Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-04-14 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE TECHNICAL PLAT REVIEW COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee was held on April 14, 2004 at 9:00 a.m. in room 111 in the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. LSP 04-17.00: (Hatcher, pp 406) Page 2 LSP 04-18.00 & LSP 04-20.00 (Fitzgerald, pp 398) Page 4 LSP 04-19.00: (Meadowlands Dr., pp 400) FPL 04-08.00: (Newcastle Estates, pp 179/180) Page 12 LSD 04-15.00: (Kershner Business Centre, pp 173) R-PZD 04-06.00: (Rupple Row, pp 439) Page 6 STAFF PRESENT Matt Casey Jeremy Pate Suzanne Morgan Renee Thomas Rebecca Ohman UTILITIES PRESENT Mike Phipps, Ozark Electric Coop. Sue Clouser, Southwestern Bell Larry Gibson, Cox Communications Johney Boles, Arkansas Western Gas ACTION TAKEN Forwarded Forwarded Tabled Forwarded Not Discussed Forwarded STAFF ABSENT Perry Franklin Danny Farrar Travis Dotson Craig Camagey UTILITIES ABSENT Jim Sargent, AEP/ SWEPCO Technical Plat Review April 15, 2004 Page 2 LSP 04-17.00: Lot Split (Hatcher, pp 406) was submitted by Rudy Hatcher for property located at 488 and 510 W. Lawson Street. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre, and contain approximately 0.64 acres. The request is to split the subject property into two tracts of 0.18 and 0.46 acres respectively. Pate: We will go ahead and start the Technical Plat Review Committee meeting for Wednesday, April 14, 2004. There are six items on the agenda. Number five will be delayed until the next round so we will be hearing five items. Item number one is LSP 04-17.00 for Hatcher submitted by Rudy Hatcher located on Lawson Street. The request is to split the subject property into two tracts of .18 and .46 acres. Suzanne will be giving this report. Morgan: I'm going to briefly go over some of the comments that Planning made on this. If you would please identify the acreage or square footage of each proposed lot. Hatcher: It is on there. Morgan: There is a lot of stuff on here so I may have just missed it. Please indicate the plat page, 406. Identify the property owner on the plat. Show the required setbacks for the RSF-4 zoning district. One thing, you may need to enlarge the size of the sheet to get the signature blocks on there. Also, show the curb cuts and drives. Also, a surveyor's signature and seal is required. Finally, another is to indicate the existing right of way from centerline. Those were the majority of the comments. If you have any questions about the others you're welcome to call me. Matt, do you have any comments? Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: Just that you need to label the water and sewer mains. It is a 2" water and a 6" sewer out in the street. That's all I have. Ohman: There are no Parks comments. Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop. Phipps: No comment. Johney Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: If you would just show that utility easement on the north side of Lawson Street that runs east and west. I don't recall what the dimensions are. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Technical Plat Review April 15, 2004 Page 3 Gibson: No comment. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: No comment. Morgan: Revisions are due by 10:00 a.m. next Wednesday. If you have any questions just give me a call. Technical Plat Review April 15, 2004 Page 4 LSP 04-18.00/LSP 04-20.00: Lot Splits (Fitzgerald, pp 398) were submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Don Fitzgerald for property located on the NW corner of 51" Street and Wedington Drive. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre, and contains approximately 1.09 acres. The request is to split the property into 3 tracts of 0.33, 0.33, and 0.43 acres respectively. Pate: Item number two is LSP 04-18.00 and LSP 04-20.00 for Fitzgerald submitted by Jorgensen. The property is located at 5151 and Wedington. This is two lot splits. Morgan: I have a few comments from Planning. Label the zoning for adjacent and subject property and add the plat page number. The right of way from centerline, 51 s` Street has 45' from centerline dedicated right of way to the west and 30' from centerline to the east. This is going to change the lot dimensions somewhat so if you could indicate that. Also, if you could place the existing and proposed right of way on Wedington and any additional right of way that needs to be dedicated will need to be done with a Warranty Deed. 51" Street will need to be the access point for all of these lots so we can avoid a curb cut on Wedington Drive. In addition, include the owner's signature block and I included that for you. Those are the majority of the comments. If you have any questions let me know. Matt? Matt Casey — Staff Engineer Casey: The only comment is our maps show that the sewer main is on the west side of the road and it is shown on the plat here on the east so if you can verify that. If it is on the west, relocate that over there to make sure we've got a 10' easement from that main. That's all I have. Ohman: There will be parks fees assessed in the amount of $1,110 for two additional lots. There is also an existing park fee for the original lot of $105, as part of the original subdivision. These fees will be due at the time of building permit. The total is $1,215. Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop. Phipps: Any relocation of existing facilities will be at the developer's expense. That's all I have. Johney Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: Just go ahead and shift that easement along 51s` Street to the west as you dedicate that additional street right of way. We have an existing line that runs across the front of both of those lots. Technical Plat Review April 15, 2004 Page 5 Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: I have the same comment as Mike. Any relocation will be at the owner's expense. That's all I have. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: Any relocation will be at the owner's expense. Technical Plat Review April 15, 2004 Page 6 R-PZD 04-06.00: Residential Planned Zoning District (Rupple Row, pp 439) was submitted by Chris Brackett of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of John Nock of Nock Investments, LLC for property located on Rupple Road, south of Wedington Drive. The property is currently zoned RT -12, Residential Two and Three-family, and RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre, and contains approximately 41.70 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to a Residential Planned Zoning District to allow the development of a residential subdivision with 180 single family and 39 two-family lots (258 dwelling units) proposed. Pate: The next item we will hear is the R-PZD for Rupple Row submitted by Chris Brackett on behalf of John Nock. A subdivision PZD requires covenants to be submitted. I included some of the information here with regard to what is required. A POA or Homeowner's Association, also any ideas about landscaping, architecture or site design. Standards that will be overall for the development that any separate builder will have to follow just as part of the covenants. That is something that the Commissioners and the Council are going to be looking at. Those will have to be filed at the time of the Final Plat when this comes back through. This PZD entails the rezoning request in tandem with the development proposal so this will be forwarded to the full Planning Commission and City Council. The current zoning is RT12 and RSF-4. The lot width and area are determined by the developer as a component as a part of this PZD process, as is the density. If you could provide a breakdown in the chart here what the maximum density is. It could probably just be an addition to this chart in this area here. Brackett: Do you want the density that was shown? Pate: Basically the acreage of the RT -12 and the acreage of the RSF-4 for current density. The total obviously, is 6.19 units per acre, and I have the total for what you are proposing here. As I mentioned, a Homeowner's Association must be legally established within the covenants. I also talked to you yesterday about providing additional sheets to this packet. Maybe a first sheet should be an overall smaller scale drawing of everything shown including site detention, on one sheet. It is a lot easier for Commissioners and Aldermen to look at that as opposed to flipping sheets all the time. The side setbacks, I've noticed area all zero setbacks. We do need to speak about determining specifically if one lot develops on one property line, how is the next lot permitted. Somehow we need to include some language in the covenants and on the plat that specifically represents that, whether it is the minimum distance between buildings or something, just so we can meet our minimum distance between buildings or something, just so you can meet the minimum standards for building codes. If you could also reference on the west side of the property, PZD as a label there. Right of way dedication along Persimmon, technically only the property you own is allowed to be dedicated. I believe you are only going to be 35' Technical Plat Review April 15, 2004 Page 7 from centerline to the north, unless all the property owners sign the dedication blocks along the south as well. That is something that is just really a change on the plat. If you could label street names on the Final Plat. The street name of Persimmon and Rupple there. Also, in the covenants if you could include the use units just like you do on the plat. A lot of this is working in tandem. Most typically a homeowner wouldn't get a copy of the whole plat, they would just have covenants so we just want to make sure those items are addressed in both places. We do need to determine, as we talked again, an appropriate method for the detention pond. I don't know if it is appropriate with an offsite detention pond that is not included in the legal description of the PZD. Whether it is a separate lot, it might be more appropriate to have it in a drainage easement. Casey: There will need to be some sort of easement to take care of that and also a maintenance agreement. It needs to be handled in some sort of a legal document. Pate: The owner of the property would have to grant a permanent drainage area. Casey: There would need to be an agreement between the two property owners, one being the POA, and also the maintenance of it. Pate: That is actually creating a lot. It will have to meet all of the minimum standards of whatever it is zoned. If you could just label the 6' sidewalks along both Persimmon and Rupple that are to be constructed. Also, some additional streetlights may be necessary, they are required every 300'. There was a contractual agreement that went through for when this overall subdivision went through, this is Lot 7 of WHM Investments subdivision. There is a contract there that states that there are fees due if there are additional units above what was agreed