Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-1074 Staff Analysisl September 19, 1995 ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: 5-1074 NAME: JOHNSON RANCH VILLAGE -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: At the southwest corner of Cantrell Rd. and Johnson Ranch Rd. DEVELOPER: EE GAR: Joe White EUGENE M. PHEIFER, III WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 400 E. 13th. St. 401 S. Victory'St. North Little Rock, AR 72215 Little Rock, AR 72201 375-1246 374-1666 AREA: 36.4 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 103 FT. NEW STREET: 4290 ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Residential PLANNING DISTRICT: 19 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1) Approval of a waiver of the requirement that, for the east boundary street, Johnson Ranch Rd., half street improvements and a sidewalk be provided. 2) Approval of a waiver of the requirement that sidewalks be provided on streets within the subdivision. 3� Approval of:a waiver from the prohibition of double - frontage lots for lots backing up to Johnson Ranch Rd. 4) Approval of a waiver of the requirement that stormwater detention be provided within the subdivision, and permit payment of an in -lieu contribution for off -site detention. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a single-family development to include 103 single-family lots along approximately 4,290 linear feet of new streets, plus the retention of the Johnson home site at the northwest corner of the tract. The subdivision is to be developed on a 36.4 acre tract, which includes the 3.5 acre tract for the home site. The minimum and average lot size is to be 70 feet by 120 feet, with front building setback lines at 25 feet. September 19, 1995 SUEDIVIS19H ITEM NO,: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1074 Lots backing up to Cantrell Rd. and Johnson Ranch Rd., with frontages on the interior street, are to have a "no vehicle access" easement platted along their rear property lines; no vehicular access is to be permitted from the subdivision to either Cantrell Rd. or Johnson Ranch Rd. The interior streets are to be public streets; however, no sidewalks are proposed along these streets. Additional right-of-way is to be dedicated along the Cantrell Rd. boundary of the site, and a sidewalk along this right-of-way is to be constructed. A six foot tall privacy fence is proposed to be constructed along the perimeter of the development, along the north, south, and east lines of the tract. The site is outside the Little Rock City Limits, but annexation to the City is anticipated, with water supply and wastewater, service to be tied to City of Little Rock utilities. The subdivision is to be developed in three phases; 30 lots along the south boundary of the tract as Phase I; 38 lots along the east side of the tract as Phase II; and, 35 lots along the west side as Phase III. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Planning Commission review and approval of a preliminary plat is requested. Planning Commission review and Board of Directors approval of waivers from specific Ordinance requirements are requested: 1) a waiver of the requirement that for the east boundary street, Johnson Ranch Rd., half street improvements and a sidewalk be provided; 2) a waiver of the requirement that sidewalks be provided on streets within the subdivision; 3) a waiver from the prohibition of double - frontage lots for lots backing up to Johnson Ranch Rd.; and, 4) a waiver of the requirement that stormwater detention be provided within the subdivision, and permit payment of an in -lieu contribution for detention. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is currently the Johnson Ranch home site with accompanying pasture land. A seven -acre stock pond is centered in the pasture. The topography slopes gently to the east and northeast. The existing zoning of the tract is R-2, as well as is all abutting land to the east, south, and southwest. Immediately to the west is a strip of land which is zoned C- 3 for the north three -fourths of the west boundary and 0-2 at the southwest corner of the tract. Across Cantrell Rd. to the north is the access road to The Ranch development, with C-2 zoning on the land east of the Ranch Blvd.; 0-2 on the land west of the Ranch Blvd. 2 September 19, 1995 5UHDIVISIQN ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-_1074 C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENT$: Public Works comments: The plat needs street names, boundary line information, curve data, monument information, and data for all drainage courses entering and leaving the tract. A grading and ADPC&E permit will be required. Corps of Engineers approval is needed in order to fill the pond. Align the entrance of the subdivision with Ranch Blvd. across Cantrell Rd.; the name should.be Ranch Blvd. The loop street name should be on the plat and must be submitted for approval. The small culs-de-sac are to have outside radii of 45 feet minimum; pavement width of 25 feet minimum; and the entrance and exist radii at the street interface shall be 35 feet minimum. Provision for maintenance of all islands within the right-of-way must be made in the Bill of Assurance, with the neighborhood association or developer being responsible for maintenance of the islands. Dedicate right-of-way for and improve Johnson Ranch Rd. along its boundary of the tract. The entire width of the culvert across the road is to be provided. A 6 foot wide sidewalk is required along the Hwy. 10 frontage. A sidewalk must be provided along the Johnson Ranch Rd. frontage and along internal streets. The 36" pipe from Chenal 14B, the 24" from Glean C. in Chenal 14, and the planned discharge from Chenonceau Commercial subdivision are draining to the rear corner of this property. Provide a drainage easement and underground piping for these discharges. Evaluate the effects on the downstream drainage systems. Open ditches are generally not permitted by the Stormwater Management and Drainage Manual. If ditches are planned, they must be shown on the preliminary plat and must be approved by the City Engineer prior to Planning Commission approval. (Ref. Sec. 31-89.9) Show any planned drainage ditches on the preliminary plat. Show water courses entering the site and the planned exit points for drainage. Submit drainage and street plans for review. A stormwater detention analysis is required. Show planned areas and easements for detention structures. Obtain AHTD approval for any work in the Hwy. 10 right- of-way. 3 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISIO ITEM NO.: 1 (Cant.) FILE NO.; $-1074 Water utilities comments that water main extensions and fire hydrants will be required. In addition to the normal connection fees, an acreage charge of $150 per acre will apply to a portion of this development. Wastewater Utility comments that a sewer main extension, with easements, will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require a 10 foot easement centered on the property line between lots 4 and 5, and one to Highway 10 at the northwest corner of the tract. