Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-1059 Staff Analysisr May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: S-1059 NAME: KINGWOOD PLACE SUBDIVISION, LOTS F1 AND F2 -- WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS LOCATION: At the northwest quadrant of the Sunset Circle cul-de- sac, at #7 Sunset Circle DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• H. Bradley Walker Joe White WALKER REAL ESTATE WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2224 Cottondale Ln., Suite 201 401 S. Victory St. Little Rock, AR 72202 Little Rock, AR 72201 666-4242 374-1666 AREA: 0.96 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: R-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: 4 CENSUS TRACT: 22.01 VARIANCES REQUESTED: STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Residential Waiver from the pipestem lot restriction The applicant proposes a "lot split" to divide his nearly 1-acre lot into two. The proposal involves creating a "front" lot which contains an existing single-family residence and which would have 61.16 feet of frontage on Sunset Circle with approximately 0.46 acres (20,015 square feet ±) of area, and a second lot which would be a "pipestem" lot. This pipestem lot would contain approximately 0.50 acres (21,803 square feet ±), with nearly 0.4 acres being in the main body of the lot to the "rear" of the front lot and 0.1 acre being in the pipestem portion. The pipestem is proposed to be 20 feet in width and be approximately 240 feet long. It is to lie along the south property line, and is designed to provide the required access to the rear building site. Approval of lot splits are delegated by the Planning Commission to staff for approval, but since the Subdivision Regulations restrict the creation of pipestem lots, the applicant requests a waiver of the restriction to enable staff to approve the proposed lot split. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant requires a waiver of the restriction on the creation of pipestem lots in order for the proposed lot split to be approved. Review by the Planning Commission of May 30, 1995 ITEM NO,: A Cont. FILE O. -1 59 the needed waiver, and a recommendation for approval to the Board of Directors, is requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: There is an existing residence on the property which is located, after demolition work and remodeling, to permit a drive along the south property line for access to a second building site at the "rear" of the home. The area proposed for the second building site is heavily wooded. The property is zoned R-2, with R-2 being the zoning on all surrounding properties. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments that the pipestem needs to be a minimum of 30 feet in width, at least at the street right- of-way, to provide sufficient room within the second lot's street frontage for the driveway apron, mail box, garbage container, etc. The location of the driveways, aprons, and mailboxes for both lots must be shown. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: The applicant has requested a "lot split". Sec. 31-143 of the Code provides that "the Planning Commission hereby delegates to and designates the Planning Director the authority for approving lot splits, where a single lot ... is being split into two (2) lots. The minimum lot size shall be governed by the lot size specified by the zoning ordinance classification of the subject property." The R-2 zoning district (Sec. 36-254) requires a minimum of 7,000 square feet for single-family lots. Sec. 31-231 states that "every lot shall abut upon a public street...", and Sec. 36-254 states that, in the R-2 zoning district, "there shall be a minimum lot width of not less than sixty (60) feet...." A "Pipestem Lot" is defined (in Sec. 31-2) as one with a narrow street frontage and a disproportionately wider rear yard. Sec. 31-231(g) states that "pipestem lots shall be prohibited in residential subdivisions". E. ANALYSIS: The Planning Commission has delegated the responsibility for approving lot splits to the Planning Director, and the requested lot split could be approved at staff level, except for one of the lots being proposed not having the required OA May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1059 minimum lot frontage on the public street. Each of the lots meet the requirement of the R-2 zoning district, since each lot will contain over 20,000 square feet; however, the Subdivision Regulations prohibit pipestem lots, and require each lot to have a minimum of 60 feet of frontage on a public street. A waiver from the Board of Directors of this restriction is required for each lot to have the required frontage on Sunset Circle and for the lot to be divided. The Planning Commission may make a recommendation to the Board of Directors for the Board's consideration in granting or denying the waiver. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the proposed pipestem lot, subject to the plat being amended to provide a minimum of 30 feet of frontage for the pipestem at the Sunset Dr. right-of-way line, and subject to the Public Works approval of the location of the driveway from the proposed Lot F1. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 16, 1995) Mr. Joe White, Jr., with White-Daters & Associates, Inc., the project engineering firm, was present. Staff outlined the proposal and explained the requested waiver. The proposed "Final Plat" was presented to the Committee, and the Committee members reviewed the plat with staff and Mr. White. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 4, 1995) Staff outlined the request, and Vice -Chairperson Willis, noting the number of persons wishing to speak on the item, moved directly to the objectors for their presentations. Mr. Charles A. Brown, an attorney representing neighbors, spoke in objection to the proposed lot split. He reviewed the requested action in relation to the character of the surrounding residential lots, saying that it is not in keeping with this existing development. Ms. Rebecca Thompson, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. Ms. Barbara Thurman, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. Ms. Yvonne Law, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. 