property would be it's own zoning district subject to the requirements of this development, it wouldn't fall under any R requirements and you have different setback options, different street widths, etc. With a PZD there are some requirements that have to be made. You need to say how you developed this site with regard to tree canopy and the natural features. There are quite a few things that need to be met and we would need a letter addressing how that has been met and how it is consistent with the purpose of our Planned Zoning District Ordinance. Those are three options that we can do. You still need to go to the Parks Board. If this is the plan that we are going to use to do that, that needs to go first. Hillis: We didn't know a Large Scale Development went to Parks. Edwards: All residential units go to the Parks Board. Really, you need to explore with your client what they want to do and we can decide where to go from there, if it is a rezoning how that will fit in with the Parks board. With that being said, we did go ahead and review it as it is shown. We are looking for adjacent zoning to be added, a plat page to be added, a floodplain reference. Also, we are requesting a wetlands delineation on this property. There might be some wetlands here. The vicinity map is lacking many of the existing streets. You need to get that added so everyone understands where it is. There needs to be a site coverage note, building height. Also, I would like to explore the option of connecting Technical Plat Review January 3, 2002 Page 28 this development into Lazenby's mini storage to the west and see if that would be possible. We do have a requirement of 15' of landscaping between front property lines and the Master Street Plan right of way. You have got 5' shown. Hillis: Ok, we can make that work. Edwards: The curb radius needs to be dimensioned. The minimum is 30'. I am looking for a description of what kind of lighting is going to be used. As far as with the PZD and with the Conditional Use option we do require elevations of all of the residential buildings, all four sides. Regardless of what option we used the Commercial buildings you do we will have to have elevations of all four sides. Right now I think it has got one. Any signage for the apartments or the commercial needs to be reviewed as well. Again, we need the existing utilities shown. New utilities have to go underground. All dumpsters must be screened. Again, the impact fees are effective June 16`h. If you need to talk about those options just give us a call. Hillis: We will try to set up a meeting with you Sara the first of next week. Edwards: Ok. Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: Don, just like with the other projects, we are needing the grading plan with the those items. Hillis: There is a grading plan here that is pretty intense. Casey: Also, the things for the drainage report, the detention pond calculations. There were some submitted but it was for only one pond and there are three or four ponds on here. We would need the inflow and outflow of each one plus the area of the sheet flow that is going into the pond. We need that all separated. Hillis: They are out there right now shooting that existing one that is to the west of us. Casey: We will need that information as well. We need easements 10' on the proposed water and sewer lines. I think there was 15' total width easements shown and those need to be 20'. That is all I have. Technical Plat Review January 3, 2002 Page 29 Glenn Newman — AEP/SWEPCO Newman: Don, is there any way we could get a meeting to arrange for easements within the complex? Hillis: Yes Sir. Once we figure out how we are going to go on this thing. We have several options on this thing. We have been hashing this thing around for quite a while. We were under the impression at that time that this was the way to go with this thing but we may have a problem with that so I would be happy to set up a meeting with all the utilities. Newman: The building setback 25' around the perimeter is a good place to start. As far as trying to locate my transformers and the telephone and the cable company, if we could just let us all get together at whatever time you want to set it up. Hillis: It may be just a good thing to get together with everybody. Boles: We agree with Glenn. Hillis: We will get with all of you. Boles: Does Mr. Lazenby want gas? Hillis: As far as I know, yes. Technical Plat Review January 3, 2002 Page 30 LSD 03-3.00: Large Scale Development (Rasberry, 366) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Henry Jordan for property located east of Leverett at the north end. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 1.18 acres with a 24 unit apartment development proposed. Edwards: The next item is LSD 03-3.00 submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Henry Jordan for property located east of Leverett at the north end. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 1.18 acres with a 24 unit apartment development proposed. Gilbert: Just for the record, Rasberry appears to be misspelled but it is actually a person's name and that is the correct spelling. It does not have a "P". Edwards: Starting with Parks, $9,000 was decided upon by the Parks Board for money in lieu of land. From our Landscape Administrator, she is requesting that you clearly depict which proposed trees are for mitigation and which are for landscape requirements. Also list the size and species of the proposed trees on the plan. From the Sidewalk Administrator, Leverett is a collector which requires a 6' sidewalk and a 10' green space. Sidewalks will be continuous through driveways with a maximum 2% cross slope and elevated 2% above top of curb. Two bike racks will be required. Gilbert: Is that two U's? Shreve: Yes, two U's that will hold four bicycles. Edwards: Solid Waste has no comment. I need you to verify the building height. Setback increases with height over 25'. Gilbert: I did talk to the man involved with putting this together yesterday and he did say that the buildings would not exceed 25' in height. We will verify that to be sure. Edwards: Ok. We are going to recommend that Leverett be constructed to the nearest property line. I knew that you guys were aware of that. Curb radius for the driveway, you need to add a dimension. Do you know if they are proposing a sign? Gilbert: They are, I don't have any details on the signage just yet but we have got a location shown at the southwest corner. I believe it will be something similar to what is shown on Leverett Gardens now but I will have to check for sure. I have mentioned that to Mr. Jordan but I haven't got this anchored down yet. Technical Plat Review January 3, 2002 Page 31 Edwards: Gilbert: Edwards: Gilbert: Edwards: Gilbert: Edwards: Casey: Gilbert: Casey: Gilbert: Edwards: All utilities will have to be underground. Impact fees are effective June 16, 2003. Let me ask you a quick question on that. You said that it is all permits issued after June 16th, is that building permits? Do you understand how that works Matt? It doesn't apply to grading permits though. It is when you get your tap I think, I'm not real clear on that but we will figure it out. We are going to have to come up with a plan for that. The grading permit probably doesn't have an impact fee right? No. Tim is the Impact Fee Administrator so if you have any questions he will be the one to ask. That is all I have. David, as you know all of the grading has to be setback a minimum of 5' from the property line unless you get permission from adjoining property owners. You must feed the 100 -year water surface elevation in the detention pond. I notice that the new street improvements are wider than the old. You need to transition that so that it meets the current city standards. Did you get the letter that I sent you about grading within 5' of the property line? No. The grading on the east and south side does encroach in the 5', there is a letter. I will get another copy of that and send that to you. I am sorry if it didn't get included in the packet, I thought I had that but we will get you one. The same family owns both pieces of property so of course they are ok with grading next to each other. Utilities? Jim Sargent — AEP/SWEPCO Sargent: The utility easement along Leverett, is there a 25' building setback and UE note to go along with that? Gilbert: Yes there is a note that is kind of covered up here. Technical Plat Review January 3, 2002 Page 32 Sargent: Gilbert: Sargent: Gilbert: Sargent: Gilbert: Rasberry: Gilbert: Ok. Over on the east end of the property, are you indicating a utility easement across there? We haven't because there is not much room. To the north of this property, to the south is an existing apartment complex, to the north is what will, at least on the Master Plan, someday be a street, and then the University's farm is just immediately north of that so we had not planned to show anything in that order. I was thinking of that for service to the apartment building and coming around this side and coming in. Ok, well what kind of width are we looking at there? If you could afford 10' from there to the building across from there. Maybe you could designate a 10' utility easement right there. There may be an easement on the other side, I don't know. There is not. Right now there is not even a property line there. Does Mr. Rasberry own that property? Yes. I will have to visit with him on that. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: Gilbert: Gibson: Gilbert: Gibson: Sue Clouser Clouser: Gilbert: That is part of that existing complex isn't it? It is Larry, I think it is a house, I'm not sure if the manager lives there or what is going on. It looks like a clubhouse when you look at it but when I talked to Mr. Jordan he said it's not a clubhouse, it's got a backyard and a fence. In fact, you have got an asphalt playground behind it. You've got me, I'm not sure where it is. I have got the same comments. — Southwestern Bell I have got the same comments but I would also like a crossing across the driveway. Do you all care if our service point to serve this building is on the east side or the south side? Technical Plat Review January 3, 2002 Page 33 Gibson: On the north would be better I think. Sargent: At least for us it would be better. Gilbert: Ok. Then do you need the 20' utility easement on the south side? Gibson: I don't think there is anything in there right now. Gilbert: Ok, well we will iron this out. Boles: I need 5' separation from the power. Edwards: Revisions are due back by 10:00 a.m. January 8, 2003. Technical Plat Review January 3, 2002 Page 34 PZD 03-1.00: Planned Zoning District (Jackson Place, 255) was submitted by Geoffrey Bates of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of T -Crow, LTD for property located at the southeast corner of Crossover and Skillern Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 8.37 acres with 14 residential units proposed. Edwards: This is our very first Planned Zoning District. It was submitted by Geoffrey Bates of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of T -Crow, LTD for property located at the southeast comer of Crossover and Skillern Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 8.37 acres with 14 residential units proposed. This has been an interesting process for all of us. Kelso: I know he has met with you all a lot on this one. Edwards: He has, we do have some changes but I will get there. Parks Board has recommended to accept money in lieu for $6,580. The Landscape Administrator is recommending that you evaluate an alternative design for the rear lot drainage in order to preserve trees in the rear setbacks of lots five through eight. The current design must be proven necessary prior to recommendation to approve the removal of high priority trees in the rear lot areas. Utilities are to be proposed for the front of lots in these locations if preservation is useful. Kelso: Ok. Hesse: On that swale, I didn't know exactly what that was. Kelso: I will have to get with Geoff on it but briefly looking at it, it looks like a lot of drainage comes from that way, which would be east and kind of sheet flows across there. It looks like he put that there to try to pick it up and take it around the lots. It may be a possibility to put a pipe in there, I don't know. It looks like it is sheet flowing from the east and coming straight onto lots one through six so we put a ditch there to route it around the lots to keep it from going into the back of people's houses. Casey: We don't like them to run large amounts of offsite water through their detention pond and so they are trying to pick it up. It looks like it is going into their detention pond maybe but it is supposed to go around it. Hesse: Into the street? Kelso: Yes. Like I said, you don't want all of that going into the back of your houses either, you want to try to divert that if you can some way. Technical Plat Review January 3, 2002 Page 35 Hesse: I just need to look at it some more and know exactly what you have in mind. Edwards: From Sidewalks, there will be a sidewalk required along Old Wire, a 6' sidewalk with a 10' green space. That is going to be subject to the Master Street Plan. Everything else is pretty common Solid Waste had no comments. From Planning, in accordance with the flood damage prevention code, all subdivisions greater than five acres must do a study. These studies include the 100 -year floodplain, floodway, and base flood elevations. I have the preliminary study from the Corp. It is finished, I don't know if you know about this but they have included negative surcharges, which now the reviewing agency for FEMA will not allow any negative surcharges. Basically, what has to be done to this data, which is what we are asking you guys to do, is redo it minus the negative surcharges. Kelso: How do we get a hold of that data? Edwards: I have emailed it to Geoff. He should have it but if he doesn't, I can send it to him again. What we are looking for is that study to be complete to delineate the boundaries before we can go further with this. Kelso: All you need us to do is to go in and fix it to where there are no negative surcharges but the Corp. of Engineers will work with FEMA to finish it up? Edwards: Right. Kelso: All we are needing to do is just satisfy the city that we have taken care of the negative surcharges, here is our delineation modifying the model. Edwards: PBS&J on the FEMA website has got criteria, you can run your program, Checkraz, you download it from their website, it checks all of the data to make sure it meets all of their requirements so it is going to be approved. We are asking you to do that and that way it won't change. The Corp. is going to have to go through and redo all of their stuff. Kelso: All I am saying is that we don't have to go through PBS&J to get their approval and then FEMA writes the letter of map change. Edwards: This program gives you a printout that says you have met all of PBS&J requirements. That is what we are looking for on that. Based on that, we are