Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-1107 Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: S-1107 NAME: ROBBINS ADDITION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT LOCATION: Northside of Pride Valley Road about 600 feet west of Kanis Road DEVELOPER• LAND SURVEYOR• Raymond and Peggy Robbins 011en Dee Wilson 15575 Kanis Road 2523 N. Willow Street Little Rock, AR 72211 No. Little Rock, AR 72114 758-8333 AREA: 9.98 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: None ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED USES: Single Family PLANNING DISTRICT: #18 - Ellis Mountain CENSUS TRACT: 42.07 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1) Street improvements on both boundary streets. 2) One lot final plats - two phase BACKGROUND• This owner approached staff about the division of this ownership for purposes of creating a lot for a family member. The sale or transfer required a plat since the land area to be split was less than 5 acres. Staff recommended a two lot plat for commission action and follow-up by the Board of Directors for waivers. A. PROPOSAL RE VEST: To create two lots, one for a family member and the balance of the site to be retained with the existing house. One lot would be recorded, the other would be retained on preliminary. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The land is flat grade with a large drainage way along the north and west boundary. A portion of the site has been selectively cut. Most is tree -covered, undeveloped. The boundary streets are two- lane county road standard with open ditches. FILE NO.. S-1107 (Cont.) Public Transportation There is no service to the lots. C. NEIGHSQRHg D COMMENTS: None received at this writing. D_ ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: Provide Master Street Plan right-of-way dedication for both streets. Pride Valley is a collector and requires 30 feet from centerline and Kanis is a minor arterial that requires 45 feet from centerline. If this becomes a'3 lot subdivision versus lot split street improvements are required by staff, unless advised otherwise by the City Attorney. Currently, Kanis is a 22 foot street and Pride Valley is an 18 foot street. Neither have curb and gutter or sidewalks. All drives must be asphalt or concrete from street to right-of-way in accordance with City Ordinance prior to final platting property. Contact Pulaski County for floodplain information prior to construction permit. E. UTILITY COMMENTS FIRE DEPARTMENT: Wastewater: Outside service area - no comment Water: Acreage charge of $300.00 per acre. Any water service on Pride Valley Road will require a main extension. AP&L: No response at this writing Arkla: OK Southwestern Bell: OK Fire Department: OK county Plannin Construction on any lot involving floodplain must obtain a permit from county planning, before beginning construction. F. ISSUES(LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: L Sqnd e• No Comment The following are some plat and submittal items, to be resolved. 2 FILE NO.: S-1107 Cont.) • Certificate of Owner - source of title • Current right-of-way both abutting streets ■ Show water or sewer service lines. • Type of monumentation/PAGIS • East line Lot #1 - dimension ■ Internal lot angles • Abutting owners • City limits line at Kanis Road G. ANALYSIS• This plat is a typical two lot plat in all respects except that the owner desires to retain the larger portion of his ownership on preliminary plat for future development. The inclusion at this time would be very costly improvement wise since his home is on the remainder. Assessments by utilities, tax assessor and Master Street Plan are significant. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval of the plat as filed including the waivers. Subject to items in D, E and F. SUBDIVISION C MITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 27, 1996) Mr. Robbins, the owner, was present and offered comments on his application. The staff presented Planning and Public Works thoughts on completion of the plat detail. There were a number of minor issues such as the ownership certificate that are easy to remedy. Mr. Robbins was directed to get with his surveyor and provide the details remaining to staff within a week of the Subdivision Committee meeting. The item is to be forwarded to the full Commission for final approval. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996) The Chairman asked that staff present the application and its recommendation. Richard Wood, of the Staff, offered a brief overview of the application and the reason for filing. Wood included in his comments a statement as to the effect of the Master Street Plan upon this property and the two lots involved, specifically the width of roadway and the right-of-way which would be required. Wood stated that in light of City Attorney's recent comments to issues of this nature, staff did not believe there was sufficient 3 FILE Na_: 5-1107 (Cont.) nexus in circumstance to require the substantial street improvements for purpose of building one residential structure. At the conclusion of staff comments, Commissioner Lichty asked Richard Wood, of the Staff, to once again restate the exact nature of the waivers on these two streets. Wood restated his previous comments which were that Pride valley Road was a collector street with a 36 foot pavement and a 60 foot right-of- way. One-half of the pavement improvement will be required by the applicant. The applicant does proposed to dedicate the one- half of 60 feet right-of-way. On Ranis Road, this is an arterial street which would be multiple lanes, perhaps five within a 90 foot right-of-way. In this instance, the applicant proposes to dedicate the right-of-way but would require relief from the one- half pavement improvement. Commissioner Lichty then offered comments that the abutting property is zoned 0-2 to the east and R-2 to the west. There was potential for development of this property in the future which could cause requirements for improvements to occur. He closed his comment by asking Staff how this waiver would be affected by the development of those properties and the placement of their improvements. Wood responded by saying that the applicant in this situation has specifically requested that the larger body of his ownership be retained on preliminary plat and not recorded at this time. This leads staff to suggest that our recommendation to the City Board will not be a