Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-1008 Staff Analysis1. Meeting Date: June 7, 1994 2. Case No.: S-1008 3. Request: For CAMP ADDITION, waivers from the Subdivision Regulations which prohibit the creation of pipestem lots and require platting and Planning Commission approval of all divisions of tracts or parcels of land. 4. Location: North of Robinwood Dr., north and east of the Hillandale Dr. intersection 5. Owner lAnnlicant: Marcia C. Camp 6. Existing Status: The conditionally appra�ed subdivision entails a 10.54 acre tract lying north of the Robinwood Subdivision in an undeveloped and unplatted area, plus a strip of land to form a pipestem which is designed to provide frontage for the 10.54 acre tract on Robinwood Dr. The pipestem entails 2 pieces of property: 1) a 20 foot wide by 300 foot long strip for which the applicant holds a quitclaim deed, dated December 20, 1993; and 2) a 20 foot wide by 150 foot long strip across the lot in Robinwood Subdivision, Lot 68, on which her existing home sits. The area is zoned R-2. 7. The Subdivision Regulations, pipestem lots in residential has requested the creation of frontage on Robinwood Dr. Section 31-232(g), prohibits subdivisions. The applicant the pipestem in order to have The Subdivision Regulations, Section 31-5(c)(1), states: "All divisions... of a tract or parcel of land...for sale or ... development shall be considered a subdivision and (are) subject to this chapter." (Paragraph (2) exempts tracts of 5 acres or greater where there are no street right-of-way issues involved.) The applicant held an undivided interest in a 5+ acre tract immediately behind her home, and to the west of the proposed lot, and was deeded a strip of land from this tract. In deeding this strip, the Subdivision Regulations require the subdivision of the acreage. This was not done, and the ,applicant seeks a waiver from the regulations to exempt her and the other owners of the 5+ acres from having to prepare a plat of the acreage and designate the tract for the needed portion of the pipestem. Proposed Use: _Single Family___ 8. Staff Recommendation: Approval 9. Planning Commission Recommendation: Denial 10. Conditions or Issues Remaining to be Resolved: None 11. Ri ht-of-Wa Issues: None 12. Recommendation Forwarded With: A vote to recommend denial of the waivers of 11 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, and 0 abstentions 13. Objectors: Tom Alderson, Jackson Farrow, Bruce Thalheimer 14. Nei hborhood Contact Person/others: Joseph Bates, Robinwood Neighborhood 15. Neighborhood Plan: West Little Rock (3) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 31 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, PROVIDING FOR A WAIVER OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS WHICH PROHIBIT THE CREATION OF PIPESTEM LOTS AND REQUIRE PLATTING AND PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF ALL DIVISIONS OF A TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND FOR CAMP ADDITION (S-1008) BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That Chapter 31 of the Code of Ordinances be amended to provide for a waiver of certain requirements within the Subdivision Regulations of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, for CAMP ADDITION, as follows: Subsection a. That Section 31-232(g) of the Code of Ordinances, which prohibits pipestem lots in residential subdivisions, be waived, and permit the creation of a pipestem for access to CAMP ADDITION from Robinwood Drive. Subsection b. That Section 31-5(c)(1) of the Code of Ordinances, which requires all divisions of a tract or parcel of land for sale or development to be considered a subdivision and be subject to the subdivision Regulations be waived, and permit, without platting and Planning Commission approval, the twenty (20) foot by three hundred (300) foot portion of the pipestem which was divided from acreage without compliance with the Regulations. SECTION 3. That this ORDINANCE shall take effect thirty (30) days from and after its passage. PASSED: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: Mayor FILE No.: S-1098 NAME: CAMP ADDITION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: North of Robinwood Drive, north and east of the Hillandale Drive intersection DEVELOPER: MARCIA C. CAMP 75 Robinwood Dr. Little Rock, AR 72207 225-8619 AREA: 10.54 ACRES for Lot 1, plus 0.46 ACRES for Lot 2, plus 0.14 ACRES for the separate access easement ZONING: R-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: 3 CENSUS TRACT: 22.01 ENGINEER• JOE WHITE WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 401 S. Victory St. Little Rock, AR 72201 374-1666 NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 PROPO ED U ES: Single Family Residential VARIANCES REQUESTED: Waiver from the Subdivision Regulation which requires that every lot abut upon a public street. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a preliminary plat for the creation of a site on which to build a new home. The preliminary plat encompasses a 10.54 acre tract as Lot 1 and the re -plating of Lot 68 in Robinwood Subdivision as Lot 2 of the new subdivision. The 10.54 acre tract is landlocked, with no frontage on a public street and with no common property line with Lot 2. To provide access to the site, the applicant proposes to provide a private drive in a 20 foot wide by 450-foot long access easement across two properties. The applicant proposes: 1) to re -plat Lot 68, Robinwood Subdivision, on which her current residence is situated, and which has frontage on a public street, as Lot 2 of the new subdivision to separate off a 20 foot wide by the _ 150 foot depth -of -the -lot-for a portion bf the access -easement and 2) on property to the north which is contiguous to both her current residential lot and to her proposed building site, and in which the applicant also owns an interest, to separate off the remainder of the needed access easement, a 20 foot wide by 300 foot long, 0.14 acre, strip of land. This access easement is also proposed to be a utility easement for access of utilities to the building site. FILE NO.: S-1008 Coritinu d A. PROPOSAL/RE ❑EST: Approval by the Planning Commission is requested for a preliminary plat which entails creation of a two -lot subdivision with access to be provided to the newly created building site by way of a private drive in an access easement. The applicant proposes to construct a new home on a 10.54 acres tract, and proposes to provide the needed access by re -platting the lot on which her current residence is located, and which has frontage on a public street, and dedicating a portion of the needed easement across this lot; and, by designating the remainder of the needed access on abutting land in which the applicant has an undivided interest, but across which she has been granted an access easement. Utility access is also proposed to be gained by way of the easement. The applicant requests approval from the Board of Directors of a waiver of the Subdivision Regulations which restricts the creation of lots which do not have minimum frontage on a public street or, where expressly approved by the Planning Commission, a private street, and thus allow her to gain access to her lot by way of an access easement. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The proposed building site is undeveloped and heavily wooded. This site lies north of the Robinwood Subdivision and has no frontage on a public or private street. The applicant's current residence, Lot 68, Robinwood Subdivision, has 135 feet of frontage on Robinwood Drive. There is no common property line lying between Lot 68, Robinwood Subdivision and the 10.54 acre proposed building site. The current zoning of the tract is R-2, Single Family Residential. The surrounding properties are also zoned R-2. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY C MMENTS.. The City Engineering office has no comments. Water Works indicates that a water main extension and possibly a private fire hydrant will be required. At the minimum, a 3" water main extension will be required to be provided by the developer. If the Fire Department - - - a fire hydrant, then the water line extens ion -will be an 8" line. Wastewater Utility reports that a sewer main is located on the property; however, easements must be provided. The applicant needs to contact Wastewater Utility for details. 2 FILE NO.: S-1008 (Continued) Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require a 15 foot utility easement around the perimeter of the newly created lot, and notes that the easement at the rear of Lot 68, the applicant's current residential lot, is a 10 foot easement. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require an easement at the perimeter of the new lot. The Fire Department comments that a fire hydrant must be located on the 10.54 acre tract. A 20 foot wide all weather drive will be required, and sufficient turning radius will be required so that a fire truck can have access to the site. D. ISSUESJLEGAL/TECHNICALIDESIGN: Section 31-231 of the Subdivision Regulations requires: "Every lot shall abut upon a public street, except where private streets are explicitly approved the planning commission." (Section 31-207 of the Regulations explains: "Private streets... shall be discouraged. However, private streets may be approved —to serve isolated developments. The design standards shall conform to public street standards....") The applicant reports that, on the tract in which she has an interest and which abuts both her current and her proposed homesites, she has a deed for an access easement which connects the two sites. If the Commission approves the creation of the land -locked subdivision, and the Board of Directors approves the waiver of the Regulations, the applicant will need to furnish proof of the easement. A survey of the existing home site, Lot 68, will need to be provided in order to determine if proper access can be gained by way of the proposed access easement. With the Fire Department requiring a 20 foot drive and the proposed access easement being 20-feet wide, an adjustment in the width of the proposed easement may be made necessary. The information required to be furnished with the submission of a preliminary plat needs to be completed; e.g., the - - physical --description of -all --monuments is -'to be furriisIie3xrA' "`r" the proposed PAGIS monuments are to be shown; the Surveying and Engineering Certifications are to be executed; a preliminary Bill of Assurance is to be submitted; etc. K FILE NO.: S--1008 Continued E. ANALYSIS: The deficiencies in information required to be furnished with the submission of a preliminary plat are minimal, and can be easily remedied. The problem with the submission is the question of access. The Subdivision Regulations clearly prohibit the creation of subdivisions and lots which do not have proper access. Access is defined as have minimum frontage on a street, and the street which is provided is to meet the requirements of the Regulations. A private drive crossing two other tracts in an access easement is far removed from the standard which is provided in the Regulations. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the request to create the landlocked lot and denial of the request for the waiver from the Subdivision Regulations. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) Staff presented the proposal. Mr. Joe White, the engineer for the project and Mrs. Marcia Camp, the applicant, were present. The discussion outline was reviewed with the applicant and her engineer. The discussion centered around the fact that the proposed lot has no frontage on a street, and that access is proposed to be provided by way of an access easement. The applicant explained that she owns Lot 68 which fronts on Robinwood Drive, and will re -plat that lot to dedicate a portion of the needed access easement; and, that she holds an undivided interest in the property to the north of Lot 68 which also abuts her proposed building site, and that she has a deed for an access easement crossing that site to provide the remainder of the needed access. Staff indicated that, in lieu of the access easement, a "pipestem" lot might provide a better alternative. The lot would then have frontage on a street. Creation of a pipestem lot would necessitate a waiver from the Subdivision Regulations, since pipestem lots are also prohibited. Since the property to the north of the applicant's current residence and in which she has an undivided interest would also have to be subdivided to extract a portion of the pipestem, either the owners of that property would have to undertake subdivision of that property or a waiver from the Subdivision Regulations from that requirement would also have to be pursued. Staff indicated Y= that staff could not support creation of the subdivision-asit currently proposed. Mrs. Camp then related that she does, indeed, have title to the portion of the land which is designated to be an access easement, so creation of a pipestem lot could be undertaken. Staff responded that such a sale whereby the 20 foot by 300 foot parcel is sold off of the larger tract constitutes a subdivision and would be an illegal subdivision of the land. 4 FILE NO_: S-1008 (Continued) Mr. White indicated that he would review the deed and make changes in the design to delineate a pipestem lot, and he would provide the additional information noted in the discussion outline. The Committee forwarded the item to the Commission for review. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) Staff presented the request and indicated that the recommendation from staff was for denial. Staff explained that the tract is land -locked, and that access is proposed by way of access easements across two other properties; that the access easements are proposed to be 20 feet in width; that the fire department has commented that there will be a requirement for a 20 foot wide drive for proper fire department equipment access; and, that, staff continued, a 20 foot drive in a 20 foot easement provided inadequate space for a shoulder. Marcia Camp, the applicant, related that she had been told by the Neighborhoods and Planning staff that pipe stem lots formed with easements are often used to provide access to land locked lots, for instance in the Heights, to access property which are nice lots, but do not have frontage on a street. Therefore, she continued, she bought the land -locked parcel behind her home. She explained that the pipe -stem would be formed, in part, from land in which she has a one-fourth interest, and, in part , from land which she owns; therefore, she commented, it is quite simple to get access to the site. She said that she had gone through all the steps necessary to provide the access easement. Chairperson Chachere asked the applicant if she would like a deferral to allow her to do further investigation on the remaining questions and problems mentioned by staff. Mrs. Camp responded that she would ask for a deferral. Joe White, representing the project engineer, interjected that pipe -stem lots are routinely used to provide access to otherwise land -locked lots; however, he agreed that a deferral would be appropriate. A motion was made and seconded to defer the hearing on the matter until the May 3, 1994 Commission meeting. The motion passed with the vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent, and 0 abstentions. HDIVIg1QN COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 14, 1994) Mr. Joe White was present, and confirmed that the application had been changed: in lieu of a landlocked lot with access by way of an easement, the plat would be a 2 lot plat with a pipestem 5 FILE NO.: S-1008 (Continued) providing frontage of one of the lots on Robinwood Drive, and the second lot being a replat of the existing Lot 68 of Robinwood Addition. The pipestem would be created from a 20 foot wide portion of Lot 68, plus the 20 foot wide by 300 foot long tract at the rear of Lot 68. Mr. White confirmed that the applicant had been deeded the tract for the pipestem. Mr. White also informed the Committee that the fire department had relented on its requirement for a 20 foot wide drive, and would agree to the 12 foot wide drive in the 20 foot wide pipestem. Staff pointed out that the sale of the 20 foot wide by 300 foot long tract constituted an illegal subdivision of the tract in which the applicant owns a one-fourth interest. Either the tract from which it had been divided must be legally subdivided, or the Board of Directors will have to waive the Subdivision Regulations for the action. This waiver would be in addition to the waiver made necessary by the formation of a pipestem lot. The originally requested waiver for permission to create a land- locked tract is made moot, since the site would have frontage on Robinwood Drive via the pipestem. The Committee reviewed with Mr. White the comments contained in the discussion outline, and Mr. White responded that there were no questions regarding any of the comments. The Committee forwarded the item to the Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 3, 1994) Staff presented tine item. The applicant, Mrs. Marcia Camp, was present. Mrs. Camp presented an overview of her request, and confirmed that she has 100% ownership in the land which will comprise the pipestem portion of her proposed lot. She explained that she has a quitclaim deed for the portion of the pipestem which is from the property to the rear of her current home and in which she holds a one-fourth undivided interest. Commissioner Putnam asked Deputy City Attorney Steve Giles for a definition of a pipestem lot. Mr. Giles related that a pipestem lot is one that is landlocked; and added that pipestem lots are prohibited by the Subdivision Ordinance. Staff related that requests for approval of pipestem lots are taken several times per year, and these requests must be granted -- by the Board of Directors. Staff pointed out"'that-Mrs . C- amp,"`in saying that she had been deeded the land for a portion of the pipestem from land to the rear of her current home and in which she has an undivided interest, was reporting a subdivision of that land without approval by the Planning Commission, and it would be assumed that the subdivision is illegal. To create that C FILE NO.: S-1008 (Continued) portion of the pipestem, then, not only does the pipestem itself have to be approved as a waiver from the Ordinance by the Board of Directors, but, also, the subdivision of the tract must be approved as a wavier from the requirement to properly subdivide the tract. Commissioner Nicholson asked whether access must be provided to a landlocked tract, and asked if, indeed, the tract is landlocked or whether there are other possible access routs. Deputy City Attorney Giles reiterated that a landlocked lot is one that has no access, not one that does not have convenient access. He stated that this lot has other potential access points by way of street stub -outs from other directions. Mr. Bruce Thalheimer, the next door neighbor who abuts Mrs. Camp s property to the east, presented photographs of the area where the drive is proposed to go. He indicated that he was concerned about the retaining wall along his west property line which could be affected by construction of the drive. He stated that the creation of the pipestem was not appropriate for the neighborhood; that there are no such drives like this one in the neighborhood. He made the point that the proposal is in violation of the Robinwood Bill of Assurance. He complained that the proposed pipestem is too long; that it creates more of a real street than just a driveway. He said that he objects because the drive is right next to and will lie adjacent to his property and his retaining wall. He expressed concern about the ability of fire fighting equipment to have ready access, by way of the narrow and long drive, if a fire were to occur in the area behind his home which will be deep in the woods. Commissioner Oleson asked staff for information on the typical length of a pipestem. Staff replied that the length varies; that there is no standard or typical length. Only recently, however, a pipestem lot was approved by the Commission and Board for a plat on Nash Lane. Commissioner Nicholson asked about the location of other access points to the tract. Staff indicated that access could be provided from the northeast or Foxcroft. Commissioner Oleson asked if streets had been platted to the ---- ___ --- - north -of --the- existing Robinwood -Subdivision. Staff responded responded that there were no street which had been platted. In the Robinwood Subdivision plat, street stub -outs had been extended to the subdivision boundary for future development, but the area to the north is "left -over" land which has never been platted. 7 FILE NO.: S-1008 (Continued) Mr. Jackson Farrow related his objections to the proposal. He stated that the Planning Commission is charged with promoting long-term planning, and concluded that approval of the request would do nothing to further this charge; that the proposed pipestem is not good planning. He urged the Commission to either not approve the plat, or to recommend that the Board of Directors not approve the waivers. Mr. Tom Alderson asked those in attendance who were in opposition to the request to raise their hands. (A number of persons in the audience raised their hands.) He stated his and their objection to the proposal. Commissioner Putnam said that if the Commission approved the request, it would be approving an illegal subdivision. Deputy City Attorney Giles replied that the Commission would be approving a subdivision, which, once the Board approved the waiver, would legitimize what staff has interpreted as an illegal subdivision. Commissioner Putnam asked if it would be better for the waivers to be approved by the Board of Directors first, the for the request for approval of the subdivision to be heard by the Commission. Mrs. Camp explained that there is 36 feet of lawn between her home and her east property line. Beyond that, there is 6 feet from her east property line over to Mr. Thalheimer's driveway. There is, she continued, then, plenty of room for the proposed driveway, and the proposed drive is not out of character with other driveways in the subdivision; some, in fact, abut each other. He went on to say that the Robinwood Bill of Assurance required that it be extended by a vote of the Robinwood property owners every twenty years, and, since this was never done, the Bill of Assurance expired in 1979. Mrs. Camp explained that she, as well as most other residents of Robinwood, do not want streets built into the undeveloped area to the north; that her one house on a 10 acre tract, with access by way of a driveway, would be far superior to having a street extend northward from the stubout and run the length of the subdivision boundary. Commissioner McDaniel returned to the discussion of the assumed illegal subdivision, and asked if the Commission should support the proposal which involved an illegal subdivision of the land. - He added, though, that he does not--support-those-who want -- abutting property owners to provide a park -like setting for them, and that he does not support "holding hostage" people with landlocked property when the only access is by way of a pipestem. Commissioner Putnam, returning to his earlier suggestion, asked if the Commission should defer the item until the Board of Directors heard and approved the waivers. 8 FILE NO.: S-1008 (Continued) Mr. Giles stated that the Commission should not disapprove a plat simply because it is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood; that if a plat meets the technical requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, the Commission must approve it. As far as the waivers are concerned, he said, the Commission can approve the plat with the condition that the Board of Directors must approve the waivers. He said, though, that it is not a good precedent to be approving access by way of pipestems when good planning would call for proper streets and the proper subdivision of the land. Commissioner Willis asked if a street could be extended to Mrs. Camp's tract, and, if so, how far would such a street have to extend. Mrs. Camp replied that there was a street stub -out a couple of blocks to the west, but that she doubted that the property owners between that stub -out and her property would be amenable to providing right-of-way for a street. He reiterated, though, that she and the neighbors do not want a street along their back property lines. Instead, she said, it would be far less intrusive for her to build a driveway and build one home on the 10 acres than to build a street and provide multiple building sites along it. Commissioner Nicholson suggested that the Commission approve the proposed plat, but that the Commission recommend to the Board that the waivers be denied. Commissioner Walker explained that, without the pipestem, the proposed plat does not have proper access; therefore, it is deficient in meeting the technical requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. The Commission, he said, is not bound to approve such a plat. He stated that the requested plat is a distortion of the pipestem provision in the Ordinance, and indicated that he is opposed to the plat and the waivers. He said, however, that the motion should perhaps be, as Commissioner Nicholson had suggested, for approval of the plat, contingent on the Board's approval of the waivers, but with a recommendation from the Commission that the waivers be denied. Chairperson Chachere asked Mr. Walker if that was his motion. He plied that it was, and the motion was approved with the vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, and 0 abstentions. 9 May 3, 19941 ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: S--1008 NAME: CAMP ADDITION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: North of Robinwood Drive, north and east of the Hillandale Drive intersection DEVELOPER: MARCIA C. CAMP 75 Robinwood Dr. Little Rock, AR 72207 225-8619 AREA: 10.54 ACRES for Lot 1, plus 0.46 ACRES for Lot 2, plus 0.14 ACRES for the separate access easement ZONING• R-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: 3 CENSUS TRACT: 22.01 ENGINEER: JOE WHITE WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 401 S. Victory St. Little Rock, AR 72201 374-1666 NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 PROPOSED USES: Single Family Residential VARIANCES REQUESTED: Waiver from the Subdivision Regulation which requires that every lot abut upon a public street. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a preliminary plat for the creation of a site on which to build a new home. The preliminary plat encompasses a 10.54 acre tract as Lot 1 and the re -plating of Lot 68 in Robinwood Subdivision as Lot 2 of the new subdivision. The 10.54 acre tract is landlocked, with no frontage on a public street and with no common property line with Lot 2. To provide access to the site, the applicant proposes to provide a private drive in a 20 foot wide by 450 foot long access easement across two properties. The applicant proposes: 1) to re -plat Lot 68, Robinwood Subdivision, on which her current residence is situated, and which has frontage on a public street, as Lot 2 of the new subdivision to separate off a 20 foot wide by the 150 foot depth of the lot for a portion of the access easement; and 2) on property to the north which is contiguous to both her current residential lot and to her proposed building site, and_in which the applicant also owns an interest, to separate off the remainder of the needed access easement, a 20 foot wide by 300 May 3, 11994, SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B Continued FILE S-1008 foot long, 0.14 acre, strip of land. This access easement is also proposed to be a utility easement for access of utilities to the building site. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval by the Planning Commission is requested for a preliminary plat which entails creation of a two -lot subdivision with access to be provided to the newly created building site by way of a private drive in an access easement. The applicant proposes to construct a new home on a 10.54 acres tract, and proposes to provide the needed access by re -platting the lot on which her current residence is located, and which has frontage on a public street, and dedicating a portion of the needed easement across this lot; and, by designating the remainder of the needed access on abutting land in which the applicant has an undivided interest, but across which she has been granted an access easement. Utility access is also proposed to be gained by way of the easement. The applicant requests approval from the Board of Directors of a waiver of the Subdivision Regulations which restricts the creation of lots which do not have minimum frontage on a public street or, where expressly approved by the Planning Commission, a private street, and thus allow her to gain access to her lot by way of an access easement. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The proposed building site is undeveloped and heavily wooded. This site lies north of the Robinwood Subdivision and has no frontage on a public or private street. The applicant's current residence, Lot 68, Robinwood Subdivision, has 135 feet of frontage on Robinwood Drive. There is no common property line lying between Lot 68, Robinwood Subdivision and the 10.54 acre proposed building site. The current zoning of the tract is R-2, Single Family Residential. The surrounding properties are also zoned R-2. C. ENGINEERINGIUTILITY COMMENTS: The City Engineering office has no comments. Water Works indicates that a water main extension and possibly a private fire hydrant will be required. At the minimum, a 3" water main extension will be required to be provided by the developer. If the Fire Department requires a fire hydrant, then the water line extension will have to be an 8" line. 2 May 3, `1994 ' SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1008 Wastewater Utility reports that a sewer main is located on the property; however, easements must be provided. The applicant needs to contact Wastewater Utility for details. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require a 15 foot utility easement around the perimeter of the newly created lot, and notes that the easement at the rear of Lot 68, the applicant's current residential lot, is a 10 foot easement. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require an easement at the perimeter of the new lot. The Fire Department comments that a fire hydrant must be located on the 10.54 acre tract. A 20 foot wide all weather drive will be required, and sufficient turning radius will be required so that a fire truck can have access to the site. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Section 31-231 of the Subdivision Regulations requires: "Every lot shall abut upon a public street, except where private streets are explicitly approved the -planning commission." (Section 31-207 of the Regulations explains: "Private streets... shall be discouraged. However, private streets may be approved ... to serve isolated developments. The design standards shall conform to public street standards....") The applicant reports that, on the tract in which she has an interest and which abuts both her current and her proposed homesites, she has a deed for an access easement which connects the two sites. If the Commission approves the creation of the land -locked subdivision, and the Board of Directors approves the waiver of the Regulations, the applicant will need to furnish proof of the easement. A survey of the existing home site, Lot 68, will need to be provided in order to determine if proper access can be gained by way of the proposed access easement. With the Fire Department requiring a 20 foot drive and the proposed access easement being 20 feet wide, an adjustment in the width of the proposed easement may be made necessary. The information required to be furnished with the submission of a preliminary plat needs to be completed; e.g., the. physical description of all monuments is to be furnished; 3 May 3, -19 9 4 , SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Continued) FILE NO.: _gi-1008 the proposed PAGIS monuments are to be shown; the Surveying and Engineering Certifications are to be executed; a preliminary Bill of Assurance is to be submitted; etc. E. ANALYSIS• The deficiencies in information required to be furnished with the submission of a preliminary plat are minimal, and can be easily remedied. The problem with the submission is the question of access. The Subdivision Regulations clearly prohibit the creation of subdivisions and lots which do not have proper access. Access is defined as have minimum frontage on a street, and the street which is provided is to meet the requirements of the Regulations. A private drive crossing two other tracts in an access easement is far removed from the standard which is provided in the Regulations. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the request to create the landlocked lot and denial of the request for the waiver from the Subdivision Regulations. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) Staff presented the proposal. Mr. Joe White, the engineer for the project and Mrs. Marcia Camp, the applicant, were present. The discussion outline was reviewed with the applicant and her engineer. The discussion centered around the fact that the proposed lot has no frontage on a street, and that access is proposed to be provided by way of an access easement. The applicant explained that she owns Lot 68 which fronts on Robinwood Drive, and will re -plat that lot to dedicate a portion of the needed access easement; and, that she holds an undivided interest in the property to the north of Lot 68 which also abuts her proposed building site, and that she has a deed for an access easement crossing that site to provide the remainder of the needed access. Staff indicated that, in lieu of the access easement, a "pipestem" lot might provide a better alternative. The lot would then have frontage on a street. Creation of a pipestem lot would necessitate a waiver from the Subdivision Regulations, since pipestem lots are also prohibited. Since the property to the north of the applicant's current residence and in which she has an undivided interest would also have to be subdivided to extract a portion of the pipestem, either the owners of that property would have to undertake subdivision of that property or a waiver from the Subdivision Regulations from that requirement would also have to be pursued. Staff indicated 4 May 3, 1994, SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: H (Continued) FI_LE NO.: S-1008 that staff could not support creation of the subdivision as it is currently proposed. Mrs. Camp then related that she does, indeed, have title to the portion of the land which is designated to be an access easement, so creation of a pipestem lot could be undertaken. Staff responded that such a sale whereby the 20 foot by 300 foot parcel is sold off of the larger tract constitutes a subdivision and would be an illegal subdivision of the land. Mr. white indicated that he would review the deed and make changes in the design to delineate a pipestem lot, and he would provide the additional information noted in the discussion outline. The Committee forwarded the item to the Commission for review. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) Staff presented the request and indicated that the recommendation from staff was for denial. Staff explained that'the tract is land -locked, and that access is proposed by way of access easements across two other properties; that the access easements are proposed to be 20 feet in width; that the fire department has commented that there will be a requirement for a 20 foot wide drive for proper fire department equipment access; and, that, staff continued, a 20 foot drive in a 20 foot easement provided inadequate space for a shoulder. Marcia Camp, the applicant, related that she had been told by the Neighborhoods and Planning staff that pipe stem lots formed with easements are often used to provide access to land locked lots, for instance in the Heights, to access property which are nice lots, but do not have frontage on a street. Therefore, she continued, she bought the land -locked parcel behind her home. She explained that the pipe -stem would be formed, in part, from land in which she has a one-fourth interest, and, in part , from land which she owns; therefore, she commented, it is quite simple to get access to the site. She said that she had gone through all the steps necessary to provide the access easement. Chairperson Chachere asked the applicant if she would like a deferral to allow her to do further investigation on the remaining questions and problems mentioned by staff. Mrs. Camp responded that she would ask for a deferral. Joe white, representing the project pipe -stem lots are routinely used to land -locked lots; however, he agreed appropriate. engineer, interjected that provide access to otherwise that a deferral would be 5 May 3, '1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: H Continued FILE N 5-100 A motion was made and seconded to defer the hearing on the matter until the May 3, 1994 Commission meeting. The motion passed with the vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent, and 0 abstentions. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 14, 1994) Mr. Joe white was present, and confirmed that the application had been changed: in lieu of a landlocked lot with access by way of an easement, the plat would be a 2 lot plat with a pipestem providing frontage of one of the lots on Robinwood Drive, and the second lot being a replat of the existing Lot 68 of Robinwood Addition. The pipestem would be created from a 20 foot wide portion of Lot 68, plus the 20 foot wide by 300 foot long tract at the rear of Lot 68. Mr. white confirmed that the applicant had been deeded the tract for the pipestem. Mr. White also informed the Committee that the fire department had relented on its requirement for a 20 foot wide drive, and would agree to the 12 foot wide drive in the 20 foot wide pipestem. Staff pointed out that the sale of the 20 foot wide by 300 foot long tract constituted an illegal subdivision of the tract in which the applicant owns a one-fourth interest. Either the tract from which it had been divided must be legally subdivided, or the Board of Directors will have to waive the Subdivision Regulations for the'action. This waiver would be in addit�ori to the waiver made necessary by the formation of a pipestem lot. The originally requested waiver for permission to create a land- locked tract is made moot, since the site would have frontage on Robinwood Drive via the pipestem. The Committee reviewed with Mr. White the comments contained in the discussion outline, and Mr. white responded that there were no questions regarding any of the comments. The Committee forwarded the item to the Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 3, 1994) Staff presented the item. The applicant, Mrs. Marcia Camp, was present. Mrs. Camp presented an overview of her request, and confirmed that she has 100% ownership in the land which will comprise the pipestem portion of her proposed lot. She explained that she has a quitclaim deed for the portion of the pipestem which is from the property to the rear of her current home and in which she holds a one-fourth undivided interest. 6 May 3, 1994 ' SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Continued) FILE NO.: 5--1008 Commissioner Putnam asked Deputy City Attorney Steve Giles for a definition of a pipestem lot. Mr. Giles related that a pipestem lot is one that is landlocked, and added that pipestem lots are prohibited by the Subdivision Ordinance. Staff related that requests for approval of pipestem lots are taken several times per year, and these requests must be granted by the Board of Directors. Staff pointed out that Mrs. Camp, in saying that she had been deeded the land for a portion of the pipestem from land to the rear of her current home and in which she has an undivided interest, was reporting a subdivision of that land without approval by the Planning Commission, and it would be assumed that the subdivision is illegal. To create that portion of the pipestem, then, not only does the pipestem itself have to be approved as a waiver from the Ordinance by the Board of Directors, but, also, the subdivision of the tract must be approved as a wavier from the requirement to properly subdivide the tract. Commissioner Nicholson asked whether access must be provided to a landlocked tract, and asked if, indeed, the tract is landlocked or whether there are other possible access routs. Deputy City Attorney Giles reiterated that a landlocked lot is one that has no access, not one that does not have convenient access.' He stated that this lot has other potential access points by way of street stub -outs from other directions. Mr. Bruce Thalheimer, the next door neighbor who abuts Mrs. Camp s property to the east, presented photographs of the area where the drive is proposed to go. He indicated that he was concerned about the retaining wall along his west property line which could be affected by construction of the drive. He stated that the creation of the pipestem was not appropriate for the neighborhood; that there are no such drives like this one in the neighborhood. He made the point that the proposal is in violation of the Robinwood Bill of Assurance. He complained that the proposed pipestem is too long; that it creates more of a real street than just a driveway. He said that he objects because the drive is right next to and will lie adjacent to his property and his retaining wall. He expressed concern about the ability of fire fighting equipment to have ready access, by way of the narrow and long drive, if a fire were to occur in the area behind his home