Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-05-18 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE TECHNICAL PLAT REVIEW COMMITTEE A regularly scheduled meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee was held on May 18, 2005 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN LSP 05-1513: Nelms/Leflett, pp 209 Forwarded Page 3 LSP 05-1515: Lawson, pp 526 Forwarded Page 6 PPL 05-1509: Mountain Ranch, pp 478 Forwarded Page 9 PPL 05-1510: Twin Springs Phase II, pp 357 Forwarded Page 14 PPL 05-1511: Lynnwood Estates, pp 294 Forwarded Page 27 PPL 05-1528: Laureate Fields, pp 246 Forwarded Page 19 LSD 05-1508: Bank of the Ozarks, pp 372 Tabled Page 23 C-PZD 05-1512: Mathias Shopping Center, pp 557 Tabled Page 32 Technical Plat Review Committee May 18, 2005 Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT Johny Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Jim Sargent — SWEPCO Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop. Chad Hodge — Cox Communications STAFF PRESENT Suzanne Morgan, Planning Division Brent O'Neal, Engineering Division Kyle Curry, Fire Marshal's Office Matt Mihalevich, Parks Division MEMBERS ABSENT Sue Clouser—Southwestern Bell STAFF ABSENT Technical Plat Review Committee May 18, 2005 Page 3 LSP 05-1513: Nelms/Leflett, pp 209: Submitted by Anita Leflett for property located at 3582 Hwy. 112 (SE Corner 112 & Van Asche). The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.96 acres. The request is to divide the subject tract into two tracts of 1.42 and 1.43 acres respectively with 0.11 acres of right of way dedicated. Morgan: Welcome to the Technical Plat Review Committee meeting, today is Wednesday, May 18, 2005. We have eight items on our agenda. Before we get started with those items I would like to introduce Andrew Gardner recently hired as our Senior Planner and has started doing reviews for these projects. We will get started with the first item on the agenda, LSP 05-1513 for Leflett submitted for property located at 3582 Hwy. 112. We will go ahead and have comments on this. Gardner: We are still waiting on comments from GIS for the legals, as soon as we get those back we will forward those to you. On Lot B if you could include the percentage of impervious surface that will be left on there. There are some corrections to the atlas page number, and change that to plat page. On the vicinity map there are a few Master Street Plan streets that aren't shown, if you could just include those and label those clearly. Within the legend if you could just include the centerline right of way and building setbacks. Include the building setbacks on both lots. On the next plans make sure that those are to scale. At the time for future development of that lot we will be looking at curb cuts for safe ingress and egress. It shows 55' to be right of way, if you could just label that as right of way so it will be more clear. On the east property line of Tract "A", I assume that is some sort of concrete paved area, that is something else that we will be looking at with development as a landscaped area to comply with the 5' side landscaping requirement. That is on the east property line. Morgan: This is the new lot line right here and it appears that there is about 15' of asphalt. When this develops we have a requirement for a 5' greenspace to the property line so at the time that this develops this will need to come out. Leflett: If it were possible to get that 5' where it already is green to preserve it where it's already green would that suffice or does it have to be right on the line? This is all greenspace now. Morgan: The ordinance requirement is that the greenspace has to be on the property line. You can shift that property line over but it would reduce the area of this property. Gardner: Finally, a portion of the property is within the Design Overlay District. If you could just show the boundary on the survey of where that boundary goes to the property. It runs through the middle of the two tracts. Technical Plat Review Committee May 18, 2005 Page 4 Brent O'Neal — Staff Engineer O'Neal: Leflett: O'Neal: Leflett: O'Neal: Morgan: You have a copy of my comments. We would like to see a radius dedicated for right of way. You show it coming to a point in that northwest corner of the property. We would just like to see a 50' radius on that. Also, along your north property is a 36" water line, main transmission line. It is labeled on there but it is very small. If you could increase the size of the label so it is very apparent. We need to see the location of the existing service for the building on Tract "B" where it tracks through the sewer main. Is the location of your water meter as it is shown on the back side of the building? You are not sure, it is shown as being on the west side of the building. That is the utility side. Along the east property line of Tract "B" we would like to see a 10' utility easement from that sewer line down that property line. Behind the existing building? Yes. Are there any utility comments? Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop. Phipps: Any relocation of existing facilities will be at the developer's expense. The overhead power line that is on 112 is about 12.5kV so it can remain overhead. If we can get that 15' easement on that side of the right of way to be increased to be 20' along Hwy. 112. That's all I have. Johny Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: Leflett: Boles: I brought you a drawing of an approximate location of our current facilities. The existing line, I'm not sure what year it was installed but it was evidently replaced in 1976. That line is un -locatable because the tracer wire has been broken. It's still functional? It is still functional but it is going to be outside of that utility easement that you are showing. There is a chance that it might need to be relocated and if it needs to be it will be done at the developer's expense and will be placed back over in that 20' easement we have requested. The scale in that drawing is 1:300, that is an approximate location so you can take Technical Plat Review Committee May 18, 2005 Page 5 O'Neal: some centerline measurements off of Hwy. 112 and it will get you close. That is all. I have one additional comment. If your water service comes in along the west side of the existing building, the service line probably crosses the proposed Tract "A". Leflett: I am not sure about the water meter, I know the gas meter is out there. O'Neal: The survey shows the water and gas meter adjacent to the building and if that is the case water and sewer services can't cross lot lines. We cannot allow a tap on a 36" water line so if there is not another water line adjacent to Tract "B" we would require a main extension to serve that lot from Hwy. 112. Leflett: That would be an additional service basically? O'Neal: Yes Ma'am. If you could have your surveyor contact me and we will locate that and see if we can come up with a solution on that. Morgan: If your surveyor has any questions just let us know. Revisions are due the 25th of May at 10:00 a.m. Thank you. Technical Plat Review Committee May 18, 2005 Page 6 LSP 05-1515: Lawson, pp 526: Submitted by Morris Lawson for property located at 419 S. Happy Hollow Road. The property is zoned RSF-4, Single Family, four units per acre and contains approximately 2.50 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into two tracts of 2.13 and 0.37 acres respectively. Morgan: The next item on the agenda is a Lot Split for Lawson on Happy Hollow Road. The property is RSF-4 and contains 2.5 acres. The request is to subdivide the property into 2.13 and .37 acres. As was discussed with you before this meeting, the survey submitted was a survey of the property in it's entirety, not really requesting a tract split. I have detailed all of the items in here that need to be addressed on the survey to get it up to standards so that we can go forward to the Subdivision Committee with this item. With regard to the project, there is currently 25' of right of way on Happy Hollow Road identified. This is a collector street on the Master Street Plan requiring 35' from centerline so with this Lot Split we will be requiring 10' additional of property adjacent to the current existing right of way. That will be prior to filing this Lot Split. With regard to construction, I know that you got a permit for a second single family home which was permitted because the property could be subdivided into two legal lots so we did permit a single family home. This shows that the existing home is to be removed. If it is removed before the Lot Split is filed this out building, storage shed