Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-03-02 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE TECHNICAL PLAT REVIEW COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee was held on March 2, 2005 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN LSP 05-1414: Dover/Holloway, pp 529 Page 32 LSP 05-1421: Chance, pp 405 Page 6 LSP 05-1422: Brewer Tract A, pp 526 Page 3 LSP 05-1423: Brewer Tract B, pp 526 Page 5 FPL 05-1410: Salem Heights, pp 284 Page 9 PPL 04-1241: Salem Meadows Phase II, pp 284 Page 15 PPL 05-1408: Cherry Hills Subdivision, pp 282/243 Page 19 LSD 05-1416: Bedford Apaihuents Page 23 LSD 05-1415: Farmington Branch Center, pp 595 Page 25 MEMBERS PRESENT Johny Boles—Arkansas Western Gas Mike Moore—Cox Communications Jim Sargent—SWEPCO Sue Clouser—Southwestern Bell Tabled Tabled Forwarded Forwarded Tabled Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded MEMBERS ABSENT Mike Phipps—Ozark Electric Coop. STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Kyle Curry, Fire Marshal Brent O'Neal, Staff Engineer Suzanne Morgan, Planner Alison Jumper, Parks Planner Jeremy Pate, Landscape Administrator Technical Plat Review March 2, 2005 Page 2 Morgan: Welcome to the Wednesday, March 2, 2005 meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee. We have ten items on the agenda. Item number five is an administrative item, so that is not going to be heard at this meeting. Our first item is a Lot Split for Dover/Holloway, submitted by Terry Dover for property located at 3685 Wyman Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains seven acres. The request is for a Lot Split. Is there an applicant or representative for this item here? Seeing none, we will skip it and go to item number two, LSP 05-1421 submitted by David Chance and Craig Campbell for property located at 1252 N. Leverett. The property is zoned I-1 and contains approximately 1.97 acres. The request is to divide the property into two tracts. Is there an applicant here? Brockman: I'm Greg Brockman and this is Mr. Hammons. Mr. Campbell will be here momentarily. If you have any questions we can start answering them and Mr. Campbell will be here. Morgan: That will be fine. We can go ahead and get started unless you prefer we go onto the next item and come back. Brockman: I would prefer you go to the next item and then pick this back up. Technical Plat Review March 2, 2005 Page 3 LSP 05-1422: Brewer Tract A, pp 526 was submitted by Bill Rudasill for property located at 7 Happy Hollow Road. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre and contains approximately 0.81 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into two tracts of 0.41 and 0.40 acres. Morgan: We can come back to this. The third item is a Lot Split for Brewer submitted by Bill Rudasill for property located at 7 Happy Hollow Road. The property is zoned RSF-4 and contains 0.81 acres. Jeremy Pate reviewed this and I will go through his comments. The previously filed lot split which subdivided the parent tract into these two tracts indicated that there was verbal communication indicating that all four lots will be served by sewer. Indicate where this sewer is available and show the public line extension to each ofthe lots. Rudasill: I have been in contact with the engineer doing Cliffside and we will get the coordinates on where that manhole will be, which is 200' east of Happy Hollow just clown the hill on the north side. We will have good access to it. They are supposed to be submitting those plans Monday or Tuesday. Morgan: Indicate that information on here. Just a reminder, the lots will not be able to be recorded until sewer is installed. Also, a question as to whether or not the septic for the homes have been installed yet. Rudasill: They have not been installed yet. When word that Cliffside was coming we put this on hold to wait for sewer. He has one house built just sitting there. Morgan: With regard to the plat comments, include the plat page on the plat. Make sure the vicinity map is legible. Streets do not show on the map submitted. Also, indicate any easements as requested by utility representatives. Lot Al should be restricted from access to Happy Hollow. Tract A2 will be allowed one access to Happy Hollow Road. Just include that as a note on the plat. Rudasill: That is actually the house that is built and it already accesses Happy Hollow. Morgan: Those are all of my comments. Alison? Alison Jumper — Parks Department Jumper: A lot split fee will apply, $555 at the time of building permit. That is for creation of a new single family lot. Rudasill: What is that? Technical Plat Review March 2, 2005 Page 4 Jumper: It is a parks fee. Brent O'Neal — Staff Engineer O'Neal: If you could show the existing water meter or the proposed location of the water meters. Also, label whichever house is proposed. You said the septic system has not been installed? Rudasill: Neither septic system has been installed. O'Neal: You also mentioned the approximate location is 200'? Rudasill: Yes. O'Neal: Show the easements for that extension. Rudasill: I spoke with the engineer this morning and they are trying to submit on Monday. Morgan: I don't believe Fire has any comments. Are there any utility comments? Jim Sargent — SWEPCO Sargent: The easements look good to me. Mike Moore — Cox Communications Moore: Just to let you know we do have a job order for that pole to be removed from the existing driveway so it will be out of the way. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: Is there a 20' utility easement along here already? Rudasill: Yes there is. Clouser: Thank you. Morgan: Revisions are due March 9, 2005 by 10:00 a.m. Rudasill: A question for engineering, the new water services, we want to go ahead and get those off the old water line on that side of the road and not cross the road, is that ok? O'Neal: It is a 4" there, that's fine. Technical Plat Review March 2, 2005 Page 5 LSP 05-1423(Brewer Tract B, pp 526) was submitted by Bill Rudasill for property located at 7 Happy Hollow Road. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre and contains approximately 0.69 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into two tracts of 0.41 acres and 0.28 acres. Morgan: We will hear LSP 05-1423, Tract B. Most of the Planning comments are pretty much the same exact comments as on the previous Lot Split request. We will let you just look through those. Alison, you probably have the same comments? Jumper: The same. O'Neal: The same comments. Morgan: Are there any utility comments? Jim Sargent — SWEPCO Sargent: Bill, I don't see on this second one where the utility easement is labeled adjacent to that street there. Rudasill: I will get it labeled. Sargent: It just needs to be a 20' utility easement there. That's all that I have. Johny Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: No comment. Mike Moore — Cox Communications Moore: No comment. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: I agree with Jim's comments on the utility easement. That's all that I have. Morgan: Revisions are due March 9, 2005 by 10:00 a.m. Rudasill: Thank you very much. Technical Plat Review March 2, 2005 Page 6 LSP 05-1421: Chance, pp 405 was submitted by David Chance and Craig Campbell for property located at 1252 N. Leverett. The property is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial and contains approximately 1.97 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into two tracts of 0.49 and 1.48 acres. Morgan: We will go back to item two, a Lot Split for Chance for property located at 1252 N. Leverett. The first item I wanted to go over is that this request is for a Lot Split. The parent tract from which this property was originally created, has been split three times. The third and final lot split was approved for the North Street Mini Mart on December 8, 2003 and recorded at the County. I have included the staff report for that item as well as a copy of the recorded plat so you can reference that. Basically, our requirements allow for three Lot Splits for the parent tract and a Lot Split is basically a waiver of the Final Plat and Preliminary Plat requirements. Because there have been three Lot Splits on this property, this Lot Split is therefore, not allowed without going through the Preliminary and Final Plat requirements. Basically, we cannot pursue this Lot Split further unless the request is to change the lot size. There are some other options that you may be able to pursue. One issue with this Lot Split if you did want to go forward and split this property out with a Preliminary and Final Plat, there is quite a bit of floodplain and floodway on this tract, which will need to be delineated. I believe that this entire proposed tract is within the 100 -year floodplain. Pursuant to our ordinances, creation of any lot totally within the floodplain would have to be a minimum of one acre and the proposed tract is only .49 acres. The proposed lot does not meet our requirements if it is completely within the floodplain for size. If you did want to pursue a Preliminary and Final Plat, you would need to request a waiver of that one acre minimum. Staff has not at this time formalized a recommendation. I don't believe that we would be for a lot less than an acre within a floodplain. A similar situation occurred with the North Street Mini Mart. Also, you are showing that this lot, if it were to be split out, the resulting setbacks would encroach on an existing building and if you wanted to pursue this subdivision a variance would have to be processed for the setbacks. Chance: So would Mr. Campbell be responsible for this or would Mr. Kirby be responsible for that? Is this a different process? Would this have to be done before this could go forward? Morgan: If you wanted to pursue a Preliminary Plat and Final Plat we would have to process a Variance request before we could approve it. You could start processing a Preliminary Plat but before the Final Plat is filed with the county we would have to make sure that a variance is obtained so that we are not creating a non -conforming structure here. Some other options that you may want to consider, which would be recommended to avoid any variances, if you want to forgo the whole subdivision of property and Technical Plat Review March 2, 2005 Page 7 redevelop, my understanding is you want to redevelop the car wash. You could either process a Large Scale Development on the entire tract redeveloping this portion of the property or if the new structure is less than 10,000 sq.ft. requires less than 25 parking spaces, does not require a new egress or ingress to the property it could just be processed as a building permit. It would be on the same lot. You wouldn't be subdividing the lot, but you would require a building permit to redevelop that car wash. That is an option that I detailed for you on page two. Obviously, from what I just said, the process may change what you want to do and how you want to proceed will most likely change. Of course, we can't process this Lot Split any further but I did go ahead and make comments for the Lot Split in reviewing just the plat with regards to where the floodplain and floodway are and how it is affecting this lot. This property is actually split zoned. There is the C-1 zoning clown here, a majority if I-1. That will need to be shown. If you do a building permit those will need to be shown on the plans anyway because that will affect your setbacks. This will result in a 0' setback to the south. This property is P-1. I have also included information on revising right of way dedication. If you do process a Preliminary Plat and split it out additional right of way will need to be dedicated. We will need to see where the Master Street Plan right of way is, it is 35' from centerline, and that will affect building setbacks. You can go ahead and look over these comments. There are several of them as a reminder of what I've been talking about. Chance: We have the option to develop this with just a building permit on the existing property and then let Mr. Campbell chance dealing with Mr. Kirby about how they would want to do that. Morgan: I don't know exactly what your proposal is but I think that it would probably meet our minimum to not have to go through the Large Scale Development process and just be a building permit. Chance: Even though we are covering a larger tract of ground because we are just replacing the existing structure? Morgan: Correct. Any addition, if you have an acre or property that is larger than an acre, if you were to develop it, you would have to go through a Large Scale. If you just do an additional structure that is less than 10,000 sq.ft., does not require more than 25 parking spaces and does not require a change in egress or ingress then it could be processed as just a building permit. Chance: We would not be allowed to rearrange any ingress or egress that currently exists is what you are saying? Morgan: It looks to me as though this is operating. Technical Plat Review March 2, 2005 Page 8 Chance: Yeah but we are wanting to put an island in the middle of it to break that entry way up instead of having nearly 120'. Morgan: I think that is something that we can work with at building permit. If there were only one access right here and you wanted to put another one right here that might be something but this is probably a problem situation the way it is now and to fix it would benefit everyone and that wouldn't get us into a Large Scale Development process. Chance: If we wanted to pursue this where this could be separated and bought we would have to go through with a regular Preliminary and Final Plat? Morgan: Yes. Chance: Before that could be approved we would have to have a variance approved for the remaining property because we have created a setback issue with the remainder property correct? Morgan: Correct. Chance: Are there any other comments? Morgan: That is the majority. You can look through the rest of the Planning comments. Brent, do you want to go through any comments? Brent O'Neal — Staff Engineer O'Neal: Actually, I think you pretty much covered everything. If this does proceed as a Lot Split the comments are self explanatory. Just a reminder, if you cross over to a Large Scale or Preliminary Plat we do have information available that you can obtain. Morgan: I have also included a memo from Mike Rozelle, our Floodplain Administrator with regard to development in the floodplain. Are there any utility comments? Johns Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: I will need a 20' easement along the street. Morgan: Again, if this does not go through Preliminary Plat and Final Plat to actually split this out and they just come through with a building permit we will not require any easement dedication. If you have any questions about processing this further give me a call. Thank you. Technical Plat Review March 2, 2005 Page 9 FPL 05-1410 Salem Heights, pp 284 was submitted by Landtech Engineering for property located north of Salem Road, south of Salem Village. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre, and contains approximately 30.96 acres. The request is for approval of a single family residential subdivision with 86 lots. Morgan: We will go forward to item six, the Final Plat for Salem Heights submitted by Landtech Engineering for property located north of Salem Road and south of Salem Village. The property is zoned RSF-4 and contains approximately 30.96 acres. The proposal is for 86 single family lots. The first item I would like to discuss is with regard to the floodplain. First, we need to show where the floodplain is on this plat. Condition number five of the Preliminary Plat stated that any lot platted so that a portion of the lot lies within the 100 -year floodplain shall contain a minimum of 10,000 sq.ft. buildable area and any lot contained solely within the 100 -year floodplain shall contain one acre. The condition continued to state that at the time of Final Plat a LOMR-F to adjust the floodplain map boundary must be approved and submitted with the application in order to plat these lots less than one acre within entirely within the 100 -year floodplain. To my knowledge this was not submitted with the application. The Final Plat will not be forwarded to the Subdivision Committee until this condition is met. Basically, the applicant has two options. One, you can wait until the LOMR-F is submitted or if the applicant desires to process a Final Plat for the portion of property that is not affected by the floodplain what would happen is we would need to take this Preliminary Plat and put a phase on it showing Phase I. That would be an administrative item that would have to go to the Planning Commission or a revised Preliminary Plat. If that is approved then you could submit revisions for Phase I of the Preliminary Plat. Those are the two options, you can decide which you would prefer to do for your client. With regard to revisions, there are several revisions that I have listed. All of these will need to be made to the plat before we will process this to the Subdivision Committee. Gabbard: What you are saying is what we need to do is come up with a phase line that would work with the 100 -year floodplain and then just resubmit that as a brand new submittal for the next window of tech review. Morgan: It would actually be processed as an administrative item and would go directly to the Planning Commission. Gabbard: We could do that and still make the Planning Commission? Morgan: It is a little bit different, we are kind of throwing in a new item here. It would be an administrative item to the Planning Commission so that they would approve a revised Preliminary Plat with two phases. If they approve the revised Preliminary Plat with two phases then get all of the improvements done and then we can take that through to Subdivision Technical Plat Review March 2, 2005 Page 10 Committee and get that approved for that Phase I. Of course, there is a little bit more time involved. Gabbard: They are not as ready as they wanted to be anyway. Morgan: What is the status for the LOMR? Gabbard: What I found is we had an error on the floodplain map designation, I'm not saying this for sure, but I think the floodplain actually touched the north side of this property. On our original submittal we had it going up into the property but I think Matt and I further reviewed it and determined that floodplain only comes to the very north line. I am going to go back and double check. Morgan: So it is still kind of up in the air? Gabbard: Right. Morgan: Again, we couldn't process the Final Plat to Subdivision Committee until the final inspection. Gabbard: That is what I was referring to. At the very best I was going to go into a holding pattern after this meeting anyway. Morgan: Let me just run through some other comments. For zoning requirements, we require that all lots have 70' lot width at the 25' building setback. I noted that when this was brought through as a Preliminary Plat lots 38,39 and 45 had less than 70' at the 25' setback. I don't know, of course, we can't enforce the 35' setback. However, there are two ways we can fix the problem of the Preliminary Plat. I don't know if your meters are set. Gabbard: They are. Morgan: Include a note on the Final Plat stating that those lots shall have a 30' building setback. Also, if you could show the lot width at the building setback for all lots on the cul-de-sac. Comment three addresses that as well. I have several different notes and comments regarding density, access and such. Street names will need to be shown. Addresses are needed. Gabbard: Morgan: Mr. Johnson, I've talked with him and he has the addresses on them but until the developer comes up with names. I think you'll have a little bit of time to work on that. One question on this overhead electric line, was that over 12kV, is that why it was not relocated? Technical Plat Review March 2, 2005 Page 11 Gabbard: I don't know the size. Morgan: If it is below 12kV it needs to be relocated underground. I had a question of why it was still shown on the plat if it was left over from Preliminary Plat. Sargent: That is Ozarks Electric, they are not here today. Boles: I doubt that is under 12kV. Gabbard: I will check on that and let you know. I do have a question about utilities here. Morgan: Let's get through the other comments. There are several assessments for Rupple Road construction, the bridge as well as water line. Those will be required prior to filing the Final Plat. There are numerous comments, the plat needs to be revised to reflect all of those comments. If you have any questions just let me know. I will review tree preservation plan requirements. There will be a requirement for payment into the tree escrow account for mitigation of tree canopy. That is for the removal of 19,986 sq.ft. tree canopy. The referenced mitigation number is finding much more tree canopy was removed more than permitted by the ordinance and a site visit will be needed to verify those canopy numbers shown on the map are preserved. If you could include a tree preservation signature block on the Final Plat. Alison Jumper — Parks Department Jumper: Parks fees will be due in the amount of $49,395 before Final Plat. We would also like to work with you on some kind of pedestrian access to the park land just to the north of your development along Clabber Creek. You can call our office on that. Morgan: I believe that was a condition of approval so any connections that are going to be made will need to be shown on the Final Plat. I have included the staff report from that Preliminary Plat. Gabbard: Has anyone been on the site to see the preservation of the wetlands that has occurred? Morgan: Along Clabber Creek? Gabbard: No, through the preservation area that we had to work with the Corp. of Engineers on the wetlands. It is actually pretty nice. There are places on that that could easily be pedestrian easements to bring people through that Technical Plat Review March 2, 2005 Page 12 wetland area and let them see what I think is turning out to be one of the focal points of the whole development. Jumper: We can do that. Morgan: Brent, do you want to go over Engineering comments? Brent O'Neal — Staff Engineer O'Neal: Comments 27 through 34 are standard notes that need to be included on the Final Plat. A couple of other major comments that I need to make is a utility easement for the water and sewer that run along Street "A" through that mitigation area. Our standard is 20', however, the utility companies are going to want an additional easement for that and I don't know what that does with your Corp. permit. I don't know if they have a set idea on the amount of easement. You may want to check on that. Boles: Is that between Lots 24 and 25 that you are referring to? O'Neal: Yes and then up there on the north side of Street "A" as well. Boles: Between 5 and 63. O'Neal: Yes. Our standard is a 20' easement but like I said, these guys may want some more. We will want to see some minimum finished floor elevations on some of the lots. Does the pond currently hold water year around? Does it have a permanent water surface? Gabbard: O'Neal: Yes, it will have a small amount of water held in it. It was designed to have water held in it up to the flow line of the outlet structure. We will need to have a drainage easement through the detention pond a minimum of 20' wide. We thought we may need to process a variance for the lots adjoining the detention pond for the 100' setback from that 100 - year water surface elevation. There is a 100' setback requirement. You are probably really close but it is something to