Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-1049 Staff AnalysisFebruary 21, 1995 ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: S-1049 NAME: REPLAT OF PARCEL "B" OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF ROBINWOOD -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: Beyond the south end of Foxcroft Rd., lying between the existing Foxcroft and Robinwood Subdivisions. DEVELOPER: Robert Hardy and John A. Davis, III #5 Collins Industrial Place Maumelle, AR 72113 758-5553 AREA: 6.5508 ACRES ZONING• R-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: 3 CENSUS TRACT: 22.01 ENGINEER• James L. Phillips BLAYLOCK, TREET, PHILLIPS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 1501 Market Dr. Little Rock, AR 72211 224-3922 NUMBER OF LOTS: 6 FT. NEW STREET: 650 PRQPOSED USES: Single -Family Residential VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes the replat of a 6.5508 acre tract, designated as Parcel "B" in the Robinwood subdivision, in order to develop six single-family residential home sites. Additionally, there are two sites designated as "tracts" which are to be set aside as not developable. The building sites are to range in size from just over .05 acre to nearly 1.25 acres, with the average size being approximately 0.80 acres. The two tracts are 0.33 acre and 0.47 acre. The alignment of the present southern end of Foxcroft Rd., at the northeast corner of the plat, controls the alignment of the Foxcroft Rd. extension into the property, and, along with the steep grades of the property, limit the location and number of buildable lots. The two unbuilable tracts, notes the applicant, are the result of these limitations, and they are proposed be sold to abutting property owners. The applicant proposes: a) to construct a 4 foot wide sidewalk abutting the back of the curb, in lieu of the required 5 foot wide sidewalk in such locations; 2) to provide an "in -lieu" contribution for stormwater detention, since the project is within 3,000 feet of the Arkansas River and on -site detention facilities would, he suggests, delay runoff and complicate other upstream drainage; and, 3) a 15 foot front building setback line. February 21, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE NO.: S-1049 A. .'PROPOSALIREOUEST: The applicant requests approval by the Planning Commission of a preliminary plat for the development of a previously platted tract in the Robinwood subdivision. Approval by the City Engineer for providing a 4 foot wide sidewalk abutting the back of the curb, in lieu of the required 5 foot wide sidewalk which is required in these types of location, is requested. Approval by the City Engineer for payment of an "in -lieu" payment for the required on -site stormwater detention facilities is requested, due, according to the applicant, to the Arkansas River being within 3,000 feet of the project site and on -site detention facilities possibly delaying runoff and complicating other upstream drainage. The applicant requests approval of a 15 foot front building setback line. No variances are requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and is heavily wooded. The site is extremely hilly; the average slope on the site is 27%. The existing zoning of the tract is R-2, and the zoning of all surrounding areas is R-2. C. ENGINEERING UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments that a sketch grading and drainage plan, meeting the requirements of Sec. 29-186, is required, and that a grading permit will be required. Public Works notes that a 4 foot sidewalk adjacent to the curb and in -lieu for Stormwater Detention were approved by the City Engineer as requested by the applicant. Water Utilities comments that a water main extension will be required. Wastewater Utilities will require a sewer main extension, with easements. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal without comment. The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment. D. ISSUES LEGAL TECHNICAL DESIGN: Neighborhoods and Planning Staff notes that: 0a 'Pebruary 21, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 Continued FILE NO.: S-1049 1) Sec. 31-87 of the Subdivision Regulations requires that, in addition to the information supplied, the source of water supply and the means of wastewater disposal be indicated. 2) Sec. 31-89 of the Subdivision Regulations requires that, in addition to the information supplied, the following be shown: a) natural features (drainage channels, bodies of water, wooded areas, etc.) and cultural features (streets, bridges, culverts, utility lines, pipelines, power transmission lines, easements, park areas, structures, section lines, etc.) are to be shown; b) a storm drainage analysis showing drainage data for all watercourses entering and leaving the boundaries is to be provided; c) a preliminary storm drainage plan incorporating proposed easement dimensions and typical ditch sections is to be supplied; d) the zoning classification(s) within the plat and abutting area is to be shown; and, d) certification is to be provided that the plat has been surveyed and duly filed for record in the offices of the state surveyor and the Circuit Clerk within the last 7 years. 3) Sec. 31-371 permits, where grades exceed 18%, front building setbacks of 15 feet. The applicant has requested the 15 foot setback. Since the average grade is 27%, exceeding the 18% criterion, the requested building setback is permissible. 