will also have to be removed because we do not allow accessory structures like a garage or shed, without a principal structure on the property. If you do remove the home at a later time this will also have to be removed or relocated. Lawson: If I build another house on there it can't be utilized? Morgan: If you want to get a demolition permit and a single family building permit at the same time then that would be acceptable since we know that there is going to be a single family home on that property. On the application we have your signature and Mr. Jones' signature, is this under contract? Lawson: Yes. Morgan: Most of the comments are self explanatory in the packet. Basically, we will expect 26 revised copies to address all of the comments made by the Planning Division, Engineering and the utility companies that they will make today and then we will forward those to the Subdivision Committee when those are done. If you get those revisions in to us by the deadline next week then we will carry this forward. If you are not able to make that then we will carry forward whenever it is ready. Those are all of Planning's comments. Engineering? Technical Plat Review Committee May 18, 2005 Page 7 Brent O'Neal — Staff Engineer O'Neal: I'm going to go over the comments from the Floodplain Administrator and myself. They kind of overlap. All of this information you can get from the requirements for a Lot Split. You need to include a vicinity map, include a floodplain statement. On the vicinity map you need to show the location of the floodplain. Dedication to meet the Master Street Plan. You need to show the water and sewer mains adjacent to the property. You need to also show the existing water meter and sewer service locations. These existing services had to remain in place for the existing structure. Any relocation of existing services shall be at the owner/developer's expense. Lawson: Relocation of what? O'Neal: Lawson: O'Neal: Lawson: O'Neal: Water and sewer services. You currently have a water and sewer tap for the entire tract I'm assuming but if you build a house on the proposed lot here and try to reuse those water and sewer taps then this lot will not have a water and sewer tap. This house would be on the existing line, which is an odd situation. What we would require is that the new structure obtain a new water and sewer tap. However, we will have to see where those services cross because it looks like it would pass right through the new lot, which they can't do. The existing services cannot pass through the new lot? Correct. I don't think the sewer does. The water obviously does. That existing water tap will have to be killed? It just depends. We will need to see that so we can mark it up. The rest of my comments are standard comments. Matt Mihalevich — Parks Department Mihalevich: Lawson: Morgan: Lawson: There is a Lot Split fee of $555 for one additional residential lot for parks fees. Those fees will be due prior to issuing a building permit. What building permit? Since we have already issued a building permit I think it would be appropriate for that to be paid prior to recordation of a Lot Split. I need to pay the fee before we split the lot? Technical Plat Review Committee May 18, 2005 Page 8 Morgan: Yes, since you have already obtained a building permit for that home. Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop. Phipps: If we could get a 20' utility easement along Happy Hollow outside of the right of way for that 156'. Morgan: In addition to the 10' right of way dedication you will have a 20' utility easement adjacent to that right of way. Johns Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: No comment. Chad Hodge — Cox Communications Hodge: No comment. Morgan: We will expect revisions and let you know what the schedule is. Technical Plat Review Committee May 18, 2005 Page 9 PPL 05-1509: Mountain Ranch, pp 478: Submitted by Crafton, Tull & Associates for property located at the southeast corner of Persimmon Street and Rupple Road. The property is zoned RSF-4 and contains approximately 305.44 acres. The request is to approve the preliminary plat for a residential subdivision with 117 single family lots proposed. Morgan: The next item on the agenda is PPL 05-1509 for Mountain Ranch submitted by Crafton, Tull & Associates. The property is located at the southeast corner of Persimmon and Rupple, zoned RSF-4 and contains approximately 305 acres. Terminella: This is about 59.88. Morgan: The request is to subdivide the property into 126 single family lots. I am just going to go over some of the comments in here. If you have any specific questions please contact Jeremy Pate. For submittal requirements, please submit a disk in AutoCAD with the final submittal for the Planning Commission with the final revisions. Terminella: After Subdivision Committee is when you will want the disk? Morgan: Yes. The Property Line Adjustment to create this tract has been reviewed but not filed at this time. Please submit the final revisions for the Property Line Adjustment to file for approval. If you are unable to locate our comments for the revisions, let us know and we will send them to you. Zoning requirements, if you could include the lot width at the right of way for each tract so we can confirm that they are all a minimum of 70' and also the lot area for each tract so we can confirm that those are 8,000 sq.ft. Terminella: Ok, we have worked all of that out. The plan seemed a little bit cluttered. Instead of putting those directly on the lots we broke them out into a schedule, if they were in a curve we broke them out, not all of them. I will look at that and verify that. I believe that those should go to that particular lot line, C-42 would be that line between the right of way. It has the length of curb radius and other information on there as well. Morgan: We just have to check each lot so it may not have been very feasible going back and forth. On the title sheet list the number of proposed lots and the density calculated. There are several street requirements labeling widths and rights of way for interior and exterior streets. Include a note on the plans restricting individual lot access to Persimmon or Rupple Road. Several of the streets do not meet the City of Fayetteville design standards. Those will require waivers. Brent will be able to go over those comments. The developer of the property will give a proportionate share for a future traffic signal at Persimmon and Rupple Road. This is going to be based off of the traffic generated through this intersection. More numbers will Technical Plat Review Committee May 18, 2005 Page 10 need to be provided once the calculation has been finalized. As you are aware, Rupple Road School was also assessed based on the amount of their projected traffic generation. Also, improvements to Rupple Road and Persimmon will also be required with this development. There are several different plat requirement revisions listed in here. I won't go over each specifically but if you could take a look at those. With regard to the other requirements, please submit written requests for any waivers and coordinate with the Engineering Division regarding street standards. Additionally, if you could reduce the cul-de-sac length for Rawhide Place to meet the maximum of 500' in length, which is our maximum length of a dead end street. Also, clarify southern Rupple Road construction that appears to the west. In previous conversations with the applicant, it has been indicated that this is not the desired route of Rupple Road. The school's share of construction is for the full width of the street. I do recall the Rupple Road School's easement plat shows that curb but it appeared through several discussions that was not where the intended or desired street alignment for that street on the very southern end so if you can just look at that. Terminella: We will get together with them on that. Morgan: Engineering? Brent O'Neal — Staff Engineer O'Neal: Terminella: O'Neal: You need to label the floodplain and slope way. Lots must be a minimum of 6,000 sq.ft. outside of the floodplain or be platted as a minimum of one acre lot. In particular, we are concerned about Lots 35, 36, 37, 45, 117 and these lots along the north detention pond, 13 through 21 and possibly 79. We need to have those checked. The street centerline radii must be a minimum 150' per our street standards. We either need to have the plat revised or process a waiver to approve that. In particular, the intersection of Cattle Drive and Mountain View Loop does not meet any of our street standards. We have discussed internally the possibility of doing something of a round about to