HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-08-30 - Minutes•
•
•
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF
TECHNICAL PLAT REVIEW
A regular meeting of the Technical Plat Review Committee was held on Wednesday, August 30,
2000 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain,
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
ITEMS CONSIDERED
FP 00-3.00: Final Plat (Summersby, pp 410)
Page 2
LS 00-30.00: Lot Split (Palmer, pp 572)
Page 9
LS 00-31.00: Lot Split (Hayes, pp 291)
Page 13
LS 00-29.00: Lot Split (Pursley, pp 140)
Page 17
LSD 00-27.00 Large Scale Development
(Emad Damen Duplex Units, pp 364)
Page 28
STAFF PRESENT
Tim Conklin
Sara Edwards
Ron Petrie
Kim Hesse
Chuck Rutherford
Kim Rogers
Perry Franklin
UTILITIES PRESENT
Mike Phipps, Ozark Electric
Johney Boles, Ar Western Gas
Bill Smith, Southwestern Bell
Glen Newman, SWEPCO
ACTION TAKEN
Forward with revisions
Forward with revisions
Pulled
Forward with revisions
Forward with revisions
STAFF ABSENT
Mickey Jackson
Cheryl Zotti
UTILITIES ABSENT
Kevin Lefler, Cox Communications
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
August 30, 2000
Page 2
FP 00-3.00: Final Plat (Summersby, pp 410) was submitted by Chris Brackett of Jorgensen &
Associates on behalf of Mark Foster for property located south of Meandering Way. The
property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 40.23 acres with 52
lots proposed.
Conklin: Our first item of business today is a final plat 00-3.00 submitted by Chris Brackett
of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Mark Foster for property located south of
Meandering Way. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and
contains approximately 40.23 acres with 52 lots proposed. Good morning Mr.
Jorgensen.
Jorgensen: Good morning. I'm sorry we are late and I appreciate the phone call.
Conklin: You're welcome.
Sara Edwards - Development Coordinator
Edwards: First of all, Mr. Mark Foster has allowed his letter of credit to expire for
Brookbury and if you will just let him know for me that we will not sign any kind
of plat until that as well as a letter for this one.
Conklin: We won't make that an issue. You need to get that taken care of.
Kim Hesse - Landscape Administrator
Hesse: All dead or severally damaged trees are to removed from the limits of the right-of-
way.
Perry Franklin - Traffic Superintendent
Franklin: Eliminate the street light between lots 32 & 32. Eliminate the street light on the
comer of lot 7 Can the street light at Ridgely & Summersby be moved closer to
the intersection?
Conklin: Is that right-of-way right there?
Petrie: Double driveway is not shown very clear.
Jorgensen: We could move it to the east though Ron. A little bit closer to the property line.
At least could get it closer to there. There is a driveway that comes in. It's kind
of a weird deal. We could put in right in the middle of the sidewalk. What do
•
Plat Review Minutes
August 30, 2000
Page 3
you think about that idea? Chuck?
Rutherford: It would work won't it? Did that before haven't we?
Conklin:
That's true.
Jorgensen: We can move closer to the east.
Glen Newman - SWEPCO
Newman:
Conklin:
Newman:
Conklin:
• Jorgensen:
Newman:
•
There will be a pole on the east side of the new road Wooden poles, that's where
we plan. We could put it on that wood pole.
We are talking about the wooden electric pole?
There is an existing overhead line that runs along.
Versus the standard attractive street light?
It is closer to the intersection.
It's going to be right on the property line there on the east side and then was going
to go underground north. There's some overhead line that runs from the south
side and then along the west side.
Conklin: I just like to see street lights not stuck on poles.
Newman: I understand. That was an option.
Conklin: There's a pole already there. Okay. I'll just make the Commission aware of it in
my report.
Kim Rogers, Parks Operation Coordinator
Rogers:
Parks fees are due in the amount of $24,440 and Mr. Foster is aware of that.
Sara Edwards - Development Coordinator
Edwards•
I need you to add plat page 410. A new requirement we are going to have from
now on is I would like for you to show the square footage of each of the lots.
When people come in wanting to purchase these lots we are sitting there with a
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
August 30, 2000
Page 4
calculator trying to figure it and that doesn't work well. It's not real accurate. If
you could just stick that on there, I would appreciate it. There's no addresses and
we do require addresses on the final plat. I need that. What we would like is a
copy of the contract with the electric company for street lights with proof of that
being paid before we will sign off on the final plat. Revisions are due
Wednesday, September 6, 2000, by 10:00 a.m.
Conklin: Is that going to be a problem?
Newman: What was that statement?
Edwards: We are wanting a copy of the invoice sent in with proof of it being paid for all the
street lights throughout the subdivision. If they pre -pay it it doesn't necessarily
have to be in.
Newman: We are in the negotiation stage right now. I have submitted that cost to Mark and
he called me and we are supposed to get together. We are talking about maybe a
property owner's association lighting system. That means that they install the
lights, they own them and they maintain them.
Conklin: We want proof of payment that someone has paid SWEPCO to put the lights in. I
don't care who pays it but I want a contract saying these streetlights this number
has been paid and there's the contract for their installation.
Newman: We don't own the property owner's association.
Conklin: That's not my problem. Mark is the property owner's association because he
owns every lot in there. I want the POA today to pay the fee and if he wants to
put in his covenants that they have to pay X number of dollars for each streetlights
he can do that. Will that work?
Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer
Petrie: Dave, I know you are aware of this but I will just say it, I have to have the final
inspection before it can go to the Subdivision Committee. Also, before it can go
to Subdivision Committee, we need this grading and drainage conflict taken care
of with Dr. Crawford. Have you submitted anything on that twelve inch water? I
don't remember seeing anything.
Jorgensen: Not yet.
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
August 30, 2000
Page 5
Petrie:
Jorgensen:
Petrie.
Jorgensen:
Petrie.
Jorgensen:
Petrie:
Jorgensen:
Petrie:
Jorgensen:
Petrie:
Okay. We'll just need some of the documentation to make sure before we cut the
check for Mark. On lot 10 there was a sewer service that's coming off the
existing. I just have a question if that has been installed.
I'll have to check.
You guys show a sewer service traveling north of lot one, that can be removed
just in right at that manhole on lot one and lot fifty-two common lot line. See
what I mean?
Yes.
To the east of lot one and the north, you've got drainage easements and utility
easements separated. We are getting some cross-over with both utilities if you
can Just combine those two to the north and east of lot one. Follow me?
Divide them? Call them?
Yes. Just combine them here and here. Utility easement and drainage easement.
Whatever width it is?
Yes.
