Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0572-B Staff AnalysisApril 30, 1985 Item No. 7 - Other Matters/Appeal Name: Robert J. Richardson Agent for the Owner Subject: Appeal of Planning Staff Denial of a Lot Split Plat Titled "Cantrell Place West Addition Lot 2 Replat" Location: Approximately 150 feet South of the Intersection of Cantrell Road at Misty Lane on the East Side of the Street Request: This request is for a yes or no response to the subject appeal. The question basically being does the Planning Commission support the staff's rejection of the plat. STAFF REPORT This issue is before the Planning Commission as a result of the staff rejecting a second lot split within the boundary of the first split. The sequence of events leading to the rejection are as follows: Mr. Richardson filed a preliminary plat on the subject property in August of 1984 after having withdrawn a controversial condominium project on the site. The plat consisted of four residential lots, three in a conventional fashion and one as a pipe stem. The plat was submitted to the Planning Commission and Subdivision Committee for review. The Commission's public hearing was held on September 11, 19-84, at which time the plat was denied by a vote of 0 ayes, 8 noes, 3 abstaining (see attached minutes of the September meeting). In December of 1984, Mr. Richardson filed with the Planning staff a subdivision plat entitled "Cantrell Place West, Lots 1 and 2" as a lot split. The staff review indicated that the proposed lot split was in technical compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance. However, the staff determined that contact should be made with the Planning Commission chairman and the City Attorney for instruction as to our options. After several discussions of the matter, we were instructed to permit the lot split inasmuch as the ordinance was quite clear and no denial mechanism indicated. The plat was signed on December 11, 1984, and recorded, thereby creating two lots, one on Cantrell Road in a conventional corner lot relationship and one lot fronting only on Misty Lane. April 30, 1985 Item No. 7 - Continued The next event was a filing by Mr. Richardson of a two lot split of Lot 2 of the first lot split. Lot 2 being the lot fronting on Misty Lane. This action occurred during March and April when staff had several conversations and written communication with Mr. Richardson whereby we rejected his platting effort (see staff letter April 5, 1985). The formal filing occurred April 9, and a second response by the staff followed April 10, 1985 (see attached staff letter April 10, 1985). In our letter of April 5, 1985, it was stated that we understood the appeals process included the Planning Commission as the next step although not specifically indicated'in the ordinance. The request before the Commission at this time is that a simple yes or no answer be given Mr. Richardson in order that he might take the appropriate follow-up actions. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (4-30-85) The applicant was present. There were no other interested parties in attendance. The Planning staff made a presentation of the issues and additional background. A lengthy discussion was held during which Mr. Richardson offered comments. A motion was made to request a legal opinion from the City Attorney's Office, inasmuch as a written opinion has not been presented. Several members stated support for the request for the opinion. A vote on the motion resulted in its passage by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstention (John Schlereth). A second motion then followed for purposes of deferring the request to the May 14th Subdivision Public Hearing. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 no and 3 absent. May 14, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - Other Matters/Appeal NAME: Robert J. Richardson, Agent for the Owner SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission staff denial of a lot split plat titled "Cantrell Place West Addition, Lot 2 Replat" LOCATION: Approximately 150 feet south of the intersection of Cantrell Road at Misty Lane on the east side of the street REQUEST: This request is for a "yes" or "no" response to the subject appeal, the question basically being, does the Planning Commission support the staff's rejection of the plat? STAFF REPORT: This issue is before the Planning Commission as a result of the staff rejecting a second lot split within the boundary of the first split. The sequence of events leading to the rejection are as follows: Mr. Richardson filed a preliminary plat on the subject property in August of 1984, after having withdrawn a controversial condominium project on the site. The plat consisted of four residential lots, three in a conventional fashion and one as a pipe stem. The plat was submitted to the Planning Commission and Subdivision Committee for review. The Commission's public hearing was held on September 11, 1984, at which time the plat was denied by a vote of: 0 ayes, 8 noes, 3 abstaining. (See attached minutes of the September meeting.) In December of 1984, Mr. Richardson filed with the Planning staff a subdivision plat entitled "Cantrell Place West, Lots 1 and 2" as a lot split. The staff review indicated that the proposed lot split was in technical compliance with the subdivision ordinance; however, the staff determined that May 14, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - Continued contact should be made with the Planning Commission Chairman and the City Attorney for instruction as to our options. After several discussions of the matter, we were instructed to permit the lot split inasmuch as the ordinance was quite clear and no denial mechanism