Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-11-02 - Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, November 2, 2000 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN LS 00-38.00: Lot Split (Wilkins, pp 221) Page 2 Tabled LS 00-39.00: Lot Split (Wilkins, pp 221) Page 2 Tabled LSD 00-31.00: Large Scale Development (Dixie Development, pp 176) Page 18 Forwarded AD 00-41.00: Administrative Item (Nantucket Apt., pp 563) Page 32 Approved w/conditions LSD 99-6.00: Large Scale Development (Millsap Center, pp 212) Page 36 - - Approved LS 00-27.00: Lot Split (Schmitt, pp 298) Page 40 Approved w/conditions MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT. Lee Ward Laurel Hoffman Bob Estes STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Tim Conklin Sara Edwards Ron Petrie Perry Franklin Kim Rogers Kim Hesse Chuck Rutherford • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 2, 2000 Page 2 LS 00-38.00: Lot Split (Wilkins, pp 221) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Gordon Wilkins for property located on Sassafras Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 3.86 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 2.0 acres and 1.86 acres. LS 00-39.00: Lot Split (Wilkins, pp 221) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Gordon Wilkins for property located on Sassafras Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 3.29 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 1.50 acres and 1 79 acres. Hoffman: Good moming, we are going to call this Subdivision meeting to order. This is the Thursday, November 2, 2000, 8:30 a.m. Welcome everybody we have six items on the agenda this morning, I went through them informally before, I will just go through them again real quickly. Two lot splits for Wilkins LS 38 & 39, a large scale development 00-31.00 for Dixie Development, an Administrative item 00-41.00 for Nantucket Apartments, number five is a Large Scale Development for Millsap Center regarding signs, number six is a Lot Split 00-27.00 which is a rehearing regarding a water line. Tim, if we can get started with our first item LS 00-38.00. Conklin: Sure. I'm Tim Conklin, the City Planner, we'll start out with lot split 00-38.00 submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Gordon Wilkins for property located on Sassafras Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 3.86 acres. The request is to split the property into two tracts of 2 acres and 1.86 acres. We also have a second lot split request in the same area and that request is to split 3.29 acres into two tracts of 1.50 acres and 1.79 acres. The applicant is requesting two lot splits. The applicant purchased this property in two existing tracts, that would be what they are showing as parcel A and parcel B. One parcel A was landlocked and did not have any access to the public street. Mr. Wilkins has filed a lot split with the County for tract 3 without approval of the City Planning or County Planning Board. It's built currently with a single-family home. There is a house under construction on tract two. Staff has received several call from neighbors in the area that are concerned with this proposed development, there is a letter attached in your packet. Staff is recommending denial This does not meet our suburban subdivision regulations with regard to minimum road standards and street frontage on an approved street. If you do approve this development, the conditions to address and discuss this morning include a condition that he will have to have Arkansas Department of Health approval and actual permit for septic systems on each lot prior to any lot split being filed, approval by the Washington County Planning Board prior to filing, 4" water line to be installed, inspected and approved prior to the lot split being filed, • • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 2, 2000 Page 3 determination of access and connectivity and requirements for the pavement width and right-of-way dedication. We've also included a copy of the County Public Road Standards. Staff is requesting that the Subdivision Committee makes specific findings with regard to access to the properties currently being provided through a twenty-five foot strip of land connecting to tract four. This making the southern existing tract shown as tracts three and four a tandem lot. Hoffman: Wait a second. Tracts three and four? Here's Sassafras Hill Road and this comes in and up and how does that make them a tandem lot? Let me explain the order that we go through. We will hear all the staff comments, the applicant will make a presentation, then I will take public comment, then I will close public comment and come back to staff and Commission. Conklin: A tandem lot is any lot that does not have the required frontage. Tract four already with twenty-five feet of frontage on Sassafras is considered a tandem lot. Tract three is a tandem lot behind the tandem lot. That's how we are looking at that. Under section 163.28 our Tandem Lot Development Ordinance, we do not allow a tandem lot behind a tandem lot. The applicant is proposing to end the right-of-way dedication at the beginning of tract three. Typically streets are required to extend to property lines in order to provide connectivity for future development. We have included that section 163.28 under Tandem Lot Development Requirements. It talks about, if you look under B2, the terrain of the area in which a tandem lot is proposed is such that subdivision of said area and to standard block in accordance with development chapter 166 is not feasible. That's what we look at. Does it fall off a cliff? Does it go down into a river or creek? Those are the issues that we typically take a look at. Connectivity, they are not showing any future connectivity access to the east. We have attached an aerial photo of this area If these are approved there will be no possible future connections for a public street. Staff recommends that if that is the case that no further lot splits be allowed on this property. Right-of-way and pavements widths, under our Design Standards 166.08(0(1), suburban lots are required to have seventy- five feet of street frontage on an approved street. Under section 166.04(b)(1) and 166.04(2) suburban subdivision or requirements for subdivisions not adjacent to city limits is to meet county road standards. The minimum required by the county is a sixty foot right-of-way with a twenty foot pavement width. The applicant is providing sixty feet of right-of-way to meet County regulations, however the proposed ten foot drive is not meeting the County's standard width for a public street. If it's a public street, it needs to be twenty feet. For your information, this ten foot private drive is existing. The applicant has planted many pine trees on both sides of this ten foot drive. With regard to the improvements the County regulates the street construction. Under page • • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 2, 2000 Page 4 four, design standards that's where we have the suburban minimum standard width of seventy-five feet. That's where that is coming from with regard to street frontage on an approved street. Overall, since May the City has had to look at these lot splits first and I have a set of regulations under the suburban subdivision that states that each lot has to have seventy-five feet of frontage on an approved street. That if it doesn't they consider a tandem lot like we consider tandem lots inside the City. That's what we are dealing with. This is a very difficult piece of property to development because he has twenty-five feet of property along Sassafras. He does not meet the sixty feet of right- of-way width and he doesn't meet the twenty feet of pavement width if it's a public street. I can't tell you what the County Planner would do or the County Planning Board. In the past I have seen many different lot configurations approved however, I am trying to enforce the regulations the City of Fayetteville has adopted for lot splits and subdivisions in the County. That's all I have. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them. Hoffman: Thank you very much. Ron, do you have any comments on this item? Petrie: Just one continent with regard to the water line. We do need a minimum of ten feet of utility easements on both sides of the water line. Hoffman: Where is the water line shown? Where does it come in? Petrie: It's shown on the north side of the driveway. Hoffman: It's within the easement but not ten feet. Petrie: Right. All the way through the twenty-five foot access area and also through the property itself. Hoffman: Anything else? Petrie: That's all. Hoffman: It looks to me, according to the aerial photo that this property is relatively flat. If that's the case we don't have a drainage issues. Petrie: County regulates drainage. • Hoffman: Okay. Chuck and parks won't have anything to say because we are in the County. Subdivision Committee Meeting November 2, 2000 Page 5 Conklin: No. They won't have any comments on this. Hoffman: At this point, let me ask the applicant. Dave, can you say your name please? Jorgensen: My name is Dave Jorgensen and I'm here to represent the builder/developer Gordon Wilkins. I guess I prefer to hear what the audience has to say before I say anything. Ward: At one time I had interest in parcel A so I definitely won't be able to make any motions so I will need to abstain from this particular one. Hoffman: It is going to take two votes to vote up or down on this item, is that acceptable to you if we continue or do you want to wait and get another person? Conklin: I think if you do decide to approve it, it's going to have to go to the full Planning Commission because of the variances. Hoffman: Should we not approve it, is that their appeal option to gostraight to the Planning Commission without the approval of the Subdivision Committee on something like this? County lot splits are quite new to us because we have not typically seen them before the County. Conklin: I think the entire Planning Commission should act on this regardless. Ward: Do we want them to go to County first? Conklin: Well, County said they want the Cities to look at these first. Jorgensen: It used to be the other way around. Hoffman: Let's Just assume this is going to the Planning Commission and not talk about any of the problems with the right-of-way widths and the density and stuff like that, it should go to the County before it gets to Planning Commission because we won't have the full picture. Conklin: Some type of coordination has to be developed and I'm going to talk to the County Planner and if we need to get our Planning Commission and the County Planning Board together to figure out what we are going to do in our planning areas, we need to, I cannot spend every week dealing with the people going over to the County getting one answer and then coming to us and I'm trying to enforce our regulations and they are • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 2, 2000 Page 6 saying at the County "this can be a family lot split or whatever and nothing has to be done." It can be an eight foot dirt path back there. Hoffman: The important difference is that this lies within our planning area and therefore is subject to certain subdivision regulations Conklin: Yes. I need to get the County on board with the City and make sure we understand what the requirements are going to be inside our planning area. I know what they are, they are in the book, they are in writing. I keep on having development after development submitted to my office. I have to keep on telling people "No." Hoffman: Okay. With that being said, what I would like to do is take public comment. Whoever would like to address us on this subject if you will come up to the table and identify yourselves and we will go from there. Yes, ma'am? Pringle -Young:: I'm Sandra Pringle -Young. We object to the division of this parcel adjoining our property and home. Two years ago we purchased our home on two acres that was split of a six acre parcel. That's the first and second diagram on your graphic there. The four acre balance was adjoined to adjacent property to "protect if from development". The case was the father was buying this property and then transferring the deed to his daughter that had this