Thirty foot?
Yes. There's several locations where we have drainage easements and you are
showing them to end at the building setback. I've had this problem come up
before. You usually show the drainage easement going up to the right-of-way
through the utility easements. I've listed the ones that I saw. You have the
payment on the off-site drains assessment in the amount of $74,258.41. It needs
to be paid before we can sign the final plat. Number two under drainage was a
condition of the preliminary plat approval and that's you had a note that all
drainage outside the street right-of-way will be privately owned and maintained.
Next item, question of whether the location of the drainage pipe and swale is
shown correctly along the northern subdivision boundary. I was led to believe
that it wasn't showing right. I don't know if it is or isn't. The other comment for
the standard items that are required before we can sign the final plats. That's all
I've got.
• Conklin: Ron? I just had a question. This is an underground pipe and then it goes into an
•
Plat Review Minutes
August 30, 2000
Page 6
Petrie:
Conklin:
Petrie:
Conklin:
Petrie:
Conklin:
Petrie:
Conklin:
• Petrie:
•
open ditch back here? Is it all underground or does it go from there?
All the way down. This part.
Okay. I see it now. What's that dark line?
It's like an overflow swale, cut-off Swale.
For the 100 year?
Yes. Plus it's picking up all this.
With our request swale, what happens when it gets down there? I'm Just curious.
There's an inlet in back of this box here. The pipes are actually designed for 100
years.
Okay. It's Just picking it up off the slope.
Yes.
Chuck Rutherford - Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator
Rutherford:
Jorgensen.
Rutherford:
Conklin:
Rutherford:
I have a couple comments. Dave? I know you have it listed up here under your
subdivision notes that you have a six foot greenspace but if you look where you
have manholes and things that are existing you are showing the sidewalk going
around those and that's a good thing. That's what we like to see. Are you
showing your sidewalk adjacent to the curb as far as the way it's drawn or are you
showing it with greenspace?
I have to look on that. I'm not positive. I need to look that one up.
If you are short a six foot greenspace and still going around those things in the
way, that's a plus. That's the way it should be. Also, when you get to the point of
drawing the construction plans, at those intersections we will ask for two access
ramps at each corner. You need to show them on the final plat, is that correct?
Yes. You already approved the construction. The curb and gutter is in already.
Okay.
Plat Review Minutes
August 30, 2000
Page 7
Jorgensen. I think we have them in those places.
Rutherford: I think we asked for it in the construction plans.
Conklin: Chuck, I wasn't paying attention when you were talking, is the sidewalk back
behind the curb?
Rutherford: No. If you look under subdivision notes, that's correct the way Dave has it with a
six foot greenspace minimum. The way his drawing was we weren't sure if it was
showing adjacent to the curb with the greenspace and Dave is going to check that.
Conklin: Okay. Thank you.
Jorgensen: I'll get back with you on it.
Rutherford: That's all the comments I have.
Conklin: Kim? Is that the tree preservation plan that's been on the preliminary?
Everybody's happy?
Kim Hesse - Parks Operations Coordinator
Hesse: Yes.
Conklin: Utilities?
Newman: No additional comments.
Bill Smith - Southwestern Bell
Smith:
One comment on lot 12, you kind of choked down on us to the utility easement
like 10 feet. On lot 13 we are on the north side of the drain, we've got 20 feet
then it chokes, we got 30 feet at the rear of lot twelve and to get to that we only
have a 10 foot space.
Jorgensen: He's going to widen that out another ten feet.
Smith: Is that right?
Newman: Yes.
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
August 30, 2000
Page 8
Smith:
Petrie:
That's the only comment I have
You are going to forever regret it if you go on the other side of that easement.
Johney Boles - Arkansas Western Gas
Boles: I think I have an existing line right there.
Jorgensen: I think you do.
Boles: I may be running services off that line.
Conklin: Underneath that thing?
Boles: How deep is it going to be? It's kind of redundant for me to run an additional
line.
Petrie. How deep is this? I don't remember. That was a long time ago.
• Jorgensen: It's a swale on lots 13, 14 and 15 and then from here going east it's just a sewer
•
line.
Petrie: You have a concrete ditch. Pipe undemeath that ditch. It looks like you are going
to only serve two lines.
Conklin: Anything else? Any parks fees, Kim? We collected those already or will those?
Rogers: Will collect.
Conklin: Okay. Thanks a lot everybody.
Plat Review Minutes
August 30, 2000
Page 9
LS 00-30.00: Lot Split (Palmer, pp 572) was submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter & Hodges on
behalf of Larry Palmer for property located at 6290 Danita. The property is zoned R-1, Low
Density Residential and contains approximately 1.46 acres. The request is to split into two tracts
of 0.83 acres and 0.64 acres.
Conklin: Number two is a Lot Split (Palmer, pp 572) was submitted by Glenn Carter of
Carter & Hodges on behalf of Larry Palmer for property located at 6290 Danita.
The property is zoned R-1 and contains approximately 1.46 acres The request is
to split into two tracts of 0.83 acres and 0.64 acres. Good morning Mr. Carter.
We will start with Sara and Planning Division comments.
Sara Edwards, Development Coordinator
Edwards: Okay. Let's start with the legal description. Basically, I dust need directional
calls changed.
Carter: What?
Edwards: You have east, it needs to be west. Also, need to make a comment that the twenty
foot right-of-way on Danita has not beendedicated yet. You still need to put in
there that it would be dedicated by this plat. Parks fees will be assessed in the
amount of $470 for that additional lot.
Carter: For a lot split?
Edwards. Yes. If there are any overhead utilities they'll have to be placed underground.
Carter: It's underground.
Edwards: Okay. Good. That's all that I have.
Carter: There's an overhead transmission line over here across the street on this other
property but it's underground and goes in the back yard.
Edwards. Great.
Carter: There's nothing overhead on here.
Ron Petrie, Staff Engineer
. Petrie: Glenn, my only comment is, on that sewer line I need you to resubmit those
•
Plat Review Minutes
August 30, 2000
Page 10
construction plans. They have been recycled.
Carter: I understand.
Petrie: That's all I've got.
Conklin: With regard to that sewer line just to clarify when that's going to be constructed
and the sale of the lot, we intend that the sewer line, the construction drawings
will be submitted to engineering, approved, it will be constructed, inspected and
accepted by the City prior to the lot split being filed with the County and the deed
transferring title of the property. Is that correct? Is that what I'm understanding?
Carter: The owner was wanting to know if he could pass that on to the guy that sells the
lot to him. I told him I would have to talk to you guys and see.