complete waiver but a deferral of improvements to some future time when the larger portion of the property is developed. Wood stated that the 0-2 portion of the property to the east had been attempted on previous occasions for rezoning to a more intense use and that Commissioner Lichty's comments were well - placed. In a further discussion between Richard Wood, of the Staff, and Commissioner Lichty, it was pointed out that the loss of improvements would only be attached to lot 1. Lot 1 is the current lot being proposed for record and construction of a residence. But perhaps the City Board could defer that improvement in association with the larger body of improvements. Commissioner Lichty then suggested that he would like to ask comments from other commissioners on this subject. The Chair then recognized Commissioner Ernest who offered comments generally along the lines of those offered by Commissioner Lichty. In his comments, Commissioner Ernest specifically asked whether the 235 feet of frontage is being requested for complete waiver at this time. Wood explained the process to be that, staff would approve a one lot final plat which would go on record but no street improvements would be assessed based on the waiver. The balance of the property would be retained on preliminary plat and not final platted until some future development is proposed. 4 FILE NO.: 5-1107(Cont.) Commissioner Hawn then offered a comment that he understood, that, if there were waivers granted at this time there would be no liability to this property owner, but it was extended as a variance or deferral. Then, it was potential for obtaining the improvements at some future point. Questions concerning the appropriateness of the improvement requirements and the circumstance was posed to the City Attorney. Mr. Giles asked that the question be restated. Richard wood, of the Staff, offered a brief commentary outlining what he understood was the issue at hand. The nexus relationship between improvements and what was being constructed. Giles preferenced his comments by asking a question as to whether or not the improvements would be in excess of those required by the Master Street Plan. Richard wood, of the Staff, said they would not and both streets would be assessed at the current standard. Giles stated that he usually takes a position that the connection between the proposal and the street improvements is the Master Street Plan. Unless there is an excess requirement above the Master Street Plan, then there is a nexus present. He said the answer in this instance is "yes" the Master Street Plan requirements can be applied. David Scherer, of Public Works, came forward and offered a brief commentary as to what Public Works most recently required with respect to street improvements on small plats or single family development and do not specifically require street improvements. In recent times Cindy Dawson, of the City Attorney's Office, had instructed him that Public Works must cease that practice in as much as the Master Street Plan controls the circumstance. He stated that she instructed him that the ordinance does not give Public Works the right of waiver or variance. If a person subdivides property, they will do their boundary street improvements. David Scherer offered a follow-up comment to the affect that as he understood it that Staff of Planning Commission as well as his office could support taking the issue to the Board of Directors for a variance which would be a deferral of the improvements. This would be to a point were property is rezoned or a change of use is involved or perhaps further resubdividing the property. At that time the street improvements would be assessed. Steve Giles, of the City Attorney's Office buttressed Mr. Scherer's comments by saying that in effect we are not waiving anything at this point. We are simply deferring those improvements until a more appropriate occasion. A brief discussion involving all of the parties pursued the issue somewhat further as to the appropriateness of the deferral as opposed to a waiver. 5 FILE NO.: S-1107 Cont. Richard Wood closed the discussion by saying that it has been practice of the Board of Directors over recent years to avoid total waiver of improvements. The deferral of those improvements to a specific time or activity is more appropriate. Chairman Putnam then offered a clarification of the issue before the Commission. This would be that the lot 1 improvements as well as lot 2 would be included in the deferral. It was again pointed out that the deferral by the City Board will run with the title of the property much like a waiver would. A future owner or developer of the property will have to pick-up the requirement. At this point, a discussion moved to an appropriate motion on this item_ Commissioner Hawn attempted a motion which was as follows: Improvements on lot 2 be deferred until such time as that property is developed or rezoned further and that the requirement be attached to lot 1 also. The plat be approved as recommended by the staff. Steven Giles, of the City Attorney's Office, asked Commissioner Hawn whether it would appropriate to add another trigger to the motion and the action of the Commission which would be the rezoning of the property. Commissioner Hawn accepted that idea as part of his motion. After a second was received on the motion Commissioner McCarthy injected a statement asking whether the Robbins were present. Her question to them was whether or not they understood what the Commission was doing and the terminology being applied. Chairman Putnam then asked Mr. Robbins to come forward to the microphone. Mr. Robbins came forward and responded to the Commissioner McCarthy's question. He stated that he understood the Commission was recommending the deferral of any improvements on the abutting street to this property until there is a future development or rezoning of his property. At the Chairman's prompting, he also responded by saying he understood the deferral covered both lots not just lot 2. Mr. Robbins further stated that he understood there would be no requirement for street improvements at this time attached to building the house on lot 1. He also understood they would be dedicating 30 feet of right-of-way on Pride Valley from the centerline and 40 feet or so along Ranis Road for arterial right-of-way. At this point, -Commissioner Lichty injected a comment or a question as to what happens on this property with respect to