indicated. The plat was signed on December 11, 1984, and recorded, thereby creating two lots, one on Cantrell Road in a conventional corner lot relationship and one lot fronting only on Misty Lane. The next event was a filing by Mr. Richardson of a two -lot split of Lot 2 of the first plat, Lot 2 being the lot fronting on Misty Lane. This action occurred during March and April when staff had several conversations and written communication with Mr. Richardson whereby we rejected his platting effort. (See staff letter April 5, 1985). The formal filing occurred April 9, and a second response by the staff followed April 10, 1985. (See attached staff letter dated April 10, 1985.) In our letter of April 5, 1985, it was stated that we understood the appeals process included the Planning Commission as the next step, although not specifically indicated in the ordinance. The request before the Commission at this time is that a simple "yes" or "no" answer be given Mr. Richardson in order that he might take the appropriate follow-up actions. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (4-30-85) The applicant was present. There were no other interested parties in attendance. The Planning staff made a presentation of the issues and additional background. A lengthy discussion was held during which Mr. Richardson offered comments. A motion was made to request a legal opinion from the City Attorney's Office inasmuch as a written opinion has not been presented. Several members stated support toward the request for the opinion. A vote on the motion resulted in its passage by a vote of: 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstention (John Schlereth). A second motion then followed for purposes of deferring the request to the May 14th Subdivision Public Hearing. This motion passed by a vote of: 7 ayes, 1 no and 3 absent. May 14, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5-14-85) The applicant was present. There were several interested parties in attendance. The Planning Commission requested from the City Attorney, Mark Stodola, an opinion as to whether the Planning Commission should hear this appeal or take any action in light of the current litigation. Mr. Stodola's response generally was that the Planning Commission should make that decision. He stated that the appeal matter certainly could be dealt with at this time. He further stated that the issue before the Commission is a valid request by Mr. Richardson. A general discussion then followed with various commissioners commenting on their feelings as to a proper approach to resolution of this matter. A motion was offered which proposed the deferral of the appeal until such time as the lawsuit was completed. Prior to the vote, the Planning Commission determined that it would be appropriate to hear comments from both sides of the matter as to their feelings on deferral. The applicant, Mr. Robert Richardson, addressed the Planning Commission on his concerns and stated that he felt the item should be heard and not continued. Mr. Don Hamilton, an attorney representing neighborhood residents, addressed his concerns. He offered a mixed response to deferral which generally was supportive of deferral if the Commission's inclination was to approve the appeal. The motion for a deferral was passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstention (John Clayton). A question was then raised as to whether the Planning Commission could rescind or undue administrative action. The City Attorney addressed the point by stating that he felt the ordinance did not deal with the subject, nor did it deal with the appeal process. The Planning Commission requested that Mr. Stodola perform a review of this subject and provide a written response for the Planning Commission giving direction as to their authority to modify or overturn actions of the staff. May 14, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - Continued Mr. Stodola stated for the record that Mr. Hamilton's request of the Commission was appropriate and should be dealt with by the Planning Commission after litigation of the matter is resolved if in fact further action will be required. That will be determined by the product of the litigation. A motion was then made to disallow the hearing of additional items associated with this project at this time or until the litigation was resolved. This motion was passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 abstention (John Clayton). HOUSE, WALLACE, NELSON & �EWELL, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1500 TOWER BUILDING Don F. Hamilton LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 375-9151 May 10, 1985 Ms. Jerilyn Nicholson 2121 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Re: Proposed Lot Split Plat Titled "Cantrell Place West Addition Lot to Replat" by Robert J. Richardson, Agent for Owners Mr. and Mrs. Bruce Constant Dear Jerilyn: TELEX-TELECOPIER: (501) 375-6484 We represent Mr. and Mrs. Sam Hodges, 31 Robinwood Drive, Little Rock, who live across the highway from the captioned property. Mr. and Mrs. Hodges, as well as their neighbors, are very much opposed to the attempt on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Constant to subdivide this property on which a single-family residence was formerly located prior to the fire which destroyed this house. We previously appeared last September when a similar proposal was defeated by a vote of the Planning Commission against the proposal 8 to 0, with three Commis- sioners abstaining. Apparently, last December, this property was split into 2 lots by staff action which we feel not only is contrary to the subdivision regulations, but also violates the private restrictions on the property. Needless to say, my