Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0337 Staff AnalysisMarch 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A NAME: Forest Hills Revised Preliminary LOCATION: North End of Foxcroft Road - 3800 Block APPLICANT/ENGINEER: Richardson Engineers 1717 Rebsamen Park Road Little Rock, AR 664-0003 STAFF REPORT This submission represents the third revision of plans for the site in the last two months. The previous submission, which proposed access through Robinwood, was denied by the Commission last month. This plan consists of 15 single family lots, which take access off of a cul-de-sac leading from Foxcroft Road. As before, staff has no problems with the development of the property as single family, since it is a compatible use. The only problems related to design. Lots 7 and 8 are pipe stem lots, but with other lots also taking access from the stem. Staff feels that the plan should be redesigned, so that each lot has its own stem or there is a common drive. Also, staff feels that the applicant should consider redesigning Lot 4. Staff recognizes that if the street is extended to the plat boundry, double frontage lots would be created in the abutting Subdivision to the west; however, it is still felt that the applicant should try to resolve the issue. If the cul-de-sac is in excess of 7501, a waiver will be needed. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: (1) Request Foxcroft Road be extended as a collector. (2) Request preliminary information on the grade of cul-de-sac. (3) Construct guardrail type barricade at"the end of Foxcroft Road or a cul-de-sac turnaround. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to comments made. N March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: �4 Staff"'s main concern related to the design of some lots with pipe stem access. Staff felt that the ownership of the easement should be more clearly delineated. Also, the Commitee expressed concern about the proposed street's proximity to houses in Robinwood. The applicant was asked to submit a revised Galan changing the location of the street. The applicant felt that the proposed street represented a better alignment. However, the Commmittee felt that neighborhood objection would be likely and could be prevented if the plan was revised. The applicant requested to amend the application and reque_jt a waiver of sidewalks. Engineering felt that sidewalks would not serve any meaningful purpose on this street because of the minimal length. The applicant agreed to extend Foxcroft as a collector and notify Lot 53 in Robinwood of the proposal. Water Works - A 15' easement is required adjacent to the west and south lines of Lot 8. Provide access and utility easements to all lots that do not have frontage on a street right-of-way. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The developer and his engineer, Mr. Bob Richardson, were present. Mr. Richardson submitted a revised plan that addressed most of the issues identified by the Subdivision Committee. The remaining issue to be discussed at the public hearing was the location of the cul-de-sac in close proximity to Robinwood. Mr. Richardson still contended that such a revision WOuIO result in a bad layout. He felt that physically this represented the hest location since it would be located below the foundation of the Robinwood homes and would place at least 100 to 135 feet of distance between houses in this subdivision and Robinwood, 41hich is much more than an abutting subdivision would. if the cul-de-sac was moved to the east, Mr. Richardson felt that parcel B (a land locked �7 tract, south of Lot 50 and west of Lot 7) would be abutted (l by t►;ro lots that would increase its likelihood for access. March 11, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued Several persons from the neighborhood were present. Their main concern was the location of the cul-de-sac so close to Robinwood. Mr. Tim Bolen felt that double frontage lots would be created and requested that this plan should be designed so that it took the brunt of the traffic instead of Robinwood. He offered to support the plan if the street was shifted eastward. Ms. Marilyn Schultz, the owner of Lots 50 and 51, was concerned about a possible erosion problem. Since it appeared that she will be most directly impacted by traffic, she also requested that the street be moved. Mr. Richardson felt that if he shortened the cul-de-sac, he might need to lengthen the access drives. The question then arose as to the feasibility of developing this parcel. If it was developed, how many lots could it support? One commissioner felt that the real question was if land is developed to its highest`and best use, do you develop it to the detriment of your neighbors, or do you contain this detriment within the proposed subdivision? Finally, a motion for approval was made, but failed to pass for lack of an affirmative vote: 5 ayes, 5 noes and 1 abstention (noes: Ketcher, Summerlin, Massie, Sipes and