Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-1094 Staff AnalysisApril 25, 1996 ITEM N 4 FILE NO.: 5-10 4 NAME: ZOEL SUBDIVISION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT L C�Q ATION: On the east side of Alexander Rd./Arkansas State Highway 111 (north of the Alexander City Limits), approximately 0.2 mile south of I-30. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Pat McGetrick ALAN J. AND MARIE ZOELLNER MCGETRICK ENGINEERING 5625 Bradley Blvd. 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 Alexandria, VA 22311 Little Rock, AR 72211 (703) 8201-5934 223-9900 AREA: 10.06 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONIN • R-2 PROPOSED US.ES: Single -Family Residential PLANNING DISTRICT: Otter Creek (16) CENSUS TRACT: 41.04 VARIANCES RE ESTED: 1. Waiver from the requirement to dedicate additional right- of-way along Alexander Rd./Arkansas State Highway 111. 2. Waiver from the requirement to provide one-half Master Street Plan improvements along the Alexander Rd./Arkansas State Highway 111 frontage of the subdivision. 3. Waiver from the requirement to provide all-weather surfacing for the drive approaches to the two existing drives and one proposed drive from the Alexander Rd./Arkansas State Highway 111 pavement to the subdivision boundary/edge of the highway right-of-way. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicants have purchased the 10± acre tract, and propose to construct their home and a large barn on the property. There are two existing homes on the tract (along the roadway frontage) which are to be rent homes; and, in order to be able to build another home on the site, a three lot subdivision is proposed. The applicants propose separating off lots for each of the two existing homes; Lots 1 and 3 being approximately 1% acres in area. Lot 2, occupying the remainder of the 10 acres, is to be April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NC.: Cont. FILE NO.: S-1 4 Alexander Rd., along the west boundary of the site, is both the western City Limits line, as well as the Pulaski County - Saline County line. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COI�ENT : Public Works Comments: Alexander Rd. is classified as a Minor Arterial, and 90 feet of right-of-way is required, as well as widening of the street to provide 30 feet of roadway from the centerline. Relocation of City -owned utilities is required as part of this requirement. A sidewalk along the frontage is required. (Public Works notes that, because only one home is proposed to be built on the property, with two already existing, Public Works will support a waiver of the roadway improvements until the property is rezoned for some other use. A condition of a recommendation for approval of the waiver will be the provision of paved aprons from the existing roadway to, at least the right-of-way lines at the existing and for the new driveways. Gravel drives extending onto the right-of-way is, noted Public Works, unacceptable.) Grading and ADPC&E permits are required. A development permit is required. The Corps of Engineers must be contacted prior to any modifications to the pond. The Stormwater Detention Ordinance applies. Arkansas Power & Light Co. will required 15 foot easements along the south and east lot lines of Lot 1 and the south lot line of Lot 2. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal. Little Rock Water Works comments that an 8 inch water main is available to provide water service to the property. Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that there is an 8" sewer main crossing Lots 1 and 2. An easement must be dedicated along this main. The Fire Department approved the submittal. D. ISSUESILEGALITECHNICAL DE�IC�I+�: Sec. 31-232(b) states that: "No residential lot shall be more than three (3) times as deep as it is wide...." The applicant requested a variance from this restriction, noting that the 283.3 feet of frontage for Lot 2 will permit the depth of this lot to be 849.9 feet, and its total depth is April 25, 1996 BDIVI I N ITEM NO.: 4 Cont. FILE NO.: S-1n 4 time, but conditions their support of the waiver on an agreement on the part of the applicant to dedicate right-of- way and provide the required aprons. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, subject to the applicant complying with Public Works requirements for dedication of right-of-way and providing required aprons for the three gravel drives. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 4, 1996) Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, was present. Staff presented the discussion outline and a copy of the Checklist to Mr. McGetrick and to the Committee members. Staff outlined the applicants' request and discussed the issues noted in the discussion outline. David Scherer, with the public Works staff, discussed the various Public Works concerns; e.g., the Master Street Plan issues and the floodway/floodplain issues. Staff discussed the requirement for the lot width to depth ratio not exceeding 1:3, and indicated that staff did not feel that the ratio requirement is applicable to acreage, but was intended to regulate standard residential subdivision lots. The Committee, following the discussion of the issues, forwarded the plat to the full Commission for the public hearing. 5 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) _FILE NO.: S-1094 time, but conditions their support of the waiver on an agreement on the part of the applicant to dedicate right-of- way and provide the required aprons. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, subject to the applicant complying with Public Works requirements for dedication of right-of-way and providing required aprons for the three gravel drives. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 4, 1996) Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, was present. Staff presented the discussion outline and a copy of the Checklist to Mr. McGetrick and to the Committee members. Staff outlined the applicants' request and discussed the issues noted in the discussion outline. David Scherer, with the public Works staff, discussed the various Public works concerns; e.g., the Master Street Plan issues and the floodway/floodplain issues. Staff discussed the requirement for the lot width to depth ratio not exceeding 1:3, and indicated that staff did not feel that the ratio requirement is applicable to acreage, but was intended to regulate standard residential subdivision lots. The Committee, following the discussion of the issues, forwarded the plat to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 25, 1996) Bobby Sims, of the Staff, presented the item for the Commission's consideration. He stated that again this item is before the Commission on the regular agenda for one reason. That is the applicant proposes a requirement imposed by the Master Street Plan and Public Works. Sims pointed out that he had had a number of conversations with the owner of this property who lives in the state of Virginia. That owner has indicated that they oppose building these improvements because they had purchased the land a number of years ago and considered it a rural location. They felt like the kind of improvement required is inappropriate. Sims stated that the owner had determined that they wanted to build gravel driveways to serve this property and had received approval from the State Highway Department for doing so since Alexander Road at this point is a state highway. Sims stated that the conflict in requirements came in when they approached the City for approval of their preliminary -.plat and learned that the city's requirements were going to be somewhat different in posing a surfacing on the driveways from the edge of the existing highway onto their property, plus the dedication of additional right-of-way to the Master Street Plan. He stated 5 April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO_: 4 Cont. FILE NO.: S-104 they had pointed out to him that other driveways in the area in relationships such as we are dealing with here are rural in nature and are gravel driveways. Sims stated that the owner indicated to him that they did not want to surrender the additional 5 feet of right-of-way because that would remove from them 5 feet of their property from their usage. Public Works was on record as stating that they would support the waiver of the highway improvements and they wanted to gain the 5 feet of right-of-way and require the driveways to be constructed to a hard surface from the edge of the pavement to the property line. David Scherer, of Public Works, came forward and presented its position relative to these exceptions from standards. Mr. Scherer pointed out that if this was a larger plat with a number of lots to be developed in here, then Public Works would feel compelled to require full improvements on dedication. In this instance, there is only one single family dwelling to be constructed in as much as the other two lots will be occupied by the existing dwellings that are in place. But in every instance, the City protects the Master Street Plan right-of-way by gaining the dedication for future improvements through other means. Mr. Scherer then discussed the reason why the City requires the hard surfacing from the edge of the roadway to the property line. This has to do with gravel driveways tracking rocks onto the asphalt roadway and damaging the street. The concrete or asphalt paving to the property line offers an opportunity for cars to lose those rocks before they enter the street. In a response to a question by Commissioner Ball, Scherer pointed out that the eventual widening of the roadway would tear out these asphalt or concrete driveways and rebuild, but, that is a unknown point in time. He felt it would be sometime before this is a 4 or 5 lane arterial street. A brief discussion followed involving the type and cost involved in doing the improvement to the driveways. David Scherer pointed out also that it is not only the driveway to the new house which is an issue, but this is a 3-lot plat at this time being created out of a single ownership. Therefore, the two existing driveways should also be improved. Pat McGetrick, the engineer for the project, came forward and offered comments on his applicant's position relative to the cost and the type of construction. Once again, the Highway Department has approved these as gravel drives. He again restated that his applicant is also opposed to dedicating the additional right-of- way. 2 April 25, 1996 SQBDIVISIO ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1094 Commissioner Brandon pointed out, that, although it was not the Commission's business as to the composition of the driveway from the property line to the carport. It has certainly appeared to be appropriate to place the city standard's hard surfacing between the property line and the edge of the roadway. The question then moved to how much cost is actually involved here for the three driveways. Mr. McGetrick estimated after some conversation with Commissioner Putnam that the driveways would be somewhere in the neighborhood of about $750 in cost. This being soms"ahat close to the Public Works' estimate which was $1,000 dollars. This was an estimate per driveway for the three drives. A commissioner posed a question as to what the difference was between the State Highway Department's requirement and the City's. Bobby Sims, of the Staff, responded by stating that the ours are urban standard construction requirements that deal with different traffic movements, volumes and relationships. The Highway Department typically looks at their roadways as being rural in nature. David Scherer pointed out that the state would not approve driveways for commercial development inside the city without his stamp of approval. He stated that he assumed it was treated somewhat different with residential. He said this did not come through his office. The discussion of this issue moved to the process for obtaining the improvement when it occurred. This was identified as being a final plat issue and the various commitments would be made at that time to make the construction. A brief discussion then occurred in which Bobby Sims, of the Staff, and several commissioners discussed the value of improvements being placed on the property. These were identified as being significant structures with no value attached at this time. A discussion then followed a question by a commissioner as to whether or not these improvements could be deferred. David Scherer, of Public Works, stated that he was not sure as to how you would defer such improvements and to what time or specific date you would tie it. If they are in their house and the house has been built and they are in place and there is no dollar amount held in -lieu by the city to insure the installation. How do you obtain enforcement? At this point, it appeared that the Chairman was ready for a motion on this issue. The City Attorney representative, Cynthia Dawson, commented that the Commission should remember her previous caution about placing motions in the affirmative which is to say a motion to approve something as oppose to deny something. Therefore, votes to deny 7 I April 25, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 [Cont-) FILE NO.: S-1094 something in a motion would not actually approve an application or a waiver. Bobby Sims, of the Staff, reminded the Commission that they should think about two motions on this issue. One to deal with the preliminary plat absent the waivers and the second one to deal with the requested waivers. A motion was made to approve the preliminary plat. This motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 absent. The preliminary plat is approved. A commissioner then made a motion that the waivers as requested be approved. After a lengthy disrsssion of the process needed to deal with three waivers which apparently might produce different votes. The Commission determined to deal with them as a separate vote on each of the three. A motion was then made to waive the right-of-way dedication along Alexander Road. This motion produced a vote of 0 ayes, 10 nays, and 1 absent. Thereby denying the right-of-way waiver. A second motion was made to approve the waiver of street improvements along Alexander Road. This motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 2 nays, and 1 absent. The waiver is granted for street improvements. A third motion was made to waive the driveway apron construction requirements from the property line to the edge of the pavement. This motion produced a vote of 0 ayes, 10 nays, and 1 absent. Therefore, the driveway waiver is denied. 8