Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-09-14 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, September 14, 2000 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN FP 00-3.00: Final Plat (Summersby, pp 410) Forwarded Page 2 LS 00-30.00: Lot Split (Palmer, pp 572) Tabled Page 14 LS 00-29.00 & 33.00: Lot Split (Pursley, pp 140) Approved Page 27 LSD 00-27.00: Large Scale Development Forwarded (Emad Damen Duplex Units, pp 364) Page 45 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Lee Ward Laurel Hoffman Bob Estes STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Tim Conklin Sara Edwards Ron Petrie Chuck Rutherford Kim Hesse Kim Rogers Page 1 Perry Franklin Subdivision Committee • September 14, 2000 Page 2 FP 00-3.00: Final Plat (Summersby, pp 410) was submitted by Chris Brackett of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Mark Foster for property located south of Meandering Way. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 40.23 acres with 52 lots proposed. Hoffman: Good morning. I would like to welcome everyone to the September 14, 2000, meeting of the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee. Before we begin, I would like to personally thank staff and Planning Commissioners that filled in during my absence in the last month. We had some very long and unknown arduous meetings and projects that came before the Commission went quite smoothly. I wanted to congratulate everybody on that and thank you. That being said and out of the way, we have four items on the agenda this morning. I will run those briefly to make sure we are in the right place at the right time. We have the Final Plat for Summersby, Lot Split for Palmer and Pursley and a Large Scale Development for Emad Damen Duplex Units. The first item of business is FP 00- 3.00 which is a Final Plat for Summersby submitted by Chris Brackett of Jorgensen & Associates. Tim, would you like to start off with this one? • Conklin: This is a Final Plat. Before Summersby, it was also known as Marvin Gardens. It was reconfigured and resubmitted as Summersby at the Preliminary Plat. That was approved on June 24, 1999. There is a connection to the Boardwalk Subdivision to the north and Meandering Way and Ridgely Drive to the south and east which intersects with Highway 265 providing two ways in and out for the subdivision. At final plat level we are basically looking at what was required at preliminary plat and checking for compliance with what the Planning Commission approved. Typically, we do not discuss future street connections or alignment. Just to remind the Subdivision Committee the streets are in or are going to be in prior to Planning Commission so all the infrastructure is pretty much in place at this time. Conditions to address and discuss, number one is the determination of sidewalk placement throughout the subdivision. The applicant is proposing to have sidewalks constructed adjacent to the street/curb instead of providing the six foot green space as required by code. The Planning Division doesn't support this. It's our understanding that a street right-of-way is required to be graded out completely to the fifty foot width which should provide sidewalks and the green space. Number two, the applicant is using a wooden electric pole for a street light adjacent to lot eight, down at the southeast corner instead of the decorate type light pole that is typically used throughout the subdivision. This is an existing pole that currently is on this property. Staff is in support of allowing them to put a street light up on that pole instead of having an • Page 2 • • Subdivision Committee September 14, 2000 Page 3 additional pole at that intersection. We have requested a copy of the contract with the electric company for the installation of street lights in the subdivision for proof of payment required prior to filing the final plat. Street lights are a City requirement. This is a fairly new condition. You might not have seen this before. Talking with Sara who makes sure all the improvements are in, this is one improvement that is required by code and if its not guaranteed by some manner and if something ever happened with the developer, we wouldn't be able to get those street lights in. We just want proof that the contract has been signed and that payment has been provided to the electric company. Payment of $74,258.41 for off-site drainage. That was assessed with the approval of the preliminary plat. The applicant has agreed to contribute to the drainage improvement project for the Boardwalk Subdivision and a culvert under Ridgely Drive. The rest are Standard Conditions of Approval. That's all that Planning Staff has at this time. Hoover: Thank you very much. We will go on down the line then. Chuck, do you have additional comments or can you elaborate on the sidewalk? Rutherford: There's no need to elaborate on that right now because I don't want to discuss the whole issue but one thing that has been changed on this, one thing I have in front of me now that's different then all the plats previous, it was on all the other ones shown with the green space as required up until this plat. Hoover: It changed quite recently? Rutherford: It changed after our last meeting. The last time they were here at the Plat Review. Hoover: Ron? Petrie: I've got some clean-up items on drainage. Just on several of these easements, you have the line extended on one side and not the other. You're just kind of leaving them open. Hoover: Drainage easements? Petrie: Yes ma'am. Hoover: I have a question. This is not where we were showing some drainage and some setback lines. I was reading through the Plat Review minutes and I'm maybe confusing projects. We don't have any drainage shown in building setbacks. • Page 3 Subdivision Committee • September 14, 2000 Page 4 • Petrie: It could be this one but the original plat, the drainage easements ended at the building setbacks. My comment was that easements need to be extended through. Since we combined these two, you can just remove this line through here. That's all I have. Hoover: Do we have anything else on the table with the payment of improvements with the drainage problems on Boardwalk or is that all agreed to? Petrie: It was agreed to when it came through as a Preliminary Plat. Hoover: So it's on the plat? Is it memorialized somewhere? Petrie: I guess you can say no other than in the Conditions of Approval Engineering would get the check, make sure it's been paid for. Conklin: It won't get signed off until they pay. Hoover: Jorgensen: Hoover: Petrie: Hoover: Hesse: I assume you guys are through negotiating on that? Yes. We got that one moved. Do we have any other drainage issues? No, ma'am. Kim? I need to go out at some point. Is the right-of-way very well marked? Jorgensen: The crew has been working on it. I think by now, it is. You are talking about the property lines? Hesse: Yes. Jorgensen: In fact, what we would like to do is have a meeting, when you have a chance, either this morning or this afternoon with Chuck and talk about the sidewalks and see if we can take care of that problem. Hesse: At the same time what I would like, from the Plat Review minutes, I want to • Page 4 • • Subdivision Committee September 14, 2000 Page 5 Petrie: Hesse: Petrie: In the right-of-way. It won't be the City's responsibility to remove the right-of- way. review the tree removal in the right-of-way prior to signing the final. Should we just have that added onto the plat? I know we have done that before. About tree removal? Hoffman: Does that continue to apply as the subdivision fills out and moved into because in older areas of town I guess when the big trees fall the City comes and takes them. Hesse: The reason we do that is because we do try to save several that if Beth was there, she didn't make them remove to try to save them but they try anyway and a lot of them did a lot of damage. We wanted to give them a chance. That may be the same case here. Conklin: Has the right of way been graded out completely? I guess it hasn't been. Rutherford: No. Maybe Dave can answer that question better than I can. Jorgensen: To give you a little history on this, the reason the sidewalk is showing the way it is on this plat is because Mark Foster, the developer and Chris, the contractor met with Kim and Chuck out there and we came up with this plan wherein we showed the sidewalk behind the curb and going around these vanhalls as shown on this plat because two reasons, one of them is, we felt we could save more trees by doing this and number two... Conklin: Jorgensen: Conklin: Jorgensen: Conklin: Jorgensen: Four in the entire development? Pardon? More trees or four trees? More trees. Not Just four but more. The whole thing is covered up with trees. Okay. The other reason is, you may recall, this is real steep terrain and when you have a • Page 5 Subdivision Committee • September 14, 2000 Page 6 • Conklin: Jorgensen: Conklin: Jorgensen: Conklin: Jorgensen: Conklin: Hoffman: Jorgensen: Conklin: cross slope and trying to go six feet behind the curb and then a four foot sidewalk and you try to grade behind the curb 1/4" drop each directions creates a problem for two reasons. One of them is saving more trees and the other reason is to accommodate the grading on a cross slope, we came up with this plan. We thought that we had this approved but there was a misunderstanding so what we are going to do is meet out there and see if we can take care of this problem. We are willing to work with the staff and with the City within reason. As you can imagine, flat ground there is no problem putting the six foot green space in but when you have a cross slope that's 15%, it's hard to grade into the hillside 1/4". You heard the story before. I understand that but that's why I thought we required the grading to be all the way out to the right-of-way in order to avoid that problem. That was just the cost of doing business in Fayetteville. That way you get the sidewalk in. It will be done before it's signed off. What will be done? The grading all the way out to the right-of-way. That's going to remove the trees then. Wouldn't it? Well the trees that we can save, we are going to save them. Okay. And meander around those trees. Right. Here again the whole reason for the sidewalk being directly behind the curb when you have the steep slope, it's because we were trying to avoid having to grade it out the full ten feet and then grade back 3 to 1 slope behind the sidewalk. We are going to meet out there and see if we can take care of this problem. To answer the question about the grading all the way within the right- of-way, no, it's not completely done but we were headed in the right direction until we ran across this problem about six feet of green space. I'm not trying to be too strong on this whole issue but Chuck picks me up every other week and this is an issue, especially on existing streets because if you don't Page 6 Subdivision Committee September 14, 2000 Page 7 Jorgensen: Conklin: Jorgensen: Conklin: Hoffman: Jorgensen: Conklin: Jorgensen: Hoffman: Ward: Hoffman: Estes: grade it out, you can't get your sidewalks in. Oh yeah. It's got to be done before it's signed off. We understand because we had this problem with Covington. If you don't design, engineer and grade it properly, you are always going to have that problem getting your sidewalks in because most of