HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0065-SS Staff Analysis1. Meeting Date: August 3, 1993
2. Case No.: 5-65-LL
3. Reauest: Relief from the requirement to construct
one-half of the perimeter minor arterial street to full
standard, involving constructing one-half of a 60 foot
paved street with curb and gutter, and permit the
construction of one-half of a 36 foot open ditch street
section.
4. Location: In St. Charles Addition, beyond the present
west end of Adour Drive off Chamberry Drive
5. Owner/Avvlicant: Winrock Development Co.
6. Existing Status: The minor arterial for which the
waiver is requested is along the west boundary of an
additional area being developed as St. Charles
Addition. The developer is proposing to align the
center line of the designated minor arterial on the
development's west property line, and proposes to
construct the half of the street which lies on the
development's property. The waiver involves the amount
of the street section which the developer will be
required to construct. The Planning Commission
approved the Preliminary Plat for the Addition with the
strong recommendation to the Board of Directors that
the developer be required to construct the minor
arterial to full standards as established in the Master
Street Plan and Subdivision Ordinance.
7. Proposed Use: Single-family residential
8. Staff Recommendation: Denial of the waiver
9. Planning Commission Recommendation: Denial of the
waiver
10. Conditions or Issues Remaining to be Resolved:
The proposed alignment of the perimeter minor arterial
does not conform to the alignment previously
established. The developer must seek abandonment of
the previous alignment and must return to the previous
alignment prior to the street exiting the development's
property limits.
The area represented by the proposed subdivision plat
is outside the city limits. Action is under way, it is
understood, to seek annexation by the developer of this
area, and in order for the subdivision to have access
to city water, the subdivision must be annexed.
11. Right-of-wav zssues: None except as noted above
12. R ommend Lion Forwarded With: A vote of 10 ayes, no
nays, and one absent
13. Obiectors: None
14. Neighborhood Plan: Chenal (19)
W
: a9
'I
August 29, 1978
Item No. 14
Name: Towne Park
Location: Northwest corner of Reservoir Road and Treasure Hill Road.
Immediately across from Prestige Addition.
Developer
Danny Thomas Company
Third and Gaines
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone Number: 374-2231
Area: 5.6 Acres
Zoning: "MF-24"
Planning District: 24
Census Tract: 22.02
Variances Requested:
Edward G. Smith and Associates
401 victory Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone Number: 374-1666
No. Lots: 14 Ft. of St.: 800
Pro Uses: Duplex and Apartments
1. Double frontage lots.
11 2. 20 foot building line setback on interior lots.
3. 20 foot pavement on a one-way loop street.
4. Sideyards to be platted at eight feet and ten feet (where
common drives are located) rather than as required by the
"MF--24" zoning district.
A. Existing Conditions:
I. Physical site characteristics
The site lies adjacent to a hillcrest on Reservoir Road
from which it slopes away to the west as much as 18 percent.
An existing farm pond has been drained and will be filled. No
watercourses or drainage run onto the site.
Underbrush has been cleared, and there is light tree cover.
2. Existin 2ublic facilities and services
Reservoir Road at this point is now built to county road standard
and has a vertical curve alignment which must be lowered at the
time of improvement to City standards. Treasure Hill Road
exists on the south and, for about 150 feet west of Reservoir,
is built to a temporary standard in anticipation of
�,/ the lowering of the grade of Reservoir Road.
AN
Item No. 14 continued...
All utilities are available in the vicinity.
McDermott School is adjacent on the north. Usual City
services (fire, police, and sanitation) will be available.
B. Development Proposal:
1. Site preparation
There will be the usual clearing and grading of streets and
building sites.
2. Project characteristics
Lots will be developed with two-story duplexes and apartments
of four, six, and eight units. One lot is proposed for two
apartment sites of four and six units. A total of 66 units
are proposed for a gross density of about 12 units per
acre. The net density (excluding street) would be closer to
18 units per acre.
It is proposed to plat interior setbacks as well as
front building lines so as to avoid the need of Board of
Adjustment action. Require side yards in the "MF" Districts
equal building height. Platted interior setbacks will be:
sides - 8 feet and 10 feet where common drives are located;
rear - 24 feet.
