HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0170-HH Staff Analysis0
June 14, 1994
ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: S-170-FF
NAME: DEERFIELD ADDITION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT
LOCATION: West of and beyond the present end of Carmel Drive, on
the north side of Hinson Road
DEVELOPER•
FLOYD H. FULKERSON
124 W. Capitol, Suite 1075
Little Rock, AR 72201
376-4432
AREA: 10 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS:
ZONING: R-2
PLANNING DISTRICT: 1
CENSUS TRACT: 42.06
VARIANCES REQUESTED:
1) Private street
ENGINEER•
PAT MCGETRICK
MCGETRICK ENGINEERING
11225 Huron Land, Suite 200
Little Rock, AR 72211
225-9900
16
PROPOSED ❑SES:
2) Lot width to depth ratio
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
FT. NEW STREET: 1200
Single -Family Residential
The applicant proposes to re -plat what are presently 2 large lots
in Block 57 of the Pleasant Valley Addition into 16 lots in a new
subdivision known as Deerfield Addition. The extension of Carmel
Drive, an existing private street, to serve the new lots is
proposed. The proposed lots are, on an average, 80 feet in
width. The lot depth ranges from about 200 feet to nearly
380 feet. Lots 8 through 15 also have frontage on Hinson Road.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission is requested for a
subdivision involving the re -platting of 2 lots in Block 57
of Pleasant Valley Addition into 16 lots in a new
subdivision knows as Deerfield Addition. Planning
Commission approval of a private street is requested. The
private street is proposed to be an extension of Carmel
Drive, an existing private street. Planning Commission
review and Board of Directors approval is requested for a
variance from the requirement in the Subdivision Regulations
which limits the lot width to depth ratio to 1:3, and permit
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE NO.:-170-FF
the lot depth to exceed the allowable depth based on the lot
widths which have been designed in this plat.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The proposed subdivision is a re -plat of Lots 42 and 43,
Block 57, Pleasant Valley Addition. Lots 42 and 43 are
large tracts beyond the present end of Carmel Drive which
are owned by the original developer of the previously
developed portion of the subdivision. This owner now wishes
to divide these 2 large tracts into the 16 building sites
and extend Carmel Drive as a continuation of the private
street to serve the additional lots.
The site is located on a hillside, with the roadway and the
front of the lots being at the high side of the development.
The zoning of the site and of the surrounding areas is R-2.
C . ENGINEERING,/gTI_L_ITY COMMENTS:
Public Works comments that a turn -around will have to be
constructed at the end of the private street; an additional
5 feet of right-of-way must be dedicated on Hinson Road to
meet Master Street Plan requirements; and, a "no access"
easement must be platted along Hinson Road. The Stormwater
Detention Ordinance will be applicable, and a detailed
grading and excavation plan must be submitted.
Little Rock Municipal Water Works reports that 3 inch and
8 inch main extensions will be required, as well as private
fire hydrants. Adequate easements for placement of water
mains out from under the paveme}it will be required.
Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that a sewer main
extension, with an easement, will be required.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. reports that additional
easements will be required.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. comments that additional
easements will be required.
The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The proposed subdivision is a re -plat of Lots 42 and 43,
Block 57, Pleasant Valley Addition. The proposed street is
an extension of the private street previously established.
The applicant is the owner of Lots 42 and 43, Block 57, and
2
June 14, 1994
SgBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE NO.: S-170-FF
was the developer of the remainder of the subdivision. The
Bill of Assurance which was promulgated by the developer and
under which the remainder of the subdivision is governed
states: "(The developer) hereby donates and dedicates to
the lot owners fee title to the streets ... to be used as
private streets." A property owners association was
established in the Bill of Assurance to, among other things,
provide for the "preservation and improvement of
all ... public areas...."
