Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-1257 Staff AnalysisSeptember 16, 1999 ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: S-1257 NAME: Westview Medical Addition - Preliminary Plat LOCATION: Southwest corner of Kanis Road and Centerview Drive ENGINEER: Freeway Park Properties, LLC White-Daters and Associates 100 Morgan Keegan Dr. 401 S. Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72202 Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 6.9 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: 0-3 PLANNING DISTRICT: 11 CENSUS TRACT: 24.04 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: Variance from the ordinance required minimum driveway spacing for the driveways proposed for Lots 1 and 2. A. PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to subdivide 6.9 acres of property at the southwest corner of Kanis Road and Centerview Drive into two (2) lots. The area for Lot 1 is proposed to be 2 acres, with Lot 2 being 4.9 acres in size. The property is zoned 0-3 and will allow future office developments. The applicant proposes to final plat the lots one at a time, beginning with Lot 2. No new streets are proposed. September 16, 1999 ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1257 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and heavily wooded. The property immediately south and east across Centerview Drive is also undeveloped and wooded. There are two single-family residences on large lots to the north across Kanis Road. There is a mixture of commercial and residential uses to the west and east along Kanis Road. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: The Sandpiper Neighborhood Association was notified of the public hearing. As of this writing, staff has received no comment from the neighborhood. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Kanis Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way to 55 feet from centerline is required (includes additional 10 feet for turn lane per Master Street Plan). 2.A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the corner of Kanis Road and Centerview. 3. Provide design and construct improvements for right turn lane to Centerview from Kanis Road. 4.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 5. Streetlights to be provided on Centerview by Developer with underground service. 6. Show driveway locations on the plat. Shared drive on Centerview with Lots 1 and 2 will be required per Ordinance #18031. No access to Kanis is allowed by Ordinance. 7. Provide in -lieu for traffic signal (25% of construction and engineering cost). 8. A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec. 29-186(e) is required. 9. Grading Permit per Sec. 29-186(c) and (d) is required. 10. Contact the ADPC&E for approval prior to start of work is required. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements to serve property. 2 September 16, 1999 ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1257 AP&L: No Comment received. Arkla: No Comment. Southwestern Bell: No Comment received. Water: An acreage charge of $150 per acre will apply in addition to normal charges. Fire Department: No Comment. County Plannin : No Comment received. CATA: Very near CATA Route #5 - West Markham; approved for transit purposes as submitted. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: No Comment. Landscape Issues: No Comment. G. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to staff on August 5, 1999. The revised plat addresses most of the concerns as raised by the Subdivision Committee and staff. The revised plat shows the required platted building line for Lot 1, names of abutting recorded subdivisions and names of abutting property owners. The sources of title and the addresses of the property owners for this property need to be shown on a revised plat. The 25 foot building line on Lot 1 along Kanis Road needs to be measured from the new property line, after right-of-way dedication. The revised plat also shows the driveway locations as required. Two (2) one-way drives are shown for Lot 2 along Centerview Drive and two (2) drives are shown for Lot 1, one on Centerview and one on Kanis Road. The applicant is requesting a variance for driveway spacing as the drives do not conform to current ordinance standards. The northernmost drive on Lot 2 is located 75 feet from the north property line (125 foot spacing required) and the southernmost drive is also 75 feet from the south property line (125 foot spacing also required). The spacing between 3 September 16, 1999 ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1257 the two drives is approximately 235 feet (chord distance). The required spacing is 250 feet. A lot along a collector street requires a minimum street frontage of 500 linear feet for two drives. The property frontage for Lot 2 is just under 400 feet. The proposed drive along Centerview Drive on Lot 1 is approximately 73 feet from the south property line and approximately 205 feet from the Kanis Road right-of-way. The minimum required spacing from the south property line is 150 feet and 250 feet from the Kanis Road right-of-way. The proposed drive along Kanis Road is 30 feet from the west property line and approximately 260 feet from the Centerview Drive right-of-way. The required spacing is 150 feet from the;west property line and 300 feet from the Centerview Drive right-of-way. According to ordinance standards, no independent drive would be allowed for Lot 1. A shared drive between Lots 1 and 2 would be recommended. All of the drives shown are 40 feet in width. The maximum allowed width for a driveway, according to ordinance, is 36 feet. As of this writing, Public Works has not made a recommendation on the variance request. In a letter provided to staff, the applicant notes that the