clients did not know about the administrative action until last week when it was reported in the newspaper. My clients' opposition is based upon the provisions contained in a bill of assurance recorded in Book 416, Page 385 of the Pulaski County deed records which restricts this tract of land to a "detached single family residence." This bill of assurance was executed by Cecil A. Gibson and Vera Gibson, his wife, dated November 25, 1949, and it has continued in force by virtue of its terms of automatic extensions. Moreover, Mr. and Mrs. Gibson conveyed this specific tract of property to the first owner, Lucy Mae Engle, on April 21, 1952, and the deed provides inter alia, that "only one detached single-family residence with one story at or above ground level shall be erected" on this tract. I have sent copies of these documents to Assistant City Attorney Phylis Carter and the members of the Planning Commission by letter dated August 31, 1984. Aside from the restrictions on this property, we contend that a subdivision of this residential tract would violate the letter and the spirit of Section 37.2 of the Subdivision Regulations, because this tract is part of a large tract of land lying on both sides of HOUSE, WALLACE, NELSON & JEWELL, P.A. Ms. Jerilyn Nicholson May 10, 1985 Page Two Highway No. 10, which was divided into large parcels of land in excess of one acre restricted to single-family residences, all of which have been developed pursuant to the bill of assurance previously sent to you in my letter dated -August 31, 1984. In addition to violating the provisions of the bill of assurance, a subdivision of the proposed tract would destroy the character of the neighborhood and increase traffic congestion which has increased each year. The adverse effect on the property values of the adjoining landowners is obvious. They built their respective homes in reliance on the bill of assurance and that the character of the neighborhood would not be changed. It would be unfair to all of the neighbors, including Mr. and Mrs. Hodges, to permit the subdivision of this parcel of land which is being attempted solely on a specu- lative basis at the expense of the adjoining property owners. For the reasons stated herein, we respectfully submit that the application not only to subdivide this tract of land be denied, but that the prior administrative action be voided and cancelled. We plan to appear at the hearing set for May 14, 1985, and we would appreciate the chance to present our arguments further. rl Y❑WF. ruly, DoHamilton DFH/sl cc: Mr. John Schlereth Mr. Bill Rector Ms. Dorothy Arnett Mr. Richard Massie Mr. William Ketcher Ms. Betty Sipes Mr. John Clayton Mr. David J. Jones Mr. James C. Summerlin Ms. Ida D. Boles Ms. Phylis Carter Mr. and Mrs. Sam Hodges Mr. Mark Stodola Mr. Richard Wood Mr. Gary Greeson Ms. Carolyn Witherspoon September 11, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A 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 NO. OF LOTS: 4 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "R-2" PROPOSED USES: Single Family A. Site Histor 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. r� t tember 11, 1984 )IVISIONS n No. A - Continued 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 4 zoning/plat. One Commissioner disagreed since he felt September 11, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued the exclusionary cases vyould 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 o rtunistic nature of the roposal - Sxnce t eke is a market for the use of this lot as one single family home. (3) The legal impediment Dresented by the Bill of Assurance - Descrx ed 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 250 setback from Misty Lane. (4) Technical defects of the 2lat - 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 i0q­ 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 slid 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 OW 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 - Continued the exclusionary cases would not apply in this instance since there is already ah 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 Planni su ments of s g Commission to make ivision 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. May 14, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - Other Matters/Appeal NAME: Robert J. Richardson, Agent for the Owner SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission staff denial of a lot split plat titled "Cantrell Place West Addition, Lot 2 Replat" LOCATION: Approximately 150 feet south of the intersection of Cantrell Road at Misty Lane on the east side of the street REQUEST: This request is for a "yes" or "no" response to the subject appeal, the question basically being, does the Planning Commission support the staff's rejection of the plat? STAFF REPORT: This issue is before the Planning Commission as a result of the staff rejecting a second lot split within the boundary of the first split. The sequence of events leading to the rejection are as follows: Mr. Richardson filed a preliminary plat on the subject property in August of 1984, after having withdrawn a controversial condominium project on the site. The plat consisted of four residential lots, three in a conventional fashion and one as a pipe stem. The plat was submitted to the Planning Commission and Subdivision Committee for review. The Commission's public hearing was held on September 11, 1984, at which time the plat was denied by a vote of: 0 ayes, 8 noes, 3 abstaining. (See attached minutes of the September meeting.) In December of 1984, Mr. Richardson filed with the Planning staff a subdivision plat entitled "Cantrell Place West, Lots 1 and 2" as a lot split. The staff review