improve that intersection. It is where the POA greenspace is where those two portions of Cattle Drive come into Mountain View Loop. You just need to have that realigned or come up with something. The concern is you have a person turning left on Cattle Drive going north and one going south and you have a conflict. You are concerned about the intersection itself? Yes. We just need to put on there the cost share agreement and also note the city responsibility and developer's responsibility for the cost share. Label all of the right of ways for streets on the subdivision adjacent to the Technical Plat Review Committee May 18, 2005 Page 11 subdivision. The utility plan was a little difficult to read since it was included on the grading and drainage. ??: Would it help you if we had a separate utility plan from water and sewer? O'Neal: Yes. You are showing water lines passing through some structures and storm drain boxes, we need to have some separation between those. Light poles we would like to be located outside of the easement wherever possible, or closer to the outside edge if possible. On Mountain View Loop where that intersection of Mountain View comes together and that "Y". We would like you to relocate the light poles off of the water and sewer lines. Sewer services, some are shown tapping into manholes. You can only tap manholes with services at dead ends so we just need to show those tappings of lines. The rest of the comments are fairly straight forward or have already been covered. You need to add a couple of notes in regards to the detention pond. We also need to see a design of the infrastructure on the plans, where it is located. On the drainage report, those are standard comments. Also, if you could just forward me the file, it has been a while since I've messed with it so after reviewing several reports and then coming back to it, it is a little more difficult so if you could just put it on a disk that would be great. Morgan: I am going to review the tree preservation plan quickly. There are eleven comments that are specified. This is a color copy of areas that need to be either removed or shown as preserved and such. He states in comment one that the tree preservation plan indicates removal of trees off site. Only trees affected by this development within the confinements submitted for review should be included in the calculation with tree preservation information. Then there are several comments with regard to making sure that the canopy is in easement or right of way is or is not counted. Identifying on site areas for delivery of construction materials, off site construction materials on the plan. Questions about utility easement locations and whether or not we are looking at trees within the utility easements. Based on the current calculations, a total of 265 trees will be required for on site mitigation. Curry: The only thing I have is on your access roads, they need to be a minimum width of 20', with your islands and stuff I wasn't sure that they all were. The maximum separation distance between hydrants is 500'. Those are the only comments that I have. O'Neal: Could you dimension the radius of the cul-de-sac on Rawhide Place? Technical Plat Review Committee May 18, 2005 Page 12 Matt Mihalevich — Parks Department Mihalevich: The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommended acceptance of a land dedication to satisfy the parkland dedication requirement. However, the land dedication will be for a future phase so we will work that out with the developer to ensure the exact location. We are still working on that to know where it is going to be with a future phase. Another note that both Persimmon and Rupple Road are identified on the alternative trail and transportation master plan as on street linkages. Our recommendation is for those to be bike lanes and we are working that out with Engineering for the cost of the cross section of the road. Terminella: I think Rupple has a trail along it, how does that work? Mihalevich: The street committee has met and suggested that we take some of that away and utilize the 6' sidewalk and incorporate the bike lanes in the road by widening the pavement from the centerline of the road instead of the trail. Morgan: Utilities? Mike Phipps — Ozarks Electric Coop. Phipps: I will give you a copy of this plan showing our proposed routing. On these crossings we need to be sure that they extend through the sidewalk, outside of the right of way into the easement. On Rupple, who is doing Rupple Road? Is the school doing that road? Terminella: The school is doing it's first half in the entirety. They will do up to the first entrance of the school. Phipps: We need crossings across there. Terminella: From the south of the intersection, this is where the school's portion will start, at the end of the returns and then I'm not sure who is doing the intersection. I think Jorgensen is doing the design on that. This one crossing that you've got here, we can put it in as far as the school goes, it is not a problem. Phipps: I just didn't know if it was the school. Terminella: It will either be the school or another project, that is not a problem. Phipps: Everything else should work for phone and cable too. On lot 35 where the floodplain is can we get along that south line? Technical Plat Review Committee May 18, 2005 Page 13 Terminella: There is a creek back through there. Phipps: Terminella: Phipps: Terminella: Boles: Terminella: Phipps: Morgan: I think that's the only place where we are on the front. That is a pretty good sized creek that runs back through there. I would say any relocation of facilities would be at your expense but we have nothing back there. There is nothing in there. That's all I have. What you need for electric is one conduit? He has them all labeled on there. Ok, so six 4" on the green and then three 4" on the blue. There are three 6" and three 4". That will take care of everybody. Revisions are due May 25`h by 10:00 a.m. Thank you. Technical Plat Review Committee May 18, 2005 Page 14 PPL 05-1510: Twin Springs Estates, Phase II, pp 357: Submitted by Don Hillis for property located at Double Springs Road north of Wedington. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 5.57 acres. The request is to approve Phase II of a residential subdivision with 23 single family lots proposed. Morgan: The fourth item is PPL 05-1510 for Twin Springs Phase II submitted by Don Hillis for property located on Double Springs Road north of Wedington. The property is in the planning area and contains approximately 30.54 acres. The request is to approve Phase II of the Twin Springs development. If you would please submit a signed application. With regard to plat requirements, there are a couple of provisions I would like to go over. If you could please revise the vicinity map to include the Master Street Plan. Any floodplain or floodplain that may affect this. On the plat if you could give the common area a lot number. Also, you have a 20' utility easement, also show the 25' building setback. I don't know if you are planning on developing this. Hillis: No buildings are going to be on that property. It is going to be all open area. Morgan: If that is the purpose for this make a note with regard to whether or not this is buildable. I am trying to think of in the future if this is ever decided to be sold, I just want to make sure that building setbacks are clear. Hillis: It is a non -buildable area, you can't put anything down there at all due to the terrain. Morgan: Street lights are shown on the plat, just make sure that they are 300' apart. I think on the north/south streets they are a little bit greater than that. It may just be adding one street light. Show all on and offsite utilities and show all the utilities as requested today. State the width, location and purpose of all easements and rights of way. That is basically whether they are drainage or just utility easements. There are a couple of notes on the setbacks, just making sure that they are clear on some of these lots. For instance, Lot 13 a 20' utility easement and building setback is shown. That follows the same line as this 25' so I don't know if it was meant to be 25' instead of 20' there. Then this little jog also. The right of way adjacent to the southwest corner of Phase I needs to be to that edge of the right of way. As it is shown, there is a gap of a couple of feet so just adjust that right of way over and show the lot width at the right of way for each lot. Hillis: The property goes to the centerline of the road. Washington County has the lots go to the centerline of the road. It will be right of way easement all the way through there