improvements if the 0-2 property or the larger property to the west were to be developed with the street improvements. Richard Wood, of the Staff, offered a response to what he heard the Commission saying is those properties developing would not trigger the requirement that the improvements would be _ constructed for these two lots. This would leave a space in between those developments. Commissioner Lichty stated that he L FILE NO.: S-1107 (Cont.) was unalterably opposed to that occurrence. He stated that the Planning Commission needs to think about it. He continued by saying perhaps the trigger should include the two abutting properties as well as the two lots in question. Chairman Putnam inserted a thought that the other lands are not involved in this application and he did not think such an attachment or condition could be applied. There was an extended discussion of the improvements and to how such an attachment could occur or should occur. Commissioner Hawn offered clarification of his motion that he felt effectively dealt with this property because we do not normally assess improvements of the type required to attachment with rebuilding or developing single family. He stated that if these two lots remained as single family, then what happens around them should not control what they are required to do. Jim Lawson added the thought that if you are on any arterial street in this city and you do not develop your property but retain it as single family use, then if other property develop around you there is a gap. In a response to a question from Commissioner Lichty, he said staff was not necessarily happy with it but it is the way streets are built in this community. Commissioner Lichty asked for clarification as to who would build those improvements in this event. Lawson responded by saying it would be typically be a public project. Commissioner Brandon then inserted a thought in this discussion that she felt like you could not hold this applicant responsible for what the adjacent neighbors are doing or developing on their properties. In effect, this is what we are doing by assessing improvements based upon their development. David Scherer, of Public works, then offered a comment at this point. He stated that typically the experience of property in these kinds of relationships is, they are ready for the street improvements to be developed. If there is already development in the area providing for the development of the streets. The properties will develop adjacent to each other in a manner to flesh out the street. Especially by the time the traffic volumes are there, which require the street will typically be there such as on Bowman Road and on certain portions of Kanis Road. If there are gaps, then it is controlled by a narrow time line and those gaps are filled in. Commissioner Adcock asked if the motion could be restated. The Commission deferred to City Attorney's representative, Steven Giles, to restate the motion. The motion was that the staff recommendation be approved with a deferral of the Master Street Plan requirements on both Pride valley and Kanis Road until such time as either lot 1 or lot 2 is redeveloped to a more intense use than single family development use. 7 FILE NO.: S-1107(Cont.) The Chairman noted that a motion had been made and had been seconded. He asked for a vote on the motion. A vote on the motion produced denial of the requested plat and variances. At this point Jim Lawson, of the Staff, pointed out the applicant could perhaps proceed with the plat without the waivers. However, the street improvements would perhaps cost more than the house they were proposing to construct. Therefore, the only option the applicant has is not to pursue the construction of a residence. Steve Giles, of the City Attorney's Office, pointed out that there was no plat approval out of that motion; therefore, the applicant cannot do anything at this point. Giles clarified his remarks by saying the motion was to approve the plat and recommend the deferral of improvements since they are tied together and the plat failed. Jim Lawson stated that the Commission could perhaps at this point proceed to approve the plat and simply not deal with the improvements at this time. Commissioner Adcock raised a question at this point as to whether or not the Commission could approve the plat and then let the applicant take his request for a variance or deferral to the City Board. A lengthy discussion followed involving potential means of achieving the property owners' goal of platting the property. Jim Lawson clarified the situation again by saying that this applicant could not proceed to the Board because he does not have a preliminary plat approval recommendation from the Planning Commission. In response to a question from the Chairman, Steven Giles of the City Attorney's Office stated that the Commission would have to rescind its vote on the previous motion before it could take action to do other than what it has already done. A motion and a vote to approve the preliminary plat could send the item on to the Board. Jim Lawson stated this would at least allow Mr. Robbins to pursue his plat and in the event the Board did not approve the deferral or waivers he did not have to pursue the plat further and he has no commitments. But without an approved plat from the Planning Commission, he cannot proceed to the City Board. A discussion between the Chairman, Commissioner Lichty and Steve Giles determined it was Mr. Robbins' call as to whether or not he wanted the item rescinded from the previous vote or another vote taken on the preliminary plat alone. A lengthy discussion then followed involving the Chairman and Mr. Robbins as to what his options were and the appropriateness of some of the comments which have been made. At the end of this discussion, Mr. Robbins stated for the record that he would like the Commission to rescind its previous vote and vote again on the preliminary plat alone. 8 FILE NO.: S-1107 Cont.) Commissioner Adcock then offered a motion that the previous vote be expunged from the record and that the case be reconsidered. This motion passed by unanimous vote. A second motion was then made by Commissioner Hawn that the preliminary plat be approved without benefit of the waiver request. A vote on that motion produced 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent and 1 open position. The Commission offered no recommendation to the Board on street waivers or deferral. 9