4) Sec. 31-232(e) states that side lot lines shall be at right angles to the street right-of-way line, or be radial to curving street lines, and adds that deflections from a true tangent shall be avoided. There is one lot line, the north line of Lot 6, which fails to meet this standard. The applicant, however, has noted that there is a rational basis for the location of the line as shown: that it is an extension of the fixed north property line of existing Robinwood lots; that it is a common property line with an undevelopable tract; that, by locating the property line as shown, needed additional area is provided to Lot 6 to meet the minimum lot size required by the Hillside Subdivision regulations; and, because of the grades, access to Lot 6 needs to be taken as far to the north, adjacent to the location of the lot line which is shown, as possible. 5) The plat shows Tracts A & B, and the proposed Bill of Assurance indicates that these are not to be buildable lots. The Bill of Assurance must provide for their 3 February 21, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) _ FILE NO.: S-1049 maintenance (e.g., by permitting their sale or by providing an entity to be responsible for the maintenance). 6) Sec. 31-367, the Hillside Subdivision regulations, requires an analysis by the developer for the determination of the maximum number of lots and the minimum lot sizes. The applicant has submitted the information indicating that the area is subject to these regulations, and has indicated that the maximum number of lots is six, and the minimum lot size is 22,000 square feet. The development is in compliance with the Hillside Subdivision regulations. E. ANALYSIS• The development is in substantial conformance with the Subdivision Regulations. There are only minor deficiencies in the submitted information. The standard that side lot lines be perpendicular to the front lot line, or be radial to curving streets, is a modification of a design standard issue which the Commission may grant when there is justification for the modification. The applicant has furnished information justifying the needed modification. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, and of the requested design standard modification for the side lot line of Lot 6. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 2, 1995) Mr. Robert Hardy, one of the applicants, and Mr. James Phillips, the project engineer, were present. Staff described the proposed development, and Mr. Phillips outlined the history of the site and the proposal. The Committee reviewed with the applicant and the engineer the information furnished in the printed discussion outline. Mr. Phillips indicated that he would furnish the needed information. There was a brief discussion of the two tracts which have been proposed. Mr. Hardy indicated that he would probably offer to sell the tracts to the abutting property owners to the north. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. 4 February 21, 1995 gBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) __-- FILE NO.: 5-1049 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 21, 1995) Staff outlined the proposal, and reported that the applicant had met all requirements of the Subdivision Regulations for a preliminary plat. Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat. Mr. Jim Phillips, the project engineer, was present. Mr. Phillips indicated that, because of the topography of the site, the site will be difficult to develop, but that the proposed preliminary plat met all applicable requirements of the Subdivision Regulations. Dr. Jim Wilson, who resides in a home which backs up to the proposed development area, spoke in opposition to the development. Dr. Wilson indicated that there are 12 properties which abut the proposed development, and he was speaking for the property owners of each of these. Dr. Wilson stated that he had a petition signed by 20 persons who are owners of the 12 lots, and that all of the owners are in opposition to the proposed development. He said that the petition covers three areas of concern; that the first two areas are Bill of Assurance issues, and, that, although he realized such issues are outside the Planning Commission's area of responsibility, he wanted to place the developer on notice of the opposition of the abutting property owners. He stated that the proposed development is on ground that was designated in the Robinwood Bill of Assurance as a "green space", and that each of the persons who bought property abutting the site bought the property with the assurance that the parcel, designated as "Parcel B 1" would remain a green space, and located and oriented their homes under that assurance. He stated that the Robinwood Bill of Assurance requires certain minimum lot sizes, and that the lot sizes proposed in the development are smaller than those required by the Bill of Assurance. He maintained that the provisions of the Subdivision Regulations pertaining to Hillside developments had not been properly applied to the planning and design of the proposed development; specifically, that the total number of "lots", whether they are called lots or tracts should not exceed 6, instead of having 6 lots plus 2 tracts. He stated that, since the provisions of Sec. 31-232(e) require side lot lines to be perpendicular to a right-of-way line, or radial if the right-of- way is curved, the side lot line of Lot 6 is not in conformance with the Subdivision Regulations; that if the side lot line of Lot 6 is made to conform