Rector). SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. Several a ps were discussed with the Commission. The issue remained the proposed location of the cul-de-sack PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: r g� Staff explained that the issue remained the location of the cul-de-sac in proximity to Robinwood. The applicant's representative, Mr. Bob Richardson, explained that his preference was to locate the cul-de-sac 50 feet from Robinwood, but he had been unable to reach an agreement with the abutting property owners. Mr. Lloyd Mc predecessors Addition, sp that it was develop the Cain of Robinwood of the original oke in behalf of not economically entire ownership; Parcel B were excluded at th Development Company, the developers of Robinwood the applicant. He explained advantageous 25 years ago to thus, portions including e time of development. March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued Recently, he has discovered that this parcel will be landlocked. He had also made an offer to sell the parcel to abutting property owners in Robinwood at a discounted price, on the restriction that it will be maintained as a greenbelt, and conditioned upon the property owners that currently object to this project working out an agreement with the applicant. Numerous persons from the Foxcroft and Robinwood neighborhoods were present. Spokespersons included: (1) ms. Paula Black, president of the Foxcroft Garden Club, who submitted a petition expressing concern over the extension of Foxcroft as a collector down to the river; (2) Mr. Michael Bryant who requested a comprehensive plan of the area; (3) Mr. Russell Drawn who agreed with Mr. Bryant and questioned the outcome of plans for extending Foxcroft to access other lands to the north; and (4) Mr. Tim Bollen from Robinwood who also requested a total picture of what was to happen in the area. The Commission di.scussed the proposal. Questions arose as to whether or not the Commission was responsible for providing access to a person that by his own sale of property, denied it to himself and whether or not the applicant should be required to submit/and include 40 acres of additional acreage in a preliminary sketch in order to examine the full impact of the Foxcroft extension and other related issues. Finally, a motion was made for a 30-day deferral, conditioned upon: (1) Submittal of a pre -preliminary on other lands owned by the developer under option and that shows the relationship to Robinwood. (2) Legal opinion from the City Attorney on Section 37.20 (subparagraph g) as it relates to this property in Tract D. (3) Engineering formulating an opinion on whether Foxcroft should be downgraded from 36' to 27' street. The motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 3 noes and 0 absent. (The no votes: Rector, Ketcher, Schlereth) March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (2-28-85) The applicant submitted two plans and ask that one with the streets extended to Tract B be granted Commission approval and the other was a cul-de-sac be given conditional approval in case the first plan was not constructed. The Committee did not object to this approach. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: � 167 The applicant and the developer were present. Numerous persons from Foxcroft and Robinwood neighborhoods were present. Assistant City Attorney Phyllis Carter was asked to report on an opinion requested by the Commission. Ms. Carter reported that the request involved three parts: (1) Would the Commission be in violation of Subdivision Ordinance 13,556, Section 37.20(g), as amended, if it permitted Tract B to be land -locked? Her answer was, "Yes," since the word "shall" is used in Section 37.20(g). The Commission must provide access to adjacent unplatted properties. (2) Could liability for the land -locking of the tract by the Commission be waived by the owner if a written waiver was submitted by the owner? Ms. Carter stated that only two means were acceptable. One involved a written agreement which would run with the land and be recorded, which stated that there was an alternate route of access or some physical impediment. The other involved the owners of Tracts A and B entering into a written agreement. These methods would not place the Commission in violation of Section 37.20(g). (3) Does the fact that the owner contributed to the situation by land -locking himself make a difference? Her answer was that the Commission would not be justified in relying on this for disapproval. A review of the surrounding area and an ownership map was given by the staff. Engineering responded to a question by the Commission and explained that a traffic count study had been taken in several areas near Foxcroft, and it was determined that the extension of Foxcroft to the River would have to be a federal bond project, and had a low priority March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS `tem No. A - Continued compared to others in the City. He did