indicated that the proposed lot split was in technical compliance with the subdivision ordinance; however, the staff determined that May 14, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - Continued contact should be made with the Planning Commission Chairman and the City Attorney for instruction as to our options. After several discussions of the matter, we were instructed to permit the lot split inasmuch as the ordinance was quite clear and no denial mechanism indicated. The plat was signed on December 11, 1984, and recorded, thereby creating two lots, one on Cantrell Road in a conventional corner lot relationship and one lot fronting only on Misty Lane. The next event was a filing by Mr. Richardson of a two -lot split of Lot 2 of the first plat, Lot 2 being the lot fronting on Misty Lane. This action occurred during March and April when staff had several conversations and written communication with Mr. Richardson whereby we rejected his platting effort. (See staff letter April 5, 1985). The formal filing occurred April 9, and a second response by the staff followed April 10, 1985. (See attached staff letter dated April 10, 1985.) In our letter of April 5, 1985, it was stated that we understood the appeals process included the Planning Commission as the next step, although not specifically indicated in the ordinance. The request before the Commission at this time is that a simple "yes" or "no" answer be given Mr. Richardson in order that he might take the appropriate follow-up actions. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (4-30-85) The applicant was present. There were no other interested parties in attendance. The Planning staff made a presentation of the issues and additional background. A lengthy discussion was held during which Mr. Richardson offered comments. A motion was made to request a legal opinion from the City Attorney's Office inasmuch as a written opinion has not been presented. Several members stated support toward the request for the opinion. A vote on the motion resulted in its passage by a vote of: 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstention (John Schlereth). A second motion then followed for purposes of deferring the request to the May 14th Subdivision Public Hearing. This motion passed by a vote of: 7 ayes, 1 no and 3 absent. May 14, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5-14-85) The applicant was present. There were several interested parties in attendance. The Planning Commission requested from the City Attorney, Mark Stodola, an opinion as to whether the Planning Commission should hear this appeal or take any action in light of the current litigation. Mr. Stodola's response generally was that the Planning Commission should make that decision. He stated that the appeal matter certainly could be dealt with at this time. He further stated that the issue before the Commission is a valid request by Mr. Richardson. A general discussion then followed with various commissioners commenting on their feelings as to a proper approach to resolution of this matter. A motion was offered which proposed the deferral of the appeal until such time as the lawsuit was completed. Prior to the vote, the Planning Commission determined that it would be appropriate to hear comments from both sides of the matter as to their feelings on deferral. The applicant, Mr. Robert Richardson, addressed the Planning Commission on his concerns and stated that he felt the item should be heard and not continued. Mr. Don Hamilton, an attorney representing neighborhood residents, addressed his concerns. He offered a mixed response to deferral which generally was supportive of deferral if the Commission's inclination was to approve the appeal. The motion for a deferral was passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstention (John Clayton). A question was then raised as to whether the Planning Commission could rescind or undue administrative action. The City Attorney addressed the point by stating that he felt the ordinance did not deal with the subject, nor did it deal with the appeal process. The Planning Commission requested that Mr. Stodola perform a review of this subject and provide a written response for the Planning Commission giving direction as to their authority to modify or overturn actions of the staff. May 14, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. C - Continued Mr. Stodola stated for the record that Mr. Hamilton's request of the Commission was appropriate and should be dealt with by the Planning Commission after litigation of the matter is resolved if in fact further action will be required. That will be determined by the product of the litigation. A motion was then made to disallow the hearing of additional items associated with this project at this time or until the litigation was resolved. This motion was passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 abstention (John Clayton). July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. D NAME: LOCATION: AGENT/DESIGNER: Paul Davenport 4213 Wait Street Phone: 666-6186 DEVELOPER: Cantrell Place West - A Condomiumium Development "PRD" (Z-4247) Southeast corner of Misty Lane and Cantrell Road ENGINEER/APPLICANT: Mr. & Mrs. Bruce Constant Thomas Engineering Unit C-1201 Raven 3721 J.F.K. Boulevard Hot Springs, AR 79193 Nortb Little Rock, AR 72116 Phone: 753-4463 AREA: 1.78 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST._: 0 ZONING: "R-2" (PRD Proposed) PROPOSED USES: 4 Condominium Detached Units A. Site History This was previously the site of one single family house, which was destroyed by fire. The site is currently vacant. B. Proposal 1. The construction of four detached condominium units on a tract of 1.78 acres at a density of two units per acre. 2. Units will consist of 2600 square feet of living space on a single level with a rear courtyard. All units will be constructed with masonry veneer and wood shake roofs. The design of development will be consistent with the area. 3. Ratio of land to building - 67,953:10,400. 