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. did not respond. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal. Pulaski County notes that, if the area is not to be annexed into the City, the County will need street and drainage design plans, and will need to make inspections of the work during construction. The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment. D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICALZDES_IGN: Sec. 31-87 requires that, in addition to the information furnished, the name and address of the owner of record and the source of title giving deed record book and page number or instrument number for the ownership shall be furnished. Sec. 31-89 requires that, in addition to the information furnished, the following be noted: 1) the direction of flow for all watercourses leaving the tract shall be indicated; 2) a storm drainage analysis, showing the drainage data for all watercourses entering and leaving the site, shall be supplied,; 3) a preliminary storm drainage plan incorporat- ing proposed easements and typical ditch sections shall be provided; 4) the plat book and page number or instrument number of all subdivision abutting the proposed subdivision shall be provided; 5) the bearings of the distances on all boundary lines, with ties to all corners of record, and all curve data, shall be shown; 6) the physical description for all monuments, with size and type of material, shall be shown; and, 7) municipal boundaries shall be shown. Sec. 31-91 requires that the Certificate of Preliminary Engineering Accuracy be executed. Sec. 31-93 requires that a preliminary Bill of Assurance be provided. 4 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 nt. FILE NO.: -1 74 Sec. 31-231.f states that corner lots in residential subdivisions shall have a minimum width of 75 feet. Lot 15, Block 2 is 70 feet wide. Lot 15 must be made wider. Sec. 31-201 states that "whenever a proposed subdivision abuts a partially dedicated or constructed public street, the developer shall provide the minimum of one-half of the required improvements and right-of-way." Johnson Ranch Rd., along the eastern boundary of the tract, must, then, have right-of-way dedicated and half Master Street Plan improve- ments made. The developer requests a waiver of the street and sidewalk improvements along Johnson Ranch Rd., since the subdivision will take no access to this road. Dedication of the required right-of-way, however, absent a request for a waiver of this requirement, shall be dedicated. Sec. 31-209 requires sidewalks along at least one side of all standard residential streets. Sidewalks are, then, required along all interior streets; however, the developer is seeking a waiver of this requirement. There are double -frontage lots backing up to Johnson Ranch Rd. and Highway 10. Sec. 31-232.d permits these where the lots back up to arterials, but not when they back up to standard residential streets. The double -frontage lots backing up to Cantrell Rd., then, are permitted; those backing up to Johnson Ranch Rd. are not. A waiver of this prohibition for the Johnson Ranch Rd. lots is requested by the developer, with the explanation that no vehicular access is to be taken to Johnson Ranch Rd. A "no vehicle access" easement is to be platted along the rear of all lots backing up to both Johnson Ranch Rd. and to Cantrell Rd. Public Works notes that required. The developer requirement, noting that fee. E. ANALYSIS• on -site stormwater detention is is seeking a waiver of this he proposes to pay an "in -lieu" Except for the requested waivers and some minor deficiencies, the proposed preliminary plat meets the Subdivision Ordinance requirements. Public Works recommends denial of the waivers dealing with half -street improvements along Johnson Ranch Rd., including the requested waiver of providing the sidewalk along Johnson Ranch Rd. and the waiver of sidewalks within the subdivision. Public Works recommends that provisions of the Stormwater Detention Ordinance not be waived. The double -frontage lots along the Cantrell Rd. boundary of the site are permitted, so long as the "no vehicle access" easement along Cantrell is provided. The developer included this provision in his application. 5 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 C n FILE -1074 The double -frontage lots along Johnson Ranch Rd. will require a wavier, which the developer requests, noting that a "no vehicle access" easement will be provided along this boundary. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, subject to the requested waivers being granted by the Board of Directors, or subject to the applicant amending his plat to conform to the Ordinance provisions, and subject to the Public Works and Utility comments. Staff recommends denial of the requested waivers for half - street improvements and the sidewalk along Johnson Ranch Rd. and for sidewalks within the subdivision. Staff recommends denial of the waiver from the Stormwater Detention regulations and recommends denial of the payment of the "in -lieu" fee as a substitute for providing on -site stormwater detention. Staff recommends approval of the waiver of the prohibition of double -frontage lots for those lots backing up to Johnson Ranch Rd., with the condition that the proposed "no vehicle access" easement be platted. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 31, 1995) Mr. Gene Pheifer, the developer, and Mr. Joe White, with White- Daters & Associates, were present. Staff reviewed with the Committee members the layout of the proposed subdivision and the proposed waivers, and reviewed with the Committee members and the applicant the comments contained in the discussion outline. Mr. White indicated that the needed information and revisions would be provided. He indicated that his staff would consult with the Public Works staff regarding the Public Works comments. Mr. White reported that the fence along the perimeter of the subdivision would be brick or brick and wood, and that provision for drainage onto and from the site would be made. The Committee forwarded the preliminary plat to the Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 19, 1995) Mr. Gene Pheifer, the applicant, and Mr. Joe White, with White- Daters & Associates, Inc., were present. Staff presented the request, and reported that the applicant had amended his request to delete two of the requested waivers: the 6 September 19, 1995 HDTVI ID ITEM NO.: 1 (_conCcont FILE N -1 74 waiver of sidewalks within the