property right here. Hoffman: Let me ask, are these graphics representing the same parcel and this is the progression? What is this? Pringle -Young: Since we bought the property in 1998, this is the twenty-five foot access back into this property. Hoffman: This is your property Pringle -Young: This used to be one parcel and we bought this part and they transferred ownership of this one and adjoined it to this parcel. This is what Mr. Wilkins bought, this whole thing. In June, sometime between April and June, he had bought this property and I have a copy of a deed that he transferred ownership of this section right here to the Ward family. This is where the house is and the paved ten foot driveway goes all the way back to that property. This is today. He's got a lot of progression on a house started already. • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 2, 2000 Page 7 • Estes: Ms. Young, your property is where? Pringle -Young: Sassafras is on the bottom. Estes: Your property? Pringle -Young: Is this one. Hoffman: Let's look at the aerial photo and you can probably show us from that. Here's Sassafras right here Pringle -Young: This is our house. This used to be one total six acre parcel and they split off this part and sold it. The guy had it for like 30 days, bought the whole thing, cut off part of it to us and the rest was attached to his daughter's property. The four acre balance was adjoined to an adjacent property to protect it from development leaving it with only access to Sassafras Road by a ten foot driveway on twenty-five foot easement. Lee Ward handled the paperwork for the seller and found out just prior to our closing date that the title company required approval from the City and the County for this lot line adjustment. Since hearing that the property had sold and the single house on it had been split off this past spring, I have made many trips to the City and County Planning offices to try to find out what was going on. In June, the the City had a plat to view that included plans for three lots with $300,000 homes in addition to the home that had been sold already but the plat was considered lacking some necessary information before further processing. Later I was informed, when I called, that it had been withdrawn. Since that time, Mr. Wilkins has started a large house on this property and informed me he wanted to build a second one behind so he wouldn't have to mow it all. I suggested it didn't have sufficient easement. He said he didn't know what the state would let him do. I replied that I had been on the County Planning Board for most of the 80's and believed it was the City and the County that would have jurisdiction. Finally, last week we got our first official notification to be heard. In reviewing the lot split history, the first split added a four acre parcel to another creating one seven acre single ownership in 1998. Secondly the seven acres and home was sold this spring and thereafter the home on the one and a half acres was deeded off without benefit of review. We believe the driveway access and below standard easements to this property sufficiently restricts any further development of this property. Also, as an addendum, we would like the Planning Commission to consider the precedent that might be set by approving • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 2, 2000 Page 8 this development. Hoffman: Let me, at this point say, after we take public comment, Mr. Jorgensen is going to have a chance to respond to you. We don't typically carry on a conversational mode but if you have questions directly to him at this point, you can ask him now. Otherwise, we will just take you all in order. Do you have anything else to add to any of this? Pringle -Young: No Hoffman: Thank you very much. Danforth: Hi. I'm Diana Danforth. I own the property immediately adjacent to this property. It's 3490 Sassafras Hill Road and I'm the one that deeded the twenty-five foot access. I'm the one that put the letter in your thing so 1 hope you've already read it. Hoffman: Are you over here? Danforth: Am I over here? I'm right there. This is my property right. there. I deeded that access to the original owner's Scott and Tammy Baggett for use for them to use as a private driveway so they could pave it because it was a real muddy mess. When we did say, we had several conversations, they told me that they wanted it only for a private access. We put it at the twenty-five feet actually so we knew it was less than the County minimum for road development to serve multiple ones. When I wanted access to a shed that was adjacent, very near the boundary, they actually had me sign a legal document that I would not use that access for access to another residence. I think that's very clear, the intention there was to serve a single residence. My house is maybe twenty-five feet from that property, that access line. Multiple dwellings back there would really degrade my quality of life by having all the traffic, my estimation two to four cars per house back there coming past my bedroom window every day. I don't know even how the permission was given to build the house that is currently been built because we never received any notification at all that this was going to happen. This is my first chance as a neighbor to respond to any proposed development back there much less additional proposed developments. Hoffman: That's a good question. Let me get staff clarification. If he did not apply for a lot split and owned the property that none would be required. • Conklin: We don't issue any building permits. County doesn't issue building permits. If you own property and can get septic systems on there, there is no zoning or land use • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 2, 2000 Page 9 control. You can build as many houses as you want. You just have to meet the septic. Danforth: I'm sorry I didn't quite understand the implication for what I just said. Conklin: There is no zoning. No land use. No regulation of density, how many houses you can have per acre in the County. Danforth: Except for the septic systems. Conklin: Except for the septic. If you can get your septic systems on there and you can get the Arkansas Department of Health to approve them, you can build your houses. Where we come into play is when you want to transfer title/ownership of the land. Hoffman: That's what brought all this about because now we can't have, he wants to sell off these parcels separately. Danforth: He's already sold one of the properties. This is the first time I've been notified and it's • certainly the same property. • Conklin: We'll have to look into that and see what remedies we have. Danforth: To me there is one of two things that's happened, either he's already applying for a lot split which we were not notified of, by legal procedure I do believe and it was approved and he started the construction of this house on the approval of that lot split and therefore this would be his second lot split request within six months of his first lot split which would mean to me that it's a little bit devious if he planned to split and then split. I don't think that is very cosher. The other thing is he went ahead and deeded it and began building without approval and without going through the proper process and either way I feel that this is a real violation of our public trust. Hoffman: Tim, can you address the legality of the beginning of construction of the new house? Conklin: There is no lot split on this new house. We don't regulate that With regard to if there is a split of property that has occurred without our approval, I'll look into it and either prosecute, file a complaint or whatever with the prosecutor's office and see what we can do to get them into compliance. Estes: Tim, if I understand correctly, there is no zoning in the County, no density, it comes to us when there is a change in ownership. • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 2, 2000 Page 10 • Conklin: Yes. A transfer of property. Estes: That's why we are seeing this now. Conklin: That's correct. Hoffman: How close are you to the easement? Danforth: How close am I to the easement? Hoffman: What's the setback from the house to the easement? Danforth: About twenty-five feet. Estes: Ms. Danforth you said you had some warranty deeds with you. Hoffman: That were filed by Mr. Wilkins. Danforth: Yes. Estes: Do these warranty deeds purport the transfer of title and fee simple to tracts I, 2, 3 and 4? Danforth: No Estes: What are these warranty deeds? Let me look at them. These are not warranty deeds. Now you are showing me deeds. One warranty deed is from Mr. and Mrs. Wilkins as grantors to Mr. and Mrs. Ward as grantees and it is, what is this legal description? Is it tract 3? Conklin: What's the acreage on the deed? Hoffman: Is it 1.5 acres? It should say. Estes:- Tim, how could this happen without us seeing a lot split? Conklin: Someone prepared a deed and walked over to the County Circuit Clerk's office and • filed it even though under state law that is not allowed and there is a notice up there. Subdivision Committee Meeting November 2, 2000 Page 11 Estes: This deed I'm holding in my right hand? Conklin: I don't recognize that. Hoffman: It's invalid for our purposes. Estes: Do you have another deed that purports to transfer title and fee simple to tract 2? The one where the new construction is taking place. Edwards: I don't think he sold that yet. Danforth: No. He's still, I think, has ownership of that. Estes: That's one of the matters that is before us this morning. Danforth: Right and there is construction, as I said, on that. Conklin: I think the construction has no bearing on our decision. We are !ooking at these property lines. Hoffman: He could build an apartment complex. Ward: He could build ten houses as long as he kept ownership of all ten houses. If he wants to lease them out or something he could do that. Estes: It's titled and fee simple to tract 3 that needs our investigation. Is that correct? Conklin: Yes, I need to look into that. I am going to follow up on that. Estes: Ms. Danforth could you make a copy of that warranty deed and give it to Mr. Conklin? Danforth: Sure. Hoffman: It seems to me just with the information on the warranty deed and the consideration of it's validity that it cannot be forwarded to the Planning Commission at this time and we will need to rehear this matter. Does a title company have to validate a deed before it's filed? Conklin: I can tell you the title companies have been a lot better this year. They call me up right • • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 2, 2000 Page 12 Jorgensen: Hoffman: Kelly: Hoffman: Kelly: Hoffman: Jorgensen: before they close and say "Where is the approval letter? Where is the stamp from the City?" They have been doing an tremendous Job. It's a lot better. There is no way to police all that. That just happens. They are getting better at that. Five years ago you could have done this very easily. What I'm getting at is, I want to hear from everybody else here. Who else is here to address us on this matter? Okay. Ms. Danforth, do you have anything else to say? I have a direct interest in this too. I'm Frank Kelly, County Justice of the Peace for District 13. I live on Sassafras Hill. I have seen Dave on many occasions. I will take an issue with you; you do have some restrictive uses, restrictions on land out there if it does not perc by state than we don't get the state permit, than nothing can be built on one acre or less. There are some restrictions out there. I talked with Mr. Silkwood yesterday, she is the County Planning Director, she has no record of any of these transactions, to her knowledge. She told me she had no record of a variance that has been granted. The twenty-five foot easement, by County standards does not meet the thirty foot easement requirement for four houses or less for a subdivision in the county. That's about all I have. Mr. McClanahan had called me with a concern about it and he had gone to the County and did not seem to get any satisfaction. He had been to the City and he was just wondered where his protection was coming from. He had a concern, especially with a twenty-five foot easement filtering into a seventy-five foot street or sixty foot street whatever it is back