Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0215 Staff AnalysisMarch 9, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 NAME: LOCATION: APPLICANT/AGENT: DEVELOPER/OWNER: Harry McDermott Phone: 374-2231 AREA: 31.5 Acres ZONING: PROPOSED USES: McDermott Addition Preliminary South of Murray Park, off Rebsamen Road R.D. Bailey ENGINEER: Edward G. Smith and Associates 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72201 NO. OF LOTS: 60 Residential VARIANCES REQUESTED: None at this time. A. EXISTING CONDITIONS FT. OF NEW ST.: 3300 This site, just south of Murray Park, is located on what is presently undeveloped and rugged terrain overlooking the Arkansas River. The well -timbered property has an average slope of 25 percent and a significant natural drainageway running from south to north. Access to the site is currently being provided by Rebsamen Park Road to the north, with no through means of travel. The area is bounded on the south and west by several residential subdivisions and to the east and north by an abandoned CRI&P Railroad. Water Works has reported that an easement is needed on the south 25' of property adjacent to the southeast boundary - Lots 8, 9 and 11. B. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL This is a proposal to develop a tract of 31.5 acres into 60 lots for single family use. Thirty-three hundred feet of new street is proposed for the internal access. The proposed access routes consists of McDermott Drive, a 27' residential street serving as the major entrance from Rebsamen, McDermott Court, a cul-de-sac in length and a 20' looped driveway, which will serve 15 lots. March 9, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - Continued Eighty percent of the lots exceed 19,000 square feet in area as required by the hillside regulations. The request for variances includes the following: 1. 15' building setback line as shown on the plat. 2. Length of cul-de-sac street. 3. 20' looped driveway to serve 15 lots. 4. Asphalt driveways. 5. Lot depth to width ratio on 11 lots. C. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS The Bill of Assurance should state how the private streets are to be maintained. D. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS (a) Request internal drainage plan be submitted to the City Engineer; it should include interceptor structures to divert water from the south. (b) Engineering Division does not object to asphalt private drives. E. ANALYSIS During a previous submittal, Staff reviewed the applicant's plans for the development of this property. It was rejected in its original form due to several design considerations; however, the main concern was based on excessive lotting. Staff requested that the applicant submit a revised plan which addressed the problems indicated. As refiled, the plan offers staff no opportunity to modify its previous position of objecting to the lotting arrangement proposed on such steep slopes. Staff refuses to recommend the plat in any respect. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Denial as filed. March 9, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Subdivision Committee forwarded this item to the full Commission without a specific recommendation. However, the following points were discussed without resolution, and the owner asked to provide further information or clarification at the meeting on January 12. 1. Design the private access drives to City construction standards with 24' asphalt and curb and gutter. 2. Concrete construction is to be used on private drives in areas of 14 percent grade or greater in lieu of the asphalt noted in Item 1 above. 3. All lots are to be reviewed for a minimum of 85' plus in width at the building line. 4. The uphill portion of Lots 16 through 29 between the private drive and the south property line is to be a permanent green area. The Bill of Assurance should provide for maintenance of this area. 5. The treatment plan for cuts and fills associated with the street construction should be submitted. The vote: 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: The applicant submitted a revised sketch with a reduction in the number of lots from 60 to 51, a minimum lot width of 85', and only two variances remaining: (1) length of cul-de-sac and (2) length of two access easements. Staff had reservations about the appropriateness of this type development on such property. There were also some questions as to the buildable nature of some of the lots. In response to Staff's concerns, the applicant agreed to: (1) redesign Lots 2-6, (2) examine an alternative design for the area near Lot 28, (3) provide a buffer area on southern portion of the plat adjacent to Pinnacle Point Subdivision and (4) report width of this buffer at the Public Hearing. The applicant assured the Staff and the Committee that he had documentation relative to access across the railroad property. The Committee moved to approve the plat and variances, subject to comments made. The vote: 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent (absent, Betty Turner). March 9, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (2-9-82) This application was represented by Mr. Joe White, the engineer, Mr. Harry McDermott, the developer/owner, and Mr. Don Bailey, the real estate agent. Mr. White gave a brief presentation during which he outlined features of the proposal and pointed out the revisions made on the plat as requested at the previous Subdivision Committee meeting. They were the redesigning of Lots 2-6 and the area near Lot 28, and the provision of a 50' buffer area on the southernmost part of the plat. Several objectors were present. Mr. Joe Kemp, an attorney representing most of the abutting property -owners on the south, was the first to raise objections. He stated his full support of the staff's recommendation of denial; mainly because the land is "topographically unsuitable for platting." This, he termed the "suitability issue," made development of the property as proposed "non -feasible." Instead, his clients prefer larger estate -type lots which would not be detrimental to their properties and would not provide a clustered view of the Arkansas River. Mr. Saul Allman, a resident of No. 3 Sunset Drive for 30 years, was the next person to speak in opposition. He reiterated most of Mr. Kemp's points concerning the damaging effects and the unsuitability of