Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2003-12-17 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE TECHNICAL PLAT REVIEW COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee was held on December 17, 2003 at 9:00 a.m. in room 111 in the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN LSP 03-58.00: Lot Split (Mark Brewer, pp 526) Forwarded Page 3 LSP 04-02.00: Lot Split (Utter, pp 207) Forwarded Page 6 LSP 04-01.00: Lot Split (Dixie Development, pp 368) Forwarded Page 7 LSP 04-03.00: Lot Split (Fred Patrick/Jacoway, pp 523) Forwarded Page 9 LSP 04-04.00: Lot Split (Lot 5, Pine Valley, pp 94) Forwarded Page 12 FPL 04-03.00: Final Plat (Lot 6 Pine Valley, pp 363) Forwarded Page 14 LSP 04-05.00: Lot Split (Briggs, pp 485) Forwarded Page 16 FPL 04-01.00: Final Plat (Jackson Place R-PZD, pp 255) Forwarded Page 18 FPL 04-02.00: Final Plat (Salem Meadows, pp 245) Forwarded Page 21 R-PZD 04-01.00: Residential Planned Zoning District (Southern View II, pp 519) Forwarded Page 24 R-PZD 04-02.00: Residential Planned Zoning District (Cross Keys, pp 438) Forwarded Page 31 R-PZD 04-03.00: Residential Planned Zoning District (Chance & Tuggle, pp 436) Forwarded Page 34 Technical Plat Review December 17, 2003 Page 2 Matt Casey Jeremy Pate Suzanne Morgan Renee Thomas Craig Camagey UTILITIES PRESENT Ron Berstrom, AEP/ SWEPCO Larry Gibson, Cox Communications STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Perry Franklin Danny Farrar Travis Dotson Rebecca Ohman UTILITIES ABSENT Mike Phipps, Ozark Electric Coop. Johney Boles, Arkansas Western Gas Sue Clouser. Southwestern Bell Technical Plat Review December 17, 2003 Page 3 LSP 03-58.00: Lot Split (Mark Brewer, pp 526) was submitted by William Rudasill on behalf of Mark Brewer for property located on Paddock Lane and Happy Hollow Road. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre, and contains approximately 1.50 acres. The request is to divide the property into two tracts of 0.69 acres and 0.81 acres respectively. Pate: Ok, we will start the meeting for the Technical Plat Review for Wednesday, December 17, 2003. We have twelve items on the agenda, 13 through 18 are just in house so we have already reviewed those with in house staff. The first item on the agenda is a Lot Split for Mark Brewer submitted by Bill Rudasill. Brewer: Bill is not here but I am. Pate: Ok, if you will come on up. This property is located at Paddock Land and Happy Hollow Road. I will just go over quickly some of the comments. Planning comments, we need right of way from centerline dimensioned including any existing or requested easements on the plat. I believe there is a setback that is missing and you will need to add. These are all plat comments that the surveyor should be able to handle without too much problem. We do need to include the correct certificate of ownership and dedication signature block. The one that is on here will not be accepted by the city and I've attached that in your packet there. Brewer: Where are you reading from? Pate: Page two on the report. I've included the signature block on page three. That can be copied and pasted on your plat. Happy Hollow Road is a collector street that requires 35' from centerline right of way dedication with the Lot Split. Paddock Lane is a residential street that requires 20'. I believe that is adequate on Paddock Lane. I think that Happy Hollow Road will need some additional right of way dedicated to meet our Master Street Plan requirements. Brewer: I thought we had already done that but that is fine. Pate: That is pretty much the bulk of our Planning comments. Matt, are there any additional comments? Casey: All that Bill needs to show on here is the existing water services, the location of those and also the approximate location of the septic. We are making sure we are not going to cross lines. Brewer: There is a large sheet, I've got multiple copies there at the office of that septic system that has been approved and all of that. Technical Plat Review December 17, 2003 Page 4 Casey: I haven't seen that. Brewer: We've got that mapped out and it has already been stamped by the city and the county. Casey: He will need to show that on the actual Lot Split too. We have to verify that the septic systems aren't going to be on somebody else's property. Brewer: We will do that too. Pate: There are no parks fees assessed with this property because there are no additional housing units. A fire hydrant will be required. That is also at the last page of your report there. I've highlighted that. Brewer: There is a fire hydrant directly across the street with the Lindsey apartments, do you want one closer than 300'? Pate: If you would contact that number Captain Farrar can let you know more about that. I am just giving his comment there that a fire hydrant will be required. Revisions for the plat need to be submitted on December 23rd by 10:00 a.m. If you have any questions we are available in the Planning office. Brewer: Wonderful, you guys have been great. Pate: Utilities? Ron Berstrom — AEP Berstrom: I don't believe that we received a plat on this so I have no comments at this time. Gibson: I didn't get one either so I have no comment. Did this go through once before? Pate: This item was tabled at the last meeting because a representative wasn't here. Gibson: I would have to look at it. Brewer: What we have got Larry, there is an existing site that we tore down the house for the city right here on the corner so you have already got a hub here. Gibson: I think we have an overhead line running through here. Technical Plat Review December 17, 2003 Page 5 Brewer: Yes, there is an overhead line running up Paddock to this house that exists up through here. You guys were doing a bunch of stuff at another location and ran out here and looked at this when we were doing this before and they said this wouldn't be a problem, we could just run that easement down to this here. Gibson: I can't think of really anything else that we would need. Pate: Here is a list of phone numbers for the utility companies and if you could contact them and see if they have any additional comments before that revision deadline. Gibson: Ron, there is an existing overhead on the south side of Paddock Lane that runs east and west and there is an easement to cover that and then also there is overhead on the east side of Happy Hollow Road running north and south. As long as we have got an easement on the east side of this property and the west side of Happy Hollow and then also on the south side of Paddock that should cover it. Brewer: Thank you all very much for your work and efforts. Technical Plat Review December 17, 2003 Page 6 LSP 04-02.00: Lot Split (Urfer, pp 207) was submitted by Earl Urfer for property located at 3069 W. Howard Nickell Road. The property is in the Growth Area and contains approximately 4.23 acres. The request is to split the parent tract into two tracts of 2.08 acres and 2.15 acres respectively. Pate: Item number two on the agenda is LSP 04-02.00 for Urfer submitted by Earl Urfer for property located on Howard Nickle Road. This property is in the Growth Area and contains approximately 4.23 acres. Mr. Reid, I assume this is yours? Reid: Yes. Morgan: Because this lot is in an addition the County is requesting that it be a replat. For the city's purposes it will be a Lot Split. The county has requested that the title be changed to replat and their comments are in here addressing that. For the city's purposes it will be processed as a Lot Split. As for comments regarding the plat, if you could clearly dimension the right of way from centerline. Also, the city requires 10' side setbacks and 20' rear setbacks in the County so on the remainder lot 1B that rear setback that is shown as 8' needs to be 20'. The other side setbacks are 10' instead of 8'. If you could also include signature blocks. I have included what signature blocks need to be on there. I can get you the actual wording of those. Also, if you could put the street addresses for each lot, for the proposed lot and the current on there. Verify any covenants that it is allowable to do a Lot Split. Those are the main comments. Let me kind of go over County comments are just to change the title to Replat Lot 1 Hayes Addition. Include three signature blocks. There is a comment on the maximum size the Circuit Clerk will now accept for plats and all lots for sale must have County Health sanitarian certification. That's all I have. Matt, do you have anything? Casey: No comment. Morgan: There are no Parks fees since it is in the Planning Area. Fire made a note that fire hydrant status is unknown so maybe you could research that. Utilities? Berstrom: This is in Coop territory. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: That 25' UE you've got on the south side of Howard Nickell and the 15' that you've got on the west side of lot I should be sufficient so I have no comment. Morgan: Revisions are due at 10:00 a.m. on December 23ra Technical Plat Review December 17, 2003 Page 7 LSP 04-01.00: Lot Split (Dixie Development, pp 368) was submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Dixie Development for property located at 2325 and 2539 N. Green Acres Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.02 acres. The request is to split the parent tract into two tracts of 0.23 acres and 0.79 acres respectively. Pate: Item three is LSP 04-01.00 for Dixie Development submitted by Jorgensen & Associates off of Green Acres Road. Planning comments include add the plat page and a floodplain reference and a legend for the plat. For any utility company representatives that aren't here today you do need to contact those representatives. We have the numbers listed over here. The front setback along Colt Square Drive is 50'. I believe the structure is actually built at the 50' line but you just need to show that. Include project owner and developer information on the plat. We also need to include a site coverage note to verify the percent of building coverage. The maximum is 60% in the C-2 zoning district. Really, I'm just kind of concerned about this one here just to verify that it is not over 60% of that site. North of the subject tract, this access easement, is that existing? Brackett: Yes it is. Pate: I just wanted to verify that. Brackett: They are all already existing. They were with the original development. Pate: Ok, I was just curious. Also verify the uses of the structures. I am assuming they are professional office type structures but that will determine the number of parking spaces that are required for each. I think that you are going to be ok but to split this lot out we will need to make sure we have the correct number of parking spaces there. Appropriate signature blocks need to be added and that is included. Again, revisions are due December 23`d. Matt, do you have any further comments? Casey: Chris, if you can just show the existing water and sewer lines. There are some along the north and the east along Colt Square Drive. Also, show the proper location of the sewer services. The main concern is that this one will be accessed from here. We can't allow the sewer to cross. Brackett: That is existing. If it is crossing that would be there. Pate: We can't create a new lot that would be non -conforming. Casey: I'm pretty confident that it will be served back here to the north. Also you need to include the floodplain reference. Technical Plat Review December 17, 2003 Page 8 Pate: There are no park fees associated with this site. Again, the Fire Marshall has indicated that fire hydrant status is unknown so if you could just verify that. They are existing structures but I'm assuming there is no additional development on the site. Utilities? Ron Berstrom — AEP Berstrom: The only comment we have is any relocation of existing facilities will be at the owner's expense. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: I have the same comment. Just call for locates. I know we've got a lot of underground in that. If you are not adding anything I don't think there is going to be any problem. Technical Plat Review December 17, 2003 Page 9 LSP 04-03.00: Lot Split (Fred Patrick/Jacoway, pp 523) was submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Fred Patrick representing the property owner for property located east of Block Avenue and north of Archibald Yell Blvd. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.30 acres. The request is to split the lot into two tracts of approximately 0. 14 acres and 0.16 acres. Pate: Item number four is LSP 04-03.00 for Fred Patrick/Jacoway submitted by Jorgensen on behalf of Fred Patrick for property located east of Block Avenue and north of Archibald Yell. This is Suzanne's. Morgan: Included in those comments are for the Property Line Adjustment as well as the Lot Split. We are going to need two different plats, one for the Property Line Adjustment and one for the Lot Split. A lot of the comments are the same for the Property Line Adjustment. Show the existing and proposed property lines in their entirety. I believe the northern property line originally extends all the way. Brackett: No, it goes here and goes up this line and over. Morgan: Does it go over way up here? Brackett: I believe it goes over right here where this is shown. Morgan: Ok, I thought it was a little bit further south. If you could put the plat page number on the plat, 523. Label the zoning for each individual adjacent property. There are some that are commercial. GIS included, I included a little map with GIS comments regarding the legals. Indicate the centerline for each avenue and dimension the right of way from centerline. Also, include existing and requested utility easements. There are some other minor comments indicating owner and developer information. For the Lot Split I noticed that when you put all of the building setbacks on here there is hardly any building area on tract 3. I have highlighted it here. Brackett: Couldn't that setback be 25'? Morgan: I measured it at 30'. I don't know what your building plans were. Brackett: For a townhouse. Morgan: That is a front setback. You may want to consider pursuing a variance for building setbacks before you do the Lot Split. Pate: Or maybe alter that lot line. Is that an existing structure? Brackett: It is being removed. There will be a new structure on that lot. Technical Plat Review December 17, 2003 Page 10 Pate: The structure that is just north of that on the east/west tract 2? Brackett: It will be removed. Pate: Potentially you could even adjust this lot line further north to allow for some more buildable area here as well. Brackett: We will look into both of those. Morgan: If you could include a north arrow and graphic scale on the plat along with owner/developer information. Include a note on the plat restricting access to Block Avenue and East Avenue. No curb cuts shall be allowed on Archibald Yell Boulevard. As well as a note indicating that the existing structures will be removed. Matt, do you have any comments? Matt Casey — Staff Eneineer Casey: I've got a few. Show the existing 2" water line here along Block. I need a floodplain reference. Also, show the location, there is an existing retaining wall over here is there not? Brackett: It is east of there. Casey: We need to discuss whether access to here would be possible if the terrain would permit that if there was a retaining wall along here. Are you still planning access off Block Avenue? Brackett: Access is off of Block coming down. Casey: The terrain will permit that without a retaining wall? Brackett: Yes. Casey: The final comment is this tract 4 does not have access to water so a public water line will need to be extended to have access. Brackett: Can we come off a 2"? Casey: That may be possible. There may be something up here on the east that may be easier. That is all I have. Morgan: Parks fees are assessed in the amount of $1,665 for three additional single family lots. Those will be due prior to the issuance of building permit. Fire didn't have any comments. Utilities? Technical Plat Review December 17, 2003 Page 11 Ron Berstrom - AEP Berstrom: We would like to see a 20' utility easement along the east side of this property to get access to that lot 4. Also, on the west we would request a 10' utility easement along Block Avenue there. If there are any relocations of existing facilities it will be at the owner's expense. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: Those UE's that Ron asked for will be fine. Morgan: Revisions are due on the 23`d at 10:00 a.m. Technical Plat Review December 17, 2003 Page 12 LSP 04-04.00: Lot Split (Lot 5, Pine Valley pp 94) was submitted by Blew Land Surveying on behalf of Sandra Perrino for property located at Lot 5, Phase V of Pine Valley Addition. The property is zoned RMF -24, Residential Multi -Family, 24 units per acre and contains approximately 0.62 acres. The request is to divide the subject tract into two tracts of 0.31 acres and 0.31 acres respectively. Pate: Item five is LSP 04-04.00 for Lot 5 of Pine Valley Phase V submitted by Blew Land Surveying on behalf of Sandra Petrino. Is there anyone here for that Lot Split? Jensen: I am actually here in a little different fashion. I represent the neighborhood association. Pate: Ok, so you don't represent the applicant? Jensen: No. Pate: We don't take public comment at the Technical Plat meeting. Basically, we won't hear this item if there is not a representative. Unless someone shows up we will not hear this item and it will be on the next Technical Plat Review meeting. Insert here from end of meeting: Pate: We will go back a couple of items. Item number five, a Lot Split for Pine Valley submitted by Blew & Associates. Basically the request here is this is an existing lot that is platted and pursuant to our ordinance requirements you can do a zero lot line to sell off each side of this to split the lot down the middle basically. Gibson: The only comment I have on this is that our existing is on the north side of Wildwood Drive. Pate: What we need from Planning is ordinance requirements for side setbacks, I've included those and I believe you have met everything that we require. Also, there should be a certificate of ownership and dedication signature block added and I've included that as well. Blew: We are dedicating that 15' on the side. Pate: Matt? Matt Casey — Staff EnEineeC Casey: Show the existing water and sewer mains out here on Wildwood. Also, label the Base Flood Elevations for the 10 -year floodplain and label the Technical Plat Review December 17, 2003 Page 13 minimum finished floor elevations for each of these lots. It should be 2' above BFE for each lot. That's all I have. Pate: There are no additional parks fees because there are no additional units being added. It is just a reconfiguration of a lot. That is the bulk of our comments. Technical Plat Review December 17, 2003 Page 14 LSP 04-05.00: Lot Split (Briggs, pp 485) was submitted by Blew Land Surveying on behalf of Lucas Briggs for property located at 200 N. Fletcher and 195 N. Summit. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre and contains approximately 0.41 acres. The request is to split the parent tract into two tracts of 0.23 and 0.18 acres respectively. Pate: We are going to go over the LSP 04-05.00 for Briggs. Include the plat page. Right of way dedication should fulfill the requirements of the Master Street Plan. I think the rights of way are off. I doubt there is 70' of right of way on Summit. Blew: I believe that is on the Master Street Plan. Pate: On the Master Street Plan it is supposed to be a 50' right of way total, 25' from centerline. What we need you to do on both Fletcher and Summit is identify from centerline, it requires 25'. Blew: If the existing right of way as per city plat is 60' and 70' do we reduce those? Pate: No, we can't reduce them. If it is already dedicated right of way it would have to go through a Vacation request. Blew: Then do you want me to show if the existing right of way that I have is 70' then I need to show it as 50' as Master Street Plan right of way. Pate: If the existing from centerline for instance is 35' if that is already platted right of way and recorded at the county then you are correct, you just need to show that and the same with Fletcher. If that is the case, knowing the condition of Summit and Fletcher, they are pretty small and I wouldn't imagine that is there. You might just verify it. That would help you out as far as your setbacks too. The setbacks then wouldn't be going into the front of that house. If that is the case then you would just gain 10'. Blew: I won't have to ask for any variance on this because this is existing right? Pate: Right. Of course you are well aware about the shed. It creates a non- conforming structure so it will have to go through the Board of Adjustment to approve that and this approval will be contingent upon that and vice versa. I have included again the appropriate signature blocks for any easements. I don't think there are any additional structures proposed so the existing easements should be fine if they are all shown. You have the numbers to contact the utility representatives. Blew: All of the existing easements were in the roadway. Technical Plat Review December 17, 2003 Page 15 Pate: December 23`d is the revision deadline at 10:00 a.m. Matt? Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: My only comment is to show the existing water and sewer services, mainly sewer. I want to see where that goes. Blew: I believe there is a sewer line on this side that we might not have shown. Casey: I didn't remember seeing that on our map. If that is the case we need to show that. Blew: I think it is down the road a little bit on your GIS. Casey: If that is where this is being served from you need to show it. Either way, you need to show it. What we have got as it is being shown back here we are creating a lot without access to public sewer and it has to be extended somehow. It may even need to be extended down here if for some reason we have the right of way. If we are creating a new lot it needs to have access to sewer. We need to work out the details on that. It follows Summit to Fletcher. I don't know what the elevations down here are like. Blew: It keeps rising. Casey: We may be looking at a public main extension in order to get sewer to this property. Blew: Ok. Casey: Whether it comes from here or here I need to know. Pate: There are no Parks comments. Contact the utility representatives to make sure everything is good with them. December 23`d is the revision deadline. Technical Plat Review December 17, 2003 Page 16 FPL 04-03.00: Final Plat (Lot 6 Pine Valley, pp 363) was submitted by Art Scott of Project Design Consultants on behalf of James Erwin for property located at 2726 Wildwood Drive, Lot 6, Phase V of Pine Valley Addition. The property is zoned RMF - 40, Residential Multi -family, 40 units per acre and contains approximately 1.9 acres. The request is for a replat of the subject property to allow for the development of 2 duplexes on this lot. Pate: The last item is a Final Plat for Lot 6 of Pine Valley, which is a replat of that Lot 6. The subject property is submitted under a replat request as opposed to a Lot Split to comply with the requirements set by the Final Plat. Originally this was shown as a four-plex back as a Large Scale Development. It is now going through a Lot Split to do two duplex developments is my understanding, one on tract 6A, one on tract 6B. Again, tract 6A, this is the lot line correct? Scott: Yes. Pate: We don't meet the requirements here, I'm sure you are aware of that. What that will take is a Board of Adjustment approval for the Variance because we are creating a lot that doesn't meet the requirements. The only thing that could be developed presently is a single family home on the lot for the frontage that we have. This will be conditioned as such and vice versa. Plat page 363 needs to be added. The Final Plat will need to show all surveyor's seals, signatures and dates. If you could include the project owner and developer information. There are a couple of signature block changes in titles. Again, with the Final Plat the way the county accepts these is that the signatures have to be on the same page as the site plan. Somehow you need to get the signatures on the page and still be legible. Hopefully you guys can work that out. Scott: Do we have to maintain this size of sheet? Pate: I believe so for filing purposes at the county because they scan them in now. This is the maximum size that they allow for Final Plats. We do need to include street addresses for each lot, whatever addresses those are for those lots. Coordinate that with Jim Johnson. I am assuming this will be off Wildwood Drive but verify that. Any utilities need to be located underground. That is the bulk of Planning comments. Matt? Matt Casey — Staff EnEineeC Casey: Just a few comments. Add the base flood elevations and the floodway and floodplain. Also, label the finished floor elevations for each lot affected by the floodplain. They must be a minimum of 2' above the BFE. Technical Plat Review December 17, 2003 Page 17 Scott: One thing I noticed about this in reviewing it yesterday is our surveyor inadvertently put a 20' UE here, we wanted to maintain it as a 15' for our building setback, can I just put that on my revisions? Pate: It really depends on the utility companies. I think it is fine because it is platted like that. It went through the Final Plat and they made comments then as well but just verify that with them if you would. Casey: If you could somehow point out the floodplain line and put the note on it. Pate: Our Park Planner included a note of no additional parks fees are assessed. I need to verify that with her simply because we are creating additional units. When this was originally platted it had six lots with six units. Casey: It could've been four. Pate: I think that will be fine. That is all we have. Revisions are due on the 23`a Thank you very much. Technical Plat Review