subdivision, and the waiver from the stormwater detention regulations; that two of the waiver requests were being retained: the waiver from the regulation which prohibits double -frontage lots, and the wavier from the regulation which requires boundary street improvements along Johnson Ranch Rd. Mr. Joe white outlined the scope of the proposal and reiterated the requested waivers regarding double -frontage lots and street improvements on Johnson Ranch Rd. He indicated, however, that the drainage structure under John Ranch Rd. would be improved, if that is necessary, even if the waiver of street^improvements is granted. He reported that a brick and wood fence would be erected at the perimeter of the subdivision abutting existing residential areas and along Cantrell Rd. He said that a property owners' association would be established to maintain the common areas, including medians and islands within the public right-of- way. He explained that the proposed development would not be taking access to Johnson Ranch Rd.; therefore, a waiver from the requirement to make Master Street Plan improvements to the street was being requested. He added that the home sites along Johnson Ranch Rd. are 5-acre sites, and that it would not be appropriate to change the "country lane" character of the street. Mr. Louis Gladfelter, identifying himself as living directly across Johnson Ranch Rd. from the proposed subdivision, spoke in opposition to the request. He said that the present residents of the area enjoy a country atmosphere, with their homes being on 5- acre lots, and a high quality of life. He contrasted the existing low density, country style development with the "super high -density" development of the proposed subdivision, and complained that the neighbors had never imagined that such a dense development, which was so out of character with the neighborhood, would be placed on the property. He expressed concern that the subdivision would decrease the property values of the large lot owners. He said that the value of the 5-acre tracts, prior to the subdivision's development, would have been approximately $150,000; after the development, it would be less. He said that Ms. Opal Bennett, who owns an undeveloped 5-acre tract abutting the proposed subdivision on the south, would not be able to sell her tract for nearly as much after the development of the subdivision as she could have six months before the development. He said that stormwater run-off from Chenal Valley is already causing problems, and that the proposed subdivision would compound these problems. He requested that a waiver to permit the homes to back up to Johnson Ranch Rd. not be granted, and said that the neighbors in the area had developed a revised suggested subdivision layout. Ms. Opal Bennett, identifying herself as owning the tract directly south of, and abutting, the proposed subdivision, spoke 7 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM O.- ] (Cont.) FILE NO.; -1 74 in opposition to the request. She expressed concern that the subdivision's development would devalue her 5-acre tract. Mr. George Baker, identifying himself as a Johnson Ranch Rd. resident, spoke in opposition to the request. He said that it is not that the neighbors object to development of the subject tract, but it is the nature of the development which is proposed to which they object. He said that the density of the existing developments in the area are no where nearly as dense at the developer is proposing for the subject property. He said that the homes along Johnson Ranch Rd. are not overly large homes, but are simply on large lots. He asked that development of the subject tract take into account the character -of the existing development in the area, and not change the "country lane" atmosphere which exists. Dr. Tom Hoffmann, identifying himself as the Johnson Ranch Association president, spoke in opposition to the request "in its present form". He said that he lives directly across Johnson Ranch Rd. from the subdivision which is being planned, at the southeast corner of Johnson Ranch Rd. and Highway 10. He indicated that the neighborhood is so opposed to the proposal that a number of the residents were in attendance at the hearing, and asked these persons to stand. (A number of persons in the audience stood.) He said that the residents feel that the proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the existing development. He objected to the double -frontage lots which would back up to Johnson Ranch Rd., saying that back yard activities, such as working on automobiles, hanging out laundry, or children playing, and back yard structures, such as dog pens, would not be what the Johnson Ranch Rd. residents would want to drive past as they enter or leave their neighborhood. He said that the proposal to construct a wood and brick privacy fence along Johnson Ranch Rd. to conceal the back yard activities would not be a "beautiful thing" to drive past every day. He complained that the houses which are proposed to be built in the subdivision would be smaller and cheaper than any other homes being built in the area. He said that the Neighborhood Association desires to keep the "country lane atmosphere" of their neighborhood; that the residents do not oppose development of the subject tract, but oppose the density, the proximity of smaller lots and homes to their neighborhood, and the fact that rear yards will back up to their neighborhood. He said that the neighborhood had developed a couple of alternate subdivision plans, which he wanted to present for consideration. He maintained that the alternate plans would retain the economic viability of the developer's project, and, at the same time, take into account the expectations of the neighborhood for retention of its country lane setting. He then presented two possible subdivision layouts to the Commission, one of which proposed large acreage lots facing Johnson Ranch Rd., with the inward -facing lots to the subdivision being smaller; and, for the second, proposed a "green 8 September 19, 1995 HDIV1 ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.).. FILE NO.: S-1074 space" buffer along Johnson Ranch Rd.. The first proposal would decrease the number of lots by only a few lots, but, he said, the developer would be able to charge more for the larger lots facing Johnson Ranch Rd. The second proposal would not affect the number of lots. He asked, then, that the proposal, as submitted, be denied, and that the requested variances be denied. Commissioner Putnam explained that, if the size of the proposed lots meets the Subdivision Ordinance requirements for the zoning which is in place for the property, the Planning Commission cannot force a developer to plat larger lots, simply to be in keeping with other development in the area. Deputy City Attorney Steve