Petrie: No. I'll give you a reason why. He's could sell that land without telling this guy
he needs to this and he's going to attach that to his price. I'm going to have this
guy in my office screaming at me that it should have been done.
Carter: Constructed, inspected and approved prior to approval
Conklin: Sale of the lot. Transfer of ownership. Transfer of the title of land. In order to
file your deed over at the County, we stamp it approved, saying that it's been
approved. We won't stamp it until engineering informs us that it's all been
constructed, inspected and accepted by the City of Fayetteville.
Carter: He asked me to ask to see what they say.
Conklin: Just wanted to clarify that for the record.
Carter: I understand.
Conklin: Utilities?
Mike Phipps, Ozark Electric
Phipps: If I'm reading this right, we do have a ten foot easement on each side on existing
lot one to the east.
Carter: On the east side?
Plat Review Minutes
• August 30, 2000
Page 11
Phipps: Yes. Is that dark line, I guess that's setback but you have a ten foot UE in there
too that I see?
Carter: Yes. We show that. That's right. There's two lines there, one is an eight foot
setback and the other is a ten foot UE
Phipps: Okay.
Carter: It's kind of redundant. In this case your power line is on the other side of the
road.
Phipps: The only other question I have is street lighting, are we going to have to have
lights at the intersection?
Conklin: No. Perry, no street lights correct?
Perry Franklin - Traffic Superintendent
• Franklin: There's no power there, at this point, to get street lights. These existing
neighborhoods if those people that live there indicate they want a street light and
we trying to work with them on it. At some point in the future if they want, when
that house is built somehow there is power provided then we can get a street light
we would be happy to work with them. At this point in time, of course the power
is over on that comer and it feeds underground to that house from that comer.
Phipps: We got the ten foot easements and pays the due, we could access those at some
point.
Franklin: If they ever get anything down in here somewhere.
Phipps: I have no other comments.
Bill Smith - Southwestern Bell
Smith- No comment.
Johney Boles - Arkansas Western Gas
Boles: No comment.
• Conklin: Anybody else have any comments on this one? Revisions are due Wednesday at
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
August 30, 2000
Page 12
10:00 a.m.
•
Plat Review Minutes
August 30, 2000
Page 13
LS 00-31.00: Lot Split (Hays, pp 291) was submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter & Hodges on
behalf of June Hays for property located north of Sherwood Lane. The property is zoned R-1,
Low Density Residential and contains approximately 3.93 acres. The request is to split into two
tracts of 2.03 acres and 1.90 acres.
Conklin: We'll continue with the next item Glen which is Lot Split 00-31.00 (Hays, pp
291) and was submitted by Glenn Carter of Carter & Hodges on behalf of June
Hays for property located north of Sherwood Lane. The property is zoned R -I,
Low Density Residential and contains approximately 3.93 acres. The request is to
split into two tracts of 2.03 acres and 1.90 acres.
Sara Edwards - Development Coordinator
Edwards: I'll go ahead and go over everything assuming that we have everything taken care
of with regards to frontage. Parks fees for one additional lot is $470. We had
some legal description problems. Also, Glenn has told me that these two parcels
were split and now J.B. Hays has got them back. Then we have got something
sold off right here too.
Carter: There has been quit claim deeds filed and the property line adjusted at some time
or other. The deed shows lot 36 but there are some quit claim deeds where the
owner of this lot and the owner of this lot did something here to adjust this line so
that we come down through here and allow, he didn't have much frontage at the
time. They have a shared driveway in here that they use.
Edwards: Is this the current line?
Carter: This is the current line.
Conklin: You mean that's the one that the City approved. That's a line that the City has
approved.
Carter: I don't know.
Conklin: Okay. I'll have to check that.
Carter: I don't know if they took it through the proper processes. Quit claims deeds have
been filed and it's like you stated earlier these guys, anyone can go to an attorney
and have a quit claim deed filed. I didn't know if this had gone through the
process either but he's bought them back now.
•
Plat Review Minutes
August 30, 2000
Page 14
Edwards: That one actually had.
Carter: It did?
Edwards- Yes. She had problems with the actual legal description. I think I stuck a copy of
that in your packet of just the section.
Carter: We noticed that a couple of things on here that I see you have already done. One
is you would like to see these property line is we had that thing in the wrong place
and that needed to be down here and we got that fixed. I didn't know if you
wanted to show these or not.
Conklin: They are existing lots. I think you need to show them.
Edwards. Even if he bought them. Did they re -file a deed with whole area?
Carter: A correction deed?
• Conklin: What are we looking at here? That's what I'm trying to figure out. I'm confused
what we are doing here.
Carter: This is lot 36 of West Wind Subdivision Phase Three.
Conklin: Okay.
Carter With the quit claims deeds that have adjusted this lot.
Conklin: Lot 36 are we going to call that lot 2 now? Is that what we are calling that?
Carter: I see. I should've said tract one and tract two there. Yes. The original tract is lot
36. I should've said that.
Conklin: Why don't you put that on there. That would be helpful. What are we splitting?
Carter: We are splitting lot 36 into tract one and two.
Edwards: So this line is for lot 35.
Conklin: This is a property line right here that you are showing.
• Carter: This line right here is just a fence line. The whole thing is lot 36.
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
August 30, 2000
Page 15
Conklin: Mr. Hayes owns this property up here?
Carter: Yes.
Conklin: He doesn't want to just adjust that property to that piece of property?
Carter: Well, we were talking about that. I haven't spoken to him about that but I believe
that might be a more feasible thing for him to do. Just adjust the lot line if you
can for this property that he owns here to take in property up to this line. Can you
do that?
Conklin: You should be able to. This already exists. You should be able to make it larger.
I don't think that's going to make it any more non -conforming. You should be
able to do that. That's just one question I had. What are we trying to accomplish
here?
Carter:
That's what we are trying to do. We are trying to get it separate from his
residential property here. I don't know all his future plans but that would
probably accomplish the same thing we are trying to do with the lot split in a
much more conforming manner.
Conklin: This doesn't meet R-1 standards. This lot one. I don't think it's possible.
Carter: With the lot size.
Edwards. Frontage.
Conklin: Seventy feet of frontage on an improved public street. You don't have that. We
are not asking for a tandem lot, it looks like, either.
Carter: So they didn't have frontage and all those concerns to think about. If we do a lot
line adjustment, will he have to have frontage along this portion of the lot.
Conklin: Which ones? For the house?
Carter: Yes.
Conklin: This wasn't adding frontage to it, I don't think it's making it any more non-
conforming. What was the name of the plat again?
Carter: West Winds Subdivision.