developer of the property does not agree with the 25% contribution to the traffic signal at Kanis Road and Centerview Drive as requested by Public Works. The applicant notes, "Should an office building be constructed on both of the proposed lots, warrants for a signal would not be met. Therefore, the developer does not think it is appropriate that he contribute any amount of money to this signal especially when considering this property is 7 acres at the intersection of a commercial collector and an arterial street. Development of this property would insignificantly contribute to the traffic counts on these two streets." The traffic signal issue needs to be discussed and resolved by the full commission. Otherwise, the plat is in generally good order. The proposed lot areas and widths conform to ordinance standards. The proposed plat should have no adverse effect on the general area. 4 September 16, 1999 ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: FILE NO.: S-1257 Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D and E of this report. 2. The issue relating to driveway locations must be resolved. Public Works will make a recommendation on the requested variance for driveway spacing prior to the public hearing. 3. The issue relating to in -lieu contribution for traffic signal construction must be resolved. 4. The applicant must submit a revised preliminary plat noting the sources of title, addresses of property owners, and 25 foot building line for Lot 1 measured from the new property line (after right-of-way dedication for Kanis Road) . SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 29, 1999) Joe White was present, representing the application. Staff gave a brief description of the preliminary plat, pointing out several notations which need to be shown on a revised plat drawing. The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed, specifically driveway locations and traffic signal participation. Mr. White noted that one (1) driveway would be shown on Lot 1 and two (2) driveways on Lot 2. Bob Turner of Public Works, indicated that the driveways would not conform to the ordinance spacing requirements and variances would need to be requested. Traffic signal participation for the intersection of Kanis Road and Centerview Drive was briefly discussed. Mr. White stated that he would meet with the property owner regarding the participation and respond to staff. There being no further issues for discussion, the preliminary plat was forwarded to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 19, 1999) Joe White was present, representing the application. Mr. White requested that this application be deferred to the September 2, 1999 agenda due to the fact that only six (6) commissioners were 5 September 16, 1999 ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont. FILE NO.: 5-1257 present. The deferral opportunity was offered by the Commission and will not be charged to the applicant. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the September 2, 1999 agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 nays and 5 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 2, 1999) Joe White and Robert Vogel were present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff gave a brief description of the preliminary plat with a recommendation of approval, noting that the applicant had met all of the technical,, ordinance requirements. Staff also noted that the driveway locations had been worked out by the applicant and Public Works. Public Works recommended approval of the variance for driveway spacing. Staff noted that the traffic signal issue was the only unresolved issue. Stephen Giles, City Attorney, provided the Commission with a memorandum during the agenda meeting. The memo stated that the Commission could not require traffic signal contribution as a condition of the plat because it is not one of the minimum requirements of the subdivision ordinance. There was a lengthy discussion concerning the traffic signal issue, initiated by comments made by Commissioner Downing. Topics of the discussion included whether or not there was clear authority within the ordinance to require traffic signals with preliminary plats, possible ordinance amendments to include traffic signal requirements and the City's practices in the past with respect to traffic signal construction participation. Joe White and Robert Vogel addressed the Commission during the discussion, in support of the application. Mr. Vogel stated that he felt it was the City's responsibility to provide the traffic signal and not his as a developer of a relatively small amount of property. Bob Turner, of Public Works, also spoke during the discussion. Mr. Turner quoted specific ordinance sections which, in his opinion, could include a traffic signal requirement. Mr. Turner C September 16, 1959 ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1257 and Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, also commented on past practices for traffic signal participation, which included consent by the applicant. There was a motion and a second to defer the application in order for the City Attorney to provide more information to the Commission. The motion and second were ultimately withdrawn in order for more discussion regarding the Commission's authority in dealing with the traffic signal issue and the City Attorney's memo and opinion. There was a motion and second to approve the preliminary plat application. There was also a motion and a second to defer the application. It was determined that the motion to defer took precedence over the motion to approve. The motion to defer was passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 3 nays and 1 absent. It was decided that this item would be placed on the agenda for the special called meeting on September 16, 1999. The discussion on this item ended with the Commission requesting additional information and opinion from the City Attorney's office regarding the traffic signal participation with regards to the Commission's authority. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 16, 1999) Joe White was present, representing the application. Staff gave a brief description of the proposed preliminary plat and a recommendation of approval. Staff noted that the only unresolved issue related to the traffic signal participation. Joe White stated that he had nothing to add at this time. Commissioner.Downing addressed the Commission. He noted disagreement with the City Attorney's opinion. He discussed the Richardson case and that particular decision. He noted that the decision was for that particular subdivision. He noted that the result of that case was that an application cannot be denied based on language that is not in the ordinance. He stated that the facts of the Richardson case are different from this case and that the ordinance has changed since the Richardson case. Commissioner Downing went on to discuss the City Attorney's opinion. He presented the Commission with copies of specific sections from City ordinances. He quoted from Section 30-216, 30-278 and 30-218. He reviewed definitions of boundary street 7 September 16, 1999 ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1257 improvements, purposes and reasons for boundary street improvements and what boundary street improvements include. He also quoted from 31-201(h)and (i), noting the connection between the Subdivision and Boundary Street ordinances. Interpretation of the ordinance was then discussed. Commissioner Downing stated that there was nothing arbitrary about this particular case. He noted that the development of this property will not generate the majority of the traffic on the abutting streets, but the applicant is required to construct half street improvements. He concluded by stating that he did not believe a judge would decide that the Planning Commission was wrong in requiring participation in the traffic signal. Commissioner Faust noted that traffic signalization is not specifically referenced in the ordinance. She asked about the City's policy in the past in dealing with the traffic signal issue. There was a brief discussion of past city policy. Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, noted that in the past, developers have agreed to participate in traffic signalization. He noted that the City has used the word "required" in the past in relation to traffic signalization. This issue was discussed further. Chairman Earnest asked Commissioner Downing if he thought there was enough language in the ordinance to require the signal. Commissioner Downing stated that he felt there was. Commissioner Nunnley asked Mr. Giles if his opinion had changed based on Commissioner Downing's discussion. Stephen Giles, City Attorney, stated that he still stands behind his opinion and explained the opinion with relation to the Richardson case. He also discussed the National Home Center case. He discussed specific ordinance requirements. Commissioner Nunnley asked that if it were determined that traffic signalization could not be required, could past applications which were required the participation come back to the Commission for relief. Mr. Giles stated that they could not. There was a brief discussion relating to the preliminary/final plat procedure. There was additional discussion relating to past City and Planning Commission practices. In response to a question from the Commission, Bob Turner, of Public Works, noted that a developer has never been required to 8 September 16, 19-99 ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1257 contribute 100 percent of the cost of a traffic signal. He noted that in the past some developers have chosen to do so. He noted that construction of signals would be required when they are warranted due to traffic volume. There was additional discussion relating to past signalization practices. Dottie Funk addressed the Commission. She noted that this was a heavily wooded site. She asked if the developer planned to clear-cut and grade the land. She asked if the buildings would be designed as to work with the existing grade. Joe White noted that the developer will maintain some of the perimeter trees and that the site would conform to current ordinance buffer requirements. There was additional discussion relating to traffic signal participation by developers in the past. Mr. White briefly discussed the issue of whether a traffic signal is warranted at this intersection. There was discussion as to whether the plat and traffic signal issue could be separated for voting purposes. Mr. Giles stated that they could be. There was additional discussion relating to the separation of the issues and whether the applicant could request a waiver from the traffic signal participation. The amount of participation (percentage) was also discussed. A motion was made to approve the preliminary plat subject to compliance with all public works requirements, including traffic signalization participation. There was additional discussion relating to separating the two issues and the applicant requesting a waiver. Joe White requested a waiver of the required 25 percent in -lieu contribution for traffic signal construction. The Chairman called for a vote on the previous motion. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 abstention (Putnam). The approval of this motion denied the waiver request. The Commission requested that the City Attorney take the necessary steps to begin ordinance amendments to include specific language requiring participation by developers in traffic signal construction. E.