going to look the acre or 6,000 sq.ft. requirements outside of the floodplain. We are not going to support lots 15 and 16. In our design standards, and I think we told Geoff this but in our design standards we Technical Plat Review January 3, 2002 Page 36 discourage lots fronting on our Master Street Plan streets. This is definitely a case where it is a safety issue. Kelso: Is Old Wire Road an arterial? Edwards: It is a minor arterial, which one of my next comments is that it does require 45' from centerline to be dedicated. A PZD does not have to have a public street, it does not have to have 25' setbacks, it is all pretty open. We are going to look for compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods and that is the developer's responsibility to prove that case so if something needs to be done with that, that's fine. If you need to maintain these lots we would be looking for a street with a cul-de-sac coming back and providing the access. It is pretty flexible because this is a PZD and we don't have to meet our standard requirements. We did some traffic counts, we don't have all of them, we haven't had enough time to analyze them with the holiday. We have talked to Geoff some about two issues. We are looking at possibly wanting that street to come into this intersection, possibly not, we are still doing some studies. The other thing is there is 150' requirement offset of streets and this is off by 25' I believe. We are going to hopefully get that information on Monday and what we are going to recommend on that. Furthermore, street improvements to Old Wire, we are probably looking at something there. I am assuming Matt isn't making a recommendation yet and we will get with you guys on that too based on what we are looking at with our traffic counts. Adjacent zoning added, plat page added. I am concerned with the acreages of the Tots are not reflected correctly once we take the right of way out. Like I said, it is 45' from centerline. We do need to make sure that that all works to and at least by the Final Plat move the subdivision boundary in and get all of that worked out. Impact fees are effective June 16th. You might not know about the signs, but if any signs are proposed then you need to approve those with the Final Plat. All utilities are required to be underground. I don't know if you have a copy of our PZD ordinance, I think that we gave Geoff one. There are two sections, 161.22(a) which is the purpose of the PZD in general; and 161.22(c) which is the purpose of the residential PZD. There are a list of things like flexibility, compatibility, etc. What I would like is for you guys to address each of those with reasoning of why you meet all of those so that we can make all of the findings and get this approved. It talks about tree preservation, water conservation, preservation of natural site amenity, protections of water courses from erosion and filtration, you need to tell us how you have done all of that. Kelso: Is it like a list of items one through five? Edwards: Yes. Kelso: So kind of like a letter form that addresses each one of those items? Technical Plat Review January 3, 2002 Page 37 Edwards: Yes, and hopefully it will be you're right, we agree and we can approve it. Covenants, and we talked to Geoff about this as well, in part of illustrating how this development is compatible with adjacent development Jon Brittenum had talked about establishing minimum square footages, architectural requirements, and that sort of thing. What we would be looking for is sample covenants which address all of that, if he wishes us to consider that which he told us verbally, we just need it in writing. Here is what I would like to see, Kim, I didn't talk to you about this. Because we have to talk about tree preservation and with our tree preservation ordinance in a Preliminary Plat, which we are addressing this, basically we just take out the street and call everything else preserved. What I would like to see is the exact locations of the structures so that we can get a better idea of which trees will actually be preserved. I think that will help us with the PZD. That is his option. Kelso: You mean actually putting the residential building footprint on there? Edwards: Yes. I don't know how far he has gone in that but it sounds like he has gone pretty far and it might be something that he could possibly do. Kelso: Maybe. Typically a developer wouldn't have any idea but he might as far as what size. Edwards: I agree with that. We are going to have a pretty extensive report prior to Subdivision with all of the considerations I have talked about that I am asking you to put in the letter. I am hoping that we can recommend it based on that, but like I said, this is the first PZD we have done and it is kind of messy. Kelso: Is a PZD an actual zoning or is it overlaid over an existing zoning? Edwards: No, it is it's own zoning. Kelso: Ok, so this whatever acreage it is, is zoned PZD? Edwards: I think it is going to be zoned PZD-1 and that's going to be it's own zoning. Hopefully over time we will get the process refined and it will be easier for everybody. This is our first one. That is all I have. Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: The grading needs to be setback a minimum of 5' from the property line unless you get permission from adjacent property owners. The proposed detention pond can't be located on top of existing water and sewer lines. We have got two 24" sewer lines and a water line. Technical Plat Review January 3, 2002 Page 38 Kelso: Casey: Kelso: Even if it is a dry detention pond we still can't put detention ponds over it and water and sewer lines? Right. We need an easement a minimum of 10' on each side of the existing water and sewer lines, as well as any proposed extension. I don't think there was one adjacent to the existing. We are going to be making a recommendation for improvements along Old Wire. We will try to set up a meeting with the Engineering Division, Planning, and Traffic Safety and try to determine what will be best for this area. Historically Old Wire has been the major road here but according to the traffic counts that have been submitted to us, it is not the case anymore. We are going to try to get some additional traffic counts and look at this intersection and see what we want to do with it. We may want to cost share or do a separate CIP project redoing this intersection. Would it most likely be a CIP project that we would give money for whatever improvements that will be required of this developer or would you actually see the improvements happen right now or you don't know yet? Casey: That is what we are going to determine. Kelso: Casey: Ok. We have to be careful with these little subdivisions, it wouldn't be feasible for him to do it if he had to put out a lot of money for something like that. I am fairly confident that he wouldn't be responsible for the entire intersection. We will make a recommendation on that. I did notice that the contours along the street are backwards. The fall is this way so the contours need to be this way, otherwise it reflects a valley in the centerline and not a crown. We need a soil type on the grading plan. I think she mentioned a wetlands delineation. Kelso: We are working with our Environmental Control on one. Casey: We need a copy of that. She mentioned the floodway and floodplain. The detention pond where it is shown now, of course it can't stay there because of the sewer and water lines, but I have a feeling it is in the floodway as well. Edwards: It can't be in the floodway either. Kelso: Ok. That would be a good place for lots 15 and 16 since we can't build on them anyway. Technical Plat Review January 3, 2002 Page 39 Casey: Edwards: Casey: Edwards: Kelso: Edwards: There is a sanitary sewer manhole between lots 8 and 9, we need an access easement and access drive to maintain that. Jerry, I'm not sure that I was clear but if he wanted to do some redesign and put another street coming back here to get these lots or something then that is possible. We need access to the detention pond. I was looking at the Corp's data and it looks like it might have gone down some, that was just a preliminary look though. Ok. Utilities? Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: Kelso: Gibson: Hesse: Gibson: Kelso: Gibson: Edwards: Gibson: Edwards: Kelso: Gibson: The issues with the trees on the back of lot seven and also the drainage between 8 and 9 would it not be better if the telephone, cable, electric, and gas went in the front on these lots? It may be with that ditch back there unless we can work something else out. It may be with the pipe in there. Itis just not with the ditch, we have got issues over here too. I think it would be easier for approval. That might solve all of your problems. If the utilities would put their pedestals underground it would be great. It is a little sore on the eye but at least it would get your project through. I would ask for a quad crossing across the street there. Can anyone come off of Brookbury? Behind Summer Shade you mean? I think that is Brookbury back there. Let me get with Geoff and the owner. Also, there are electric lines coming across Old Wire Road here that comes over to the center of the front of lot one, Ozark Electric and Cox are Technical Plat Review January 3, 2002 Page 40 both on that and I'm sure that is going to have to be relocated. Other than that, that is all I have until we know for sure if they are going to put them in the front it just needs to be dedicated as a 25' setback and UE. They may want to show a UE there just to get through those lots that you aren't going to build. Kelso: There may be a detention pond there, we may try to get another lot, I don't know. Most likely this will be a detention pond and that will be it. Gibson: That is all I have. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: I agree with the quad and if you can give us this 20' utility easement along Old Wire and we may require the owner/developer to provide a detention for us. Edwards: Thank you.