to the regulations, the lot size would be reduced, and Lot 6 would not meet the minimum lot size required by the Hillside regulations. Dr. Wilson said that he had wanted to express his and the neighbors' position at the Subdivision Committee meeting, but had 5 February 21, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Coritinued) FILE NO. : S-1049 been told that his first opportunity to have input.was as the Planning Commission hearing. He said that the developers make their "pitch" at the Subdivision Committee meeting, without the neighbors being able to be present. He said that he understands that the Committee then makes its recommendation to the Commission, and that the Commission generally follows the Committee's recommendation; and, that, by the time the neighbors have input, their opposition is futile. He said that the Commission should apply the Regulations "even -handily". He asked that the proposed subdivision be rejected, or, at least, its approval be deferred until the Bill of Assurance issues are resolved. Chairperson Walker, responding to Dr. Wilson's comments regarding the Subdivision Committee meetings and role, stated that the Subdivision Committee reviews the applicant's plans and submittals for completeness and in view of compliance with the technical requirements of the Regulations, and that the Committee meeting is an opportunity for members to preview the application and enhance their familiarity with the proposal. He stated that observers are always welcome at any meeting of the Commission or its Committees, but that comments from others than the applicant, Committee members, and staff are permitted only with specific approval of the Chairperson. He related that, like the Board of Directors Agenda meeting, comments by observers is extremely limited. He said that the Commission would hear all information presented by all involved, and make its decision based on that information. Staff pointed out that the Subdivision Committee does not make a recommendation to the Commission. Chairperson Walker added that the staff makes the recommendation based on its review and based on the proposal's compliance with the Regulations. He asked staff if the two issues, one regarding the Hillside Regulations and the other regarding the side lot line of Lot 6, had been resolved. Staff responded that the development was in full compliance with the Hillside Regulations; that the applicant's calculations had been reviewed; that the Hillside Regulations require deduction of the street right-of-way and areas set aside for "green space"; and, that there is a distinction in the Regulations between "lots" and "tracts". Staff responded that Sec. 235 permits side lot lines to be adjusted from perpendicular or from being radial "if a variation will give a better street or lot plan or (will) allow better utilization (or better) conservation of energy." Again, staff stated that the proposed preliminary plat meets all the technical requirements of all applicable ordinances, and approval of the preliminary plat was recommended. 1.1 February 21, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE NO.: S-1049 Mr. Don Hamilton spoke in opposition to the proposed development. He stated that he owned a lot to the southwest of the proposed development and lives in a home on another lot. He said that he wanted to echo Dr. Wilson's objections, and said that it is not equitable for the developer to utilize an area that has been set aside as a "green space" for years for a speculative development which will affect adversely the existing homes' value and the homeowners' quality of life. He, reiterating Dr. Wilson's contention, stated that the Hillside Regulations will permit only 6 divisions of the acreage, and that the developer is proposing 8 divisions of the land; that the developer cannot call 6 of the divisions "lots" and 2 others "tracts". He stated that he had not been provided a copy of the calculations to verify how the developer had arrived at the maximum number of lots to be permitted or their minimum size pursuant to the Hillside Regulations, and made the request that he be provided a copy of these calculations. He said that the development should be compatible with the existing development; that the existing homeowners are due that consideration. Mr. Phillips explained that the total actual acreage of the site is 6.55 acres, more or less; and that, based on the Hillside Regulations, each lot is to be a minimum of 22, 000 squarer feet (or, roughly, 1/2 acre), and that since there is over 6 acres, the Hillside Regulations would permit 12 lots. Because of the geometry of the site, placing the street in the location demanded by the slopes causes 2 of the tracts to be inaccessible and, therefore, undevelopable, and the location of the drainage area limits the number of lots to the 6 which are shown. Responding to the contention that the lots are not in conformance with the minimum lot sizes required in the Robinwood Bill of Assurance, he said that the minimum lot size required in the Robinwood Bill of Assurance is 15,000 square feet, in contrast to the 22,000 square foot minimum being proposed. In response to questions from Commissioners Ball and Putnam and Chairperson Walker, staff explained that maintenance of the undevelopable tracts will have to be provided for, either in the Bill of Assurance or by their sale; that they will not be maintained by the City. Commissioner Daniel recommended that the request be