developing this particular piece of property. He added that the "perpendicular lay of the land" and the fact that "most of the land was rock, made building virtually impossible." He also expressed fear that development of this type property would necessitate using dynamite, which would be hazardous to the area, and that heavy machinery and the noise of workmen would also be damaging. Mr. Gene Pfeifer, the owner of the property to the west of the site and another opponent of the project, spoke in support of Mr. Kemp's arguments for a larger -lot subdivision, which would be more suitable to this type of terrain. At this point, it was reported that the revisions to the plat were recognized by the staff; but the recommendation for a smaller number of estate -sized lots which would minimize disturbance to the land and bluff, or for a clustered -type condominium development/open space, remained. March 9, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - Continued Mr. McDermott responded to the opposition by staff and the residents by stating that: (1) No dynamite would be used. (2) The surrounding residents were in opposition to staff's suggestion of condominium of high-rise in the area. (3) Neighborhood wishes have been complied with, especially since the proposals did not indicate a street at the north. (4) The opposers could not be classified as aggrieved since they had offered no valid legal reason for opposition. (5) The Commission's duty was not to suggest the type of development, but to determine whether or not the variances were to be granted. (6) All but three opposers lived in Cammack Village, a separate municipality with no Planning Commission, no zoning laws, etc. (7) Proposed homes would have to be 50' in height to block the view of the river. Mr. Kemp raised the issue of whether or not an older county road which runs through the property had been vacated. His investigation revealed that it had not. Mr. McDermott reported that to his knowledge the road had been closed; however, he assured the Commission that if it was still open, he would go through the proper channels for vacating it. Mr. Saul then commented that he was extremely dissatisfied with the provision of a 50' buffer to his property, and that he did not feel that the opposers should be ostracized for living in Cammack Village. Mr. McDermott agreed to increase the buffer to 100'. The Commission pointed out that to do so would make one lot in the proposal virtually unbuildable. The applicant's Engineer agreed. Finally, a motion was made to approve the plat and variances subject to the provision of a 100' buffer adjacent to the southern boundary and the old county road through the property being closed. The vote was: 5 ayes, 3 noes and 1 abstention, so the proposal was automatically deferred for 30 days.* The applicants were asked to work out a better design and do more study and planning. * (Votes: noes: Turner, Ketcher and Massie). (Abstention: Wright). March 9, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - Continued SUBDIIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: The applicant submitted a revised plan that differed from the original by the provision of (1) 49 lots, (2) connection to Pine Valley on the south, and (3) the reduction of the length of private drives so that a waiver was not needed. Both staff and the Committee opposed tying into Pine Valley Road to the south because of the traffic this would generate. The applicants also stated that they were unable to work out previous problems, so the revised plan represented a new position that withdrew all things agreed to with the original plan. The Committee voted to approve this plat and the cul-de-sac waiver, without addressing the buffer issue, but subject to the provision of a cul-de-sac instead of connection to Pine Valley Road on the south. The vote - 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3-19-82) The applicant was present. Four persons were present in opposition. The opposers were represented by Mr. Hal Kemp, an Attorney, who requested that he be allowed to stand in for his father, Mr. Joe Kemp. A letter from Mr. Joe Kemp was submitted outlining several objections to the revised plan. They involved: (1) the topographical unsuitableness of the terrain; (2) the lack of estate -sized lots; (3) the increase of vehicular traffic by a connection to Pine Valley Road; (4) insufficient lot depth to meet the Ordinance requirement of 175' adjacent to a "main -line" railroad; and (5) the absence of provisions on the revised plan for any of the oral commitments made to the Commission and the property owners on the south, especially the buffer zone. Mrs. Sally Phillips, of 7208 Rockwood, requested that she be allowed to go on record as an objector to the development, mainly because of the traffic that will adversely impact the residential streets and those around the park. There was considerable discussion over whether or not the railroad on the property constituted what the Ordinance considered as a "main -line" railroad. Mr. Saul Alman, one of the property owners, stated that he had been told by a Mr. Marvin Blease at Missouri Pacific Railroad that it was officially classified as a main -line railroad. Staff March 9, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - Continued commented that they did not consider it to be main -line because of its marginal use. Mr. Don Bailey, one of the applicant's representatives, reported that the railroad had been considered in the planning of the plat. The lots were 160' along the rails because an additional 100' of right-of-way was already provided. In response to questions from the Commission, staff also commented that: (1) although the plan met all technical requirements and the engineer had shown that the plan was indeed buildable, the land could be better developed in another manner; and (2) buffers between like areas weren't necessary. During the agenda session, the applicant informed the Commission that the plat would have to be modified because of the sale of three lots to a property owner abutting on the south. As a result of this action, a motion was made to approve the plat, contingent upon a redesign of the cul-de-sac to Engineering standards and its conversion to a service easement instead of a public street. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstention (Commissioner Rector).