The Subdivision Regulations (Section 31-207) states:
"Private streets for residential development shall be
discouraged. However, private streets may be approved by
the Planning Commission to serve isolated developments. The
design standards shall conform to public street
standards...." The developer requests approval of a private
street to serve this development, and the Planning
Commission is empowered to grant this request.
Carmel Drive, the private streets previously approved by the
Planning Commission for Pleasant Valley Addition, including
the area to be re -platted in this application, was designed
as a minor residential street, and is a 24 foot wide
concrete street. A continuation of the street as originally
approved is proposed for Deerfield Addition.
The Subdivision Regulations (Section 31-232.b) states: "No
residential lot shall be more than three (3) times as deep
as it is wide...." The lots are proposed to be, on an
average, 80 feet wide; therefore, the maximum lot depth must
not exceed, based on an 80 foot width, 240 feet. All the
lots exceed the 1:3 ratio, and"a waiver of this regulation
must be approved by the Board of Directors.
Lots 8 through 15 are double frontage lots, with frontages
on both Carmel Drive and on Hinson Road. The Subdivision
Regulations (Section 31-232.d) prohibits double frontage
lots, except "where a subdivision abuts or contains an
existing or proposed arterial street...." Since Hinson Road
is a minor arterial, the double frontage lots are not
prohibited in this situation.
The plans which have been submitted to date are deficient in
the following manners: 1) the plat is not just a re -plat,
but a new subdivision, and must contain the information
required on a new preliminary plat; e.g., contours, names of
recorded subdivision abutting the site, the book and page
number or instrument of these subdivisions, the names of
owners of abutting unplatted land, the zoning
classifications of the site and of abutting properties, and
3
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM _NO. : 2 (Continued) FILE . 5-170-FF
the location of proposed PAGIS monuments; 2) the average
and minimum lot sizes are to be shown; 3) the proposed
design of the street is to be shown; and, 4) the provision
for storm drainage is to be addressed.
E. ANALYSIS:
The area encompassed by this application was previously
approved by the Commission as two large lots with the private
street extending to the east boundary of the second lot. The
developer has now elected to further divide these two lots
into multiple building sites. This, in itself, is not a
problem and does not conflict with the Subdivision
Regulations. The problem, however, arises as a result of the
existing POA (Property Owners' Association) which was
established to maintain the private streets in the previously
platted portion of the subdivision, and the fact that the two
lots which are proposed to be divided into the 16 lots in
this application were not part of that POA area. The
residents in and the POA of the previously platted area
object to the development. They indicate that the
development of the multiple lots are not in keeping with the
size of the previously platted lots in the remainder of the
subdivision, and, they say that the street onto which the
developer is tying and extending into the new development is
a private street, owned and maintained by them and the POA.
The developer, however, reports that he has the right to use
and extend the private street. These type questions are
civil matters, and are not within the purview of the Planning
Commission. The proposed preliminary plat, with approval by
the Board of Directors for the lot width -to -depth ratio
variance, meets Ordinance standards.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat and
approval of the private street to be built to minor
residential street standards. Staff recommends approval of
the variance requested for the lot width -to -depth ratio.
The recommendation for approval, however,_ is contingent on
corrected and completed plans being submitted and approved
by staff.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 26, 1994)
Mr. Floyd Fulkerson, the applicant, and Mr. Pat McGetrick, the
engineer, were present. Staff presented the application and
reviewed with the applicant and engineer the comments in the
4
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
XTRM NO.: 2 Continued FILE NO.: 5-17-FF
discussion outline. Mr. McGetrick
noted would be corrected, and that
would be provided. The Committee
Commission for the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
responded that the deficiencies
the additional information
forwarded the item to the
(JUNE 14, 1994)
Staff presented the request, and indicated that the applicant
sought a variance from the Commission for a private street within
the proposed subdivision. Staff pointed out that, as presented,
the lots exceed the depth which is allowed by the Subdivision
Regulations, based on the lot width to depth ratio provision.