Giles confirmed Commissioner Putnam's statement regarding the Commission's inability to enforce provisions which exceed the minimum requirements of the Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Tom Deluca, identifying himself as president of the Westbury Neighborhood Association, spoke in support of the request. He explained that his neighborhood is also a development of Gene Pheifer's, and that Mr. Pheifer has cooperated with the neighborhood in improvements and project which would benefit the subdivision. He said that the Neighborhood Association had voted to support Mr. Pheifer's development of the subject property. Ms. Ruth Bell, with the League of Women Voters of Pulaski County, spoke in support of the request. She said that the League supported the proposal because the development is in conformance with the Highway 10 Plan, and because the League supports diversity in housing in neighborhoods. She said that neighborhoods in older parts of town, which have remained dynamic, have been diverse; that they have housing stock which include starter homes, duplexes, apartments, and mansions. She said that the diverse mix of residential areas is healthy. Mr. Gene Pheifer responded to the opposition to his proposed development, saying that the Bill of Assurance of the Johnson Ranch property, which included the 5-acre tracts along Johnson Ranch Rd., permitted development of the tracts fronting on Highway 10 for all non-commercial development. He said that, consequently, the subject property could have been developed in a way which would have been less conducive to the retention of the residential character of the area, and that the purchasers of the 5-acre tracts do not have a right of expect more protection than that which was afforded by their Bill of Assurance. They did not, he maintained, have a right to expect the subject tract to be developed in large 5-acre tracts, since this was never anticipated. He said that the Bill of Assurance for the Johnson Ranch property, under which the 5-acre tracts were developed, required a minimum of 2,500 square foot homes; his proposed subdivision is to have minimum 2,000 square foot homes. This, he 9 September 19, 1995 SVBDFVI�IQ ITEM 1 n FILE -1 74 said, is not that much of a departure from the standards of the homes in the area. He said that the homes on the large lots are on septic tanks, thus requiring the larger lots. His lots, on the other hand, would be on public sewer; that, as a consequence, the larger lots are not required. He said that more density is not necessarily bad, and that cities are encouraging more dense developments to protect the ecology and to prohibit urban sprawl. He said that the homes he proposed to build in the subject subdivision would be a minimum of 2,000 square feet and would cost $160,000 to $180,000, and that he would not characterize the people who would be living in these homes as the types who would work on their cars or hang their laundry in their back yards. He said that the proposed subdivision design presented by Dr. Hoffmann had some merits, and that he and his engineer would review the layout. Mr. White stated that the developer and he would amend the proposal to include provision of a buffer along Johnson Ranch Rd., with a privacy fence to be located between the buffer and the internal lots. This, he said, would eliminate the need for the waiver of the prohibition of double -frontage lots, and, he said, he hopped the Johnson Ranch Rd. residents would support the remaining request for the waiver of street improvements to Johnson Ranch Rd. Commissioner Adcock asked if there could be buffering of the south property line from Ms. Bennett's property. Mr. White pointed out that Ms. Bennett has a vacant 5-acre lot, and that, when the lot is developed, any desired buffering could be accomplished within the 5 acres. To take a 40 or 50 foot buffer from the subject subdivision would take out five lots, and would be very costly. Mr. Pheifer said that Ms. Bennett had owned the tract for 18 years; that she had known for that time period that she was abutting land that could be developed for all "non-commercial" uses; that the development of the abutting tract would not be large home sites; and, that during that time period, she could have planted pine trees to create whatever buffer she desired. Mr. White said that, with the development of the subdivision, the stormwater drainage will be directed mostly towards Highway 10, and will alleviate some of the problem of drainage across Johnson Ranch Rd. to the east. Mr. Dennis Merrit, indicating that he lived at #4 Johnson Ranch Rd., said that stormwater drainage in the area was a problem; that he was having problems with run-off from Chenal valley, and he could imagine that Dr. Hoffmann would have problems, as well. He said that he had been assured that the drainage problems would be addressed, but, he said, it has not been. 10 September 19, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: -1Q7_4 David Scherer, with the Public Works staff, responded to the complaint about drainage, saying that the Johnson Ranch subdivision was developed using an open ditch means of dealing with stormwater drainage, and that drain culverts are probably under sized. He explained that the drainage from Chenal Valley would be retained, once the retention structures were completed. He explained that, while a subdivision is being developed, and prior to the stormwater detention system being completed, there can be a problem, but that, once the system is complete, the release of stormwater onto abutting property should not be any greater than that released prior to development.- He said. that Mr. Merrit's complaint regarding run-off from-,Chenal Valley would be addressed when the stormwater dentition system in Chenal, Valley is complete. Chairman Walker, summarizing the proposal, indicated that the requested action was approval of an amended preliminary plat, with a 50 foot buffer from the edge of Johnson Ranch Rd. along the eastern boundary of the proposed subdivision, including a privacy fence along the west side of the buffer. The amended preliminary plat was approved with the vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position, subject to approval by the Hoard of Directors of the waiver of Master Street Plan improvements to Johnson Ranch Rd. Staff explained that, with the buffer separating the lots which were shown to back up to Johnson Ranch Rd., that no waiver of the restriction on double -frontage lots would be needed. Staff explained that, with the creation of a tract for the buffer, and if the developer does not final plat the tract, there will be no requirement to construct Johnson Ranch Rd. Mr. White said that, to avoid any confusion or opportunity for a claim of deception, he would prefer to pursue the street waiver. Chairman Walker called for the question on the waiver of improvements to Johnson Ranch Rd., indicating that the residents along Johnson Ranch Rd. support the waiver; that they do not want Johnson Ranch Rd. changed from its "country lane" character. The Commission recommended approval of the waiver with the vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 1 abstention (Putnam), and 1 open position. 