Fayetteville is not flat. That's the only issue that I have. We have the standard. If it's determined that it needs to be six feet of green space and four foot sidewalk then the grading will be done all the way to the right-of-way or it won't be signed off. If we are allowed to go against the sidewalk then that's another thing. If it's two feet behind of green space or three feet or whatever we end up with, that's the reason we are having the meeting. This is not an isolated incident. I understand. I really am for trying to work with the terrain and the trees and understand that you can't exactly do the sidewalk where it's supposed to be every time but we need to strive for where it is technically feasible to get it done. Right. The intention is good but when you have a steep side slope it's hard to make that six foot of green space and four foot sidewalk We are going to sure try to do that. Actually, the main route from Boardwalk down to Ridgely that's no problem, we can get that. That looks feasible. Very likely, the route eastern street Amber Wood, no problem there. Where we have a problem is on the western street Mockview where it's got that steep side slope. You need to label these streets. They are. Sorry. So, where are we on condition one? Do I understand that we are going to get Page 7 Subdivision Committee September 14, 2000 Page 8 Jorgensen: Estes: Jorgensen: Estes: Jorgensen: Estes: Jorgensen: Estes: Jorgensen: Rutherford: together with Chuck? Right. So we are going to meet out there whenever they are able to today and solve this issue. What you are telling us is on Amber Wood and Summersby the sidewalks can be constructed to code but when you get over to the western exposure of the property you can't. Right. That's the one that has the steep side slope on it. If you do the fifty foot grade then what's going to happen? Are you going to leave those lots with just a cut terrace or what? No. If you over here on Mockview if you give a fifty foot graded right-of-way, what's the front of the lot 18, 19 and 20 going to look like? Well, if we are required to go six foot of green space and then the four foot sidewalk, according to the City requirements, we are supposed to grade back from the back of the curb downward into the hillside. So, as you can imagine, it makes a bad situation worse by doing that. Whereas, if we can put the sidewalk directly behind the curb on this particular street right here, we can minimize that problem and then go back into the natural slope quicker. The combination of that side slope problem and being able to save some extra trees is why we are asking for this. If you comply with code then what's that cross slope going to look like? What's the front of lot 20, 19 and 18 going to look like? It would probably be, if we are not allowed to go a one to one slope or something very steep like that then we will probably have to have a keystone wall or something like that. It creates a problem for sure. I would like to comment on that too. Talking about the curb. Anytime you do that you are also asking for problems even though maybe you are solving some of your problems you are also creating some other ones. When you move that up there to the sidewalk like that, that's still a right-of-way. You still have a Page 8 • • Subdivision Committee September 14, 2000 Page 9 Hoffman: Rutherford: Estes: Rutherford: Hoffman: Rogers: Hoffman: Conklin: Hoffman: Conklin: Petrie: waterline through there, we just dealt with this in Covington the last two days. The homeowner bought a lot up there and it's the same scenario that you are talking about. It sits way up high and cuts off. Their assumption was by seeing the lot, they thought they could put a retaining wall. Just by seeing the lot like that, a retaining wall where that vertical cut was and it turns out if the waterline is all the way under there, that's at the City right-of-way. Inside of where the sidewalk is? In the green? Yes. In other words, they thought they could do that and now they can't. That didn't help them out at all on their lot because they are going to put in a retaining wall they have to go outside that waterline. Also, when you get to your driveway, those sidewalks will have to go back on each one to make them work with ADA I just wanted all of this to be out there that you are also creating some things that are hard to work with plus your ADA is harder to meet for the sidewalk and curb. This is all when the sidewalk is contiguous to and next to the curb? Right. Okay. There is one staff member I didn't get to before we jump to the sidewalks. Kim, do you have anything at all on this? No. Okay. It does appear that the sidewalks are a major issue in my mind. Is there anybody from the public that would like to address us on this project at this time? On Final Plats, they are not notified. Okay. I guess in my mind, I'm not sure without actually going out and looking at these lots personally, in order to move the project along, I need to poll the other Commissioners, are you comfortable with letting staff work this item out? Making the approval subject to that? I think it has to go to Planning Commission because the final inspection hasn't been done and the streets aren't completely in. Is that correct? The final inspection has been done. • Page 9 Subdivision Committee • September 14, 2000 Page 10 Hoffman: So we can approve it at this level. Conklin: Did it pass? Petne: It's not necessarily a fail or pass on final inspection. Hoffinan: We can take it to the Planning Commission but if it's only contingent on this one item that we can work out. Rutherford: One thing that I would like to see, if we do get away from what our Master Street Plan is, green space, sidewalks, I would like to see it come back to the Subdivision. I'm not comfortable with making that decision out there in the field. Then you get into the POA moving in and we were expecting this and this is what we got. Conklin: I would be much more comfortable at Planning Commission level. 1 don't mind as staff trying to work some of these issues out but then it's just one staff member and we have to deal with all the pressures coming from the developer too. I don't mind doing that but sometimes it's a lot better to do in front of the Commission especially since it was a requirement of Preliminary Plat. That's the only thing that I've been frustrated with this past month. There's always one issue that comes up every month and then the sidewalk issue of what's shown on a Large Scale Development or Preliminary Plat, they show these sidewalks meeting our standards and then when they actually get ready to go out there and construct them, they can't because it's too expensive because they are going to have to grade it, they are going to have to build a retaining wall and those type of issues. Chuck does this every day but the ones I've been involved with, we are trying to figure out is $30,000 too much to require them to grade it out or you make them spend $30,000 to do it. Hoffman: I want to be consistent with our ordinances and you are exactly correct that it shouldn't fall on you to make decisions on variances on those. The other side of the coin is it seems to me the waterline, the Covington waterline situation is an excellent example of what can happen. Steeply graded lots or lots that have been graded to the point of right-of-way and then are regraded when they are sold right? Is that something that could be worked out? Jorgensen: No. What we would like to do is grade all these lots before they are sold. So that this problem doesn't occur. This has something to do with money but not near • Page 10 • • Subdivision Committee September 14, 2000 Page 11 compared with practicality. We are talking about something that if you have 15% grade or even steeper than that and you require a sidewalk to be built ten feet away from the back of the curb with the sidewalk lower than the top of the curb on a hillside, as you can imagine, you are digging into the hillside and you are making a bad situation much worse. If I have to come up here with some cross sections to visually show this, I can show this. Hoffman: That would help. Jorgensen. It gets to the point beyond reason to expect a sidewalk to be six foot behind the curb. If you want to put it in the category of ordinance or whatever that's fine with me. If we have to bring it back to the Subdivision Committee or the Planning Commission. Hoffman: I'm really usually in the mood for moving things forward. Ward: Why don't we just make a motion? All I would say is to go ahead and move this on to full Planning Commission Final Plat 00-3.00 with the idea that we want final ideas from Chuck and so on at that meeting and also you can probably give us some kind of showing of design on how it's going to lay out. Couple of staff comments was close up the lines on the drainage to even it up on the plat and also to put in there on the plat the developer to move the dead trees from the right-of- way. I think that best thing to do is just to send this to the full Planning Commission and let everyone on the Planning Commission make a final decision on that after the staff has been out there and you have been out there, both ways and bring it to us and we can make a final decision. That's my recommendation. Estes: I'll second that. Hoffman: I'll concur. It would have been helpful at this level to have sectional drawings. If you will provide those as soon as possible to staff and at the meeting. I guess today you are not going to have those, you will be out there looking at it. Estes: We've already had the motion and second here and been passed but I would be curious why the previous plats show the sidewalk in compliance with the ordinance. Jorgensen. Previous plats showed them exactly the way they are. The comment over here under the notes stated that they were six feet behind the curb and that's what was • Page 11 Subdivision Committee • September 14, 2000 Page 12 • Estes: Jorgensen: Estes: Jorgensen: in error. We came up with this plan after we met with Kim and Chuck out there on the job and we thought we had an agreement going right here. It was all for saving the trees and the practicality of having a sidewalk on the side slope. Are the subdivision notes on this plat correct? The notes state as the picture shows. The sidewalk is directly behind the curb. The previous plats we've seen had the sidewalk six feet back? The previous plat you saw at Plat Review had this picture, in other words, the sidewalk directly behind the curb but the note said that it was six feet behind the curb. That's what was in error. Rutherford: I had one comment about seeing the sidewalk below the curb. Our requirement is 2% above the curb. Okay. 1/4. 