December 17, 2003 Page 18 FPL 04-01.00: Final Plat (Jackson Place R-PZD, pp 255) was submitted by Crafton, Tull and Associates, Inc. on behalf of T -Crow, LTD for property located southwest of the intersection of Old Wire Road and Skillern Road. The property is zoned R-PZD, Residential Planned Zoning District, and contains approximately 8.37 acres. The request is to approve the final plat of the R-PZD approved by City Council on May 6, 2003. Pate: Item eight is a Final Plat for Jackson Place R-PZD submitted by Crafton Tull. Julie will be representing this project on Old Wire Road and Skillern. Morgan: Planning comments for this, if you could include all of this on one sheet. The curve tables and line tables aren't needed for the Final Plat so that will give you a little bit more room. If you could update the zoning to the current zoning designation of R -A and RSF-4. Include the plat page 255. Remove proposed existing right of way and utility easements, just label them as utility easements. I was looking at conditions for the Preliminary Plat and that was with the utility easements for lots 4 through 8 are on the front of the lots so if you could indicate that. Are you proposing that? Zimmerman: I believe that every single one has got a utility easement but we will call it out. Morgan: Thank you. If you could show the scale on the plat as well as the graphic of the scale. There are some changes for the signature blocks and titles. Also, if you could include addresses for each lot. Show any signs that are proposed with this development and submit elevations. Are you proposing any street lights for this development? Zimmerman: Yes. Morgan: Indicate where those are. All guarantees for incomplete improvements must be received prior to singing of the Final Plat. Submit a final draft of the covenants and also I had a question about the sidewalks on Old Wire Road if that extends all the way to the west of the property line. Zimmerman: If I remember right I think there is a flared end section from a storm drain right there at the end so we cropped the sidewalk short of it for now until these get improved. Morgan: Ok. Street names should be approved by the 911 Coordinator. Those are all of the Planning comments. Matt Casey — Staff EnEineeC Casey: Julie, a note addressing the maintenance responsibility of the detention pond needs to be added. Also, the easements that are proposed, first off, Technical Plat Review December 17, 2003 Page 19 you need to show the water and sewer location on the plat so we can see where they lay and that they have proper easements. The easements have to be 10' minimum on each side of those lines. Add a note saying that the maximum driveway width is 24' measured at the right of way. Add a note saying that all retaining walls must be set back a minimum of 2' from the right of way. Add the total linear feet of sidewalks to the plat. Label what is shown. Also, our Transportation Division has asked that we start adding the total linear feet of street constructed also for their accounting purposes. A final inspection must be performed prior to the submittal deadline for Subdivision Committee. I understand that is scheduled for today. Also, we will need as builts, construction costs and maintenance bonds prior to our signing off on the Final Plat. Include the base flood elevation on the street there and also for any lot affected by the 100 -year floodplain include the finished floor elevation. That must be a minimum of 2' above the BFE. One item that did not make it to my comment list, we need to add a table, even though there is just one street, you need a table showing street names, street widths and right of way widths along with greenspace and sidewalk. That is all I have. Craie Carnaeey — Landscape Administrator Carnagey: On the southwest corner of the site there is a large tree preservation area. We need a legal description and depiction of that area on the Final Plat with the appropriate language. Morgan: Parks fees are due in the amount of $7,215 prior to issuance of Final Plat. Rebecca requested that you correct the signature block to reflect the new titles. The Fire Marshall made the comment that a fire hydrant can't exceed the distance of 250'. Utilities? Ron Berstrom — AEP Berstrom: This is Ozark Electric's territory. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: When this came through before there was some discussion about whether this was going to be served on the rear or the front. Zimmerman: I believe lots 5, 6, 7, and 8 are from the front. I have a 20' easement here so those are going to go in the back and then it sneaks down the side and those are all in the front. I believe those are the only ones in the front. Gibson: Ok, that's the only comment I have. Everything else looks fine. Technical Plat Review December 17, 2003 Page 20 Morgan: Revisions are due by 10:00 a.m. on December 23`d and a final inspection is due prior to that deadline. Technical Plat Review December 17, 2003 Page 21 FPL 04-02.00: Final Plat (Salem Meadows, pp 245) was submitted by Leonard Gabbard of Landtech Engineering, Inc. on behalf of John Alford and Palmco Properties, LLC for property located north of Salem Road and Salem Village and west of Holcomb Middle School. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre and contains approximately 39.95 acres. The request is to approve the development of subject property with 103 lots and 103 single family dwellings proposed. Pate: Item number nine on the agenda is a Final Plat for Salem Meadows submitted by Leonard Gabbard of Landtech Engineering on behalf of John Alford and Palmco Properties, LLC. Morgan: If you could include plat page 245 on the Final Plat. Also, if it is possible if maybe clean up the vicinity map and maybe make it a little more legible. Also, clearly identify the access easement between Blue Grass and Bermuda Avenue. Include signature blocks. There have been some changes in titles. The amount in lieu for parkland is $13,505 if you could add that to the signature block. I have included the signature block for park land to be included. Also, if you could remove the street sections from the plat. Modify note number nine to state except existing electric lines 12KV and above. If you could also label the outlet. That just came off between this and the Preliminary Plat. Also, include street addresses for each lot. Guarantees for incomplete improvements need to be received prior to Final Plat. Also submit a draft of covenants. I'm noticing along the future Rupple Road that the right of way 45' from centerline stops at the wetlands, if you could extend that. Those are Planning comments. Matt? Matt Casey — Staff EnEineeC Casey: That right of way that she was just talking about Leonard, if you could also extend the utility easement along there a minimum of 10' from the water line. If you could include a note addressing the maintenance responsibility for the detention pond. All easements must be a minimum of 10' on each side of the water and sewer lines. Add a note saying the maximum driveway width is 24' measured at the right of way. Retaining walls must be setback a minimum of 2' from the right of way. Add the total linear feet of sidewalks and also the total linear feet of street constructed. A final inspection must be performed prior to the submittal deadline for Subdivision Committee. Submit as builts, construction costs and maintenance bonds prior to Final Plat sign off. We also need a table showing the street name, street width, right of way and sidewalk width and greenspace width. Also, have the sidewalks been constructed? Gabbard: I was out there Monday afternoon and looked at it and it was pretty wet. We may stop right here. Technical Plat Review December 17, 2003 Page 22 Casey: The sidewalk between Blue Grass and Bermuda, is the contractor going to construct that now or is that going to be considered a sidewalk that will be constructed with the lots? Gabbard: I need to ask how they want to handle that. The guys that are constructing the subdivisions are the ones that are buying the lots. Morgan: I will have to do a little bit of research but I think as one of the conditions for the Preliminary Plat that the sidewalk was to be constructed prior to Final Plat. Casey: That's all I have. Craie Carnaeev — Landscape Administrator Carnagey: Leonard, the tree preservation needs to be depicted as such. The proper language needs to be added on the plat as well. Also, payment into the tree escrow account shall be received before final approval. Gabbard: Ok. Morgan: Parks comments are parks fees in the amount of $13,705 and a deed representing 1.84 acres will be required prior to issuance of final permit. Include payment on the signature block and boundary signs must be placed upon parks property line to prevent construction on park property and she requests that you coordinate that with her. The Fire Marshall did include comments requesting three additional hydrants needed at 250' maximum and he gives specific locations for those. Utilities? Ron Berstrom — AEP Berstrom: This is Ozark's territory so we have no comment. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: I believe we have already started placing our utilities out here and everything is fine. Pate: Don't worry about those hydrants. Gabbard: I was about to. Pate: It is already in, we are at the Final Plat stage. Gabbard: I was going Oh no! Not again! Technical Plat Review December 17, 2003 Page 23 Morgan: Revisions are due the 23`a at 10:00 a.m. Thanks. Technical Plat Review December 17, 2003 Page 24 R-PZD 04-01.00: Residential Planned Zoning District (Southern View II, pp 519) was submitted by Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of Lindsey Management Co. for property located at Futrall Drive and Old Farmington Road, east of I-540. The property is currently zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 6.713 acres. The request is to rezone the property to a Residential Planned Zoning District to allow for the development of an apartment complex with 85 dwelling units and commercial space proposed. Pate: Item number ten is R-PZD 04-01.00, a Residential Planned Zoning District for Southern View Phase II. Jerry Kelso with Crafton Tull will be the representative here for property located on Futrall Drive and Old Farmington Road east of I-540 and south of Phase L We found the elevations. There are a lot of comments on here and I am not going to go through all of them but you have them for your record and this will be in the file. With the revisions for Subdivision Committee we do need a board. Kelso: I think the Mayor has one up there so you can borrow that one I guess. Pate: Coordinate that so it gets to Planning if you would. A draft copy of the covenants is required with a PZD so we will need to see a draft copy with this revision as well. Kelso: I'm not sure if they are going to have any covenants with this particular project. Pate: If you will look, I included the PZD ordinance here, it requires covenants for maintenance of streets or maintenance of property. Kelso: There is only going to be one property owner. It will be like an apartment project. They don't have covenants for those. Maybe a letter from Lindsey Management stating that they will be maintaining everything. I'm not sure what we need on that. Pate: You might be able to do it on the plat as well. As far as maintenance of greenspace, the ponds or fountains and all of that kind of stuff. Kelso: I called that out in the letter that we sent. Pate: If you wouldn't mind just put it on the plat and that would help clear up a lot. I also if you could include a more detailed letter itemizing how this proposal accomplishes the goals of the Planned Zoning District ordinance. That again, has been included here. It states in here that rezoning a property to a PZD may be appropriate if the development proposed should accomplish one or more of the following goals. Basically, what I need you to do is go through this list. Whatever is applicable. Technical Plat Review December 17, 2003 Page 25 Kelso: Ok, just go through that list? Pate: Exactly. See how this proposal meets those goals. That is something that the Planning Commission has asked for. Staff has to make findings on the rezoning as well along with the development process so we need to make comments based on those issues as well. Page two of your comments, include your plat page 519. Indicate centerlines of Old Farmington Road and Futrall Drive and then dimension the right of way from centerline to ensure compatibility or compliance with the Master Street Plan requirements. If you could, I know you have three story structures, if you could list on the plat the height of those structures. Also, label on the plat with a note stating the proposed setbacks for the PZD. With a Planned Zoning District you establish your own setbacks so we need to establish what those are and it is easy to put in a table to see those. Additionally, we need to include a site coverage note with percentages of building space, impervious surface, greenspace, etc. This is in the Design Overlay District so compliance with those requirements if necessary as well. I included those requirements in your packet. That is the bulk of why it is so large because all of those requirements are in there. Also, with a PZD because this is going through a rezoning, what the PZD requires is that you indicate what types of uses are proposed. Obviously, we have residential and commercial. Commercial is a big category though. We need for you, and we have done this with other PZDs in the past, is to indicate what use units that you are allowing in this Planned Zoning Districts. If you flip back to the Planned Zoning District ordinance it has the charts on it. For instance, item number two is the permitted uses in a Residential Planned Zoning District. If you want all of those then list all of them. If you just want the multi -family Use Unit 26. Specifically, if you want to tweak some of these it is really important for you to just itemize which ones you want. Additionally, in our ordinance you can look through for instance Unit 19 Commercial Recreation Small Site, you can look through there and pick those items that you would like to include in this use and exclude them also. That is really important because there are some uses that might not be compatible and could affect the zoning. The Planning Commission makes a recommendation to City Council for the rezoning portion of this and that could potentially affect that decision. Kelso: We will just have to go through it and see. Right now we really don't know. It could be anywhere from a restaurant to an office. Pate: That is fine. Obviously, single family dwellings, Use Unit 8 are not something that you are putting on the site so if you could exclude those. If you would just list those that you think may be on there. Kelso: Does that need to be put on the plat or on the letter that I send you? Technical Plat Review December 17, 2003 Page 26 Pate: On the plat if you would. Kelso: Ok. Pate: Page three, street lights are to match Southern View L Those meet the Design Overlay District requirements. That will be required to be shielded, directed downward, away from adjacent properties and utilizing sodium light fixtures. Also, your parking chart is a little off. It doesn't match the letter that you sent me. I itemized that. I am not going to go through those numbers but they are there for you to look over. Also, staff would recommend utilizing 17' parking stalls in those places where the vehicle overhangs over that greenspace requirement. There are several instances in this site where you could save a lot of impervious surface coverage if you utilized the 17'. I noticed here that you are using 19 ''/2' stalls, I'm assuming that is including back of curb. That could go down to 17' potentially. You might coordinate that with Craig in the areas where landscaping is appropriate and where it is proposed or not. That is a recommendation Planning makes in those instances where it is just greenspace. On the sidewalk areas it would not be recommended because of the overhang on the sidewalk. For instance, here in this area could be 17'. Kelso: I didn't realize you could go down to 17'. Pate: Bicycle racks you have six shown and there need to be nine based on the commercial use and the residential use. Also, on Southern View I, I know it is about to be finished. The bicycle racks were shown like this but were installed in an island next to it. If that is going to be the case then we need to show it that way. This could be a non marked parking space and we need to accomplish the intent of what is shown on the plan. I wouldn't recommend installing those in landscape islands either. It is not a very appropriate place for those bicycle racks, especially when there is vegetation in there. Kelso: We have probably got it shown in a lot more area than what is actually needed. Pate: Exactly. There is quite a bit more there. That could alter your parking spaces. You might actually get a few more out of there because I know you are below your required number right now but you are still within that 30% range. Indicate any fencing that is proposed and signage if that is proposed as well. Kelso: We are going to put a nice fence in here with brick columns and everything. Technical Plat Review December 17, 2003 Page 27 Pate: If you have any monument signage proposed we need to see elevations of that as well. Also, with your letter of transmittal when you bring this back for Subdivision revisions provide a separate one for a waiver request for curb to intersection distance. In the Design Overlay District down here on Old Farmington Road the minimum requirement is 250' and you are obviously below that. That will take a Planning Commission waiver to be able to have that distance there. I think staff will support that simply because it is creating this main street. Everything else, trash service needs to be coordinated with Solid Waste. Trash enclosures should be compatible with the structures. All utilities need to be screened. That is the bulk of the Planning comments. Matt, do you have any additional things to add? Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: I have a couple that I just noticed. There may be a conflict with that 24" water line right there. Keep in mind that is a large line there. I gave you most of my comments over the phone yesterday. Kelso: We talked about the water line you were wanting to tie into. Casey: You will need to extend it across Old Farmington to the east to that existing 6". Kelso: Is it on this side of the road? Casey: Yes, it is on the south side of the road. You will need to connect with that. Kelso: It's just parallel with Old Farmington right here? Casey: It terminates to the east so you will have to cross to get to it. It is maybe half way between your project and the Sang intersection. Kelso: That is quite a ways down there. Alright, we will look at it. Casey: Also, you need to show how this pond is going to discharge. You show how the water is getting into it but not how it is getting out. Also, you will need to ask for the waiver for the 100' setback. This water line along the east side needs to be moved to the east to avoid having that under the pavement. The others are just minor check list items. That is all I have. Craig Carnagey — Landscape Administrator Camagey: I think Jeremy pretty much covered most of the comments. Just be sure that the 25% greenspace note is on the landscape plan as well. We need Technical Plat Review December 17, 2003 Page 28 one tree island right in here somewhere. This configuration right here it might work over here. Kelso: It kind of works out good that way. Camagey: That is the only comment I have. Pate: The Fire Department has comments. Fire flow is required to be calculated for each building. The maximum distance to a fire hydrant is 250'. There are two fire hydrants shown. Access apparatus, especially with multi- story units now they are requiring in front of the fire hydrants where those are located at least a 20' clear space around that so if the latter truck is utilized it can put those feet down to service the structures. We had a meeting with them last week because as you know, most parking lot aisles are 24'. We discussed changing some of those numbers and didn't really feel it was appropriate to change the entire development community's 24' parking lot dimensions at this time. Their requirements are based on the International Fire Code which is adopted by the state. In those locations where there are fire hydrants we may be looking at the fire zone there with no parking. I think we will service that area. For instance, if you have a fire hydrant and the curb and no parking area from there and including the fire aisle that is the 26', I think that will suffice and the Fire Department seems to think that will meet the state's requirements as well. Just a note to you so you are aware. The same thing happened with the Crowne because they wanted 26'. That threw up a red flag to us to make sure that all the requirements were being met but we were still in the bounds of the design community. Parks fees are assessed in the amount of $37,335 for 95 multi -family units. I think that is 85. I will check with Rebecca. I thought there were 85 multi -family units so that number could change. Kelso: Whatever it is, is what it is. Pate: That is due prior to Final Plat. We won't have a Final Plat here but before building permits. This will need to go through an easement plat process. These revisions are due on the 23`d at 10:00 a.m. Utilities? Ron Berstrom — AEP Berstrom: I would like to see a 20' utility easement along the east property line. I believe that there is already one there but it needs to be shown. I would also like to see a 20' along the north property line. Between buildings four and five, is that going to be concrete between those two buildings? Kelso: Yes, that is kind of where they want to put utilities and things like that on the side of the building along with a dumpster pad. As far as in between it Technical Plat Review December 17, 2003 Page 29 I would see it being more of a greenspace except for the dumpster pad will go there. Berstrom: I am going to get an easement somehow to get to this building three. I was thinking about coming through that four and five over to a greenspace to serve that building three. Kelso: You don't mind going under the dumpster pads? Berstrom: There may be some conduits put in that we could use incase there is ever a problem. It is just a lot quicker. You said there is going to be some commercial to this, do you know where that commercial is going to be? Kelso: It is a mixed use building so the bottom floor will be commercial office, it could be a restaurant, a Subway, a coffee shop or things like that. The next two stories above that are the residential. Berstrom: We will need voltage requirements for each of the buildings to know whether it is going to be three phase or single phase. Kelso: We probably won't know that until they start building. It will be like a strip center where they won't know. We may have to make some assumptions. Kim Fugitt is the architect on this and may be able to give you the right information. Berstrom: Those three phase pads are a lot more. If they do go three phase then the developer is responsible for the conduit system from basically our pole to each transformer pad. Each transformer location and I will have to get with you later to find out what we are going to do. Of course those easements will have to be placed before we can put in the transformers. I believe that is all I have. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: This is a little different than their normal apartments. Can you tell me the bottom part is going to be commercial and so there is going to be 16 living units and then the rest of it is going to be commercial. Are they going to have an electrical or equipment room on that bottom floor? Kelso: I would think they probably would. Gibson: On this one Jerry being this commercial on this bottom floor I would like to request a 4" conduit out of that equipment room to the general location of our pedestal and electric transformer. The reason being is that bottom will change so much. With an apartment complex, once you get them in there it is just basically there. That will be changed. We will need a tie Technical Plat Review December 17, 2003 Page 30 point where if they decide to make one unit into two we can rewire it. If they would keep that in mind before they pour any pads. As far as the rest of it goes the utility easements that Ron was asking for, I was also wanting to come between buildings 5 and 4 to 3. Kelso: I think the equipment rooms will probably be located here and here and here and here and maybe here. Next to the dumpster pads, probably each side of that. Gibson: Then between 2 and 1 just on the north side of three. Kelso: The intent would be to try to get all of those utilities in one area so it can be screened. Gibson: It would look better. Berstrom: We can also come between 1 and 2 and serve building 3 from the north. Kelso: We will probably go ahead and go easements going through there. That would be the intent. Gibson: Those are the only comments I have. As far as the utility easements, if you will just show them going through like that or we can go back to having a meeting to show you where the easements are. Kelso: We usually like to get SWEPCO's alignment and then we know we've got all the easements covered. You guys go wherever they go. Gibson: Ok. Pate: Again, just contact the rest of those utility companies. December 23`a is the revision deadline. Kelso: Ok. I do want to make a point that right now we are only going to be doing these two buildings at first, that is Phase I. That will be number two and number four. I have got the big dash line going around where Phase I is going to be. I just wanted to make sure everybody knew that. Casey: I didn't catch that but all public improvements will