Plat Review Minutes
• August 30, 2000
Page 16
Conklin: West Winds Subdivision.
Carter: Phase three.
Conklin: We'll have to research that file to make sure that wasn't part of their open space
or something.
Edwards: It wasn't.
Conklin: Okay.
Carter: Just to kind of recap and make sure I understand what you are saying is we could
resubmit this as a lot line adjustment for this property and this property and adjust
the line to come up like this and join this property.
Conklin: That's the only way I think you could do it. I don't think the City is going to
allow you create an additional lot with no access.
• Carter: The access issue we talked about a little bit would be to build a new road that
would comply with the City Street Standards.
Petrie: That's correct. They won't take over what's there now and make it a public street.
Carter: Okay. Will this need to stop in the process right now and then come back?
Conklin: I think so. Where is the house, restaurant or whatever that building is there? Is
that on lot one?
Carter. The house, no, it's on David Ames property right now. It's not part of this.
Conklin: I'm just trying to think through a zoning issue if there's a problem. This is zoned
R-0 I believe up here at this parking lot. I think it is.
Carter: Okay, if this is R-0, this is R-1, does that mean this will have to be a rezoning?
Conklin: Maybe. I'll have to take a look at
Carter: Let's just do that.
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
August 30, 2000
Page 17
LS 00-29.00: Lot Split (Pursley, pp 140) was submitted by Joanne Pursley for property located
at 4337 N. Old Wire Road The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately
7.17 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 5.01 acres and 2.16 acres.
Conklin: This is a Lot Split 00-29.00 for Joanne Pursley for property located at 4337 N.
Old Wire Road. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately
7.17 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 5.01 acres and 2.16 acres. Of
course you met me before, Tim Conklin, City Planning Director. This is Sara
Edwards our Development Coordinator. Sara will go first with our Planning
Division comments which you have a copy of.
Sara Edwards. Development Coordinator
Edwards: I'm going to start with we had some problems with the legal. It's not a major
thing This line is repeated, it needs to be taken out. Then these property owners
are switched.
Pursley:
• Edwards:
Pursley:
Edwards:
Pursley:
Edwards:
Pursley:
Edwards:
Pursley:
Edwards.
I noticed that.
She is saying that Darrell Richards has put a quit claim deed on this.
That was a long time ago. So we just need to take that off and put Joanne?
Yes. That will take care of that.
So does he just go back on his computer and do that?
Yes.
Do I need to bring twenty-eight copies?
Thirty-seven.
Thirty-seven copies?
Yes.
Pursley: 1 notice that but he dropped it off at 10:30 on Sunday night and I was supposed to
have this here at 8:30 Monday morning.
• Edwards: The next thing is, we are going to consider this as two lot splits.
Plat Review Minutes
August 30, 2000
Page 18
Conklin: Joanne, I know you have been through a lot and I'm trying to figure out how
many lots are we creating here. It looks like we are creating three the way it is
drawn.
Pursley: This is separate from those two. These two are just on the legal but there are
already separate lots.
Conklin: Okay. This middle piece, I guess what we will need to see is the parent tract.
When I say parent tract of property. When this was sold if we couldn't find the
record. Remember we were talking about the record of when it was split off? It
looked like it was split off of this area here.
Pursley: Yes. A lawyer did that and we did that in Mr. Ward's office. I have a feeling it
wasn't done right at that time only we were too dumb to know that they had
connected these two pieces of property.
Conklin: Basically, what I think we are doing here is we are going to create three, the end
product we are going to have three lots that can be sold. Is that what you want?
Pursley: Right.
Conklin: I think in order to keep the paperwork all straight we need another $200 lot split
fee.
Pursley: Okay. From one of these?
Conklin: Yes. So we end up with three lots. We need the legal description for this one
showing on here too.
Pursley: So he will need to put the legal for where the home is.
Conklin: The middle piece. Yes. You know, I apologize. I am not trying to make it
difficult or anything. I just want it to be clear in our record that three lots were
created and approved by the City of Fayetteville.
Rogers: How many lots is there going to be?
Edwards. This isn't in the City.
Conklin: This is not in the City. It's in the Planning Area. Put the parent tract and legal
description on there.
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
August 30, 2000
Page 19
Pursley: So when I fill out a new form I have to put the legal on this original one here?
Conklin: Yes. I don't think that's ever been approved. Isn't that what we determined?
Pursley: I don't know. I have a separate for this one. I have a separate legal for that and
these two were drawn up illegally I guess and the City never caught it, we've been
paying taxes on it.
Conklin: I'm trying to figure out where this one came from though. Where this middle
piece came from.
Pursley: That's was the original piece we bought. That's all that we could afford.
Conklin: But what was it a part of before?
Pursley: 1 have no idea.
Conklin: What I'm saying, if this was all one piece before and they just sold you this
middle piece and these two remnants they assigned a parcel number to.
Pursley; It's always looked like this though. On the survey that the City had that the
surveyor brought, it's always looked like this. It wasn't one piece of land. It's
always looked like this. I'm not answering your question?
Conklin: I know. A lot split, typically, you have one piece of property and you draw a line
and it creates two.
Pursley: Right but these lines were here when we bought it. This is the way we bought it.
We bought the house with 3.54 acres.
Conklin: Right. Was that line already in existence or was that drawn up by someone?
Pursley: I'm not sure. This is the way it looked when we bought it and this had a
description. That's all we could buy was this.
Conklin: I understand that.
Pursley: Eventually we picked up those two.
• Conklin: It sounds like they only sold you a portion of a larger tract of property. Which
resulted in creating two lots.
Plat Review Minutes
August 30, 2000
Page 20
Pursley: That I honestly don't know.
Conklin: Okay. That's what it looks like to me. That's why I want to clean it up.
Pursley: I just don't know.
Conklin: I think we just need to clean it up in my opinion. You get three lots, you can sell
all three, if you want, in the future.
Pursley: Right.
Conklin: I'll do some more research on it.
Pursley: This is the way it was. This is what I brought you originally and I know it's what
the City had eighteen years ago. We bought this property about seventeen years
ago. That's all you could pull up. It shows the three separate tracts. We bought
the middle one originally.
• Conklin: We could never find any approval though.
Pursley: That's because it was not done right from the beginning.
Conklin: I know. That's why I'm trying to take care of it now.
•
Pursley: Mr. Lee Ward was the one in his office we did the business in originally. They
had some lawyer but we, like I said, were out of college and had no clue that we
weren't reading that these two were connected. It's on one parcel.
Conklin: I11 take a look at it. Why don't we just keep on going on. I'll take a look at it.
I'm not trying to penalize you or anything.
