Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-03-17 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE TECHNICAL PLAT REVIEW COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee was held on March 17, 2004 at 9:00 a.m. in room 111 in the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. LSP 04-14.00: (Satterfield, pp 407) Page 2 LSD 04-11.00: (Hank's Furniture, pp 135) Page 3 LSD 04-14.00: (Brophy Condominiums, pp 290, 29 1) Page 6 PPL 04-05.00: (Deerpath Estates Ph. 2, pp 488) Page 9 PPL 04-01.00: (Bridgeport Phase 7, pp 360) Page 12 FPL 04-05.00: (springwoods, pp 248) Page 17 FPL 04-06.00: (Salem Townhouses, pp 401) Page 22 FPL 04-07.00: (Lot 17 CMN Phase It, pp 173/174) Page 25 LSD 04-09.00: (Allied Storage, pp 601) Page 27 STAFF PRESENT Matt Casey Jeremy Pate Suzanne Morgan Renee Thomas Rebecca Ohman Craig Camagey UTILITIES PRESENT Mike Phipps, Ozark Electric Coop. Sue Clouser, Southwestern Bell Larry Gibson, Cox Communications Jim Sargent, AEP/ SWEPCO ACTION TAKEN Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded STAFF ABSENT Perry Franklin Danny Farrar Travis Dotson UTILITIES ABSENT Johney Boles, Arkansas Western Gas Technical Plat Review March 17, 2004 Page 2 LSP 04-14.00: (Satterfield, pp 407) was submitted by Buckley Blew on behalf of Greg Satterfield for property located north of North Street and west of Waneetah Avenue. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre and contains approximately 0.48 acres. The request is to adjust the property lines from 3 individual lots to two tracts of 0.24 acres. Pate: Good morning, welcome to the March 17, 2004 meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee. There are eight items on your agenda. One of the items was for in house review, that is going to be bumped up. Item number one is LSP 04-14.00 for Satterfield submitted by Buckley Blew on behalf of Greg Satterfield for property located north of North Street and west of Waneetah Avenue. Planning doesn't have a lot of comments other than just ensure that all of the existing utility easements are shown and if they need any additional utility easements those need to be shown on the plat. I believe everything else is in order on this one as far as Planning goes. Matt, do you have anything additional? Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: The sewer is going to need to be extended. Neither of these lots have access to a sewer line. I think it will either have to come from North or Oakwood Street to the north. One has a 6" main, the other has a 8" main. They will need to be extended to serve each of these lots. Water is existing, you actually have it shown there. Pate: That will need to be done before the lot split is actually filed. Casey: That's all I have. Pate: Are there any other comments? Revisions are due on the 24"'. This will need to go to Subdivision Committee. Thank you. Technical Plat Review March 17, 2004 Page 3 LSD 04-11.00: Large Scale Development (Hank's Furniture, pp 135) was submitted by Ron Homeyer of Civil Engineering, Inc. on behalf of Hank's Furniture for property located at Lot 3B of Spring Park Place, Phase I (Joyce Blvd just east of Mall Avenue.) The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 2.04 acres. The request is to allow the development of a 39,900 s.f. retail store with 58 parking spaces proposed. Pate: The next item is a Large Scale Development for Allied Storage, LSD 04- 09.00. I don't see a representative here so we are going to move on to item number two, LSD 04-11.00 for Hank's Furniture. If you could come up to the front. This is property located in Spring Park Place on Joyce Blvd. We will need to see architectural elevations for this as proposed. On the plan you are showing a monument sign and we will need to see some drawings of that for the Planning Commission to review to ensure that it meets the Commercial Design Standards. Also, with the revisions prior to Subdivision Committee we will need to see a materials sample board, 24x36 or smaller. They basically need to see the materials called out and samples of those materials. On the site plan we will need to see a break down of site coverage percentage broken into greenspace, building area and impervious surface areas. A maximum of 85% of the site may be covered by imperviable surface in this zoning district. Also, if you could verify the location of the United Bank curb cut to the east. We want to ensure that those curb cuts are far enough away to meet our Commercial Design Standards. I believe the minimum distance in that location is 30'. If it is possible show it on the site plan, if not, include a note on the plat. Also, the cross connection with United Bank to the east if there are stub outs to the east and west you need to connect to those for cross connectivity between the properties. You have shown that to the McDonald's, I'm not sure about to the east. This latest submittal, dumpster location, I know that they talked about not utilizing a dumpster. If that is the case we need to have something verified with our Solid Waste Department. Basically, that they would like to see the three side enclosure. If something is different about that we need to have that verified. I didn't see anything changed on the site plan. Also, if you could include a waste receptacle at the end of the structure. That is for the anti- litter campaign. Also, there is a note on page three of your comments there talking about parking lot lighting. There is a typical standard we use for Commercial Development so if you could include that light in there to comply with those standards. No permanent structures over 30" height allowed within building setbacks. I know we had a problem with walls earlier but I think those have been taken care of now. As is submitted, the biggest problem that planning sees with getting through this process is meeting the Commercial Design Standards. One of the specific Commercial Design Standards is to design element guidelines to avoid or minimize square boxlike structures. I spoke with Ron about this earlier on Technical Plat Review March 17, 2004 Page 4 in the process and as it stands we can't support this project because of that. It is a very clear consideration that we have to make as far as this is very boxlike. If there are any angulations or recesses or anything from the structure architecturally that can be shown on the site plan it is going to help the situation. I don't know if it will be enough but we need to really see that. As it stands now, I don't really see this getting very far in the Planning Commission process. That is one of the things that came up recently with another development and I included that comment. What I will do is I will try to get those minutes to you from the recent