deferred, since the applicant has not met with the neighborhood, and recommended that such a meeting be held, or, at least, that such a meeting be offered. Neighborhoods and Planning Director Jim Lawson cautioned the Commission that the proposal is for a subdivision, and that if a subdivision meets the City's Regulations, it is not a matter which can be negotiated. Input from and negation with the neighborhood is not a requirement for approval, he said. The 7 February 21, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 [Continued] FILE NO.: S-1049 Robinwood neighborhood, Mr. Lawson related, is the neighborhood which attempted to influence the Planning Commission to impose development standards on a new abutting subdivision so that the new development would be in keeping with the character of the existing Robinwood neighborhood, and this resulted in the City being sued which resulted in the Arkansas Supreme Court ruling that the City may impose only the City's Subdivision and other applicable regulations; that the City may not impose other standards. Commissioner Putnam pointed out that all the neighbors apparently know of the proposed development, since they are present, or are represented. Mr. John Davis, the applicant, related that he and his partner, Mr. Robert Hardy, are not real estate developers; that they both had been looking for building sites on which to build homes, and had been made aware of the subject tract. It was listed with a Realtor, he said, and, in fact, the adjoining property owners had made an offer on the land. He and Mr. Hardy, according to the Realtor's report to them, had made a better offer, and it was accepted. He took exception to the idea related by Dr. Wilson that he and Mr. Hardy had "slipped around" to buy the land. He said that, if the tract is part of an official "green area", neither he or Mr. Hardy were aware of it. He added, in response to Mr. Hamilton's complaint about the inequity of usurping the neighbors' "green area", that it was certainly inequitable for the abutting property owners to assume they could retain the "green area" without buying it, and that the cost of buying it was minuscule in relation to the value of the homes and properties of the neighbors. He reported that he and Mr. Hardy had, on their initiative, visited with a number of the abutting property owners, but that none of the neighbors had taken the initiative to contact them. He asked that the request be acted on by the Commission, and not deferred. Commissioner Willis asked Deputy City Attorney Steve Giles if the Commission could require additional neighborhood meetings. Mr. Giles indicated that as long as the notification requirements had been met, at least on a subdivision issue, the Commission may not impose additional requirements. Questions of "compatibility", in a subdivision matter, are not applicable. He cited the Richardson case, involving the Robinwood neighborhood, which resulted in the Supreme Court ruling that the City cannot impose standards other than those included in the Subdivision and other applicable regulations. All the Planning Commission may do in a subdivision issue is determine that all the applicable standards are met. He said, however, that, on zoning matters, neighborhood meeting are appropriate and needed, and should be encouraged. 0 February 21, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Continued) FILE NO.: S-1049 Dr. Sam Welch, a neighboring property owner, explained that, indeed, the neighbors had made an offer on the tract; that he had written a check, personally, for the earnest money; that the Realtor had returned within an hour of their tendering their offer to report that another offer had been accepted by the seller; that their offer had been within 10% of the accepted offer; that the timing of the second, higher, offer being within an hour of their making an offer seemed "fishy" to him; and, that they had not had an opportunity to make a counter offer. He said that the developers had, indeed, contacted a number of the abutting property owners, and had indicated that they might be able to buy lots or tracts behind their homes. He said that he would like for action on the matter to be deferred until this could be investigated. Chairperson Walker asked for comments from the Commission members regarding the suggested deferral. Commissioner Daniel reiterated his suggestion that the applicant request a deferral, and said that, if the applicant did not seek a deferral, he would vote against the approval of the preliminary plat. Chairperson Walker asked Mr. Daniel if he could take Mr. Daniel's comments as a motion for deferral. Commissioner Daniel responded, "No." Any deferral, as far as he is concerned, he said, is up to the applicant. Chairperson Walker cautioned Commissioner Daniel about basing his vote on matters other than those which can be substantiated by the applicable ordinance provisions. He said that Mr. Daniel's statement may make the applicant make a decision regarding his application for a reason which cannot be justified by the Regulations. Deputy City Attorney Giles advised that the Commission may defer an item "for cause". Chairperson Walker called for a vote on deferral of the item, but the deferral failed with the vote of 3 ayes, 6 noes, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions. A motion was made and seconded to approve the preliminary plat. The motion carried with the vote of 7 ayes, 2 nays, 2 absent, and 0 abstentions. 0