Pursley: Well, $400 to separate land that we already have as three separate legal
descriptions. Only the one piece of paper shows that those two were connected
but obviously they are not.
Conklin: They are not connected.
Pursley: It's just a little frustrating. It seems like a lot of stuff where administratively it
wasn't take care of right on the spot. The City or someone should have caught. If
we weren't dumb when we bought it, maybe we would have known that those two
were on the same parcel.
Plat Review Minutes
August 30, 2000
Page 21
Conklin: We just want you to have three lots. In the end I want you to have three lots you
can sell. That's what I am trying to accomplish here.
Pursley: Right.
Conklin: This one created.
Pursley: This was the first one we bought.
Conklin: Yes. This one was created legally. I can't find anything.
Pursley: You still can't find anything?
Conklin: No. I never could find anything. That's why when we talked about doing a
property line adjustment and transfer it to the adjoining property.
Pursley: I have so much paperwork at home and I brought down our warranty deeds and all
that. It just seems like when we originally bought that, it had to have been done.
How could we have bought it?
Conklin: Unfortunately, in Washington County, they record deeds all the time that don't
have approval from the City or County Planning office.
Pursley: Okay. So it happened back when.
Conklin: It still happens. I don't know how to correct it over at the County. That's the
problem. I would love to have a lot split application showing three lots on here
and two fees. That way you have three tracts of land approved by the City and the
County.
Pursley: For the first $200 I wrote up, which one will that be for?
Conklin: It doesn't matter.
Pursley: You have to put a legal description on there.
Conklin: Put tract one, two and this will be tract three. Put it for tract three then. The
middle tract.
Pursley: So you want this one described?
Plat Review Minutes
August 30, 2000
Page 22
Conklin: Yes. Which you already have a legal description on there.
Pursley: Anything else?
Edwards: Yes. We have a reference number here. We dust want you to put plat page 140
down here somewhere in the title block. We also need to have the right-of-way
dimensioned from centerline so we know how much is existing. If it's less than
thirty-five feet, we do require that thirty-five feet be dedicated. To bring the total
to thirty-five feet. We are not sure what's existing there so maybe a few more feet
needs to be dedicated.
Conklin: This is on our Master Street Plan. By ordinance it requires us to dedicate.
Pursley: It has to be thirty-five feet?
Conklin: Yes. That has to be dedicated.
Pursley: He knows how to show that?
• Conklin: Yes. He should know how to show that.
Edwards: You are going to get approval from County after you get our approval?
Pursley: Right. What do I do? Who do I bring these back to?
Conklin: You are going to bring those back to our office by next Wednesday by 10:00 a.m.
Pursley: Is there going to be a meeting here September 6'"?
Conklin: No.
Pursley: I'm going to be out of town that day. I can just bring it Monday or Tuesday?
Conklin: Yes. Sure. The earlier the better. Have your surveyor draw up the changes.
Pursley: Right. It doesn't look like that will be real hard. So then you want a legal?
Conklin: Yes. By the way Monday City Hall is closed. It's a national holiday.
Pursley: That's right. Tuesday. Okay.
•
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
August 30, 2000
Page 23
Conklin: I don't want to be here Monday.
Edwards. The next meeting will be September 14, 2000.
Pursley: I think I have that. September 14, 2000, here at what time?
Edwards. 8:30 a.m.
Pursley: So we bring all this back with 37 copies?
Conklin: Joanne, we're not done yet.
Pursley: I know that.
Conklin: What we are going to do now, unless you have anymore questions, Ron Petrie our
Staff Engineer will make comments and these are all the different utility
companies that provide utilities in Fayetteville in our Planning Area and they are
all going to give you comments of what they would like to see to serve these lots
for future development. Ready Ron?
Ron Petrie, Staff Engineer
Petrie. Sure. I have no comment.
Conklin: Water is in front of each lot?
Petrie: Yes. There is a six inch water line along Old Wire Road where sewer is not
available out here.
Johney Boles, Arkansas Western Gas
Boles: Personally, I would like for you to show if you would a twenty foot utility
easement adjacent to Old Wire Road on all three tracts.
Pursley: Do you just draw a line? Does the surveyor know how to do this?
Conklin: Yes.
Boles: We need to make sure that it's outside of the thirty-five foot right-of-way that
needs to be dedicated. Say you have thirty-three feet there now and you have to
dedicate an additional two feet to acquire the thirty-five feet, just make sure that
•
Plat Review Minutes
August 30, 2000
Page 24
the eastern edge of that utility easement begins at the western edge of the right-of-
way. Follow me?
Pursley: No.
Boles: Okay.
Pursley: Does it need to go in here or over here?
Boles: It needs to go on private property outside of this.
Pursley: So you want twenty more feet?
Conklin: That's correct. That's what he is asking. You will still own the property but they
will have the right to go in and put gas lines in. Are other people going to be in
that? Is it a general utility easement?
Phipps: Yes.
• Smith: Yes.
Pursley: Is that what it's called?
Conklin: Yes.
Boles: Yes, ma'am. That's all I have.
Pursley: Surveyors know about this stuff right?
Conklin: Yes. Most of them do.
Mike Phipps, Ozark Electric
Phipps: We'll need that easement up front too but I'll need an easement between tract one
and tract two. If we can get a twenty foot easement 10 foot on each side of that
property line just to the north on the south property line between tract one and
your property.
Conklin: Between tract one and that property? Ten foot on each side?
• Phipps: Yes.
•
Plat Review Minutes
August 30, 2000
Page 25
Pursley: Okay. So you want a survey that shows ten feet on either side of this line here.
That's the north line. That's the one you want, not the south line?
Phipps: Yes. The south line of tract one.
Conklin: Ten feet on each side for a total of twenty. There's a pond out there.
Pursley: Actually that goes right through the front. This goes into the pond.
Phipps: Does it? We could use the north property line then, twenty foot on it. We don't
know where they are going to build a house at so I have to get within 200 feet of a
home when it's built. Where gas you just run it all the way to the front for them.
For power, we need to be able to get within 200 feet of the home.
Pursley: Did you know there is big power poles back over here on Mr. Sith's property?
Phipps: Yes. They're over there but soon we will need it on this property.
• Conklin: So twenty foot general utility easement on the north boundary of tract one.
Phipps: Yes.
Pursley: Twenty foot electric?
Phipps: Twenty foot general.
Conklin: General.
Pursley: General easement?
Conklin: Yes.
Pursley: What else? Is it called twenty foot general easement?
Conklin: General utility easement.
Phipps: Twenty foot UE's. That's all the comments.
Pursley: That's just a standard thing right? All that's just standard stuff?
