Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-01-16 - MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE A regular meeting of the City of Fayetteville Subdivision Committee was held on Thursday, January 16, 2003 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN FPL 03-1.00: Final Plat (Heritage East Ph.II, pp 565) Approved Page 16 LSP 03-3.00: Lot Split (Ruble, pp 436) Approved Page 20 LSP 03-4.00: Lot Split (Zakariadze, pp 439) Forwarded to Planning Commission Page 9 LSP 03-5.00: Lot Split (Mersky, pp 102) Approved Page 25 LSD 03-3.00: Large Scale Development (Rasberry, 366) Forwarded to Planning Commission Page 6 LSD 03-2.00: Large Scale Development (Sloan, pp 399) Forwarded to Planning Commission Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERSABSENT Lee Ward Alan Ostner (Late Arrival) Don Bunch Sharon Hoover STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Kim Hesse Keith Shreve Sara Edwards Matt Casey Fire Department Perry Franklin Solid Waste Kim Rogers Renee Thomas Subdivision Committee January 16, 2003 Page 2 LSD 03-2.00: Large Scale Development (Sloan, pp 399) was submitted by North Star Engineering Consultants Inc. on behalf of Charlie Sloan for property owned by Westridge Freewill Baptist Church and located at 4596 Wedington Drive. The property is zoned R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential and contains approximately 2.36 acres with 6 lots proposed. Ward: Welcome to the Fayetteville Subdivision Committee meeting. This is Thursday, January 16, 2003. We have six items on the agenda this morning. We are waiting for one of our Commissioners to get here so we will go ahead and handle some of the things that could be forwarded onto the full Planning Commission that we don't need the third Commissioner for. The first one we are going to visit this morning is LSD 03-2.00 submitted by North star Engineering Consultants, Inc. on behalf of Charlie Sloan for property owned by Westridge Freewill Baptist Church and located at 4596 Wedington Drive. The property is zoned R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential and contains approximately 2.36 acres with six lots proposed. Sara? Edwards: The proposal is for 18 units, six three unit buildings. Right now Franciscan Trail is not constructed at this point and they will be constructing it on both ends. Trinity Drive is also being constructed into the site to provide the required street frontage in an R-1.5 district. They are providing 36 parking spaces. Surrounding zoning is R- 1.5 and R-2. Water and sewer are both available along Franciscan Trail. Under tree preservation, existing canopy is 28%, proposed preserved is 9.17%. The requirement in this district is 20% and they are proposing mitigation for the site. We do have some conditions. 1) That Trinity Drive shall be marked as a fire lane with no on street parking allowed. That is what the Fire Chief requested in order to service these buildings. 2) Planning Commission determination of a requested waiver for a dead end street longer than 500'. The proposal is for a 575' dead-end street and we are in support of that request. The detention pond contours may not exceed a 3 to 1 slope unless retaining walls are proposed and shown on the plan. Matt may be able to address that. Casey: They have addressed that. Edwards: All buildings are required to be setback 20' from the 100 -year water surface elevation. Ward: Please introduce yourself for the public record. Sloan: I am Charlie Sloan, the developer on this project. Ward: Do you see any problems with any of these conditions that we need to address? Sloan: The only question I have is I had suggested that we mark the east side of the new street that was going in with fire, just to keep anybody from parking on that side. I didn't realize it was both sides. I just need to get back with him on that one. Subdivision Committee January 16, 2003 Page 3 Edwards: They require 20' of unobstructed width and so with a 24' street there is not room for on street parking. Sloan: How do you do a residential street that is 24'? I know I have driven down subdivisions with those streets and we were offered that on Legacy Pointe and we elected to stay with the wider streets. Edwards: We typically deal with that on a case by case basis. Once parking becomes a problem on a street then our Traffic Superintendent will go out there and mark it no parking. Sloan: We didn't really need to use it for parking, I was just asking the question of why. Ward: Matt with Engineering, do you have any concerns? Casey: No, we have worked quite a bit with the engineer to get a good drainage design for this. We had some problems with where to discharge it. It was kind of a difficult site but they have worked real hard at it and we have got everything worked out now. They have satisfied all of our comments. Ward: Sara, on this fire lane deal, will we have signs up there that say no on street parking? Edwards: He requested that it be striped with red paint, that indicates that it is a fire lane and then they write fire lane on the curb, I'm not sure if there will be signs. Ward: Are there any other concerns Matt? Casey: No Sir. Ward: Keith with Sidewalks Shreve: They will be constructing a new 6' sidewalk along the east side of Trinity Drive and a 6' sidewalk on the north side of Franciscan Trail to connect to the existing sidewalk on the end. Ward: Ok, are those all shown on this plat like they should be? Shreve: Yes Sir. They will also be installing one bicycle parking rack for the development. Sloan: Is that a new requirement? I just noticed the engineer put it in. Shreve: That is something new for any development that has more than 25 parking spaces. Subdivision Committee January 16, 2003 Page 4 Ward: Is that a problem to put a bicycle parking rack? Sloan: No, it is not a problem. I just noticed it showing up on my plans and meant to ask the engineer and forgot to. Ward: Kim with Landscaping? Hesse: Just for your information, most of the trees being graded on this site are low priority. It looked like it had been a dumping ground for years and there is a lot of debris in the wooded area and vines have taken over the whole place. It is already a very low spot, which is where we have to put the detention. What they are going to try to do is berm them up and leave some of the trees in the center. We are going to save all of the trees adjacent to the residences to the west. One thing that we need to provide on the plan is you are showing eight red maples, I think the total is 29, which they show on the plan. This is shown correctly. One of the things that we want to do is mix up the variety of trees so that we can get at least three different species of trees. Sloan: We can do that. I just like redwoods. Hesse: Ok, red maples and maybe a couple of different oaks or something like that. In this situation it appeared to us that mitigation may be a better situation than trying to preserve what is here. Ward: Ok, thanks. Is there any particular time that he needs to get with you as far as making decisions on what type of trees to plant? Hesse: I put down three different species, two oaks and the red maples, and what we will do is if you have a hard time finding a species at the time you are installing them we will work with that. At this point that is what we are going to go with. I just want to remind you that we do have the maintenance agreement. You actually install these trees but there will be a maintenance agreement that the city holds for three years and then releases when the trees are healthy. Ward: Ok, we have parks fees in the amount of $6,750. Is there anyone with the public that would like to make public comment on this particular agenda item? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and I will bring it back to the Committee. This seems to be straight forward. I assume that most of the problems have been worked out during the process through Plat Review and so on. The length of our normal cul-de-sac is 500' and this is 72' longer so this is something that the Planning Commission will have to give you a variance on the additional 72' but it looks like staff is in support of that. On the detention pond, how much landscaping will you do there? Hesse: Really they aren't landscaping around the pond. Subdivision Committee January 16, 2003 Page 5 Ward: Will this detention pond have water on it all the time? Sloan: No. It will just be sodded. Bunch: What about a fence? Is there any sort of requirement for a fence around it? Casey: We usually don't ask for one unless it is holding water all the time. Ward: Are there any other comments or motions? Bunch: Were there some drainage considerations coming from that pond, has that been taken care of where it goes onto the other property? Casey: Yes, they have designed it where it is coming out of the pond in more of a sheet flow instead of a direct discharge. There is not any storm sewer nearby to connect into. Sloan: It is still wooded behind us and that is the reason we tried to sheet flow it back to those woods. Casey: They are trying to simulate the existing flow patterns. MOTION: Bunch: I will move that we forward LSD 03-2.00 to the full Planning Commission. Ward: I will second and concur. Thank you very much. Sloan: Thank you. Subdivision Committee January 16, 2003 Page 6 LSD 03-3.00: Large Scale Development (Rasberry, 366) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Henry Jordan for property located east of Leverett at the north end. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 1.18 acres with a 24 unit apartment proposed. Ward: The next one we will do is LSD 03-3.00 for Rasberry submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Henry Jordan for property located east of Leverett at the north end. This property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 1.18 acres with a 24 unit apartment complex proposed. Will the applicants introduce themselves? Gilbert: I am David Gilbert with Jorgensen & Associates. Ward: Thanks David. Sara? Edwards: The proposal is for a single two-story 24 unit apartment building. It has 48 bedrooms and 48 parking spaces. The building has 12,200 sq.ft. There are two bicycle parking racks provided with this. The surrounding zoning is R-2. They are providing a new water and sewer connection, which is available to this site. Additional right of way is being dedicated for Leverett Avenue. Right now they are proposing Leverett Avenue to be extended to the north property line, the full width of the street to city standards. Right now as it exists, Leverett has right of way there but it is not constructed, it ends short of this site. Tree preservation exists and is 5.1%, preserved is .06%, they are proposing onsite mitigation. The requirement is for nine trees onsite. We were recommending approval at the Subdivision Committee level. There are no waivers being requested. The only condition is that determination of the required onsite improvements. Staff did recommend that Leverett be constructed to the northern property line as shown on the site plan. Ward: Ok, what is this Ernie Jacks Blvd. future street right of way? Leverett Street goes all the way up to against that property? Edwards: That is a Master Street Plan street that we do have existing right of way for. At some point it will connect to that when it is constructed. Ward: Ok. Then we have the University of Arkansas Agri farm joining them? Edwards: Yes. Ward: Matt with Engineering, are there any comments? Casey: I don't have any comments. They did a really good job on this. I had very few comments at Plat Review. Ward: Ok, thanks. Keith with Sidewalks? Subdivision Committee January 16, 2003 Page 7 Shreve: As part of the street extension they will be constructing a 6' wide sidewalk along the east side of what would be the Leverett Street extension. Ward: Are there any further comments? Kim on Landscaping? Hesse: Most of the trees onsite that we are losing is due to the extension of Leverett. I note in my review form that there are actually two large trees offsite that they are taking measures of preservation on. Those are really the two main trees. There are maybe five or six small landscaping trees that they are planting. Ward: I see a 26" Hackberry. Hesse: There is a 24" tree to the north just off site. Gilbert: We have it labeled there. Ward: Ok, I see it now. On Parks fees, that is $9,000. Is there any public comment on this particular item, which is a Large Scale Development for apartments on Leverett Street? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the applicant and to the Committee. Bunch: You have a second proposed building, is that part of this project or is that just a leftover from previous projects? Gilbert: Our proposal is actually for two buildings with a total of 24 units. The north unit, the longer building, would have 20 units and then the smaller building would have 4 units. The unit count is the same but it is in two buildings. Bunch: Ok. These parking places that you are showing on the south side are existing spaces? Gilbert: No Sir, those are proposed to be built as part of this project. The spaces will be on this property. We are in the process of obtaining a cross access easement which will allow access to that, it is Leverett Gardens Apartments to the south and Mrs. Jordan's family owns Leverett Garden Apartments so there won't be any issues there. Henry Jordan actually has signatory authority for Rasberry Properties, which owns Leverett Gardens. Ward: Ok, thank you. Bunch: So we are looking at the two ingresses and egresses? Gilbert: Yes Sir, one onto Leverett and one into Leverett Gardens. Subdivision Committee January 16, 2003 Page 8 Ward: Gilbert: Ward: Gilbert: Ward: Edwards: Gilbert: Ward: Bunch: Ward: MOTION: Bunch: Ward: What about the sign that you are proposing? I see that it is in the corner, do you have a picture of it and a size of it? I have a sketch of this and let me apologize for the quality of this exhibit. I just got this last night. The sign that is proposed, this is the type of sign that Mr. Jordan is proposing. The first sheet that you have there in front of you shows the exhibit from the sign maker, which gives you the text and the text style and then the second sheet is a sketch of how that sign would be prepared and mounted. It basically would be a painted wooden panel between painted wooden posts and it is very similar to what he is using now on Leverett Gardens and also on Maria H. What is the height of that sign? We are proposing about 7' tall. It is a 3'x 5' panel. Have you checked to see if this meets our sign ordinance? I can tell that it doesn't. Our sign ordinance provides for two types of signs, a monument sign which is defined by you cannot see air between the ground and the sign, that has a height restriction of 6' and can be set back 10'. Our free standing sign ordinance, which would be what we would classify this as, it has got greater setbacks, which I believe begin at about 20' and it begins on height and square footage, but I think we can work to get this within that requirement. We will adjust the sign as needed to comply. Again, I apologize, I just got this from him yesterday. Ok. I think we can approve it with the condition of you meeting our sign ordinance, meeting staff approval on the sign. This has to go to the full Planning Commission anyway so that gives you time to address this and have something for us. Are there any other comments? It looks like a pretty clean project so I will move that we forward LSD 03-3.00, Large Scale Development for Rasberry to the full Planning Commission. I apologize that we are unable to approve it at this level because we are short handed this morning. I will second. Also, with the idea of the sign it might be a situation that we would've forwarded it anyway. Subdivision Committee January 16, 2003 Page 9 Gilbert: Ok. I appreciate it, thank you. Subdivision Committee January 16, 2003 Page 10 LSP 03-4.00: Lot Split (Zakariadze, pp 439) was submitted by Ira Zakariadze for property located at 944 & 946 N. Meadowlands Drive. The property is zoned R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential and contains approximately 0.43 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 0.20 acres and 0.23 acres. Ward: Our problem is that we only have two Commissioners here and it takes three to do anything at this level. Anything that we approve has to go to the full Planning Commission unless our other Commissioner shows up and then we will be in good shape. Especially for lot splits and so on that normally are approved at this level. It would delay them. Either we would have to table it or send it to the full Planning Commission. Most of these I have looked over are pretty much going to be approved at this level if we have our other Commissioner here so