for right of way only. Technical Plat May 18, 2005 Page 15 Morgan: Hillis: O'Neal: Hillis: Morgan: Hillis: Morgan: Hillis: Morgan: Review Committee My understanding of county where the actual right of way is dedicated. We did another one and it was down the centerline of the road. Was it in our Planning Area? We can verify that. Since this is within the one mile area we are requiring city standard streets. We need to ensure that the lots are 10,000 sq.ft. minimum. There again, we need to find out whether it is county regulations. I've never seen one where it is to the centerline of the street. We will work it out. With regard to Double Springs, one of the lots is adjacent to that. We will need to see how this street intersects with Double Springs and evaluate potential improvements for this. Hillis: When we did this right here there were no improvements so we will be tying in. We want to do a nice entrance through here. There was no curb or gutter required on the first phase. Morgan: That is true, that was a Concurrent Plat and after that Concurrent Plat was filed we modified the ordinance to require city standard street requirements within one mile of the city limits so different standards apply. If you are wanting to do an entrance feature here please show the location of that. If it is within the utility easements it is a benefit for the utility companies to know where those are going to be. Those would not be allowed to be within the right of way. Since these are going to be city street standards, you need to show the sidewalks. Hillis: We were talking about sidewalks and Jeremy was thinking of one side only. Since these are bigger lots, we were thinking of sidewalks along one side rather than both since like on Lot 5, that is a lot of sidewalk. That would be a waiver requirement. Morgan: We will look at that. This street here that parallels the southern property line, staff would recommend that either all of this property be dedicated as right of way or that street be shifted down to the southern lot line. It would allow the property to have frontage on a street. Hillis: The terrain won't allow for it. This terrain is very steep and hilly so we have followed the contours of the land to get the road up there. Otherwise, Technical Plat Review Committee May 18, 2005 Page 16 we are going to have roads that are going to have a 15% or 16% grade so we have tried to follow the contours of the land itself to get that up there. To move that over there, these are 10', they are steep. If you move it over there I will be putting a big slope bank on their property and they aren't going to want that. The way it is now the grading would stay on our property period, which we have to do. We can't go onto somebody else's property and grade. We can't really be moved over there. The terrain won't allow it. Morgan: We will look at this and see if there is a solution. Hillis: This property is part of that common area that will be owned by the Homeowner's Association. Morgan: We will take a look at that. Obviously, Washington County Planning approval is required. One of the other very important things is septic system approvals for all lots less than 1.5 acres. At this time for the Preliminary Plat we will require three letters. One from a Soil Scientist analyzing the soils. The second being from Washington County Health Department and the third from Roy Davis from the Little Rock State Health Department stating whether or not he is granting preliminary approval for these lots. Hillis: The septic systems have been approved by the Health Depaitwent already. Been tested and everything, I have all of that paperwork at the office. Morgan: Get us that paperwork and we will take a look at it. We just have to make sure that all of those letters have been submitted and it is acceptable prior to forwarding this to the Subdivision Committee. Those are all of the comments that I have. Brent? Brent O'Neal — Staff Engineer O'Neal: Comments from our Floodplain Administrator, just show a floodplain statement. Hillis: There is one on note six on the second page. O'Neal: On the sidewalks, you do need to show them. If you show them on one side of the road, we have looked at just requiring a 24' wide street. It is not labeled here what the width of the streets are. Hillis: It is detailed on the second page. There is a typical street section showing the sidewalks on one side, it is 28' back to back. O'Neal: Ok. Technical Plat Review Committee May 18, 2005 Page 17 Hillis: There is 50' right of way labeled on the streets. O'Neal: For this section we need a street table with street names, widths, pavement section. The street that loops around 13, 14 and all the way to 17. That is the one that we are thinking could just be a 24' wide street. The main drive and probably this drive along the west side, could probably remain 28' back to back. Show all of the proposed contours and label the proposed contours. We need a vicinity map on the grading plan. Add soil type, acreage, zoning, owner contact information. I believe that is on here since you are the owner/developers. Since this is in the Planning Area, we are going to require some kind of detention. If you could revise this and show this common area as detention, I believe you can work within that area and detain within that. Label the 100 -year water surface elevation. We are concerned if you do use this as detention, that it would back up into Lot 2. If you could show that as a detention area and label how high the water will get. Show the drainage areas and how it contributes in a little report. If you have any questions, give me a call. Morgan: Fire? Kyle Curry — Fire Marshal Curry: The only thing I have is hydrant space should be no longer than 500'. Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop. Phipps: Where will they build on Lot 5? Hillis: The house and septic is all setback in here. They have a driveway that goes up into it. I've got layouts of the houses and septics all approved. Phipps: If that is 416' for access to those houses with a transformer. I'm probably going to need a UE up those lot lines to get back there where we can service those. I know on Lots 1 through 5 on Phase I we are serving from the front because of that hill back there. These here will they be in the front on Lots 6 through 12? Hillis: Yes, these are going to have to be in the front here. Phipps: We are good there. As long as they are not over 200' from our transformer. Hillis: That is not a problem. Phipps: That is all that I have. Technical Plat Review Committee May 18, 2005 Page 18 Morgan: We will need to talk about the right of ways, these lots are not meeting the minimum width of 75' along a public street right of way. Hillis: They all do, this is 130' wide. Morgan: I understand, but they are not on a dedicated right of way. We will get with you on that. Hillis: That dimension here is the same as up here. O'Neal: On comment number eight I mentioned finding the fire flow from the nearest fire hydrant. We may not be able to provide fire flows in this area so if that is the case, we may need to have lockouts on the hydrants. Morgan: Revisions are due May 27th at 10:00 a.m. Technical Plat Review Committee May 18, 2005 Page 19 PPL 05-1528: Laureate Fields, pp 246: Submitted by Mel Milholland for property located at the southwest corner of Deane Solomon and Salem Road. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre, and contains approximately 40.00 acres. The request is to approve a major modifications to an approved Preliminary Plat, PPL 04-1141, Schlegel Subdivision. Morgan: The next item on the agenda is PPL 05-1511 for Laureate Fields submitted by Milholland. The property is RSF-4 and contains approximately 40 acres. There was a previous subdivision that was approved, Schlegel Subdivision. This proposal has an addition of lots and removal of some park land. If you would please see the tree preservation report comments. I do not believe that there was a tree preservation report submitted. Jefcoat: Morgan: It was the same one as last time. That was included in the cover letter that it would be the same identical report. I will try to cover that with Jeremy. He said if no changes are made from the original plan and all trees are proposed to be removed, simply include a plan entitled tree preservation plan for calculations showing that this is the case. The original conditions of approval stated that a total of $72,600 for on site mitigation or 264 trees on site would be required. Jefcoat: We did say in the cover letter that there were not changes. Morgan: Are you planning on on-site mitigation? Jefcoat: Yes, it will be the same thing as it was