Planning Commission where they had a lot of talk about Commercial Design Standards and boxlike structures and what needs to be shown. I am understanding that this is a private drive on the rear here. These are very visible, the sides and the front. We are actually looking at the visibility of the structure but also the cost wise aspect of it. I know a lot of these commercial structures have to be boxlike for the very function of it but we really need to see something trying to negate that as much as possible. Also, as part of the overall development of the Spring Creek subdivision you are required to match materials as much as possible to be compatible with adjacent developments. I know McDonald's to the west was required to do that. I believe the bank to the east was also required to do that so we might take a look at what types of colors of materials and banding to try to match that and provide a good transition. The Fire Department included some comments. They will need another fire department connection. Matt? Matt Casey — Staff Eneineer Casey: When I last met with Ron he requested that this be reviewed as if it were a final construction submittal so a lot of these comments will not be required just to go through the process. At his request I went ahead and reviewed it as if it were a final so that is the reason for the comments. Most of them are just minor checklist items. If you have any questions just give me a call. Craie Carnasey — Landscape Administrator Carnagey: The landscape plan is complete and there are no trees on site so I have no additional comments. Pate: Utilities? Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: Your utility easements look ok to me. If there is any relocation it will be at the owner/developer's expense. Do you have any idea how many phone lines they are going to require? Technical Plat Review March 17, 2004 Page 5 Homeyer: Probably four. Clouser: Ok. We will need, if you are sticking with just four lines, a 3" conduit with a pull string. If you're looking to get anymore than that we would like a 4" and it would be a good idea to actually put two conduits so if anything happened to the existing we could restore your service much quicker. That's all I have. Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop, Phipps: We have an existing three phase vault just on the north side of the building approximately 65' from the northwest corner of the building. The transformer to serve this building will have to sit in that area. Whoever designs the mechanical room, I'd put it on that side, try to put it back in there and it will save quite a bit of money because you won't have to run much underground then to serve it. That's all I have. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: I would like to see a crossing across the entrance there coming off of Joyce under the sidewalk for future use. That's all I have. Pate: Revisions are due March 24`h at 10:00 a.m. If you have any questions feel free to give me a call. Technical Plat Review March 17, 2004 Page 6 LSD 04-14.00: Large Scale Development (Brophy Condominiums, pp 290, 291) was submitted by William Rudasill of WBR Engineering Assoc. on behalf of Ralph Brophy for property located east of College Ave, north of Township on Brophy Circle. The property is zoned RMF -40, RMF -24 and RSF-4 and contains approximately 6.01 acres. The request is to approve the development of 41 dwelling units with 16 two-family lots and 9 single family condominium units proposed. Pate: The next item on the agenda is LSD 04-14.00 for Brophy Condominiums submitted by Bill Rudasill for property located east of College and north of Township on Brophy Circle. Morgan: If you could check the legal description. I included comments from our GIS Division in the packet. Label the dimensions of the gas easement. Identify the ownership of the private drive on the plat. Also, streetlights are required every 300'. I think this one is 380'. I don't know if it is possible to relocate that on this corner. It is private. Rudasill: That's no problem. We'll put streetlights in. Morgan: Any waivers, I know that there were several waivers when this came through before I don't know if you are still planning on asking for those. Rudasill: No, the way we are doing through this at this point is the Horizontal Property Regime. There is a minor revision that will be made after discussing the issue of the RSF-4 with staff. Instead of those being nine single family units they will be three duplexes and a triplex based on the Horizontal Property Regime within the RSF-4, which still meets density and meets the definition of a condominium and meets the requirements so there will be no waivers. Morgan: Staff is still continuing to evaluate the Horizontal Property Regime and city zoning requirements. Rudasill: We are planning on going through with no various requests. Morgan: Matt, do you have any comments? Matt Casey — Staff Eneineer Casey: As far as Engineering is concerned there is no change so all previous comments still apply including the recommendation for sidewalks. Craie Carnagey — Landscape Administrator Carnagey: My comments would be, since we had some issues on the last round as far as clarity, I would like to go ahead and clean that up. In fact, all of my Technical Plat Review March 17, 2004 Page 7 comments are here. If you could separate the site analysis drawing on a separate sheet. I have a couple of other comments here. Also, the preservation table since we are dealing with three different zoning designations, we actually need to show what your minimum percentage requirements would be for each of those zoning designations. I think that you have the correct median percent for the whole site but we need to break those down. Clean your canopy table up a little bit and I think we can do some work on graphically delineating exactly what the city is qualifying as preserved and leave the rest somewhat separate. Rudasill: It is a difficult site to figure that out with all of the easements and all of that. We'll sit down and work with you. Carnagey: I've tried to work that out so if you have any questions give me a call. Rebecca Ohman — Parks Department Ohman: How many units are being requested here? Rudasill: There are currently 41, the owners have asked me to try to get one or two more. The maximum I can get with using no more than a triplex would be 43 units. I will state that by the Subdivision Committee submittal I will have the final layout and there will be no more than 43 units. There will only be nine units within the RSF-4 area. Ohman: Ok. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: Did we decide how we were going to get utilities in here? Rudasill: My understanding is that they were all going to be served from the front. There was not going to be any rear service. Clouser: I'm looking for a utility easement. Rudasill: I show 15' on one side, except for one area we could go to a 20'. Clouser: Where is that? Rudasill: Next to what would be units 7 and 8 between the edge of the road. I don't have 20', I've got about 15'. Clouser: I need a crossing by 2 and at the entrance and if there is any relocation of anything existing it will be at the owner/developer's expense. Technical Plat Review March 17, 2004 Page 8 Rudasill: The other thing is along that west line there is existing phone service. Jim Sargent — AEP Sargent: Ron Berstrom is the engineer for this. He is out of town but he will give you feedback as far as easements. Any relocation of any existing facilities will be at the developer's expense. Rudasill: My understanding is by ordinance the overhead lines that are running through the property will have to go underground. That is in Phase I and that is where it will be done so we will work with you on that. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: I'd like to ask for a crossing right here at the entrance. I know this is up in the other phase but where this 20' UE comes out I'd like to get one right there. I noticed they did a little dirt work right here but when they get those streets actually cut, give me a call and let me know and I will take it from there. Thank you. Morgan: Fire comments are included. There is a recommendation to either remove or decrease the island to provide a larger turning radius. Rudasill: We can probably decrease it without any problems. That is a 24' drive all the way around there. Morgan: Revisions are due on the 24`h of March by 10:00 a.m. Technical Plat Review March 17, 2004 Page 9 PPL 04-05.00: Preliminary Plat (Deerpath Estates Ph. 2, pp 488) was submitted by Project Design Consultants, Inc. on behalf of SCB, LLC for property located east of Crossover Road and north of Deerpath Drive. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre, and contains approximately 9.13 acres. The request is to approve the development of another phase of this subdivision with 16 lots with 16 single- family dwellings proposed. Pate: Item four is PPL 04-05.00 for Deerpath Estates submitted by Project Design Consultants. This property is located east of Crossover Road and north of Deerpath Drive. Morgan: Planning comments are if you could show the lot width and building setback for those lots on the cul-de-sac to ensure compliance with zoning regulations. Scott: It's on here. It is 89' and 78'. Morgan: I am wondering the transition from 31' to 28' width. Scott: It is probably about a 50' taper. Morgan: Staff had recommended a stub out to the north when this was previously reviewed at Tech Plat which is shown. I appreciate the review on the first page showing the property to the north and how a possible connection could be made. There aren't too many other comments, just that all proposed utilities need to be underground. Street names need to be approved by the 911 Coordinator. Matt, do you have any comments? Matt Casey — Staff Eneineer Casey: The grading and retaining wall construction needs to be a minimum of 5' from the property line. Also, in the same area with the rear if it is not allowed we will have to look at an alternative there. Also I noticed that the drainage easements and utility easements are combined, we need to make sure that they are separate. If we have drainage swales or drainage pipes they need to be in a separate drainage easement away from utilities. Also for the water lines we need to remove the 90° bends and replace them with 45°. We will be recommending an assessment for the unconstructed portion of Skyview, the gap between the end of the pavement and the crossing. One comment that I just noticed that I'm adding, is that sidewalks will need to be 4' sidewalks located at the right of way line. Craie Carnasey — Landscape Administrator Camagey: Can you go ahead and put the same outline of the grading plan and site Technical Plat Review March 17, 2004 Page 10 plan on the tree preservation plan? It makes it a little bit more detailed and a lot more helpful to see. The last time we talked about utility easements I was under the impression that everybody was fine with serving in the front and you are still showing utility easements throughout the rear so if you could remove those that is going to help your preservation percentages. Those are the only two comments I have. Rebecca Ohman — Parks Department Ohman: Parks fees are due in the amount of $8,880. Morgan: Utilities? Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: Did we ask for crossings on this one? Scott: Yes, and we sort of changed the street layout so I wanted to just give you a fresh shot at it. Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop. Phipps: Six 4" crossings from 10 to 25. We will need six 4" at the end of Skyview Lane. Gibson: I don't know if anybody else needs a crossing there or not but I'd like to see at least one 4" between 22 and 23 over to 12. Phipps: The building setback and UE off of 21 and 22 to get me to the back through there and we're taking these back easements out, of course, this is not a part. This easement will have to stay here that we had because we need to get to the back between 21 and 22. Gibson: I think I'm going to come through there too. If we are the only two you can make that just a 15'. If anybody else comes through it would probably have to be a 20'. Carnagey: Is there another location Mike like between the lot lines of 20 and 21? Right between 21 and 22 there are significant trees that are going to be impacted. Phipps: I can go between 20 and 21 and come back. Carnagey: 20 and 21 is a little more clear if we can make that arrangement. Phipps: Yes. Technical Plat Review March 17, 2004 Page I1 Scott: We have sanitary between 19 and 20 if you wanted to come all the way around to that little knuckle there and come down there we're already going to be taking trees out through there. I don't know if that is too far for you or not Mike. You are still going to be coming across the back of lot 21 with that. That will be all cleared out through there. There is a deep sanitary sewer line in there. Phipps: That will work. Let's do 19 and 20 then and go back and leave that UE going along the back of 21. Clouser: The only other comment that I had was any relocation would be at the owner/developer's expense. Phipps: Streetlights need to be shown on here. Scott: They're on there on another sheet. Gibson: Those crossings are fine with Cox Communications. Morgan: Fire comments were added regarding the cul-de-sac diameter. Thank you. Revisions are due the 24`h at 10:00 a.m. Technical Plat Review March 17, 2004 Page 12 PPL 04-01.00: Preliminary Plat (Bridgeport Phase 7, pp 360) was submitted by Geoffrey Bates of Keystone Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Arkansas Oaks for property located east of Bridgeport Subdivision Phase III and Freedom Place. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre and contains approximately 17.4 acres. The request is to approve the development of another phase of this subdivision with 24 lots and 24 dwelling units proposed. Pate: The next item is PPL 04-01.00 for Bridgeport Phase VII submitted by Geoff Bates on behalf of Arkansas Oaks for property located east of Bridgeport subdivision Phase III and Freedom Place. Morgan: We will need you to process a Property Line Adjustment to create this tract. There are two tracts of land here so we will need to see a Property Line Adjustment processed. If you could identify this area as the Planning Area. You have identified different zonings. Street names need to be approved by the 911 Coordinator. I didn't see a length for the cul-de-sac. I think it is real close to 500' so if you could check that. You may need a waiver for a cul-de-sac greater than 500' in length. In addition, this plan is different than the other previously submitted and reviewed with the additional area to the south and possible connections to the east. We would like to consider a connection to the south for future development. Helmer: That would leave us a non -conforming lot. Morgan: It would. Currently that is not buildable area for Lot 24 anyway but it is part of Lot 24. It wouldn't be a buildable lot. Pate: Setbacks prohibit it from being built right there. At this time that area of the lot can't be built on anyway with the given setbacks of 25' from the right of way line. Helmer: But somebody has to own it. Morgan: It can be common area. This is just a possibility. Bates: How can we do this in Phases? They want to build this first. Then Final Plat it and then start this. Pate: Just show all of those phase lines on the plat itself and actually identify which Phases those are. Additionally, we'll need to submit something in writing requesting something is going to happen like that. Bates: Ok, to the Planning Commission? Pate: Yes, they are the only ones that can approve that. Technical Plat Review March 17, 2004 Page 13 Morgan: Get that submitted with the next submittal. Matt, do you have any comments? Matt Casey — Staff Eneineer Casey: Geoff, the current sewer layout, we need to modify these lines and make them come into the manhole at a 90°. Also, we need to discuss a way to provide a temporary cul-de-sac along American Drive. It is a very long dead-end and there is no way for fire or trash or other vehicles to be able to turn around. I don't know if we can somehow put that in the portion that would protrude outside of the right of way if we can put that in a temporary access easement, something that would go away with the continuation of this road and be able to be torn out. We will use more of a temporary paving section in that area to come back in and tear it out with a future phase. Bates: The property line between 8 and 9 to get something turned around. Casey: Maybe a no curb and gutter, pavement only cul-de-sac there. I don't know that you would want to dedicate the right of way outside of what is shown now but if we could come up with some sort of temporary that would go away. Helmer: How would that affect the building setbacks? Casey: That would be from the right of way. That's just another reason not to dedicate right of way but just a temporary access easement. I talked to Danny Farrar about this one to the south and he said it is short enough that they can back around to the cul-de-sac street and get out and I'm assuming trash would have the same abilities to do that. If you can replace the flume here at the cul-de-sac with a drop down pipe. Bates: How far does the pipe have to go? Casey: Outside of the right of way and enough to daylight that area. You've got that in a few other areas. You can include drainage easements around those pipes where they are outside of the right of way. That's all I have. Morgan: Craig? Craie Carnasey — Landscape Administrator Camagey: Geoff, we spoke yesterday about getting this in a separate easement so if you can just go ahead and show those boundaries prior to Subdivision Committee. That is all of the comments that I have. Technical Plat Review March 17, 2004 Page 14 Rebecca Ohman- Parks Department Ohman: A deed for park land to the Parks and Recreation Division in the amount of 0.57 acres needs to be received prior to signing of final plat. Also, if you could show the trail corridor on the overall development. Morgan: Utilities? Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: Any relocation will be at the owner/developer's expense. How were you planning on lots 1 through 7 are we going on the front lot lines for those? Bates: I think we want to go on the front lot line for everything. We had this tree preservation area back here so we are going to have to run everything in front if we can do that. Clouser: Make that a 25' building setback and UE along New Bridge Road. We only need 20'. Bates: We might leave them all 25' building setbacks and UE's since we have water and sewer in there as well. Clouser: Your crossings are alright with me. Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop, Phipps: Geoff, if we go in front we don't need these crossings that you have shown here tying those easements together through there but we will need them at each end. One from 14 over to 22 and 21. Johney Boles from Arkansas Western Gas isn't here but if we go in front he is going to want crossings from lot to lot. He is not going to take it and loop it all the way around. He will just come through one side and put crossings across to those lots so he will need something through there. If we could get a UE between 14 and 15. That overhead line is a 69,000 kV overhead transmission line. I think it has a 50' easement, 25' each side from the center running north and south through the middle. Bates: It came up different when they researched it. I think it is 25' on one side and 21' on the other side. Phipps: That could've been what they got at that time. That's all I have. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: Those crossings and UE's Mike asked for are fine with me. Technical Plat Review March 17, 2004 Page 15 Morgan: I included Fire comments for you in the back of your packet. Bates: I have one more thing. We thought about moving this cul-de-sac up to save these trees because they are big but that would make us have to do a 90° curve here that wouldn't meet the street standards. Casey: We can work with you on that. Bates: Ok, I'll try it on the next submittal. Morgan: Revisions are due on the 24`h at 10:00 a.m. Thank you. Technical Plat Review March 17, 2004 Page 16 FPL 04-05.00: Final Plat (springwoods, pp 248) was submitted by Jim Ramsey of Ramsey Surveying, Inc. on behalf of Collins Haynes and Legacy LLC for property located southwest of I-540 at Arkansas State Hwy. 112. The property is zoned C-PZD and contains approximately 289.26 acres. The request is to approve the final plat of the C-PZD subdivision. Pate: The next item on the agenda is FPL 04-05.00 submitted by Jim Ramsey on behalf of Collins Haynes and Legacy LLC for property located southwest of I-540 at Arkansas State Highway 112. This is the Final Plat of the previously approved PZD and Preliminary Plat. I also included the ordinance that was passed by the City Council so you have a copy and the staff report with all of the conditions of approval and staff s findings here. On the title of the covenants and Bill of Assurance I included a memo from our City Attorney that name needs to be changed to covenants as opposed to Bill of Assurance because this is a Planned Zoning District. Any references to the Bill of Assurance need to be changed to covenants to replace the Bill of Assurance. Include a plat page reference, 248, that is our city plat page number. It can be in the title block or somewhere on here, that's how we file these away. On your vicinity map if you could include the site boundaries. I believe all the street names are on there. I think this is also Technology Blvd., which you can take off. That's been removed. That and this one here has been removed from the Master Street Plan. Also, on the right of way dedication by plat in this area only right of way actually owned by Mr. Haynes can be dedicated at this time. On portions of property that abut both sides. For instance, in this location here he will be dedicating the entire 50' but on this one here he can only be assessed the 35' because this is a different property owner. It will just basically be a label dedicating 35' from centerline. Ramsey: Are you saying that you want me to remove the right of way line on that side? Pate: On this side, yes. This is other property here, we really can't require you to dedicate that at this time. If that were the case every property owner would have to sign the Final Plat. Ramsey: You don't even want to see the right of way on those, is that what you're saying? Pate: You can show it where it is existing. You can show that, just as long as we have the 35' from centerline. Ramsey: That's in the written description and we know that that is all he can dedicate. I would think you'd want to see the right of way. Technical Plat Review March 17, 2004 Page 17 Pate: I'm not sure though that it actually is dedicated to 70' so by this plat when it is recorded at the county it would have to be dedicated so then the other property owners would be forced to sign off. Ramsey: Ok, so you would like to see the existing right of way labeled existing. Pate: Right, that would be more clear. I've included these comments in here as well. If you have any questions please feel free to give me a call. I know this is a difficult plat to read because there is so much information on it. I have a comment on here to clarify or more clearly mark the individual lot lines. You might try a different line type, I just want to make sure that everyone is clear where the lots actually lie. The rest of these comments have to do with Moore Lane 25' from centerline, 35' from centerline for anything abutting Shiloh. We are looking at potential right of way dedication in this area where the Master Street Plan used to come through for Trucker's Drive. Trucker's Drive went to here I believe and then Gypsum Drive continued on. I am having to do a little research on the resolution that City Council passed because it actually mentions Trucker's Drive, which is not Gypsum so I have contacted the City Attorney and am trying to find out what the situation is. Regardless, if we look at a subdivision in the future we may be requesting connectivity to the west as we would with every subdivision in the Final Plat. Tarvin: Do you understand the objection of that by the developers? I think the intention that they thought was it was vacated across their entire property. Whether it was called Gypsum or not, I don't remember that being there. Pate: I think the resolution reads because one of the big reasons they passed it is because it is crossing wetlands and that is really not the case but that is something that we are definitely going to look into. We'll let you know. Again, we look for connectivity. For instance, when this subdivision for Lot 5 or Lot 4 comes in we'll be looking for connectivity and right of way dedicated to the north to provide connection to the north and I just wanted to let you know early on that we will be looking for connectivity, which is a city policy. I included those comments in your packet as well. In the permitted uses section if you could specifically reference the permitted uses as shown on the plat and approved by City Council. That establishes the use units allowed on each lot. Ramsey: Ok, so we need to add that information to the covenants? Pate: Exactly. For each lot this is what is allowed by right. That can be just utilizing those use unit numbers there. I included a comment here that the covenants are being reviewed by the City Attorney. I included a memo from him and believe that they are ok. For Lot 8 I am not sure what the status of it is with the Audubon Society. I know when this was approved Technical Plat Review March 17, 2004 Page 18 by the City Council and the Planning Commission that a note was referenced that Lot 8 Audubon uses shall be further restricted as described in proposed uses to Wilson Springs site. I included in your comments what those were in that draft that we had originally. None of that information is really included in your covenants. You might want to look at that, I know it all references the Army Corp. of Engineers. That kind of meets some of the criteria but not fully. Any development on Lot 8 will also be restricted to Planning Commission approval as well. Tarvin: The Audubon uses were in the original Preliminary Plat is that what you said? Pate: Correct. Tarvin: And you are not finding those in this? Pate: Not anywhere in the plat Bill of Assurance. The only thing it has referencing that is this Environmentally Sensitive Lands, it doesn't mention Lot 8 at all. Tarvin: This was developed with the Audubon and their main concern was controlling the others, not controlling themselves. Pate: We will need to look at what uses potentially the Audubon will be looking at. This is very valuable and I think this is something that we need