Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0356-1 Staff AnalysisMarch 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 - File No. 363 NAME: Roy D. Rainey, Jr. "PCD" (Z-4333) LOCATION: Northwest Corner of University and Evergreen DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Roy D. Rainey & Co. Forrest C. Marlar 10515 West Markham North Little Rock, AR Little Rock, AR 72205 758-1987 AREA: .16 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: "R-2" to PCD PROPOSED USES: Residential Real Estate Offices A. Site History None. B. Development Objectives 1. To provide a quiet business use buffered between a residential and commercial area. 2. To provide a building whose mildly victorian design will not detract from the surroupding residential area. C. Proposal 1. The construction of a two story residential real estate office building with a total of 2,500 square feet on a site of .16 acres. 2. Parking will consist of 10 spaces for staff and 2 for visitors. 3. A 5-foot privacy screen will be provided on the north side. March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 - Continued D. Engineering Comments 1. Dedicate right-of-way on Evergreen to collector standards. 2. Improve Evergreen to collector standards; widen street to one-half of 36-foot section; discuss widening with City Traffic Engineer at 371-4858. 3. Driveway should provide two-way traffic. Staff parking area needs backup space. E. Analysis Staff is concerned that this request represents inappropriate use of the short form PUD process because of size and location of the development. If the plan is approved, staff recommends a one story building with no more than 1,500 square feet and sited better for the off-street parking and access. The applicant is asked to submit definite dimensions on landscaping and perimeter treatment. A 6-foot to•8-foot fence is needed to buffer the adjacent residential property. A 5-foot fence is inadequate. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The Committee found several problems with the proposal, most of which were related to the intensity of the use. The applicant was asked to redesign his proposal by lessening the density, rearranging parking, providing more buffer and eliminating the front driveway. Engineering reported that some of the property would possibly be used in a street widening project. Most of the landscaping also seemed to be located in the right-of-way. It was agreed that the site had some potential for office use, but what was proposed was definitely too dense for the site. Water Works - Care should be taken to protect existing raw watermains and an existing 8" main in Evergreen. March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Both Mr. Roy Rainey, Sr. and Mr. Roy Rainey, Jr. were in attendance. A revised plan was submitted that consisted of a one-story, 1,500 square foot building with 8 spaces. There were also persons from the neigborhood that were in attendance. Staff gave its support to the revised plan, which addressed the issues raised at the Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff also read a letter from neighboring property owners, Richard and Linda Harrell, that objected to the project and the fact that they may have to change their address due to the project being assigned the same number. Several persons spoke in opposition - Mr. Raymond Stubblefield, Mr. Henry Spitzburg and Mr. Rudy Alvarado. They feared that breaking up a block which was residential with one commercial/office would not be beneficial to the neighborhood. A motion for approval of the application failed by a vote of: 3 ayes, 6 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstention. March 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. 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 alternate plans were discussed with the Commission. The issue remained the proposed location of the cul-de-sac. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: 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 McCain of Robinwood Development Company, the predecessors of the original developers of Robinwood Addition, spoke in behalf of the applicant. He explained that it was not economically advantageous 25 years ago to develop the entire ownership; thus, portions including Parcel B were excluded at the time of development. March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued a 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: 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 "sha,ll" 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 Item No. A - Continued Recently, he has discovered that this parcel will be landlocked. He had also made an offer to sell the parcel tc 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 discussed 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 x 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. March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - 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 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 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 Commi,ttee. 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 locked tract, south of Lot 50 and west of Lot 7) would be abutted by two lots that would increase its likelihood for access. r March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued Mr. Richardson stated a reluctance to move the street over 100' because he felt it would harm property values of the 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. The Commission felt that regardless of the ordinance, adequate planning for the area mandates the location of the street at least 100' from the platted lots. 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. March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - File No. 356-A NAME: Ray Robinson Preliminary Subdivision LOCATION: Pinnacle Valley West of Little Rock Yacht Club DEVELOPER/ARCHITECT: ENGINEER: Ray Robinson, Jr. Robert Richardson Little'Rock, AR 1717 Rebsamen Park Road Little Rock, AR 72202 664-0003 AREA: 6.56 acres NO. OF LOTS: 12 FT. NEW STREET: ZONING: Outside City PROPOSED USES: Single Family A. Site History Last month, the applicant submitted a "PRD" application for single family attached units. After meeting with neighbors and considering their opposing views, the applicant decided to withdraw the request and resubmit as a single family (detached) plat. B. Existing Conditions The land involved is located outside of the City near the yacht club in an area that is generally- developed as single family. There is property consisting of elevations ranging from 270' to 3301. C. ' Development Proposal The applicant is proposing to develop 6.56 acres into 12 new lots with one existing lot that currently has a single family use and a common area. No variances have been requested. Sewer will be by packaged plant upon approval of the State Health Department. D. Engineering Requirements (1) Dedicate right-of-way and improve Pinnacle Valley Road to minor arterial