hopefully he will show up. I think the next one I will go to since I think we will have some public comment on it, I assume that there are some folks here that would like to make public comment, will be LSP 03-4.00 for property located at 944 and 946 N. Meadowlands Drive. The property is zoned R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential, and contains approximately .43 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 0.20 acres and 0.23 acres. Sara, what can you tell us about this particular item? Edwards: What we have is a fairly large lot compared to the others in the Meadowlands Subdivision. The applicant has a duplex on this lot already and he is proposing to build a second duplex there. Both parcels have frontage on Meadowlands, both will access Larkspur Drive from the back. Right now there is an 8" water line available. Sewer does need to be extended to serve the south part of this lot and then the service line servicing the existing duplex may need to be relocated. Right of way is fine as existing. Conditions of approval are as follows: 1) Approval subject to compliance with covenants in the Meadowlands Subdivision. I have had several calls that they believe that this lot splitting is a violation of their covenants and I haven't had a chance to look at those until this morning. What I would propose that we do is forward this to the Planning Commission while I have the City Attorney take a look at these covenants and make an interpretation on if we should go ahead and approve it since we typically do not enforce covenants or what we need to do. That is what I propose that we do. Ward: Would our City Attorney be able to make a ruling on that or not? Edwards: I hope he can give us an opinion of whether it is something that we should let the property owners settle because it is their covenants or if it is something that we need to enforce because we do have knowledge of that. Ward: I will ask the applicant to introduce himself. Reid: My name is Alan Reid, I will be representing Ira Zakariadze. He is here also. I am here to answer any technical questions as far as any concerns with the covenants, I guess I have to agree with Sara on that, that if we could avoid any problems we Subdivision Committee January 16, 2003 Page 11 would certainly like to have the City Attorney look at that and see. I think we have met the technical ordinances as far as the bulk and the size. There seems to be something coming up now about whether or not the lot can be split in accordance with the covenants. I have not seen all of the covenants and I am not really sure how to interpret the part I've seen. Ward: Ok. I know we won't be looking at those here. We are not judges or juries or anything else . Reid: I think the applicant, regardless of his split or not, he would like to build another unit on this tract and I don't know if that falls under the covenants also. That is kind of another stumbling block right now that we better take a look at up front and maybe get an opinion from the City Attorney on that also. I believe he meets the size requirement that would allow him to have two structures on one tract I think it is the biggest lot in the subdivision. With the covenant thing we are just kind of stumbling right now. Ward: I assume this is a duplex on the property right now? Reid: Yes. Ward: I assume he is proposing to build another duplex? Reid: That is correct, a little bit smaller. I think there would be one change on this drawing that you are looking at right now and that is the boundary line that separates the two tracts as we have it drawn on here, it starts on the east right of way of Meadowlands Drive and runs east for 99 feet and then we have it taking a bend down to the 15' drive right of way and I think we want that line to be parallel with the boundary line of the lot instead of a little bit kinked over. It would give him a little bit more room for accessing this bottom lot if we could just bend that up a little bit. Keep it parallel and 15' off the boundary line. That was something that came up after we drew it and we thought it would not only look a little bit better but make it easier to pull in and out of Larkspur for the second tract. Ward: Casey: Ok, thanks Alan. Matt with Engineering are there any concerns as far as Engineering on this particular lot split? Currently the sewer is being fed from the north so the service line extends across the proposed split to the house. If they do build another structure they are going to have to disconnect that service from the existing duplex. They could use it to serve the new one but they will have to extend sewer down to the split on the south part and serve that existing duplex with the new sewer. Ward: Ok, so they have the easement to do that? Subdivision Committee January 16, 2003 Page 12 Casey: Yes. Ward: Ok, are there any other concerns with Engineering? Keith with Sidewalks? Shreve: No comment. Ward: On Parks fees, it looks like there would be the payment of $375 to the Park and Recreation Department if this is approved. At this time I will open it up for public comment on this particular lot split proposal. Is there anybody that would like to make comment on this particular item? Andrews: I am Michael Andrews, Vice President of the Property Owners Association out there. I have spoken with four of the six members of our Property Owners Association. Right now it stands that it would not be approved. Nobody is in favor of it because of the covenants, which obviously you are going to wait and see what Mr. Williams has to say about that. According to the way the covenants are written, a lot split would not be allowed for the purpose of building another residence or duplex or anything. Ward: Ok, so right now as far as most people are concerned is whether the covenants are enforceable or not on this particular lot split. Andrews: I think that is the case. I think the concerns have been that it is the first property as you go into the Meadowlands and it would detract from the appearance of the entrance. It would congest the looks of the front of the property. Also, I think Larkspur is already a very densely populated with duplexes and congestion there. Those are the comments that I have heard from other property owners so far. Ward: Ok, is there any other public comment? Knock: I am John Knock. I am president of the Property Owners Association out there and I have spoken to a number of people and have gotten a few calls as well. We are never opposed to good building being done out there in the Meadowlands. We like to see all the lots build as much as possible. The history on that lot, it was built and designed in such a way by the engineering firm because of the congestion on Larkspur. In the last year we have had a number of meetings with both the Police Department and the Mayor because of some of the problems that have occurred, not necessarily related to Planning issues but because of the way it is laid out. There are block parties and things that do occur. There are fire issues and other types of egress issues that can be questionable. That is the pocket of problem right in that circle. We are not necessarily opposed to building but in this particular case it just doesn't seem to work in my mind. That lot was designed, once again, to get good access off of Larkspur you can put too much in there and you have cars parking along the streets and it becomes an issue. I know that the engineers probably look at it from a math and science perspective but from reality you get cars piled up there Subdivision Committee January 16, 2003 Page 13 Ward: on a regular basis and it is a hazard. The other issue that there are a lot of people that believe that the covenants are there for a reason. Everyone else has been out there have had to abide by it. I know it is not the point of this committee to decide upon that but the covenants have been there and if we need to get a variance, those have been given in the past for other things but it has been submitted to the Property Owner's Association first, it has been approved by them and if it wasn't approved then it was dropped so I am not saying that that is the final word either but we certainly want the relationship to be one that we obey what is out there if we can. Ok, thank you. Is there any other public comment? I would say that this is going to be strictly a legal matter as far as we are concerned here I