Common drives will serve parking for both adjacent lots and
all parking will be to the rear.
Double frontage lots are proposed along Reservoir Road and
Treasure Hill Road. There will be no vehicular access
committed to Reservoir.
The interior street is proposed to have a standard width entrance
with a one-way loop street in place of a cul-de-sac. The loop
will have a 20-foot pavement and 40-foot right-of-way with parking
prohibited.
Side yard setbacks will be devoted to landscaping and open space
except for drives and parking.
On -site parking is proposed at a ratio of two spaces for each
unit in duplexes and la spaces for each. apartment unit.
3. Provision for public facilities and services
All boundary street and drainage requirements have been made
previously.
Interior streets and drainage are proposed to current standard.
4. Legal considerations
The "MF"-portion of the Zoning Ordinance is written to
accommodate large tract apartment developments. The interior
Item No. 14 continued...
yard requirements ("height of the adjacent building") do not
relate to one lot development. Commission appro.val of specific
platted setbacks override zoning requirements.
Two off-street parking spaces are required for each two -bedroom unit
in the "MF" Districts rather than 12 as proposed, thereby creating
a possible conflict. This area is strictly the province of
the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
C. Analysis:
1. Double frontage lots in this case are superior since they
restrict access to an arterial street.
Reduced setbacks, as requested, are acceptable due to the
inward orientation of the project and to the fact that
they exceed those that would be required if the property
were developed as a single parcel with multiple building
sites and private access.
The one-way loop street is proposed as an alternative to a
conventional cul-de-sac. It is adequate provided it actually
functions as a one-way street. The developer is willing to
install a traffic island or divider to assure this.
Two lots, which could be called double frontage lots, are on
the interior of the loop. Both buildings are proposed to face
outward with parking, and the back of each building oriented
toward a common lot line, thereby presenting the best building
faces to the street.
Boundary street improvements have been previously deferred due
to the grade problem on reservoir. These may be replaced by
a cash contribution towards a public project to lower the
grade and build full width improvements.
D. Staff Recommendation:
The staff recommends approval of a plat and variance request subject
to:
1. Plat all building setbacks.
2. Designate both building sites on Lot 4.
3. Designate common drive easements.
4. Restrict vehicular access to Reservoir Road.
5. Designate maximum number of dwelling units for each
lot.
6. Down -zone to the appropriate "MF" classification, to be
initiated by the City.
dw 7. Variances from off-street parking standards to
require a Board of Adjustment action.
` Item No. 14 continued ...
8. Contribute cash equivalent to boundary street
improvements.
FJ
WAd
I4pr
9. Provide a traffic island, or other device, to assure one-way
operation of the loop street, subject to approval by the
Engineering Division.
Subdivision Committee Recommendation:
Noting that requirement for boundary street improvements by developers
had been previously deferred or waived on Towne Oak, the Committee
recommends approval according to staff recommendation, with the exceptions
of Conditions 7 and 8.
The City Attorney was asked to render a legal opinion at the regular
session, August 29, regarding Planning Commission authority to waive
off-street parking requirements.
Commission Action
The applicant was present. There were no objectors or letters of objection.
The applicant agreed to all conditions in staff recommendation, except for
condition number eight. The applicant adamantly opposed the idea of
contributing cash to a boundary street escrow fund for Reservoir Road
because such improvements on Reservoir have been uniformly waived in the
past; the applicant reiterated that under the property's present zoning,
'IMF-24", the developer could build substantially more units, approximately
160 units, on the site instead of the 66 units presently proposed, and
therefore, has made a considerable concession.
Staff and two commissioners rebutted applicant's argument, stating that:
1.) Conditions on Reservoir Road have changed in such a way that waivers of
boundary street improvements can no longer be justified; and 2.) Developers
could not, and probably would not, build significantly more than the number
of units presently proposed, 66 units, because apartments on a higher
density site in that area are mass marketable.
After considerable debate, a motion was made to recommend approval according
to staff with the exception of condition number eight. The motion carried
by a vote of: 6 ayes - 2 noes - 3 absent.
