Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0572 Staff AnalysisAugust 14, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Cantrell Place West - A SE Corner of Misty Lane and Cantrell Road ENGINEER/APPLICANT: Mr. & Mrs. Bruce Constant Bob Richardson Unit C-1201 Raisin Richardson Engineers Hot Springs, AR 79193 1717 Rebsamen Park Road Little Rock, AR 72202 664-0003 AREA: 1.7 acres ZONING: "R-2" NO. OF LOTS: 4 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 PROPOSED USES: Single Family A. Site History This site was recently proposed for developed as a 4-unit condominium project. There was significant neighborhood opposition. The applicant requested and received a"vote for withdrawal of the item from the Planning Commission agenda on July 10, 1984, so that he could resubmit it in its present form. B. Existing Conditions This property is located in an area composed of large lot single family homes, and is bordered by a residential street on the west and a principal arterial on the north. The site is currently vacant due to the destruction of the previous single family residence by fire. C. Development Proposal This is a proposal for the division of a tract of 1.78 acres into four lots for single family development. No variances have been requested. August 14, 1984 SOgDIVXSIONS Item No, ' D. En 1 Continued �neerin Request th g C°nsiderations at E. Anal no Curb cuts be allowed °wed along Cant in s.1 ni f Can review of the tell • guars fee t Proble Plan doe 1°and t wh Ch et bYhvrnot smIl Tin ara9e indicate an felt P b t ed by la ° in iconfo • Lot f rmance with is 18, 00 ❑f Y the 15-f rmance• involve the 0 two access onto Staff that h Basemen t Access to a Pape stem Points Cantrell ere sho across Lot em F, Staff Reco of access tv an dre sine he some tregu jt wis 1 Approval mmendation 11- re are Cur e to sub SUB ly DjVjSjON COMMTT7ect to rest., At TE access dris�h, the eeting. En E REVIEW; °n Cantrell the lots Cantrell 9aneerxn shouldreachor beg 'nforMed allowed on tureen loot t dto one Consist of a te. applic Io uttin9 in each loth Parties why t. Lat�rnt drive that the t. terseCt ..n Arovide that re a c an agree -men between Water Wo zo be located on th e drive twt was rks Comments; he eastenearest the A 1 4' easement on rn Side of that th PLANNING COM1VISSj0 e South side of Hz C°mmissz e was . N IssACTIon: ghwaV 1 0 is reques techni on Could ntxfied tea. CI r Cali le as w °mpliOse anC ce same all OrdinayhvOte again not the dzvi s io e was not °mmissnce requ 9r znst a pro fanning keepin n °f the enough loners felt ementS• Posal t lots g with the tract into in this ins hat techni The questio be dehat tr °ng H?ghwa Into our smalls ante • sincecaI n Precedent ental t° nh 0. The trend o f lots wthe that: this cv r other are area and felt that sularge °ne and not in Wing/pZatwo tt ng• b C) co Of the C C. set ahaang�r ision wool e Commissioner dis szonry or Pointed t d xc f agreed class ou Since he felt August 14, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - Continued the exclusionary cases would not apply in this instance since there is already an established pattern of development. The City Attorney stated that the Commission could vote against the proposal, but the result would more than likely result in a suit that would be difficult to defend in court. The City Attorney was requested to render a formal legal opinion. A vote for approval was made. Since it failed to pass by a vote of 4 ayes, 2 noes and 5 abstentions, it was automatically deferred for 30 days. CERTIFICATE. LITTLE ROCK ABSTRACT COMPANY hereby certifies that the records in the office of the Circuit Clerk and Ex-Officio Recorder of Pulaski County, Arkansas, have been checked as to the Northeast Quarter (NE1.) of Section 27, Township 2 North, Range 13 West, with reference to instruments which would amend or revoke the Bills of Assurance appearing of record in Book 416 at page 385 and in Book 422 at page 363. Nothing found of record affecting the above mentioned Bills of Assurance and the restrictions imposed thereby upon said NE-4 of Section 27, Township 2 North, Range 13 West, since the filing of said Bills of Assurance up to August 27th, 1984 at 8:00 A. M. At Little Rock, Arkansas, September 5th, 1984. r' LITTLE ,ABST ACT COI FANY By� V y`-ti Abstracter, September 11, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A NAME: Cantrell Place West - A LOCATION: SE Corner of Misty Lane and Cantrell Road DEVELOPER: ENGINEER/APPLICANT: Mr. & Mrs. Bruce Constant Bob Richardson Unit C-1201 Raisin Richardson Engineers Hot Springs, AR 79193 1717 Rebsamen Park Road Little Rock, AR 72202 664-0003 AREA: 1.7 acres ZONING: "R-2" NO. OF LOTS: PROPOSED USES: Single Family A. Site History 4 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 This site was recently proposed for developed as a 4-unit condominium project. There was significant neighborhood opposition. The applicant requested and received a vote for withdrawal of the item from the Planning Commission agenda on July 10, 1984, so that he could resubmit it in its present form. B. Existing Conditions This property is located in an area composed of large lot single family homes, and is bordered by a residential street on the west and a principal arterial on the north. The site is currently vacant due to the destruction of the previous single family residence by fire. C. Development Proposal This is a proposal for the division of a tract of 1.78 acres into four lots for single family development. No variances have been requested. September 11, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued D. Engineering Considerations Request that no curb cuts be allowed along Cantrell. E. Analysis Staff's review of the plan does not indicate any insignificant problems. The average lot size is 18,000 square feet which is well in conformance with the standards set by ordinance. Lot 4 involves a pipe stem lot which is also in conformance. Access to Lot 2 will be provided by a 15-foot easement across Lot 1. It is felt by the staff that there should be some regulation of access onto Cantrell Road, since there are currently two points of access to Cantrell. F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to restricted access on Cantrell. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: At the meeting, Engineering informed the applicant that the drive to Cantrell should consist of a joint drive between the lots or be limited to one lot. Later, an agreement was reached between both parties where a curb cut will be allowed on each lot, provided that the drive nearest the abutting intersection be located on the eastern side of that lot. ,Water Works Comments: A 10' easement on the south side of Highway 10 is requested. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The issue was identified as whether or not the Planning Commission could legitimately vote against a proposal that technically meets all Ordinance requirements. The question arose since some Commissioners felt that technical compliance was not enough in this instance, since the division of the tract into four smaller lots was not in keeping with the established trend of large one and two acre lots along Highway 10. They felt that such a division would be detrimental to the area and would set a dangerous precedent for other areas of the City. Staff pointed out that this could be considered as exclusionary or class zoning/plat. One Commissioner disagreed since he felt September 11, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued the exclusionary cases would not apply in this instance since there is already an established pattern of development. The City Attorney stated that the Commission could vote against the proposal, but the result would more than likely result in a suit that would be difficult to defend in court. The City Attorney was requested to render a formal legal opinion. A vote for approval was made. Since it failed to pass by a vote of 4 ayes, 2 noes and 5 abstentions, it was automatically deferred for 30 days. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (9-11-84) The applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Bruce Constant, were represented by their attorney, Mr. Chris Barrier, and their engineer, Mr. Robert Richardson. Opponents to the project included attorney, Don Hamilton, who represented Mr. and Mrs. Sam Hodges and Mr. Nathaniel Griffin, former director of the City's Planning Department. Attorney Phyllis Carter of the City's legal staff submitted a formal legal opinion on whether or not the Planning Commission has the authority to deny an application which is in technical compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance. The City Attorney's Office felt that the Commission -did have the right. Attorney Hamilton submitted a petition of approximately 153 names of property owners in the vicinity of the project who are opposed to its development. A copy of the original Bill ,of Assurance and deed (conveyed to Ms. Ingram) was also submitted. His argument was based on (1) his contention that the Bill of Assurance specifically provides for only one single family, one-story residence at or above ground level to be permitted on each lot; and (2) under Section 37 of the Subdivision Ordinance which prohibits developments that adversely effect existing properties. He felt that the intent of the original Bill of Assurance was to protect and maintain the existing type of development. Mr. Griffin offered his perspective on the proposal. His opposition was based on: (1) The incompatibility of the proposal with the neighborhood - He quoted one of the purposes of the Subdivision Ordinance - "To protect and conserve the value of buildings and improvements and to minimize adverse impact on adjoining and nearby properties." September 11, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued (2) The speculative and o22rtunistic nature of the proposal - Since there is a market for the use of this lot as one single family home. (3) The legal impediment presented by the Bill of Assurance - Described a conflict between the Bill of Assurance and the plat. The Bill of Assurance stated that "no building shall be approved, erected, placed or located on said land less than 50' from Highway 10 nor less than 40' from any other road point." The plat indicated a 40' setback from Cantrell and a 25' setback from Misty Lane. (4) Technical defects of the plat -- Pointed out what was perceived to be inadequate access to Lot 2 by a 15' easement. (5) The Authority of the Planning Commission to make subjective judgments of subdivision issues - Stated the duty of the Commission was to adhere to the regulations, but also to consider each case on its own merits which includes making administrative decisions based on knowledge and judgment. If the Commission was not in empowered to reject ill-conceived proposals, then only staff's certification of the requirements would be needed, and there would be no need for a Commission. Due to the "radical departure of this proposal from the established pattern of development, the