• Phipps: Yes. We may not use it depending on where they build the house. It's good to
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
August 30, 2000
Page 26
have.
Pursley: The one problem I have with that is the fact that this is the level land that you can
build a home on and twenty feet is a lot of land.
Phipps: Well but you have a setback anyway. You can't build that close to the property
line to begin with.
Pursley: Is that right?
Boles: What is the setback in the County?
Conklin: County does have some setbacks. I don't have any building permits so someone
is checking.
Phipps: They couldn't get that close to the property line. It's likely to be a utility
easement setback.
Pursley: So either way they couldn't build over there even if they wanted to?
Phipps: No.
Pursley: There is a little creek that runs through here and that's the next level area right
there. Alright. Anything else?
Conklin: Anybody else have anything on this lot split? I'm looking forward to getting
those revisions back.
Pursley: I'll just get this back to you as soon as possible.
Conklin: If you have any questions just give us a call. We would be more than happy to
talk to you or your surveyor.
Pursley: If he has a question I'm going to have him call.
Conklin: Okay.
Pursley: I need one of those things to fill out for a lot split.
Conklin: Sure. Yes.
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
August 30, 2000
Page 27
Pursley: So who's fault was this at the beginning? The lawyer's where we signed it and it
was with a real estate agent?
Conklin: I'm really not going to comment on fault's. The law required it to be done, I'm
not sure who's at fault really. I'm just trying to enforce the laws we have on the
books today. That's what the issue is. You can talk to an attorney.
Pursley: You can get stuck any way depending on who you are using.
Conklin: If you have any questions, give me a call. Thank you very much.
•
Plat Review Minutes
August 30, 2000
Page 28
LSD 00-27.00: Large Scale Development (Emad Damen Duplex Units, pp 364) was
submitted by Shawki Al-Madhoun, PE of Northstar Engineering Consultants on behalf of Emad
Damen for property located at 2309 & 2323 W. Deane Street. The property is zoned R-2,
Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 1.47 acres with 14 units proposed.
Conklin: The next item is a Large Scale Development 00-27.00 submitted by Shawki Al-
Madhoun, PE of Northstar Engineenng Consultants on behalf of Emad Damen for
property located at 2309 & 2323 W. Deane Street. The property is zoned R-2,
Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 1.47 acres with 14 units
proposed. We'll start with Sara Edward our Development Coordinator with
Planning comments.
Cheryl Zotti - Environmental Affairs Administrator
Zotti:
First of all you did not show any space for a dumpster. I'm going to assume that
is probably what is going to be used here. We do see wheel out carts but they it's
going to have to be wheeled out to here. I don't know what you want to do. You
need to show at least a four cubic yard space/pad for a dumpster.
• Kim Hesse - Landscape Administrator
Hesse:
Individual trees 24" in diameter and larger are to be identified by species and the
tree symbol on the drawing is to be representative of the actual canopy diameter.
All trees are to be shown on the plan and those proposed for preservation shall be
indicated. No disturbance is allowed under the drip -line of the trees to be
preserved. All grade changes and utility trenching must be outside the canopy
edge for trees to be considered preserved. Trees to be preserved are to have tree
protection fencing indicated on the grading plan. Notes and details for tree
protection shall also be indicated on the grading plan. Some form of irrigation is
required, please review off-street parking lot landscaping requirements. Screening
is required along the east and south boundary lines where adjacent to R-1. Talk to
Kim about that if you have any questions.
Kim Rogers, Parks Operations Coordinator
Rogers: It went to parks board and they did vote to accept the money in Lieu of the land in
the amount of $4,500.
Perry Franklin, Traffic Superintendent
• Franklin: As far as ADA parking spaces go, because these actual parking lot is in front of
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
August 30, 2000
Page 29
each duplex, you have to have at least one ADA space in each of these little lots.
Sara Edwards - Development Coordinator
Edwards:
AI-Madhoun:
Edwards.
AI-Madhoun:
Conklin:
AI-Madhoun:
Conklin:
AI-Madhoun:
Conklin:
You did have some incorrect zoning on the east here and the south. It's R-2. I
need you to add plat page 364. I need you to dimension the right-of-way from
centerline on the street. That is a minor arterial on our Master Street Plan so we
have to have forty-five feet from centerline dedicated. On your side setback, you
have incorrectly as twenty-five feet, it only needs to be eight. We do also need to
eliminate this curb cut because you are adding one. Just have them access the
private drive. You are over on your number of parking spaces. Two per unit plus
20%.
It Just happened to work good for the layout. That's fine.
Are you going to eliminate them?
I probably wont. I'll probably in the landscape, probably keep the same number
of parking.
Okay. We have a minimum and a maximum in Fayetteville. If you are over the
maximum you are going to have to ask for a Conditional Use approval at the
Planning Commission. Can you describe these units in the duplex, how many
bedrooms in each unit.
Yes.
Are they two bedroom?
I believe they are. I'll go ahead and describe them and include a floor plan with
that.
I'm just curious. If they were three bedroom you might need the parking. Two
bedrooms with four students in there you probably need the parking. Just for the
record this is zoned R-2. There is a Bill of Assurance that was offered by the
applicant stating that it wouldn't be anymore than fourteen units on this property.
Two existing single-family homes exist on this property. R-2 zoning was required
because this is being considered a multi -family apartment type complex even
though they are showing duplexes. Typically, if they were duplexes under R-1.5
we would require the street frontage individual lot area You push all these
together and it wouldn't even be an issue and I wouldn't even be making this
Plat Review Minutes
• August 30, 2000
Page 30
statement but just for clarification, they are duplexes but this is more of a multi-
family type development with the shared parking and the shared drives and not
individual duplexes on lots. It's an actual multi -family complex that we are
looking at this morning. How's that?
Edwards: May I continue with my comments? You have about forty feet of width shown
here from wide scale in aisle width. We try to limit the amount of pavement we
have. The aisle width will move to 24 feet. That's the aisle and the driveway.
That whole thing.
Conklin: So a 19 foot stall, 24 foot aisle, 19 foot stall.
Edwards: I thought I saw some overhead electric on this property.
Glen Newman - SWEPCO
Newman:
• Edwards:
Newman:
Conklin:
Newman:
Conklin:
Newman:
Conklin:
Newman:
Conklin.
Newman:
Al-Madhoun:
• Newman:
The main circuit goes across that Main Street.
Do you know how many KB that is?
For the main circuit?
Yes.
12,000 volt.
So south side on this side of the project is 240?
Yes to secondary.
Okay. That needs to be put underground. That existing overhead line.
That will all come out when demolition of the two existing homes.