1/4" per foot above the curb not below the curb. Jorgensen: Rutherford: Jorgensen: Rutherford: That creates even a real serious problem on the downhill side too. It compounds it because you are going up further and then you are going down. I'll have to disagree with you on that because many places when you have major rain, 3 or 4 inches in a day, lower that down to that level those houses have been flooded. Jorgensen: I agree with that but as you can imagine. Rutherford: Jorgensen: 2% above the curb takes care of that because in many places where it's been constructed the way you are talking about and they have gone back and tore them out and rebuilt them to the sidewalk standards. Brookbury even has some that are like that. Right but as you can imagine the driveway to get down to that downhill lot makes it worse if you are going to have to go up and then back down. See what I mean? It has it's pros and cons for sure. • Page 12 • • Subdivision Committee September 14, 2000 Page 13 Rutherford: Hoffman. Rutherford: Hoffman: Rutherford: Hoffman: Petrie: Rutherford: Petrie: Hoffman: Rutherford: Hoffman: Conklin: Hoffman: It's a safety issue for the people buying the lot. Are flat curbs still permitted in Fayetteville? Flat curbs? Flat curbs. Where you have the street and then the concrete on these steep, we used them in Austin a bunch on these steep developments. I don't know what you call them. Curbs all the way through, in other words, everywhere is flat. Then the drainage is natural. I know drainage is a big problem in this development. Would that mitigate any of these problems? It would create more. It allows people to put a driveway wherever they want to for one thing. Unless you are using that road as a channel to handle. Is that something we can ever look at to help the drainage around here? Streets Division does not like those. I do know, when you do that, you are allowing somebody to put a driveway wherever they want to. Not necessarily. You have one curb cut. I'm saying you still have a sidewalk and you still have the requirement. It's a moot point on this obviously. Dave, if you are going to be saying that the purpose is to save the trees and then you also said you are going to grade it out to the right-of-way as part of the requirement, I would be interested to know how many trees are going to be saved or what is being saved by not meeting the standard. If we are going to talk about trees being saved in the right-of-way. Thank a lot. Thank you everyone. We'll see you at Planning Commission. • Page 13 Subdivision Committee • September 14, 2000 Page 14 • • LS 00-30.00: Lot Split (Palmer, pp 572) was submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter & Hodges on behalf of Larry Palmer for property located at 6290 Danita. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 1.46 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 0.83 acres and 0.64 acres. Hoffman: Our next item is Lot Split 00-30.00 submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter & Hodges on behalf of Larry Palmer for property located at 6290 Danita. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 1.46 acres. The request is to split the lot into two tracts of 0.83 acres and 0.64 acres. Tim, can you fill us in? Conklin: We originally looked at a Preliminary Plat. This property was split three times or two times before and they wanted to create two lots. They withdrew that and came back with a Lot Split request to split it into a .83 acre tract and a .64 acre tract. The numbers aren't the same on your plat. Lot one is .56 acres and lot two is .72 acres. Staff is recommending approval at this level. Conditions to address and discuss this moming include a sewer line that must be installed and inspected prior to plat being stamped approved and that's in order to provide sewer to lot two. Our Fire Chief, Mickey Jackson, is requesting a fire hydrant being installed at the corner of Danita Street and Lewis Woods Lane. It's presently a non- conforming situation on these streets through the lack of hydrants in this area. There's a memo from our Fire Chief with regard to this Lot Split. Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator is requesting a four foot sidewalk be constructed through the driveway only at this time of the development. We are not asking for a sidewalk to be built but when the driveway is built for the new house basically you will see an area that a sidewalk could be connected up to that driveway and that's all we are asking for that. Staff does not recommend any street improvement to Danita Street. It's currently 16 1/2 feet of asphalt. Widening the street in this location wouldn't serve any purpose. It's been there for quite some time and is functioning adequately to serve that neighborhood. Those are all the conditions we have on this Lot Split. Hoffman: Are there houses all back through here? Conklin: Yes. Hoffman: It's all developed? Conklin: Yes. Further back in there. There's houses on both sides. This is basically in -fill Page 14 Subdivision Committee • September 14, 2000 Page 15 • development on that street. Hoffman: Okay. Anything else? Conklin: That's all I have. Hof man: Chuck? Rutherford: No comment. Hoffman: Those driveway locations are not going to be shown until building permit? Conklin: That's correct. Hoffman: Ron? Petrie: No comment. Hoffman: Kim? Hesse: No comment. Hoffman: Kim? Rogers: No comment. Hoffman: Okay. Looking through the Plat Review notes I didn't see much except the fire hydrant and the sewer line. Are you all in agreement with the Conditions of Approval? Palmer: No ma'am. I'm Larry Palmer. The owner. I have issues with both the items that we have discussed. As he explained, we have to start out to a two lot split in an area that is now a single lot. Hoffman. You are going to make four Tots? Palmer. Three instead of two. The house on the corner is mine. We would keep that lot and I was going to split into separate building lots adjacent to that. As we got into it, staff informed me that we could not do that. I would have to go, because of • Page 15 • • Subdivision Committee September 14, 2000 Page 16 previous splits, we have to go under subdivision guidelines. I got into subdivision guidelines and was informed that street lights would be required, a fire hydrant would be required along with the sewer line reconstruction and everything else because of subdivision requirements. I already had an offer and acceptance on the lots to be sold if I could get them split into two like that. Basically, I already had them sold on that stipulation for $30,000. These improvements that would be required because these two lots would be deemed a subdivision came to over $15,000 estimated. That cuts my money in half to sell two lots. That's not a good deal. I had to cancel my offer and acceptance that I had them sold and decided to try to come back and do away with the expenses under the subdivision guidelines and make a single lot our of it with one lot split. When I walked in here this morning, I was handed this that informed my that the fire hydrant is now still going to be required. The street lights evidently not going to be required under a single lot split. So I'm back to a $4,000 expense to put in a fire hydrant to serve the entire neighborhood that's been there for 25 or 30 years without a fire hydrant because I'm the last lot left to be developed. I'm going to have to incur the entire expense of a fire hydrant and installation. I think that's unfair and unjust. The Fire Chief informed us there is no City ordinance requiring the fire hydrant to be there. It certainly is preferred. It would be preferred to have one on every street corner in town, I'm sure. You wouldn't go in and ask the last property owner to develop in that area to incur the entire expense because of that. I don't believe that's fair. No one on the street has demanded it, there's been no uprising by the residents suggesting they need one immediately. If I hadn't made this request for a lot split there would have been no request for a fire hydrant. The other item is the sewer line relocation, the same explanation I just gave you, expenses for a single lot sale, I can't incur roughly a $5,000 expense of relocating a service line when I'm not going to be developing the property, I'm just selling the property. I made a suggestion, ran it through the City Attorney. The City Attorney approached Mr. Petrie about an easement that we can grant covering that sewer line. It's a service line from the far edge of the new lot to my existing house on the comer. It runs across that property. As it stands now, before the final approval would be given to this lot split, the sewer line would have to be located. It requires me to do have the expense of the relocation. My intent and the only way I can come out of this economically is to leave the sewer line relocation for further development, whatever time that may be. It may be a year, it may be ten years, I don't know. We offered to do an easement covering that sewer line for any future development that would take place on there, the sewer line would be taken care of, covered with the easement. I own the other property so I would be giving the easement for myself to myself but whatever. When I sell that property, • Page 16 Subdivision Committee • September 14, 2000 Page 17 • the easement would cover the commitment of the new owner. Hoffman: The added sewer line is currently existing on Lewis Woods? It looks like right here. Palmer: No. It starts at the southwest corner of the new lot. The far southwest corner of the property. It runs at a diagonal toward the northwest corner of the house. Conklin: Right now, it's a service line. Carter: That's an existing manhole the service line runs at an angle to this house that's existing. It would have to be relocated. Hoffman: From over here to get there. Palmer. Our best estimate is a $5,000 expense which again throws me back into a non- profit situation, trying to sell a piece of property. Again, I ran this by the City Attorney yesterday and he spoke to Mr. Petrie yesterday or the day before and Mr. Venable yesterday about it. A legal easement would cover any future question with a stipulation that it would have to be relocated if you are going to build on top of it. It's a state law as a matter of fact. These two situations put me in an unfair position where I can't come out on trying to sell the piece of property through the regulations and requirements. Hoffman: Okay. To address your comments, Tim I'm going to need some help but if this is the first lot split. Conklin: This will be the third. Estes: Why is it the third lot split? Conklin: We had two previous lot splits. Hoffman: You had two larger tracts and subdivided them? Palmer. I didn't. No ma'am. I was not involved in any other lot splits. Hoffman: You bought those after the property had been split? • Page 17 • • Subdivision Committee September 14, 2000 Page 18 Conklin: We researched it and there was other splits. That's when it came up. Hoffman: I've been in situations like this and not been able to move forward for one reason or another because of the subdivision requirements. It seems to me that the issue of the sewer, I notice condition number two "Arkansas Health Department permit for individual sewage disposal" is that referring to the possibly of a septic or am I on the wrong one? Conklin: You are on the wrong one. I think our reports are mis-stapled out of order. Flip over to Palmer LS 00-30.00. I'm sorry about that. Hoffman: That's okay. Nonetheless, is this lot too small to put a septic tank on? Conklin: We can't put septic if you are in a certain distance of a sewer line. Hoffman: Okay. Conklin: Septic is not an issue. The sewer line, Ron, correct me if I'm wrong. Petrie: I'll be glad to address that sewer line. Like Mr. Palmer said, me and Jim Beavers and Mr. Venable, Jerry Rose, we all did get together and discussed it. We had to get clarification from the Health Department and they specifically told us it might be a state law. Hoffman: An easement cannot be done? Petrie: Right. Hoffman: Because it crosses private lot lines? Palmer. Because it crosses what? Petrie: Yes. I have a copy of the act Act 402. All premises shall be connected to the sanitary sewer when within 300 feet is available. Said premises connection can be made without crossing another person's property. The Health Department specifically told us that. Estes: Let me see that Ron. • Page 18 • Subdivision Committee September 14, 2000 Page 19 Palmer: If there is no other... Hoffman: I know what you are getting at. Palmer. At the time of new construction it would be relocated and conform with the law. This covers an easement until the time that other construction would take place. Hoffman: Is there a way to cut off and make part of where this has to jog up this way just keep this part as tract 1 and still meet the tract 2 requirements for street frontage and stuff. Conklin: As long as you have 70 feet of frontage which he has quite of bit of frontage. Hoffman: That 179, if you are talking about coming up into here or somewhere in to bring the sewer line to a certain point and you just leave this southeastern corner on your lot that way you wouldn't have an easement you would just have a direct connection to the sewer for your lot and for their lot at roughly the same location. Palmer: I think that would be detrimental to the sale of the lot if it's weird shape. I'm not opposed to doing that but all I'm going to gain is about 30 feet of saved distance from going around the corner there 50 feet. Hoffman: That would be a considerable savings though, then the cost of the sewer. Palmer. And there has to be a manhole installed also, at the comer. Edwards. You could do a property line adjustment when someone bought it and built and moved it. Hoffman: Are you talking about the same kind of thing. Edwards. Yes. He could go and split it like that now and then once the line was moved, he could do a property line adjustment. Conklin: You want to try to get your line on that piece of property. Hoffman: I'm just saying, the lots been sold, you have a buyer? Palmer: Not anymore. I lost out on that. Page 19 Subdivision Committee • September 14, 2000 Page 20 • Hoffman: If that could help mitigate your situation on the sewer, it sounds like we have ways to at least help somehow. It sounds to me like we are bound by state law and subdivision regulations and in my knowledge we have not ever given variances on subdivision regulations for them. There are requirements for them. Conklin: An idea of water and sewer to try to get that to each lot meets state law even on lot splits. Hoffman: I'm in definite sympathy with your problem, I understand it completely then at the same time everybody is bound by the same rules and everybody, at least me personally, have bumped up against them and had a couple deals not work out. Palmer: I'll have to let my attorney inquire about the state law. I haven't heard about that before. Hoffman: We're definitely in the City limits here. This is not County? As for the fire hydrant, I'll just throw this out, is there any president for the City sharing half of the cost of the fire hydrant? Petrie: Not to my knowledge. Hoffman: That would have to go to City Council as a request and all kinds of stuff probably. They have a set budget for their improvements. Typically, your coming to Commission with your request for this, it's your property and you are seeking to improve it so usually you get to put those improvements in associated with it. I don't mean to sound at all unsympathetic to the plight but at the same time I kind of feel like our hands are a bit tied on this one. Anymore suggestions? I'll take public comment if anybody is here to discuss this. Yes sir, can you come up here and tell us your name? Franklin: My name is Scott Franklin. My parents own the property directly across the street from this proposal. I sympathize with Mr. Palmer as far as the expenses related to the development. I agree with him to a certain extent that it's not fair. Having lived and grown up in this neighborhood and seeing the development. The last two houses that were built, it probably should have been addressed then about the fire hydrant and some of these issues. It's water under the bridge. Hoffman: How long ago were those houses built? • Page 20 • • • Subdivision Committee September 14, 2000 Page 21 Franklin: It's probably been there for 7 or 8 years Palmer. Less then 10 years Franklin: My parents own the second house that was built in the subdivision. They moved in 1976. I know the history of the neighborhood. The last two houses that were built, I don't think they responded to anything on that. They wish they had. My question for Mr. Palmer is more related to intentions, if this does eventually get approved. There's no restrictive covenants, there's no size restrictions, there's no exterior siding restrictions. The last two homes that were built are not full brick. All of the original houses including Mr. Palmer's homes are very nice houses. They are not real big houses but it's always been a nice little neighborhood. I wouldn't want to see 1,000 square foot vinyl siding house go up across the street. That's one question. Another question, I think is kind of answered to his intent to sell the property, I didn't know if he was going to. The property he has there now is a rental house, frankly that's a problem. There is college students that live there. There's been some parties, donuts cut in my parents yard and beer bottles scattered around the yard. Meanwhile, my children, my parents grandchildren, ride up and down the street on bicycles. Those are some questions that I wanted to get answered. My parents are out of town and asked me to represent them. Hoffinan: The Subdivision Committee does not address those kinds of questions. I can refer you to code enforcement division. The secretary is right outside there. I would encourage you to talk directly about it. He may not have been aware that the college students were doing that. See if you can find a way to work those kinds of questions out. There's no restrictions that I'm aware of. If there's not a restrictive covenant to do with the subdivision in place that we would have anything to say about the size or the materials built on the house. Palmer: This is going to be a lot split rather than what was going to be a subdivision technically. I guess there would have to be covenants then if I did a subdivision. Conklin: No. Palmer. No? Conklin: Unless you want to voluntarily do that. Hoffman: Some of them do them. Boardwalk subdivision has them. It may even be that Page 21 • • Subdivision Committee September 14, 2000 Page 22 you would want to put your own covenants in to protect the property that you own next door to it in some way which you are perfectly capable of doing but there's nothing before us that addresses that. I suggest that you have a discussion afterwards about the renter problems and then go from there. Franklin: That's all I needed. Thank you. Hoffman: That leaves us with a question of what to do about this. I don't see this one going forward for approval based on these rather significant questions. I'll entertain some motions or further discussion at this point. Estes: I would not be in favor of approval. With that said I guess we could forward this to the full Commission but I don't know what that is going to accomplish unless you want another forum. Ward: I think the best thing to do is table it and a couple of things you might want to consider is you might approach the City Attorney with the idea of maybe a cost share on the fire hydrant out there. The other thing that might make it work, what Sara brought up is some kind of lot line adjustment later on. There again, you are still going to have to, I don't think there is any way you are going to get away with leaving that sewer line going right through the middle of the lot. Move the sewer line, add some sewer line then cut across here or something like that and then do a lot line adjustment. The lot you are selling off is 3/4 of an acre so it's a pretty good size lot. You could do some adjusting. We are all trying to get you where you have something that's usable or sellable or whatever you want to do with it. Back when that was put through, somebody instead of trying to take it down the street and then go up they just put the cheapest way up but that's not our problem. The sewer thing is probably the biggest deal with me. I can even probably forgo the fire hydrant but the sewer thing will always be a mess if you don't get it done right. Palmer: You can see my dilemma. Ward: Sure. Palmer: I can't sell it until I get it split. Ward: Our problem is, we didn't buy the property. The sewer line was there when you bought it so it was something you should of considered value wise and that these • Page 22 • Subdivision Committee September 14, 2000 Page 23 issues were going to come up. Sometimes you don't think about those things, I know I wouldn't have. Hoffman: I would have seen a nice big lot and a gone "That's great." Palmer: Since I owned it, I couldn't imagine why there would be a stipulation working against myself that I couldn't divide it in half and without some easement or whatever legal step I could do to assure later on it would be fine. Hoffman: Let me just back up and redo this. There's no sewer line on Lewis Woods that he can use at all? Carter: It runs behind. Hoffman: Okay. So it's all here. Carter: It runs across to that manhole. Petrie: If I could add one thing, we are talking about sewer but we are talking about telephone lines, we are talking about electricity. He didn't have that for these lots when those come through they are going to need to run the same. Hoffman: The same thing. Ward: I'm going to move that we table it and maybe we can work with the staff. Hoffman: Call the Mayor's office or something. Ward: Something comes from better solutions that would help us. I don't believe it would pass through Planning Commission if we can't do it at Subdivision right now. Conklin: City Attorney has been working on it, the City Engineer, Public Works Director and if you like I could request Mickey Jackson to attend Subdivision Committee too. Hoffman: I'm curious about that because a fire hydrant is a good thing. The owner's and everybody's insurance rates. If the City sees that. • Page 23 Subdivision Committee • September 14, 2000 Page 24 • Palmer: I'm real tickled about everybody else. Hoffman: What I'm saying is that if the City sees that, I think in some way there is some direct analogy with the City's rates too so maybe that would be a point of discussion. Conklin: I would be more then happy to have Mickey Jackson here. I feel somewhat like you guys do, you have these recommendations from these other departments that's not even part of Public Works, I would rather have Mickey Jackson. If you are not going to require it or whatever, why don't you have him come to this meeting and you can hear from Mickey Jackson and what he has to say about it. Palmer. Can I pose a hypothetical question. Do you think if I spoke to the entire Commission that there might be a remote chance of doing away with the fire hydrant requirement? Estes: I see you have two options. I can second Mr. Ward's motion to table it or you can go to the full Commission if you feel like you want another forum to present your views. If you do that, I personally am going to be in favor of requiring the improvements. I want to research this statute before I firmly commit to what I'm about to say but that statute says what Ron's represented it says and I have no reason to question what Ron has said. The cite that he had was an Arkansas Statute Annotated which is our old statutes and I just want to assure myself that it's in full force and affect now. If it says what Ron read to us, I'm going to require the sewer line and this is a pretty compelling memo from Mickey Jackson and he references the State Fire Code and I also want to look at that. If it says what he says it says and if our Arkansas Code now says what Ron read from an excerpt from the old Arkansas Statute Annotated, I'm going to require the sewer line and fire hydrant. I'm going to argue that in front of the full Commission. Palmer: I would appreciate a table of the situation then because I can't do those things and sell it. I'll just sit on it forever and ever. Hoffman: You can come back to us anytime if you can find some resolution to it. If the Commission turns you down then you have all this appeal process. Ward: We want you to be able to use the lot, sell the lot or do what you want to with it but we also have to make it work for everybody. • Page 24 • Subdivision Committee September 14, 2000 Page 25 Palmer. I've already got almost $4,000 expense at this point. Trying to go around in different circles. To do the improvements as outlined here before I sell it is out of the question. Ward: I understand. The only thing you possibly could do, like you did before, you might be able to get it under contract and then drop back for a final decision. It's a very desirable area to live and one thing about it, the kind of price you are going to have to get for it, I think I can tell whoever is going to buy it is going to be a pretty nice home because you are not going to build a shack on that kind of value. Palmer. With the expenses I'm going to have in it, in your position you can understand that. For that area, I already had it priced at the high side of vacant lots. I can't add 8 or 10 thousand dollars. Ward: That's a very desirable area and lots of large trees. Hoffman: It will continue to appreciate certainly. Palmer. I'll just have to sit on it at any point in time when I decide to sell the existing house and leave it as one piece of property and maybe I can come out financially better. I can't do these improvements and have any profit. Estes: Larry, all three of us have dealt with this. Sometimes you buy a big property and as you know it depreciates in value. Other times whether it's code or ordinance or surrounding neighborhood you end up not being able to make as much off the property. I've been in that spot. I have sold property. I sold a piece of property down in Dallas and walked away with a $7.20 check because of these kind of issues. Franklin: Larry did not buy this property. This was his mother's property. Ward: We understand. Palmer: I'm not trying to get rich off of it. I don't want to give it away either. Ward: It's a nice place. It's a great place to live out there. Hoffman: I'm sorry we couldn't help you today. • Page 25 Subdivision Committee 410 September 14, 2000 Page 26 Estes: I'll second his motion. Hoffman: I'll concur with that. We'll just table it for the time being and hope that we will see you back if you can make any headway with it. Estes: I was just glad to get out of the trap. I didn't want the cheese. I was so thankful. Palmer. Yeah. Thank you. • • Page 26 • • Subdivision Committee September 14, 2000 Page 27 LS 00-29.00 & 33.00: Lot Split (Pursley, pp 140) was submitted by Joanne Pursley for property located at 4337 N. Old Wire Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 10.70 acres. The request is to split into three tracts of 5.00 acres, 3.63 acres and 2.17 acres. Hoffman: The third item on our agenda is Lot Split 00-29.00 and 33.00 for Pursley submitted by Joanne Pursley for property located at 4337 N. Old Wire Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 10.70 acres. The request is to split into three tracts of 5.00 acres, 3.63 acres and 2.17 acres. You have septic tanks? Pursley: We have one septic tank where our home is. Hoffman: Right. I was Just making a Joke because I was looking at the other. Pursley: I thought that was what you were doing. I thought you were looking at the wrong one. Hoffman: I'll let Tim make his presentation, we'll ask for staff comments, then we will bring back to you for discussion. Conklin: Just to start out, I must say Joanne Pursley, the applicant, has been through a lot. She bought this property how many years ago? Pursley: It's been 18. Conklin: 18 years ago. Pursley: But it was out of ignorance. Conklin: Thought that it was split already. Pursley: I thought it was three separate lots. Conklin: Three separate lots. They assigned one parcel number for tract one and tract three over at that County. She owned tract two with her house. Pursley: We bought this originally, that's all we could afford. The people owned all of this and somehow or other... You know the deal. • Page 27 • • • Subdivision Committee September 14, 2000 Page 28 Ward: Yes. I sold the property like three times. It was thirty years ago. Pursley: I was in your office. The way they did this, we swapped them five acres for this and then they said they had to have the money for this so we came up with it. Anyway, when we bought it they put those two together on the same parcel. I don't know how that screwy thing happened. We didn't have a lawyer. We went to a real estate office but I don't know how all this happened. Conklin: What I'm considering one tract, three different times. I don't have any records of any of this at City Hall. Ward. I might have some records Pursley: I wondered about that. Conklin: If you have some records, share them with me because I have been through a lot trying to find anything on this. Hoffman: No title company was involved? Just contract sales? Pursley: I went to his office. Ward: That was eighteen years ago. I sold it two times before that like twenty-five or thirty years ago. It seemed like it was split up. It's in the Springdale school system right? Pursley: Yes. Conklin: It's way northeast of town. Hoffman: Are you close to the botanical garden? Conklin: No. Ward: This is way out on Old Wire Road. Conklin: East of 265. Hoffman: I know where you are. Okay, I got it. I have a friend on Butterfield Coach. Now Page 28 • Subdivision Committee September 14, 2000 Page 29 I know where we are. Conklin: So, I've charged Ms. Pursley two lot split fees. I asked her to bring them through. I didn't have any record of them. Did the title company catch this when you were trying to sell it? Pursley: Yes. We actually had a buyer for the two and we were going to closing and that week they said "Guess what? This is connected with that. These two are connected. How do you have those two connected lots on one deed? We can't sell it like this." That is when it all happened. Conklin: Now, we are before you today with three lots from one tract of land, that's how I'm looking at it. Basically, the conditions are to get County approval and then proof of Arkansas Health Department permit for individual sewage disposal system. Pursley: What does that mean? • Conklin: Septic systems. Make sure that they perk prior to filing the lot split. Pursley: We have to pay for those to be perked? Conklin: You need to make sure that they work and I'm recommending that they do that. Hoffman: She could write it into the contract for the buyers to do it. Pursley: That's what I thought and he's using that for pasture. Conklin: It's not by ordinance. My concern was, when I met with the County, I think the County is going to require that you get that. Edwards: It's a state law. Conklin: Under ten acres. Washington County is going to require that. Once again, I just wanted to make sure that you can get a septic system on there. Pursley: We have a septic system here but these two, we are required to have those perked? We spent $1,000 for a survey twice. We had to survey it twice for you guys. Also $400 for the lot split, which was already split but we had to pay for that. • Page 29 Subdivision Committee • September 14, 2000 Page 30 • How much is a perk test, $1,000, $2,000? Conklin: $300 to $400. That's a recommendation. If this Committee doesn't want to follow that, I'm not trying to punish you or anything. I'm dust trying to make sure that if you sell tract one and three that when they go to build a house on there or whatever, that you get a perk test. Hoffman: Can we make a requirement that before they get a building permit that they get a perk test? Pursley: These people are using it for pasture. Hoffman: But they could build a house anytime. Pursley: That's their situation or the man who owns it has pasture. He has this and this and he's using it all for pasture. I don't know what he's going to do with it someday in the future. People who have horses were looking at this to put horses on it. Estes: I guess Tim, the problem we have is that before the lot split is filed of record we have to have a certificate? Conklin: So if you put it up for sale, you get a contract signed or whatever, they can go out there and make sure they can get a house on there and hire someone to do the perk test and submit that to Little Rock, Arkansas Department of Health and say "Yes, it will work." Then they will bring their deed in and we can stamp it and we'll have the proof of that perk test being done. It doesn't have to be done today. Ward: Is one of the adjoining owners buying the property? Pursley: Yes. Ward: Why don't you just do a lot line adjustment? Pursley: We couldn't. Ward: Why not? Pursley: We tried. • Page 30 • • Subdivision Committee September 14, 2000 Page 31 Conklin: It's a contract for deed and it's not currently showing over at the County that he owns that piece of property and the title company had a problem with that too. Hoffman: He's buying it but he's not but it's not his? Pursley: Right. He's lease purchasing. Estes: Is that Mr. Baird? Pursley: Mr. Stith. Conklin: I thought that was the answer to all of these problems. We tried that. We were so close and the title company caught the contract for deed. Ward: There's nothing recorded at the courthouse that he's buying it? That he has an interest in that property? All he has to show is an interest. Pursley: He has that. He's been paying taxes on that. He owns this right here and this right here. He's been paying taxes on this forever. I went over to his house and he had a stack of tax receipts for all this property. He has been. Ward: There should have been a notice recorded at the courthouse showing that he was buying that property. Pursley: I don't know about that. Ward: Just a notice on file that he's buying it on contract. Conklin: I don't know how it works either. Pursley: That would have been the easiest way and we could have finished this last month. Ward: Then you wouldn't have all this. Pursley: That's right. Estes: That's a good suggestion, if it will work is just have Mr. Stith file a little 8 'A by 11 piece of paper with the deed records in the Washington County Circuit Clerk's office, just a memorandum of land sale contract or escrow contract. • Page 31 • • Subdivision Committee September 14, 2000 Page 32 Pursley: How are we going to get him to do that? Estes: Wait a