11 FILE -1 74 NAME: JOHNSON RANCH VILLAGE -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: At the southwest corner of Cantrell Rd. and Johnson Ranch Rd. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Joe White EUGENE M. PHEIFER, III WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 400 E. 13th. St. 401 S. Victory St. North Little Rock, AR 72215 Little Rock, AR 72201 375-1246 374-1666 AREA: 36.4 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 103 FT. NEW STREET: 4290 ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Residential PLANPIING DISTRICT: 19 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1) Approval of a waiver of the requirement that, for the east boundary street, Johnson Ranch Rd., half street improvements and a sidewalk be provided. 2) Approval of a waiver of the requirement that sidewalks be provided on streets within the subdivision. 3) Approval of a waiver from the prohibition of double - frontage lots for lots backing up to Johnson Ranch Rd. 4) Approval of a waiver of the requirement that stormwater detention be provided within the subdivision, and - permit payment of an in -lieu contribution for off -site detention. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a single-family development to include 103 single-family lots along approximately 4,290 linear feet of new streets, plus the retention of the Johnson home site at the northwest corner of the tract. The subdivision is to be developed on a 36.4 acre tract, which includes the 3.5 acre tract for the home site. The minimum and average lot size is to be 70 feet by 120 feet, with front building setback lines at 25 feet. Lots backing up to Cantrell Rd. and Johnson Ranch Rd., with frontages on the interior street, are to have a no vehicle access" easement platted along their rear property lines; no FILE NO.; -1074 (Conj.) vehicular access is to be permitted from the subdivision to either Cantrell Rd. or Johnson Ranch Rd. The interior streets are to be public streets; however, no sidewalks are proposed along these streets. Additional right-of-way is to be dedicated along the Cantrell Rd. boundary of the site, and a sidewalk along this right-of-way is to be constructed. A six foot tall privacy fence is proposed to be constructed along the perimeter of the development, along the north, south, and east lines of the tract. The site is outside the Little Rock City Limits, but annexation to the City is anticipated, with water supply and wastewater service to be tied to City of Little Rock utilities. The subdivision is to be developed in three phases; 30 lots along the south boundary of the tract as Phase I; 38 lots along the east side of the tract as Phase II; and, 35 lots along the west side as Phase III. A. PROPOSALLREOUEST: Planning Commission review and approval of a preliminary plat is requested. Planning Commission review and Board of Directors approval of waivers from specific Ordinance requirements are requested: 1) a waiver of the requirement that for the east boundary street, Johnson Ranch Rd., half street improvements and a sidewalk be provided; 2) a waiver of the requirement that sidewalks be provided on streets within the subdivision; 3) a waiver from the prohibition of double - frontage lots for lots backing up to Johnson Ranch Rd.; and, 4) a waiver of the requirement that stormwater detention be provided within the subdivision, and permit payment of an in -lieu contribution for detention. B. EXISTTNG CONDITIONS: The site is currently the Johnson Ranch home site with accompanying pasture land. A seven -acre stock pond is centered in the pasture. The topography slopes gently to the east and northeast. The existing zoning of the tract is R-2, as well as is all abutting land to the east, south, and southwest. Immediately to the west is a strip of land which is zoned C- 3 for the north three -fourths of the west boundary and 0-2 at the southwest corner of the tract. Across Cantrell Rd. to the north is the access road to The Ranch development, with C-2 zoning on the land east of the Ranch Blvd.; 0-2 on the land west of the Ranch Blvd. E I P. -1 74(Cont C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments: The plat needs street names, boundary line information, curve data, monument information, and data for all drainage courses entering and leaving the tract. A grading and ADPC&E permit will be required. Corps of Engineers approval is needed in order to fill the pond. Align the entrance of the subdivision with Ranch Blvd. across Cantrell Rd.; the name should be Ranch Blvd. The loop street name should be on the plat and must be submitted for approval. The small culs-de-sac are to have outside radii of 45 feet minimum; pavement width of 25 feet minimum; and the entrance and exist radii at the street interface shall be 35 feet minimum. Provision for maintenance of all islands within the right-of-way must be made in the Bill of Assurance, with the neighborhood association or developer being responsible for maintenance of the islands. Dedicate right-of-way for and improve Johnson Ranch Rd. along its boundary of the tract. The entire width of the culvert across the road is to be provided. A 6 foot wide sidewalk is required along the Hwy. 10 frontage. A sidewalk must be provided along the Johnson Ranch Rd. frontage and along internal streets. The 36" pipe from Chenal 14B, the 24" from Glean C. in Chenal 14, and the planned discharge from Chenonceau Commercial subdivision are draining to the rear corner of this property. Provide a drainage easement and underground piping for these discharges. Evaluate the effects on the downstream drainage systems. Open ditches are generally not permitted by the Stormwater Management and Drainage Manual. If ditches are planned, they must be shown on the preliminary plat and must be approved by the City Engineer prior to Planning Commission approval. (Ref. Sec. 31-89.9) Show any planned drainage ditches on the preliminary plat. Show water courses entering the site and the planned exit points for drainage. Submit drainage and street plans for review. A stormwater detention analysis is required. Show planned areas and easements for detention structures. Obtain AHTD approval for any work in the Hwy. 10 right- of-way. 3 FILE -.I.Q 74 n Water utilities comments that water main extensions and fire hydrants will be required. In addition to the normal connection fees, an acreage charge of $150 per acre will apply to a portion of this development. Wastewater utility comments that a sewer main extension, with easements, will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require a 10 foot easement centered on the property line between lots 4 and 5, and one to Highway 10 at the northwest corner of the tract. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. did not respond. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal. Pulaski County notes that, if the area is not to be annexed into the City, the County will need street and drainage design plans, and will need to make inspections of the work during construction. The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment. D. XSSiJES LEGALITECHNICAL DES1Q : Sec. 31-87 requires that, in addition to the information furnished, the name and address of the owner of record and the source of title giving deed record book and page number or instrument number for the ownership shall be furnished. Sec. 31-89 requires that, in addition to the information furnished, the following -be noted: 1) the direction of flow for all watercourses leaving the tract shall be indicated; 2) a storm drainage analysis, showing the drainage data for all watercourses entering and leaving the site, shall be supplied,; 3) a preliminary storm drainage plan incorporat- ing proposed easements and typical ditch sections shall be provided; 4) the plat book and page number or instrument number of all subdivision abutting the proposed subdivision shall be provided; 5) the bearings of the distances on all boundary lines, with ties to all corners of record, and all curve data, shall be shown; 6) the physical description for all monuments, with size and type of material, shall be shown; and, 7) municipal boundaries shall be shown. Sec. 31-91 requires that the Certificate of Preliminary Engineering Accuracy be executed. Sec. 31-93 requires that a preliminary Bill of Assurance be provided. Sec. 31-231.f states that corner lots in residential subdivisions shall have a minimum width of 75 feet. Lot 15, Block 2 is 70 feet wide. Lot 15 must be made wider. 4 FILE N -1 74 Con Sec. 31-201 states that "whenever a proposed subdivision abuts a partially dedicated or constructed public street, the developer shall provide the minimum of one-half of the required improvements and right-of-way." Johnson Ranch Rd., along the eastern boundary of the tract, must, then, have right-of-way dedicated and half Master Street Plan improve- ments made. The developer requests a waiver of the street and sidewalk improvements along Johnson Ranch Rd., since the subdivision will take no access to this road. Dedication of the required right-of-way, however, absent a request for a waiver of this requirement, shall be dedicated. Sec. 31-209 requires sidewalks along at least one side of all standard residential streets. Sidewalks are, then, required along all interior streets; however, the developer is seeking a waiver of this requirement. There are double -frontage lots backing up to Johnson Ranch Rd. and Highway 10. Sec. 31-232.d permits these where the lots back up to arterials, but not when they back up to standard residential streets. The double -frontage lots backing up to Cantrell Rd., then, are permitted; those backing up to Johnson Ranch Rd. are not. A waiver of this prohibition for the Johnson Ranch Rd. lots is requested by the developer, with the explanation that no vehicular access is to be taken to Johnson Ranch Rd. A "no vehicle access" easement is to be platted along the rear of all lots backing up to both Johnson Ranch Rd. and to Cantrell Rd. Public Works notes that on -site stormwater detention is required. The developer'is seeking a waiver of this requirement, noting that he proposes to pay an "in -lieu" fee. E. ANALYSIS: Except for the requested waivers and some minor deficiencies, the proposed preliminary plat meets the Subdivision ordinance requirements. Public Works recommends denial of the waivers dealing with half -street improvements along Johnson Ranch Rd., including the requested waiver of providing the sidewalk along Johnson Ranch Rd. and the waiver of sidewalks within the subdivision. Public Works recommends that provisions of the Stormwater Detention ordinance not be waived. The double -frontage lots along the Cantrell Rd. boundary of the site are permitted, so long as the "no vehicle access" easement along Cantrell is provided. The developer included this provision in his application. The double -frontage lots along Johnson Ranch Rd. will require a wavier, which the developer requests, noting that a "no vehicle access" easement will be provided along this boundary. 5 F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, subject to the requested waivers being granted by the Board of Directors, or subject to the applicant amending his plat to conform to the Ordinance provisions, and subject to the Public Works and Utility comments. Staff recommends denial of the requested waivers for half - street improvements and the sidewalk along Johnson Ranch Rd. and for sidewalks within the subdivision. Staff recommends denial of the waiver from the Stormwater Detention regulations and recommends denial of the payment of the "in -lieu" fee as a substitute for providing on -site stormwater detention. Staff recommends approval of the waiver of the prohibition of double -frontage lots for those lots backing up to Johnson Ranch Rd., with the condition that the proposed "no vehicle access" easement be platted. IIBDIVI TON COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 31, 1995) Mr. Gene Pheifer, the developer, and Mr. Joe White, with White- Daters & Associates, were present. Staff reviewed with the Committee members the layout of the proposed subdivision and the proposed waivers, and reviewed with the Committee members and the applicant the comments contained in the discussion outline. Mr. White indicated that the needed information and revisions would be provided. He indicated that his staff would consult with the Public Works staff regarding the Public Works comments. Mr. White reported that the fence along the perimeter of the subdivision would be brick or brick and wood, and that provision for drainage onto and from the site would be made. The Committee forwarded the preliminary plat to the Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 19, 1995) Mr. Gene Pheifer, the applicant, and Mr. Joe White, with White- Daters & Associates, Inc., were present. Staff presented the request, and reported that the applicant had amended his request to delete two of the requested waivers: the waiver of sidewalks within the subdivision, and the waiver from the stormwater detention regulations; that two of the waiver requests were being retained: the waiver from the regulation which prohibits double -frontage lots, and the wavier from the regulation which requires boundary street improvements along Johnson Ranch Rd. 6 FILE -1 7a Mr. Joe White outlined the scope of the proposal and reiterated the requested waivers regarding double -frontage lots and street improvements on Johnson Ranch Rd. He indicated, however, that the drainage structure under John Ranch Rd. would be improved, if that is necessary, even if the waiver of street improvements is granted. He reported that a brick and wood fence would be erected at the perimeter of the subdivision abutting existing residential areas and along Cantrell Rd. He said that a property owners' association would be established to maintain the common areas, including medians and islands within the public right-of- way. He explained that the proposed development would not be taking access to Johnson Ranch Rd.; therefore, a waiver from the requirement to make Master Street Plan improvements to the street was being requested. He added that the home sites along Johnson Ranch Rd. are 5-acre sites, and that it would not be appropriate to change the "country lane" character of the street. Mr. Louis Gladfelter, identifying himself as living directly across Johnson Ranch Rd. from the proposed subdivision, spoke in opposition to the request. He said that the present residents of the area enjoy a country atmosphere, with their homes being on 5- acre lots, and a high quality of life. He contrasted the existing low density, country style development with the "super high -density" development of the proposed subdivision, and complained that the neighbors had never imagined that such a dense development, which was so out of character with the neighborhood, would be placed on the property. He expressed concern that the subdivision would decrease the property values of the large lot owners. He said that the value of the 5-acre tracts, prior to the subdivision's development, would have been approximately $150,000; after the development, it would be less. He said that Ms. Opal Bennett, who owns an undeveloped 5-acre tract abutting the proposed subdivision on the south, would not be able to sell her tract for nearly as much after the development of the subdivision as she could have six months before the development. He said that stormwater run-off from- Chenal Valley is already causing problems, and that the proposed subdivision would compound these problems. He requested that a waiver to permit the homes to back up to Johnson Ranch Rd. not be granted, and said that the neighbors in the area had developed a revised suggested subdivision layout. Ms. Opal Bennett, identifying herself as owning the tract directly south of, and abutting, the proposed subdivision, spoke in opposition to the request. She expressed concern that the subdivision's development would devalue her 5-acre tract. Mr. George Baker, identifying himself as a Johnson Ranch Rd. resident, spoke in opposition to the request. He said that it is not that the neighbors object to development of the subject tract, but it is the nature of the development which is proposed to which they object. He said that the density of the existing developments in the area are no where nearly as dense at the r] FILE developer is proposing for the subject property. He said that the homes along Johnson Ranch Rd. are not overly large homes, but are simply on large lots. He asked that development of the subject tract take into account the character of the existing development in the area, and not change the "country lane" atmosphere which exists. Dr. Tom Hoffmann, identifying himself as the Johnson Ranch Association president, spoke in opposition to the request "in its present form". He said that he lives directly across Johnson Ranch Rd. from the subdivision which is being planned, at the southeast corner of Johnson Ranch Rd. and Highway 10. He indicated that the neighborhood is so opposed to the proposal that a number of the residents were in attendance at the hearing, and asked these persons to stand. (A number of persons in the audience stood.) He said that the residents feel that the proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the existing development. He objected to the double -frontage lots which would back up to Johnson Ranch Rd., saying that back yard activities, such as working on automobiles, hanging out laundry, or children playing, and back yard structures, such as dog pens, would not be what the Johnson Ranch Rd. residents would want to drive past as they enter or leave their neighborhood. He said that the proposal to construct a wood and brick privacy fence along Johnson Ranch Rd. to conceal the back yard activities would not be a "beautiful thing" to drive past every day. He complained that the houses which are proposed to be built in the subdivision would be smaller and cheaper than any other homes being built in the area. He said that the Neighborhood Association desires to keep the "country lane atmosphere" of their neighborhood; that the residents do not oppose development of the subject tract, but oppose the density, the proximity of smaller lots and homes to their neighborhood, and the fact that rear yards will back up to their neighborhood. He said that the neighborhood had developed a couple of alternate subdivision plans, which he wanted to present for consideration. He maintained that the alternate plans would retain the economic viability of the developer's project, and, at the same time, take into account the expectations of the neighborhood for retention of its country lane setting. He then presented two possible subdivision layouts to the Commission, one of which proposed large acreage lots facing Johnson Ranch Rd., with the inward -facing lots to the subdivision being smaller; and, for the second, proposed a "green space" buffer along Johnson Ranch Rd.. The first proposal would decrease the number of lots by only a few lots, but, he said, the developer would be able to charge more for the larger lots facing Johnson Ranch Rd. The second proposal would not affect the number of lots. He asked, then, that the proposal, as submitted, be denied, and that the requested variances be denied. Commissioner Putnam explained that, if the size of the proposed lots meets the Subdivision Ordinance requirements for the zoning which is in place for the property, the Planning Commission 8 FILE NO.: 6-1Q74 (font.) cannot force a developer to plat larger lots, simply to be in keeping with other development in the area. Deputy City Attorney Steve Giles confirmed Commissioner Putnam's statement regarding the Commission's inability to enforce. provisions which exceed the minimum requirements of the Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Tom Deluca, identifying himself as president of the Westbury Neighborhood Association, spoke in support of the request. He explained