there, the congestion and what safety factors might involve. That's all I have. They just asked me to come up here. He had asked me what I thought County planning regulations were stipulated. I just told him the only thing I think the County has is twenty-five foot, he's not in compliance with county planning regulations. It's not adequate for the street nor is it adequate for drainage. In the case where there is water available, do you stipulate fire hydrant protection or anything like that? No. The County does not. Okay. That's the only question I had. Yes? - Dave? Since I've heard from everybody, first of all I would like to apologize to the Subdivision Committee for all this confusion. The intention, believe it or not, was to submit something that satisfied the regulations of both the County and the. City. I met with the • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 2, 2000 Page 13 • • Planning Division twice and this is after a whole bunch of other things evidently took place prior to me getting involved. I met with Celia at the County level to see about the possibility of what this looked like to her and she did admit the twenty-five foot with access easement was subject to interpretation and realized that it would be nice to have 30, 40 or 50 but in this situation all they had was twenty-five and they would have to consider it when it was brought before the Planning Board so she couldn't commit or say one way or the other for that right now. The idea of the four lots with all of the easements and everything taking place and meeting all of the other comments, the whole thing was intended to try to streamline this thing so there wouldn't be this problem of making such a fuss over a little deal like this. I really am serious about that we wanted to make sure that we are trying to abide by all the rules and regulations and get the thing split, whether it's four lots or two lots. Basically what I'm saying is we are not trying to ram this through at all to make it look like this right here. I guess we want to withdraw the request naturally because it's all messed up and go back to square one and try to make it right somehow. I'll go back to the Planning department and see if I can get this thing brought before you so that it does meet the regulations of everyone, if it's one lot or two lots. Hoffman: I have a suggestion on that. Looking at the big picture of it, if you cannot have a tandem lot such as this, it would appear to me to meet the City regulations that lot four is either not buildable or has to be combined with lot three. Then it would also appear to me that it is possible with either Bills of Assurance brought forward by the owners or somebody that the house under construction, that would give you only two houses being served by this twenty-five foot easement. That is not out of the realm of reasonableness. It doesn't seem to me to be a great hazard but only with those restrictions that understanding that you have to meet the tandem lot requirements that you have one other house here that gives you a total of just two being served by this small road and that unless connectivity is provided at a future date, which you might want to include some wording into that, that the rest of this tract is not able to be developed. I think that serves the needs of everybody here. Jorgensen: The reason the right-of-way wasn't extended to the east is a pure and simple fact that there is just a twenty-five foot access drive and it seemed ridiculous to provide access to the east when all they have is twenty-five foot and that's all they can give you. That's the reason it.wasn't extended to the east. The whole thing is, I can see there is a lot of issues that have come up at this particular point that I did not realize. Under the situation, I'll just go ahead and withdraw this thing and go back to the Planning department. We'll get the thing right and resubmit it. • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 2, 2000 Page 14 Hoffman: Conklin: Jorgensen: Conklin: Is everybody with me on this on the two houses in the easement? I've met with Mr. Wilkins more than once and I told him what I thought they had to do to meet our standards. If we are talking about purchasing additional property or building streets. The purchase of additional property isn't going to happen. This is it. I guess basically we are king of lacking. I don't know why we are going to sit down in my office. Once again, Mr. Kelly, since we have changed over to the City looking at these first, every week we have people in my office Yesterday we were out on a site, walking around out in our planning area. No one wants to build any streets, no one wants to build a frontage and they all want private drives. That's all they want. Unless you can convince me that it's going to meet seventy-five feet on an improved street and that you got a street that meets County standards. Sara and I got the County regulations and we learned what your County regulations require, this summer. That's what I'm trying to use. Jorgensen: It won't have seventy-five feet of frontage because all I've got is twenty-five feet. Conklin: Hoffman: Kelly: Hoffman: Kelly: Hoffman: Well my ordinance requires seventy-five feet of frontage. It only allows one tandem lot. If you want to forward it to the County and see what the County Planning Board will do. That's what I want to do because we got two tandem lots, I don't see any way that we can legally do that. That would take an extreme variance. I can't speak for the County Planning Board but I think they have been circumvented on this whole property and I don't believe it is going to be passed by the Planning Board. It's going to go to them. No doubt. I don't think it will get approved. Just a second, I'll let you talk again. The point being is, if you want to withdraw and table, go get the County's take on it too. Jorgensen: I've read it and I talked to Celia so I know what the situation is and the house was • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 2, 2000 Page 15 Hoffman: Jorgensen: Conklin: Jorgensen: Conklin: Hoffman: Ward: Conklin: Hoffman: Conklin: Hoffman: started under construction prior to me getting involved. Right. Really, I don't care what happens on this thing, It doesn't matter to me. I don't know how to help you and your client. That's what I'm saying. How is this going to look different when we bring it back? Whatever you all want. You can't get seventy-five feet of frontage. You can. I'll tell you parcel B needs to be one lot. I've been involved with this from the beginning because I did own parcel A, or part ownership of parcel A and I was involved with Mr. Wilkins purchase of parcel B which was about three acres and his original intent was to build one other home on the property for himself with the intent that he was going to sell off parcel B probably but he wanted to build a house on parcel A for himself personally. He's kind of taken it a little bit further from that but with that twenty-five foot roadway I don't see four houses being back there. I guess you could do it. Like I said, if he just wanted to build some houses back there. That wasn't his original intent when he purchased this seven acres, I know that. Lorel, Just so I have some direction here. I don't want to be with Dave and Mr. Wilkins. I'm consistent in telling them what I think we need to do. You are looking at two houses and two lots. That's what you would like to see and a variance. I'm trying to accommodate somebody to make the lots usable. We may have to have some kind of a variance and I understand that. Yes. I think you would. I don't feel I can deny the use of this whole parcel based on the twenty-five foot easement but I also am very sensitive to these neighbors. I don't think it's unreasonable for them to have two houses. Estes: Your attempts at a compromise are volitable but let me say this, I don't see how in the • • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 2, 2000 Page 16 world you can do what you are suggesting and be in conformity with the ordinance. You are going to have one tandem lot behind another. Hoffman: No. I'm talking about parcel B being only one lot. 1 have one tandem lot with a substandard easement is what I'll have with one house. Estes: What are you going to do with tracts 1 and 2? Hoffman: That's going to be another lot. Estes: Aren't you going to have a tandem lot behind a tandem lot? Hoffman: No, because that's beside it. Conklin: If you want to make the argument that it's behind these houses over here. Estes: Let me just summarize Again, your attempts at a compromise I applaud but I see a tandem lot behind a tandem lot and I see a lack of the seventy-five foot frontage. Blessed be the peacemaker, sister but I just don't see how it's going to comply with the ordinance unless you got two variances. I'm not prepared to personally vote for those two variances. Hoffman: Nor am I before the County votes on it either. Estes: Well, we heard from Frank. Kelly: I don't think what we see is going to meet the requirements. Estes: The purpose of my remarks or I just want my thought processes to be out on the table and I want everybody to understand how I would vote on this issue. Hoffman: Normally I don't take additional public comment but did you have one short comment that you wanted to say? Pringle -Young: I have a comment that might save some time and money. In the late 80's I helped write the Subdivision regulations on the County Planning Board. Our concerns is we finished in '89, I know they have changed since then but the concern was the Judge doesn't want to get a call from one of the homeowner's out there saying "Look we bought this house, the roads are a mess, we want • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 2, 2000 Page 17 • you come out and fix it." The county would be obligated to do. That has to do with why the County Road Superintendent will not want to deal with the private drives with numerous homes on it. Hoffman: Right. Should the County then rule on that, I think they would probably look at keeping it private. At this point, do you have a comment? Danforth: I have one very short comment, all this compromise and all this saying that we will issue variances for something that had already been done when something, even the idea that we would issue variances for something that has already was obviously been done outside the process, seems to me incredibly unfair to me as a homeowner. MOTION: Hoffman. At this point, I want to make a motion to table this item. Estes: I second. Hoffman: You're abstaining? Ward: Yes. Hoffman: You all will be notified, I assume, for the City and County processes of the ongoing hearings on this. Just personally in no way am I trying to depreciate the value of your property or cause any hardship to you. We have to, in my mind, look at the overall picture of development and try to be as fair as we can to the other property owner's as well. I have no idea how this is going to turn out but it's a mess. Thank you all for coming and good luck. • • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 2, 2000 Page 18 LSD 00-31.00: Large Scale Development (Dixie Development, pp 176) was submitted by Joe Rogers of The Benham Group on behalf Dixie Development for property located at the southwest comer of Joyce Blvd. and Old Missouri Road. The property is zoned R-0, Residential Office and contains approximately 6.65 acres. The request is for five professional office buildings. Hoffman: We are going to resume the meeting. We finished with the first two items on the agenda. Now we have LSD 00-31.00 for Dixie Development. It is on the corner of Joyce and Old Missouri Road. This is one that we have heard previously. Tim, can you catch up on where we have been and where we are going? Conklin: Yes. At the last Subdivision Committee there was some issues with regard to the two curb -cuts on Joyce Boulevard and we do have a letter from Perry Franklin on that in support of the one-way drive into the bank off of Joyce Boulevard. Then there was some concern and I had to leave the meeting but I think it was with regard to the detention pond and the location of that. I don't think anything has been resolved on that issue. Ron Petrie, our Staff Engineer is here today to talk about improvements to Old Missouri Road. I thinkthose three issues were raised at the last Subdivision Committee. Hoffman: Okay. So we do have a letter approving the bank driveway. That seems to be non - issue now. Conklin: Let me read that letter. It's from Perry Franklin, October 16, 2000. Thanks for the opportunity to offer my comments about traffic safety issues for the proposed drive in the Commerce Park Development at Joyce Boulevard and Old Missouri Road. Without the proposed curb -cut for the bank, vehicles desiring to use the drive-through banking facility will be required to turn off of Joyce then slowed to tum right into the parking lot, drive through the parking lot where vehicles may be backing out and then slow turning left to select a lane at the bank. During heavy traffic, all these movements will slow the drive-through access and cause them to stack out on Joyce Boulevard possibly blocking the parking lot access to the rest of the development. I believe it would be safer to separate the drive-through banking from the rest of the development as long as the access is an entrance only. I feel the entrance should be narrowed to twelve feet to eliminate any temptation that it might be used for two-way traffic to exit onto Joyce Boulevard.