pc_06 26 1990Planning Commission hearing
June 26,1990
Subdivision Amendment package
on surveying and monumentation
Walter Malone,of the Planning Staff,explained that the
ordinance revisions before the Commission were considered
very technical by the Plans Committee,and thus should be
reviewed by the full Commission.Today's meeting is to
obtain input and information with a vote on any changes
coming at the end of the Summer.Mr.Malone then introduced
John Barr,PAGIS Coordinator,and Steve Gertsch,PAGIS
Technical Committee Chairman,to present background
information on Geographic Information Systems (GIS)and
PAGIS (Pulaski Area Geographic Information System).
Mr.Barr presented slides and overhead projections toillustrateGIStechnologyandPAGIShistory.PAGIS began in
an effort to use a common base map.After discussions with
other groups,the City,Waste Water and Municipal Water
Works jointly funded a GIS -&PAGIS.A software was
selected ARC/INFO and test project started.Mr.Barr
reviewed what GIS is —the layer concept.He stressed this
was not CAD (Computer Aided Design)but linked CAD ability
with a rational database.As an example of the existing
problems,Mr.Barr gave a case where Public Works and Waste
Water base maps had the same parcel in different places by
some 300 feet.
Pictures and descriptions of the hardware system were
presented.Mr.Barr next gave examples of how the system
could be used.He showed the six square mile test area
locations and discussed uses for the system.A buffer
example for impacts of landfill expansion was reviewed.The
Highway 10 project graphics were shown to illustrate how the
system can be used for analysis.
Mr.Barr showed examples of topography,roads,structures,etc.which will be captured for the entire city over the
next year or so.He quickly reviewed the high cost to the
public of redundancy by each agency entering parcel data asisthecurrentpractice.Possible other uses of the system;notice to owners within 300 feet,land use analysis,service
area study/availability,crime analysis (hopefully in a few
months),floodway analysis.
To date 103 monuments have been placed using Global
Positioning for use by the private sector.PAGIS will work
toward the ability to exchange AutoCad files with
developers.The City will digitize the existing parcels to
get the existing City into the system.
1
Some of the uses of the system include:topographic studies,
checking subdivisions,roadway line-of-sight analysis,sewer
and water analysis,detention pond analysis,etc.The
reason for the ordinance amendments,however,is theconsultantforthetestareasfoundproblemswithbothdigitizingexistingbasemapsandCoordinateGeometry (COGO)entry of parcels.The COGO problem may be there was no
common point-of-beginning.
Steve Gertsch stated,Mr.Barr had given a background on
where we started and where we are going.He hoped to betterexplainwhywewereatthispoint(with the amendment)
today.In the Pilot project two techniques for parcelentireweretried:digitizing (not accurate,a best fit-scissor drafting)and COGO (using metes &bounds,bearings,etc.).Using digitizing produced a product where lines
passed through buildings,etc.COGO was tried in an area ofsubdivisionsapprovedafter1980,and it did not work.The
problems were:math error for closure (up to several feet);incomplete interior information (missing angles,distances,etc.).Of the 32 subdivisions in the area,16 could not bereproduced.(This could be a lack of common frame ofreference.)
To obtain parcel data for the system,the City will redrafttheirparcelmapsforabestfitinexistingareas.For newsubdivision,COGO is the most efficient method for entry,but two problems must be overcome.First is a commonreferencesystem,for which PAGIS has constructed 120 plus
monuments at a cost of over $100,000.The second is theexistingsubdivisionregulationswhere:1)they do not meetstateregulationsand,2)are not strictly adhering toclosureandmonumentationrequirements.The objectives oftheamendmentare:To recognize the State standards;to
meet or exceed the standards;the use of geodetic controlpoints;to assure accurate subdivision plats;to providestaffwithnecessaryinformationtoassurestandardsare
met.
Since much of the changes involve surveying,an early draft
was taken to the Professional Surveyors Association for
review and comment.The amendment presented to the
Commission reflects the points raised by this group.
The major nontechnical concerns seem to be cost:how much,
who pays,cost/benefit and cost of changes.The costs aretoallowstaffreviewofsubdivisionswithmuchoftheaddedcosttopreliminaryplats(for tieing to the system).Thebenefitstotheownerarethatthesubdivisionandparcelarelegal.We will also be able to show that property ownerifadequateserviceis(can be)provided to the parcel.