before, nothing changes. Morgan: If you are doing just on site mitigation just submit one copy of the preliminary planting plan for review. We have these in different files so if you could just give us another copy for this file. There are several different revisions requested for the plat addressing access, lot width and dimension of rights of way. Show the requirements of the RSF-4 zoning district. Jefcoat: Lot lines got shifted, I see that. Morgan: The second copy is a copy of all of the previous information from the Preliminary Plat so you can review the conditions of approval, most of which will be the same. A question of whether there is a purpose for the hatched area along the street. If it is hatched for some particular reason just include that. Jefcoat: This is a minor arterial, that is a different paving type. Technical Plat May 18, 2005 Page 20 Morgan: Brent O'Neal Review Committee That is not identified in the legend, if you could include that in there. Include sidewalks surrounding Lots 42 through 52 that were formerly indicated as park land and sidewalks along other areas that are not single family lots shall be constructed prior to Final Plat approval. That being that usually whenever we see those as single family lots we can require them to build a sidewalk at the time of construction but for detention ponds you don't get a building permit for that. So we are requesting that those be constructed prior to the Final Plat. — Staff Engineer O'Neal: Add a floodplain statement. We will need to review revised sheets to this plan. Because we have already reviewed this once, if you could just submit revised sheets of whatever comes out in this next run through and we will review that for construction. I believe that there are some comments from Chief Curry that we will work out with you. Kyle Curry — Fire Marshal Curry: O'Neal: Jefcoat: Curry: O'Neal: Jefcoat: Curry: Jefcoat: The only thing I had was the hydrant spacing needs to be at 500' or below. Of course, the 20' width, the entry points to the round about. The cul-de- sacs, this round about reduces less than 20' so we have talked about minimal curbs. Just so there is a hard driving surface from the outside curb when you face the curb to a hard driving surface is 20' so you can go middle to curb with concrete. Appearance wise, they won't be very appealing. We would rather have it landscaped and then you can just run over it if you have to. We have extensions on our trucks also. I'm just going with state code of 20' wide. They can be ornamental pavers that would be a velocity. But not shrubbery. It won't take all of it out will it? As long as we have minimal curbs. I don't know, I will have to look at it. If I can take 4' out and still get a landscaped area there, I don't know, I will have to look at it. Technical Plat Review Committee May 18, 2005 Page 21 Matt Mihalev ich — Parks Department Mihalevich: Morgan: Mihalevich: The Parks and Recreation Board originally was going to do a combination of parkland and money. Since that time, the parkland has been taken out and we are going to be exchanging it for a future development to the east. This change is going to require a special parks board meeting which is going to be scheduled very soon. At that special meeting you are going to be discussing where additional land should be dedicated? Yes. Basically, transferring it from what was here over to this other development that the same owner is going to be doing. Mike Phipps — Ozark Electric Coop. Phipps: Jefcoat: Phipps: Jefcoat: Phipps: Jefcoat: Phipps: Jefcoat: Morgan: Jefcoat: On the south half, what is this right here? That is a drainage swale. Is it grass? Yes. I would like to access those lots from Crystal Springs, we are just trying to design this to tie this in. We didn't change anything from your last comments so this should match your previous comments? Have we seen this before? Yes, you marked it up and we matched everything that you asked for before. This came through and was approved in August, 2004. I don't have the plat with me but it had a round about with parkland in the front and several streets running east/west. It was called Schlegel Subdivision. It is the same subdivision. Nothing really changed, streets are the same, water, sanitary sewer, everything is exactly the same, all the services are the same, except for we added 30 lots to it. Some of them were in the park area, some of them were by making lots smaller so your crossings and everything are where you submitted them. We will double check and see where the differences are. Technical Plat Review Committee May 18, 2005 Page 22 Phipps: I need to connect in here and also down through here. Jefcoat: Down that whole side there we have got a multi -use park, a 48" sanitary sewer line, wetlands, and then our development. I don't know if you want to come down that side or not. Phipps: We will have to come back and tie this in here and then at the top of the other one. Across the road is where the Technology Park used to be. Jefcoat: Across the road there. That common boundary line is where the multi use trail and all of that is going to be down that east side. Phipps: We will have to come through and tie it back in the front. That is all that I have. Morgan: Is it the plan to have the Parks Board meeting before this goes to the Subdivision Committee? Jefcoat: It is a formality, the board will have to approve it. Morgan: We will take a look at deadlines. Technical Plat Review Committee May 18, 2005 Page 23 LSD 05-1508: Bank of The Ozarks, pp 372: Submitted by Gregg Long for property located at 2060 N. Crossover Road. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately 1.09 acres. The request is to approve the Large Scale Development of a 2,784 sq.ft. branch bank with 31 parking spaces proposed. Morgan: We will go to item seven, Large Scale for Bank of the Ozarks for property located at 2064 Crossover. The property is zoned C-1 and contains approximately 1.09 acres. The request is to develop a bank on this site. This property on which the bank is located is actually a 3.75 acre tract. We have discussed processing a Lot Split so that this review is just in regard to the 1.09 acres. I have looked at meeting schedules and deadlines for the Lot Split and how this will effect this Large Scale Development. We will look at that and I would like to bring it back to the Technical Plat Review Committee. We don't have elevations to review right now. There are a lot of different comments on this plat that may effect utilities I think the comments in this report are more in keeping with it being reviewed here. One of my main concerns is Commercial Design Standards, we haven't had an opportunity to review those. If you do submit a Lot Split tomorrow for the next revision deadline, if you get revisions to us for this project in by the following Wednesday, May 24th, they could both go to the June 1St Technical Plat meeting. I stated with regard to elevations, we are going to need an 8x11 color copy showing all elevations marked in cardinal directions, building materials called out. For Subdivision Committee we will need the 24x36 elevations board. I am just going to go over some of the main comments. With regard to the sheets submitted, a lot of these sheets are really only applicable for building permits, construction detail, etc., if you could reduce the amount of sheets. Include a site plan. I have included some things to put on that site plan, you could put a vicinity map on the site plan, just include Master Street Plan streets, floodplain and floodway. We are looking at this. I have a question about the size of the bank. The first plan shows it at 2,700 sq.ft., but the building permit that was submitted showed that it was 5,176 sq.ft. and 940 sq.ft. of unheated area. That is a big difference. I would like a confirmation of the exact area of the building. The parking requirement is one per 200 for a bank facility. You also have these four drive thrus. I would like to see what the stacking is going to be like for these four drive thrus. You might represent some cars on here to show how that will function. The access easement, this driveway behind here is 19' and our standard is a 20' width minimum. With regard to drive aisles, the parking spaces here toward the south, there is about a 20' distance of drive aisle between these parking spaces and this curb. The way these function, even though they are kind of diagonal, they are not diagonal in relation to that curb, it is kind of like we are looking at a straight access. Either more width or modify the parking, I'm afraid that they are not going to have enough room to back out and if these