- Therefore, shown on the plans, I feel that the drive-in bank would function more safely with the extra curb -cut. • Hoffman: Good. Thank you. Anything else? • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 2, 2000 Page 19 Conklin: No. Did you have anything else Sara? Edwards: No. Hoffman: Ron, do you want to start with the pond or the street? Petrie: It doesn't really matter. I guess I'll start with the pond. We talked about at the last Subdivision Committee meeting, they will have to get a waiver from the grading ordinance in order to cut closer than twenty-five feet from a public street. We had a lot of discussion at the last meeting. I believe the only thing we lacked from the last meeting was getting an official letter requesting that work. Hoffman: I think that's in our packet now. What's your feeling about putting a pond that close to the street? Petrie: Personally, I would want to do more engineering studies to make sure they are absolutely needed. That's the pipe work along Joyce Street from here this is four or five hundred feet. Maybe they can address that. Hoffman: Do you think that there would be a way to use the parking lot as somewhat a detention pond instead to slow down the runoff? Petrie:_ I'm sure it's not near enough to accommodate this extra amount of water. Hoffman: You are talking primarily about the big pond on the northeast corner? You are talking about the ponds on Joyce? Petrie: Yes, ma'am Hoffman: The one along Old Missouri is problematic to you? Petrie: Yes. Hoffman: This is all brought about because of the part of the land that peaks in the middle and falls to both sides. Petrie: We really don't have an opinion either way whether it should be there or shouldn't. We really don't see any problems. If they are there, we would want these along Joyce we would want a handrail installed all the way along that sidewalk. That is two to one • • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 2, 2000 Page 20 slope. That's really the only requirement that we would want to happen on this pond. The pond in the south side of the site. We want those slopes changed to 3 to 1 instead of 2 to 1. Conklin: That handrail Ron, what would that look like? Is it like Sunbridge? Petrie: Our requirement is 54 inches tall and there is a 4 inch widest gap in between rails. It meets both AASHTO requirements and SBBC requirements, that's what I'm going to enforce. Conklin: So you would have a 54 inch tall rail with 4 inch gaps in between all along Joyce Boulevard in front of this project? Petrie: Right. Conklin: I just want to bring that up. I don't think that would be the most desirable thing to be looking at. I don't like the way the one looks at Sunbridge. I can only imagine, our landscape requirement between this parking lot and now we got these detention ponds here that you are going to have a 54 inch high metal rail. Hoffman: That's one variance that would be needed can you go ahead and address the road contribution issues? Petrie: The other is a recommended cost share for the developers to widen Old Missouri Road 36 foot is a cost share that the City Council would have to approve. We are trying to nail down exact percentages, if it would pay wide at this time or if the Council decides they don't want to go ahead with the cost share that we have some type of assessment at this time. That's what we are looking at. Ward: How wide is Old Missouri? Petrie: It's twenty feet. We did get some cost numbers. I do have some questions. Should I address them? Hoffman: Yes. Would the applicant come up to the table so we can get you on the microphone and state your names for our records. • Gilbert: I'm David Gilbert. I'm the engineer of record. • • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 2, 2000 Page 21 Rogers: I'm Phil Rogers. I'm the architect. Petrie: What they have done is given us the rational nexus approach to find the percentage, based on traffic. I just got these yesterday. I didn't review them until last night. I haven't had time to discuss it with them. On the percentage, I wish I would have brought my calculator, I could not get the 31% to work out. Can you tell me how you got that? Hoffman: This information is in addition to what we received at the last Subdivision meeting and it has traffic counts that were not previously provided. While we are waiting on the calculator, I'm going to back up and throw in a comment on the pond being located so close to Joyce Boulevard. We had talked about landscaping mitigation to improve the aesthetics of those. Does this letter from Kim address any of that? Conklin: No. Hoffman: This is just about the unhealthy trees? Conklin: Justification for removing trees below the canopy. Hoffman: We are all in concurrence on that. Conklin: I rely on Kim to make those recommendations. Hoffman: I really had wanted her to make some kind of recommendation for landscaping around ponds. Ward: Is there no way to get around those ponds on Joyce Street at all? No way at all? Rogers: The requirement, as I understand it, is that we are not allowed to turn loose any more water at a given time that has already been turned loose. Petrie: That's not necessarily the City's requirement. Ward: Is there a way to get around that some way Ron?. Petrie: Yes. If they spend some time and study the pipes from here to Kitty Creek. Yes. If they can show those pipes are capable of handling these flows that would be acceptable to do away with those ponds. • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 2, 2000 Page 22 • Ward: Let's look at that. Rogers: David, do you want to address that? Gilbert: It's been my understanding that the volume cannot be increased. Petrie: What we are looking at, more or Tess, is you can increase the flow on a downstream property. If you can get it into the existing piping system that's capable of handling that flow, that is acceptable. The flows in Kitty Creek, you will probably not increase the peak flows because of this. We will need to see some numbers there. I think you can do that. In my mind the only question Mark is here to Kitty Creek if those pipes are big enough to handle it. They were built to handle it. We don't require detention if the infrastructure can handle the flow. Ward: How much of this property is draining towards Joyce Street? Petrie: About half. Ward: About three acres. Hoffman: So you could look at, that would be a reduction in impervious surface cover because I assume detention ponds are included as a impervious surface cover right? Petrie. No. Hoffman: If this area was done away with and turned back into green space. This whole pipe infrastructure as it goes down Joyce Street could be studied to say that once it hits, because you are way up street from most of the developments that are going down into Kitty Creek, by the time this water hits down there, we haven't interrupted the peak, is that what you are saying? Petrie: Right and I think it's possible in the creek itself. No it's Just a matter of between here and there. I wish I would have brought my ordinance with me. Gilbert. What kind of -hydrologic data is available from the City on Kitty Creek? Petrie: You would have to do all that. Gilbert: So you are saying, bear with me a minute, I am fairly frustrated by this process because • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 2, 2000 Page 23 Petrie: Gilbert: we have been over this and over this and over this and it seems that our best attempts to meet the City's requirements, the City's ordinances which the City has put into place, we just can't seem to find the right place here. We meet the requirements then we are told "Well we don't like that so meet some other requirements." You designed this. Yes I did. Excuse me Mr. Petrie can I finish my statement please and then I will debate with you if you want to? We have met the requirement, the twenty-five foot setback the last time we were here. I didn't sound like it was going to be an issue. We were told all we needed to do is file a letter for a variance, we did that and now we are coming back and you are asking me to do a major hydrological study at the cost of many of thousands of dollars to my client and several weeks of delay to the project because you don't like what your own ordinance causes. I think that's an issue which the City should probably look at some point, if you don't like what your ordinance causes, maybe your ordinances could be revised slightly to take these things into account. That having been said, are you asking to now, Mr. Petrie, to do a major hydrological study of Kitty Creek to determine the capacity? Petrie: Absolutely not. I'm not asking you to do anything. You can leave it just like this. Gilbert: Your statement was, you didn't think we would increase the peak in Kitty Creek. If I send this to you showing that the piping system to Kitty Creek is adequate to handle the flow, where do we go from there? Is that sufficient or is your next request from us going to be that we do a hydrological study of Kitty Creek to be sure that we don't increase the flow. I want to find the end to this chain. Petrie: You have to prove you don't need detention. That's the rationale behind all the ordinances. Prove you don't need detention. When I get a plan that shows detention, obviously in my mind, I'm thinking you don't think you can prove it. It's not my job to go back and figure it all out. You got a plan that shows detention, I'm going to assume you think it's needed. Gilbert. We do feel it's the best way to handle the situation which is why we designed it that way. I would like to questions, using the Southern Building Code and you may be right here, I don't know enough about this issue to be sure. I see bridge rails and handrails on the sidewalks all over the county and all over the state that don't even come close to meeting the Southern Building Code. I wonder whether it's appropriate to use a building code for a handrail on a sidewalk? That seems to be more of an outside • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 2, 2000 Page 24 • Petrie: Gilbert: transportation issue not a building issue. Is there some reason the Southern Building Code applies to that? I think our ordinance does not specify which one. We err on the side of safety. The four inch between rails requirement is basically intended to prevent children from sticking their heads through it and getting caught. If you have twenty inches between the rails, they can't stick their head through it and get caught. The four inch between rails, in my understanding, is more of a balcony and staircase type requirement where getting through, once you are through, you fall. Hoffman: Let me interject at this time. I do understand that you are concerned about redesigning the project, however, you are the one that came to us with the variance request. At our last Subdivision Committee meeting we not only had questions about the landscaping to mitigate the aesthetics of the ponds being located on a major arterial for the city but we did have questions about the driveway, we have addressed that. We are