say that his department felt that the extension of Foxcroft to the River would be in the best interest of the City, and a 36' street is favored as the area is developed. Mr. Bob Richardson, Engineer for the project, requested adoption of the two plans presented, in accordance with the City Attorney's opinion on not land -locking, with the contingency that the plan with the cul-de-sac be adopted upon sale of Tract B to Robinwood property owners. He stated that there were ongoing negotiations for the purchase, but he did not know the current status. One commissioner pointed out to Mr. Richardson that the stub -out street was still located about 20' to 30' from the lots and it should be at least 100' from existing lots. Mr. W.P. Hamilton addressed some background issues of the original development. He stated that the developers land -locked themselves to provide more marketable development by additional buffer areas. He was an attorney during the negotiations. He thought it improper for a developer who deliberately provides buffers to increase the marketability of the property to then change his mind and come back and ask for access. Mr. Don Hamilton stated that there is a tentative deal for negotiation to purchase Tract B, and there did exist a strong possibility for the purchase of the tract by the property owners. Mr. Tim Bowe of Robinwood asked the Commission to take the residents' interests into consideration, especially due to the double frontage situation created. He stated concerns about the damage to surrounding ownerships and offered to purchase a 100' strip because he felt that the street should be located at least 100' away. Ms. Sarah Smith of Foxcroft expressed concerns about flooding and the extension of Foxcroft. Dr. Robert Strauss also expressed environmental concerns and a fear of detrimental effects due to the traffic impact. zh 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued Mr. Richardson stated a reluctance to move the street 100' because he felt it would harm property values of southern lots. He also felt that there were no double frontage lots and that he was in compliance with the ordinance, since it states that 50' is required from adjacent property if a cul-de-sac does not extend to adjacent property. over the The Commission felt that regardless of the ordinance, adequate planning for the area mandates the location of street at least 100' from the platted lots. the Mr. Richardson felt that the result of moving the street would impact Foxcroft and the lots in the proposed subdivision. He stated that the property values within the proposed subdivision would suffer, and that would damage all parties involved. Finally, a motion for approval of the application as filed was made and denied by a vote of: 0 ayes, 10 noes and 1 absent. r GENERAL CONDITIONS OF NONCOMPLIANCE GENERAL PROVISIONS ARTICLE I. SECTION 37.2 STATEMENT OF LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE AND INTENT. The subdivision of land is the first step in the process - of urban development. The arrangement of land parcels in the community for residential, commercial and industrial uses and for streets, alleys, schools, parks, and other public purposes, will determine to a large degree the conditions of health, safety, economy, and amenity that prevail in the urban area. The quality of these conditions is of public interest. These + regulations incorporate standards designed to ensure proper development of land for urban use. -L specific p rpo;ej_ s of/,/p these regulations are: /,plej � A. To protect and provide for tl he th, safety and general welfare of the public. LIU— B. To guide the future growth and development of the municipality in accordance with the municipal plan. C. To provide for adequate light, air, and rivacy; to secure safety from fire, fl od d other danger, and to preven ov rcrow ing of the land and undue congests o population. D. To protect and conserve the va a of buildings and improvements, and to minimize adverse impact on �ining oror nearby properties. +, E. To establish a beneficial relationship between the uses of land and buildings, and the municipal str tem; to require thp, proper location and sign of streets and building lines; to minimize tra i estion, and ­tomake adequate provision for pedestrian traffic circulation. SECTION 37.7 GENERAL: 7 0 A. General - Recognizing that subdivison regulations must be applied to various land development types, and because of the special conditions pertaining to each, this ordinance hereby provides for the establishment of four subdivision types: Commercial/Office, Industrial, Mobile Home Park and Residential. Design standards applicable to each of these four types are outlined in Article V of this ordinance. . The purpose and intent of each subdivision type shall be generally as follows: 4. Residential Subdivisions - Residential subdivisions are intended to ensure efficint, aesthetic, and convenient designs for single fama y ae o-lot-line, duplex and