think we would approve the lot split because it does meet all of our criteria as far as frontage and square footage and so on. I would say that if I personally owned this duplex, and I assume it is a rental duplex, I am not sure about that. What are the chances of the Property Owner's Association being able to buy this particular piece of property and putting it into the Property Owner's Association and either turning it into additional parking or landscaping. It seems like it has got the high visibility of where everybody comes in and out of there that would be a neat place to put flowers and really landscape it really neat. Those are just some things that we could possibly allow. We could allow a lot split where it could never be built on again but it could be to the Property Owner's Association. You get a duplex like this that is rental and then you have got all of this extra land that you have to take care of, which is tough to do. It gets overgrown or whatnot and if it is the highest visibility of the whole Meadowlands those are some of the ideas that I would throw out at you. Knock: I would like to mention just one other thing and that is that there have been some comments that have been as drastic that if it does get approved that there is going to be a lawsuit. I am not particularly in favor of something like that so I would rather get things resolved ahead of time and work it out. Ira has already got property out there which means he is already a part of the association. We want things to work for everybody but at the same time I don't want to get us hammered down to some sort of legal mess. Ward: I think I would like to go ahead and move this on to the full Planning Commission and by that time we will have some kind of a report from our City Attorney. Maybe during that time all the parties can get together and come up with some other alternative ideas for this particular lot and what it can be used for. That is kind of the way I am going with it. Bunch: Can we get a comment from the owner on why you want to have the little pan handle arrangement on the split off lot down to Larkspur? What is the rational for having the access come from Larkspur as opposed to Meadowlands? Is it aesthetics or logistics? Subdivision Committee January 16, 2003 Page 14 Zakariadze: I really care about this subdivision and hopefully we initiate and discuss this conflict further. The issue is to keep the entrance, to do the entrance from the back instead of the front and make it look nicer. I think on the plan it is clear that across from the proposed street there is a lot for sale. What about this that I have a question about? This is the proposed split and this lot is for sale which would damage entrance appearance as well. Knock: Your initial lot was designed for a duplex and wherever you put a building on that property was up to you and your engineer and your architects and since you opted to put it on the most southern part of the property line to allow additional acreage, there really wasn't two lots there, there was really only one and that is why you are looking at a lot split. The idea that there is a lot across the way that is for sale, that is very true but it is a self designed set aside lot, whereas, right now on this lot there is a panhandle sliver, the reason that is there is the covenants say that there can be no access from Meadowlands Drive. All access must be rear entry for those homes that are along side of Meadowlands. We have to be careful if we are picking and choosing which covenant we are going to adhere to. Otherwise, it would make more sense to me if you were going to approve something like that, that we would make a front access to it because that would be just as rational as doing the rear access and making it congested back there. I see your point but I think that there was a pre-existing lot across the way that was truly designed as a lot with clear access without the issues of congestion, where this one really has narrow access into that. I just know that I have been out there on a number of occasions with the police having cars towed and it is not a fun thing. Zakariadze: I think that if there is a problem in this particular place, I work for the University and I try to get students close, the ones that wouldn't violate those codes. I just want to comment that I am willing to further work with the Property Owners Association and consider all of those points and maybe we can go from there. Knock: Again, I have duplexes out there, I don't live out there so I am in the same boat, I want it to be a good, valuable development but I have been an offender when some of my tenants have violated covenants. That is why we have to self govern and do it in a way that makes sense. Ward: MOTION: Ok. At this time I will go ahead and close it totally to the public comment I think there has been a lot of communication between the parties. I think there are two or three ways to go with it. Maybe you can come to some kind of a conclusion yourself. Do I have a motion? Bunch: I move that we forward LSP 03-4.00 to the full Planning Commission. That will give an opportunity for the Property Owner's Association to meet with the applicant as well as time for the City Attorney and others to review the covenant situation. Subdivision Committee January 16, 2003 Page 15 Ward: I will second that. I don't believe that the city or the Planning Commission can enforce covenants. That is strictly a legal issue. Thank you all for your comments and good luck. Subdivision Committee January 16, 2003 Page 16 FPL 03-1.00: Final Plat (Heritage East Ph.II, pp 565) was submitted by Landtech Engineering, Inc. on behalf of Palmco Properties for property located north of 156 and east of Curtis Avenue. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 11.4 acres with 40 lots proposed. Ward: We are kind of at a dilemma here because without our third Commissioner we can't approve anything else so it is all going to have to go to the full Planning Commission if we do it here. If we table it here Sara give us what happens and if we push it on to the full Planning Commission for approval. Edwards: The Planning Commission meeting is January 27`h. Ward: Ok, now we have our third Commissioner here, maybe we can get things done. We will go back to item number one FPL 03-1.00 submitted by Landtech Engineering on behalf of Palmco Properties for property located north of 15th and east of Curtis Avenue. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 11.4 acres. This has 40 lots proposed. Go ahead for the benefit of the public and give us your name. Hillis: My name is Don Hillis with Landtech Engineering presenting the Final Plat for Heritage II. They did a final inspection on it yesterday. There were a few comments on that that will be addressed and we shouldn't have any trouble getting everything done before Planning Commission. Edwards: This is a Final Plat which means that the Preliminary Plat came before the Planning Commission, which gave them the approval to do the street and utility construction. All of that is complete and Engineering did inspect it. We are requesting that the street construction be added to the plan as well as showing the sidewalks. That is for permitting purposes because when people try to submit their building permits they have to have a site plan and they need curb and sidewalks shown and all of that and 2) The safety fence shall be installed prior to staff signing the Final Plat. Hillis: That is in. Edwards: Ok. 3) Addresses need to be added to the plat and that is also for permitting purposes. Parks fees are due in the amount of $18,800. We are recommending approval at this level. Final Plats are one of the items that we can approve at the Subdivision Committee level. Ward: Ok, thanks Sara. Matt with Engineering? Casey: Don, I asked at Plat Review that you include the 100 -year water surface elevations for the lots adjacent to this channel. You never did get that added on there. My inspector tells us that you did have a final inspection on this yesterday and there Subdivision Committee January 16, 2003 Page 17 were very few items so you did a good job. The only thing left to do is tying the sewer into the connections that have actually been made to the sewer lines. Ward: Are there covenants on this do you know? Hillis: I apologize. I am not that familiar with this project. The one that has been doing this is Leonard Gabbard and he is in the hospital right now having an operation so I am filling in for him. Edwards: I can comment on that a little bit. At the time of Preliminary Plat we did discuss covenants which would limit these lots to single-family residential because they are zoned R-2, which would allow duplexes or apartments or that type of thing. The neighborhood wanted this development as single-family so on our standard conditions number 8, letter E is restrictive covenants so we will be verifying that. Ward: Ok, so we are kind of making a ruling for single-family homes only. Edwards: Right. Ward: Ok. Keith with Sidewalks? Shreve: Like Sara has already mentioned, this particular drawing didn't show the sidewalks and we would like to see the sidewalks shown on there. Hillis: That is all of them? Shreve: Yes. It was on an earlier version and I assume it just got left off. Also, just for a matter of record, there was a sidewalk poured along Fairlane Street as part of their street constructions. Due to the weather, that was covered with blankets we haven't had a chance to inspect it but we're sure it is ok, if there are any repairs we will work with the developer at that time. Ward: Ok, thanks Keith. Ward: At this time I will open it up to the public. Is there any public comment on this particular Final Plat? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to our Commission. Parks fees in the amount of $18,800, you are aware of those? Hillis: Yes Sir. Ward: It looks like you have several issues that you need to make sure are put on this Final Plat. You need to show the 100 -year floodplain and all the sidewalks and curbs and gutters and putting the addresses of each particular home. Who do they get those addresses from Sara? Edwards: They get those from Jim Johnson, he is in our Information Technology Depai lment. Subdivision Committee January 16, 2003 Page 18 Hillis: I think Leonard has been in contact with him I think he is in the process of getting them, they are just not on the plat yet. All of the other items are very easy, it is just a matter of turning them on on the computer. Ward: Ok. I personally feel like this is a very needed single-family subdivision. I think this is more affordable housing and we are basically out of lots in Fayetteville for affordable housing so this should be an excellent area for affordable housing. Are there any other comments? Bunch: One comment On note four in the lower left corner of the drawing, it says access to all lots shall be limited to interior streets only. Should we specify which those are? This is Phase II and it is unclear as to whether Fairlane or Sandy Lane or any of those are included. I guess what you probably mean is Sherman and Nelson, so just go ahead and mention those. Hillis: I can change that note to read no access to Fairlane or Sandy Lane. Bunch: That would make it more user friendly when you start selling these lots and building on them. Matt, is that fence around the detention pond the wooden fence with one gate on the north end is that acceptable? Casey: We don't have any set requirements for the size or the type of fence. From what I've been told it is about a 6' tall wooden slat fence with the openings in between so you can see. I think it would function as a safety barrier. From what I have been told it is not one that would be easy to climb. That was one of my concerns. Bunch: It is a picket style fence with just one gate on the north end. Ward: Ok, are there any comments or motions? Bunch: I will echo your comments that this is much needed and I am glad to see it. Since this is R-2 is that why we are allowed to have the 63' and 65' spacing? Edwards: Yes. The requirement is 60' in width. Bunch: That helps to make it more affordable by having more lots but still limiting it to single-family dwellings, I am glad to see it done that way. Do you feel that the additional conditions and comments are adequate to be taken care of administratively with an approval at this level? Edwards: Yes I do. I would just like to suggest that before you run your copies for signatures that you check with another preliminary before you final your copies. Yes, I do believe that we can check for these items. Subdivision Committee January 16, 2003 Page 19 MOTION: Bunch: I move that we approve FPL 03-1.00 at the Subdivision Committee level subject to comments, particularly adding the 100 -year flood levels, the addresses, single- family limitation, showing sidewalks, and that sort of thing. The covenants are condition 8e and the limitation on the access to Sherman and Nelson Drives. Ostner: I second. Ward: I concur. Thank you. Subdivision Committee January 16, 2003 Page 20 LSP 03-3.00: Lot Split (Ruble, pp 436) was submitted by Alan Reid on behalf of Betty Ruble for property located at 625 N. 54th Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 2.12 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 1.06 acres and 1.06 acres. Ward: Reid: Our next item on the agenda is LSP 03-3.00 submitted by Alan Reid on behalf of Betty Ruble for property located at 625 N. 54th Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 2.12 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 1.06 acres and 1.06 acres. Go ahead and introduce yourself for the record. My name is Alan Reid, I will be here to represent Mrs. Ruble on her tract split. She owns the house on the north 1.06 acres. She is wanting to divide it and sell the south 1.06 to her daughter who will also begin construction on a house just as soon as we can get the split approved. We went through a rezoning and had it changed from A-1 to R-1 which would allow the bulk and the frontage. All utilities are in place except for access to a sewer line, which is on the east side of 54th Street. At this time it appears that we are going to have to cross over someone's private property to tap into an existing sewer. The applicant is working with the adjoining land owners now to try to get that easement although I think at this point she feels like she is doing some work that should've been done in the past. The house she lives in right now was built in 1997. It was built by Garland Smith for a man named Travis Aldrich. May 14th they were given a permit to cut the road and tap into the sewer line and now it appears she is having a little problem. She really thinks she might be able to get the easement from the people but at this point she would like to be able to split her property, tap into the water and sewer. Bunch: So that existing house is on water and sewer? Reid: Yes. It is on record over at the Engineering Department. Mary Alice gave me the dates, times, and places. Ward: Thanks Alan. Sara, are there any other comments or conditions that we need to talk about? Edwards: There is some additional right of way being dedicated to bring it up to our Master Street Plan standards. Parks fees in the amount of $470 will be due. The only condition that is not standard that we do have is regarding the sewer but I will let Matt address that issue. Ward: Matt, we will just jump straight to you. Casey: The problem we have is the sewer line, instead of having an easement adjacent to the right of way, there is a gap from 15' to 20' at the south end between the easement and the right of way. If we put out a service tap for this line we would be Subdivision Committee January 16, 2003 Page 21 crossing a private property line 20' so the requirement is either they extend the sewer to the property or they could, as an alternative, obtain that easement in that gap so it would function as a normal utility easement along the right of way and we could allow the tap to service this property. They elected to try to obtain that easement instead of the sewer extension so the easement will be required before the sewer service can be allowed. Bunch: If the sewer were extended what point could it be extended from? Casey: Anywhere along that property would be fine but they would still have to get an easement for that sewer extension too. Bunch: That is what I wasn't understanding. Since the sewer line exists across the street are you talking about going all the way back up to Hwy. 16 and coming down? Casey: No, they could just tap that existing sewer line and extend it directly across the street like they would their service line and then tap into that but then they would still have to get an easement for that portion of the sewer line. Ward: Where would they have to get the easement from? Is it just to the east of the property? Isn't' that going just across public right of way going under the road or something? Casey: Yes, they would have to go under the road and through this proposed easement to get to that sewer line. Ward: Who's easement is it? Casey: It would be the city's easement. Edwards: There is nothing there right now. Casey: We are just filling the gap in between our sewer easement and the right of way. Ostner: So either the sewer was built wrong or the street was built wrong or something. Casey: I am not sure, the design is stretching it at an angle like that in the first place and then just getting that little 15' sewer easement kind of left the people across the road in a bad situation. I understand that the tap was made before but I am not sure who's approval that was. Typically we don't allow private service lines to run through other people's properties. Ward: How big is that sewer line running through there Matt? Casey: It is an 8". Subdivision Committee January 16, 2003 Page 22 Reid: I know that two wrongs don't make a right but I am a little concerned about why the city doesn't get the easement instead of my land owner because it seems like they should've had the easement before they allowed the sewer line to be put in there. I have not been able to find any documentation. I have been to the court house, I've been to the Assessor's office and I can't find where an easement was ever taken. Usually they just take a general 25' wide utility easement and try to get the sewer within that easement. I am just a little surprised that the city would even allow the sewer line to be laid without securing the easements in their land department. Ward: Matt, do we have any history on that at all? Casey: I just show on our GIS Information that it is 15', I don't have any documentation. Bunch: When was this platted? Casey: I don't have that information either. Reid: I checked Mr. Mabry's and Mr. Thompson's land records and I can't see, they are subject to the 30' right of way of the road but there is nothing on there about being subject to a utility easement. I just didn't know if the city's land agent would have records. Casey: I can check into that and see. Ward: Why don't we check into that and see. I don't think I've ever seen this particular issue. Have you ever seen this before Alan? Reid: It is not too often but the problem is the sewer line that is there, I have seen a document that says the sewer line easement being 7 1/2' each side of the existing sewer main. I have not seen anything taking an easement adjacent to the right of way which is pretty standard when you are putting in utilities. The woman is still going to talk to the Mabrys again. I don't believe that it will be a problem to get that. We would hope that we could get approval with the condition that we bring the easement into the Planning Department before a permit would be issued so she can start her contractors lining up. Ward: Keith, are there any concerns with the sidewalks? Shreve: It is in the city limits but we don't require sidewalks for lot splits. Ward: At this time is there anyone from the public that would like to make comment on this particular lot split? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the Commission. I assume that if we approve this the only way it can ever be used is if you can get the sewer easement right? Subdivision Committee January 16, 2003 Page 23 Reid: Yes. My client is willing to work that out. I don't think the neighbor will be a problem. We haven't sat down and showed him everything yet. I have been looking trying to find the document and I want to look with the land agents and see if they have a document. Sometimes things get signed and don't get filed. There is a chance that there might be something floating around. If not, we will go back to square one. Hopefully we can receive a little bit of assistance from the city as far as maybe conversations with the adjoining land owners explaining what happened and what they would try to do to rectify it now if we need to come to that point. Maybe City Planning could help us speak with the neighbors. Bunch: Matt and Alan you are discussing several different options. One would be if the city got an easement and extended the line across the road and then the tap would be made off of that which would be city expense. Casey: The city wouldn't do that. They would be required to get the easement and then the cost of the sewer extension. Bunch: The other option would be just to privately get an easement across that piece of land and dedicate it to the city. It is almost the same thing. Reid: Anything we do is going to be to the City of Fayetteville. The neighbors are going to be giving a general public utility easement in favor of the City of Fayetteville. Bunch: The question becomes is it a north/south or just an east/west strip. Reid: I guess it just depends on the neighbors. We will take anything they will give us but if they would take a north/south 25' wide easement I am sure that the city would probably like to have that. MOTION: Bunch: I will move that we approve LSP 03-3.00 at the Subdivision Committee level contingent upon resolution of the sewer issues and an easement for the sewer access. Ostner: I will second. Ward: I will concur. Thanks Alan. Subdivision Committee January 16, 2003 Page 24 LSP 03-5.00: Lot Split (Mersky, pp 102) was submitted by David Mersky and Harriet Neiman for property located at 5911 Day Lilly Trail. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 4.05 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 1.5 acres and 2.55 acres. Ward: The next item on the agenda is LSP 03-5.00 submitted by David Mersky and Harriett Neiman for property located at 5911 Day Lilly Trail. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 4.05 acres. The request is to split into two tracts of 2.5 acres and 2.45 acres. Neiman: I am Harriett Neiman. Mersky: I am Dave Mersky. Ward: Sara, please tell us about this lot split. Edwards: This property is in our Planning Area. It is along a Master Street Plan street, which requires a 45' from centerline dedication, which they are showing on their plat. The only condition is that a public water line needs to be extended to tract 2 prior to filing the split. The second one is standard, County approval must be obtained prior to filing. Ward: Ok, thanks. Matt, is there any Engineering concerns with this lot split? Casey: They are going to have to extend the 2" water line approximately 113' depending on the location of the end of the line. I guess the line ends just adjacent to this property and they have got a service line stubbed out to service this north tract but to serve tract 2 an extension is going to be required. We won't allow the service line to run along the road across property lines. Ward: Will it be extended the full length of that tract 2? Casey: No, just to that tract 2. On subdivisions we require the extensions to go to the next property but not for a lot split. Ward: Ok, and this is a 2" water line? Casey: Yes Sir. Ward: Keith on Sidewalks? Shreve: No comment. Ward: Is there any public comment on this particular lot split? Subdivision Committee January 16, 2003 Page 25 Beckman: I am Jim Beckman. I border this property with two lots on the east side. Further to the east of that, here is a drawing for you guys to look at. The property that is in question comes from right here, over and up in a kind of unusual shape. The proposed split is in that property. Originally John Green owned that segment, this is a tree line that is there. That whole segment was about 10 acres. I have lived here since 1980. Bunch: This section over here is the pond? Beckman: This is a little pond that is on this property. Bunch: Where is the southern border? Beckman: There is a faint line right at the south border of that pond. This slopes at about a 45° angle. This upper side of the pond where the lower split is drops about 50' or 60' to the lower side of that. My driveway begins at the Grange property and comes on past those two lots that join this particular property. I asked about splitting off part of another 13 acres that I have on the backside of mine three years ago when I wanted to refinance some stuff and was told that I had to give a 65' easement on my driveway, which is deeded to me and that I would have to build a paved road to it. There used to be a county road joining Mersky's property from the Grange building. Actually, this is Butterfield Coach Road, that used to be the county road that went down joining the west side of this property. In the past year that he has owned this property I have seen him out there a couple of times. His plan was to reopen that road, thinking it was public access in that road. The original easement for the road way has been deeded back to the land owners on the west side so there is no way to get a 65' easement to that property which passes another property owned by Mr. Kirby, who is here. Dr. Staggs joins on the west side of that property and Tim Mason and his wife are on the south but still west side joining that property. When I bought my property those two lots that joined this property, John Green when he split that, he assured me that there would be no further splits in that property. Those are my comments. Bunch: Mr. Beckman, do you know anything about the gate further to the south? There is some new construction going to the south just past where the road is grown up. Beckman: 1 think some others are here that are more familiar with that than me. Mason: I am Laurie Mason and I will address that issue. That is my home being built there. We have been told, and it is on our survey, that we own 10' on the other side of that residential drive. Our concern is how they plan to get to their land that way. Bunch: You are saying that the road to the south of this, is that your gate at the extension of County Road 4030? Subdivision Committee January 16, 2003 Page 26 Mason: That is a residential drive because that is no longer a county road. Bunch: Where does the county road stop? Beckman- It doesn't come down anymore. They took that off the road nine years ago. Mason: We all maintain it ourselves. Bunch: You are talking about from Gulley Road is a private road? Beckman- That is a residential drive. The county took it off of their roads, they don't even maintain it and have not for nine years. Mason: We pay to have the gravel put down, have it graded. We do all of that ourselves as property owners. Ward: For the benefit of public record please give us your name Sir. Hahn: My name is Norman Hahn, I am representing my daughter and myself. My daughter Jennifer owns this land right here. There is 10 acres along the pond and it actually goes back behind the pond, comes back around and then extends over to the street line and back down this tree line over to this road. He came in on that pond, took a backhoe, dug a trench and drained water on my daughter's land without permission. I didn't think that was right, he could have at least asked. More to the point, in this area right here is deep brush. We have two female does that live there, they both have twins and a buck, we have bald eagles that perch in these trees and the tree line on our road. My house is directly beside this tree line up in the corner. We have bald eagles back up there. You are not only talking about a lot split, you are talking about displacing federally preserved birds. There is a ridge that goes from these tree lines right here right across from Mr. Guy Terry's land. That is where the eagles perch in those trees and they perch at Beckman's place too. We have deer, roadrunners, possums, armadillos. You have roadrunners running through your front yard. If too many small units come out there, all of our property is larger property. Beckman has 18, between my daughter and myself, we have 22. Behind that Mr. Terry has 40. There are no small lots in there. The only building that has been around in that whole area since we moved in there 15 years ago was Kirby's house burned down and they rebuilt it on the same spot. Mr. Green on his property didn't even build a house, there was a pole barn and all he did was take the pole bam and make a house out of it. Ward: Thank you for your comments Sir. Are there any other comments? Kirby: Josh Kirby, 5875 Day Lilly Drive. I am directly adjacent to the north line of his property line and am concerned about this traffic coming through all the time. Nobody is coming from the south currently because the road is not there, this is Subdivision Committee January 16, 2003 Page 27 Ward: Beckman: impassible. Everything has to come right by my front door, my front steps, my driveway. Everything is right there. Thank you. Mr. Beckman, did you have one other comment? I did have a couple of other comments about that gate on the south side. I don't think that the topography of that property for the lot split would support a septic tank perk for two dwellings with the slope of the hill. Also, the access road is Mr. Kirby's driveway, actually to get to that property crosses the Zion Grange property coming off of Butterfield Coach Trail and going behind the Stagg's house. It has to cross the Zion Grange property. That is a private, nonprofit organization of which I am a member. I visited with 20 different members last week and none of them are in favor of anymore traffic coming across. Imagine a nonprofit organization that has property that public traffic is going across. There are bottles and trash and all of those things that have to do with upkeep of the property. Not a single one of those 20 members plus myself would be in favor of it. The final thing, Mersky indicated to me that he wanted to do two spec houses there I think two spec houses would greatly decrease the property of the six properties that adjoin him all the way around. Stagg: My name is Gina Stagg and I adjoin this property directly to the west. I am here to concur with the rest of the adjoining property owners that we are opposed to this lot split. Like Mr. Hines said, these tracts are large generally in the area and to split these into smaller lots than what they are now is going to devalue our property and that is certainly something none of us want to see. The wild life is incredible, it is unbelievable out there. Traffic, more construction, new roads, it destroys it all. Thanks. Beckman. One other thing. That road is legally nothing more than a utility access road. It is not even a utility easement. The reason we put up the gate was to keep kids on motorcycles and four wheelers from going up it. Mr. Terry comes and maintains it. We don't allow motorized vehicles up the road anymore because it is non -passable. There are ruts up there 2' deep because it drops off the hill so fast that there is no way you can grade it and maintain it and keep it passable. It just drops off that hill. We tried to maintain it for the first couple of years but there was no way we could. That is nothing more than a utility access road for Ozark Electric to get their trucks in to service the lower end transmission power lines that come through there and they travel from north to south to that substation on the corner further north of Kirby's. It is up behind off of Terry Road to the east of Butterfield Coach. There are transmission lines and that is all that access road is there for, Ozark Electric. Ward: Thank you Sir. Is there any other public comment before I close it to the public? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and bring it back to the committee. Sara, on our plat here we have it designated as Washington County 4030. It is also known as Day Lilly Trail, can you enlighten us on that? Subdivision Committee January 16, 2003 Page 28 Edwards: The County names their roads with a numbering system. I believe three digit numbers are public and four digit numbers are private. I do agree that this probably is private road. In the past the city has not really looked at the difference between public and private because there is no access agreements in place. All we have on these private roads is that there is an access easement for the most part. If you need to make a determination on who is allowed to access the easement there needs to be a physical document in place that says access easement for this property and it will usually limit the number of structures and that kind of thing but out in the county and in all of these cases we have no such agreement. We have access roads shown on plat and so I would agree that this probably is a private drive. What we have done on all of our other splits is we make it public in front of the property so that in the future we will have it as a public road. I guess that answers what I can. Ward: We are asking