To PAGIS the major benefit is economic and technicallyaccurate(reliability)parcel data.If the data is accuratethenthepublicwillnothavetopaythecostofgoingback
2
and correcting it.As is,the City will have to pay todigitizeover60,000 parcels ($400,000-$500,000)and theexistingparcelswillbearthiscost.For new subdivisions,
we can get better quality information with the public payingthecosttoinputandthenewhouseownerpayingtocollect
the data.The question is who should bear the cost?Shouldexistinghomespaythecostfornewareasorshouldnew
homeowners bear the cost?
Mr.Gertsch then asked to open up for questions.
Chairperson Miller asked about the cost example displayed.
Mr.Gertsch responded,the example was the worst case (2milesfromamarker)with total additional costs of $3795 or
$100 per lot.Commissioner Oleson asked about legal vstitle?Mr.Gertsch responded the City was just keeping arecordofinformation(not a legal document).For conflictsoroverlapsthiswouldprovidetheCityabettermethodof
checking plats.Commissioner Selz asked if actual costs
vary with the size of subdivision (number of lots),the
response was the major cost is the tie (the distance)to a
marker,not that the subdivision size would have greatest
impact on cost.Commissioner Selz asked about the cost of
information required for each parcel.Mr.Gertsch stated
most of the information is already required.Mr.Barr addedthatthefirstsubdivisioninanareawouldbearmostofthecostthatthedistanceisreducedfromthatpointon(thuscostisreduced).
Ruth Bell,League of Women Voters,spoke first.She statedthatthisproposalwassimplyaninstituteofthestate-of-the-art in Little Rock.In other states and counties GIS is
being implemented and unless we plan ahead;we,in Arkansas,will once again be left behind.The question is whetherthisshouldbephasedin(do basic markers first ,etc.).
The question for consideration should be;when to do this
and how,not whether.
Dan Robison,President Central Chapter Surveyors,statedthatMr.Gertsch had been meeting with his organization.
The Chapter had many questions,but after review,voted to
support the ordinance.PAGIS provides better 'footprints'ouse.If the City does not enact the changes,some
subdivisions will not use the PAGIS markers.Over time thecosttonon-PAGIS marker subdivisions will be greater,sincethesurveyorwillhavetostartfromscratch.If PAGIS istowork,then these changes must be made.
(The following is a series of questions and answers
from Commissioner Walker to Mr.Robison)
Do members use the high technology methods PAGIS suggests?
Most use some form of COGO,PAGIS is just northing,casting,
and elevations (now just have to use the same startingpoint).Will surveyors use both descriptions and maps
3
(legal vs survey)?The surveyors turn in a record based on
angles,etc.There is a difference between the science of
surveying and legal.(There was further discussion about
monuments.)What percentage of surveyors are at this level
(COGO,computers)?State-wide 30 percent and at least 20
percent of the membership of the local chapter use
computers.However,the ordinance does not require use of
computer disks.If one uses proper methods,you will have
the required information (can do without computers).
Commissioner Selz asked if Mr.Robison was currently doing
what was in the ordinance.The answer was yes,except for
the monumentation.Mr.Robison recommended the State
minimum be enacted:accuracy 1-10000 rather than 1-5000 and
monuments 24 inch rather than 15 inches.Then the only
PAGIS additional cost would be the tie to the marker.
Troy Laha,an Engineer,Surveyor,and Vice President of
Survey Chapter,stated there were three problems which
should be corrected:1)complying with ACT 424 of 1957 and
ACT 247 of 1963;2)problem of access to parameter monuments
which may be in someone's backyard,and;3)global
positioning of monuments-ability to have clear line-of-sight
to satellite.COGO has been around a long time,only the
terms have changed.The major cost is monumentation which
should be addressed.In response to a question Mr.Laha
indicated the problem with ACT 424 is south or north zone
for Pulaski County and ACT 247 dealt with tampering with a
monument (there was some discussion.with Mr.Robison about
the impacts of this ACT on other state regulations).
Joe White was next to speak.He asked the Commission to see
his letter to Mr.Lawson.Mr.White stated the amendment
appears to be strictly to facilitate input into PAGIS.HeisnotagainstPAGISbutagainstsomethingsinthe
ordinance.Why should preliminary plats have these
requirements placed on them,40 to 50 percent of preliminary
plats ar not built.The .requirements should be only on
final plats.Also,small replats (or building line changes)
should be removed from these requirements.Even if plats do
not fit together on paper,on the ground they do.The
reason for differences could be everyone using different
norths or use of bearings on an old deed.What we now have
works.Mr.White agreed the utilities,City and PAGIS need
the information,but you only need the increased accuracy if
using a computer.The end user costs will be $100 to $200
per lot more with these regulations and the Waste Water and
Water Works additional requirements.
Commissioner Miller asked if Mr.White still had the same
questions/problems outlined in his letter.He stated he
stands by his statements on amendments to 31-89,31-117
(instead should require the City be furnished a recorded
plat),31-379 (do not need bearings,only dimensions and
4
angles).Mr.White asked why elevations are needed.Mr.
Barr responded that they are needed to assure everyone
started at the same place —to see if it fits
topographically.There will be a legal layer and digitized
layer,these will be overlaid to check match.Over time
these layers may become the same.The elevations are only
to help check the plat.
Mr.White continued and raised the problem of monumentation
in areas of high bedrock.In addition,requirements by the
Water and Sewer Departments for location of manholes,etc.
will add costs.We just need to take a harder look at some
of the sections.
Ron Tyne,Wynrock &Home Builders Association,just wished
to express concern with parts of the ordinance.In general
he agreed with what Mr.Laha and White had previously
stated.Mr.Tyne suggested a committee be formed to sit
down and review various concerns.
Mr.Gertsch asked to speak about Waste Water requirements.
The Waste Water Utility will require state plane coordinate
ties to boundary surveys in subdivisions using the PAGIS
subdivision regulations.This requirement would also be
placed on cross country lines.
(The following are questions/answers from Commissioner
Walker to Mr.Gertsch)
Commissioner Walker stated his interest in PAGIS dates back
several years.It was his opinion the architecture
(software)was a poor choice and would prove hard to use.
Mr.Walker was assured digital and COGO parcel data would be
on separate layers.He stated it is important that since 80
percent of the City 'older areas'ill be 'grossly'nput
(best fit)which lowers the accuracy.If the better
accuracy parcels are on a different layer,that is OK.In
response to a question about excluding replats,Mr.Gertsch
stated PAGIS needs the replat to improve the system and
rectify the surrounding areas.Both agreed that control
must be at a high level to reduce accuracy problems.
Commissioner Walker asked about charges for information.He
stated we should not pay twice (once as tax payer and second
as requester).Mr.Gertsch stated if a service is provided
then a cost would be attached.
In response to a question about total cost to get the system
up,Mr.Gertsch responded that a proposed five year plan
calls for five million dollars from the City,Waste Water
and Water Works.In response to why preliminary plats
should have requirements,Mr.Gertsch stated the tie is
needed to perform analysis for engineering review.To a
question about tieing to county computers and interfacing
5
with other utilities,Mr.Gertsch stated this was being
discussed (Mr.Walker asked to prove this could be done).
In response to why a six month requirement on survey work,
Mr.Gertsch stated there needed to be a time frame to assure
that the plat accurately reflected the existing conditions.
There was a lengthy discussion about the need to include
preliminary plats (they are done from aerials,and are
exploratory with technical problems worked out at final platstage).It was agreed the City only needed a copy of the
recording,it was not necessarily to actually file the plat.
Jerry Gardner,Chief Civil Engineer,asked to speak.He
stated that the Public Works staff had reviewed the draft
numerous times and would recommend a few changes.First he
agreed the benefit of having the data on a preliminary plat
was not there.Preliminary plats are conceptual (if needed,
they could be patched into the system).Further,the
preliminary plat is not a legal document with only one year
of life.The monumentation issue is a question for
surveyors.As for the existing monuments,this is providedatcostbytheCity(he displayed a PAGIS monument book).
Further,it can be viewed free.
Two additional items:small subdivisions (one Lot)should
be excluded —this is overkill.A bigger problem is that
subdivisions are platted before construction is complete,
thus a resurvey (recheck)would be necessary after
construction to assure everything is correct.
Commissioner Walker restated his concern about whole cost
recovery —having to pay twice.The issue of access iscritical.
Commissioner Oleson asked about the Global Positioning
problem raised by Mr.Laha.Mr.Gertsch agreed one needed aclearareatonitthesatellite.Mr.Robison stated one can
get the required accuracy without Global Positioning.Mr.
White stated Global Positioning would not be used for
subdivision monuments.
Commissioner Miller stated the issue would be placed on the
Commission's August 14,1990 agenda.Before that time a
review committee should examine the issues.There was
discussion about the committee and subdivision amendment.
notice to the private sector.Commissioners Walker and
Oleson were appointed to the committee with all
Commissioners and those who spoke notified.
6
There being no further business before the Commission the
meeting was adjourned at 3:30 PM
Date
Chaxrperso ec e ary
7