standards. March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - Continued s (2) How will access be provided to common area? (3) Submit internal drainage plan to include detention. E. Analysis Staff suggests that the applicant provide a pedestrian foot traffic access to common area. Please include the applicant's lot as a part of this plat and label it as Lot 13. The Bill of Assurance should provide for maintenance of the common area. The applicant is asked to provide staff with certification from the County Sanitarian or State Health Departments that the package plant is acceptable. F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: A revised single family plat of 11 lots and a common area was submitted. The average lot size was 16,000 square feet as required by the State Health Department for septic tanks. It was decided that the applicant's lot should be labeled No. 11 instead of 13 and that a minimum of 15 feet should be dedicated as an easement between Lots 8 and 9. There was some discussion in regard to requiring in -lieu contribution vs. street improvement on Pinnacle Valley Road. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Mr. Bob Richardson, Engineer, and Mr. Ray Robinson, Jr. were in attendance. Quite a few persons from the neighborhood were present. They were represented by Attorney M. Jones. He specifically described the groups he represented as The Community Association for Maumelle, St. Paul Church Maumelle Church and surrounding property owners. Other spokespersons from the group were Ms. Barbara Nelson, a neighbor to Mr. Richardson, Mr. Johnny Romes of the neighborhood and Ms. Linda Robinson with the Soil Conversation Service. The major issue involves sewer service and the fear that this project would enhance an existing bad situation. Ms. Nelson spoke of instances where waste comes into her yard, and , March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - Continued Mr. Robinson attested to the fact that the soil was difficult to pert. Other concerns expressed involved density, adverse impact on homes due to lot size and inadequate fire protection. Mr. Jones clarified the point that they were -not objecting to development of the property, but wanted it to be developed in a safe manner. There was discussion among the Commission about deferring the plan until the perc tests were done, in spite of the letter received from the County Health Department saying that they would review the septic tank system proposed to ensure its conformity to their regulations. Two motions were made. The first motion was to defer for 30 days so that the applicant can do percolation tests. The motion failed by a vote of: 5 ayes, 6 noes and 0 absent. The second motion was for approval of the project as submitted, conditioned upon the final plat coming back before the Commission and notification of the residents. The motion passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 2 noes and 0 absent. March 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - File No. 356-A NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER/ARCHITECT: Ray Robinson Preliminary Subdivision Pinnacle Valley West of Little Rock Yacht Club ENGINEER: Robert Richardson Ray Robinson, 1717 Rebsamen Park Road Little Rock, ARR Little Rock, AR 72202 664-0003 AREA: 6.56 acres NO. OF LOTS: 12 FT. NEW STREET: ZONING: Outside City PROPOSED USES: Single Family A. Site History the applicant submitted a "PRD" application Last month, pP with for single family attached units. After meeting neighbors and considering their opposing views, the applicant decided to withdraw terequest and resubmit as a single family (detached) plat. B. Existing Conditions The land involved is located outside of the ity near the yacht club in an area that is generally developed as single family. There is property consisting of elevations ranging from 270' to 330'. C. Development Pro osal The applicant is proposing to develop 6.56 acres into 12 new lots with one existing lot that currently has a single family use eSand acoO wilmmbe byepackagedaplantehave upon been requested. approval of the State Health Department. D. En ineering Re uirements (1) Dedicate right-of-way and improve Pinnacle Valley Road to minor arterial standards. arch 12, 1985 JBDIVISIONS tem No. 1 - Continued (2) How will access be provided to common area? (3) Submit internal drainage plan to include detention. E. Analysis Staff suggests that the applicant provide a pedestrian foot traffic access to common area. Please include the applicant's lot as a part of this plat and label it as Lot 13. The Bill of Assurance should provide for maintenance of the common area. The applicant is asked to provide staff with certification from the County Sanitarian or State Health Departments that the package plant is acceptable. F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: A revised single family plat of 11 lots and a common area was submitted. The average lot size was 16,000 square feet as required by the State Health Department for septic tanks. It was decided that the applicant's lot should be labeled No. 11 instead of 13 and that a minimum of 15 feet should be dedicated as an easement between Lots 8 and 9. There was some discussion in regard to requiring in -lieu contribution vs. street improvement on Pinnacle Valley Road. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Mr. Bob Richardson, Engineer, and Mr. Ray Robinson, Jr. were in attendance. Quite a few persons from the neighborhood were present. They were represented by Attorney M. Jones. He specifically described the groups he represented as The Community Association for Maumelle, St. Paul Church Maumelle Church and surrounding property owners. Other spokespersons from the group were Ms. Barbara Nelson, a neighbor to Mr. Richardson, Mr. Johnny Romes of the neighborhood and Ms. Linda Robinson with the Soil Conversation Service. The major issue involves sewer service and the fear that this project would enhance an existing bad situation. Ms. Nelson spoke of instances where waste comes into her yard, and rch 12, 1985 13DIVISIONS .em No. I - Continued soil Was to the fact that the involved attested concerns expressed and c. Robinson Other due to lot size point, ercimPact an homes clarified the difficultaa�epse Mr, Bones the proPery► density, rotection. to develOPment of inadequate fireri t objecting in a safe manner. that they were developed but wanted it to be about deferring the,,re of the among were done, in Spite saying There was discussion tests artment plan until the per County County Health �e proposed to the P from the septic tank system letter received review the they would to their regulations. that conformity to defer for 30 ensure its first motion was tests. The were made. The do percolation 5 ayes, 5 noes and a absent. Two daYsmOtlon so that the applicant Gan failed by a vote of: project as motion of the pro] motion was far apProvinal plat coming back The second the the residents. submitted, conditroned and n.otificatian2 noes and Cornmzs5ian and 9 ayes, before the passed by a vote Of: The motion P 0 absent-