3 May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1 Dr. Reed Thompson, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. He said that, in addition to the points cited by the previous neighbors, there are legal issues which would prohibit the lot split. He said that, although the Bill of Assurance has expired, there is a legally binding document, executed by all the property owners in the past, which is still binding, and which prohibits lot splits. Ms. Ruth Bell, representing the League of Women Voters of Pulaski County, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split, saying that pipestem lots are bad planning. Mr. Joe Scerbo, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. Vice -Chairperson Willis called on Mr. Randy Ensminger, who had completed a registration card, indicating opposition to the request; however, Mr. Ensminger had left the meeting. Ms. Margaret Ensminger, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. Lt. Col (Ret.) Bynon Magness, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. He again dealt with the deed restrictions which are binding on the lots in the area, and which restrict lot splits. Ms. Jane Cozort, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. Ms. Lisbeth Ensminger, a former Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. Ms. Bonni Leeh, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. With the number of Commissioners present reduced to 5, a motion was made and seconded to defer, as a procedural matter, further consideration of the item until the May 16, 1995 Commission hearing. The motion to defer the item was approved with the vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 6 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 16, 1995) ITEM NO.: D FILE NO.: 5-1059 NAME: KINGWOOD PLACE SUBDIVISION, LOTS F1 AND F2 -- WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS LOCATION: At the northwest quadrant of the Sunset Circle cul-de- sac, at #7 Sunset Circle 4 May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1059 DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• H. Bradley Walker Joe White WALKER REAL ESTATE WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2224 Cottondale Ln., Suite 201 401 S. Victory St. Little Rock, AR 72202 Little Rock, AR 72201 666-4242 374-1666 AREA: 0.96 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING• R-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: 4 CENSUS TRACT: 22.01 VARIANCES REQUESTED: STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Residential Waiver from the pipestem lot restriction The applicant proposes a "lot split" to divide his nearly 1-acre lot into two. The proposal involves creating a "front" lot which contains an existing single-family residence and which would have 61.16 feet of frontage on Sunset Circle with approximately 0.46 acres (20,015 square feet ±) of area, and a second lot which would be a "pipestem" lot. This pipestem lot would contain approximately 0.50 acres (21,803 square feet ±), with nearly 0.4 acres being in the main body of the lot to the "rear" of the front lot and 0.1 acre being in the pipestem portion. The pipestem is proposed to be 20 feet in width and be approximately 240 feet long. It is to lie along the south property line, and is designed to provide the required access to the rear building site. Approval of lot splits are delegated by the Planning Commission to staff for approval, but since the Subdivision Regulations restrict the creation of pipestem lots, the applicant requests a waiver of the restriction to enable staff to approve the proposed lot split. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant requires a waiver of the restriction on the creation of pipestem lots in order for the proposed lot split to be approved. Review by the Planning Commission of the needed waiver, and a recommendation for approval to the Board of Directors, is requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: There is an existing residence on the property which is located, after demolition work and remodeling, to permit a 5 May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1059 drive along the south property line for access to a second building site at the "rear" of the home. The area proposed for the second building site is heavily wooded. The property is zoned R-2, with R-2 being the zoning on all surrounding properties. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments that the pipestem needs to be a minimum of 30 feet in width, at least at the street right- of-way, to provide sufficient room within the second lot's street frontage for the driveway apron, mail box, garbage container, etc. The location of the driveways, aprons, and mailboxes for both lots must be shown. D. ISSUES LEGAL TECHNICAL DESIGN: The applicant has requested a "lot split". Sec. 31-143 of the Code provides that "the Planning Commission hereby delegates to and designates the Planning Director the authority for approving lot splits, where a single lot ... is being split into two (2) lots. The minimum lot size shall be governed by the lot size specified by the zoning ordinance classification of the subject property." The R-2 zoning district (Sec. 36-254) requires a minimum of 7,000 square feet for single-family lots. Sec. 31-231 states that "every lot shall abut upon a public street...", and Sec. 36-254 states that, in the R-2 zoning district, "there shall be a minimum lot width of not less than sixty (60) feet...." A "Pipestem Lot" is defined (in Sec. 31-2) as one with a narrow street frontage and a disproportionately wider rear yard. Sec. 31-231(g) states that "pipestem lots shall be prohibited in residential subdivisions". E. ANALYSIS• The Planning Commission has delegated the responsibility for approving lot splits to the Planning Director, and the requested lot split could be approved at staff level, except for one of the lots being proposed not having the required minimum lot frontage on the public street. Each of the lots meet the requirement of the R-2 zoning district, since each lot will contain over 20,000 square feet; however, the Subdivision Regulations prohibit pipestem lots, and require each lot to have a minimum of 60 feet of frontage on a public street. A waiver from the Board of Directors of this restriction is required for each lot to have the required 6 May 30, 1995 ITEM A(Cont. FILE NO.: _1059 frontage on Sunset Circle and for the lot to be divided. The Planning Commission may make a recommendation to the Board of Directors for the Board's consideration in granting or denying the waiver. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the proposed pipestem lot, subject to the plat being amended to provide a minimum of 30 feet of frontage for the pipestem at the Sunset Dr. right-of-way line, and subject to the Public Works approval of the location of the driveway from the proposed Lot F1. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 16, 1995) Mr. Joe White, Jr., with White-Daters & Associates, Inc., the project engineering firm, was present. Staff outlined the proposal and explained the requested waiver. The proposed "Final Plat" was presented to the Committee, and the Committee members reviewed the plat with staff and Mr. White. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 4, 1995) Staff outlined the request, and Vice -Chairperson Willis, noting the number of persons wishing to speak on the item, moved directly to the objectors for their presentations. Mr. Charles A. Brown, an attorney representing neighbors, spoke in objection to the proposed lot split. He reviewed the requested action in relation to the character of the surrounding residential lots, saying that it is not in keeping with this existing development. Ms. Rebecca Thompson, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. Ms. Barbara Thurman, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. Ms. Yvonne Law, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. Dr. Reed Thompson, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. He said that, in addition to the points cited by the previous neighbors, there are legal issues which would prohibit the lot split. He said that, although the Bill of Assurance has expired, there is a legally binding document, executed by all the property owners in the past, which is still binding, and which prohibits lot splits. 7 May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: A (Cant.) FILE NO.: S-1059 Ms. Ruth Bell, representing the League of Women Voters of Pulaski County, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split, saying that pipestem lots are bad planning. Mr. Joe Scerbo, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. Vice -Chairperson Willis called on Mr. Randy Ensminger, who had completed a registration card, indicating opposition to the request; however, Mr. Ensminger had left the meeting. Ms. Margaret Ensminger, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. Lt. Col (Ret.) Bynon Magness, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. He again dealt with the deed restrictions which are binding on the lots in the area, and which restrict lot splits. Ms. Jane Cozort, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. Ms. Lisbeth Ensminger, a former Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. Ms. Bonni Leeh, a Sunset Circle resident, spoke in opposition to the requested lot split. With the number of Commissioners present reduced to 5, a motion was made and seconded to defer, as a procedural matter, further consideration of the item until the May 16, 1995 Commission hearing. The motion to defer the item was approved with the vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions, and 6 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 16, 1995) Staff presented the item and indicated that, because of the lack of a quorum when the item was heard at the April 4, 1995 Commission hearing, the members present had voted to defer the item to the May 16, 1995 Commission hearing. Mr. Joe White, representing the applicant, presented the applicant's request. (Chairperson Walker, the applicant, left the room, and was not present for the hearing of the item.) He pointed out that the applicant's current lot is nearly 1 acre is size, and that, with the lot split, each of the new lots would exceed 20,000 square feet of area. The minimum lot size for an R-2 residential area, as provided for in the Zoning Regulations, is 7,000 square feet; for an R-1 area, the minimum lot size is 15,000 square feet. Each of the two new lots, he said, would meet all the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations except for the waiver of the pipestem prohibition which was being 8 May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: A (Cont. FILE NO.: S-10 9 requested. Mr. White explained that there had been, even as late as the previous evening, negations for access to an abutting tract to the west, and that, if these negations were successful, the request for a pipestem waiver would be withdrawn. There was discussion involving several Commissioners on whether the hearing on the item should be deferred to permit negotiation to continue, which, if successful, would make the hearing on the pipestem waiver moot. A motion was made and seconded to defer the hearing on the item; however, when the applicant indicated that a deferral was not being requested, a motion was made, seconded, and approved to expunge the motion to defer the hearing. Mr. Charles Brown, Attorney, representing the residents along Sunset Circle, spoke in opposition to the requested waiver. He questioned the applicant's motivation in seeking the pipestem, saying that the neighbors suspected that the applicant was attempting, by way of the pipestem, to provide access to the abutting tract to the west, and, thereby, be able to develop that property. He questioned whether the pipestem waiver was the extent of the waivers which are required by the Regulations. He pointed out that the existing Lot F has 61.16 feet plus 27.38 feet of frontage along Sunset Circle; that if 30 feet for the flared pipestem is deducted from this, the remaining frontage is less than 60 feet, and this reduced frontage does not provide the required minimum frontage, as prescribed by the Subdivision Regulations, for the Lot F1. He said that an additional waiver, then, is required to permit Lot F-1 to have less than 60 feet of frontage on Sunset Circle. He quoted the