HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-1046 Staff AnalysisJanuary 10, 1995
ITEM NO.: 14 FILE NO.: S--1046
NAME: CARISTIANOS' PRIDE VALLEY DEVELOPMENT -- SUBDIVISION
ORDINANCE WAIVER
LOCATION: On the north side of Pride Valley Road, approximately
1 mile west of Kanis Road, outside the City Limits.
DEVELOPER:
ROLLIN CARISTIANOS
Rector Phillips Morse
800 Prospect Bldg.
1500 N. University Ave.
Little Rock, AR 72207
AREA: 40 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 7
ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES:
PLANNING DISTRICT: 18
CENSUS TRACT: 42.06
FT. NEW STREET: 1400
Single -Family Residential
VARIANCES RE UESTED: Waiver of jurisdiction and application of
the Subdivision Regulations for the proposed subdivision.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to subdivide a 40-acre tract into 7 lots
which range in size from 5.08 acres to 5.90 acres. Access is
proposed to be provided to the three interior lots by way of a 24
foot wide, open ditch roadway in a 50 foot wide right-of-way,
extending 1,400 feet into the acreage, with the road dedicated to
the public. The remaining 4 lots have frontage on Pride Valley
Road.
The applicant initially planned to construct the roadway as a
private drive in an access easement. A buyer of one of the
interior lots, however, placed the condition on the purchase that
the roadway be maintained by the County. The developer, then,
contacted the Pulaski County planning office, received the
specifications for constructing an open ditch residential roadway
meeting County standards, took bids for the work, and began
construction. The County planning office subsequently realized
that the area is within the City's planning area, and contacted
City staff. Staff contacted the developer and informed him that
the subdivision is subject to the City's Subdivision Regulations,
and that the proposed development would have to be approved by
the Planning Commission, with the street having to meet City
Master Street Plan requirements. The City's Master Street Plan
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 Cont. FILE NO.: 5-1046
requirements are more stringent than the County's, and the
developer is faced with either having to construct a more
expensive street than was planned and budgeted, or forego a sale
and revert to the original plan for a private drive in an access
easement.
The County's "Typical Hot Mix Road Section" provides for a 24
foot driving surface, with 2" of hot mix asphalt on a 6" gravel
base and 4 foot gravel shoulders. The road is, according to
County standards, to be in a 50 foot wide right-of-way, with 9
feet along each side of the street for the side ditches. The
City's residential street requirements for a "minor residential
street", on the other hand, are for a 24 foot street section with
curb and gutter in a minimum 45 foot right-of-way.
Alternatively, the City Engineering office has proposed a
residential street with open side ditches; however, the City's
open ditch roadway is to have 6 foot paved shoulders (as opposed
to gravel shoulders according to the County specification), with
the width of side ditches to vary according to the topography and
drainage requirements, and the right-of-way being a minimum of 60
feet, depending on the side ditch requirements. The developer
maintains that the difference in costs between the County and
City specifications is significant, and that the budget for the
development does not provide for these extra expenses.
A. PROPOSAW REQUEST:
The developer requests a waiver of the Subdivision
Regulations for the jurisdiction and application of the
City's Subdivision Regulations for the development.
H. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The area is outside the City Limits, but is within the
City's planning jurisdiction. The area is sparsely
developed with single-family residences, and there is a
mobile home park on the south side of Pride Valley Road,
immediately across from the proposed development. The
topography is rolling, and there are scattered trees in the
area.
The existing zoning is R-2.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Public Works comments that, for the proposed street to be
dedicated to the public, it must meet Master Street Plan
standards, and the Master Street Plan will require a minimum
24 foot wide curb and gutter street section in a minimum 45
foot right-of-way. Alternatively, a proposed change in the
Master Street Plan provides for an open ditch street. The
open ditch section specifies a 24 foot paved driving
2
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 Cont. FILE N 5-1046
surface, with 6 foot paved shoulders. Additionally, the
section specifies side ditches which are to be a minimum of
6 feet, and this width varies according to the required
depth of the ditch. The minimum right-of-way for the open
ditch roadway is 60 feet, but this width is dependent on the
required width of the ditches. The width of the ditch is a
function of the depth, with the requirement being that the
width of the ditch is to be 6 feet multiplied by the
required depth. (If the ditch must be 1 foot deep, the
width of the ditch would be 6 feet; if the ditch must be 2
feet deep, it must be 12 feet wide.)