trying to work with you on this as staff. In my mind, the only variance I can remember in my tenure on the Planning Commission that was granted for anything being too close to the road was CMN Business Park for some cut and fill for some grading changes at a driveway location for a street. We have never, as far as I remember, ever granted a variance for a detention pond to be this close to a street. We have granted some variances for them to be closer than 100 feet to buildings. Your statement that the ordinances are working against you sir, I take issue with that because this is not something that comes up very much. I understand you have typographically challenging site but I think you have been given an opportunity to try to improve the looks of it and it sounds to me like you are unwilling to do that. With regard to the location and size of the handrails, I would think you would want to err on the side of safety as well. They will be unsightly particularly the 54 inches, I don't know where that comes from because the Southern Building Code goes to 42. That's probably a transportation requirement. If your ponds are full of water, there is a sidewalk running along here, there are residential areas that connect directly with this subdivision, there would be a concern of people falling into the water. Petrie. They are 2 to 1 slopes too. Hoffman: It's a steep slope- It's not something that you would want to fall into. With that in mind we have to think what this is going to look like on this major comer and if you can be given some kind of an opportunity to improve the looks of that and to me, decreased cost to the project by using some infrastructure that's already in place, you should be willing to look at it. That's really all I have to say about it but I really want to support • • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 2, 2000 Page 25 Estes: our staff in saying that, he's not here to impede the project but he is here to give you suggestions and options that would not only meet the needs of your project but to enhance the city's looks. I agree with everything you said and if I may add though, the last time we saw this there was no variance request for the detention ponds and cut. We now have that before us. There was discussion made at the last Subdivision Committee meeting regarding those detention ponds and how close they were to Joyce and whether they would be landscaped. It was quite a detailed discussion regarding how the intake towers could be better designed and painted and so on. That issue has always been before us but it was before us last time without a variance request. It's before us this time with a variance request. I have never been in favor of granting that variance and that's why I want to speak as I'm speaking now so that you understand that. Ron has given you an opportunity or suggested a way that maybe we can avoid having those detention ponds, I understand that doing the studies is going to require delay in time and some additional expense. It's your project but right now I would not vote in favor of a variance on the requirements that no cuts may be made within twenty-five feet of the public right-of- way. Just so you know what my thinking is and where I am on this. Gilbert: I appreciate your statements. I guess my question then comes back to two or three things, one issue is that we do appreciate an opportunity to improve the property. The intention of this, our client obviously wants this to look nice. As far as Fayetteville looking good, I've been in and out of Fayetteville for thirty-eight years, my entire life. I do care about what Fayetteville looks like. To say otherwise would be a mis- statement. Hoffman. I didn't mean that. Gilbert: I know you didn't. I just wanted to let you know that this is the town that I have been and in and lived my entire life so it is important to me how it looks. The issues at hand here are two -fold, one is that I do need to know from the Engineering Department, where the requirements are going to end because a detailed hydrological study of Kitty Creek could take three to six months and cost my client $25,000 just in engineering fees. Petrie: It would take a couple of days probably. • Gilbert: That's what I'm trying to get to Mr. Petrie is what's going to be required because this is the first time this has come up. That's my other issue, we sat in this room about three • • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 2, 2000 Page 26 weeks ago and discussed this at length and no one ever mentioned that this was a possibility. If that's been on the front of everybody's mind, then we have lost three weeks of time where we could be doing these studies. It's not an unwillingness to improve the property. Please don't mistake what I'm saying is that we are unwilling to look at this change or that we are unwilling to try to make this property more attractive. My frustration stems from the fact that we keep going from meeting to meeting and at every meeting a new requirement comes up. It makes it very difficult for us to meet our clients needs. Hoffman: I think I can help you with that. In general we are 95% there because we have discussed the Commercial Design Standards, those were found to be acceptable last time, we have discussed the driveway and our concerns about that and I'm one of three that I think that with the traffic superintendents concurrence that's okay. Mr. Petrie is telling me that takes two days to conduct, it sounds to me like the data must be readily available somewhere. Petrie: Look at the contour maps. Hoffman: All you are doing is looking at this amount of volume of run-off and the size of the pipe and probably have some kind of FEMA data on this creek. Gilbert: That's the question, if all it is is examining the pipes from the site to Kitty Creek, Mr. Petrie is exactly right, that's a day or two but if then his statement that gives me some concern is you are probably not going to increase the peak in Kitty Creek. I would agree with this statement, we probably won't but if the Engineering Department's next response is now "Prove to us you are not going to increase the peak on Kitty Creek." Now suddenly we are studying a major watershed and that can take a great deal of time. It all depends on what level of detail the Engineering Department is looking for and that's my question. It would help us in order to proceed with this, if we can find out as soon as possible what level of detail will be required. Hoffman: My suggestion to you is that, this is about ready to be forwarded to Planning Commission. It's either going to go with the detention ponds or without them. Ward: That might not be totally true either, it could be situation that it all comes out that yes we can get rid of 70% of the detention ponds but we still would have to have a small part left. We don't know that for sure but I would rather have a smaller one than the whole thing up and down Joyce Street. That's what we are trying to get away from Subdivision Committee Meeting November 2, 2000 Page 27 Hoffman: Yes. The guardrail business. If we ended up with that. I just can't see with Ron having brought this up that because you have so much undeveloped property down stream, you are in a good position because you don't have to contend with that, they will. They have flatter sites and they can deal with it and send it off the back and all that kind of stuff. They are closer to the creek. You are coming in on the front end, at the top then you've got all this opportunity. Let's take advantage of it and let's take advantage of the nice looking wall, the nice looking buildings. I think if you have an opportunity to get rid of this guardrail in front of these great buildings and not build ponds and not put in all those pipes and things like that, let's try it. Gilbert: We are certainly not opposedto that. We would like this site to be as attractive as possible. Where my concern comes in is that the Engineering Department is going to require 3 to 6 months of study and cost my client $25,000 suddenly that's not as attractive as going for the variance because our client has people waiting to move into these buildings. That's my question is to try to find out, if it's a simple matter of examining the conduits from this site to Kitty Creek, we would be happy to do that. We would probably find that it would be adequate and we will just take the ponds out and go from there. My concern is, if we change the plan and do that without getting a definitive answer from the Engineering Department what will be required, my fear is the next answer when I walk in there will be "Okay, now prove to us you won't increase the peak on Kitty Creek." and delay us three months and cost $25,000. Hoffman: I don't think that's what he said at all. I would like to hear more from Ron about can this be studied before the agenda session and can you come up with a recommendation? Petrie: I don't think I can answer that because I don't know when I can get the information back. Hoffman: If it gets back to you in a timely manner. Petrie: Yes. Rogers: I'm not a civil engineer and I didn't know this was even a possibility. I didn't know you could use the existing conduit. The way I understood it, this is not reading the ordinances and so forth because that's not my area is that we couldn't increase the row. That's what I understood and that's why the detention ponds are obviously there. This is a whole new area to me. This is a possibility I didn't know existed. I understand David's frustration in that if we show that the conduits will handle it to get it • • • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 2, 2000 Page 28 Petrie: to Kitty Creek, the question is yes or no, do we have to prove it will affect Kitty Creek or not. If you do, you say "Yes, you have to prove it doesn't affect Kitty Creek", that answers the question. If you say "No, it doesn't", then you have answered the question. What will require a huge amount of work and what won't. That has to come from the Engineer. I don't think it needs to be done. Where it is just short of Kitty Creek, from the conveyor over to Mud Creek, it's only a couple of hundred feet in a very large ditch. I don't think you need to provide an additional information on that. Gilbert: So examining the pipes from the site to Kitty Creek will be sufficient for the Engineering Department? We would be happy to do that. Hoffman: That sounds like a great compromise. Ward: I think we can make a recommendation to move forward. Hoffman: Yes. Move it forward to the Planning Commission understanding that we do not have this issue resolved. I do want to reflect that they do have a concern about the safety of pedestrians along Joyce Boulevard and along Old Missouri that the handrail would be required and I would, for one, say if we end up with that handrail that I would want vines or something planted on it where it could grow up and look better than just a plain old handrail. If you come up with the fact that you can do away with the detention ponds, would you please revise your landscaping drawings accordingly? Gilbert: Yes. Hoffman: Tim, do we have anything else before I take public comment? Conklin: One other issue, I just wanted to make sure, are you in agreement with Perry' recommendation on the width of that second drive? Rogers: Yes. Hoffman: The bank has passed on it and said grace over it? Rogers: Yes. Estes: Have we had some determination of the requirement to the off-site improvements to • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 2, 2000 Page 29 • • Petrie: Old Missouri Road. Have we got that squared away? No. I had a few other questions on that. On the cost, the estimated cost, I believe you need to add some sub grade cost to that. Excavation and hillside material installation. On the percentage, and this will save your client money, you assume 100% of this traffic will go down Old Missouri Road9 Gilbert: Yes we did. Petrie: I think you might want to redo that. Gilbert: Okay. Thank you. Petrie: The last comment was with regard to this off-site easement we discussed on the sewer line. We have recently seen a project that came through Plat Review for the apartments here and they will be willing to work with you, I believe, you can contact Crafton and Tull to discuss that with them. Gilbert: I have a note on my desk to contact one of the Lindsey's to deal with that. Petrie: You may want to discuss that with Chris Parton at Crafton and Tull. Gilbert. I understand that Lindsey and Associates is favorable toward the easement for the off- site and that's good news. Petrie: I'm going to require them to give an easement. Hoffman: Ron, anything else? We'll have the recommendation for the off-site drainage finalized by agenda session. Petrie: You can give me some revise numbers pretty soon? Gilbert: Yes. I'll give you some of those this afternoon. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: - - Hoffman: Is there any member of the public that would like to address us on this property? COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 2, 2000 Page 30 Hoffman: Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Subdivision Committee for motions or discussion. MOTION: Estes: I move that we send LSD 00-31.00 onto the full Commission for their consideration. Hoffman: Do you want to be more specific or is that enough? Ward: I think I will go ahead and second. I think you can concur and go ahead and add on what you have as to what we expect from the applicant. Hoffman: Okay. Let's give them a date. I would like to have a target date for your calculations and redesign. Ron, what would give you enough time to take a look at the flows? Petrie: The standard deadline. • Edwards. Monday. Petrie: Monday. Gilbert: Can we get another day? Estes: .Tuesday by the end of business. Petrie: I really need it by the end of Tuesday. Estes: Is that 5:00 p.m. or 4:30 p.m.? Conklin: 5:00 p.m. Petrie: You are going to be turning the plans in at a later date too because that is going to affect it. Edivards: Yes. Hoffman: Pretty much everything else is kind of done. • Conklin: That's fine. • Subdivision Committee Meeting November 2, 2000 Page 31 • • Hoffman: I would like him to have another look at it. If you delete the detention ponds and change the landscaping. Gilbert: If we could get rid of those ponds it would be pretty easy because everything should just slope toward the street and it should be pretty nice. Hoffman: I think it would more attractive. I do want to commend you on the appearance of those. I think that will be very nice. Rogers: This is prior to the agenda session? When is the agenda session? Conklin: Thursday at 3:30 p.m. Hoffman: That's all I have on this. Do we have a materials board done on this? Conklin: Yes. Edwards: No. Hoffman: Can we see it? Rogers: I'II have to see if I can find it. I just got this from the bank architect who is the one that put -these colors together and what he did is he sent a sketch and we colored ours to match the sketch. I'll see if I can find samples of these. Edwards: If you could get the block, the brick and the dry vit color and the roof. We don't usually get the trim and all that. Rogers: I'll see if I can do that and we will bring this all in one package. Hoffman: Thank you very much for your hard work, I appreciate it. I look forward to seeing you at Planning Commission and staff too. I didn't mean to leave anybody out on that one. • Subdivision Committee November 2, 2000 Page 32 AD 00-41.00: Administrative Item (Nantucket Apt., pp 563) was submitted by Al Hams of Craft, Tull & Associates on behalf of Tom Embach for property located north of east 15t and west of Morningside Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 12 acres. The request is to modify LSD 98-4 PUD by relocating a street stub -out. Hoffman: Our next item is an Administrative Item for the Nantucket Apartments formerly known as Cedar Lake Apartments. This request is to modify LSD 98-4.00 PUD by relocating a street stub -out. Tim, can you give us a report? Conklin: They have requested to relocate the street stub -out that's shown in the middle of their project on the western boundary to the south property that is owned by the developer of Nantucket Apartments, Mr. Tom Embach. He actually purchased this property and it would provide access stub -out over to Wood Avenue. Hoffman: Where was it shown before? Conklin: Up in that area. I have the original approved plans. They are actually showing a street, • a possible street connection. They are using it as access for construction of this development. It would be nice to have them build it but I don't think we can require that. • Harris: At the time they cut the stub -put, he tried to obtain right-of-way to keep the property owners didn't want to sell and the City Council at that time didn't want to condemn any land for a right-of-way. It's arbitrarily picked this location right here. It's kind of a iffy spot to get through there but you do have to cross through that drainage channel. You would have to build a drainage structure. If you extend the road where it is right now, in order in order to build that. Hoffman: Does staff have any problem with the relocated street? Conklin: No I don't. I wish we could get more right-of-way over to Wood Avenue. This is designed for senior citizens and building a new Senior Center and it would be nice for them to get to Wood Avenue and back to those neighborhoods. Harris: At this site right now he has no plans for that property. It would be nice if he could do what he wants to do with it so that you could design a road through there but right now he has no plans. Hoffman: Let me ask you this. You said this is currently being used for the construction traffic? 1 Subdivision Committee November 2, 2000 Page 33 Is there an ordinance that we have for cleanup of the damage the constructions trucks make on other property or something that maybe we could just ask this developer to smooth out the construction and asphalt over it and that way we could get at least a kind of temporary access not a full street. Petrie: Absolutely. Conklin: That's what I'm saying, it would be nice if you could ask your client if he would be willing to dedicate that right-of-way at this time over to Wood Street then when it's finalized, it's there. It's the same owner and developer and we got a street connection that we are trying to get. Hoffman: It would really benefit the senior and I think that if we agree to relocate the stub -out and that's being used anyway, he's going to have to do back in and smooth it out under the other ordinances regardless. Harris: If he did give a right-of-way right now, if he fixed how he could develop that property, • he might have some way. • Conklin: I'm aware of that. That's why I want him to give it so we don't have to argue about this blocking the stub -out. Hoffman: We would require, if the stub -out is there, we would require the street to go in when it's eventually developed anyway so I just sort of like to get this cart before this horse if that's possible. Harris: I could ask. Hoffman: Can we make our approval contingent on the owner's agreement to that? Conklin: Sure. If he disagrees we will bring it back Harris: He's ready to build. If it's already built right there. If he get's turned down, he's probably going to put it where it is because they are already doing the curb. They put the curb up to here right now. Hoffman: It sounds like we can turn it into some kind of a win-win situation. Conklin: They are talking about relocation subject to Mr. Embach dedicating the right-of-way • • Subdivision Committee November 2, 2000 Page 34 out to Wood Street. Harris. Do we have to come back to Subdivision? Hoffman: No. I'm trying to approve it based on that donation. Ron, did you have something further that you needed to say? Petrie: Yes, just a question. Revision to the grading plan, I'm having a hard time figuring out. All we have here are some arrows. Is there going to be a change in this grading plan? Harris: Jim Beavers out there with Jeff Bates, he indicated to Jeff he just wanted to show an area on the plan just so that he would have record of it. Petrie: You need to show the finished grade in this area Is it going to be altered or will there be the exact same contours when he's done? Harris: What I understand from the owner, he's Just going to use the area to stockpile dirt and he is going to finish it back like it was Petrie: Before I can approve this revised grading plan, just document what exactly I'm approving on the plan. Harris: We didn't realize he was out there until the day you and Jim visited the site. Petrie: It's happening now, I understand but I don't know how it's going to end up when it's done. Harris: You just want to see some final contours? Petrie: Yes. PUBLIC COMMENT: Hoffman. Anything else? Public comment anybody? COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: • MOTION: • • • Subdivision Committee November 2, 2000 Page 35 Estes: 1 move that we approve the requested modification of LSD 98-4.00 by relocating the street stub -out contingent upon there being a right-of-way granted to meet a minimum City standards from the proposed stub -out extending west to Wood Avenue. Hoffman: The detention plan being finalized. Estes: The grading plan being finalized. Ward: I'll second that. Hoffman: I'll concur. Thank you very much. • • • Subdivision Committee November 2, 2000 Page 36 LSD 99-6.00: Large Scale Development (Millsap Center, pp 212) Hoffman: Our next item is a Large Scale Development for Millsap Center. I believe this concerns their signage. Conklin: Yes. Stan Green is here this morning to bring back to the Subdivision Committee, a proposal for their signs on this development, Millsap Center. I'll let Mr. Green go over what was approved at the Subdivision Committee and what he is proposing today. Green: I apologize for not getting this to you earlier, Tim and I have been trading phone calls over the last couple of days and this letter basically summarizes what was approved last time and I'll kind of walk through it. Basically, there was a lot of discussion about the signs at this site and we had asked for less square footage display area than we believed was allowed by the ordinance but it asked for that to be in the form of three signs on two lots, one on the bypass side and two on the Millsap Road side. Basically, there are two buildings at this site, each one is 25,600 square feet so they are large buildings especially compared to other buildings in Fayetteville. Larger than the typical office building that is constructed here. After the discussion at the Subdivision Committee, Subdivision Committee approved two signs for the project. We could have one on the bypass side and one on the Millsap side or we could have both on the Millsap side. If we had one on the Millsap side it could be ten feet high and the signs on the Millsap side were limited to six feet high, either one can have a seventy-five square foot display area and the location of the signs could be determined by the developer. Our position at the time was that we actually entitled to the total of 200 square feet of display area per lot on the site because there is a provision in the ordinance which says if you abut a controlled access highway, you can have 200 square feet. The substance of all that is, I think everybody compromised and the Subdivision Committee approval that resulted kind of reflected that compromise. We also understand and I understand from the sign inspector that a modification of the sign ordinance became effective earlier this year to let you build a monument sign with a total display area of seventy-five square feet, a maximum height of six feet and a setback of ten feet which is very similar to what the Subdivision Committee approved for our signs last time. What we decided to do in view of all that is to build two signs on the Millsap Road side of the project, basically one in front of each building. We are requesting however that the Subdivision Committee approve a maximum height of eight feet for the sign rather than six feet because that was a better appearance for the signs and a better appearance of the project overall One factor that comes into play is that we want to build the signs at a five foot setback from the street rather than ten feet again to keep the signs out of the parking lot. The precedent for that I don't know if • • • Subdivision Committee November 2, 2000 Page 37 there is any precedent for that. Subdivision Committee's approval last time said the developer could determine the location so