cars are stacking here, they are not going to be able to back out if there is a car there. I believe that you are Technical Plat Review Committee May 18, 2005 Page 24 proposing to realign the driveway on Crossover from the existing drive. I believe in previous conversations that it was discussed that the existing driveway was south somewhat of this proposed location and it didn't align with the curb cut across the street so the proposed driveway will end up aligning with that. Long: We are trying to line that up with Citizens Drive over here. Morgan: If you would be able to show the location of the existing curb cut. Long: We can better define that. Morgan: It is shifting north. We will need approval from the owner to the south along that drive. These three dumpster locations here, I am a little bit concerned with that. My understanding is that is the location of the existing building's dumpsters. We would like them to not be in the very front entrance driving into the property. If you could see if there is any other place to locate them I think it relates to where the existing utilities area and there is no other place besides the south to relocate those. If there is no other place to move these dumpsters we need to address how they are going to be screened. Right now they are over a 24" water line and so our usual comment of please screen these with materials that are compatible with the structure may not be feasible because we don't want a structure on a water line. It may be possible to screen the north and south of that dumpster with compatible materials, if they could just do a wood board fence on either side of the rear. Then maybe add some sort of decorative gate on the front. Long: I'm wondering if whether we couldn't shift them down so you are not looking straight at them. That would take care of the conflict of the 24" water line. Morgan: I don't know what the dumpster requirements are. I don't know if these three are going to be able to serve the bank and all of these. Travis Dotson at Solid Waste will be able to let you know what the requirements will be. We are requesting cross access to the north. The property to the north is not developed at this time and we would like to reduce the number of driveways we have in there. It may be possible, we have seen whenever properties are split, to actually move this curb cut onto Crossover so that it is shared by both instead of doing cross access as well. That is a possibility. We would just like to see some connection to the north so we are not having curb cuts all along Crossover. You are going to lose a couple of spaces in here because we have a requirement for 15' of greenspace from the right of way line. Of course, right of way is required in compliance with the Master Street Plan, 55' from centerline, that needs to be marked on here. I think you only have one section at that southwest Technical Plat Review Committee May 18, 2005 Page 25 property line that will need to be done by Warranty Deed prior to building permit. I think that covers most of the comments. Brent O'Neal — Staff Engineer O'Neal: Please include a floodplain statement. Label the floodplain. A floodplain development permit will be required for this project and we will need an elevation certificate submitted prior to building permit. We will also need permanent erosion control called out for these pumps and discharge. My comments, show a 6' sidewalk through the drives at the right of way. On the 24" water line, note on here that we need a 26' wide easement centered on the main, that would mean that we need a 13' easement off of that main. That is going to push the easement out a little bit. I am not sure how much right of way dedication you are going to have but just confirm that we have 26' centered on the 24" water main. The sign that you have proposed there needs to be located out of that easement. We have already kind of covered the dumpsters. On sheet two, it is labeled as grading plan. We need to have all of the items from the grading plan checklist. If you could label the floodplain and floodway adjacent to the property. Show any established base flood elevations. Just ensure that the finished floor is 2' above that BFE. Long: It is all Zone "A". O'Neal: Ok. That goes to the comment about detention. We will need a little bit more of a detailed study on this creek system. I'm sure it is not going to be that big of a deal to prove that your peak is going to be gone from this site prior to the peak in the creek. That is really what we will need to see. Other than that, the rest of my comments are fairly straight forward. Kyle Curry — Fire Marshal Curry: The only thing I have is access, I need 20' from the south side to the north side. Long: 20' as opposed to the 10' that we are showing? Curry: Where the parking and the ATM are, I need 20' so I can get through there. Morgan: Is that clear of the overhang? Curry: Yes, so I can get a truck through there. Long: You will probably need 30' between that ATM and that parking. Technical Plat Review Committee May 18, 2005 Page 26 Curry: Since you have a drive aisle to the back of the structure. If you get cars in there and it catches on fire I would like to be able to come in on both ends if I have to. Morgan: Can they reduce the overhang to allow 20'? Curry: Yes, I just need 20' past this parking area. Jim Sargent — SWEPCO Sargent: I would like to see a 20' utility easement there along Hwy. 265. We need some load and voltage information. Any relocation of existing facilities will be at the developer's expense. Johns Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: Are you wanting gas for this project? I noticed it is not listed in the notes. Long: I will have to check with the architect. I honestly don't know. Boles: I think we are looking at currently having gas coming from the west side of Hwy. 265 to the east side possibly along the north side of the Subway building. If that is the case we could serve off of that. Chad Hodge — Cox Communications Hodge: Where you have the underground electric shown there, we are going to request a 4" conduit to the building. O'Neal: That 20' utility easement SWEPCO asked for needs to be outside of out water line easement. Technical Plat Review Committee May 18, 2005 Page 27 PPL 05-1511: Lynnwood Estates, pp 294: Submitted by H2 Engineering, Inc. for property located at 2468 N. Crossover Road, northeast of Township Street. The property is zoned RSF-2, Residential Single Family, two units per acre, and contains approximately 4.77 acres. The request is to approve the preliminary plat of a residential subdivision with six single family lots proposed. Morgan: The next item is PPL 05-1511 for Lynnwood Estates, it contains approximately five acres and is located on Crossover Road. One of the main features about this project is that each of these lots, 1-6 have shared access onto Crossover. Those access drives will need to be constructed prior to Final Plat approval. This is a bit unique. If you could include a note on the plat stating that no other driveways shall be constructed. Provide a letter to the Planning Staff describing the scope, nature and intent of the proposal. Something that we can present to the Planning Commission and provide a disk of the final approved copy and then we will need a final copy at the time of Final Plat. We do use those disks for tree preservation to evaluate that. Did you have any comments or questions on the comments in here? Hennelly: I looked through them. I guess on this last comment on page two, that is just taking out the areas where the houses will be or is that just relating to the existing home that is there? Morgan: With the RSF-2 zoning district, I believe that there are certain percentages for requirements for building coverage area on a lot. Hennelly: You just want to make sure that house complies? Morgan: Right. Most likely it does. It is a large lot. We just want to verify that. Hennelly: On page three, they have the Master Street Plan proposal shown, is that not up to date? It shows Township being connected all the way back up to Mission and then it shows the extension of Rolling Hills Drive. Morgan: Would you be able to note that the streets in bold are collectors or whatever they might be, or even just labeling in there the ones that are collectors verses minor arterial. It is pretty clear that the dashed is not yet constructed. Hennelly: Just collector and minor arterial? Morgan: Yes, Crossover is a principal arterial also. Right of way will be required to be dedicated so the Final Plat will need to dimension these lots at the right of way line. The sidewalks will need to be shown at the right of