that his neighborhood is also a development of Gene Pheifer's, and that Mr. Pheifer has cooperated with the neighborhood in improvements and project which would benefit the subdivision. He said that the Neighborhood Association had voted to support Mr. Pheifer's development of the subject property. Ms. Ruth Bell, with the League of Women voters of Pulaski County, spoke in support of the request. She said that the League supported the proposal because the development is in conformance with the Highway 10 Plan, and because the League supports diversity in housing in neighborhoods. She said that neighborhoods in older parts of town, which have remained dynamic, have been diverse; that they have housing stock which include starter homes, duplexes, apartments, and mansions. She said that the diverse mix of residential areas is healthy. Mr. Gene Pheifer responded to the opposition to his proposed development, saying that the Bill of Assurance of the Johnson Ranch property, which included the 5-acre tracts along Johnson Ranch Rd., permitted development of the tracts fronting on Highway 10 for all non-commercial development. He said that, consequently, the subject property could have been developed in a way which would have been less conducive to the retention of the residential character of the area, and that the purchasers of the 5-acre tracts do not have a right of expect more protection than that which was afforded by their Bill of Assurance. They did - not, he maintained,- have a right to expect the subject tract to be developed in large 5-acre tracts, since this was never anticipated. He said that the Bill of Assurance for the Johnson Ranch property, under which the 5-acre tracts were developed, required a minimum of 2,500 square foot homes; his proposed subdivision is to have minimum 2,000 square foot homes. This, he said, is not that much of a departure from the standards of the homes in the area. He said that the homes on the large lots are on septic tanks, thus requiring the larger lots. His lots, on the other hand, would be on public sewer; that, as a consequence, the larger lots are not required. He said that more density is not necessarily bad, and that cities are encouraging more dense developments to protect the ecology and to prohibit urban sprawl. He said that the homes he proposed to build in the subject subdivision would be a minimum of 2,000 square feet and would cost $160,000 to $180,000, and that he would not characterize the people who would be living in these homes as the types who would work on their cars or hang their laundry in their back yards. He FILE NO.: 5-1.074 (Cont. said that the proposed subdivision design presented by Dr. Hoffmann had some merits, and that he and his engineer would review the layout. Mr. White stated that the developer and he would amend the proposal to include provision of a buffer along Johnson Ranch Rd., with a privacy fence to be located between the buffer and the internal lots. This, he said, would eliminate the need for the waiver of the prohibition of double -frontage lots, and, he said, he hopped the Johnson Ranch Rd. residents would support the remaining request for the waiver of street improvements to Johnson Ranch Rd. Commissioner Adcock asked if there could be buffering of the south property line from Ms. Bennett's property. Mr. White pointed out that Ms. Bennett has a vacant 5-acre lot, and that, when the lot is developed, any desired buffering could be accomplished within the 5 acres. To take a 40 or 50 foot buffer from the subject subdivision would take out five lots, and would be very costly. Mr. Pheifer said that Ms. Bennett had owned the tract for 18 years; that she had known for that time period that she was abutting land that could be developed for all "non-commercial" uses; that the development of the abutting tract would not be large home sites; and, that during that time period, she could have planted pine trees to create whatever buffer she desired. Mr. White said that, with the development of the subdivision, the stormwater drainage will be directed mostly towards Highway 10, and will alleviate some of the problem of drainage across Johnson Ranch Rd. to the east. Mr. Dennis Merrit, indicating that he lived at #4 Johnson Ranch Rd., said that stormwater drainage in the area was a problem; - that he was having -problems with run-off from Chenal Valley, and he could imagine that Dr. Hoffmann would have problems, as well. He said that he had been assured that the drainage problems would be addressed, but, he said, it has not been. David Scherer, with the Public works staff, responded to the complaint about drainage, saying that the Johnson Ranch subdivision was developed using an open ditch means of dealing with stormwater drainage, and that drain culverts are probably under sized. He explained that the drainage from Chenal Valley would be retained, once the retention structures were completed. He explained that, while a subdivision is being developed, and prior to the stormwater detention system being completed, there can be a problem, but that, once the system is complete, the release of stormwater onto abutting property should not be any greater than that released prior to development. He said that Mr. Merrit's complaint regarding run-off from Chenal Valley would 10 FILE -1074 (Cont.)_ be addressed when the stormwater dentition system in Chenal valley is complete. Chairman Walker, summarizing the proposal, indicated that the requested action was approval of an amended preliminary plat, with a 50 foot buffer from the edge of Johnson Ranch Rd. along the eastern boundary of the proposed subdivision, including a privacy fence along the west side of the buffer. The amended preliminary plat was approved with the vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position, subject to approval by the Board of Directors of the waiver of Master Street Plan improvements to Johnson Ranch Rd. Staff explained that, with the buffer separating the lots which were shown to back up to Johnson Ranch Rd., that no waiver of the restriction on double -frontage lots would be needed. Staff explained that, with the creation of a tract for the buffer, and if the developer does not final plat the tract, there will be no requirement to construct Johnson Ranch Rd. Mr. White said that, to avoid any confusion or opportunity for a claim of deception, he would prefer to pursue the street waiver. Chairman Walker called for the question on the waiver of improvements to Johnson Ranch Rd., indicating that the residents along Johnson Ranch Rd. support the waiver; that they do not want Johnson Ranch Rd. changed from its "country lane" character. The Commission recommended approval of the waiver with the vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 1 abstention (Putnam), and 1 open position. 11