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Section 31-5(b) of the Subdivision Regulations states that:
"This Chapter shall be applicable to all lands within the
City and its planning jurisdiction...."
Section 31-5(2) states: "The dedication... of any
street... through any tract of land... shall be considered a
subdivision and subject to this chapter."
A subdivision is defined, in Section 31-2, as "all divisions
of a tract ... into one (1) or more lots, building sites, or
other division..., and shall include all divisions of land
involving the need for new access (or) a new street;
provided, however, that the following shall not be included
within this definition, nor be subject to the subdivision
rules and regulations...: The division of land into parcels
greater than five (5) acres, provided each newly created lot
or parcel has minimum lot frontage on legal and physical
access."
E. ANALYSIS•
According to the definition of a subdivision, development
would not be subject to the City's Subdivision Regulations
if the proposed lots are 5 acres or greater, and the lots
have the required frontage on "legal and physical access".
The proposed development has 7 lots with in excess of 5
acres for each lot, and legal and physical access to the
lots was to have been by way of an access easement.
Therefore, if the access remains, as was originally proposed
by the developer, a private drive in an access easement, the
development is not subject to the City's regulations.
In order to dedicate the right-of-way through the tract, the
development falls within the jurisdiction and control of the
City's Subdivision Regulations, and the plat must be
approved by the Planning Commission, with the road
construction being required to meet City standards.
K
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1046
The options, then, are:
1) Seek Planning Commission approval of the plat and
construct the road to the City's standards; or,
2) Return to the original plan of a private drive in an
access easement, and abandon the effort to dedicate the
right-of-way to the public; or,
3) Seek a waiver from the Board of Directors of the
Ordinance requirement which extends jurisdiction and
application of the Subdivision Regulations to this
development, and permit the dedication of the right-of-
way to the public and the construction of the street to
County standards.
If the latter option is permitted, for the time being, until
the area is annexed to the City, the maintenance of the
street would be the responsibility of the County. Upon
annexation, the City would inherit a street which is not in
conformance with the City's standards. Public Works notes
that, with open ditches, abutting property owners expect the
City to keep them mowed and cleaned, and the Public Works
Department discourages open ditch streets. At the very
least, if an open ditch street is approved, the Bill of
Assurance needs to specify that the abutting property owners
are to maintain the ditch.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Public Works staff recommends denial of the requested
wavier.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (DECEMBER 22, 1994)
Mr. Rollin Caristianos, the developer, was present. He presented
his proposal to the Committee members, and asked that the
requested wavier be added to the Planning Commission agenda of
January 10, 1995. The Committee members instructed staff to add
the item to the agenda.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION (JANUARY 10, 1995)
Mr. Rollin Caristianos, the applicant, was present.
Staff outlined the proposal, and indicated that the Public Works
Department recommended that the request be denied.
4
January 10, 1995
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 14 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1046
Mr. Caristianos explained that the developer had anticipated
constructing a private drive to serve the interior tracts, but
that an offer had been received on a tract which stipulated that
the drive be a public street. He stated that the developers had
gotten bids for upgrading the drive to County road standards, and
were willing to spend that much money. However, to upgrade the
road to a City street standard would require extensive re-
construction of the already existing base material and additional
sub -grade work, wider pavement, curbs and gutters, engineering
work for storm drainage calculations, etc., and, that the costs
of these would not be able to be absorbed in the development. He
indicated that there are at least three (3) other developments
like the one which he is representing within a mile to the west
of the development with similar County standard roads.
Staff pointed out that Public Works had noted in its comments
that, if the requested waiver were approved, that the maintenance
of the road ditches needs to be made the responsibility of the
developer or abutting property owners; that the City does not
want to have the responsibility of maintenance of the road
ditches once the area is annexed.
David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, explained that, if
the road is to be built to City standard, there would need to be
engineering data furnished to substantiate the size of the under -
road culverts which have been installed, as well as the noted
upgrading of the gravel base and road width. He said that the
City is trying to eliminate open road ditch street sections, and
opposes the approval of one for the applicant's development. He
said that maintenance of the ditches is a problem, and noted that
when the ditch section is beyond the right-of-way width, on
private property, then maintenance is complicated.
The question was called, and the item failed with the vote of
3 ayes, 7 nays, 0 absent, and 1 abstention.
5