minute. Before you do that, here we are giving legal advice and real estate advice, before you do that, be sure it will work. Go to your title company. Ward: Find you a real attorney. Estes: Yes. Find you a real lawyer and a real realtor. Pursley: I'm dealing with Heritage Title Company and I think they know that I said we were going to do the property line adjustment here and then that would avoid and we wouldn't have to do the perk test and all that. Conklin: No. Pursley: Then I could get the money back? Conklin: That's all you were trying to do originally. I'll be more than happy to give you your $200 back. The title companies have really cracked down on this. I'm starting to get to know everybody at the title companies by first name these days. They call me up when they are trying to close property. Pursley: Who do they file this with if he's able to do this? Estes: The memorandum of escrow contract? They file it with Washington County Circuit Clerk. Ward: It's a very simple document. In fact, it's unusual for it not to be filed. Estes: It should be a paragraph. Pursley: I don't understand. He owns all kinds of property back here. I think he doesn't know what's what and some of it wasn't free and clear I think he owns so much property. Ward: Estes: It still wouldn't have to be free and clear. My understanding to do a lot line adjustment it just has to be spread of record and that just means filed. It will be just a three or four line document and it will have • Page 32 Subdivision Committee • September 14, 2000 Page 33 • Pursley: Estes: Pursley: Estes: Pursley: Estes: Pursley: Estes: to have the legal description on it. That's it? Yes. That's it. A title company knows that? Yes. A title company can practice law and do that for you. He owns this and he owns this. He was going to do it on this piece here. Do you have a lawyer? Yes. Why don't you get those through him? Just go see your lawyer. Hoffman: Let me, at this point, just hop through the rest of things. Does any staff member have anything to say about this? Rogers: No comment. Hesse: No comment. Petrie. No comment. Rutherford: No comment. Hoffman: Any member of the public? Alright, I'm going to bring it back to the Planning Commission. Have you given her the proper direction to go? Tim, can we work with the new program? Pursley: What does it require? What's going to be the least amount of time? Conklin: The Property Line Adjustment is $200 too. My thing originally was, you came in here and you were trying to transfer this piece of property. Then we came up with the lot split and you were trying to create this lot over here. Well, really three Tots because you want to sell these individually by separate deed. We ended up with a Page 33 Subdivision Committee • September 14, 2000 Page 34 • lot split. Heritage Title, they didn't like that idea so I don't know what it's going to take. Maybe they will listen to Lee Ward and Bob Estes, I'm not sure but they tried that so I'm concerned that you will be right back before us. Pursley: That's what I'm afraid of too. That's why I'm asking you right now, what would be the quickest way to do this without the mess. Conklin: The quickest way is to go forward and create separate deeds, in my opinion. Hoffman: That does not preclude her option of going back to the title company with the lot line adjustment. Pursley: I'm afraid that it won't happen and that's why. Estes: The quickest deal is to approve the lot split? Pursley: That's what I would like. Estes: You are going to have to do the perk test. Pursley: I do have to, I can't get around that. Ward: What it does for the realtor when you selling, it makes it much more valuable. Estes: You will recover it. Pursley: How long does it take to get a perk test? Do you know anything about that? Estes: A couple of days to get somebody out there. Pursley: I have to do this side and this side right? How long? Petrie: A week. Conklin: Then it takes about two or three weeks from Little Rock to get your permit. I can look at that perk test all day and I don't know what it means, how fast the water is going down the hole, if it works or not. It's not my job. Pursley: The Planning Commission is meeting here on this again in two weeks? • Page 34 • Subdivision Committee September 14, 2000 Page 35 Hoffman: We can approve this at this level. Pursley: If you approve this now, then I just get this stuff back and then it's done? Is that what you are saying? Ward: We can go ahead and approve it and still you can do that alternative, which I think is going to be the best thing, is the lot line adjustment. Pursley: I don't know if it will go. Hoffman: We are going to split it which ever way she goes with it. I do see some public input if you do have legitimate comments. Pursley: Are you all familiar with the Windy Hill addition over here. Ward: No. Pursley: The reason I asked you that is, this is a farm kind of on a raised area across the street over here at this development. They are five to seven acre estates and I understood they had trouble perking but they put half million dollar homes over there so obviously somehow or other they figured out how to make them perk. What is the deal about that? Hoffman: It could be the size of the lot. Pursley: Five to seven acres? Hoffman: The size of the septic field. Pursley: So if it doesn't perk right or something then you just have to have special regulations when you put your septic in? What if it doesn't perk? You don't care? Conklin: I care. Pursley: What I'm saying is, does it depend on how they build their septic system? It's up to them? Conklin: Under our Subdivision regulations we are supposed to have either sewer or septic • Page 35 Subdivision Committee • September 14, 2000 Page 36 system. Hoffman: In the growth area. We can have either. Conklin: Yes. Sewer you have to get special approval from City Council. If we are creating the lot that you want to sell. I heard this argument before that it's just going to be pasture or farmland or whatever but I'm sure if someone comes up to you and they want to buy this lot for $100,000 and build a house on it, we need to make sure that we didn't create a piece of property that can't be developed. Ward: Kind of like this guy to the west, he owns this lot which is really nice Mr. Palmer, you dust heard all that, then all of a sudden he really has an unusable and un - sellable lot. Pursley: Unless he does something to it. Ward: If he spends a lot of money, maybe more than what the lots worth. • Conklin: I'm dust trying to figure out, how do you know it's going to perk? Pursley: I don't. That's what I was asking you. I heard their story over there. Conklin: I'm asking you as the developer to hire someone to go out there and dig the hole... Pursley: Who's going to make it perk? Conklin: Fill it up with water... Pursley: It's who you know. Conklin: Then you have to submit your findings. Pursley: You get a good engineer and you are in the system when you are ready to build the house. You recommend somebody to do that? Conklin: They have to be licensed. Pursley: So whatever the specifications come back from the sanitation person. Basically you just want the test. • Page 36 Subdivision Committee • September 14, 2000 Page 37 Conklin: No. I want the permit. You need to figure out what kind of system you need for a house on that lot submitted to the Arkansas Department of Health. Estes: All that she needs to do now is, you have to have proof from the Arkansas Department of Health prior to filing of the lot split. Conklin: Yes. Estes: She needs to get the perk test done and she needs to send it to Little Rock. Conklin: That's correct. Estes: Then designing the system. Pursley: That's not my problem. Hoffman: That's not your problem. • Conklin: That's not what our ordinance requires. You need to go out there, you need to say it's going to be a three or four bedroom house. Here is where you think it's going to be. Pursley: If nobody's buying it and I don't know if there is a three or four bedroom house and it's a horse pasture, how can I do that? Conklin: We are creating lots here that have to be able to have a disposal system. Pursley: If you don't know if there's going to be a house, then how am I supposed to show you that? Estes: This brings us back to the lot line adjustment issue. Pursley: What would you say about that? If I get a perk test and it comes back and I give it to you and you are saying what? It doesn't fit what specifications? Estes: Let me say this, what you are asking us to do right now by this lot split is to create three separate lots that have the potential of being used to build a house on it. Pursley: Or whatever somebody wants. • Page 37 Subdivision Committee • September 14, 2000 Page 38 Hoffman: The highest and best use is eventually going to be a house. Estes: Our ordinance requires that before we do that that there be proof from the Arkansas Department of Health for an individual sewage disposal system. That has to be in Tim's hands before the lot split is filed. Hoffman: That is very preliminary in nature and it would happen no matter what. I guess you have not been to the County yet? The County is going to say you need a perk test. Pursley: Actually I did go to the County. Hoffman: Have you been through their lot split process? You still have to. Pursley: They looked at this information and told me I just have to fill out some paperwork and it would take about ten minutes. Hoffman: Tim? Doesn't the County have the same requirement? • Conklin: Yes. They are going to put a condition on there that you are going to have to have it. I'm trying to tighten up on this because I don't know. I guess if you were just selling property over and over again or deeds, how do we know it's going to be able to have a septic system on there? I don't know how to do that other than to require that. Estes: When you do the lot split we are not going to revisit this issue about the sewage disposal system in a sense. That's what you are asking us to do. I look at you this morning, I believe every word that you are telling me, that your buyers are going to use it for pasture. Pursley: Really I don't know what it is. Estes: It has the potential of someone going out there and building a home and that's why our ordinance says that before that lot split is filed of record that Tim have in his hand the certificate from the Department of Health. You are a very pleasant person and I've enjoyed the time we have spent here this morning, but I don't want to do this again. Pursley: I don't want to do again. • Page 38 • • Subdivision Committee September 14, 2000 Page 39 Estes: We don't want to go back. Hoffman: We don't want you in his seat when he comes in and says I bought this expensive lot from this nice lady and I can't build a house on it. Pursley: I guess I'm really questioning how these people over here managed to do whatever they did on their place. Hoffman: I would suggest you find out. If you know somebody over there, you can call them and say "Can you tell me about your septic system and how it works. What did you have to do and how much did it cost." Pursley: Well how they got it to perk. I heard they had a little trouble. I don't know why you have trouble or why you don't. Hoffman: I don't know. Petrie: Soil. Pursley: The soils can change from clay? Ward: If it's all clay, it's not going to perk. Pursley: Is that how it is? Conklin: I think it's possible