July 13, 1993
ITEM NO.: 7 FIVE NO.: S-65-LL
NAME: ST. CHARLES ADDITION, LOTS 962-1020 - PRELIMINARY PLAT
LOCATION: Beyond the present west end of Adour Drive off
Chamberry Drive
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER•
WINROCR DEVELOPMENT CO. WHITE-DATERS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
2101 Brookwood Dr. 401 Victory St.
Little Rock, AR 72203 Little Rock, AR 72201
663-5304 374-1666
AREA: 19.5 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 59 FT. NEW STREET: 3200
ZONING: MF-6 PROPOSED USE: Single-family residential
PLANNING DISTRICT: 19
CENSUS TRACT: 42.06
VARIANCES REQUESTED: Relief from the requirement to construct
one-half of the designated perimeter minor arterial street to
full standards and permit the construction of one-half of a
36 foot open ditch street section.
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
The developer proposes the development of a 59 lot subdivision on
19.5 acres as an extension of the existing St. Charles
development. Development is proposed to entail the construction
of 3200 feet of new streets, 800 feet of which is designated as a
future minor arterial street. The developer proposes to dedicate
one-half of the required 90 foot right-of-way for this street. A
minor arterial street is a 60 foot wide street section, including
curbs and gutters in a 90 foot right-of-way, with sidewalks on
both sides. The developer, though, proposes to construct
one-half of a 36 foot street, without the curb and gutter.
Construction of the sidewalk on this project's side of the
right-of-way is proposed.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of the Planning Commission is requested for the
preliminary plat for St. Charles VIIIt. Proposed is a
59 lot subdivision entailing the construction of 3200 feet
of new streets. The site is 19.5 acres immediately to the
west of the current St. Charles development and is an
extension of that development. Included in this project is
the construction of a portion of a future minor arterial
street, and a variance from the full requirements for
construction of this street is requested. Approval by the
July 13, 1993
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO . 7 C ntinued FILE
Board of Directors is requested for the variance from the
requirement to construct one-half of a 60 foot wide curb and
gutter minor arterial street section, and permit the
construction of one-half of a 36 foot open ditch street
section.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is presently undeveloped and is overgrown with
natural vegetation and trees. Surrounding the site is
undeveloped ground to the south, west, and north; to the
east is the current St. Charles addition activity. The site
is currently zoned "MF-611, but the developer is pursuing a
re -zoning to 11R-2" in a later Planning Commission hearing.
The existing St. Charles development to the east is zoned
"R-2". To the west is an "OS" zone and "MF-12" beyond. To
the south is the remainder of the 'IMF-6" zone with the newly
platted "Chenal Commercial Park" beyond. To the north is
all "R-2" area.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
Little Rock Engineering Division indicates that an "in -lieu
of" contribution should be provided for the future arterial
street. Engineering also reports that a sidewalk is to be
constructed on Bellevue Drive, and that a single name for
Bellevue as it is configured is unacceptable. PAGIS
monuments are to be shown.
Water Works reports that a main extension will be required.
Reimbursement for previous last lot participation will apply
of $33.89 per foot for 111 feet, or $3,761.79. An acreage
charge of $300 per acre applies. The land will have to be
annexed to the City prior to Water Works entering into a
contract to install the mains.
Wastewater Utility reports that a sewer main, with easement,
will be required.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. and Arkansas Power and Light
Company indicate that additional easements will be required.
ARKLA and the Fire Department have approved the submittal
without comment.
D. ISSUES ILEGALITECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The area of the proposed development is outside the city
limits. Annexation must be accomplished.
In previous action, when the Shackleford property was zoned
as a large planning tract, an alignment for the future minor
arterial was dedicated. This previously dedicated
2
July 13, 1993
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 Continued FILE NO.: S-55-LL
right-of-way does not align with the location shown on the
current plat. An abandonment of the previous alignment and
a dedication of the new alignment must be accomplished. Any
new alignment must be coordinated with all adjoining
property owners.
The developer proposes to construct the portion of the
future minor arterial which runs along the west boundary of
the proposed subdivision to less -than arterial standards.