multi -family, residential development, and to provide harmonious relation s w' urroundin areas. Resi en is uses shall be those defined as such in the Little Rock Zoning Ordinance. ARTICLE V. - DESIGN STANDARDS SECTION 37.20 -- GENERAL PRINCIPLES. No In addition to the following requirements for v improvements and their design, the following considerations shall guide the staff, the Subdivision Committee, and the Planning Commis ion in their review of proposed subdi_vis'on plats. _I��, r Character of the Lan and whit t Planning r Commission finds to be unsuitable for a subdivision or development due to flooding, and improper drainage, SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF NON COMPLIANCE PRELIMINARY PLAN OPTION A (OPTION A WITHOUT CUL-DE-SAC) SUBMITTED TO PLANNING COMMISSION ON 3-12-85 SECTION 37.10 -- VARIANCES B. Procedures and Conditions - No variance shall be granted except on written petiCi the subdivider when the preliminary plat is 1 e or consideration by the Planning Commission. The petition shall state fully the grounds for the application and all of the facts upon which the petition is made. In approving variances, the Planning Commission, may, at its option, require special conditions to ensure development in V/ accordance with objectives, standards, and requirements of these regulations. PROBLEM: l�ichardson requested no variances either upon �G written petition or orally at any time during the platting process. SECTION 37.14 -- PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL/NOTIFICATION �y) B. Notification - . . . .For residential plats, the applicant shall give written notice to all owners of unplatted s and all platted tracts in excess of 2.5 acres conti uous t su ivisaon presented for approval. For all owners of residential or nonresi entia parce s andlocked and contiguous to the su vision, notice shal e given. The procedure for such notice shall be as follows: Not less than ten days prior to the Planning Commission Meeting, a written notification containing the time, place and date of the hearing shall be given. The applicant shall obtain the names of those owners required to be notified from a licensed abstractor. Said notice shall be sent by certified or registered mail or a petition of notification circulated to the last known address of such record owner(s) and the petitioner shall execute and file with the Planning staff an affidavit showing compliance herewith, attaching as exhibits to said affidavits official evidence that said notices have been so mailed or petition circulated. PROBLEM: Richardson did not provide notice purs-uant to this section. No affidavit was filed with the Planning staff showing compliance with the notice requirement that written notification be given pursuant to a list from a licensed abstractor to ITC94 T -37 owners of residential or nonresidential parcels landlocked and contiguous to this proposed subdivision. Y)r is there any information that if notice was given, it was given by registered mail or a petition. SECTION 37.14 -- PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL/NOTIFICATION C. Staff Review: 2. The City staff shall distribute copies of the preliminary plat to other City departments, utility companies, and county and state agencies as appropriate with the request that their recommendations for either approval or disapproval be provided in writing. . . . PROBLEM: Richardson's continual substitution of revised plats, the most recent being totally different revisals of the last reviewed plat by the Planning Commission did not provide the City staff the opportunity to distribute ;copies and receive recommendations for approval or disapproval in writing particularly the re Department. SECTION 37.18 -- PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS Specific submission requirements include the following materials: A. Application Form. .A subdivision application form providing the following information shall be completed by the applicant and submitted to the Office of Comprehensive Planning. 3. Name and address of owner of record. PROBLEM: Richardson provided no address for owner of record James M. Moore. SECTION 37.18 A4. Source of title giving deed record book and page number, or instrument number. PROBLEM: Richardson provided no information with respect to source of title as required. SECTION 37.18 A(5) Name and address of subdivider. PROBLEM: Richardson provided no address for proposed subdivider, Gentry Partnership. SECTION 37.18 A(7) Average size of lots and minimum lot size. PROBLEM: Richardson does not provide adequate information reflecting average size of lots or minimum lot sizes. 