for a right of way dedication? Edwards: Right. This is on our Master Street Plan as a minor arterial street, which is 90' right of way street so the typical requirement is '/2 of that. That is what they are dedicating on this. Ward: Also, this has to go through County approval. Mr. Mersky, would you like to give us the benefit of your knowledge of this? Mersky: Our intent was to only come in from the north. We knew that the entry from the south was difficult at best. Originally when we first started talking to the city we felt perhaps we could just use a driveway to come across this property here to this property but they said no, we had to dedicate the property to them because it was part of the city's Master Street Plan. As far as damage, the building sites destroying any other kind of wildlife locations, we would build where there was a chicken house that we tore down and we have another party in mind that would like to build where the old pole barn was, which was a house. We wouldn't be destroying anything else. The only added traffic would just be the traffic that one more house brings, the people coming and going. Ward: As far as we know, Sara, do they have legal access to this property? Edwards: As far as I know there is an access easement in place and as far as I know, there is no document that restricts access to one single-family home or two, or how many Neiman: Dave and I restored, give or take, an old home on Crossover Road called the North 40. We took out the minimal amount of trees and shrubs and put in more trees and bamboos and things and in the evenings we could go sit out on our back deck and there were 13 deer that came up to the back of our property. We saw fox and roadrunners. Our intention would never to be to harm any of the natural wildlife in the area at all. If anything, it would be to compliment it. Subdivision Committee January 16, 2003 Page 29 Ward: Right. We usually provide lot splits as long as they meet all of our criteria, which is accessibility, ingress and egress, and utilities. I feel like that the only way we can not approve this is if for some reason there isn't any kind of legal access to the property. It meets our minimum frontage on roads that have to be met, which both of these lots do, tracts one and two do. As far as perk tests, what is required on that? Edwards: Our requirement is that all lots under 1.5 acres provide their Arkansas Department of Health permit with their lot split. Because these lots are not under that requirement we do not require it at this time. However, it will be required before building. Ward: They will have to provide a perk test and layout of lateral lines and all of that kind of stuff before they can get building permits. Does the County require anything else that we do not approve since this is in the county? Edwards: Our standards do defer to County road standards. That is why we don't look at street improvements here because our requirement states that it is subject to County road standards and they will have a chance to review that. My understanding is that they do allow private drives in the county so I don't think any road improvements would be required. Ward: Why does the city have any authority over this anyway for public records? Edwards: We have planning authority in what we call our Planning Area. It is a designated area that will be subject to annexation in the future. We are looking for public safety reasons, we are looking for our long range planning issues, such as our Master Street Plan to see that structures aren't built on top of future streets that we are going to need for connectivity for traffic congestion and different issues. We are looking that when it does get annexed it will meet our minimum size for our lots and that they are in the setbacks. Ward: What do they look at when this goes to County planning? Edwards: They also have setbacks, lot widths, street requirements., public and private. I believe that is mostly what they check for. Ward: Is there any reason that we shouldn't approve this at this level? Edwards: It appears to meet all of our requirements for a lot split. Staff recommended approval. Our rational has been if it meets all the items listed in our suburban subdivision requirements that it is approved. Subdivision Committee January 16, 2003 Page 30 Ward: Would these same neighbors have the ability to also appear in front of the County when this goes for County approval? Edwards: I believe that this is just administrative approval in front of the County so there may not be a public hearing on this. Bunch: I am still not convinced that this meets all of our requirements. The area of possible deed overlap, 0.22 acres, has that been resolved? Mersky: It hasn't been resolved. It appears that we were told that we bought 4.05 acres but apparently we bought 3.85 acres from what I can tell. I don't believe that because of the location of that overlap that it would affect anything having to do with this request. Bunch: The only thing is that if we approve something, we are approving a questionable survey. Has any of this been surveyed with the state coordinate system? I noticed that it is all in meets and bounds description. I don't know if that has any bearing on it. Matt, do you know? A couple of things that concern me about approval are the 0.22 acres, it is questionable as to who owns them and they are shown within the property line. They are not shown exterior to the property line, they are shown interior to it. Also, the access up here on the northwest corner, I am not convinced that since we don't have good information or we don't have complete information from the county as to whether or not that is a county road or a private road and there are two fence lines along in there and if you come down 115' from the gate to the property, once you get down in that part that is very difficult to make a turn and go back over that rise to access tract two. Mersky: In here it is still relatively flat. This is where our driveway would be. It is not into the steep part yet. I do believe that this probably is going to end up belonging to Mr. Vaughn's daughter. I have been told that the fence is what is going to rule. The question is whether or not we thought we bought to this southern most line according to the first survey that we had done but it turns out that the distance from this first corner to here is not what was shown on the original survey but rather, what we are showing now. Really, it shouldn't affect any ingress or egress or anything like that or utilities. Bunch: It can affect this right of way right here. Ward: I feel like that is a county issue and not a city issue. The other thing is that on the legal description there is .20 acres or so, they were dealing with 1.5 acres there, they are dealing though with 2.53 acres. Bunch: Still, my concern is that if this has been dedicated back to the County on this end. Ward: It is still a County issue, not a City issue. Subdivision Committee January 16, 2003 Page 31 Bunch: Ward: Bunch: Ward: Mersky: Bunch: Ward: MOTION: Bunch: Ward: Ostner: Ward: Right, but the only way I would vote to approve it would be contingent upon those two issues being resolved. I think we can do that. It meets our criteria, which is what we are bound to do but at the same time we need to recognize that we have some pretty serious shortcomings that are under County jurisdiction. I think our action needs to be tied to the resolution of those unknowns. That is what I would like to have a motion for. We are offering the right of way to what we own. If we own this part then we are offering the right of way to it. If we don't, we can of course only offer it to here. The same way along this existing trail that is supposedly is County Road 4030. There again, I think that is a County issue and not a City issue. I will reluctantly make a motion that we approve LSP 03-5.00 at this level subject to resolution of the deed overlap on the southern border and resolution of whether or not 4030 is a County Road and whether or not there is access to both tracts one and two. Seeing that that might be a private access and if the neighbors don't want this lot split they don't have to grant that access. That needs to be resolved and if it is not resolved then I don't think our action should be binding. I think that is a very good motion. Do I have a second? I will second. I will concur, thank you all.