which will be deep in the woods. Commissioner Oleson asked staff for information on the typical length of a pipestem. Staff replied that the length varies; that there is no standard_ or typical length. Only recently, however, a pipestem lot was approved by the Commission and Board for a plat on Nash Lane. 7 May 3, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: E (Continued) FILE NO.: 5-1008 Commissioner Nicholson asked about the location of other access points to the tract. Staff indicated that access could be provided from the northeast or Foxcroft. Commissioner Oleson asked if streets had been platted to the north of the existing Robinwood Subdivision. Staff responded that there were no street which had been platted. In the Robinwood Subdivision plat, street stub -outs had been extended to the subdivision boundary for future development, but the area to the north is "left -over" land which has never been platted. Mr. Jackson Farrow related his objections to the proposal. He stated that the Planning Commission is charged with promoting long-term planning, and concluded that approval of the request would do nothing to further this charge; that the proposed pipestem is not good planning. He urged the Commission to either not approve the plat, or to recommend that the Board of Directors not approve the waivers. Mr. Tom Alderson asked those in attendance who were in opposition to the request to raise their hands. (A number of persons in the audience raised their hands.) He stated his and -their objection to the proposal. _- Commissioner Putnam said that if the Commission approved the request, it would be approving an illegal subdivision. Deputy City Attorney Giles replied that the Commission would be approving a subdivision, which, once the Board approved the waiver, would legitimize what staff has interpreted as an illegal subdivision. Commissioner Putnam asked if it would be better for the waivers to be approved by the Board of Directors first, the for the request for approval of the subdivision to be heard by the Commission. Mrs. Camp explained that there is 36 feet of lawn between her home and her east property line. Beyond that, there is 6 feet from her east property line over to Mr. Thalheimer's driveway. There is, she continued, then, plenty of room for the proposed driveway, and the proposed drive is not out of character with other driveways in the subdivision; some, in fact, abut each other. He went on to say that the Robinwood Bill of Assurance required that it be extended by a vote of the Robinwood property 8 May 3,,1994, SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.:_ B (Continued) _ FILE NO.: S-1008 owners every twenty years, and, since this was never done, the Bill of Assurance expired in 1979. Mrs. Camp explained that she, as well as most other residents of Robinwood, do not want streets built into the undeveloped area to the north; that her one house on a 10 acre tract, with access by way of a driveway, would be far superior to having a street extend northward from the stubout and run the length of the subdivision boundary. Commissioner McDaniel returned to the discussion of the assumed illegal subdivision, and asked if the Commission should support the proposal which involved an illegal subdivision of the land. He added, though, that he does not support those who want abutting property owners to provide a park -like setting for them, and that he does not support "holding hostage" people with landlocked property when the only access is by way of a pipestem. Commissioner Putnam, returning to his earlier suggestion, asked if the Commission should defer the item until the Board of Directors heard and approved the waivers. Mr. Giles stated that the Commission should not disapprove a plat simply because it is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood; that if a plat meets the technical requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, the Commission must approve it. As far as the waivers are concerned, he said, the Commission can approve the plat with the condition that the Board of Directors must approve the waivers. He said, though, that -it is not a good precedent to be approving access by way of pipbstems when good planning would call for proper streets and the proper subdivision of the land. Commissioner Willis asked if a street could be extended to Mrs. Camp's tract, and, if so, how far would such a street have to extend. Mrs. Camp replied that there was a street stub -out a couple of blocks to the west, but that she doubted that the property owners between that stub -out and her property would be amenable to providing right-of-way for a street. He reiterated, though, that she and the neighbors do not want a street along their back property lines. Instead, she said, it would be far less intrusive for her to build a driveway and build one home on the 10 acres than to build a street and provide multiple building sites along it. Commissioner Nicholson suggested that proposed plat, but that the Commission that the waivers be denied. the Commission approve the recommend to the Board 9 May 3, '1994 ITEM NO.. B (Continued) FILE NO.: S-1008 Commissioner Walker explained that, without the pipestem, the proposed plat does not have proper access; therefore, it is deficient in meeting the technical requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. The Commission, he said, is not bound to approve such a plat. He stated that the requested plat is a distortion of the pipestem provision in the Ordinance, and indicated that he is opposed to the plat and the waivers. He said, however, that the motion should perhaps be, as Commissioner Nicholson had suggested, for approval of the plat, contingent on the Board's approval of the waivers, but with a recommendation from the Commission that the waivers be denied. Chairperson Chachere asked Mr. Walker if that was his motion. He plied that it was, and the motion was approved with the vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, and 0 abstentions. 10