He's not doing that.
He's not going to bulldoze those?
No. We are going to stay with these two houses.
Okay. We'll have to put them underground.
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
August 30, 2000
Page 31
Conklin:
You understand our ordinance requires that the line be placed underground
because it's below 12,000 KV?
Al-Madhoun: Right.
Conklin:
Bill Smith
Which means you are going to have to plan for putting that to the houses
underground and put a new connection into each house. If there is any other
utilities on those poles with regard to cable or telephone they have some
additional costs too.
- Southwestern Bell
Smith:
I'm not sure if I'm on the pole or underground telephone. There's a pedestal in
your entrance that will be your cost for us to relocate it. In your driveway. For
Southwestern Bell. You will have to contact us in our business office and request
that to be moved.
Al-Madhoun: Is that an easement to begin with?
•
Smith. I'm assuming there is an easement through there.
Al-Madhoun: We can talk about the finances.
Smith. You are going to grant that easement across there.
Al-Madhoun: That's fine. No problem.
Edwards.
Are you going to name these something and put a sign out there?
AI-Madhoun: I know he wants to put a sign out.
Edwards.
You need to talk to him about that and locate it on here for us. Chuck did you
have anything about sidewalks?
Chuck Rutherford - Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator
Rutherford:
Yes. Along Main Street being a collector street, six foot sidewalk will be required
with a ten foot minimum greenspace. That sidewalk will be required to be
continuous through the driveway, in other words, the curb and gutter will start and
stop on each side of the sidewalk The sidewalk also needs to be added to the
legend.
Plat Review Minutes
August 30, 2000
Page 32
Bender.
Rutherford:
Bender.
You said that was a collector? Did you mean to say minor arterial?
Minor arterial. I'm sorry. The requirement's are the same.
Ten foot greenspace six foot sidewalk?
Rutherford: Minimum. Continuous through the driveway.
Conklin:
Al-Madhoun:
Rutherford:
When he says continuous that means your curb line on your driveway has to be
removed. You have to show the sidewalk physically going all the way through
the driveway and constructed that way. You have to have a concrete approach off
of Deane Street that comes up to that sidewalk that's going through your
driveway. Chuck Rutherford.
I'm talking about the handicapped cut, the ADA approved cut on the sidewalk
right?
If you do the sidewalk continuous at two percent above the curb there would be
no need for an access ramp. That's the way we would like to see it. We are not
saying you have to do it at that elevation. If you lower it down where for some
reason people seem to want to do that then you will have to meet the ADA access.
Al-Madhoun: That's what we would like to do.
Rutherford:
Edwards.
You have to remember when you do that, lower that down, you are opening up
more capability of that private street taking on more water when you do that.
That's all that I have.
Ron Petrie - Staff Engineer
Petrie:
Bender:
Petrie:
I'll skip over the general comments. For water, I don't believe Mickey Jackson
had any comments for this project. Second comment, ask that you locate and
show the existing twelve inch water line on this property and check to make sure
we have enough easements. You've got it shown I think. I did find a note that all
building setbacks are to serve as utility easements?
That is correct.
Okay. I'm was a little confused when I saw these service lines. Each individual
unit or duplex will be metered separately for water?
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
August 30, 2000
Page 33
AI-Madhoun: I believe so.
Petrie. Okay. You don't have it shown that way with the service block. I don't know if
they were so close you combined them into one service line.
Bender: Each unit will have a meter.
Petrie: Those meters will be set up on Deane Street I assume. They will need to be.
AI-Madhoun: On Deane Street for all of them?
Petrie:
Right. Set them up there so they can be accessed from the public street. For
sewer, I discussed this with Jim Beavers and also Don Bunch, City Engineer and
Assistant Public Works Director and they feel that a public main is needed to be
extended through this development. At least up to south of the existing residences
due to the number of units in this. Lengthwise you will probably come out ahead
on sewer main. This guy will never have to maintain it. Cost -wise.
Bender. You prefer to go?
Conklin: That would be one public main in the middle down to the south of the property
line.
Petrie: Right. It will tie in here so it will probably be somewhere up in here it will end.
It doesn't have to be in that island. All the new sewer lines, the smallest size we
allow is eight inch. You show an eight inch existing. Our records show this is a
six inch. It's not going to make a whole lot of sense to extend an eight inch from
a six inch but that's a requirement.
Bender: You want to tap into that existing with a new manhole?
Petrie.
That would be fine. For the grading requirements, I have included a copy of the
checklist in with that package. There are several small items that would not
change anything on the plan but if you could just add those. I won't go through
all of them, I think they are pretty self explanatory. On both grading and
drainage, I don't know if you are familiar with the way Fayetteville does these
preliminary items. There are different requirements for preliminary and final. It
appears like you wanted me to review this as a final grading and drainage. So
that's what I did. There may be more comments and you can just review it as a
preliminary. For drainage, I did include, I don't know if you have a copy of the
checklist, you need a copy of that for a final drainage report. There's several
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
August 30, 2000
Page 34
Conklin:
A1-Madhoun:
Petrie:
Conklin:
items that I saw that weren't included in the drainage report. I'll just go over the
items that will affect the plan. The number one item is, I believe you will need
detention on this site. Our requirements basically state that you have to have
detention unless you can prove you don't need it. I didn't see it was proved in the
report so I believe detention will be required on this site.
Ron? With that statement that would cause a redesign.
I have some room there. I think there would be some off-site improvement has to
be done on the drainage ditch has to be cleaned up.
I didn't see that there was going to be a drainage there at all. You have a low
point but no defined ditch. We've had several complaints here with flooding in
these houses. That's what we are really looking at detention.
There are very concerned owners and the owner of this over here. The
townhouses. Last year there was flooding that I believe did get into some of the
units. Upstream on this east side of this cul-de-sac when the rezoning came
through on these eleven acres to the east there was a lot of concerns with drainage.
AI-Madhoun: I'll probably put detention along the south property line. Make pre -development
flow match post -development flow. Bring it back to pre -development flow.
There was drainage problems to begin with.
Edwards.
Petrie:
Conklin:
Petrie:
What's the setback from a structure on detention pond?
Setback from a structure is twenty feet from high water mark. The grading
setback is five feet cut or fill slopes.
Five feet typically because you have to cut or fill to make a pond.
I won't go through the rest of these that needs to be included in the drainage
report. You are welcome to call me and I'll be glad to go over it with you. The
only other comment was, is there an existing ditch along Deane Street? I wasn't
sure.
Al-Madhoun: No.
Petrie.
You need a culvert underneath the driveway.
AI-Madhoun: No. There's another well defined ditch.