Commission was indeed empowered to make a judgment." It was pointed out there were no technical problems with the plat since the latest sketch did indicate Lot 2 with access onto Cantrell Road. Commissioner Massie stated for the record his recognition that the usual Planning Commission policy did not involve the enforcement of Bills of Assurance; however, it was --a mistake to ignore the intent of this one. His opposition to the proposal was based on Section 37.24 of the Subdivision Ordinance, which sets design standards for lots. It states "the size, shape and orientation of lots shall be appropriate for the location of the subdivision." He felt that the approach of maximizing lots with the use of pipe stems, etc., does not make the lots appropriate for the location., - September 11, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued Mr. Chris Barrier spoke for the Constants and in favor of the application. He stated that there was not only a Bill of Assurance and deed but also a memorandum of agreement that was probably more restrictive. He pointed to several inconsistencies of questionable and complex points of conflict between the documents, even stating that the Bill of Assurance was so archaic as to prohibit the occupation of the premises by anyone other than the Caucasian race. He felt that (1) the plat met technical requirements and that the pipe stems were used to comply with Section 37.24 of the Ordinance and to provide the widest possible frontage on Cantrell Road for the number of lots; (2) the proposal was not speculative and opportunistic since there is not a great opportunity for the development of a "mansion" on this lot as there was in 1949, since Cantrell is so much more heavily traveled now than it was at that time; (3) the Commission's authority as not including the rendering of aesthetic and judicial decisions, as would be required due to the complexity of issues presented by the old documents. A motion for approval was made. It failed to pass by a vote of 0 ayes, 8 noes, 0 absent and 3 abstentions. September 11, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A NAME: Cantrell Place West - A LOCATION: SE Corner of Misty Lane and Cantrell Road DEVELOPER: ENGINEER/APPLICANT: Mr. & Mrs. Bruce Constant Bob Richardson Unit C-1201 Raisin Richardson Engineers Hot Springs, AR 79193 1717 Rebsamen Park Road Little Rock, AR 72202 664-0003 AREA: 1.7 acres NO. OF LOTS: 4 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "R-2" PROPOSED USES: Single Family A. Site History This site was recently proposed for developed as a 4-unit condominium project. There was significant neighborhood opposition. The applicant requested and received a vote for withdrawal of the item from the Planning Commission agenda on July 10, 1984, so that he could resubmit it in its present form. B. Existing Conditions -'This property is located in an area composed of large lot single family homes, and is bordered by a residential street on the west and a principal arterial on the north. The site is currently vacant due to the destruction of the previous single family residence by fire. C. Development Proposal This is a proposal for the division of a tract of 1.78 acres into four lots for single family development. No variances have been requested. F: September 11, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued f D. Engineering Considerations Request that no curb cuts be allowed along Cantrell. E. Analysis Staff's review of the plan does not indicate any insignificant problems. The average lot size is 18,000 square feet which is well in conformance with the standards set by ordinance. Lot 4 involves a pipe stem lot which is also in conformance. Access to Lot 2 will be provided by a 15-foot easement across Lot 1. It is felt by the staff that there should be some regulation of access onto Cantrell Road, since there are currently two points of access'to Cantrell. F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to restricted access on Cantrell. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: At the meeting, Engineering informed the applicant that the drive to Cantrell should consist of a joint drive between the lots or be limited to one lot. Later, an agreement was reached between both parties where a curb cut will be allowed on each lot, provided that the drive nearest the abutting intersection be located on the eastern side of that lot. Water Works Comments: A 10' easement on the south side of Highway 10 is requested. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The issue was identified as whether or not the Planning Commission could legitimately vote against a proposal that technically meets all Ordinance requirements. The question arose since some Commissioners felt that technical compliance was not enough in this instance, since the division of the tract into four smaller lots was not in keeping with the established trend of large one and two acre lots along Highway 10. They felt that such a division would be detrimental to the area and would set a dangerous precedent for other areas of the City. Staff pointed out that this could be considered as exclusionary or class Izoning/plat. One Commissioner disagreed since he felt F' F t f September 11, 1984 �r. SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued the exclusionary cases would not apply in this instance r since there is already an established pattern of development. The City Attorney stated that the Commission could vote against the proposal, but the result would more than likely result in a suit that would be difficult to defend in court. The City Attorney was requested to render a formal legal opinion. A vote for approval was made. Since it failed to pass by a vote of 4 ayes, 2 noes and 5 abstentions; it was automatically deferred for 30 days. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (9-11-84) The applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Bruce Constant, were represented by their attorney, Mr. Chris Barrier, and their engineer, Mr. Robert Richardson. Opponents to the project included attorney, Don Hamilton, who represented Mr. and Mrs. Sam Hodges and Mr. Nathaniel Griffin, former director of the City'S Planning Department. Attorney Phyllis Carter of the City's legal staff submitted a formal legal opinion on whether 'or not the Planning Commission has the authority to deny an application which is in technical compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance. The City Attorney's Office felt that the Commission did have the right. Attorney Hamilton submitted a petition of approximately 153 names of property owners in the vicinity of the project who are opposed to its development. A copy of the original Bill of Assurance and deed (conveyed to Ms. Ingram);'was also submitted. His argument was based on (1) his contention that the Bill of Assurance specifically provides for only one single family, one-story residence at or above ground level to be permitted on each lot; and (2) under Section 37 of the Subdivision Ordinance which prohibits developments that adversely effect existing properties. He felt that the intent of the original Bill of Assurance was to protect and maintain the existing type of development. Mr. Griffin offered his perspective on the proposal. His opposition was based on: (1) The incompatibility of the proposal with the neighborhood - He quoted one of the purposes of the Subdivision Ordinance - "To protect and conserve the value of buildings and improvements and to minimize adverse impact on adjoining and nearby properties." September 11, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued (2) The s eculative and opportunistic nature of the proposal - Since there is a market for the use of this lot as one single family home. (3) The legal impediment presented -by the Bill of Assurance - Described a con lict between t e Ball o Assurance and the plat. The Bill of Assurance stated that "no building shall be approved, erected, placed or located on said land less than 50' from Highway 10 nor less than 40' from any other road point." The plat indicated a 40' setback from Cantrell and a 25' setback from Misty Lane. (4) Technical defects of the plat - Pointed out what was perceived to be inadequate access to Lot 2 by a 15' easement. (5) The Authority of the Planning Commission to make subjective judgments of subdivision issues - Stated the duty of the Commission was to adhere to the regulations, but also to consider each case on its own merits which includes making administrative decisions based on knowledge and judgment. If the Commission was not Ilk' empowered to reject ill-conceived proposals, then only staff's certification of the requirements would be needed, and there would be no need for a Commission. Due to the "radical departure of this proposal from the established pattern of development, the Commission was indeed empowered to make a judgment." It was pointed out there were no technical problems with the plat since the latest sketch did indicate Lot 2 with access onto Cantrell Road. Commissioner Massie stated for the record his recognition that the usual Planning Commission policy did not involve the enforcement of Bills of Assurance; however, it was a mistake to ignore the intent of this one. His opposition to the proposal was based on Section 37.24 of the Subdivision Ordinance, which sets design standards for lots. It states 1/ the size, shape and orientation of lots shall be appropriate for the location of the subdivision." He felt that the approach of maximizing lots with the use of pipe stems, etc., does not make the lots appropriate for the location. f J-- f'f September 11, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item Mr. Chris Barrier spoke for the Constants and in favor of the application. He stated that there was not only a Bill of Assurance and deed but also a memorandum of agreement that was probably more restrictive. He pointed to several inconsistencies of questionable and complex points of conflict between the documents, even stating that the Bill of Assurance was so archaic as to prohibit the occupation of the premises by anyone other than the Caucasian race. He felt that (1) the plat met technical requirements and that the pipe stems were used to comply with Section 37.24 of the Ordinance and to provide the widest possible frontage on Cantrell Road for the number of lots; (2) the proposal was not speculative and opportunistic since there is not a great opportunity for the development of a "mansion" on this lot as there was in 1949, since Cantrell is so much more heavily traveled now than it was at that time; (3) the Commission's authority as not including the rendering of aesthetic and judicial decisions, as would be required due to the complexity of issues presented by the old documents. A motion for approval was made. It failed to pass by a vote of 0 ayes, 8 noes, 0 absent and 3 abstentions. Q.10 No. A - Continued September 11, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued the exclusionary cases would not apply in this instance since there is already an established pattern of development. The City Attorney stated that the Commission could vote against the proposal, but the result would more than likely result in a suit that would be difficult to defend in court. The City Attorney was requested to render a formal legal opinion. A vote for approval was made. Since it failed to pass by a vote of 4 ayes, 2 noes and 5 abstentions, it was automatically deferred for 30 days. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (9-11-84) The applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Bruce Constant, were represented by their attorney, Mr. Chris Barrier, and their engineer, Mr. Robert Richardson. Opponents to the project included attorney, Don Hamilton, who represented Mr. and Mrs. Sam Hodges and Mr. Nathaniel Griffin, former director of the City's Planning Department. Attorney Phyllis Carter of the City's legal staff submitted a formal legal opinion on whether or not the Planning Commission has the authority to deny an application which is in technical compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance. The City Attorney's Office felt that the Commission did have the right. Attorney Hamilton submitted a petition of approximately 153 names of property owners in the vicinity of the project who are opposed to its development. A copy of the original Bill of Assurance and deed (conveyed to Ms. Ingram) was also submitted. His argument was based on (1) his contention that the Bill of Assurance specifically provides for only one single family, one-story residence at or above ground level to be permitted on each lot; and (2) under Section 37 of the Subdivision Ordinance which prohibits developments that adversely effect existing properties. He felt that the intent of the original Bill of Assurance was to protect and maintain the existing type of development. Mr. Griffin offered his perspective on the proposal. His opposition was based on: (1) The incompatibility of the proposal with the neighborhood - He quoted one of the purposes of the Subdivision Ordinance - "To protect and conserve the value of buildings and improvements and to minimize adverse impact on adjoining and nearby properties." September 11, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued (2) The speculative and opportunistic nature of the proposal - Since there is a market for the use of this lot as one single family home. (3) The legal impediment presented by the Bill of Assurance - Described a conflict between the Bill of Assurance and the plat. The Bill of Assurance stated that "no building shall be approved, erected, placed or located on said land less than 50' from Highway 10 nor less than 40' from any other road point." The plat indicated a 40' setback from Cantrell and a 25' setback from Misty Lane. (4) Technical defects of the plat - Pointed out what was perceived to be inadequate access to Lot 2 by a 15' easement. (5) The Authority of the Planning Commission to make subjective judgments of subdivision issues - Stated the duty of the Commission was to adhere to the regulations, but also to consider each case on its own merits which includes making administrative decisions based on knowledge and judgment. If the Commission was not in empowered to reject ill-conceived proposals, then only staff's certification of the requirements would be needed, and there would be no need for a Commission. Due to the "radical departure of this proposal from the established pattern of development, the Commission was indeed empowered to make a judgment." It was pointed out there were no technical problems with the plat since the latest sketch did indicate Lot 2 with access onto Cantrell Road. Commissioner Massie stated for the record his recognition that the usual Planning Commission policy did not involve the enforcement of Bills of Assurance; however, it was a mistake to ignore the intent of this one. His opposition to the proposal was based on Section 37.24 of the Subdivision Ordinance, which sets design standards for lots. It states "the size, shape and orientation of lots shall be appropriate for the location of the subdivision." He felt that the approach of maximizing lots with the use of pipe stems, etc., does not make the lots appropriate for the location. September 11, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued Mr. Chris Barrier spoke for the Constants and in favor of the application. He stated that there was not only a Bill of Assurance and deed but also a memorandum of agreement that was probably more restrictive. He pointed to several inconsistencies of questionable and complex points of conflict between the documents, even stating that the Bill of Assurance was so archaic as to prohibit the occupation of the premises by anyone other than the Caucasian race. He felt that (1) the plat met technical requirements and that the pipe stems were used to comply with Section 37.24 of the Ordinance and to provide the widest possible frontage on Cantrell Road for the number of lots; (2) the proposal was not speculative and opportunistic since there is not a great opportunity for the development of a "mansion" on this lot as there was in 1949, since Cantrell is so much more heavily traveled now than it was at that time; (3) the Commission's authority as not including the rendering of aesthetic and judicial decisions, as would be required due to the complexity of issues presented by the old documents. A motion for approval was made. It failed to pass by a vote of 0 ayes, 8 noes, 0 absent and 3 abstentions.