to get the permit from the Arkansas Department of Health because personally my family has done it. We got two permits, my family has. They asked how big our houses are going to be and we filled the form out and how many bedrooms. You are going to have to guess. At least you know that you have a permit that you can have a four bedroom house on there or three bedroom. They do it by the number of bedrooms not by fixtures. Hoffman: I can't believe they don't do it by the number of proposed fixtures but that's okay. Conklin: It's by number of bedrooms. Pursley: Even though you are not planning on doing anything with it, you are just making something up? • Page 39 • • Subdivision Committee September 14, 2000 Page 40 Conklin: You can do that and then you know for sure when you go to sell it, you can tell that person buying it "Look, we know that you can at least get a four bedroom house on it." Pursley: Or a one bedroom house on it. Or a bam. Conklin: I think it's going to add value to your property. Pursley: I just wondered if it depends on what you say and who you get. Conklin: If they are licensed then the state is going to review it and they are going to have to issue a permit. Hoffman: I would like to move this one, we have a motion and a second. So we do have to do the perk test? That's what we are down to. Conklin: Yes Hoffman: With that being the case, is there any further comment? Commissioner? Estes: I concur. Hoffman: We'll send you on your merry way. Pursley: Okay. Thank you. Do I need to go over to the County and give you something? Conklin: We are going to forward this approval to the County. You need to apply to the County for a lot split. I don't know exactly if that's going to be administrative or have to go to the County Planning Board. Talk to Celia Scott-Silkwood over there. Pursley: Will you send all this information over so that they will have everything there? Edwards: Yes. It will take us a couple of days. We have to type up a letter to send them. Conklin: We'll send our information over. They may have submittal requirements but we are going to send our documentation over. Pursley: Everything you have so far is going over there then? • Page 40 • • • Subdivision Committee September 14, 2000 Page 41 Conklin: Yes. Pursley: Okay. So I don't have to double up a bunch of stuff. That's what I was wondering. The only thing you want from me then is the proof. Conklin: Yes. You are going to create deeds for these? Pursley: Right. Conklin: Okay. We are going to have to stamp those deeds before you file them. We want to make sure. Pursley: You want the perk for these and then I just go to the County and deal with them but that paperwork will be there in a few days. Conklin: Another thing Joanne, this could sit for a long time so if you have a for sale sign and have a contract on it and a person wants to build a house on it maybe your question to how many bedrooms and type of house and stuff can be answered at that time. Pursley: I have a buyer for this but it's pasture. I don't have any buyers on that. Just people who have been interested for horses. I have no buyers for that. Have you been out there? What are doing with that sign that's out there? Who takes it down? Conklin: We do. Unless you want to bring it to us. Pursley: I just wondered. I'm just trying to cover all the questions so when I go back I know what I have to do. Conklin: We're getting there. If you have any questions. Pursley: So I don't come back to that meeting in two weeks? Conklin: No. Estes: We just did that. Conklin: You're done. You officially got your lot splits approved subject to those Page 41 Subdivision Committee • September 14, 2000 Page 42 • • conditions. Pursley: There's only two things, I go to the County and I bring the proof? Conklin: Yes. Ward: Let me ask you one more thing. If you are doing a lot line adjustment. Conklin: No perk test on this lot three right here. Ward: You don't have to do a perk test on that lot Tim's not going to charge you the $200 for the filing fee Pursley: Really? Conklin: Yes. Ward: I still think all you have to do is get Mr. Stith to have a notice filed showing he has a ownership or interest in that property adjoining. Pursley: Who does he give that to? Ward: The County. Go to the County Courthouse Pursley: He goes to Washington County to show he has the interest in that and then I have to come back with a new piece of paper over here. Conklin: I can do it administrative. Ward: He can do that real easy. Conklin: I will make it easy on you. Pursley: So if I get this thing showing he has an interest, what's that thing called again? Memorandum contract? Ward: Yes. Memorandum or notice of contract. Estes: Memorandum or whatever it is Page 42 • Subdivision Committee September 14, 2000 Page 43 Pursley: Notice of? Ward: Notice of escrow contract. Estes: If that's what it is. It may be a land sale contract. Pursley: It may be. Ward: It's called Notice of Escrow Contract. Pursley: It's good to know this. Ward: He needs it anyway. Pursley: I hope to never have to know this for the rest of my life. Ward: If something happens, he doesn't show an interest to the courthouse, the people who own it now will have the security on it, they could sell it to somebody else and nobody could do anything. Pursley: Surely he has. He's a business man out there. Ward: It's not recorded though. It's not recorded or the title company would pick that up. Pursley: Isn't that strange? Ward: It's not abnormal. Pursley: It's not abnormal? Ward: It happens quite often. Pursley: So if I could get that and I could bring it to you... Conklin: Yes. Just bring it over to me. Pursley: That's after I go to the County. • Page 43 • Subdivision Committee September 14, 2000 Page 44 Conklin: Yes. Edwards. Make sure your title company will approve it though. Pursley: I'm going to call them when I get home. Ward: I can tell you, the property is going to be much more valuable to Mr. Stith in the long run if you do it this way. Pursley: He wants us to do it this way. I told him it would be easier for him. He would be happy for us to do it this way. Conklin: You got a lot. You got a deed. Pursley: Exactly. We've discussed that already. Ward. He's going to have to do all of the same things if he decides to do something. • Conklin: It's just a matter of time before that will happen. Especially up there. Pursley: That's what he says but I know what he's waiting for. Thank you. • Page 44 Subdivision Committee • September 14, 2000 Page 45 • LSD 00-27.00: Large Scale Development (Emad Damen Duplex Units, pp 364) was submitted by Shawki AI-Madhoun, PE of Northstar Engineering Consultants on behalf of Emad Damen for property located at 2309 & 2323 W. Deane Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 1.47 acres with 14 units proposed. Hoffman: We are ready for our fourth item on the agenda which is LSD 00-27.00 Emad Damen Duplex Units which was submitted by Shawki Al-Madhoun, PE of Northstar Engineering Consultants on behalf of Emad Damen for property located at 2309 & 2323 W. Deane Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 1.47 acres with 14 units proposed. Tim, can you fill us in please? Conklin: This is a Large Scale Development it was rezoned R-2 a couple of months ago. There was a Bill of Assurance at the time this was offered It's limited to fourteen dwelling units total. There is two existing single-family homes on this property. They are adding six duplexes. The two existing single-family homes will remain. The development is being considered as a multi -family project and that's important. Hoffman: Is that due to ownership? Conklin: That's due to ownership and because I had to make an interpretation here with regard to R-2 zoning and frontage requirement and what's allowed. Mr. Jim Lindsey's projects with his apartments, we don't require individual frontage for each apartment building. If he connected all these duplexes together and made these into apartments, it wouldn't even be an issue. It typically is an issue on duplexes because those are typically sold off separately. We are making the statement today and as condition number three that none of the units be sold off separately and no lots splits will be allowed on this piece of property. They are willing to accept those conditions in order to do this development like an apartment complex. I looked at it both ways, the benefits and the negatives with regard to R-2 development. Basically, if you put a covered walkway in between each duplex we would consider that a six-plex and it wouldn't be an issue. It would be like an apartment building. Curb and gutter will need to be removed through the sidewalk at driveway approaches up along Deane Street. Basically, we are talking about right here. You can't show that curb there. One parking space shall be eliminated. The total number allowed is twenty-four spaces which is an additional 20% allowed. The total number is twenty-nine spaces which will be allowed. The applicant has provided thirty. Those are all the conditions that • Page 45 Subdivision Committee • September 14, 2000 Page 46 we have on this project. Al-Madhoun: Can we keep the extra parking because I don't know where to take it off? We can make it un-isometrical I guess. Hoffman: We'll come back to that in just one bit. Chuck, do you have comments for us? Rutherford: Tim addressed one of them, to remove curb and gutter through the sidewalk area, in other words the curb and gutter will stop and start on the other side of the sidewalk. Also, it needs to be on there, the width of the green space somewhere. A minimum of ten feet. Also, the sidewalk meets the edge of the lake. That's it. Hoffman: Ron? Petrie: Turn to sheet seven on the building plan. I have several comments on the easement. We just need to make sure it may need to be wider. We need ten feet for sewer line. I have a comment on the sewer. You show it going under that detention pond. • Hoffman: Where is the detention pond? Al-Madhoun: On the south. Hoffman: In back? Al-Madhoun: Yes. Petrie: You have to do that. We will need that steel encased. I think you can probably place it on the west side of the pond and provide an additional manhole. You may want to look at that. Make sure you are aware. Al-Madhoun: Steel encased or concrete encased? Petrie: Not concrete. It has to be steel. Al-Madhoun: Okay. Petrie: On the grading plan, you still have a couple of setback issues we need •to discuss One is five foot setback requirement on cut and fill slopes. • Page 46 Subdivision Committee September 14, 2000 Page 47 Hoffman: What sheet are you on? Al-Madhoun: Sheet number four. Petrie: The grading will be requires five feet unless you have approval from the base requirement. Al-Madhoun: Terminate our grading point five feet from the property line? Petrie: Right. Cut and fill slope. Al-Madhoun: On the south and west? Petrie: Right. That's correct. I also have a requirement in the drainage manual. It requires twenty feet for the maximum ponding and detention pond in two directions. It looks like we are not meeting that. AI-Madhoun: I got the last unit is about fifteen to seventeen feet actually from the highest water surface in the pond. Hoffman: Is this pond only going to be filled when there is rain? Al-Madhoun: Right. When you have a rain fall event, it's going to hold back some of the flow. Petrie: Let me read the requirement. You are saying seventeen feet, I