Staff indicated that, either the applicant would have to seek a
waiver of that provision from the Board of Directors, or would
have to amend the plat to conform to the Regulations. Staff
reported that there are two ways of meeting the regulation:
1) increase the width of the lots so that the ratio is met; or
2), shorten the lots to meet the ratio by providing an undivided
"Tract A" along the rear of the tract, in which case maintenance
of the tract will have to be provided for. Staff also indicated
that a "no access" easement was to be provided along the Hinson
Road frontage of the affected lots.
Mr. Pat McGetrick indicated that the developers choice regarding
the lot width to depth ratio problem was to shorten the lots so
that the width to depth ratio requirement is met; that the lots
would have to be shortened approximately 100 feet, and an
undivided tract would be created at the rear of the subdivision.
He indicated that the developer proposed to dedicate the tract to
the City as open space. He also in4cated that the developer
would agree to the designation of the "no access" easement along
Hinson Road.
Staff interjected that the City is not interested in acquiring
land as open space which the City would have to maintain. Staff
indicated that the maintenance of the open space tract would have
to be provided for by the developer and/or property owners'
association in the Bill of Assurance for the subdivision.
Mr. McGetrick conceded that the developer would provide for the
maintenance of the area, and staff reported that, in this case,
no variances would be required to be referred to the Board of
Directors for approval.
Mrs. Tom (Nita) Hill, representing herself and her next door
neighbor, Mrs. Virginia Moore, expressed concern about the
stormwater run-off from the hillside above their homes which face
5
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) _ FILE NO • 5-170-FF
Hinson Road. She stated that there are problems with run-off
now, and she is wanted to know what the developer proposes to
control the run-off.
Bill Appleton, indicating that he is one of the residents of the
Carmel Property Owners' Association of which the proposed
development is to be an extension, stated that the existing Bill
of Assurance covers the entire area (i.e., the existing developed
area, as well as the area proposed for development as Deerfield
Addition), and this Bill of Assurance requires permission of the
Property Owners' Association for the development to take place.
He stated that the required permission has not been sought by
Mr. Fulkerson nor granted by the Association. He testified that
the area proposed for development as Deerfield Addition is
covered by the Carmel Bill of Assurance.
Chairperson Chachere stated that Bill of Assurance issues cannot
be enforced by the City, nor is the Planning Commission the
proper body to which property owners can look for enforcement of
Bill of Assurance provisions.
Deputy City Attorney Steve Giles related that it was his
understanding that the proposed subdivision is to be a new
subdivision with its own Bill of Assurance. He went on to say
that Bill of Assurance issues are private issues; that the City
does not execute and is not a part to Bills of Assurance, and the
City is not bound by them. In this case, then, any dispute
involving Bill of Assurance issues will have to be worked out
between Mr. Fulkerson and the Property Owners' Association and/or
individual property owners. The subdivision which is being
presented, as amended, he continued, meets the technical
requirements of the Subdivision Regulations in design and in the
fact that it has a Bill of Assurance, and the Commission may not
deny approval because of a private dispute.
Staff reported that Mr. Fulkerson has chosen to propose
development of the subdivision as a separate subdivision with a
different name and with a separate Bill of Assurance, knowing of
the objection of the Carmel property owners and of the Carmel
Property Owners' Association, and is seeking. Planning Commission
approval of the subdivision, knowing that the objectors may
choose to enforce the original Bill of Assurance in the courts.
Mr. John Sawatski said that the new property owners' association
and Bill of Assurance would be subordinate to the existing,
overriding association and Bill of Assurance. He objected to the
proposed subdivision because, he said, it does not meet the test
of being in harmony with the surrounding development nor with
industry standards for the highest and best use of the property.
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE N❑ • S-170-FF
He stated that, if access to the new subdivision is to be gained
through the existing Carmel area, then there must be an agreement
made for sharing associated costs; if Mr. Fulkerson anticipates
the new subdivision becoming a part of the existing Association,
then he must conform to the Association's standards. He
complained that the existing private street system is not
designed for the addition of the number of lots proposed.