also because we all talked about it at the Planning Commission and the City Council levels. Tarvin: Ok, so you are looking for more definition as to what is going to be done on Lot 8. Pate: Right. As you very well know everyone is interested in what is going to happen on Lot 8 and we need a more clearly defined what it is specifically limited to and what bodies need to be reviewing it. It will most likely be at the Planning Commission level. At Final Plat we are also determining those land uses which were approved with the C-PZD so we need to ensure that that is all kept with that approval. I believe everything else is pretty self explanatory. There are not a lot of plat comments. I ran this by Ed Connell and everything looks good. Greg Boettcher is reviewing it as well. I think if Ed is ok with everything else will be ok but I just wanted to let you know that someone else is reviewing it. If I have any comments from Mr. Boettcher I will be sure to let you know. Craig? Craie Carnasey — Landscape Administrator Technical Plat Review March 17, 2004 Page 19 Camagey: My only comment is that towards the south to get approval for tree preservation I'll need a disclaimer note stating that each lot will have separate tree preservation plans. Tarvin: You want that written on the plat? Camagey: Yes. Camagey: If you have any questions about the wording give me a call. Pate: Utility comments? Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: We are going to have to get together on getting easements to each of these lots. We have quite a bit of existing fiber in there as I'm sure you already know but with the subdivision it does not line up so we are going to need easements to each of these lots and I really haven't had a chance to look at it. Tarvin: We are doing a Preliminary Plat for lots 3, 5 and 1 I believe right now. As you see those then we will get into that. Clouser: So each lot will come back through? Tarvin: At one time or another, I'm not sure about Lot 8. Clouser: My concern is depending on the order they come in. I will look at it and give you a call if I need something done right now to ensure access and then we will take it from there. Any relocation of existing facilities will be at the owner/developer's expense. It is possible, which portion were you saying is the Army Corp. of Engineers? Pate: We are looking at Lot 8 there which we have also heard could be Audubon property in the future. It is for preservation and conservation of wetlands and tree preservation. Tarvin: There will be some impact on the other lots as well. Clouser: If we are required to place any unusual conduits that will need to be provided by the developer. Tarvin: Is that something that needs to be on here or is that just an understanding if there are any special conduits required? Technical Plat Review March 17, 2004 Page 20 Clouser: If you could put it on the Final Plat that would be great but as long as it is recorded here at the meeting I think it is binding. Tarvin: You'll have a shot at every one of these again in more detail. Really there is very little engineering on this plat. It is mostly existing land and dividing it into pieces. As we come back with each one then we will get with those. Clouser: I just want to make sure that we don't end up with some lot landlocked. Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop. Phipps: Any relocation of existing facilities will be at the owner/developer's expense. Tarvin: I remember in the original comments there was something about powerlines above a certain voltage is to be placed underground? Pate: Anything 12kV or below. Tarvin: Are there any on that site? Phipps: Possibly along Moore Lane through there but the main power line down Shiloh that runs down Shiloh back to 112 is above 12kV. Tarvin: Is it in the right of way of Shiloh Drive? Phipps: You've got it shown on the plat here as a 30' UE for Ozark Electric Power line on Shiloh Drive and it runs all the way through. Tarvin: Is it actually on the road? Phipps: It is outside of the right of way of Shiloh so it is on that property. Whenever this goes through we will request an easement for that line all the way through there. Tarvin: I guess what I'm asking is are they going to have to put that underground? Pate: Only if it is 12kV or below. Phipps: That is above 12kV. You've got where it comes off of Moore Lane here back this way this little stretch right through here could possibly have to be relocated underground. It is just a little sliver. Technical Plat Review March 17, 2004 Page 21 Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: We are also on those Ozark Electric Company poles going along Moore Lane all the way back down to Deane Solomon. I would like to just hold my comments until these lots come back through and then ask for the easements then. It is tough to see what you are going to do on this now so when this comes back that is when I would like to make my comments as far as easements and crossings and things. Pate: Revisions are due March 24`h by 10:00 a.m. Technical Plat Review March 17, 2004 Page 22 FPL 04-06.00: Final Plat (Salem Townhouses, pp 401) was submitted by Engineering Services, Inc. on behalf of C & K Properties for property located north of Wedington Drive along the west side of Salem Road. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, and contains approximately 8.30 acres. The request is to approve the final plat of this development. Pate: The next item on our agenda is FPL 04-06.00 for Salem Townhouses submitted by Engineering Services for property located north of Wedington Drive and west of Salem Road. A couple of things did not happen from the Preliminary Plat, one of them was an easement. Moore: What did we end up with that, was it a 30' or 35'? Pate: It is a 40' easement with a couple of conditions. I added a note on page two. If you want to work on the wording of that just get with me. It is trying to figure out just exactly got approved the other night. Basically, it is my understanding reading through those minutes, if lot 1 develops first a 24' private drive with sidewalks will be constructed from Salem to the western property line with a stub out for future connection. If Lot 2 develops first they will have to do both. The additional right of way to be dedicated on Wedington Drive will need to be by Warranty Deed and I included a copy of our standard Warranty Deed in here so you can use that as a template. That will need to be looked at and recorded and returned to Planning prior to Final Plat signing. Most of the other notes address that easement. If you could include the property owner of record and the developer on the plat. Because we are looking at more than one sheet all signature blocks need to appear on all