way line. Technical Plat Review Committee May 18, 2005 Page 28 Hennelly: You've got a note on here driveway cuts shall be a minimum distance standard to arterial roadways in conformance with city code. Are they not? Morgan: I believe they are. They look to be sufficient distance between each other. Distance between curb cuts is 30'. Hennelly: That meets it. Morgan: There were some comments with regard to the legal description. Hennelly: We noticed an error in it right before we submitted it and we thought we had everything changed but apparently not. We will go back and double check and make sure that is corrected. On the state plain coordinates, you always have that discrepancy between what the rotation on the state plain coordinates is and what the rotation in the real world is, and Clyde told me that if we change our rotation from state plain to not even provide him state plain coordinates, he said it just screws him up even more. We can put them on there. O'Neal: If that is what Clyde needs then we are ok with that. Morgan: With regard to any construction or development or improvements prior to Final Plat approval, Lot 1, we discussed the driveways needing to be placed and constructed. With regard to the sidewalks, as each of those lots receive building permits, we will require the sidewalk to be developed at that time. We will get the guarantee and release that when they are done, but since Lot 1 is already developed, we will want that constructed prior to Final Plat. Brent O'Neal — Staff Engineer O'Neal: Going back to the sidewalk, there was a meeting yesterday. I think the part of the sidewalk being built for Lot 1 is acceptable. There was talk about an assessment for a sidewalk and that the grading only be done to accommodate the sidewalk since this is along a State Highway. I believe there will be an assessment from the developer on the sidewalks. I will clarify that just to ensure that. Hennelly: You mean that he pays for the sidewalks that are going to be completed when this is slated for construction? O'Neal: Yes. Instead of having the sidewalks built for each lot at the right of way and then the Highway Department comes in and tears them out and redoes them, we would just assess for a sidewalk, since they only require a 4' sidewalk, we would have an assessment and the sidewalk would still have Technical Plat Review Committee May 18, 2005 Page 29 to be shown at the right of way through the drives and then we will go back and build the sidewalk. Hennelly: Is the Highway Department the one doing this work? O'Neal: I believe so. Hennelly: Are they paying for it? O'Neal: That is the question. Hennelly: The only reason I bring that up is I would hate for this guy to pay you money for something that you would have never had to pay for. O'Neal: What we have slated for the Master Street Plan is a 6' sidewalk. What the Highway Department would build would be a 4' sidewalk so it would be basically an additional 2'. Hennelly: So all he is paying for is the additional 2' sidewalk through that area? O'Neal: Yes. I will confirm that. This is an odd situation since we have had developments popping up along Hwy. 265 and we are trying to work with the Highway Department to get these sidewalks in. We have to accommodate them when they come through widening. I will get with Clyde so I can get the state plain coordinates clarified. Hennelly: The analysis on the downstream sewer, how far do you want me to go on that? O'Neal: I believe there is a large main not too far from here where the 6" connects to. Just downstream to prove that there is capacity for this. The other thing is we may need to look at, we don't have adequate easement from this intersection of 265 to the existing house. Hennelly: We could add an additional manhole here and then realign that so it is in a north/south. O'Neal: I did pull the plans for the subdivision that is directly across from this. Are you aware of where their sewer goes? Hennelly: Yes, Paula did that subdivision and she is also the one that did these plans. We checked that and it is running along this back line here and there wasn't a way to get it out to Hwy. 265. The floodplain on the vicinity map, it is down by Old Wire, but you need it shown on there? Technical Plat Review Committee May 18, 2005 Page 30 O'Neal: Yes. The rest of my comments are fairly straight forward. Do you have any questions on them? Hennelly: O'Neal: Kyle Curry Curry: Hennelly: Curry: I sent you the letter on the drainage. Some of these confused me because pond bypass, I didn't understand that. That one was left over from a previous Preliminary Plat. The only thing I need to see is a pre and post developed drainage area map. The other thing is just provide where you have seed values. — Fire Marshal We are going to need a hydrant in the area of Lot 4. We have one down there, you want to reduce that to 500', is that what you are saying? Yes. Matt Mihalevich — Parks Department Mihalevich: Mike Phipps The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommended money in lieu of land in the amount of six single family units, that total is $3,300. Those fees will be due prior to signing the Final Plat. — Ozark Electric Coop. Phipps: Hennelly: Phipps: Hennelly: Phipps: Hennelly: On the back here, if we can show that 20' building setback and UE. We do have power here on the back side. I'm not sure what that was all run through there for, was it for getting to Candlewood? There is a clear path where all of the utilities have come through. It may have been. Jerry Jones with ACME Brick owns this property now. At one time, you will notice some lighter lot lines on here, this was at one time platted as three lots. I don't know when that was done and when it was done if you guys came through and put your utilities in. If it was then I would think that there would be some easements. It works out good. We can access the houses. You can see that transformer on Lots 4 and 5. Technical Plat Review Committee May 18, 2005 Page 31 Phipps: Yes, then 2, 3 and 1 are just dead ends down here. You are showing overhead, I think the overhead is on the west side of Hwy. 265. I don't know if there is cable on that side. Any relocation of existing facilities will be at the developer's expense. Morgan: On that 30' building setback and UE, between Lots 2 and 3, that line is reduced to 20', if you could just check that. Johns Boles — Arkansas Western Gas Boles: What is the tree preservation fencing shown on the front of Lot 2? Hennelly: Those are existing trees shown on what used to be Lot 1 and when the construction is going on we just put the fencing around there. Boles: I am going to need to get through there. That easement could be reduced to 20'. I am not going to require 30' in the front. My transmission lines are across the highway so unless someone else needs it, that can be reduced to 20'. That might help you a little bit. Chad Hodge — Cox Communications Hodge: I had the same question on the back with making that a building setback and UE. Morgan: Revisions are due May 25`h at 10:00 a.m. Technical Plat Review Committee May 18, 2005 Page 32 C-PZD 05-1512: Mathias Shopping Center, pp 557: Submitted by H2 Engineering, Inc. for property located north of Hwy. 62 West (Sixth Street) south of Old Farmington Road. The property is zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural and contains approximately 0.81 acres. The request is to approve a Commercial Planned Zoning District with 58,400 sq.ft. commercial area and 13,067 sq.ft. residential area (14 dwelling units) proposed. Morgan: Our final item on the agenda is C-PZD 05-1612 for Mathias Shopping Center submitted by H2 Engineering. The property is zoned C-1 adjacent to R -A and RSF-4 adjacent to Old Farmington Road. The request is for retail and residential units on the property. I would first like to go over the process by which we are going to be looking at this. The plat as submitted shows lots created and also retail space. With a PZD it needs to be a Large Scale or Preliminary Plat. Hennelly: So if we pull the lot lines off and do it as a Large Scale and then we have talked about submitting a plat afterwards, that would be ok? Morgan: Right. At this time it would be. If you would like to fulfill these, you don't have a specific building with elevations and what is going to go in there that you are going to be able to permit within a year. With this Large Scale Development you can break it into phases. If you want to do the residential and retail under Phase I and then the other two as Phases II and III. If you want to break these properties into lots in the future what we are going to need are specific guidelines from