Plat Review Minutes
August 30, 2000
Page 35
Petrie: If you have any questions feel free to call me.
AI-Madhoun: Thanks.
Conklin: Any other staff comments? Chuck? Kim? Are the trees, you had some at
yesterday's meeting.
Hesse: It's just that what you are showing preserved you have to cross-reference with
grading and utility. Utilities will make that destruction even worse. Be aware of
that.
Conklin: This is zoned R-2. The minimum percent canopy is 20%. What percent canopy
do they have on this project.
Kim Hesse - Landscape Administrator
Hesse: I think they are showing 20% but that's not feasible.
Conklin: What is the existing percent canopy on this site.
AI-Madhoun: I believe 27% or 28%.
Conklin: You are showing looks like 20% tree canopy but the Landscape Administrator is
stating that it's not feasible to do that based on where the utility easements are
shown. You won't count that. Is that correct Kim9
Hesse: Yes. I'm not going to count that.
Conklin: The question is what percent canopy are you going to show on this? Is it the
20%? Are you doing replacements? That's what I would like to know by
Subdivision Committee.
Al-Madhoun: When can I give you an answer to that.
Conklin: Unless you can give it to me today. Kim will need that by when you turn your
revisions in next Wednesday by 10:00 a.m.
Hesse: You may want to look at redesigning, putting your sewer down the center and
arrange some of the other utilities differently. You are going to be doing some
rearrangement with parking. I've got to see all that's there.
•
Plat Review Minutes
August 30, 2000
Page 36
Conklin:
All the landmark trees anything over 24" need to be labeled and shown on the
plan. Any other staff comments before we go to utilities? Kim?
Kim Rogers - Parks Operations Coordinator
Rogers:
I just have to confirm the billing address. Is it still ????
Al-Madhoun: Yes.
Rogers:
Conklin:
Okay. That's all.
Utilities.
Glen Newman - SWEPCO
Newman:
• Al-Madhoun:
Conklin:
Newman:
•
Conklin:
Al-Madhoun:
Newman:
Easements along the rear the back lot line on the east and west side of the property
underground.
I was going to go through those trees but plans changed.
Can electric go in front or down through the parking?
It can. All that does is finding a place in those islands trying to keep people off of
them when they park their vehicles. We don't like to go along the front because
they will get damaged.
Well he's going to pull the parking in because his aisle width are forty feet and he
only needs twenty-four so there should be greenspace in front of the units.
I rather put the utilities in the middle here. We spent a lot of money trying to save
these trees.
We'll see if we can go in the front.
Al-Madhoun: Okay.
Newman:
It may come down to deciding it one way and you paying the difference of the
cost.
Al-Madhoun• Right now we are trying to design it for public but mostly for aisle width.
Plat Review Minutes
• August 30, 2000
Page 37
•
Johnev Boles - Arkansas Western Gas
Boles:
We do have an existing twenty foot easement in front of both of these lots that I
secured a couple of years ago when we placed the Deane Street project. We have
an existing gas line on the west side of this development. I won't have the
authority to make the call but I'm probably going to be told that these units on the
west side will need to be served off of that line. I'll have to check with the
powers that be and see how they want to design this.
Al-Madhoun: On Deane Street this one is going to be forty-five from the center.
Edwards: Yes.
Boles:
We have an existing easement off of the right-of-way that's twenty feet. That's
what I secured for the previous owners before Mr. Damen purchased this
property. We need twenty feet outside the new dedicated right-of-way.
Al-Madhoun: So all the setbacks we are showing are an easement?
Boles: This is another thing I'm confused about too. Is this a setback line? You've also
labeled that a utility easement but you have your building sitting right on it.
AI-Madhoun: They will be changed from 25 foot setbacks to eight foot.
Edwards: Whatever you do keep your building out of the utility easement.
Al-Madhoun: Sure.
Boles:
It looks like that this house here is located approximately fifteen feet off of the
property line. This one over here is about seventeen feet. Is there going to be
adequate area in front of all these units to get power, gas meters and everything
set?
Conklin: Why don't you do it between the units. Will that work?
Newman: Wherever we locate our termination point, the service cables from the units will
have to originate from there.
Conklin: Doesn't Jim Lindsey do that?
• Boles: It's his expense.
•
Plat Review Minutes
August 30, 2000
Page 38
AI-Madhoun: It's all electric.
Conklin: I see the electric meter on that side.
Boles: He did early on, he doesn't anymore.
Bill Smith - Southwestern Bell
Smith: We discussed adjusting the easement lines? Is there enough room in there? How
far is your water?
Boles: We want everything run in front.
Smith: In front?
AI-Madhoun: In front. This way we can save those trees.
Conklin. This parking aisle width is too wide. It's going to be reduced to twenty-four so
there will be greenspace out front of the building. We are talking about possibly
putting it in between the units Just trying to make it look better for the
applicants.
Boles: The parking aisle will be twenty-four?
Conklin: Twenty-four. Yes.
A1-Madhoun: It will increase that greenspace in front of the units and pull everything back.
Smith: Pull everything back then are you going to dedicate easements getting us into
there?
Al-Madhoun: How much do you need?
Boles: It may get complicated.
Al-Madhoun: Let's get away from the standard twenty foot know.
Boles: It may take more.
Smith: If you reduce the easement, if you put conduit in for us I can...
•
•
•
Plat Review Minutes
August 30, 2000
Page 39
Al-Madhoun: Conduits under the parking?
Smith: Yes. Coming out to a common place where we can... If you provide the conduit
for us I can live with the reduced easement because I'm not doing the digging and
we can share space. Electric and I can share a trench.
Boles: We can share a trench.
AI-Madhoun: Let me revise thisnow and then pass it on. If you give me whatever you would
like. I rather give you conduits, that's my personal preference in how we do
things.
Boles: We are going to have to trench. You guys have your own way of doing things.
Smith: We can be in the same common trench.
Boles: I'll visit with Mr. Damen.
AI-Madhoun: I'll give him a call this evening if he's going to go all electric or gas.
Smith: I'll give you my card and we can talk about it. Maybe the three of us can meet
and see where it's going to go.
Edwards: Do you guys just want to call me after you meet and say this plan is good with
me. We can hand them out again at Subdivision and you can take a look at it and
let me know.
Smith: Once you revise the parking width and all that, get back with us Maybe the three
of us can meet, we'll discuss it.
AI-Madhoun: Coming up on a long weekend, I'll probably get this thing by Friday. Can we
meet Friday, is that possible?
Smith: This Friday?
AI-Madhoun: Yes.
Smith: I might be able to meet you for a while this Friday.