have to be included with Phase I, especially that pond. Technical Plat Review December 17, 2003 Page 31 R-PZD 04-02.00: Residential Planned Zoning District (Cross Keys, pp 438) was submitted by Chris Brackett of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Charles Sloan and Sloan Properties for property located south of Wedington Drive at the corner of N. 46`h and Persimmon Street. The property is currently zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural and contains approximately 38.48 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to a Residential Planned Zoning District to allow for the development of a residential subdivision with 109 single family dwellings proposed. Pate: Item number eleven is a Residential Planned Zoning District for Cross Keys submitted by Chris Brackett of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Charlie Sloan. The property is located south of Wedington Drive at the corner of N. 46`h Street and Persimmon Street. Morgan: Let me just briefly go through Planning comments. There weren't too many. Show the lot width at the building setback for those lots that have frontage less than 70'. Note the proposed density on the plat. Label the adjacent zoning and specify building setbacks for the lots. If you could give us an elevation or show us a drawing of what that is going to look like. I also noticed where you show the point of beginning, the barbed wire fencing is that going to be taken down? Sloan: Yes. We are requiring a privacy fence on both of these two pieces of property. Hopefully these people that it belongs to them will let us take that down. Morgan: Also, all proposed utilities are to be located underground. All electric lines below 12KV shall be located underground if there are any. Matt? Matt Casey — Staff Eneineer Casey: Chris, if you could include the 100 -year water surface elevation on your plan. A note saying the pond should be sodded. You need a floodplain development permit for the construction of that pond down in the floodplain. I have a question on how this is going to be terminated. Brackett: What we will probably do is end up putting a box here and if there is required, I don't think there will be, if there is anymore we will extend it on and any runoff from this street will go that way. Casey: Ok. The water line will need to extend somehow to this point. Our requirements are that it goes all the way to the property line. It may come through here or around. Brackett: Just anyway to get to the point? It doesn't necessarily need to go along Persimmon? Technical Plat Review December 17, 2003 Page 32 Casey: No. Also, I talked to Charlie about this yesterday. We are going to recommend a cost share to overlay 46`h Street. Right now Persimmon has their little piece of pavement and curb and this one will be the same with the old in the middle. We may get them to lay down the final layer of asphalt and then the city pay to overlay. Brackett: Our plan for this curb here wasn't a curb and a patch, it is an extended curb for the road. There is not even a foot of area that is paved, that is why we didn't show it paved. Casey: You may need to hold that concrete down for the extended portion 2" and then block that out some how so we can tie in when we overlay this. Brackett: We will look at that. Casey: Also, the intersection, there may be some additional pavement removal here. I'm not sure. We need those graded to a continuous curb for that intersection along there. We will try to get the pavement to be continuous through that intersection. That's all I have. Craig Carnagey — Landscape Administrator Carnagey: The only thing I have is payment into the tree fund before final approval. Pate: Chris, I was just going to add something real quick. I know we were all in a meeting talking about connectivity on this project. We have also met with the property owner directly to the east regarding his potential development and are talking to him about connectivity too. He is basically of the same opinion as you guys. Again, it is not staffs decision to make, it is Planning Commission's and City Council's decision to make. We do have a policy adopted by the city for connectivity and that is just something that will most likely come up the first time at Subdivision Committee just so that we can just kind of talk about that. If that is something that Subdivision Committee wants to see it is something you can appeal through that process. Sloan: You said there is an ordinance or something but I couldn't find that. Pate: It is just a policy of connectivity in the General Plan. Sloan: We looked for it. Pate: It is not in the Unified Development Code, it is in the General Plan 2020. We can get that to you. I just wanted to for the record make sure that is in there. Technical Plat Review December 17, 2003 Page 33 Morgan: Thank you Jeremy. Parks comments, parks fees are assessed in the amount of $60,495 for 109 single family units. Those are due prior to issuance of the Final Plat. Are there any comments from utilities? Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: Chris, let's go over some crossings. I am going to say that these will cover everybody, gas, electric, phone and us. There may be some of these that Mike Phipps may want six 4" instead of four. I am just going to say these are going to be four 4". Between lots 35 and 36 over to 99 and 100. also, we are going to ask for a 20' UE between 35 and 36. A 20' UE between 37 and 38 with a crossing over to 80 and 79. A 20' between 41 and 42 with a crossing to 59 and 60. In back of lots 43 and 44 and also 45 and 46. If the top of the drainage is less than 48" they will ask for a 4". Brackett: That is a sanitary sewer. Gibson: Do you know how deep that is going to be? Brackett: I don't know how deep this is. Gibson: Is it more than 4'? Brackett: Yeah but this is 8" pipe, you could just go under it. Gibson: If the top of it is going to be less than 48" deep final grade then they will ask for a conduit under it. If it is more than that we can just go over it. At the entrances we would also ask for crossings on this one and the one on the south. Back here on this other side, lots 9 and 10 a 20' UE. A crossing over to 69 and 50. Between 14 and 13 20' with a crossing to 89 and 70. 16 and 17 20' with a crossing to 109 and 90. I think that is it. Morgan: Revisions are due at 10:00 a.m. on the 23`d. Technical Plat Review December 17, 2003 Page 34 R-PZD 04-03.00: Residential Planned Zoning District (Chance & Tuggle, pp 436) was submitted by Geoffrey Bates of Keystone Consultants, Inc on behalf of David Chance and John Tuggle for pr0operty located at W. Tackett and Genevieve Avenue. The property is currently zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural and contains 7.94 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to a Residential Planned Zoning District to allow the development of a multi -family residential subdivision with 25 lots and 50 dwelling units proposed. Pate: Item number twelve on the agenda is a Residential Planned Zoning District for Chance and Tuggle submitted by Geoff Bates of Keystone Consultants for property located at West Tackett and Genevieve Avenue. We will go over Planning comments first. If you have available architectural building elevations that are going to be put on this site. Subdivision in the past has asked for those. Whether they do or not it is not a requirement but through the PZD process as you know, it is a very flexible type of process. If that comes up at Subdivision I just want you to be aware of that. Again, a draft copy of the covenants needs to be submitted for the PZD process. They need to be submitted by the revision deadline for Subdivision Committee. Again, the same thing as with the other one, provide a letter itemizing how the proposal meets the intent and purpose of the Planned Zoning District. I included that in your packet for you. Staff is still concerned with the density and that was part of the reason we recommended denial on the Rezoning initially. It was outlined in that original Rezoning request. As you are well aware, there were several neighbors there. It would be our recommendation that you have a neighborhood association meeting or meet with those neighbors at some point. Bates: We did after the meeting. It lasted about 30 minutes and the only thing they will be happy with is if they don't do anything. Pate: If you could provide something in writing to that affect, the fact that you met with them and the time and location. Again, the question will come up at Subdivision. Plat page comments, the adjacent zoning is primarily R -A I think. I don't think that there are any of those RSF-4 designations that you have