I'm not sure that we are asking for a variance, we are just really letting you know that we want to build them at a five foot setback and think we can do that. The sign across the street from us at Millsap Professional Building looks to be about a two foot setback from the street. I don't know how that was approved. Hoffman: Not in the right-of-way, you are saying from the property line? Green: From the property line. From the sidewalk. Hoffman: Be sure not to block the view of the driveway. Green: I understand that and I understand that you might to determine that for yourself. It doesn't block the view at all because we would be concerned about that also. Basically to try to explain our rationale, these two drawings show the colors are not exactly right but they are close. The buildings are deeper red with a lighter more a tannish color trim brick. What we want to do and the reason we really need the higher height is we want to build this brick structure around the sign to try to tie it into the building. If we are limited to six feet, that's the sign that we have to build to get seventy-five square feet. We actually have to bridge the parking lot down here. The sign would come all the way back there, that's a cut there for drainage. We have to build the bridge that with the sign structure then we still come all they way back into the parking lot. My going out to a five foot setback and by raising the maximum height to eight feet, we keep the signs basically on the east side right at the edge of the parking on the west sign we just barely intrude into what would be the parking lot but there is an island that is already there. In summary, we think this looks a lot better than what we could do with the approvals that we have. We think it will present a more pleasing appearance not inconsistent with some other things that have gone on out there. It doesn't block the view, that's a great point. We were concerned about that too. I think the modification we need is the eight foot height rather than the six foot height. Hoffman: Is that an overlay district requirement because this is not overlay district? Conklin: I think this is exempt. Green: This is exempt. Hoffman: That doesn't count. Subdivision Committee November 2, 2000 Page 38 Conklin: We did modify the sign ordinance to allow monument signs six feet high, ten feet setback, seventy-five square feet maximum area. With that setback, have you talked to Mike McKimmee our Sign Inspector with regard to this five foot setback issue? Green: I talked to him about the situation in general and I don't remember the details of what we talked about. He basically said, he felt like if Planning Commission approved it, it would be fine with their area. Conklin: That may be true. I also think you probably need to go to the Board of Sign Appeals too on the ordinance. Typically the Planning Commission, they approve signs that have less area or less height than the sign ordinance. The sign ordinance allows a larger sign and they require a smaller sign. Hoffman: Then we get an overlay district requirement that's different and people don't understand that but we don't have the overlay district so the only thing he is asking for is an variance on setback. • Conklin: On setback and height. Hoffman: I personally would be happy to give it at this level and not make him go on. Conklin: I think if you want to make that motion, you can. I can't speak for the other divisions. I hate to put you through a bunch of paperwork. • Green: That's fine. I totally realize that and the reason that we are here is that the Planning Commission minutes specifically said come back here. Conklin: I do have those minutes here. Hoffman: You are not compressing anything facing the bypass is why, that's my reasoning. MOTION: Ward: I'll go ahead and make a motion that we approve this additional height of eight feet. Another reason too if this was a single story building out there but being a two and a half story tall building, the sign is not going to look out of proportion being that tall. Green: This basically shows you how it will look. We had an architectural perspective to do that. That is basically the sign with the five foot setback. Subdivision Committee November 2, 2000 Page 39 Ward: • I might look at it prospectively with just a little small one story building but as big as these buildings are that sign is not going to look bad. Conklin: This is what they originally proposed. Green: These are a little smaller than that. Conklin: In the minutes back on March 11, 1999, Ms. Hoffman made a motion to approve the development provision that it be permitted to have one monument sign per lot location to be determined by the developer totaling no more than seventy-five square feet of sign face area, not to exceed six feet in height located on Millsap and in lieu of one of the signs on Millsap a sign ten feet in height could be located on the bypass side and one six feet heigh monument sign on Millsap side including staff comments suggestion for the additional screening for the dumpsters. That's what was approved March 11, 1999. Just on your elevations here, so we are saying eight feet from the ground elevation to this point? Green. Right, to the top of the brick. It's basically eight feet above the parking lot. There is a little slope on one of the signs that we have to deal with so it's basically eight feet above the parking lot. Hoffman: It's on a berm? Green: What we are going to do is basically build up around it and build a flowerbed around it that matches the brick work on the sign. Conklin: It slopes down towards the street and by the way, I already gave them approval to build the flower bed. Hoffman: Will somebody please make a motion? Estes: I second the motion. The reason being that without the modification the sign would extend into the parking lot, it would not be proportioned to the building and it is more aesthetically pleasing with the brick perimeter. Hoffman: Thank you and I concur. • Subdivision Committee November 2, 2000 Page 40 LS 00-27.00: Lot Split (Schmitt, pp 298) Hoffman: Our final item is another lot split submitted by Mr. Schmitt, LS 00-27.00. Conklin: Mr. Schmitt requested to be given permission to sell property to his corporation to create the deeds, transfer the lot by lot deeds prior to the waterline and infrastructure being installed. Typically, we require everything to be put into the developed, constructed and the plans submitted to engineering, approved, designed and installed. What they told me was they would like to start construction on houses out here prior to the waterline going in. This is another growth area development. Hoffman: I don't remember this. It's probably one I missed. Where are we located? Edwards: It's on Highway 45: Ward: Out by the cemetery. Conklin: That's the main issue this morning. Ward: What kind of money are you talking about for the waterline? Schmitt: It's $21,000 estimate from Dave Jorgensen. I'm sorry I haven't given Sara a copy yet, I just got it yesterday afternoon. They require 150% so it's $30,000. Community Bank who's doing the financing for the construction on the project. He's wanting to issue a letter of credit to the City. Edwards: That does have to be a letter of credit not a letter from the Vice President. I gave them a call. Hoffman: Say your name, I'm sorry. Schmitt: I'm Bob Schmitt and my father Neil is the main developer on this. I'm kind of assisting him and he's sorry he can't be here today. Hoffman: Staff, do we have any ordinances that cover this? Conklin: Subdivisions, this is not a subdivision it's a lot split, if it was a subdivision preliminary • plat and everything would have to be in. I'm to the point where, before I bring something to the Commission and require, when we start having all this infrastructure Subdivision Committee November 2, 2000 Page 41 installed that they go through a preliminary plat, final plat process. Right now Sara has to make sure that everything is installed and the only think we are holding is the stamp to put on the deed to go over to the County. So what we are looking at is a lot split and we are responsible, my office, to make sure everything gets put in before it gets filed. I don't really have anything. If it was preliminary plat, we wouldn't even be here, it would have to be put in before they can bring the final plat to us. I don't know, maybe we can talk about that later. Hoffman. This is just to have a letter of credit until a building permit is issued or something? Conklin: There is not going to be any building permit. I guess some of the issues are we are going to have houses constructed out here without the water out there. When is the water line going to get in? I think if you do approve a letter of credit I think there should be some condition on how long a time. Ron, over here has concerns and just your review of construction plans it may take what three weeks if they submitted them today to review those. If there is revisions then they send back your comments and they have give them back to you to review. The State Health Department. Hoffman: By construction plans, you are talking about the utility plan not the building plans? Conklin: That's correct. Hoffman: Since we don't have a building permit date to tie it to, what's would be a reasonable date or a trigger date that we could put on it? The Health Department Approval? Petrie: Is that to have it built and accepted by the City too? Hoffman: Yes. They have a lot to keep track of. Petrie: Six months. Conklin: My only concern and I talked to your father about this too is I'm more comfortable that it's your own corporation you are creating for these lots to get the construction loans they want this split up. That makes me more comfortable. What makes me a little uncomfortable is those deeds on those homes and lots are sold and there is no water out there. Schmitt: Can I make a few comments? In Tim and Sara's defense, this whole evolution of planning in the growth zone, they had the ball handed to them earlier this year and I • • Subdivision Committee November 2, 2000 Page 42 Hoffman: Schmitt: don't think there has been a definitive listing of how they are going to enforce their ordinances and I think they are in that creation. I think your work load has probably doubled since you were handed that ball. I don't know if there is a way for you hand it back to the County but when I go down to the county, the county is like "I don't know what to do, go talk to the City." It really leaves, they are having to apply ordinances, when they get the ball handed to them, they are having to apply ordinances like they would in a regular subdivision. What that does which is good planning and good growth but it also makes us have to develop these properties under the same conditions that we would if we were inside the citywhich limits the size of the lots. If it gets to a point where the City is going to require the same infrastructure in the outlying areas that they do in the inner part of the City, we need to look at providing sewer service and everything else because you can't economically do it. Fire service and stuff that we don't have. Right. Tim and Sara have worked with us very well trying to let us know, "here's how you can go ahead and proceed with this process as we are developing how we are going to apply these ordinances. We've tried to meet every requirement that has been presented to us so far. I've done two of these projects prior to this in the past eighteen • months and none of the others required any of this. In both of them, I went ahead and without any money in escrow, without any letters of credit, getting the water lines put in, putting in fire hydrants, getting the State Health Department approval on the perc tests, I've built a million and a half dollars worth of homes on those lots, they are sold. It's not a question like the project we looked at earlier. What we are requesting because of this development of policy application over the past six months or so, we have been delayed at least two or three months in this process. We don't even necessarily want to start construction, we want to be able to get the plat filed and the lot sold to ourselves. We are not transferring title to anybody else. I think Mr. Ward and different individuals here may know my father Neil Schmitt and we have been here for 120 years, our family has, we are not going to do anything. We are not going to try to be devious. We are not going to sel I these to somebody else. Hoffman: I.know, it's not that, it's dust a matter of putting something in place that everybody is going to have to live by. We are trying to figure out how to do that. I'm open to suggestions.- - -- - - Conklin: • Schmitt: Do you want to talk about this right-of-way issue today too? Here? We have actually talked to Matt Powell yesterday on the phone and he said he • Subdivision Committee November 2, 2000 Page 43 would sign any warranty deed. That eliminates any questions whatsoever. We have some folks who own the thirty-three acres back here. We actually sold it to them and traded them for this property and we gave them an access across this fifty feet and we are dedicated that fifty feet to the City and somebody down here is displeased with it, he happens to be their attorney. He brought up the issue that, "I think my clients have to sign off on that and they don't want to publicly dedicate a street running to their house." Wording in the easements actually says that the easement is for future development. Conklin: You will be able to work that out? Schmitt: Yes. Conklin: We'll need those documents. I know it's off the subject but we kind of looked at the first one we looked at with Wilkins, seventy-five feet of frontage here we got. I have cracked down. Sara and I are trying to enforce these ordinances and it's been a lot of work. I appreciate you guys working with us too because I'm trying to make sure you meet the ordinance requirements. I guess Ron, I didn't talk to Ron about this either. Ron, do you have any concems or issues with this, taking a letter of credit? Petrie: I don't think so. I think the letter of credit will cover us if for some reason somebody buys it and they don't have water, we'll just pull the letter of credit and we'll build it ourselves. Ward: Well it's 150% of the estimated cost. That ought to cover it. Hoffman: This covers all the lots? This estimate is going to cover enough for everybody? Does he get to decrease it as lots are sold off and developed? Is there a way to do that? Schmitt: It just has be in until it's done. Conklin: With regard to the roads, we are not asking for any letter of credit for that. We don't inspect those. The County does. Schmitt: We've already put our road base in just for record. We've got it all. Ward:. Why are we having trouble with the water? Schmitt: We're not. Basically, what our problem is at this point is being able to get our plat • • • Subdivision Committee November 2, 2000 Page 44 filed. Previously, when I did the first two lot splits like this, the two weren't tied together. Getting the plat filed just happened automatically after you approved it at Subdivision Committee and this time the City is waiting. I think now their increased responsibility, they are waiting until they wanted either the water line in, the letter of credit or some kind of variance from you guys and then also approval from the Health Department for septic systems and that kind of stuff. Conklin: I've put a lot more requirements to make sure you get your septic in there and the improvements are getting installed. I was assuming the County was making sure all this was being done prior to us taking it over. Schmitt: I guess what my request today would be is if we provide the letter of credit and where we are with the state is we already have our perc test designs done and completed, we have the approval from the local representative. The only thing we don't have is the State Health Department approval of the water line. Edwards: The permits. Schmitt: The permit for the water line. Am I saying that right Sara? Edwards: You don't have the actual permits for the septic. Conklin: I want the Arkansas Department of Health permits. Schmitt: We can't pull those until they do the water line approval. Edwards. It has to be installed? Conklin: No. You can get your Arkansas Department of Health permit prior to the water line. Schmitt: He was saying that, the letter I got from Mr. Murphy was saying that the two were kind of running simultaneously. I guess maybe what I'm asking if we can do is, can we get the approval to accept the letter of credit and go ahead and file this so we can transfer our lots into our corporation and we have to pull a plumbing permit from you guys before we start in construction right? Petrie: In order for you to get a meter, you will have to. Edwards: Do you sign off on the plumbing permits? • • Subdivision Committee November 2, 2000 Page 45 Schmitt: We have to have our septic systems turned in to get the plumbing permit from you. That way you would have a measure against houses being built out there without water being done. Does that make sense? That's why I was wondering with the conditions that we were talking about today, could we... I'm sorry. Hoffman: I'm up to speed on that and I think we can work on the water line issue. Commissioner Estes had some comments. Estes: I have some questions. 1 want to•be sure I understand the ingress and egress. You are going to give fifty foot dedication to the County and that comes off of Timberglen Road, is that right? Schmitt: Yes sir. Estes: Why are you increasing it to a sixty foot dedication as you go south? Schmitt: All we had here was fifty and the City requested sixty here to meet any future requirements that they had. Conklin: That's a County requirement for a public street and I'm trying to make sure we get public streets in the County and it's going to kill me. Hoffman: It's only on this lot. You can't do it back here. Schmitt: I gave the same down here where we could. We gave the sixty that he was requesting and then we have a forty foot easement in. Estes: So folks are going to get in and out of lot 1 and 2 by coming off of Timberglen Road and this County dedication and folks are going to get to lots 3 and 4 by using this dedication and going out on Miles View Road? Schmitt: Yes sir. Estes: Your water line in here, you go from an existing 8 inch main to a proposed six inch? Schmitt: Yes. Estes: Ron is that okay? They are going from an existing 8 inch to a 6 inch? • • • Subdivision Committee November 2, 2000 Page 46 Petrie: Schmitt: Yes. I cannot enforce an 8 inch max. This was all at their request. They requested a 2 inch down to these bottom two lots down here. I might add, we went ahead without any request and added a fire plug, is that possible off a 6? Estes: That was my next question. Is fire protection off of that 6 inch line? Petrie. The water line will have to be increased to 8 inch if you want fire protection. Schmitt: We were going to throw that in if we could do it. I don't know what the cost difference is, our minimum requirement is a 6 inch if we decide to put an 8 inch in, you are not going to have a problem with that? Petrie: If you want fire protection then you are going to need 8 inch water line to do that. Plus, if you want fire protection enforced then you have to have an agreement with the City. The City is providing you fire protection, you understand that? Schmitt: Yes sir. Edwards. We can't get our fire trucks down that road. That may not be an issue. Conklin: If you haven't been out there, it winds through trees. Schmitt: It's sixteen foot wide road that I have out there now. Hoffman: I would go for a fire plug regardless. Who's going to serve it or whatever, I guess that's not really for you. Petrie: Sometimes that give people a false sense of security. Schmitt: I there is a fire plug there? Petrie: Nobody can use it. Schmitt: We have a fire plug at the end of this 8 inch line. That's the last fire plug that we put in on the 8 inch so we have fire protection within 1,000 feet, I don't know how that works out. • Subdivision Committee November 2, 2000 Page 47 Hoffman: Insurance rates differ between 1,000 feet and 500 feet. Estes: I have no other questions. Hoffman. Okay. I'll entertain motions or anymore discussion? Conklin: Mr. Schmitt is asking if he can file this without having the Arkansas Department of Health permit and the right-of-way documents that we need. Is that correct? You are saying you want to do this withoutgiving me the permit from the Arkansas Department of Health for us to sign off on these lots? Schmitt: I'm asking if you will accept the letter of approval we have gotten from the Department of Health already. I have it to Sara. Conklin: Is that the DR? Schmitt: Yes. Richard Murphy. He's the Area One Coordinator for the State Department of • Health. • Edwards: You know what he's talking about? Schmitt: Basically, he said "No problem getting septics on here" and a copy of my septic designs. Conklin: They will have to approve that. I'm trying to be consistent here. I've been very strong on trying to get these pieces of paper. Hoffman: Before you can build on any of this, the intent is to have all this paperwork in order. It's a question in my mind since you didn't have to get a building permit although he does have to get a plumbing permit from somebody, maybe we can tie it to the plumbing permit. Schmitt: That's kind of what I thought. We have a safety check there. Obviously, we are not going to build half a million dollar homes and put no plumbing in them. Conklin: There's one on Starr Road that couldn't get their septic in. Schmitt: We've already got our letter from Richard. • Subdivision Committee November 2, 2000 Page 48 Conklin: Richard works for the Arkansas Department of Health? Schmitt: Yes. Richard Murphy. Hoffman: It sounds like he has that base covered. Schmitt: Basically all we are waiting on is a formality and I think my request is only because we are caught in the middle of this. We don't have a strict set of "this is how we enforce our ordinances" and we've been delayed previously so in fairness since we have covered every base that we know how to cover and we are just waiting on Dave to design the plans and send them to the State, can we go ahead and do that? Hoffman: Without setting a precedent I would say we could try. Conklin: How soon are you going to get them to us, 30 days? Schmitt: What's that? • Conklin: The Department of Health permits. • Schmitt: I would defer to Mr. Petrie over there on how quickly they can. Conklin: I'm talking about for the septic systems. Schmitt: I can give you a copies of our septic system design today and Dave Jorgensen has to submit, he said he'll be done Wednesday next week with the plans for the septic. Edwards. They are doing the waterline and the septic systems together. Conklin: Okay. Thank you. It seems easy, you submit that permit to the Department of Health in Fayetteville then Little Rock issues a permit and you put it in the file. You can get a septic system. That's all I was looking for. I'm sorry, I didn't quite understand that these were all together. Hoffman: The septic system is going to happen imminently? So our approval is contingent on the septic. You can't begin construction on anything until the septic system is done. Conklin: I've seen a house, there is no building permit, you just go out and start building a house. • Subdivision Committee November 2, 2000 Page 49 Schmitt: MOTION: Hoffman: Schmitt: Petrie: Schmitt: • Hoffman: Estes: Ward: Schmitt: Conklin: • Edwards: Schmitt: Hoffman: I would really suggest some kind of comprehensive, "this is how we do it out in the County growth zone." • I'm going to attempt a motion and just say that we will approve this lot split contingent on submission of the septic system approvals within 30 days and upon acceptance of the letter of credit of 150% of the estimated cost and that letter of credit will be good for a period of not more than six months and the water to be installed prior to six months. I think that is plenty. We are going to do it just as soon as we get it back from the state. I just threw that out there. I think that will be plenty. It took us about three months to get the last one in. So we have thirty days on the septic and six months on the water, do I hear a second? I second. I'll concur. How do we get that to you? You will create separate deeds for those, I'll stamp your deeds saying they are approved. Have you got this approved from Celia? Yes. I've got your letter here. We are adjourned.