It is proposed that one-half of a collector width street,
without the curb and gutter, be constructed, with
responsibility for completing the street to standard being
borne by the City or Improvement District at a later date.
This practice is in keeping with an agreement reached with
the developer of Charleston Heights in April, 1993.
The preliminary plat, as submitted, is incomplete. The
Owner and the Engineering Certifications are not completed.
The source of the contours is not shown. The names of
adjacent subdivisions, giving the book and page number of
their recording, or the names of landowners on unplatted
land, is not complete. The existing zoning of the land is
not shown.
E. ANALYSIS:
Most of the deficiencies cited for the drawings are minimal
and can be easily corrected by the engineer. The request
for a variance on the construction of the minor arterial,
however, needs careful review. The relocation of the minor
arterial alignment requires review and coordination with
adjoining property owners. The annexation issue and the
rezoning issue need to be assured.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of
stipulation that half of the
lying within the boundary of
to full standard.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT
the preliminary plat, with the
minor arterial, that portion
the subdivision, be constructed
(MAY 13, 1993)
Mr. Joe White, the engineer of this development, was present.
Staff presented the item and Mr. White outlined the request.
Mr. White explained the need to change the alignment of the minor
arterial, and showed the Committee members the proposed
realignment's extension to the north and south, noting that the
proposed re -alignment would return to the original alignment
before it affects any other property. He indicated that rezoning
and annexation were in process. He also indicated that he would
3
July 13, 1993
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 Continued FILE NO.: 5--65-LL
pursue abandonment of the previously dedicated right-of-way for
the minor arterial and handle the platting of the new alignment.
The Committee reviewed the discussion outline requirements, and
Mr. White indicated that he would make the corrections noted. He
also indicated that he felt that the loop street qualified as a
minor residential street, and, therefore, did not require a
sidewalk. There was concern noted by the Committee that the
Commission and Board of Directors need to review the change in
policy of permitting a developer to construct a street shown on
the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial at a standard which is
less than the Plan requires.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 13, 1993)
Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates, Inc. and
Mr. Ron Tyne of Winrock Development Co. were present. Staff
presented the item and indicated that the applicant had requested
a variance to permit construction of one-half of the perimeter
minor arterial street to less -than minor arterial standards,
asking, instead, that in lieu of one-half of a 60 foot paved
road, with curb and gutter, permission be granted to construct
one half of a 36 foot paved street without the curb and gutter.
The requested variance was discussed, with various Commissioners,
staff members, the applicant, and the applicant's representative
taking part. Deputy City Attorney Stephen Giles reported that,
according to the Master Street Plan, which was passed as an
ordinance by the Board of Directors, the City has the authority
to require construction of the proposed minor arterial street to
full standards, and that, contrary to a concern expressed at a
previous Planning Commission hearing, imposing such a requirement
does not constitute a "taking" issue. Director Jim Lawson
indicated that the City and the State have no means of
distributing the burden of constructing such arterial streets
among all land owners who will eventually benefit from its
construction; instead, the developer who happens to abut the
alignment of the arterial street is responsible for its
construction. There was a lengthy discussion among Commissioners
regarding whether the requested variance should be recommended
for approval or denial to the Board of Directors. Mr. Tyne
indicated that it would be the developer's wish to pay an "in -
lieu" fee for the construction of one-half of a collector width
street without curb and gutter, but would, if required, pay a fee
for one-half of the arterial standard street. He related that
the arterial street is not needed for access to the subdivision
at this time, in fact, is does not go anywhere. Mr. Giles
advised the Commission that the Commission has the responsibility
for approving the preliminary plat, but that the Board of
Directors would hear any request for a variance. The Commission,
he continued, could recommend to the Board either the approval or
denial of the requested variance.
4
July 13, 1993
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 7 (Continued) FILE NO.: S-65-LL
A motion was made and seconded to approve the preliminary plat
and to recommend to the Board that the developer either build or
put up an "in -lieu" payment for one-half of the 60 foot minor
arterial street with curb and gutter, according to the Master
Street Plan standards. This.motion carried with 10 ayes and no
nays.
A