to with that contract. I believe there is a contracted total of 81 single family units and 28 duplex or townhouse units. Obviously, the units that you are proposing are an additional amount and exceeds that. There was a dollar amount agreed to by the developer of that Final Plat. Again, that will be due at the time of Final Plat. That number equals a total of $29,980.70 in cash or a check to the City of Fayetteville and then the letter of credit due is $19.987.30. Those are basically impact fees for the assessment of Rupple Road development as a minor arterial street. In your correspondence letters, I'm assuming that these lots will be restricted from accessing the front. They will all be alley loaded. If you could include that in your covenants and as a note on the plat. I've included the note here that all residential driveways shall be a maximum of 24' measured at the right of way line. That is a standard comment. However, if there are not going to be any off of the right of ways, disregard that and include a note for all residential drives. We do need to include a specific note too that any lots fronting on Technical Plat Review April 15, 2004 Page 8 Rupple and Persimmon will be restricted from access. Craig is not here today but he mentioned that he might want to talk to you about any landscaping as conditions of the covenants, along Persimmon here where the parallel parking is. That is something that he would like to be involved in if at all possible. Trash service, since this is going to be from the alleys, I didn't receive any comments from him but I will talk with him and see if he has any problems with the plat. That is the bulk of our comments. Matt, do you have anything additional to add? Matt Casey — Staff Eneineer Casey: Chris, if you can show the proposed water line with the existing 12" line on Rupple. Show proposed by others maybe just for informational purposes. Also, you will need to make the 12" connection south on Rupple to Persimmon. I spoke with you earlier, we are going to look into the potential of a cost share to upsize the 8" line along Persimmon to a 12" line to complete the 12" grid. I had a question about this lot 221, is it proposed as a buildable lot? Brackett: No it is not. That is going to be an area for a shed for the landscaping equipment that is going to be needed. Casey: If you can label that. Brackett: We have it labeled lots 220 to 222 to be common area maintained by the POA. Casey: I just noticed that they did not have utility services on them. Also, this sewer main on lot 224, we need to make sure that that angle is 90° before it comes into the existing line. It looks like it is coming in at an acute angle. Also, I need to work with you on the intersection here. It looks like you are proposing just a stop and we will need to make that connection somehow. Brackett: That is actually off our property. There may be some kind of cost share since that is the Boys and Girls Club property that is coming onto that intersection. Casey: We will need to visit about that and try to get that squared away. Hopefully, before Subdivision Committee. It is my opinion that that will need to be connected. Otherwise, Persimmon is not going to go anywhere. They are going to be forced to go through your development to get to Rupple so we need to sit down and have a meeting about that and work out the details. I think Jeremy has already covered the sidewalk along Rupple and Persimmon. That's all I have for now. Technical Plat Review April 15, 2004 Page 9 Rebecca Ohman — Parks Division Ohman: Chris, we have on record a deed for 5.27 acres for tract 5 that was banked for future use. If you apply that amount to this development you still fall a little bit short of what is required for the 180 single family units and 78 multi -family units. Your total is 5.65 acres so you are a little short so this will have to go to the Parks Board and the next meeting is May 3`d. We can work that out. Please get with me to let me know if you would like to do the remainder as fees or in land. Nock: I thought the ordinance stated that it was exempt from that when it was approved as WHM. I thought there was a specific line item on that. Pate: If you have some specific information with regard to that please supply it to us. We haven't come across anything. Brackett: Depending on whether it is or not. So does that hold us up here? Pate: It needs to be heard prior to Subdivision Committee. That will probably put you back one cycle. Ohman: There may be some other options with a special meeting scheduled. Brackett: If there is something that we can do to keep us from being tabled we would appreciate it. Johnev Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: Can you clarify a little bit the allowable uses? Are the multiple all duplexes? Brackett: Yes, these are duplex lots and they will have a duplex sitting in the middle of the lot with approximately 15' in between. These are single family but they are zero lot lines to the buildings will be sitting on one lot line and then there will be a space and then there will be another building. All of these, if you look at the way all of the easements are situated, that's how the building will be on the north side of all of these lots all the way around. That's how you can kind of get an idea on which side because I have easements everywhere. I put the easements here to indicate the building is going to be on the south side all the way around. Boles: Is front lot service an option with all the utilities in the