here. I believe that is all R -A, Residential Agricultural land surrounding the property. Include plat page 436 on the plat. If you could identify the centerlines of Genevieve and Tackett and then dimension right of way from those centerlines. I noticed on the site plan that you had 60' shown as right of way. Is that existing or is that proposed? Bates: I believe it is existing. On Genevieve the majority of this is dirt. I don't know if there is right of way with it or not. Pate: We will need to dedicate right of way if not with the Final Plat of this project. That does require a minimum of 25' from centerline with any Technical Plat Review December 17, 2003 Page 35 building setbacks measured off of that. Include the Use Units for two family dwellings is Use Unit 9 if that is all you want in this development. If you would like to include any other types or potential for single family dwellings you would need to include at this time the other Use Units. Simply because if it is approved with all Use Unit 9 it is the only thing that could ever be developed without a rezoning request. Just so you are aware, the development is tied to the rezoning. Also, for our purposes if you could, include a chart on the plat listing the number of units, lots and density proposed. That would be helpful for all the Commissioners. Bates: They are doing all of these as patio homes which is a duplex that they sell, do I need to show a middle lot line down through here and actually show 50 lots? Pate: If you are selling that piece of property. Bates: They will sell the unit and it's half of the lot. Pate: I would think so. You can divide them into A and B if you would like or just fill in the 50. You set your own setbacks and lot sizes in a Planned Zoning District so you have that option. Include a note on the plat stating that all residential drives will have a maximum width of 24' at the right of way line. If there is any fencing or signage we need to see that on the plat. I think the rest are standard comments as far as Planning goes. Matt? Matt Casey — Staff Eneineer Casey: Geoff, you need to show street improvements 14' from centerline for the length of the entire property including sidewalks, storm drain, curb and gutter. We are going to make a recommendation to the Planning Commission that off site improvements be required to widen, pave and overlay. Bates: I think that is what the neighbors were afraid of. They are planning on widening this all the way to their property line. That seemed to be the major concern was traffic. Pate: Is this the same property owner here? Bates: No but I think there is right of way there. Casey: Show the right of way. Sidewalks will be required on both sides of the proposed streets. Bates: Is it required on both sides? Technical Plat Review December 17, 2003 Page 36 Casey: Not for a 28' local street. Provide a 20' wide utility easement between lots 14 and 15. Also, we need to provide a 20' wide drainage easement between 18 and 19 and 16 and 17. Extend the proposed water line along Tackett to the west property line. Bates: Is that going to be a problem putting the water line in the right of way? Casey: No. This is their property here is it not? Bates: Yes. The water line is on the other side of the street. There are trees all the way down through here. We would like to keep it on the other side rather than cutting down all those trees. Casey: You can keep it in the right of way and then cross over here. The detention pond has to be sodded. All grading must be setback 5' from the property lines. This alignment of the discharge may need to change a little bit to line up with the existing culvert under Tackett. Verify the capacity of the existing culvert under Tackett. That is all I have. Craie Carnaeev — Landscape Administrator Carnagey: You just need to pull all of your grading out of the drip line of these trees on lots 15 through 26. You are counting those as preserved. Bates: Actually, there is a ditch coming down through here and we are just kind of moving the ditch over a little bit is what we are wanting to do. Camagey: On the west side I don't think it will take much to pull that grading outside of that line. 15 and 16 are going to be a problem. Bates: I guess we will have to get rid of that one. I think that is a double. A lot of those trees aren't healthy. Camagey: I haven't had a chance to go out there and take a look. You've got one over here, a pretty good size elm tree that is listed as being dead. Number 14 is a huge hickory that you've got listed as being dead. I am going to have to take a look to verify that. Bates: A lot of those are scrub. Camagey: Scrub or not if you want to consider them preserved we have to pull that grading out. If not, we will have to do some mitigation for it. You are probably going to have to do some mitigation anyway. I will try to get out there to look at the condition of those trees as well. That is the only comment I have. Technical Plat Review December 17, 2003 Page 37 Pate: I am just going to add to that. Geoff, with this project as a PZD you might even consider offering a screening vegetation buffer away from the rest of the neighbors potentially on the backside of this lot as a buffer from this proposed higher density development. That is not something that we can require but it is something that I would recommend most likely. Bates: These people over here I believe are the sellers and they own all of this so they are not concerned. The people over here that live in the duplexes are the ones that aren't happy about more duplexes. I don't know what screening is going to do for them. Any tree that is cut down has to be replaced? Camagey: Yes. In a situation like this, right now the ordinance for a residential subdivision development is you are required to pay into the tree fund so we will figure that out. We can talk about that a little bit more. Are you familiar with tree mitigation? It will be a minimal amount. Pate: The Fire Department comments, does that make sense to you? You might contact Captain Farrar with respect to that comment. I am assuming there is an additional hydrant needed. Parks fees in the amount of $19,650 are required for the 50 multi -family units. That is prior to Final Plat, this will have to go through Final Plat as well after public improvements are installed. Street names need to be submitted to Jim Johnson for approval. I just included at the back here the Planned Zoning District ordinance. December 23d is the revision deadline. Larry? Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: I didn't get the one with tree preservation on it. Are we going to be able to come down the back of these lots? You've pretty well got that covered. Let's do the crossings first. Between 18 and 17 we will more than likely come off there. If that is less than 48" deep I will need a crossing to get across that. In the northeast corner lot 18 to the northwest corner of lot 1 a 20' UE between 17 and 18. A crossing between 17 and 18 to 25 and 20. A UE between 9 and 8 and then a crossing from 9 and 8 to 23 and 22. I think that covers the crossings and the UE's. To the back lots, the south side of lot 6 and the east side of lot 7 if we could get a 15' that would be great. Also the north side of lot 15. Like I said, that corner is going to kill you right there but if you can get 15' we can make it work. This overhead line that comes across here, if you would on your Final Plat note that we are also on that overhead line with Ozarks Electric. I know they are going to want to relocate that so we need to make arrangements. On an overhead line we can't even start our work until the electric company is finished and get all their anchor in. I would say from the time they finish theirs within 30 days we should have our new built, the old wrecked out. We will have to keep it active because these homes there. We won't know Technical Plat Review December 17, 2003 Page 38 until Ozarks figures out what they are going to do with it. We can get a little jump on it, it takes a while to get it through Engineering and everything and then probably 30 days from the time they finish before we can fix it. Camagey: I have a comment about those easements. I am not going to recommend any easement on the back of these lots 11 through 15 in order to save all those trees. My recommendation is to go up front. Gibson: If you want to go in up front that will be fine. Just eliminate that UE if we are going in on the front on the north side of 15 and get us back there with a 20' UE between 11 and 10 so we can service that whole line up in the front and then go down like that and get back to utilities again. That's all I have. Pate: Thank you Sir.