3 SECTION 37.18 C. Preliminary Plat - . . .The preliminary plat shall be identified by the name of the subdivision, and shall include: 2. Proposed design including streets, alleys and sidewalks with proposed street names, lot lines with approximate dimensions, service easements, land to be reserved or dedicated for public uses, and land to be used for purposes of than r� residential. etrto,� { PROBLEM: Richardson did not include any sidewalks in proposed plat, nor any street name. SECTION 37.18 C (5) Storm drainage analysis showing drainage data for al,l watercourses entering and leaving the plat boundaries. The storm drainage analysis shall be prepared in sufficient detail to illustrate the proposed system's capability of accommodating a not less than one in ten year rainfall. PROBLEM: Richardson provided no storm drainage analysis either on the plat or as additional submittal material to the Planning staff. SECTION 37.18 C (6) Date of survey, north point and graphic scale. PROBLEM: Richardson provided no date of survey by Donald Brooks on any proposed plat. Additional issue raised is how Richardson developed topographic contour lines, did Richardson actually have contour lines surveyed? Or were contour lines estimated off U.S.G.S. Qualrangle maps? If so, how correct ishis hillside analysis? SECTION 37.18 C(9) Preliminary storm drainage plan incorporating proposed easement dimensions and typical ditch sections. PROBLEM: City has no record of receiving storm drainage plans from Richardson. SECTION 37.18 C (10) Names of recorded subdivisions abutting the proposed subdivision, with plat book and page number or instrument number. PROBLEM: Richardson does not provide on preliminary plats the name of the abutting ROBINWOOD SUBDIVISION nor the plat book, page number or instrument number. Richardson further does not provide the plat book and page number or instrument number for the adjacent FOXCROFT SUBDIVISION. SECTION 37.18 C (11) For residential plats, names of owners of unplat'ted tracts abutting the proposed subdivision and the names of all owners of platted tracts in excess of 2.5 acres. For commercial plats, names of owners of all land contiguous to the proposed subdivision. For both residential and commercial subdivisions, names of all owners of landlocked parcels contiguous or within the plat boundaries. PROBLEM: Richardson provided no names of owners of unplatted tracts abutting the proposed subdivision. SECTION 37.18 C (13) Zoning classifications within the plat and abutting areas. PROBLEM: Richardson does not identify the zoning classi- factions within the proposed Forest Hills plat, nor the abutting areas. (Of course, we all know that the area is residential, but the emphasis is on the numerous violations of the Subdivision Ordinance which Option A contains.) SECTION 37.24 -- LOTS C No residential lot shall be more than three (3) times as deep as it is wide, except lots approved under Paragraph H of this Section. Nor shall any lot except for townhouse use average less than 100 feet in depth. Lot width in the case of shall be measured at the building line where the except average width of the lot lots abutting culs-de-sac shall be used.+"' PROBLEM: Richardson's platting of Lot No. 7 is more than three times deep as it is wide. SECTION 37.24 F. Side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial to curving street lines unless a variation from this -regulation will give a better street or lot plan or allow better utilization of conservation of energy. PROBLEM: Richardson has several lots in his preliminary plat in violation of this Section of the Ordinance. Specifically, the side lot line between Lots No. 2 and 3, the side lot line between Lots No. 5 and 6, the side lot line between Lots No. 7 and 8, the side lot line between Lots No. 14 and 15. PROBLEM: Additionally,the southerly lot line of Lot 6 (if one exists) is not radial to the curving street line. The only way to have a radial lot line is to move the street to the east. SECTION 37.32 -- HILLSIDE REGULATIONS. A. General - These requirements are designed to ensure prior integration of physical improvements in rugged topographical areas and shall supplement requirements outlined elsewhere in these regulations. The hillside regulations shall only apply to those portions of a subdivision plat that have an average slope of eighteen (18)__ercent or greater. Such areas of steep slope are ecogni--;,ied as requiring special subdivision development standards for vehicular access easements 1 dimensions, front and side yard setbacks, and cuts and fills. G. Front Yard Setbacks - Minimum front yard setbacks shall conform to the Zoning Ordinance except for areas with slopes in excess of eighteen (18) percent, where they may be reduced to fifteen (15) feet. PROBLEM: Richardson's front yard,,2etback of fifteen feet does not conform with th-e 25 foot setback in the Zoning Ordinance for Lots 7, 8 and 9 and. J possible 10. Also check out 12, 13, 14, and 15. �f Based on the topographic information, the area of the slope is not in excess of 18 percent. As an alternative argument, Mr. Richardson should have requested a variance of the 25 foot setback for the areas within these three lots. January 22, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS ITEM N0, 3 NAME: Forest Hills Preliminary (Revised) LOCATION: North End of Foxcroft Road - 3800 Block APPLICANT/ENGINEER: Richardson Engineers 1717 Rebsamen Park Road Little Rock, AR 664-0003 STAFF REPORT This submission represents the third revision of plans for the site in the last two (2) months. The previous submission which proposed access through Robinwood was denied by the Commission last month. This plan consists of fifteen (15) single family lots, which take access off of a cul-de-sac leading from Foxcroft Road. As before, staff has no problems with the development of the property as single family, since it is a compatible use. The only problems relate to design. Lots 7 and 8 are prpe- stem lots, but with other lots also taking access from the stem. Staff feels that the plan should be redesigned, so that each lot has its own stem or there is a common drive. Also, staff feels that the applicant should consider. redesigning Lot 4. Staff recognizes that if the street is extended to the plat boundary, double frontage lots would be created in the abutting Subdivision to the West; however it is still felt that the applicant should try to resolve the issue. If the cul-de-sac is in excess of 750 ft., a waiver will be needed. ENGINEERING COMMENTS (1) Request Foxcroft Road be extended as a collector. (2) Request preliminary info on the grade of cul-de-sac. (3) Construct guardrail type barricade at the end of Foxcroft Road or a cul-de-sac turn -around. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval, subject to comments made. January 22, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: Staff's main concern related to the design of some lots with pipe stem access. Staff felt that the ownership of the easement should more clearly delineated. Also, the Commitee expressed concern about the proposed street's proximity to houses in Robinwood. The applicant was asked to submit a revised plan changing the location of the street. The applicant felt that the proposed street represented a better alignment. However, the Committee felt that neighborhood objection would be likely and could be prevented if the plan was revised. The applicant requested to amend the application and request a waiver of sidewalks. Engineering felt that sidewalks would not serve any meaningful purpose on this street because of the minimal length. The applicant agreed to extend Foxcroft as a collector and notify Lot 53 in Robinwood of the proposal. Water Works - A 15' easement is required adjacent to the west and south lines of Lot 8. Provide access and utility easements to all lots that do not have frontage on a street right-of-way. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The developer and his engineer, Mr. Bob Richardson, were present. Mr. Richardson submitted a revised plan that addressed most of the issues identified by the Subdivision Committee. The remaining issue to be discussed at the public hearing was the location of the cul-de-sac in close proximity to Robinwood. Mr. Richardson still contended that such a revision would result in a bad layout. He felt that physically this represented the best location since it would be located below the foundation of the Robinwood homes and would place at least 100 to 135 feet of distance between houses in this_ subdivision and Robinwood, which is much more than an abutting subdivision would. If the cul-de-sac was moved to the east, Mr. Richardson felt that parcel B (a land lock tract, south of Lot 50 and west of Lot 7) would be abutted by two lots that would increase its likelihood for access. January 22, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - Continued Several persons from the neighborhood were present. Their main concern was the location of the cul-de-sac so close to Robinwood. Mr. Tim Bolen felt that double frontage lots would be created and requested that this plan should be designed so that it took the brunt of the traffic instead of Robinwood. He offered to support the plan if the street was shifted eastward. Ms. Marilyn Schultz, the owner of Lots 50 and 51, was concerned about a possible erosion problem. Since it appeared that she will be most directly impacted by traffic, she also requested that the street be moved. Mr. Richardson felt that if he shortened the cul-de-sac, he might need to lengthen the pipe stem to those access drives. The question then arose as to the feasibility of developing this parcel. If it was developed, how many lots could it support? One commissioner felt that the real question was if land is developed to its highest and best use, do you develop it to the detriment of your neighbors, or do you contain this detriment within the proposed subdivision? Finally, a motion for approval was made, but failed to pass for lack of an affirmative vote: 5 ayes, 5 noes and 1 abstention (noes: Ketcher, Summerlin, Massie, Sipes and Rector). SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. Several alternate plans were discussed with the Commission. The issue remained the proposed location of the cul-de-sac.