4. Access will be provided at three points. Two are existing and off Cantrell. July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. D - Continued 5. Landscaping will utilize as many existing trees as possible and a 6' high fence will be built around the building. 6. Financing and development will begin immediately after approval and a completion date is set for one year. C. Engineering Comments 1. Request only one driveway be planned from Cantrell Road. 2. Brick fence should be modified as needed to provide proper site distance at the driveways and at the corner of Misty Lane and Cantrell Road. D. Analysis Staff views this'proposal as being very inappropriate for the area. The land would be better used as two large single family lots. Approving four units on one lot may prove detrimental to an area that consists of only single family homes. If approved by the Commission, the drive leading to Cantrell should be reduced to one. E. Staff Recommendation Denial. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The Committee reviewed the application. The issues were identified as: (1) elimination of one drive onto Cantrell; (2) substantial change in established character of land use in the area; and (3) Water Works easement (10'). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was not present. Staff reported that no evidence of notification had been submitted and that the applicant had requested deferral so that he may prepare a more comprehensive plan. In light of the fact that there were 27 persons present from the neighborhood, the Chairman decided to listen to their concerns. He also informed the neighborhood that the applicant could legally subdivide the property into approximately four single family lots, the same density as proposed condominium project, but without the restrictions that could be placed on a PUD. July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. D - Continued Mr. Robert Schultz, President of the Echo Valley Property Owners Association, represented the neighborhood. He expressed objection to the multifamily use of the site due to possible detrimental effects on existing houses, property values, land use and character of the area, which consists of large homes on lots two to six acres. He felt that the PUD use of the property could be leverage for other multifamily uses in the area, and if this was allowed, the ultimate result would be a change in the character of the neighborhood. He also felt that after meeting with Mr. Davenport, the neighborhood was more concerned with the practicality of his proposal than before. They now fear that he would not be able to do what is proposed financially, and that the ultimate development would be short-term rental units. After being asked by the staff, not one of the property owners present at the meeting indicated that they received notification. A motion for deferral was made and passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The original applicant was not present. Mr. Bob Richardson reported that he was the new representative and submitted a new plan. The new submission consisted of a preliminary plat which divides the property into four single family lots. There was a discussion on whether or not approval of these four lots, even though they meet lot size requirements, represented a detrimental effect on the surrounding values, whose lot sizes range from 2 to 4 acres. Staff was instructed to request a legal opinion relative to the discussion. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: As requested by the applicant, a motion for withdrawal was made and passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant requested that the item be withdrawn. A motion was made of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. MEMORANDUM CITY OF LITTLE POCK June 29, 1984 r TO: Jack Magruder, City Attorney FROM: �'��� Richard Wood, Chief of Current Planning'�,�.,e SUBJECT: A Request From the Planning Commission for C Yy- An Opinion of the City Attorney Relative to Planning Procedures The Planning Commission Subdivision Committee at its meeting on June 28, 1984, was presented with a subdivision plat for preliminary approval containing four lots. The four lots at issue were a replat of an existing two acre lot lying at the southeast corner of State Highway 10 at Misty Lane. During the course of discussion of this plat and its conformity to the City of Little Rock regulations, a question was raised as to the appropriateness of the lot size in this neighborhood. The Committee determined that it would be appropriate for the Planning staff to request of your office a review of the subdivision and land use regulations relative to the approval/denial rights of the Commission. The specific question raised is does the Planning Commission have the authority to deny approval of a preliminary subdivision plat which conforms in every way to all of the community standards set forth in the subdivision and the Zoning Ordinance. The question is posed in light of a circumstance whereby the four lot plat would introduce lot sizes in a neighborhood where the standard along Highway 10 is in the neighborhood of two to three acres per lot. The subject plat will be reviewed by the Planning Commission at its public hearing on July 10, 1984. The Committee has s-uggested that this issue should be researched and a response provided by your office in order that they might take the