front? Nock: It could be. We're really trying to put everything in the back. Electric service is in the rear, all of the access alleys and everything are back there. Technical Plat Review April 15, 2004 Page 10 Brackett: We are placing these buildings all the way on the front of the lot. There is going to be like 5' from the right of way to the door. That's the style. Boles: In the alleyways are there going to be driveways jointly shared between lots on property lines? Nock: No. Boles: We've had similar projects, for example, Harbor Meadows in Springdale. They installed their facilities and then due to later construction we've had to go back and move everything because of driveways and things of that nature. We would probably like to request a separate meeting for utilities on this project if that is possible. Brackett: The buildings are all going to be placed on one half of the lot so as long as you are not on that half of a lot there won't be a drive. The drives will be coming directly into the back of the building. Boles: We probably need to have a meeting on the preliminary stage from the design standpoint because this is going to be a very time consuming project. Brackett: If you want to set that up I can be available whenever you all need it. Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop. Phipps: Rear service on these is fine. Just looking at this I'm looking at probably 200 crossings that we are going to need. Brackett: Under drives? Gibson: Not just under drives but under this asphalt road. Brackett: You'll be in before the drives are. Phipps: It is going to look like Harbor Meadows. Boles: That was my concern. If we can just have a separate meeting we can make sure that everybody is on the same page. Brackett: We can set that up, just give me a call. Boles: That's all I have. Gibson: We'll just wait until that meeting. Technical Plat Review April 15, 2004 Page I1 Clouser: Same, we'll wait. Phipps: We've got a three phase line coming from this 221 that goes over to the Boys Club and actually follows the existing water line. Brackett: That easement that we're showing there is existing so nothing is going to happen to that easement. Phipps: We're through there and then we've got an above ground vault right here. Any relocation of that line will be at the developer's expense. Brackett: We kept our road south of that intentionally so there won't be any relocation of any of that. Pate: If you could in a memo or a letter, apprise me of what happens at that meeting in generality because we won't see you guys again on this project until it's already in the ground. Let us know what happens. Revisions are due on the 21" at 10:00 but that is depending on what happens with Parks. Technical Plat Review April 15, 2004 Page 12 FPL 04-08.00: Final Plat (Newcastle Estates, pp 179/180) was submitted by Milholland Company on behalf of BMP, LLC for property located on E. Gulley Road near Hungate Lane. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 13.23 acres. The request is to approve the development of a residential subdivision with 10 single-family lots proposed. Pate: We'll go back to a couple of items that were first on the agenda. Item number four is the Final Plat for Newcastle Estates submitted by Milholland Company for property located on East Gulley Road. It is a residential subdivision with 10 single family lots proposed. Morgan: If you could just let me know the reason, when this was a Preliminary Plat this cul-de-sac was a little bit different. Milholland: There were two power poles right there and it was a pretty steep hill and it had to be relocated from going off the hillside. Do you want m to put that in writing? Morgan: We have it on record now. If you could clarify on note five where it says New Street. My understanding of that was New Street was Castle Rock Drive. Milholland: This is long term future if you all are looking out going around through here which is probably not going to be anything but these two lots here have to access here, this one from here. They could access here and here but we want them to access here. I think the county prefers them to come off here. This one will come off into this proposed right of way. Morgan: If you could just clarify New Street to Be Castle Rock Drive. Milholland: Ok. Morgan: If you could also include the building setback for building setbacks are 10' on the sides and 20' rear, if you could just note that. I noticed that you have it noted on some of these. Even if you just note it on the plat somewhere saying setback minimums. The scale for these need to be at 1 to 100 so we can easily copy them and transfer them onto our plat pages. I attached the certification block for Final Plats. Also, county approval is required. Also, if you could place the approved addresses on the plat. Milholland: I was told that the addresses would not be put on these until the houses were built. Pate: We will need to talk to Jim Johnson because we typically want them on the plat when it is actually platted so that we know when someone comes in for a water tap or sewer connection. Technical Plat Review April 15, 2004 Page 13 Milholland: I will find out. You said something about County approval. Morgan: The county will have to approve this plat prior to filing. Matt, do you have any comments? Matt Casey — Staff Eneineer Casey: Mel, we will have to have a final inspection before the deadline for the Subdivision Committee. Also, we will need the as builts, bonds and construction costs prior to signing the Final Plat. I think we've already got the as builts but I haven't seen any bonds. Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop. Phipps: We are going into the rear of these lots is that correct? Milholland: Yes, that is cleared, a 20' strip all the way around the back of 1 through 5 and the west side of lots 5, 10 and 9, you all didn't want us to get in the powerlines. Phipps: You've got 15' on the east side. Milholland: It's cleared also. Gibson: You said the west side of 5? Milholland: If you are coming around the back of this you will be going up the west side of 5 right here in this 15' and around to here there is conduit. Gibson: So that is a conduit marked right here, I was wondering if that was one. Milholland: Yes, it is a quad. Gibson: So lot 6 will be served from the back of 5. Milholland: Seven will be crossed there and 8 will be served along here with 5. Phipps: I may take it around that cul-de-sac. Looking at lot 6 the distance may be too great to feed two off of one transformer. Which I'm still in that transmission line easement in there. Gibson: We can cross at that crossing. Milholland: You all need to run up one side then the other so that's what I've done the conduits for. Technical Plat Review April 15, 2004 Page 14 Phipps: What you've got is a transformer here and here, two, two and two. You get down here so this transformer is going to be for five and you've got six sitting by itself. The transformer is going to have to be either here or down here. Milholland: Can you set that transformer for six over on the edge of five where that easement is at? Phipps: I can but if the entrance on the house is over here and you've got 300' that's not going to work. If they want to build that house as close as they can to that transformer we can do that. I don't think they want to do that. Milholland: I haven't cleared the east side of six because I didn't understand that that was what we were going to do. Can you come up the west side of 5 and then go around from there? Phipps: We can cross here and come back probably. Milholland: I'm saying to go the way that you're going with your power but can't you just come up to here and around like that? This is not cleared and this is. Johnev Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: If we are going to come up through this 15' easement here to get to this crossing can this 10' here be increased to 15'? Milholland: Yes, we can do that. Phipps: Do they have the water in? Milholland: Yes. Do you need any easement from the overhead to 6 in the back there, do you need an easement on the corner in the back there, a 20'x20' or something like that? Phipps: The south side of 6 I thought that easement went through there. Just make that a 20' setback and UE. Milholland: You all didn't need it so I just cut that easement back and made it a building setback. We can put you an easement there in the corner. Phipps: Yeah, just make it a setback and a UE. I would like to have that just in case something else happens on this future street that we will need to get through there. Technical Plat Review April 15, 2004 Page 15 Milholland: We will do it, we were just trying to save all the trees we could. It's not cleared. Phipps: We're not going to go that way but if anybody does something in the future maybe we can get to the other side. Milholland: I'll either get you a 20' UE there or put you a 20'x20' corner. We were trying to cater to trees on this subdivision for the people who wanted trees. We thought that would be a selling point to save everything we could. Boles: Do you have any idea on the minimum square footage of houses? Milholland: 3,000 with no front entrances. It will be either side or rear entrances. Larry Gibson — Cox Communications Gibson: I just want to make them aware that because of the distance, it is 10 lots and a really great distance going around the back of this. This is something that we don't normally do but Cox Communications may ask for a fee to build all of it. Milholland: You'll be going in a trench with someone else? Gibson: If we can get it designed and approved in time we can probably go in with electric but I can't guarantee you that I can do that right now that I can get it through there and get it approved that quick. Milholland: How much cost are you talking about? Gibson: I don't know but I can call you with that. Milholland: You don't have any ballpark figure per square foot or per lot or anything? I'm just thinking of our budget to make sure we're not shooting way out of our budget. Gibson: Normally we'll use $10 per foot. That includes trench, labor, wire, that's just a really rough number that we use. They have got a program to do a 30 month payback. If it will pay them back in 30 months where they can start gaining revenue on it. Until they actually place electronics and everything the full amount is unknown. There may not be an issue with it but I just wanted to make you aware that there could be. Milholland: If it comes to that point and there is going to be a cost, the men who are involved in this are contractors, can they provide you the trench? Technical Plat Review April 15, 2004 Page 16 Gibson: Sure. To avoid the costs we could do that. We'll do whatever we can. We don't like to do that and we normally don't but when you get a great distance and small number of lots that is going to start being an issue. I just wanted to make you aware that it is a possibility. Milholland: While we're on this, if it comes up to where the costs are getting higher and higher for all utilities, if they prefer to run a conduit all the way around this thing with turn ups then you all can go anywhere you want to, if it is reasonable for them to do that would you all do that for nothing? Gibson: That would probably cut our costs by about 1/3 because we would still have to come in and pull wire. It would make it cheaper. Phipps: We're going to do it for half of what it costs. The construction that we have to do is for trenching and putting conduit in for half the money. If you can find someone to put it in for that cheap, you are not going to beat my price trenching and laying conduit. Milholland: One of the things we talked about, and I'm always for trying to improve things, and if the cost were a little bit more money than if it would this way. What they are doing is after you get a house built here and a house built here and a house built over here and you end up with the grass growing back here and it is all nice and pretty and then all of a sudden a utility comes and digs in there and they mess it all up and they have to redo it again. Do you all come back and clean up and put top soil back on it and grass seed? Phipps: Yes, if it is sod we put sod back down. Gibson: We'll lay the sod back to do the digging. Clouser: I see your point, it is nice to have it all there and we can go in whenever we're ready. Milholland: On this right here they are going to put top soil and seed it and hopefully have it growing and looking nice so they can sell the lots. I didn't know if you all came back and did that if you all messed it up. Boles: We normally don't Mel in new subdivisions because normally the utility easements are not seeded out. That's an abnormal application. Phipps: Right. If I have to come back after it's in I would do something like that. These easements I wouldn't seed those or do anything to those. I just want them graded and level and we're all going through there and when we're done then they can come in and do that. We are not going to go on their timeline. Technical Plat Review April 15, 2004 Page 17 Milholland: I know that and they know that. I'm just looking for options to make the overall project smoother. I understand right now we're just back to where we were so that's fine. Boles: My preference is for the easements to remain as they are until all of the utilities are in. Ours will also be done on a rated return basis because they allow 100' free per lot and then beyond that they calculate an annual consumption based on square footage. We'll just have to see how it comes out. Gibson: I'm also going to add that we've got a couple of homes down here that we can service right now and I'm going to add those to that. Instead of 10 we're going to have 12. Anything I can add to it I certainly will and that will help as far as when the counters start looking at this. Milholland: When you start going by cost you add these in the share? But they pay their share? Gibson: You bet. I don't even care if anybody is living in them or not, if there is a home there I'm going to count it. Clouser: There are not going to be any sidewalks in here is there? Milholland: No. Clouser: Can you just make sure that they extend the quad crossings into the utility easements? Then if we have anything out there any relocation will be at the owner/developer's expense. Milholland: That north one is to the right of way and then the south one is also to the right of way. Clouser: I'd like the conduits extended so they reach into the utility easement or at least touch it and in the entrance also. The way it's drawn it doesn't. I would like to have it back into the subdivision along Gulley. Make sure that they locate that crossing in the utility easement rather than in the right of way. When we place our cable, if we come this away ever that we're in the utility easement and that we don't have to go out into the right of way and get into the conduit and come back into the utility easement. It should be in line with the easement rather than in the right of way. Milholland: This conduit is already down right here. This is the long term future Master Street Plan width right here, 55'. This is way out in the woods except for here where the power poles are. This is along the edge of that. Do you all have any plans of changing this anytime? Technical Plat Review April 15, 2004 Page 18 Pate: Not at this time. It is still shown on the Master Street Plan. Milholland: I saw on the traffic study that the city had done that it is not on the proposed Master Street Plan. We'd like to put a sign and a wrought iron fence, can we put that wrought iron fence 15' this way where it would be out of the trees? Pate: Talk to the county more about that. We don't have any regulations. Milholland: This road is long term future. Pate: It can't be in the right of way. It would have to be outside of the right of way if that is what you are asking. Milholland: This is long term 55' which is on the long term Master Street Plan. Pate: It is dedicated by this plat as right of way. Milholland: What I'm saying is can I go out here 10' or so and put a fence up? Pate: No Sir, not in the right of way. It would have to be outside of the right of way, we don't allow any structures in the right of way. Milholland: It is going to be hard to see that back in the woods. There are trees coming out of here right now. Pate: If there is nothing else item number three, a Lot Split in the Meadowlands we will hear next time because there is not anyone here to answer any questions. We are adjourned.