sheets. If there are assigned addresses for these lots, please contact Jim Johnson to see if there are assigned addresses for each of these lots to be shown on there. Any utilities need to be located underground on both of these lots for future development as well. Engineering? Craig Carnagey — Landscape Administrator Camagey: Because there are large significant trees on the property boundary or just immediately to the west in order for me to sign off on this certificate I need a note stating that when development does come through there will be consideration made. Pate: I included Fire Department comments as well. They more or less just reiterate the fact that more than one access may be required. That is what we are looking at as the whole reason for this 40' easement. The rest of the comments really deal with the development of those lots. Utilities? Technical Plat Review March 17, 2004 Page 23 Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: Any relocation of existing facilities will be at the owner/developer's expense. That's all I have for right now. Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop. Phipps: Brian, we will get that overhead underground on the corner. As far as going with that 20' UE, it may have to be adjusted on those trees as we are going through there to come around the ditch edge or something like that. You may have a swing in it with the trees through there. The easement, I don't think we're covered this way. I think it comes straight through there. I don't see why I would cut across there like that. Moore: I don't know why either but that's what they show. Phipps: Was that recorded that way? Moore: I'll check. Phipps: Our shows 30' up front and then down around the back of the bank there. Moore: We'll check it and see. Phipps: That's all the comments that I have. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: Brian, the only comments I have is we are on the Ozark Electric poles on the west side so we would have to relocate underground also. They just need to give us enough notice so we can work up a job on it to do it. Pate: Revisions are due the 24`h at 10:00 a.m. Moore: Thank you very much. Technical Plat Review March 17, 2004 Page 24 FPL 04-07.00: Final Plat (Lot 17 CMN Phase II, pp 173/174) was submitted by James Koch of CEI Engineering Associates on behalf of Nanchar, Inc. and MSB Properties, LLC for property located at Lot 17 of Steele Crossing. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 18.25 acres. The request is to approve the final plat of this development. Pate: Item number eight is FPL 04-07.00 for Lot 17 of CMN Phase II submitted by Mr. Koch of CEI Engineering. Probably the biggest comment is one that we've already gone over several times via email and phone. The easement here that currently cuts across the east will have to be vacated and I believe you are in the process of getting that together if not submitted already. That will have to be vacated prior to signing of the Final Plat and approved by the City Council because if some reason it never went through you would need to show it on the plat. Also, I've spoke with you about most of these comments. Based on the county records there are several different owners. I've included that today and also emailed you that yesterday. It looks like GMRI, Inc. owns a lot, that is for Smokey Bones. Red Robin Intl. owns a lot and of course, the Steele sisters and Nanchar are the owners of the rest of that. If you could include the plat page on the plat. South of the lot is right of way along this property back here. It is recorded and you just need to show that along there, which is a 50' setback and you only have 20' shown here. All owners of record for affected property are required to sign the Final Plat. What I tried to convey to you yesterday is basically for the application if you could just get them to send in a letter that would suffice so you don't have to send an application around. Each of the owners, Red Robin, Intl, and GMRI, if you could just have them send a letter of authorization saying that Nanchar is authorized to act on their behalf on the Final Plat processing that would work for us to process the Final Plat. Koch: You don't want their signatures on the plat? Pate: We will need it on the plat. There are two things that we have to have owner's signatures on. One is for processing the application. A letter would work for that. For the Final Plat we'll need to include signature blocks for them. Koch: Ok, so by Subdivision Committee you want to see a letter from GMRI an Red Robin, Intl.? Pate: Correct. Of course inspection has to occur prior to revision deadline to get this on the Subdivision Committee agenda. If you would just keep Matt informed about that and he can let me know. Fire Department comments, there are no fire hydrants shown. Again, this is a Final Plat. He does mention that Plat Review comments by the Engineer states that there will be three hydrants. Matt, do you have anything? Technical Plat Review March 17, 2004 Page 25 Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: James, we have just some standard notes. You need a note labeling the detention pond. We need a note for the linear feet of sidewalks and street improvements and also a final inspection is due prior to the deadline for Subdivision. We will need the as builts, construction costs. You need to label the base flood elevation and the minimum finished floor elevations for each lot. Show the sidewalk and the street on the plat as well. Koch: The construction costs will be what we consider Phase II Van Asche Drive, correct? Phase I does not apply? Casey: Correct. Pate: Craig? Craig Carnagey — Landscape Administrator Carnagey: No comment. Pate: Utilities? Jim Sargent — AEP/SWEPCO Sargent: James, the only comment I've got is that I probably need to get with you a little bit on this. Koch: When would you like to do that? Sargent: We can do it after this meeting. Koch: I will wait for that. They are wanting to make progress for Red Robin. Sargent: That's the only comment I have. Pate: Revisions are due the 24`h by 10:00 a.m. Technical Plat Review March 17, 2004 Page 26 LSD 04-09.00: Large Scale Development (Allied Storage, pp 601) was submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of Randy and Shana Salsbury for property located at 85 W. 15`h Street. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial, and contains approximately 14.98 acres. The request is to allow development of an additional 19,200 sq.ft. storage building. Pate: We will go back to the Large Scale Development for Allied Storage. There aren't a whole lot of comments on this, it is pretty straight forward. Along 15`h Street there is a 50' setback from the right of way line. There is 50' of right of way off of centerline. We are not requiring a dedication based on previous actions by the City Council but you do need to show what is existing. Milholland: Show this here? Pate: Right, you need to show a 50' setback off of the 50' right of way. Milholland: Through this building here? Pate: Those building are existing, non -conforming. We need to show the correct setbacks. Milholland: What's that going to do to it? Pate: It doesn't do anything to the development. The only thing it does is if they wanted to add onto those structures in the future they couldn't add on further towards the street. Milholland: No additional right of way is being dedicated at this time. Pate: Correct, I included the resolution with your packets. That is really the bulk of our comments. Any utilities to serve this site need to be located underground. I have some Fire Department comments in here. Access around the building seems to be adequate. They need to calculate fire flow. An additional hydrant may be required depending on what the fire flow requirement is. Milholland: You said on here about an additional hydrant may be required, is that going to be required? Pate: Contact Captain Farrar about that and let him know your situation here. Milholland: Ok. What you've covered so far is just the setback, the right of way and the Chief's notes. Technical Plat Review March 17, 2004 Page 27 Matt Casey — Staff Eneineer Casey: The only comment we have is floodplain. If you could better define the line that shows the floodplain and floodway. It looks like a contour so I couldn't follow it to see if you were going to be constructing in the floodplain. If you are in the floodplain you need to get a floodplain development permit. Milholland: We are supposedly outside of that but we will make it bigger where it will show up better. Casey: If Captain Farrar does require a fire hydrant then we will need to see the plans for that. Milholland: It would be a public line is what you're saying? Casey: Yes, and we will need adequate easements. Milholland: 15' or 10'? Casey: 10' on each side, a total of 20'. Craie Carnaeey — Landscape Administrator Carnagey: I spoke with Tom a couple of weeks ago about this project and I requested a revised tree preservation plan. I understand that you won't be impacting any trees but because there is so much canopy located on this site I want to make sure that we show just for documentation purposes, existing canopy. Milholland: Adjacent to the new site? Carnagey: Correct. We also want to see a protective fencing detail and a note just so we can indicate that the silt fence is going to double up as tree preservation and filter as well. That is my only comment. Milholland: You want a detail that reflects that the silt fence is going to be both for tree preservation and filter is that what you said? Carnagey: Yes Sir. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: Do they have phone service out there now as well? Milholland: In their office up front. Technical Plat Review March 17, 2004 Page 28 Clouser: That's one continuous piece of property? Milholland: Yes, they are just adding on to what they already have. Clouser: Ok. If they want phones in their new buildings they will need to run them from the existing lines come in. Milholland: My understanding is all they want is another light. Clouser: Anything that is in there that needs to be relocated will be at the owner/developer's expense. Jim Sareent—AEP/SWEPCO Sargent: Mel, I don't know if we have utilities along Hwy. 16 up there or not. I would like to ask for a 20' UE along 15`h Street. Milholland: They required me to put a 50' building setback that is going to cut back into those buildings. Do you want an easement in the setback part? Sargent: Yes, 20'. Milholland: Is that for this project? Sargent: No. Milholland: I don't know if you can require that if it is not mandatory but I'll tell him you asked for it. Clouser: You can put Southwestern Bell asked for it. Sargent: We've got a line along 15`h now. Also, we have an existing line, I'm not sure what all goes on back there but I would like you to show an easement along that existing power line. It comes from your property over to the Salvation Army on the west side of that property. You are showing two power poles. Milholland: The power poles that I show are street lights inside the property. Sargent: We do have some primary that does go back through there. Milholland: Are these your poles here? Sargent: I think so. I haven't got back in there to see. Technical Plat Review March 17, 2004 Page 29 Milholland: I guess if these are your poles you are saying you want to see an easement on them? Sargent: Where we have primary I would like to see 10' each side from centerline. Milholland: If the poles aren't centered you will probably have one over the top of the building. Sargent: I don't think we have anything going over the building. Milholland: I'll just put down here that SWEPCO wants a 20' UE on existing primary that serves existing facilities. Pate: That should get you one coming from the west. Sargent: It is coming somewhere up through here, I'm not exactly sure where. Milholland: It may be it just follows the sewer through here, I don't know. Sargent: Any relocation of our existing facilities will be paid by the developer and are they going to want any service to this new building do you know? Milholland: My understanding is they already have a light down here and they want to be able to extend that and put another light on. I apologize for not knowing all the details. Tom was doing all of this and he had to be out of town. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: The only comment I had was just that UE on 15`h Street. Milholland: This UE in here is asphalt. Can you all put poles up and block us? Sargent: We don't intend to put any poles up right now. Milholland: This is long term, he doesn't want to block himself from getting around the building. Sargent: If we needed to do something we would work with the property owner. Milholland: I will get with him and have him contact you. I think he needs to be aware that if he gives an easement that that gives you a right to come in and do whatever you want to. He may give you an easement subject to you all putting it underground and repairing it, I don't know. This is not serving him. Technical Plat Review March 17, 2004 Page 30 Sargent: The line that runs up and down through there does serve him. Milholland: This easement here though. If you block it or whatever, that would interfere with a lot of his circulation. I'm sure he will work with you. Sargent: Right now we don't intend to do anything with it. Pate: Revisions are due on March 24`h at 10:00 a.m. Meeting adjourned: 10:28 a.m.