understand that. The requirement states "In no case shall a limit of maximum ponding elevation be closer than twenty feet horizontal being built." That's black and white. Al-Madhoun: I'll move the units farther to the north to make them twenty feet from the highest surface. Petrie: That's all my comments. Hoffman: I remember the property being discussed earlier proposals with adjacent owners being very concerned about the run-off from this. It could run straight back. It could continually run across the property line. Has that issue been satisfactorily addressed. It will need to be addressed prior to the LSD being approved. Petrie: Yes and yes. The original plan to leave the detention pond. A detention pond has Page 47 Subdivision Committee • September 14, 2000 Page 48 • Hoffman: AI-Madhoun: Petrie: Hoffman: Petrie: Hoffman: Hesse: Conklin: Hoffman: Hesse: been added since what we reviewed earlier. I think there are some things I still want to look at before I approve the drainage. They made an effort and added a detention pond to address our concerns. So you are okay with it in back of the property. Are the sides still an issue possibly? The east side? Everything is draining to the south. I did have a comment that I wanted you to see how much drainage was coming onto the property from the east. That's been added to the report. If there's not enough you can't do a sheet flow across. Anything else Ron? No. Kim? During Plat Review you made several comments about preserving all of the trees in the grading. I had a question about utilities in the ground. When you cross- reference your grading plan, utility plan and tree preservation plan, several trees shown for preservation are impacted by construction. You are showing some of trees preserved but I'm seeing maybe seven. Seven? I did ask at that Plat Review meeting because there was not a clear tree preservation plan in my opinion that addressed what was required Without that we can't meet the 20% canopy requirement. I've been out there and not all of the trees are really high quality. There are some that aren't. I can support going below that 20% but we do need to preserve those trees. It may come to grading changes but it's a matter of the water line being moved. The ones in green are the preserved trees All these trees are going to be gone. Same over here. This tree probably wouldn't make it. None of them would make it. This wouldn't make it because you have your detention pond there. This wouldn't make it because your building is actually there This wouldn't make it because there's two foot cut there. We are down to these. Maybe this one and maybe one of those. • Page 48 • • Subdivision Committee September 14, 2000 Page 49 Conklin: That's not meeting the ordinance. If you look on page 35 plat review minutes. I'll just read them again Hesse: I think they are showing 20% but that's not feasible. Conklin: What is the existing percent canopy on this site. Al-Madhoun: I believe 27% or 28%. Conklin: You are showing looks like 20% tree canopy but the Landscape Administrator is stating that it's not feasible to do that based on where the utility easements are shown. You won't count that. Is that correct Kim? Hesse: Yes. I'm not going to count that. Conklin: The question is what percent canopy are you going to show on this? Is it the 20%? Are you doing replacements? That's what I would like to know by Subdivision Committee. Al- Madhoun: When can I give you an answer to that? Conklin: Unless you can give it to me today. Kim will need that by when you turn your revisions in next Wednesday by 10:00 a.m. Hesse: You may want to look at redesigning, putting your sewer down the center and arrange some of the other utilities differently. You are going to be doing some rearrangement with parking. I've got to see all that's there. Conklin: All the landmark trees anything over 24" need to be labeled and shown on the plan. I read you these minutes because we have a tree ordinance, we have a requirement. It's zoned R-2 the requirement is 20%. I was concerned we don't have a clear tree preservation plan. I have no idea what percent trees are on the site. I have no idea what percent trees are being saved on this site. I have no idea what the replacement is. Hesse: They did show the rare trees. Al-Madhoun: I worked with Ron. I would rather save all these trees. If I can move my services to the middle because we have the electric and telephone. If we can choose which side they want to go electric or telephone I can use some of the green space between lines and my services. Hesse: I noticed on your electric plan you show utility easements down here. Is that electric and phone? AI-Madhoun: They asked for the easement. We showed that. Conklin: I guess my point is, I want to know what percent tree canopy is being preserved that meets the current ordinance that's not inside the utility easements? Estes: If we don't have a tree preservation plan that complies. Conklin: That's my question. • Page 49 Subdivision Committee September 14, 2000 Page 50 Estes: Hoffman: Rogers: I'm not prepared to approve this at this level because of that issue. Let me jump to Kim with Parks for a second and then we will come back to the tree issue because I think Parks is probably taken care of so she can go on. I just want to make sure, just want to put it on the record, on the agenda it says fourteen units proposed, two are existing and twelve are new. Is that correct? Al-Madhoun: Correct. Rogers: Hoffman: The parks fees will be the same. You've agreed to the parks fees? Al-Madhoun: Yes. Hoffman: Conklin: Hoffman: Estes: Hoffman: MOTION: Estes: Ward: I just wanted to take care of that and you can have a great day. Back to the landscaping. I'll just make one more comment and let Kim speak for herself. I find it very troubling to get this far along in the process and not have a tree preservation plan and have a design of a Large Scale Development that, after everything I've been through this summer, I just can't believe we get to this point. I'll shut up. That's okay. We are not going to have another Kohl's, I will guaranty that. At least not on our watch. Right? Can I make a motion? Would that be appropriate at this time? If you are ready to do so. I'm ready for it. I would move that we forward LSD 00-27.00 to the full Commission subject to all staff comments. I'm particularly going to be looking for a tree preservation plan that complies with City ordinance and that has Kim's approval Before I second that. It says allowable 29 parking places, he's asking for 30, are . Page 50 Subdivision Committee • September 14, 2000 Page 51 • these going to be three bedrooms or what? AI-Madhoun: No. These are two bedroom units. We have a floor plan in there. Ward: You really only need probably four cars per unit. One space I was thinking of, you have a dumpster sitting out there between five and six. You can take out one parking spot there. Make another dumpster area or something and not make that an issue. AI-Madhoun: That's fine. That makes sense. Ward: I'll concur on the landscape thing. Why don't you go ahead and read your own notes. I'll second before you concur you can go over all the little things. Hoffman: Okay. I'm fine with the motion as long as it does meet our tree preservation ordinance and that you fully understand that if it does not, I'm expecting that staff will give us a call or we will know by agenda session, we will remove you from the Planning Commission agenda. This property has been subject to neighborhood scrutiny and I really don't want anything else that will delay your process or upset your neighbors any further. With that being said, let me amend the motion to include the showing the ten foot green space on the sidewalk The sewer easement being adjusted to ten foot on each side ordinance requirement. The sanitary sewer is to be steel encased if it's under the detention pond. Also, the grading setbacks need to be five feet from the property line unless you provide written permission from the adjoining property owner. Twenty feet must be maintained between any building and the detention pond. To my understanding you have agreed that you will move the buildings to comply with this. You have the deletion of the one parking space. To show your landscaping and tree preservation will include a clear depiction of where the utilities will be and looking forward to moving those to the center. On that score, do we have to get back with all of the utility companies before he brings it to the Planning Commission to make sure everybody is okay with the one easement? Can that be done in this amount of time? Conklin: If he wants to work with the utilities after approval or whatever. It's in the copy of what's been approved, you can do that. It's going to be m your best interest to work with them. They were willing to work with this developer to get the utilities through conduits through the parking lot so I'm not worried about that. • Page 51 • Subdivision Committee September 14, 2000 Page 52 Hoffman: Okay. AI-Madhoun: The only problem we had was the gas company and the owner's said it's going to be all electric. Hoffman: That takes care of that. AI-Madhoun: Everybody else were fine with it. Hoffman: So this is subject to those additional comments and the standard staff comments. We will concur to move this to the next Planning Commission meeting. AI-Madhoun: Thank you very much. Edwards: Can I ask a question? Are you saying that if he has not preserved 20% you want it to come back to Subdivision? Hoffman: I don't want it to go to Planning Commission without it. • Conklin: It's going to have to be redesigned. You can't meet it. Hoffman: We are not going to do Subdivision Committee work at Planning Commission level. Conklin: I know there is a big debate over the percent thing. Kim, whatever recommendation you want to make that's fine, I'm dust saying for this Subdivision Committee, I think they need to know what the recommendation is and what they are going to be preserving. If there's existing 17% tree canopy or whatever it is and they are cutting down 10% of that, they need to know. Hoffman: If he moves the utilities to the center, that takes care of most of them except for the one with the two foot cut. You will have to recalculate. Hesse: We will have to recalculate the figures. I can probably be supportive of...well we should talk. There are some nice trees but they are right in the center. I don't know how you can design around that. Some of these trees along the perimeter really are not very healthy. To get the 20% you may be saving trees that are not worth saving. You will be giving up some optimums. • Page 52 • • Subdivision Committee September 14, 2000 Page 53 Hoffman: I'm not opposed to replace the trees. My suggestion would be, if we are losing some really nice ones that you work together and put in native species and give us some bigger replacement trees. If you can have a position memo ready for agenda session that would be helpful. Conklin: Just so staff is clear about this, are you saying it doesn't have to be 20% to come to Planning Commission? Hoffman: Let's not talk about having 10% versus 20%. I'm assuming we are going to come very close to 20%. Let me throw out an example, is the library going to be close to 20%? Conklin: No. Ward: I'm going to chain myself to all those trees out there. Conklin: Are we done? Hoffman: We're done. • Page 53