appropriate legal action concerning approval or denial of this plat. If you require further information concerning this matter, Hugh Brown of your staff has some knowledge of the circumstances inasmuch as he has discussed it with the engineer of record. If you require my involvement, please advise. w4: cjz %. SHORT FORM PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR LOT 1A ROBINWOOD ADDITION IN THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS OUTLINE FOR THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT a. The size of the tract is 1.78 acres more or less as submitted on the plot plan. b. The net density will be approximately two (2) units per acre. c. There will be four (4) separate buildings as shown on the site plan. d. There will be four (4) parking spaces provided for each unit which does include double garages. e. The ratio of land -to -building in square feet is 67,953:10,400. f. Three access points are desired, two (2) of which were existing on the previous residence on Cantrell Road. g. A brick fence 6' high will be built around the project with landscaping. h. The project will be treated as a condominium development. i. Same as (h). j. As many trees as possible will be left intact, and the project will be completely landscaped with some green areas. k. Depending on the zoning action, the financing and development will begin immediately and completion of the project in approximately one (1) year. 1. Each unit will consist of 2,600 sq. ft. of living space on a single level with a rear courtyard. All units will be constructed with a masonry veneer and wood shake roofs. The design of the development will be consistent with the area. June 12, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 NAME: Cantrell Place West - A Condomiumium Development "PRD" (Z-4247) LOCATION: Southeast corner of Misty Lane and Cantrell Road AGENT/DESIGNER: Paul Davenport 4213 Wait Street Phone: 666-6186 DEVELOPER: ENGINEER/APPLICANT: Mr. & Mrs. Bruce Constant Thomas Engineering Unit C-1201 Raven 3721 J.F.K. Boulevard Hot Springs, AR 79193 North Little Rock, AR 72116 Phone: 753-4463 AREA: 1.78 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "R-2" (PRD Proposed) PROPOSED USES: 4 Condominium Detached Units A. Site Histor This was previously the site of one single family house, which was destroyed by fire. The site is currently vacant. B. Proposal 1. The construction of four detached condominium units on a tract of 1.78 acres at a density of two units per acre. 2. Units will consist of 2600 square feet of living space on a single level with a rear courtyard. All units will be constructed with masonry veneer and wood shake roofs. The design of development will be consistent with the area. 3. Ratio of land to building - 67,953:10,400. 4. Access will be provided at three points. Two are existing and off Cantrell. June 12, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - Continued 5. Landscaping will utilize as many existing trees as possible and a 6' high fence will be built around the building. 6. Financing and development will begin immediately after approval and a completion date is set for one year. C. Engineering Comments 1. Request only one driveway be planned from Cantrell Road. 2. Brick fence should be modified as needed to provide proper site distance at the driveways and at the corner of Misty Lane and Cantrell Road. D. Analysis Staff views this proposal as being very inappropriate for the area. The land would be better used as two large single family lots. Approving four units on one lot may prove detrimental to an area that consists of only single family homes. If approved by the Commission, the drive leading to Cantrell should be reduced to one. E. Staff Recommendation Denial. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The Committee reviewed the application. The issues were identified as: (1) elimination of one drive onto Cantrell; (2) substantial change in established character of land use in the area; and (3) Water Works easement (101). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was not present. Staff reported that no evidence of notification had been submitted and that the applicant had requested deferral so that he may prepare a more comprehensive plan. In light of the fact that there were 27 persons present from the neighborhood, the Chairman decided to listen to their concerns. He also informed the neighborhood that the applicant could legally subdivide the property into approximately four single family lots, the same density as proposed condominium project, but without the restrictions that could be placed on a PUD. June 12, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - Continued Mr. Robert Schultz, President of the Echo Valley Property Owners Association, represented the neighborhood. He expresed objection to the multifamily use of the site due to possible detrimental effects on existing houses, property values, land use and character of the area, which consists of large homes on lots two to six acres. He felt that the PUD use of the property could be leverage for other multifamily uses in the area, and if this was allowed, the ultimate result would be a change in the character of the neighborhood. He als❑ felt that after meeting with Mr. Davenport, the neighborhood was more concerned with the practicality of his proposal than before. They now fear that he would not be able to do what is proposed financially, and that the ultimate development would be short-term rental units. After being asked by the staff, not one of the property owners present at the meeting indicated that they received notification. A motion for deferral was made and passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent.