Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0767-A Staff Analysis;r June 1, 1993 r` r l ITEM NO . A FILE NO.--7 7 -A NAME: CHARLESTON HEIGHTS -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: Approximately 700 feet south of Taylor Loop Road off Affolter Lane DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• MR. BILL HASTINGS MR. JOE WHITE RECTOR-PHILLIPS-MORSE, INC. WHITE-DATERS & ASSOC., INC. 1501 N. University 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72217 Little Rock, AR 72201 664-7807 374-1666 AREA: 43.04 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 95 FT. NEW STREET: 6,557 ft. ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Single-family Residential PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1) Allowance of 10% grades at various intersections; and 2) Exemption from sidewalk requirement on various streets. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a preliminary plat for the development of a 42.07 acre tract to contain 95 residential lots and new streets with:a total length of 6,557 feet. Access is proposed to be prohibited to the lots bordering the street shown as Chenal Valley Loop, necessitating two 100 foot deep "courts" and private drives for rear entry to four lots. Variances from Subdivision Ordinance requirements are proposed involving minimum street grades at various intersections and sidewalk requirements on various standard residential streets and on the street shown as Chenal Valley Loop. A. PROPOSAL/REOUEST: Approval of the Planning Commission is requested for a preliminary plat for the development of a subdivision to contain 95 lots. Streets qualifying as minor residential streets are proposed to be built without sidewalks. Variances from the sidewalk requirement are proposed for standard residential streets as shown on the plat, as is the requirement for sidewalks on both sides of Chenal Valley Yr,r June 1, 1993 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Continued) FILE NO.: S-767-A Loop. Chenal Valley Loop within this subdivision is proposed to be a collector street with a 48 foot street in an 80 foot right-of-way. Access to the site is proposed to be by way of Wesley Drive in Deer Park Subdivision until Chenal Valley Loop is extended to intersect with Taylor Loop Road. Approval of the Board of Directors is requested for the variances. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is presently undeveloped land, with natural vegetation and trees. To the north is Deer Park Subdivision which is zoned R-2. To the east is the 1124-hour Club" which is located in an R-2 zone. The land to the west and south is undeveloped R-2 acreage. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Work Engineering Division reports that, according to the Master Street Plan, the street shown as Chenal Valley Loop is supposed to be a minor arterial street with a 60 foot street in a 90 foot right-of-way. The Division also dislikes the "Chenal Valley Loop" name, indicating that the repetition of the Chenal Valley name is confusing. Since Chenal Valley Loop is supposed to be a minor arterial street, Engineering maintains that access to this street should be limited; that one intersection of the loop street shown as Charleston Lane should be eliminated and this street should be terminated in a cul-de-sac; that the two "courts" should be eliminated and access to the lots should be gained from a rear -entry private drive. Engineering observed that by shifting Chenal Valley Loop further west, the cul-de-sac on Charleston Lane could be accomplished and lots on the west side of Chenal Valley Loop would be single - :depth lots which would be amenable to the rear -entry scheme. Engineering commented that Chenal Valley,Loop needs sidewalks on both sides per the requirements for the minor arterial street designation. Engineering noted that the east -west streets shown as Forest Dale Dr. and Pilot Lane, with the section of Wesley Drive which connects these two streets, should be built to collector standards with sidewalks as required by the ordinance. Engineering observed that the Stormwater Detention and Excavation Ordinances are applicable and that PAGIS monuments are required. Little Rock Water Works responded that water main extensions would be required. Little Rock Wastewater Utility reported that there is an existing sewer outfall located on the property. Sewer main extensions, with easements, will be required. June 1, 1993 r SOSDIVZSION STEM NO.: A (Continued) FILE NO.: S-767-A The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment. Both Arkansas Power and Light Co. and Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. noted that additional easements are required, and returned drawings showing their requirements. D. ISSUESILEGALITECHN1CAL1DESIGN: Streets which meet the criteria to be designated as Minor Residential Streets are permitted to have grades of 16%. Standard residential streets may have up to 15%. However, there is a provision of the Subdivision Ordinance (Section 31-206, Intersections and Alignment, Paragraph D) which states that "in approaching intersections, the leveling area shall have a grade not exceeding 5% from a distance of not less than 30 feet measured from the nearest curb". The variance request is for permission for 10% grades at four intersections. The developer has also shown sidewalks on one side only of Chenal Valley Loop, Pilot Lane, Forest Dale Drive, and a segment of Wesley Drive. A variance is requested from the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance for sidewalks on other standard residential streets, as well as on both sides of the collector street. As noted in the Engineering comments above, significant redesign of the subdivision is recommended. E. ANALYSIS: This site presents somewhat difficult problems involving lot and street layouts and access. Ninety-five lots are anticipated. For the time being, until Chenal Valley Loop is extended to Taylor Loop Road, the only. access to the development is by way of Wesley Drive, a standard residential street, from Deer Park Subdivision. If Chenal Valley Loop is to be part of a minor arterial system, design of the lots and access to this roadway should be carefully thought out. Forest Dale Dr. is shown extending to the west edge of the subdivision for future extension into the property to the west. Additional lots developed to the west could add significant traffic on this and other streets in Charleston Heights. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that standard residential streets be required to have the sidewalks constructed as required by the Ordinance. Mobile Court, from Wesley Drive south to the cul-de-sac, Ridgefield Court, the two courts off Chenal 3 June 1, 1993 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A_ (Continued) FILE NO • S-767-A Valley Loop (if these remain), and Charleston Lane may be built to minor residential street standards. Forest Dale Drive, Wesley Drive, Pilot Lane, and Mobile Court from Wesley Drive to Forest Dale Dr. should be constructed to standard residential street standards. Pursuant to Engineering Division's comments, Forest Dale Dr. -Wesley Drive -Pilot Lane traffic design should be shown to collector standards. Eliminating the two courts off Chenal Valley Loop and re -configuring Charleston Lane as a cul-de-sac street should be considered. The variance to allow 10% grades at the leveling area of intersections should be discouraged. Approval of the basic concept of the subdivision, though, is recommended. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 1, 1993) Mr. Joe White, project engineer, and Mr. Bill Hastings with RPM were present. Planning Staff presented the item; Engineering elaborated on their comments. Mr. White reacted that he vehemently disagreed with the Engineering comments: he felt that Chenal Valley Loop should not be required to be built to minor arterial standards, that the engineering comments regarding the site layout were totally without merit; and that the requirement to build two of the streets and a portion of a third to collector standards were not acceptable. Mr. White responded that, since there was no hurry in bringing this item to the Commission, he would prefer to defer the item at this time to allow him time to reconsider the observations cited. Staff indicated that a meeting could be set up in a matter of days with the engineering personnel and planning staff and the developer/engineer to review the comments and requirements, and that an attempt would be made by the City to reach an agreement with the developer/engineer which would allow the subdivision to proceed to the Commission. Mr. White and Mr. Hastings agreed to trying to reconcile the differences at such a meeting. STAFF ❑PDATE• A letter, dated April 15, 1993, from Mr. Joe White was received by staff, in which the developer requested deferral of this item until the June 1, 1993 hearing date. Staff recommends approval of this request. PLANNING COMMIIQNACTION: (APRIL 20, 1993) This item was presented by staff as included on the Consent Agenda for deferral, and as such was approved in the unanimous eleven -member approval of the Consent Agenda. 4 i June 1, 1993 SUBDIVISION ITEM INTO.: A (Continued) FILE NO.: S-767-A STAFF UPDATE: On April 6, 1993, the meeting which had been suggested at the Subdivision Committee meeting between the developer and his engineer and City staff was held. That meeting involved Bill Hastings of RPM; Joe White of White-Daters; Bill Anderson, City Engineer; Bill Henry, Traffic Engineer; and Jerry Gardner, City Engineering Manager. This was followed by a meeting on April 26, 1993, involving Bill Hastings and Jim Lasley of RPM: Joe White; Charles Nickerson, City Manager; Jim Lawson, Director of Neighborhoods and Planning; Steve Giles, Deputy City Attorney; and Jerry Gardner. The agreement reached was that the development plat would show an 80 foot right-of-way for the future minor arterial street, Chenal Valley Loop, in lieu of the 90 foot right-of-way as required by the Ordinance, and that for the present, the developer would construct a 36 foot, rural type roadway (without curbs and gutters and with open ditches), and a sidewalk on one side per collector standards. Future improvements to this road would be at public or improvement district expense. Modifications to Ordinance requirements, though, would have to be approved by the Planning Commission and then by the Board of Directors. A new version of the plat was submitted showing the agree -to - changes for Chenal Valley Loop. Also, the design of the two courts off Chenal Valley Loop (Mt. Pilot Court and Mayberry Court) was changed to eliminate the double/island entrances; and, the design of Forest Dale Drive was changed to eliminate its extension to the subdivision boundary. The lot layout and Charleston Lane as a loop street were accepted. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 13, 1993) Mr. Joe White was present as representative of�the developer. Staff outlined the results of the meetings held between the developer and his engineer and City personnel. The staff recommendation, then, was that Chenal Valley Loop be constructed as a 36 foot street without curbs and gutters and with open ditches; the right-of-way be 80 feet in lieu of the 90 foot standard; and that a sidewalk be constructed on one side of Chenal Valley Loop in lieu of on both sides as required for a minor arterial. (A variance is required to be approved by the Planning Commission and Board of Directors for these modifications from the Subdivision Ordinance.) Further, it was reported that Staff had concurred with the revised overall layout of the subdivision lots, with Charleston Lane as a loop street, and with the revised design for the two courts off Chenal Valley Loop. 5 i F f June 1, 1993 SPBDIVISION ITEM NO.• A (Continued) FILE NO._;__5-767-A Remaining sidewalk issues were discussed. It was pointed out by Staff that sidewalks are required by the Subdivision Ordinance to be constructed on one side of Wesley Drive, Forest Dale Drive, and Mobile Court from Forest Dale to Ridgefield Court. (Mobile Court from Ridgefield Court to the cul-de-sac, Ridgefield Court, Charleston Lane, Mount Pilot Court and Mayberry Court qualify as -minor residential streets" and are not required to have sidewalks along them.) The applicant proposes to stop the required sidewalk on Wesley Drive at Forest Dale Drive; to construct no sidewalks on Forest Dale Drive; and to construct no sidewalks on Mobile Court from Forest Dale Drive to Ridgefield Court. Pilot Lane is shown to meet standard residential street standards with a sidewalk shown on one side of the street. Mr. White suggested that perhaps the sidewalk should be extended on Wesley Drive to its termination at Mobile Court. Mobile Court and Forest Dale Lane might not need sidewalks, he observed. The variance from the requirements for sidewalks on Wesley Drive, Mobile Court, and Forest Dale Lane is to be considered by the Commission. (One additional variance, from the 5% maximum grade at the leveling area at intersections, is also to be considered and this variance should be discouraged.) There being no further discussion, this item was referred to the full Commission for resolution of the issues. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUKE 1, 1993) Mr. Joe White, the engineer, and Mr. Bill Hastings with RPM were present to present the request. Staff outlined the request and the variances requested. The request, as well as reviewing and approving a 95-lot subdivision, involves a number of variances: 1) a variance from the Master Street Standards for a minor arterial street traversing the subdivision to permit its construction to collector standrds with a 36-foot wide street section without curbs and gutters and with open ditches on both sides; 2) a variance from the Master Street Standards and Subdivision Ordinance requirement that minor arterial streets have sidewalks constructed on both sides, and permit the construction of the sidewalk on the designated minor arterial persuant to the standards for collector streets with the sidewalk on one side only; a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance standard for a 5% maximum grade at the leveling area at two intersections. Staff and Mr. White outlined the series of meetings between the developer and Staff which produced an agreement on the standards to be recommended to the Commission. It was explained that the C June 1, 1993 SOHDIVISION ITEM NO.: A _ (Continued_ _ FILE_ NO.: 5 -7 67 -A normal standard right-of-way for a minor arterial street is 90 feet; however, when, as is the case in this subdivision, there is no access to the arterial by driveways, then an 80-foot right-of-way is permitted. The agreed -to right-of-way is, then, 80 feet. The revised plat which has been submitted, it was explained, extends the sidewalk on Wesley Drive to its intersection with Forest Dale Drive; thus, no variance is now needed on this sidewalk issue. With the re -configuration, Forest Dale Drive meets the requirements for designation as a minor residential street; and, since no sidewalks are required on minor residential streets, the issue of sidewalks on this street is now moot. Commissioner Nicholson asked for an explanation of the variance involving the 5% versus the 10% grade at two intersections. Mr. White explained that this is primarily to facilitate being able to start up during snow conditions after a stop at an intersection, but that this variance is routinely granted. He added that the two intersections at which this variance is requested are cul-de-sac streets. Engineering, after review of the intersections designated, agreed to the request. Mr. Wes Holmes addressed the Commission and outlined his and the Deer Park concerns regarding the development. He pointed out that, until Chenal Valley Loop is extended to Taylor Loop Road, the only access to the new subdivision will be by way of Wesley Drive. Wesley Drive, he explained, is one of two streets into the 45-lot Deer Park subdivision where 56 children reside and play. He suggested that the developer look in to gaining access to the new subdivision, at least during construction, by way of Affolter Lane. He explained that the tie-in between Affolter Lane and Chenal Valley Loop would involve construction of only 50-60 feet of roadway. He urged the Commission to restrict use of Wesley Drive as a construction thoroughfare. Mr. White responded that Affolter Lane is not ,a dedicated street and that it lies on private property. He explained that RPM could not construct the tie-in to - Affolter Lane on property which does not belong to RPM. He indicated that the residential streets in Deer Park are designed to handle 2500-3000 vehicles per day and that even with the addition of the traffic generated by the new subdivision, only 1200 vehicles per day could be expected. He suggested that making any restrictions of this nature would be very unusual for the Commission. Mr. Hastings, however, offered to look into being able to use Affolter as a construction entrance. He explained that he could not make any promises that this could be arranged, or that he could guarantee that all construction traffic would restrict their access to only Affolter, but that he would make the effort. 7 June 1, 1993 SUBDIVISION ITEM N A JContinued)_FILE NO.: 5-767-A Rev. Jesse Reed, who identified himself as a resident on Taylor Loop Road, cautioned the Commission and the developer that he would be calling if clearing and cutting activity on the site caused his property to flood. Commissioners pointed out that a street which extends to the border of a subdivision can be expected to be extended eventually and that residents of a subdivision must be prepared for that eventuality. It was explained that the City now has signs posted on barricade on dead-end streets indicating that they may eventually be extended. Mr. Tim McKenzie, a resident of Deep Park, explained that the residents of Deer Park are not trying to keep the development from taking place; it is not that they do not want neighbors, he added. Rather, he reported, the Deer Park residents are primarily concerned about safety for the children during construction. He indicated appreciation for Mr. Hastings offer to pursue using Affolter as a construction access. Neighborhoods and Planning Director Jim Lawson explained that Staff has recommended approval of the Chenal Valley Loop variance in this situation, and that such a recommendation is a change in direction for the City. He explained that if a developer is doing a large development which will generate a lot of traffic, then that developer should be responsible for providing the streets to handle that traffic. In this case, however, the developer is not developing a large development and requiring construction of a street which is designed to handle traffic from outside the development would be a burden and expense that the developer should not be required to bear in total. Deputy City Attorney Stephen Giles added that recent court decisions have dealt with street improvements in subdivisions from the viewpoint of equity, saying that a subdivider cannot be required to furnish the entire infrastructure which will serve a larger area than just that developer's property. There must be an equitable distribution'of costs born by the developer and the City. Mr. Lawson concluded that there must be a "direct link" between what the City requires of a developer and the burden that development will place on the infrastructure. If there is commercial development which will draw traffic from outside the development, or if the development involved 1000 lots, then requiring the minor arterial street to built to full standards could be justified. For 96 lots, it cannot. The trouble is, he stated, the City of, Little Rock has no budgeted resources for paying a those costs of making the improvements which is the City's equitable share. 8 f r i June 1, 1993 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A Continued FILE NC.: 5-767-A Mrs. Ruth Bell commented that there are, according to Engineering, 2600 blocks without curbs and gutters, and that in recommending approval of this variance, the Commission is simply adding to that number. Mr. white responded that if there were multi -family development involved in the subdivision, or commercial areas, there would be no question that the minor arterial should be constructed. He cited Bowman Curve as an example of a situation where, when the developer was required to construct the street to minor arterial standard, the City also approved the commercial node. This, he suggested, was equitable. Commissioners asked for clarification of this change in direction and of the recent court decisions which impact this. The motion was then made and seconded to approve the preliminary plat and to recommend approval to the Board of Directors of the variances requested. The motion passed with 7 ayes, 2 abstentions, and 2 absent. 9 April 20, 1993 ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: S-767-A NAME: CHARLESTON HEIGHTS -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: Approximately 700 feet south of Taylor Loop Road off Affolter Lane DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: MR. HILL HASTINGS MR. JOE WHITE RECTOR-PHILLIPS-MORSE, INC. WHITE-DATERS & ASSOC., INC. 1501 N. University 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72217 Little Rock, AR 72201 664-7807 374-1666 AREA: 43.04 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 95 FT. NEW STREET: 6,557 ft. ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: Single-family Residential 1) Allowance of 10% grades at various intersections; and 2) Exemption from sidewalk requirement on various streets. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a preliminary plat for the development of a 42.07 acre tract to contain 95 residential lots and new streets with a total length of 6,557 feet. Access is proposed to be prohibited to the lots bordering the street shown as Chenal Valley Loop, necessitating two 100 foot deep "courts" and private drives for rear entry to four lots. Variances from Subdivision Ordinance requirements are proposed involving minimum street grades at various intersections and sidewalk requirements on various standard residential streets and on the street shown as Chenal Valley Loop. A. PROPQSALIREOUEST: Approval of the Planning Commission is requested for a preliminary plat for the development of a subdivision to contain 95 lots. Streets qualifying as minor residential streets are proposed to be built without sidewalks. Variances from the sidewalk requirement are proposed for standard residential streets as shown on the plat, as is the requirement for sidewalks on both sides of Chenal Valley April 20, 1993 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Continued) FILE NO.: S-767-A Loop. Chenal Valley Loop within this subdivision is proposed to be a collector street with a 48 foot street in an 80 foot right-of-way. Access to the site is proposed to be by way of Wesley Drive in Deer Park Subdivision until Chenal Valley Loop is extended to intersect with Taylor Loop Road. Approval of the Board of Directors is requested for the variances. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is presently undeveloped land, with natural vegetation and trees. To the north is Deer Park Subdivision which is zoned R-2. To the east is the 1124-hour Club" which is located in an R-2 zone. The land to the west and south is undeveloped R-2 acreage. C. ENGINEERINGIDTILITY COMMENTS: Public Work Engineering Division reports that, according to the Master Street Plan, the street shown as Chenal Valley Loop is supposed to be a minor arterial street with a 60 foot street in a 90 foot right-of-way. The Division also dislikes the "Chenal Valley Loop" name, indicating that the repetition of the Chenal Valley name is confusing. Since Chenal Valley Loop is supposed to be a minor arterial street, Engineering maintains that access to this street should be limited; that one intersection of the loop street shown as Charleston Lane should be eliminated and this street should be terminated in a cul-de-sac; that the two "courts" should be eliminated and access to the lots should be gained from a rear -entry private drive. Engineering observed that by shifting Chenal Valley Loop further west, the cul-de-sac on Charleston Lane could be accomplished and lots on the west side of Chenal Valley Loop would be single - depth lots which would be amenable to the rear -entry scheme. Engineering commented that Chenal Valley Loop needs sidewalks on both sides per the requirements for the minor arterial street designation. Engineering noted that the east -west streets shown as Forest Dale Dr. and Pilot Lane, with the section of Wesley Drive which connects these two streets, should be built to collector standards with sidewalks as required by the ordinance. Engineering observed that the Stormwater Detention and Excavation Ordinances are applicable and that PAGIS monuments are required. Little Rock Water works responded that water main extensions would be required. Little Rock Wastewater Utility reported that there is an existing sewer outfall located on the property. Sewer main extensions, with easements, will be required. 2 April 20, 1993 SUBDIVISION ITEM 4 (Continued) FILE O.: S-1 7-A The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment. Both Arkansas Power and Light Co. and Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. noted that additional easements are required, and returned drawings showing their requirements. D. ISSUESILEGALITECHNICIiL/DESIGN: Streets which meet the criteria to be designated as Minor Residential Streets are permitted to have grades of 16%. Standard residential streets may have up to 15%. However, there is a provision of the Subdivision Ordinance (Section 31-206, Intersections and Alignment, Paragraph D) which states that "in approaching intersections, the leveling area shall have a grade not exceeding 5% from a distance of not less than 30 feet measured from the nearest curb". The variance request is for permission for 10% grades at four intersections. The developer has also shown sidewalks on one side only of Chenal Valley Loop, Pilot Lane, Forest Dale Drive, and a segment of Wesley Drive. A variance is requested from the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance for sidewalks on other standard residential streets, as well as on both sides of the collector street. As noted in the Engineering comments above, significant redesign of the subdivision is recommended. E. ANALYSIS• This site presents somewhat difficult problems involving lot and street layouts and access. Ninety-five lots are anticipated. For the time being, until Chenal Valley Loop is extended to Taylor Loop Road, the only access to the development is by way of Wesley Drive, a standard residential street, from Deer Park Subdivision. If Chenal Valley Loop is to be part of a minor arterial system, design of the lots and access to this roadway should be carefully thought out. Forest Dale Dr. is shown extending to the west edge of the subdivision for future extension into the property to the west. Additional lots developed to the west could add significant traffic on this and other streets in Charleston Heights. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that standard residential streets be required to have the sidewalks constructed as required by the Ordinance. Mobile Court, from Wesley Drive south to the cul-de-sac, Ridgefield Court, the two courts off Chenal 3 April 20, 1993 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 n inued FILE N ---7 7-A Valley Loop (if these remain), and Charleston Lane may be built to minor residential street standards. Forest Dale Drive, Wesley Drive, Pilot Lane, and Mobile Court from Wesley Drive to Forest Dale Dr. should be constructed to standard residential street standards. Pursuant to Engineering Division's comments, Forest Dale Dr. -Wesley Drive -Pilot Lane traffic design should be shown to collector standards. Eliminating the two courts off Chenal Valley Loop and re -configuring Charleston Lane as a cul-de-sac street should be considered. The variance to allow 10% grades at the leveling area of intersections should be discouraged. Approval of the basic concept of the subdivision, though, is recommended. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: Mr. Joe White, project engineer, and Mr. Bill Hastings with RPM were present. Planning Staff presented the item; Engineering elaborated on their comments. Mr. White reacted that he vehemently disagreed with the Engineering comments: he felt that Chenal Valley Loop should not be required to be built to minor arterial standards, that the engineering comments regarding the site layout were totally without merit; and that the requirement to build two of the streets and a portion of a third to collector standards were not acceptable. Mr. White responded that, since there was no hurry in bringing this item to the Commission, he would prefer to defer the item at this time to allow him time to reconsider the observations cited. Staff indicated that a meeting could be set up in a matter of days with the engineering personnel and planning staff and the developer/engineer to review the comments and requirements, and that an attempt would be made by the City to reach an agreement with the developer/engineer which would allow the subdivision to proceed to the Commission. Mr. White and Mr. Hastings agreed to trying to reconcile the differences at such a meeting. STAFF UPDATE: A letter, dated April 15, 1993, from Mr. Joe White was received by staff, in which the developer requested deferral of this item until the June 1, 1993 hearing date. Staff recommends approval of this request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 20, 1993) This item was presented by staff as included on the Consent Agenda for deferral, and as such was approved in the unanimous eleven -member approval of the Consent Agenda. 4 r June 1, 1993 0 ITEM �I❑ . A FILL t4Q . 7 7 -A F NAME: CHARLESTON HEIGHTS -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: Approximately 700 feet south of Taylor Loop Road off Affolter Lane DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: MR. BILL HASTINGS MR. JOE WHITE RECTOR-PHILLIPS-MORSE, INC. WHITE-DATERS & ASSOC., INC. 1501 N. University 401 Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72217 Little Rock, AR 72201 664-7807 374-1666 AREA: 43.04 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 95 FT. NEW STREET: 6,557 ft. ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Single-family Residential PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1) Allowance of 10% grades at various intersections; and 2) Exemption from sidewalk requirement on various streets. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a preliminary plat for the development of a 42.07 acre tract to contain 95 residential lots and new streets with:a total length of 6,557 feet. Access is proposed to be prohibited to the lots bordering the street shown as Chenal Valley Loop, necessitating two 100 foot deep "courts" and private drives for rear entry to four lots. Variances from Subdivision Ordinance requirements are proposed involving minimum street grades at various intersections and sidewalk requirements on various standard residential streets and on the street shown as Chenal Valley Loop. A. PROPOSAL RE IIEST: Approval of the Planning Commission is requested for a preliminary plat for the development of a subdivision to contain 95 lots. Streets qualifying as minor residential streets are proposed to be built without sidewalks. Variances from the sidewalk requirement are proposed for standard residential streets as shown on the plat, as is the requirement for sidewalks on both sides of Chenal Valley r June 1, 199.3 i SUBDIVISION i ITEM NO.: A_ (Continued) - FILE NO.: S-767-A r Loop. Chenal Valley Loop within this subdivision is proposed to be a collector street with a 48 foot street in an 80 foot right-of-way. Access to the site is proposed to be by way of Wesley Drive in Deer Park Subdivision until Chenal Valley Loop is extended to intersect with Taylor Loop Road. Approval of the Board of Directors is requested for the variances. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is presently undeveloped land, with natural vegetation and trees. To the north is Deer Park Subdivision which is zoned R-2. To the east is the 1124-hour Club" which is located in an R-2 zone. The land to the west and south is undeveloped R-2 acreage. C. ENGINEERING UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Work Engineering Division reports that, according to the Master Street Plan, the street shown as Chenal Valley Loop is supposed to be a minor arterial street with a 60 foot street in a 90 foot right-of-way. The Division also dislikes the "Chenal Valley Loop" name, indicating that the repetition of the Chenal valley name is confusing. Since Chenal Valley Loop is supposed to be a minor arterial street, Engineering maintains that access to this street should be limited; that one intersection of the loop street shown as Charleston Lane should be eliminated and this street should be terminated in a cul-de-sac; that the two "courts" should be eliminated and access to the lots should be gained from a rear -entry private drive. Engineering observed that by shifting Chenal Valley Loop further west, the cul-de-sac on Charleston Lane could be accomplished and lots on the west side of Chenal Valley Loop would be single - 'depth lots which would be amenable to the rear -entry scheme. Engineering commented that Chenal Valley,Loop needs sidewalks on both sides per the requirements for the minor arterial street designation. Engineering noted that the east -west streets shown as Forest Dale Dr. and Pilot Lane, with the section of Wesley Drive which connects these two streets, should be built to collector standards with sidewalks as required by the ordinance. Engineering observed that the Stormwater Detention and Excavation Ordinances are applicable and that PAGIS monuments are required. Little Rock Water Works responded that water main extensions would be required. Little Rock Wastewater Utility reported that there is an existing sewer outfall located on the property. Sewer main extensions, with easements, will be required. 2 June 1, 1993 SUBDIVISION f TTEM NO. A Continued FILE NO. S-767-A r - The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment. Both Arkansas Power and Light Co. and Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. noted that additional easements are required, and returned drawings showing their requirements. D_ ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICALLDESXGN: Streets which meet the criteria to be designated as Minor Residential Streets are permitted to have grades of 16%. Standard residential streets may have up to 15%. However, there is a provision of the Subdivision Ordinance (Section 31-206, Intersections and Alignment, Paragraph D) which states that "in approaching intersections, the leveling area shall have a grade not exceeding 5% from a distance of not less than 30 feet measured from the nearest curb". The variance request is for permission for 10 % grades at four intersections. The developer has also shown sidewalks on one side only of Chenal Valley Loop, Pilot Lane, Forest Dale Drive, and a segment of Wesley Drive. A variance is requested from the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance for sidewalks on other standard residential streets, as well as on both sides of the collector street. As noted in the Engineering comments above, significant redesign of the subdivision is recommended. E. ANALYSIS• This site presents somewhat difficult problems involving lot and street layouts and access. Ninety-five lots are :anticipated. For the time being, until Chenal Valley Loop is extended to Taylor Loop Road, the only.access to the development is by way of Wesley Drive, a standard residential street, from Deer Park Subdivision. If Chenal Valley Loop is to be part of a minor arterial system, design of the lots and access to this roadway should be carefully thought out. Forest Dale Dr. is shown extending to the west edge of the subdivision for future extension into the property to the west. Additional lots developed to the west could add significant traffic on this and other streets in Charleston Heights. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that standard residential streets be required to have the sidewalks constructed as required by the Ordinance. Mobile Court, from Wesley Drive south to the cul-de-sac, Ridgefield Court, the two courts off Chenal 3 r June 1, 1993 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A C ntinued FILE NO.: S-757-A Valley Loop (if these remain), and Charleston Lane may be built to minor residential street standards. Forest Dale Drive, Wesley Drive, Pilot Lane, and Mobile Court from Wesley Drive to Forest Dale Dr. should be constructed to standard residential street standards. Pursuant to Engineering Division's comments, Forest Dale Dr. -Wesley Drive -Pilot Lane traffic design should be shown to collector standards. Eliminating the two courts off Chenal Valley Loop and re -configuring Charleston Lane as a cul-de-sac street should be considered. The variance to allow 10% grades at the leveling area of intersections should be discouraged. Approval of the basic concept of the subdivision, though, is recommended. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 1, 1993) Mr. Joe White, project engineer, and Mr. Bill Hastings with RPM were present. Planning Staff presented the item; Engineering elaborated on their comments. Mr. White reacted that he vehemently disagreed with the Engineering comments: he felt that Chenal Valley Loop should not be required to be built to minor arterial standards, that the engineering comments regarding the site layout were totally without merit; and that the requirement to build two of the streets and a portion of a third to collector standards were not acceptable. Mr. White responded that, since there was no hurry in bringing this item to the Commission, he would prefer to defer the item at this time to allow him time to reconsider the observations cited. Staff indicated that a meeting could be set up in a matter of days with the engineering personnel and planning staff and the developer/engineer to review the comments and requirements, and that an attempt would be made by the City to reach an agreement with the developer/engineer which would allow the subdivision to proceed to the Commission. Mr. White and Mr. Hastings agreed to trying to reconcile the differences at such a meeting. STAFF UPDATE: A letter, dated April 15, 1993, from Mr. Joe White was received by staff, in which the developer requested deferral of this item until the June 1, 1993 hearing date. Staff recommends approval of this request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 20, 1993) This item was presented by staff as included on the Consent Agenda for deferral, and as such was approved in the unanimous eleven -member approval of the Consent Agenda. 4 F June 1, 1993 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO. A (Continued) FILE NO. 5-767—A STAFF UPDATE: On April 6, 1993, the meeting which had been suggested at the Subdivision Committee meeting between the developer and his engineer and City staff was held. That meeting involved Bill Hastings of RPM; Joe White of White-Daters; Bill Anderson, City Engineer; Bill Henry, Traffic Engineer; and Jerry Gardner, City Engineering Manager. This was followed by a meeting on April 26, 1993, involving Bill Hastings and Jim Lasley of RPM: Joe White; Charles Nickerson, City Manager; Jim Lawson, Director of Neighborhoods and Planning; Steve Giles, Deputy City Attorney; and Jerry Gardner. The agreement reached was that the development plat would show an 80 foot right-of-way for the future minor arterial street, Chenal Valley Loop, in lieu of the 90 foot right-of-way as required by the Ordinance, and that for the present, the developer would construct a 36 foot, rural type roadway (without curbs and gutters and with open ditches), and a sidewalk on one side per collector standards. Future improvements to this road would be at public or improvement district expense. Modifications to Ordinance requirements, though, would have to be approved by the Planning Commission and then by the Board of Directors. A new version of the plat was submitted showing the agree -to - changes for Chenal Valley Loop. Also, the design of the two courts off Chenal Valley Loop (Mt. Pilot Court and Mayberry Court) was changed to eliminate the double/island entrances; and, the design of Forest Dale Drive was changed to eliminate its extension to the subdivision boundary. The lot layout and Charleston Lane as a loop street were accepted. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 13, 1993) Mr. Joe White was present as representative of, the developer. Staff outlined the results of the meetings held between the developer and his engineer and City personnel. The staff recommendation, then, was that Chenal Valley Loop be constructed as a 36 foot street without curbs and gutters and with open ditches; the right-of-way be 80 feet in lieu of the 90 foot standard; and that a sidewalk be constructed on one side of Chenal Valley Loop in lieu of on both sides as required for a minor arterial. (A variance is required to be approved by the Planning Commission and Board of Directors for these modifications from the Subdivision Ordinance.) Further, it was reported that Staff had concurred with the revised overall layout of the subdivision lots, with Charleston Lane as a loop street, and with the revised design for the two courts off Chenal Valley Loop. 61 i f i June 1, 1993 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Continued) FILE NO.: S-767-A Remaining sidewalk issues were discussed. It was pointed out by Staff that sidewalks are required by the Subdivision Ordinance to be constructed on one side of Wesley Drive, Forest Dale Drive, and Mobile Court from Forest Dale to Ridgefield Court. (Mobile Court from Ridgefield Court to the cul-de-sac, Ridgefield Court, Charleston Lane, Mount Pilot Court and Mayberry Court qualify as "minor residential streets" and are not required to have sidewalks along them.) The applicant proposes to stop the required sidewalk on Wesley Drive at Forest Dale Drive; to construct no sidewalks on Forest Dale Drive; and to construct no sidewalks on Mobile Court from Forest Dale Drive to Ridgefield Court. Pilot Lane is shown to meet standard residential street standards with a sidewalk shown on one side of the street. Mr. White suggested that perhaps the sidewalk should be extended on Wesley Drive to its termination at Mobile Court. Mobile Court and Forest Dale Lane might not need sidewalks, he observed. The variance from the requirements for sidewalks on Wesley Drive, Mobile Court, and Forest Dale Lane is to be considered by the Commission. (One additional variance, from the 5% maximum grade at the leveling area at intersections, is also to be considered and this variance should be discouraged.) There being no further discussion, this item was referred to the full Commission for resolution of the issues. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DUNE 1, 1993) Mr. Joe White, the engineer, and Mr. Bill Hastings with RPM were present to present the request. Staff outlined the request and the variances requested. The request, as well as reviewing and approving a 95-lot subdivision, involves a number of variances: 1) a variance from the Master Street Standards for a minor arterial street traversing the subdivision to permit its construction to collector standrds with a 36-foot wide street section without curbs and gutters and with open ditches on both sides; 2) a variance from the Master Street Standards and Subdivision Ordinance requirement that -minor arterial streets have sidewalks constructed on both sides, and permit the construction of the sidewalk on the designated minor arterial persuant to the standards for collector streets with the sidewalk on one side only; a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance standard for a 5% maximum grade at the leveling area at two intersections. Staff and Mr. White outlined the series of meetings between the developer and Staff which produced an agreement on the standards to be recommended to the Commission. It was explained that the 2 i r ! June 1, 1993 SUBDIVISION ITEM NQ. . A Continued FILE NO.: 5-767-A normal standard right-of-way for a minor arterial street is 90 feet; however, when, as is the case in this subdivision, there is no access to the arterial by driveways, then an 80-foot right-of-way is permitted. The agreed -to right-of-way is, then, 80 feet. The revised plat which has been submitted, it was explained, extends the sidewalk on Wesley Drive to its intersection with Forest Dale Drive; thus, no variance is now needed on this sidewalk issue. With the re -configuration, Forest Dale Drive meets the requirements for designation as a minor residential street; and, since no sidewalks are required on minor residential streets, the issue of sidewalks on this street is now moot. Commissioner Nicholson asked for an explanation of the variance involving the 5% versus the 10% grade at two intersections. Mr. White explained that this is primarily to facilitate being able to start up during snow conditions after a stop at an intersection, but that this variance is routinely granted. He added that the two intersections at which this variance is requested are cul-de-sac streets. Engineering, after review of the intersections designated, agreed to the request. Mr. Wes Holmes addressed the Commission and outlined his and the Deer Park concerns regarding the development. He pointed out that, until Chenal Valley Loop is extended to Taylor Loop Road, the only access to the new subdivision will be by way of Wesley Drive. Wesley Drive, he explained, is one of two streets into the 45-lot Deer Park subdivision where 56 children reside and play. He suggested that the developer look in to gaining access to the new subdivision, at least during construction, by way of Affolter Lane. He explained that the tie-in between Affolter Lane and Chenal Valley Loop would involve construction of only 50-60 feet of roadway. He urged the Commission to restrict use of Wesley Drive as a construction thoroughfare. Mr. White responded that Affolter Lane is not ,a: dedicated street and that it lies on private property. He explained that RPM could not construct the tie-in to Affolter Lane on property which does not belong to RPM. He indicated that the residential streets in Deer Park are designed to handle 2500-3000 vehicles per day and that even with the addition of the traffic generated by the new subdivision, only 1200 vehicles per day could be expected. He suggested that making any restrictions of this nature would be very unusual for the Commission. Mr. Hastings, however, offered to look into being able to use Affolter as a construction entrance. He explained that he could not make any promises that this could be arranged, or that he could guarantee that all construction traffic would restrict their access to only Affolter, but that he would make the effort. 7 June 1, 1993 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A(Continued) FILE NO • S-767-A Rev. Jesse Reed, who identified himself as a resident on Taylor Loop Road, cautioned the Commission and the developer that he would be calling if clearing and cutting activity on the site caused his property to flood. Commissioners pointed out that a street which extends to the border of a subdivision can be expected to be extended eventually and that residents of a subdivision must be prepared for that eventuality. It was explained that the City now has signs posted on barricade on dead-end streets indicating that they may eventually be extended. Mr. Tim McKenzie, a resident of Deep Park, explained that the residents of Deer Park are not trying to keep the development from taking place; it is not that they do not want neighbors, he added. Rather, he reported, the Deer Park residents are primarily concerned about safety for the children during construction. He indicated appreciation for Mr. Hastings offer to pursue using Affolter as a construction access. Neighborhoods and Planning Director Jim Lawson explained that Staff has recommended approval of the Chenal Valley Loop variance in this situation, and that such a recommendation is a change in direction for the City. He explained that if a developer is doing a large development which will generate a lot of traffic, then that developer should be responsible for providing the streets to handle that traffic. In this case, however, the developer is not developing a large development and requiring construction of a street which is designed to handle traffic from outside the development would be a burden and expense that the developer should not be required to bear in total. Deputy City Attorney Stephen Giles added that recent court decisions have dealt with street improvements in subdivisions from the viewpoint of equity, saying that a subdivider cannot be required to furnish the entire infrastructure which will serve a larger area than just that developer's property. There must be an equitable distribution'of costs born by the developer and the City. Mr. Lawson concluded that there must be a "direct link" between what the City requires of a developer and the burden that development will place on the infrastructure. If there is commercial development which will draw traffic from outside the development, or if the development involved 1000 lots, then requiring the minor arterial street to built to full standards could be justified. For 96 lots, it cannot. The trouble is, he stated, the City of. Little Rock has no budgeted resources for paying a those costs of making the improvements which is the City's equitable share. 8 f t. r June 1, 1993 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Continued) FILE NO.: S-767-A Mrs. Ruth Bell commented that there are, according to Engineering, 2600 blocks without curbs and gutters, and that in recommending approval of this variance, the Commission is simply adding to that number. Mr. White responded that if there were multi -family development involved in the subdivision, or commercial areas, there would be no question that the minor arterial should be constructed. He cited Bowman Curve as an example of a situation where, when the developer was required to construct the street to minor arterial standard, the City also approved the commercial node. This, he suggested, was equitable. Commissioners asked for clarification of this change in direction and of the recent court decisions which impact this. The motion was then made and seconded plat and to recommend approval to the the variances requested. The motion 2 abstentions, and 2 absent. to approve the preliminary Board of Directors of passed with 7 ayes, G]