Commissioner Walker indicated that he was under the impression
that the lots conformed to the Subdivision Regulations, and asked
Mr. Sawatski to explain to him how and on what basis the
Commission could deny approval of the subdivision. He related
that he had not been able in the past nor in the present
situation to justify to himself a denial simply because a
subdivision did not conform to the standards of the surrounding
development. He indicated sympathy with an attempt to achieve
conformity in the development, but suggested that the matter is
probably a private contractual issue which should be pursued in
the courts. He said that he, as a Commissioner, cannot find in
the ordinances a way to enforce in this situation substantially
higher standards than the normal R-2 standards.
Mr. Sawatski reiterated that the new development is part of the
Carmel Property Owners' Association, and that the number and size
of the proposed lots does not conform to the Bill of Assurance
and Property Owners' Association requirements. He complained
that the other owners within the Association have a right to
expect a compatible development; that others and he and his
family bought with that anticipation. He pointed out that every
car entering or leaving the new area will be traveling across the
Carmel Property Owners' Association' private road, maintained by
the members of that Association.
Mr. Walker mentioned that he understood that one area above the
proposed development had been originally planned to be divided
into 4 lots, and, as it turned out, is one large lot. Therefore,
he said, the net addition of lots using the private road is not
the full 16 lots, but 13.
Mr. Sawatski replied that, originally, the private street was
supposed to be a loop street; that the area which has
subsequently been sold as a single lot in lieu of 4 lots and
which lies immediately to the east of Mr. Fulkerson's property,
was the proposed route of the loop, and that Mr. Fulkerson's area
was supposed to be a dead-end section of street. Now, all
traffic has to use the entire length of the private street, with
no alternate route. This, he said, does not provide adequate
access to Mr. Fulkerson's property.
7
June 14, 1994
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO._: 2 (Continued) FILE NO • S-170-FF
Commissioner Oleson asked, if this is the case, how is access to
the property to be achieved? She asked if the City is now in the
position of telling property owners that they have to let others
use their private street.
Mr. Lawson explained that, according to the Public Works staff,
the private street is adequate to serve the traffic load of the
area, and that, when the plat was originally approved for the
2 lots which Mr. Fulkerson is now proposing to be platted as
16 lots, the legal access to the property, as required by the
Subdivision Regulations, was provided. It does not matter, he
said, whether there are 2 or 16 lots, the requirement for legal
access was met. The private contractual matters pertaining to
the Bill of Assurance provisions or use or maintenance of the
private street are out of the purview of the Planning Commission.
Deputy City Attorney Giles continued that the Commission can make
a determination on whether, in the Commissioner's judgment, the
proposed plat meets the Subdivision Regulation's requirement for
access to the property. If the Commission determines that the
site does not have access, the Commission can deny approval of
the plat. If the Commission finds that the plat does not meet
the standards of the Subdivision Regulations regarding any of the
other standards, the Commission can deny the plat. Otherwise,
the Commission is bound to approve the proposed plat.
A lengthy discussion then ensued involving various Commissioners,
representatives of the Carmel Property Owners' Association,
Mr. Giles, Mr. Lawson, and other Neighborhoods and Planning staff
regarding the meaning of "legal access" and whether this is
provided to the site. Another discussion was held involving
various Commissioners, Neighborhoods and Planning staff, and
Public Works staff concerning the Stormwater Detention Ordinance
and its provisions, and how its provisions would apply to this
development and the property below Mr. Fulkerson's property.
When it was determined that the site has legal access, and that
property down hill from the site would be protected from
stormwater run-off, a motion was made and seconded to approve the
proposed preliminary plat, as amended, without the request for
the waiver from the lot width to length ratio, with the provision
of the Tract A for open space, but with the approval for the
private street. The motion carried with the vote of 6 ayes,
3 noes, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions.
8