Subdivision Regulations which state that all lots must have frontage on a public street, except where the Planning Commission approves a private street, and said that the rear lot, Lot F2, would have to have a street constructed to it in order to meet the Regulations. He said that the applicant must show that there is sufficient reason, a "real burden", to justify waiving the Regulations which have been adopted as the standard for development in the City, and suggested that this has not been done. He said that the proposed lot split would create lots which are out of character with the neighborhood. He complained that development of the rear lot would cause a house on that lot to face the rear of other houses in the neighborhood instead of towards a street, which is the way houses are supposed to face. Mr. Brown related that, indeed, in the original Bill of Assurance, the lettered lots were permitted to be subdivided; however, he said, a few years later, the owners of the lettered lots along Sunset Circle entered into an agreement that prohibits subdivision of their lots. This agreement, he said, is binding on Lot F. This prohibition, he maintained, showed the commitment of the owners of the lots along Sunset Circle to retaining the large -lot character of their neighborhood. 9 May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) __ FILE No.: S-145 Staff explained that the Subdivision Regulations, Sec. 31-232(b), provides that the width of the lot is measured at the building line, and that the dimension of Lot F-1 at the building line, meets the Regulations. No waiver is needed for the width of Lot F-1. Staff also explained that the pipestem provides the required frontage on a public street; that this is the reason for the requested waiver, and that, with the pipestem frontage, a private driveway, not a street, will be constructed in the pipestem to the building site of Lot F2. Staff explained that the pipestem would provide access for one building site; that it could not be used for access to abutting property to the west for additional development. Staff explained that, indeed, the abutting tract to the west could be combined with Lot F-2, but that such a combination would still only provide one building site. Ms. Yvonnie Law, an owner of the abutting property on Sunset Circle, reiterated her opposition to the requested waiver, repeating her position from the April 4, 1995 Commission hearing, adding, however, that if Tract F were not divided, then the needed access to Tract M would be granted. Mr. White responded that, if indeed, the access to Tract M were provided off Pine Valley Rd., then the applicant was prepared to withdraw the lot split-pipestem waiver request. Mr. Charles Ensminger, an area property owner, living on Pine Valley Rd., asked that all the persons in attendance who are in opposition to the requested action to stand. (A number of persons stood.) He voiced his opposition to the change which was being proposed, and urged the Commission to deny the waiver. Mr. Joe Scerbo, an owner of a home on Sunset Circle, reiterated his opposition to the proposed development, and questioned staff on the meaning of the Subdivision Regulations relative to width of the lot being measured at the building line versus at the right-of-way and the ability of the pipestem to provide access to Tract M to the west. He said that it was not fair to measure the width of the lot at the building line, but to measure the width of the pipestem at the right-of-way. Staff responded that the pipestem could, if approved, provide access to build one home only; that subdivision of Tract M, with access to Tract M being provided by the pipestem, would require a public hearing. Mr. Scerbo said that he suspected that the applicant had ulterior motives in requesting the pipestem, and said that he suspected that development to the west would involve extending Sunset Circle to the west, allowing persons to have the prestige of a Sunset Circle address. This would destroy the character of the existing cul-de-sac street. `Si; May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: A n FILE -10 Mrs. Rebecca Thompson, a Sunset Circle property owner, spoke in opposition to the requested action. Mrs. Sandy Magness, an owner of a home immediately next door to the applicant's, spoke in opposition to the requested action. Ms. Jan Cozort, a Sunset Circle homeowner, spoke in opposition to the proposed action. Lt. Col. (Retired) Byron Magness, an owner of the property immediately adjacent to the applicant's, spoke in opposition to the request. Mrs. Bonnie Peek, a Sunset Circle homeowner, spoke in opposition to the request. She related that her husband, Richard Peek, is a surgeon, and could not be present, but that she, her husband, and her children opposed the waiver. Mr. White pointed out that pipestem lots are not unusual; that they are provided in the plats for Chenal, for Foxcroft, for St. Charles, etc., and that they are routinely approved in subdivisions. The motion made earlier to grant a deferral of the item was called. Vice -Chairperson Willis determined that the deferral would be until the May 30, 1995 Commission hearing, and the deferral was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 1 nays, 0 abstentions, and 1 absent (Walker). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 30, 1995) The Planning Commission was advised by staff that there was a letter of request from the applicant that this item be withdrawn from further consideration. In addition to that, the staff pointed out that there was a requirement for a bylaw waiver on the receipt of the letter requesting the withdrawal. The bylaws require a 5 day minimum submittal time. This letter received 4 days. Staff pointed out that there were no_object.ors present in attendance at this time. They left the meeting earlier when they determined that the matter had been withdrawn. The Commission then determined that the first item of business would be a vote to waive the bylaws and a motion to that effect was made and passed unanimously. A motion was then offered to accept the withdrawal of this item from further consideration. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nay, 3 absent and 1 abstention (Brad Walker). 064