remember in the future. Gabbard: I thought it was 25' from the 100 -year water surface elevation. The rest of my comments are standard comments. If you have any questions feel free to give me a call. Morgan: There are also comments included from Mike Rozelle, the Floodplain Administrator. Are there any utility comments? Technical Plat Review March 2, 2005 Page 13 Mike Moore — Cox Communications Moore: We would like to see a 20' UE between lots 60 and 61, 10' on each side of the property line. Lots 63 and 64, right across the street from that. I noticed you all cut in streets and we would like to get six 4" conduits for street crossings for all of the utilities where the north entry on Street "G" is. The entry point there and the entry point for Street "A". We would also like to see a 20' UE between Lots 30 and 31 with a street crossing going from 30 and 31 to 54 and 55. A street crossing at the entrance off of Rupple Road and Street "A". If we could get a 20' UE between Lots 6 and 23 coming back down and then label from 9 to 13 a 20' UE behind those lots. I noticed you have drainage easements in the same place, are those going to be concrete? Gabbard: Yes, on the south side. I wanted to talk about that too. We have a retaining wall on the east side of the creek that wraps around and basically takes in lots 49 through 40. There is like 20' or so behind that retaining wall to the property line on the south side. That brings up the issue of do I need to have some conduits or something going under that retaining wall into these lots. We have got room to do it. I have already dug it. I guess I can dig out some more but what I was wanting to do is put some one sweep 90's on there and make it to where you guys could get in there. Actually it wouldn't be you guys doing it, it would be the guys doing phone work and electrical and plumbing for the house. Moore: If they put the conduits in I wouldn't have a problem with it. Clouser: I agree but we would have to do deep conduits and they would need to be turned up so that they could find them. Gabbard: They would have to be exposed of course and we could mark them on the as builts. O'Neal: If you could show that retaining wall also on the Final Plat. Moore: I would suggest getting with the power company on their layouts and where they are going to be setting their transformer and their peds and that sort of thing. I would need at least a 3" to feed two different homes. Clouser: They will have to be separate. Gabbard: We'll probably need four of them? Clouser: At least four. Technical Plat Review March 2, 2005 Page 14 Johns Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: Gabbard: O'Neal: Moore: Boles: Gabbard: Morgan: O'Neal: Gabbard: Clouser: Morgan: The gas company is probably going to place their meters behind that wall and it is going to be up to the licensed plumber to get from point A to point B. The same thing on this drainage. Everyone of these plumbers are going to have to cross under that drainage. I need to make sure I convey to these builders that I don't want that cut, I put the conduit there for them to use it. You should note that on the plat. I will give you this plat that is marked with the crossings highlighted. I need some additional crossings that I can add to that plat. I think most of those crossings are already in but there might be one or two. This sewer line, I don't know if you talked with Matt about a 10' utility easement on each side of the sewer line. That is one of my comments Leonard. Basically that is going to be a 35' UE and building setback. I agree with Mike on the utility easements. There are several things that you need to do before revisions are submitted. If you want to go ahead and submit a few copies of the revised plat staff can at least review it to make sure that all of the revisions are made and then if there are we can let you know. Gabbard: We will do that. Right now it is not really a serious deal. Technical Plat Review March 2, 2005 Page 15 PPL 04-1241: Salem Meadows Phase II, pp 284 was submitted by Leonard Gabbard of Landtech Engineering for property located at North Salem Road across from Holcomb Elementary School and south of Salem Meadows Phase I. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre and contains approximately 4.66 acres. The request is to approve the development of Salem Meadows Phase II with 15 single lots proposed. Morgan: Number seven is a Preliminary Plat for Salem Meadows Phase II submitted by Landtech Engineering for property located north of Salem Road across from Holcomb Elementary School and south of Salem Meadows Phase I. This is actually an out lot of that Phase I. We will need a disk with revisions. With regard to tree preservation plan and information, I just reference Jeremy's comments, I will go through those in detail a little later. With regard to cul-de-sacs, in order to avoid the talk we had with the last subdivision, please revise the lot width for Lots 108 to 110 at the 25' setback. Include Plat Page 284 on the plat. Revise the vicinity map. On this as well as the previous Final Plat this is referencing the city boundary lines. This is within the city and boundary lines aren't quite the same. Dimension the right of way for Salem Road centerline and note the name of that street on the plat. Also, the chart for sidewalks and such should be revised. For instance, on a collector it needs to be a 10' greenspace. Also, sidewalks would need to be located at the right of way line. I had a question, this sewer main right here would need a 10' utility easement on either side, I don't know if you can shift that line. Gabbard: This is an existing line. It is in place and operating at this time. This lift station of course is city property. If I center a 10' easement on either side of that it would work. Morgan: Is that lift station already there? Gabbard: That is the lift station you use currently to service that area out there. Yes Ma'am, it does exist. Morgan: I believe that there was a separate lot located for that lift station. I believe it was part of this out lot unless there was something done with the land agents or engineering. Gabbard: Now is the time for you to get it. Morgan: Put a lot number on there and we need to know what that lot is. Street lights are required at a maximum of 300 and at every intersection along with the end of the cul-de-sacs. Include a note stating that no lot shall access Salem Road. Obviously, right of way has already been dedicated for Salem Road by previous plat. Tree preservation comments, many of Technical Plat Review March 2, 2005 Page 16 the tree canopy calculations presented do not correctly add up. If you would reference the removed canopy square foot exceeds the existing. Gabbard: We hired a guy and so these comments are going straight to him. Morgan: Please revise the calculations and submit a new plan. Currently the calculations indicate 72.4% existing canopy with 5.1% preserved. Jeremy listed the square feet for high priority, medium and low. However, this does not take into account the saved trees that currently indicate no means to save them. Review these numbers with the Landscape Administrator prior to proceeding. There are several concerns with the plan. Obviously, there is a required minimum I think at this point, of course, I don't have a formal recommendation from the Landscape Administrator, but I think at this point it would be very difficult to recommend this with the tree preservation plan as submitted. Look through these comments and try to address these issues. Gabbard: We have hired someone to do that. Morgan: There are some questions with whether or not this particular area is designated as wetlands. Gabbard: When we did Salem Meadows Phase I we actually spent over $100,000 mitigating this wetland. We paid so that we could tear these trees out to the Corp. of Engineers. I guess we are going to pay you all again. I guess we have to pay twice. Morgan: If the wetlands have been mitigated for then just provide any documentation. Parks? Alison Jumper — Parks Department Jumper: Parks fees in the amount of $8,325 for 15 single family lots. Brent O'Neal — Staff Engineer O'Neal: On the plat here, have you submitted a drainage report previously? Gabbard: When Salem Meadows was designed this whole piece was designed as part of that detention pond. We knew we were going to develop it. O'Neal: You need to revise the table for streets. We also need to connect water to the north to create a looped system. We will have to do an offsite extension. I don't know if there is a stub out provided from the north or not. Technical Plat Review March 2, 2005 Page 17 Gabbard: I am not for sure, if it is not there we will put it there. O'Neal: On that lift station lot, we are not going to allow you to grade into the lot there. Remove '/2' contour intervals and label all of the contours. Show the 100 -year water surface elevation for the detention pond. Structures are required to be a minimum of 100' from the 100 -year water surface elevation. We will also need to see finished floor elevations for those lots. We will need a 20' wide drainage easement for the storm drains. The rest are standard notes. Indicate the location of the sanitary sewer lift station at the southeast corner of the site. No grading can occur on this lot (see #30). All grading shall be set back a minimum of 5' from the property lines unless written permission is submitted from the adjacent property owner or a joint grading plan is submitted. The rest are standard comments. That's all that I have. Gabbard: The wetlands delineation is also part of that other project. We delineated the whole thing. Morgan: Are there any utility comments? Mike Moore — Cox Communications Moore: Your DE that comes between 109 and 110, if we could get 4" conduits underneath that on the rear lots. We have existing off that Phase I so I don't think we will need any crossings. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: I will need a crossing at the entrance. Johny Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: There is a chance that this line might need to be lowered. Gabbard: What size is that? Boles: I believe it is a 4". The main line is right here along the south property line I believe and I think it crosses the east side right here and I think that we came off of this with either a 2" or 3" plastic. Clouser: If there is any relocation it will be at the developer's expense. Morgan: Revisions for this are due March 9th by 10:00 a.m. to go to the Subdivision Committee. Jeremy will be out of town until next Wednesday. Technical Plat Review March 2, 2005 Page 18 Gabbard: Until the tree preservation is ok by you and Jeremy I am not going anywhere with this. Morgan: Ok, thank you. Technical Plat Review March 2, 2005 Page 19 PPL 05-1408: Cherry Hills Subdivision, pp 282/243 was submitted by McClelland Consulting Engineers for property located at the west side of Hughmount Road north of Lierly Lane. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 75.85 acres. The request is to approve a Preliminary Plat for a residential subdivision with 200 single family lots proposed. Morgan: Item number eight is PPL 05-1408 for Cherry Hills Subdivision submitted by McClelland Consulting Engineers for property located on the west side of Hughmount Road north of Lierly Lane. This property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 75.85 acres. What is requested is a Preliminary Plat with 200 single family lots proposed. With regard to the submittal, we will need a copy of the plat shown on record at the County Assessor's office with the owners names, address and parcel numbers. You did obviously show all adjoining owners but we want to go ahead and get the map and the parcel numbers adjoining this so we can have a record there. The parcel numbers shown on the application I believe are referencing these numbers. There are some parcel numbers here that I believe are the property contained within this subdivision. We will need a project disk with revisions. One of the more important comments that I have is with regard to a conditional letter of approval from the Arkansas Health Department for the proposed septic system. That will need to be submitted before this item can be put on an agenda for the Subdivision Committee. With regard to zoning requirements, there is obviously, no zoning within the planning area but there is a minimum 75' lot width as well as 10,000 sq.ft. lot area. All of the lots meet the 10,000 sq.ft. minimum. With regard to the 75' lot width I do have some questions on some of the lots. Most of which are located on curves or eyebrows. It wasn't really clear where you have dimensioned the front. It wasn't clear where those were measured from. Morgan, M.: Morgan: Morgan, M.: Morgan: We would measure those from the building setback, that is where we can take those on the curves and the eye brows correct? In the city the requirement is on a cul-de-sac there is no minimum lot width adjacent to the right of way. However, at the setback it has to be 70' and we are just applying that as well. Here it is 75'. I don't believe you have any cul-de-sacs though. On eyebrows we do require that the lot width at the right of way has to be 50'. We would probably like to see eyebrows on some of those curves that we are showing. After several meetings with Fire and other planners we feel it is a better situation to have the eyebrows. With regard to connectivity, staff recommends that additional connections be made to the east at Lot 20 or possibly between 23 and 24. Also, one at Lot 103. I think we discussed that connection. I have included some Technical Plat Review March 2, 2005 Page 20 notes with regard to possibly having some of these rights of way at 50' instead of 40'. Some of them are ok to keep at 40' because they will carry less traffic. These streets right here, Golden Willow Drive, I believe will function more as a through type street. This street right here would be just accessed by these lots most likely and may be 40'. Morgan, M.: This is going to require a left turn here and that is the reason it's only 40'. Morgan: After looking at it, of course, we understood what your intent was. We believed that would still function better as a 50' right of way. Also, any of these streets where there is a proposed stub out will need to be 50' because we don't know how much traffic flow that will generate. I have included more information on the street names and such requesting a 50' right of way. Of course, all streets will have to be built to city street standards including street lights. Some of the street lights shown on some of the street lights they don't have one per every 300' so just go back and verify that there is one street light per 300'. Also, some of the street lights shown are in the middle of the lot and we would like to see those either at a lot line or at an intersection. I think I referenced some lot numbers as an example in here. The treatment area will need a lot number assigned to it. Is this area a lot? Morgan, M.: That is where our retention is. Morgan: That will need to have a lot number as well. With regard to numbering the lots, they will need to be consecutive within the phase so you can start with Lot 1 down here and then work up in a logical pattern so that Phase II starts logically. Staff is, of course, appreciative of the submittal of the traffic study and we are reviewing that and will most likely be recommending street improvements on Hughmount Road including sidewalks along the entire street frontage including the treatment area that is part of the project. We will still further evaluate any off site street improvements based on the traffic study that you presented and what information that we have. Most of the other comments are self explanatory and I will let you go through those. Brent, would you like to go over Engineering comments? O'Neal: Brian, we are still trying to determine if we are going to have to have detention for this. I appreciate your drainage report, it was very thorough. I may have some additional comments coming later, we still haven't determined that. The thing on the sewer, is this going to be a gravity collection system? Morgan, M.: It is. Technical Plat Review March 2, 2005 Page 21 O'Neal: Morgan, M.: O'Neal: Morgan, M.: O'Neal: Morgan, M.: O'Neal: Curry: Morgan, M.: Curry: Morgan, M.: Curry: Morgan: Curry: Ok, then if you skip down to number 10, just add a note that the sanitary sewer is going to be constructed per our standards and will be maintained by the POA until such time as sewer comes available. At that time, it is going to be the POA's responsibility to make that connection to the public utility. It is their option to connect to that correct? That is true. Well, once it is within the 300' they are required to connect. When the main trunk line comes through here it is going to be well south of here so it is probably more than 300' but if you did want to connect to the sewer at that point, it would be your option when this property, if this property, is annexed, I believe a connection is mandatory. A lot of these are standard comments. If you have any questions feel free to give me a call. Is the 300' a required distance now? That has always been required. That is the reasonable and accessible distance? Yes. All roads and accesses have a minimum width of 20' per the State Fire Code so the entry on Cherry Hill, that is cut down and will need to have 20' on both sides, however you want to work that. From what I show is just one entry point on this is that correct? That is right. We are going to need another entry point. We were under the understanding that it allows for basically two entrances, if one gets blocked you could still use the other. Under the State Fire Code, which we have been hashing this out, it is anything single family residential over 30 requires two separate entry points and that doesn't count. We are going to have to have another entry point somewhere. Just a note, the project did have two entrances, I don't know if that is what you guys were thinking about doing before. There is a regulation in the State Fire Code that I can send you about this, the diagonal measurement if you want that. The maximum distance Technical Plat Review March 2, 2005 Page 22 between your hydrants needs to be 500', if you could verify that. That's all that I have. Morgan: I believe that there are comments from Mike Rozelle in here. Utilities? Martin Moore — Cox Communications Moore: I have marked on the plat there, the yellow are 20' easements that we need, the reds are six 4" conduit crossings throughout all three phases. The only thing that we will not address is easements to get to street lights. You can get with Mike Phipps with Ozark Electric on that. Johns Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: Currently our facilities are located at Mt. Comfort and Hughmount Road on the south side. We will require you guys to get off site easements for us to get to this development. It doesn't matter which side of Hughmount Road, whatever works best for you guys. Morgan, M.: Can we go to the rear of the property or do you want these off Mt. Comfort? Boles: We need to go down Hughmount Road. They want us to parallel streets. When this develops it will continue to go north. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: If there are any existing facilities that need to be relocated that will be at the owner/developer's expense. Morgan: Revisions are due March 9, 2005 at 10:00 a.m. Morgan, M.: One other thing, the Master Street Plan right of way for Hughmount, is that correct? I wanted to make sure those easements were outside of that. Morgan: It is. Morgan, M.: Also, if you look at number seven, the connection point. Morgan: I will verify that. Again, we will need a conditional letter of approval from the Health Department. Do you have any other questions? Thank you very much. Technical Plat Review March 2, 2005 Page 23 LSD 05-1416: Bedford Apartments, pp 520 was submitted by Mel Milholland for property located between Lewis and Cross north of Stone. The property is zoned RMF - 24, Residential Multi -Family, 24 units per acre and contains approximately 3.75 acres. The request is to approve the completion of a previously approved Large Scale Development with an apartment complex containing 48 bedrooms and 32 parking spaces remaining to be constructed. Morgan: Item nine is LSD for Bedford Apartments submitted by Milholland for property located between Lewis and Cross north of Stone. The property is zoned RMF -24 and contains almost four acres. There was a previous Large Scale approved for this property with the same development. Some building permits were pulled and some of those buildings were constructed. However, the Large Scale Development has expires and therefore, they are bringing this forward. Thank you for clearly marking on the plat the area that has been constructed as well as the parking areas. I really have minimal planning comments for this plat. Everything needs to match to be in order with the previously approved Large Scale Development. I have included the previous Large Scale Development staff report with all revisions. Just a couple of minor comments for the site plan. Update the zoning districts shown on the plat. This was done when we had the old R-2 zoning. Also, if you could modify the title in the title block shown as LSD 03-10.00 to LSD 05-1416. The vicinity map should be a little more clearly defined. An easement plat for this property has been filed. The utility companies should have copies of that and it should be adequate for this development. If you have any questions about that just let me know. Also, I believe guarantees for improvements were also received for this property. It is my understanding that some of those guarantees may have expired. We need to review whether or not they need to be renewed before we can permit any additional things on this property. Jefcoat: As builts are being turned in so I am pretty sure. Morgan: I am not positive but I think some of them are due within the next month. Jefcoat: All of the streets and sidewalks are built, constructed. You should be receiving those as builts and the maintenance bonds on everything. Morgan: I will take a look at that. Then where are the dumpster locations on this site? Travis Dotson with Solid Waste included a memo stating that those enclosures need to be 30' wide to house trash containers. I haven't verified that. Are there any other comments? Alison Jumper — Parks Department Jumper: Parks fees have been paid for 61 units with this development. Technical Plat Review March 2, 2005 Page 24 Morgan: Engineering? Brent O'Neal — Staff Engineer O'Neal: I only had two comments on the comments sheet there. Those are just general comments to provide all items from the Large Scale Development application and all punch list items shall be completed and accepted prior to acceptance of the project. Kyle Curry — Fire Marshal Curry: The only thing I had was I would like to see an additional hydrant in the northeast corner. We stubbed out off that 8" line, this little island area, that would give us better access and give them more hydrant area. Jefcoat: That is just a recommendation. Curry: My recommendation is authority and jurisdiction, I need another hydrant in there. Jefcoat: I understand but I'm just saying that is already built, it was already approved and I don't know how you are going to ever get one. Morgan: Utility comments? Jim Sargent —SWEPCO Sargent: No comment. Johny Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: No comment. Martin Moore — Cox Communications Moore: No comment. Sue Clouser — Southwestern Bell Clouser: No comment. Technical Plat Review March 2, 2005 Page 25 LSD 05-1415: Farmington Branch Center, pp 595 was submitted by Tom Hennelly for property located on Hwy. 62 West, north of the Ozark Mountain Smokehouse. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 3.35 acres. The request is to approve a commercial development with 22,275 sq.ft. office space and 88 parking spaces proposed. Morgan: Our tenth item on the agenda is LSD 05-1415 for Farmington Branch Center submitted by Tom Hennelly for property located north of Hwy. 62 West north of the Ozark Mountain Smokehouse. This property was recently rezoned from R -A to R -O with the intention of a development on the site. This project was reviewed by Jeremy and I will do my best to go through the comments and answer any questions that you may have. Architectural elevations need to be close if not finalized with revisions submitted. In addition to the 8 '/2 x 11 copies elevations need to be submitted on a board as well as a materials sample board submitted. More detail is necessary in order for staff to make a recommendation for commercial design standards. With the R -O zoning district uses permitted will be those within the R -O zoning district. Basically, if you have any questions on what can be in here just reference the regulations for the R -O zoning district. Add plat page 595 to the plat. Add easements as requested by utility companies. Also, include the building height of any proposed structures measured at the setback lines. Any building exceeding 20 feet in height will need to be setback an additional one foot. Also, remove the south two parking spaces on the east side of the development. This is in order to comply with the intent for the allowance of a 30' setback in this zoning district (no parking between the building and right of way). Basically, to have a setback less than 50' from the right of way no parking is allowed between the structure and the right of way. Hennelly: Ok, I see what you are talking about. Morgan: With regard to street requirements, the maximum curb cut allowed by city ordinance is 39' wide measured at the right of way line. He has noted that recent information indicates that the State Hwy. Department will allow a maximum 36' wide curb cut. Please coordinate with AHTD. Permits will be required for curb cuts on this street. Right of way will need to be dedicated by separate instrument (warranty deed). All other easements will need to be dedicated by easement plat. Note that an additional street light is necessary along Hwy. 62 for a maximum distance of 300' between street lights. Also, add a sidewalk connection from the public sidewalk along Hwy. 62 to the proposed interior walks. That will be for pedestrian access. Hennelly: Do you want that on both sides because they are not connected? Technical Plat Review March 2, 2005 Page 26 Morgan: He doesn't specify but if it is possible to do both. There is no easy way for crossing except through parking lots for someone walking there. In order to gain additional, to shift these structures and get them out of the canopy shown on the east side, you can reduce the internal driveway aisle widths to 24' per city code. Right now they are shown at 29'. Additionally, the parking spaces along that island could be reduced to 17' if that is something that you choose to do. Please review the stacking distance for the driveway egress. A minimum of 40' stacking distance for an unsignalized driveway is required. The current space proposed allows approximately 25' outside of the right of way. Investigate the ability to remove the existing curb cut to the single family home to the rear and having that owner access through the proposed entrance drive with a newly constructed paved drive as part of this project for the subject property. The intent here is to create a safer traffic ingress/egress problem for the single family home owner for the users of the proposed development. Do you know if they are aware that this is being processed? Hennelly: Yeah, they are I think they are not real excited about going through the development to get access. The whole end of the parking lot down there has got that detention pond. We would probably have to come up the northeast end and go around the detention pond to do that. Morgan: If you want to have a meeting with Jeremy or I, we would be glad to do that. As a non-residential use adjacent to residential uses, view obscuring vegetation needs to be planted on all three sides of the property. Existing vegetation may meet much of this requirement along the east, though additional evergreen trees/shrubs will need to be indicated along the rear of the west building and in places along the north. Include a note stating that all parking lot lighting shall be shielded, directed downward and away from adjacent properties. He referenced the landscape report for you to look at. He has several comments on here if you could just read through those. Locate any proposed signage. All utilities must be placed underground. Any mechanical equipment must be screened. If you have any questions just let me know. Brent, do you have Engineering comments? Brent O'Neal — Staff Engineer O'Neal: Move the water meters to where they will be in front of the units. In that center island would be fine. I believe these could be potentially sold off as individual units. Therefore, we need to see individual taps for each one of the units. I had a question then on how the west units were to be served originally for sewer. Technical Plat March 2, 2005 Page 27 Hennelly: O'Neal: Hennelly: Morgan: Hennelly: O'Neal: Hennelly: O'Neal: Hennelly: O'Neal: Morgan: Hennelly: Review From that existing 12" line and they will probably have to use a portion of that 50' easement to stay up from going underneath the detention pond. That was the intention, to bring it up the west side there. You are going to have a sewer main extension coming off that manhole? No, we are going to run a sewer service to that building. I don't think these can be sold off individually can they, if they are not on separate parcels? There may be a way, I don't know exactly how it differs between residential and commercial. In a residential area if this were to be developed they could do a horizontal property regime and sell off each condominium where the land would be under common ownership but each individual unit could be sold differently. I'm sure that there is probably a way to do that with commercial buildings as well. Would we need to provide individual sewer service for all those Brent? Yes, if it is a possibility that each one of these could be sold individually we will need to see a sewer service for each one of the buildings. That being the case, then we would probably have to have a main extension to serve these west buildings. When you say if that is the case that these could be sold off, do you mean if it is the owner's intention to do that? Right. What would happen if he sold the entire development to somebody? That is the problem. Because you know, he may say we are not going to sell it off and then tum around and sell the whole thing and someone else may break it up. I don't know if there is any legal way to restrict anybody in the future from selling off individual buildings. That is why we would need to see individual service for each one. You may want to just discuss that with your client. It doesn't sound like he has a choice. Water services aren't really that big of a deal because I assume we are going to need a fire hydrant in the back of this anyway so we make the water main extension. The sewer main I had not anticipated. Sewer is available right there. It is an additional cost for them. If I am understanding what you are saying though, it is going to be required by the city no matter what his intention is. Technical Plat March 2, 2005 Page 28 O'Neal: Hennelly: O'Neal: Kyle Curry — Review Yeah, that's the problem. I don't know any legal way that he could put any kind of covenant or restriction on the property that would restrict somebody 50 years from now to sell off the individual units themselves. We could just bring a single sewer main extension up the middle, kind of like a water. The rest of my comments are pretty standard comments. On the drainage report, clearly show the drainage areas and just add another call the runoff table to show the increase or decrease. Fire Marshal Curry: Hennelly: Curry: Hennelly: Curry: Morgan: We are back to the 20' width again on stuff. This island in the front. That is probably going to go away after Suzanne's comments. We will probably wipe that out. I see your hydrant in the back. Do you know where the next closest hydrant is? Over here on Hoot Owl Lane, or Smokehouse Trail where it comes down to Hwy. 62. It is just on the east side there on the south side of Hwy. 62. That's the nearest one. Ok, as long as you have that one in the back that's about all we can do. If we put another hydrant on that one line it is not going to do us any good. That's all that I have. I have also included comments from Mike Rozelle, the Floodplain Administrator. Are there any comments from utilities? Jim Sargent — AEP/SWEPCO Sargent: Hennelly: Sargent: Hennelly: I would like to see a 20' utility easement along Hwy. 62 and also we have that line that serves the house back in the rear that goes up the property line, I would like to see a 20' utility easement along the west property line. If I made that building setback line a utility easement as well would that be ok? That would be fine. Did you go out and take a look? Is that the only overhead electric that runs along Hwy. 62 there? Technical Plat Review March 2, 2005 Page 29 Sargent: Yes. Hennelly: Sargent: Moore: Hennelly: Sargent: Hennelly: Sargent: Hennelly: Sargent: Hennelly: Sargent: Hennelly: Sargent: Moore: Boles: Moore: Hennelly: Morgan: That line is going to need to be raised, it looks like it is hanging low. If you can imagine that the entrance being right there at the street level and it will drop down some to the site but I think right now if you pulled a truck off it would hook that line. We will look to see how high we are on that. Which building setback line were you just referring to? The one along Hwy. 62 here that runs parallel with the right of way, I believe it is a 30' setback. You have shown a couple of transformer locations on here, we will need an easement to get to those locations where the transformers are. 20'? Yes. Does the transformer itself need to be located within that easement? No. On that east building we will have to move it because it is right up against the property line. It probably will need back towards Hwy. 62 some We will put that on the south side of the building. We do need a 10' clearance between the transformer and the building. Would it be possible to get a 10' off site UE on that east? We are looking at a little over 11' total and everybody can't get back there. That east side is going to be kind of tough. I think some of this might take care of itself when that building gets moved out from the canopy. There is a lot that could be done right here. Technical Plat Review March 2, 2005 Page 30 Hennelly: Of course, we can't count it as preserved if we give them an easement. Boles: We are going to have to have an easement. Morgan: Does it have to be on the lot line or can it be adjacent to the building? Boles: It can be adjacent to the building. Morgan: We are looking at possibly shifting another 14' with reducing these drive aisles and the parking lot lengths. If that shifts 14'. Boles: That leaves you 4' because we are going to ask for 20' because you have to get power, cable, gas and everything back there. Sargent: If you do it like you are showing here where we put a transformer on one end we won't be going that far. Clouser: If you give me conduits out to the utility easement on Hwy. 62 then I don't need to get back there either. Boles: Do you want meter banks on the south building for all these tenant spaces? Hennelly: That sounds like it would be the easiest way to do it rather than giving, it might be a little unsightly, you can screen that or disguise it, because we will end up going to the effort of moving and condensing the site to save this canopy and if we put an easement back there it is a waste of our time. While the trees are going to ultimately be preserved because it is just under the canopy, you won't actually be getting into the trees themselves, we won't get a credit for them. If you guys could put all your meters on the south side of that building it would probably work best. Boles: We have different restrictions. I can set any meter loops underneath the window. We are talking about 22" of space for every service so we are looking at adequate wall space to get all utilities on there and we can't be very close to electric meters too so those are issues that we would have to work out. Moore: With that said, if we are putting them all on one end, I am going to have to have you contact Joshua Lunsford. Here is his card, as far as wiring issues inside the buildings and things. Hennelly: I guess what we will take a look at is after we get everything condensed to the west seeing if we have enough room or how much room we have to deal with and then kind of go from there. Technical Plat March 2, 2005 Page 31 Boles: Hennelly: Boles: Morgan: Boles: Hennelly: Boles: Moore: Hennelly: Boles: Hennelly: Sargent: Sue Clouser — Review I guess my next question would be is if we banked everything off the south end, how would you plan on getting gas lines from Unit 1 to Unit 10 if the potential exists to sell off those possibly. I don't think you can have gas lines or utilities running through someone else's property to get to yours. It is confusing because you are not actually selling the property, you are selling the unit. If all lines from 1 through 10 are originating at Unit 1 running through the building then you have got a problem if Unit 7 sells then he has a problem with Unit 8, 9, and 10 then you have an issue. Couldn't the lines just go through the parking lot? That is up to the developer. You are either faced with putting all your meters on the south end or on the north end where ultimately they would be better placed along the back side adjacent to each unit. Long term, your best indication. That is where we can get into UE's along the backside of the building. Let me see what I can scrounge out of there. It might be if we are able to incorporate a driveway for the house off of this parking lot and they are willing to abandon that access easement then that would give us another 50'. What is in this 15' easement you are showing offsite here Tom, do you know? I think that is an existing sewer line. The overhead line that runs back to that house is less than 12kV so that will have to be buried. Southwestern Bell Clouser: Hennelly: I think this is in Prairie Grove Telephone's area. If it is you will need to get with them. We will put that underground to the north property line and then bring it back up on a pole? Technical Plat Review March 2, 2005 Page 32 Sargent: Yes, that is what typically happens. Hennelly: Only the one running back to that residence. Sargent: Right, the one running along Hwy. 62 is more than 12kV. All relocations will have to be paid by the developer. Morgan: Revisions are due March 9, 2005 by 10:00 a.m. While everyone is still here, we didn't have an applicant for Dover, the first item. Does anyone want to make any comments on this? There are some issues that staff has with this with regard that they are not showing the required 75' lot width. Boles: I would need a 20' easement along Wyman Road. This is Ozarks territory. Morgan: Staff's recommendation is to have 75' frontage. Thank you very much