Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0024-ZZ-1 Staff AnalysisJune 20, 2002 ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: 5-24-ZZ NAME: Garrett Glenn Addition Replat of Lots 61 and 62 LOCATION: South of Westport Loop and north of Huntleigh Drive DEVELOPER: A.S. Rosen & Associates 9101 Rodney Parham Road Little Rock, AR 72205 AREA: 0.652 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family PLANNING DISTRICT: 19 CENSUS TRACT: 42.07 ENGINEER: 011en Dee Wilson 2523 North Willow North Little Rock, AR 72114 - 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0 VARIANCESMAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to subdivide two previously platted lots into three single- family residential lots. The lots will be accessed from Westport Road, a now through street, connecting to Huntleigh Drive. Each lot meets the minimum requirements for lot size as required by the Subdivision Ordinance with the average lot size being 0.22 acres. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is vacant and cleared with a significant slope from the street to the rear of the lots. All lots adjacent to the site back up to a ravine used for drainage. The area is hilly with steep grades on the roadways. The area is predominately single-family with large areas of vacant lands zoned single-family. The subdivision itself has several vacant lots, although, there are new homes under construction in the area. June 20, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: S-24-ZZ C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing staff has not received any comment from the neighborhood. The Hillsborough, the Pleasant Valley, the St. Charles, the Carriage Creek and the Marlow Manner Property Owners Associations and the abutting property owners were notified of the Public Hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: No Comment. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer service line not provided for Lot 60R. The owner of the lot will be responsible for tapping sewer main and providing service to the lot. Contact Little Rock Wastewater at 376-2903 for additional details. ENTERGY: No comment received. ARKLA: Approved as submitted. Southwestern Bell: No comment received. Water: No objection. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Plannina: No comment received. CATA:Site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus radius, turnout and route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: No comment. Landscape: No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: May 30, 2002 The applicant was not present. Staff stated there were minor details needed on the preliminary plat, (source of title, average lot size, total number of lots, source of water and wastewater disposal). Staff stated they would contact the applicant 6 June 20, 2002 SUBDIVISION !TEM NO.: FILE NO.: S-24-ZZ and request the additional information be furnished prior to June 5, 2002. With no further discussion, the Committee then forwarded the proposed preliminary plat to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant furnished to staff the revised preliminary plat indicating the additional requested information on June 3, 2002. The applicant has shown the vicinity map to scale, the source of title, the requested contours and the property owners names to the south of the proposed plat. The proposed plat meets minimum Subdivision Ordinance requirements with regard to minimum lot, size, building setback and required street frontage. The proposed preliminary plat is similar to the neighboring lots and of the subdivision. Otherwise, to staffs knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed preliminary plat. Staff recommends approval of the proposed preliminary plat as filed. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat as submitted subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of this report. 3 August 22, 2002 ITEM NO.: D FILE NO.: S-24-ZZ NAME: Garrett Glenn Addition Replat of Lots 61 and 62 LOCATION: South of Westport Loop and north of Huntleigh Drive DEVELOPER: A.S. Rosen & Associates 9101 Rodney Parham Road Little Rock, AR 72205 AREA: 0.652 acres NUMBER OF LOTS CURRENT ZONING: R-2, Single-family PLANNING DISTRICT: 19 CENSUS TRACT: 42.07 ENGINEER: 011en Dee Wilson 2523 North Willow North Little Rock, AR 72114 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0 VARIANCESMAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. The applicant proposes to subdivide two previously platted lots into three single- family residential lots. The lots will be accessed from Westport Road, a now through street, connecting to Huntleigh Drive. Each lot meets the minimum requirements for lot size as required by the Subdivision Ordinance with the average lot size being 0.22 acres. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is vacant and cleared with a significant slope from the street to the rear of the lots. All lots adjacent to the site back up to a ravine used for drainage. The area is hilly with steep grades on the roadways. The area is predominately single-family with large areas of vacant lands zoned single-family. The subdivision itself has several vacant lots, although, there are new homes under construction in the area. August 22, 2002 ITEM NO.: D FILE NO.: S-24-ZZ C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing staff has not received any comment from the neighborhood. The Hillsborough, the Pleasant Valley, the St. Charles, the Carriage Creek and the Marlow Manner Property Owners Associations and the abutting property owners were notified of the Public Hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: No Comment. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer service line not provided for Lot 60R. The owner of the lot will be responsible for tapping sewer main and providing service to the lot. Contact Little Rock Wastewater at 376-2903 for additional details. ENTERGY: No comment received. ARKLA: Approved as submitted. Southwestern Bell: No comment received. Water: No objection. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No comment received. CATA:Site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus radius, turnout and route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN' Planning Division: No comment. Landscape: No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: May 30, 2002 The applicant was not present. Staff stated there were minor details needed on the preliminary plat, (source of title, average lot size, total number of lots, source of water and wastewater disposal). Staff stated they would contact the applicant and request the additional information be furnished prior to June 5, 2002. 2 August 22, 2002 ITEM NO.: D FILE NO.: S-24-ZZ With no further discussion, the Committee then forwarded the proposed preliminary plat to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant furnished to staff the revised preliminary plat indicating the additional requested information on June 3, 2002. The applicant has shown the vicinity map to scale, the source of title, the requested contours and the property owners names to the south of the proposed plat. The proposed plat meets minimum Subdivision Ordinance requirements with regard to minimum lot size, building setback and required street frontage. The proposed preliminary plat is similar to the neighboring lots and of the subdivision. Otherwise, to staff's knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed preliminary plat. Staff recommends approval of the proposed preliminary plat as filed. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat as submitted subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of this report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 20, 2002) The applicant was not present and there were no objectors present. Staff stated the applicant failed to notify abutting property owners of the Public Hearing as required by the Planning Commission By -Laws. Staff recommended the application be deferred to the August 8, 2002 Public Hearing. There was no further discussion. A motion was made to place the application on the agenda for consent agenda for deferral. The motion passed 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 vacant position. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 8, 2002) Mr. Bill Boosley was present representing the application. There were objectors present. Staff stated there was a variance being requested as a part of the proposed preliminary plat with regard to platted front building line. Staff presented the item with a positive recommendation subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation" above of both the proposed preliminary plat and the proposed variance to the Subdivision Ordinance. 3 August 22, 2002 O.: D FILE NO.: S-24-ZZ Mr. A.J. Zotten addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposed application. Mr. Zotten stated the developer was currently constructing a home on the proposed Lot 62R. He stated as Staff had indicated the proposed lots did have steep grades. Mr. Zooten stated the lots sloped to a drainage structure, which was partially piped, at the rear. Mr. Zotten stated the developer had removed all the trees in the subdivision when developing the lots. He stated the proposed lots contained the only few remaining mature trees in the subdivision. He stated Mr. Rosen, the owner, had indicated these trees would also be removed. Mr. Zotten stated the neighborhood had been promised several items from the developers which were never delivered. He stated the developer had indicated sidewalks would be put in place, under ground electrical, a walled entrance and decorative street lights. He stated the request of the neighborhood was to maintain as much of the mature forest as possible and in some locations residents had purchased adjoining lots to ensure preservation of the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Kathy Sweere spoke in opposition of the replat. She stated her home was adjacent to the proposed replat and her primary concern was run-off and potential flooding problems. She stated water entering and leaving her site during heavy rains was tremendous. She stated the drainage structure put in place was not adequate to handle the water flows and the homes frequently suffered from yard flooding. She stated the home currently under construction was not being constructed in a manner, which would allow for proper drainage. Mr. Bill Boosley, the applicant addressed the Commission on the merits of the replat. He stated the intent was to leave as many trees as feasible on the site unless the trees were required to be removed for the home construction. He stated the drainage structure was in place and the developer would be required to mitigate flooding. Commissioner Rector questioned if the subdivision met the drainage and detention ordinance. Public Works Staff stated the original proposal was reviewed for drainage and detention. Staff stated one additional lot would not increase the "run-off' significantly. Commissioner Mizan stated one additional unit would increase "run-off'. He stated additional roof tops, additional paved surfaces and the additional building coverage has an impact on "run-off'. Commissioner Mizan requested the item be deferred to allow Public Works Staff to perform a drainage analysis. A motion was made to defer the item to the August 22, 2002 Public Hearing. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 vacant position. 2 August 22, 2002 ITEM NO.. ❑ FILE NO.: S-24-ZZ PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 22, 2002) Mr. Bill Bosley was present representing the application. There were objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff Recommendation" above. Staff stated the item was deferred from the August 8, 2002 Public Hearing pending an assessment of drainage in the area. Staff stated Public Works had review the drainage issues and were making recommendations to the developer, which would be required to be followed before final approval would be given. Mr. A J Zolton spoke in opposition of the application. He stated he was not satisfied with the drainage analysis. He stated the assessment staff spoke of did not include any measurements or walked into the drainage channel to evaluate. He stated the analysis was ill conceived with regard to drainage. He stated the only way to build on the lots was to remove all the trees. Mr. Zolton stated although the lots were in Garrett Glenn they did jet into West Port Addition. He stated the lots in West Port Addition were larger than the lots in Garrett Glenn and his lot backed up to these lots. He stated the rear of his lot was 210 feet. He stated the neighborhood had not been informed of the variance request for the plat. He stated had the residents been informed of the variance request more would have been opposed to the request. Mr. Zolton stated a house was currently under construction on proposed Lot 62R. He questioned the effect on the other two lots with regard to housing size. Staff stated the applicant had move the house as far to the side yard set back as possible. The effect would be that the other side would have a larger setback. Staff stated the size of the house would not be affected. Staff stated the Bill of Assurance was the same as for the remainder of the subdivision. Ms. Cathy Sweere spoke in opposition of the proposed replat. She stated she had two issues. She stated water and the setback were her concerns. Ms. Sweere stated in her back yard there was a four foot culvert that Public Works had assured her would carry a 10 year rain. She stated every spring the yards flood. Ms. Sweere stated the 15-foot building line would not allow for the parking of most automobiles. She stated all the homes in the area were 25-feet or more from the street. Commissioner Rector stated there was an additional 10-feet of right-of-way. Ms. Sweere stated she was looking for assurance that what staff had told her with regard to drainage would be adhered to. 1 August 22, 2002 FILE NO.: S-24-77 Commissioner Rector stated the City had Ordinance, which would regulate the development along with all other development in the City. He stated the developer would be required to follow the ordinances. Ms. Pao-Fenj Tsai spoke in opposition to the proposal. She stated her home was down stream from the proposed lots and her back yard always had standing water. She stated her reasoning for selecting her home was the space and limited number of homes. Commissioner Rahman questioned when the subdivision was final platted. Staff stated 10 years or more. Commissioner Rahman questioned how many times a lot could be split. Staff stated there were no guidelines with regard to the number of times a subdivision could replat. Staff stated the issue became when the subdivision could no longer meet the minimum requirements and the number of variances required. There was a lengthy discussion with regard to the rights of a property owner with regard to subdividing a parcel and the number of times a developer could request the re - subdivision of a parcel after a plat had been executed. The discussion continued focusing on the impact of replatting on the neighborhood. The Commission question if the replatting was significant enough to cause adverse or undue harm with regard to the number of lots proposed vs. the number of lots approved. Commissioners questioned what assurance was in place to ensure that flooding would not affect the property owners in the area. Mr. Stephen Giles, Deputy City Attorney, stated the City had ordinances in place which would remedy the situation should a flood issue arise. He stated at this point this was flooding issues were purely speculation. Mr. Bosley stated the request was a preliminary plat approval. He stated the request would then be brought back to the City for Final Platting with a full drainage analysis prepared by an engineer. Mr. Bosley stated all building lines were platted at 15-feet in the Garrett Glenn Subdivision. He stated the housing would meet the Bill of Assurance with regard to square footage. Mr. Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, stated the applicant would be required to plat a drainage easement at the time of final platting. He stated staff had some concern that the lots would not be buildable once the easement was put in place. A motion was made to approve the preliminary plat as filed by the applicant to include all staff recommendations and comments. The motion carried by a vote of 6 ayes, 4 noes, 0 absent and 1 open position. N