you guys as to what your lot requirements are. You can take a section out of Chapter 161 that says residential lots shall be a minimum width of such and such with a minimum lot area of "X" amount of square feet, a minimum number of commercial lots. Hennelly: If we do this as a Large Scale there won't be future lots? Morgan: That is true but you are establishing bulk and area regulations for any future subdivisions of the property. It is like a zoning district, there aren't lots on one piece of land but in the future if somebody wanted to split it up they have the criteria by which they must meet. I would also request that information be presented with regard to how this project meets the PZD requirements. There are about 10 different goals of a PZD. I have this information written down with you. On page six of those comments, information with regard to flexibility, compatibility, harmony, etc. At this time staff is not able to support this development as presented with specific concern regarding the development proposed, that it is too intense for this lot. You have buildings up to five feet from the property line. We just feel that at this time the project is not utilizing the open space, tree preservation, etc., required for PZDs. PZDs give flexibility and it appears that the developer is using setback regulations for flexibility to benefit the development but the city is not getting the benefit for open space and Technical Plat Review Committee May 18, 2005 Page 33 preservation. I detailed those in the staff comments. Mr. Pate has also submitted his concerns under the landscape comments. A couple of the big issues, I think it would be really good if we set up a meeting and looked over it after you have had an opportunity to look at it with your client. We are requesting a traffic study. Old Farmington Road is really unimproved, it is narrow. There will be a lot of traffic from this development using Old Farmington and Sixth Street. Because of the difficulty of making a left hand turn onto Sixth Street we do foresee a lot of the traffic using Old Farmington to get to a signal and that is through residential traffic, customer, retail, and even truck traffic. Hennelly: The truck traffic, we discussed in one of the meetings about the utilization of no truck signs being placed at every access point on Old Farmington Road at the developer's expense. Morgan: I don't know that that would be effective. Hennelly: No, they don't have to abide by the speed limit that is posted out there either. Talk to me about the benefit of this traffic study. What am I trying to show with it? Morgan: We would like to know what type of traffic development, traffic will be generated from this development onto Old Farmington and review the existing conditions. Hennelly: What level of service it is at and what level of service it will be at after we get this done and what improvements will need to be made. Morgan: Not only adjacent to this property frontage but the whole length, possibly down to Shiloh. We need to evaluate off site improvements that we may be looking at. Commercial Design Standards, I have several comments on that. Since you are not submitting elevations or anything for buildings two and three we need specific elements that should be brick materials, how much brick is going to be on the front facade, the facade facing Sixth Street, how many windows, what the color scheme is. Elements such as columns and whether or not that is going to be a recurring theme. Is there going to be a certain type of architectural design that is going to be consistent? Setbacks from Sixth Street, we are not in support of the 10' setback. We would like to see a minimum of 25' between the right of way and the parking. Hennelly: I thought we talked about this at the meeting that we had prior to doing this. Part of the reason for doing this as a PZD is you guys said you liked seeing those buildings pushed up for the streetscape. Technical Plat Review Committee May 18, 2005 Page 34 Morgan: That is something that we are encouraging downtown but on a highway with the high volume traffic coming through, 10' or 20' away from the building may not be suitable. Hennelly: Morgan: Brent O'Neal I guess I'm just a little confused because it was a specific point of discussion. I would have never put those buildings as close to the street as I did had that not been suggested during the meeting. We like to see buildings closer to the street than the 50' setback, just not 10'. I think it would lend itself to a potential dangerous situation. I can think of a car jumping a curb right there and crashing into the building. That is a recommendation. If you would like to see them that close you can continue that but we recommend 25'. I am just going to let you take a look at these other comments because they are pretty lengthy. Engineering? — Staff Engineer O'Neal: Hennelly: O'Neal: You need to include a floodplain statement and label the floodplain. A floodplain development permit is required and an elevation certificate must be submitted prior to issuance of building permits. Permanent erosion control needs to be shown for pipes discharging into the creek. At the southeast corner, the property, is there any reason why you are not dedicating to the Master Street Plan? If you will look just to the west of the main entrance, we are proposing 55' right of way dedication. For some reason in the break down of this property over the years, that jog right there was never dedicated. We will need to see a 6' sidewalk along Old Farmington Road. Show sidewalks continuous through the driveways at both access points. Depending on how this is going to be broke out, we will need to be sure that we have water and sewer services to any lots that are developed. If building two and three become lots in the future, we just need to make sure that they have individual access to water and sewer mains. It is just however your client sees fit to realign the property. We will need to see individual water and sewer taps shown for the town homes. Also, check the downstream capacity of the sanitation sewer. I believe it connects to a large main not too far from here so if you could just provide that information. I think your grading is ok. We also need to see the grading within the detention pond, the outlet structure shown, how the water gets out. I am still in the process of reviewing the drainage report. The rest of the comments are standard comments. Technical Plat Review Committee May 18, 2005 Page 35 Kyle Curry — Fire Marshal Curry: I talked to you yesterday about FDC and sprinkling one building and fire alarm protection. I can get with you later today. Matt Mihalevich — Parks Department Mihalevich: Jim Sargent The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommended money in lieu of land, these are 14 townhouses, single family units for a total of $7,700 due prior to signing the Final Plat. — SWEPCO Sargent: Hennelly: Sargent: Boles: Hennelly: Morgan: Boles: We will be looking for some utility easements, but we can discuss those later. There are probably going to be some significant revisions to this. On the town homes I just need service on the Old Farmington Road side of those, a 20' utility easement there. Probably some sort of easement along Hwy. 62 but we will probably see this one again and be able to talk about it some more. I believe I have a gas line down there already, I haven't had a chance to look at it, but if that is the case, it will have a fairly wide easement on that line. What is the intended use for Lots 1-14? Town homes. They are four and five unit buildings so there will be four units under one roof and the property line runs down the middle of the walls in between them. At this time I think your applicant is going to come through with a Large Scale Development to develop this as one piece but then come back through and split the units. Of course, we would probably need an easement on the north side of those retail spaces to service this to the rear. You are showing 16 retail spaces there now? Hennelly: Yes. All your guys' stuff will need to be along the back with how much space off the building would you need? Technical Plat Review Committee May 18, 2005 Page 36 Sargent: If we just set a transformer somewhere along this west side of the building, then they would have to remove their services from the transformer. Boles: I'm probably looking at setting a double service on every other retail space wall down through there so eight double loops on the north side of that building. Morgan: Revisions are due next week by 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday. Meeting adjourned: 11:20 a.m.