Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3454-A Staff Analysis16 FILE Z- 4 4-A NAME: COURTSIDE PLACE -- LONG -FORM PD -R LOC.ATIQN: North side of Otter Creek Parkway, approximately 0.3 mile west of Stagecoach Rd. DEVELOPER - ENGINEER: Tommy Hodges Pat McGetrick OTTER CREEK LAND CO. MCGETRICK ENGINEERING #2 Otter Creek Ct. 11225 Huron Ln., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72209 Little Rock, AR 72211 455-5557 223-9900 AREA: 12.68 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 36 FT. NEW STREET: 1,200 ZONING: MF -18 PROP ED USES: Single -Family Residential PLANNING DISTRICT: Otter Creek (16) CENSUS TRACT: 42.08 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1) variance from the required minimum front building setback dimension of 25 feet. 2) Variance from the 100 foot minimum average residential lot depth requirement. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: Development of 35 "patio homes" on a 12.68 acre tract as a "plan- ned development" is proposed. The individual lots on which the homes are to be constructed occupy 5.9 acres of the tract. "Open space (the land designated as Tract A, the floodway of Calleghan Branch Creek, and the landscape area along Otter Creek Parkway) occupies the remaining 6.78 acres. The proposal involves creat- ing a loop street, with a single entrance onto Otter Creek Parkway; the street is to be a public street in a 50 foot right- of-way. Lots are to be an average of 53 feet by 90 feet in size, with the front building setback line to be set at 10 feet off the right-of-way line, except at two lots at the northeast corner of the tact, where the front building line is to be set at 20 feet off the right-of-way line. Rear building lines are 20 feet off the rear lot lines. Individual homes are to be a minimum or 1,400 square feet in size, one and two story in height, with two - car garages for each of the homes. An identification sign is to be located in the open space landscape area at the entrance to the development. Because of the "patio home" concept of the V FILE Z- 4 4-A(Qontj development, smaller than normal lots are proposed, with the homes being closer to the street than is normally required. variances, then, are requested, including: 1) a variance to permit lots of less than the required 100 foot average depth, to permit lots averaging 90 feet in depth, with one lot of 78.15 feet in depth, as shown on the plat; and, 2) a variance to permit front building setbacks of 10 feet off the right-of-way line (except two lots with a 20 foot building setback, as shown on the plat), in lieu of the required 25 foot minimum front building setback. Dedication of an easement at the floodway for maintenance and access is proposed. Maintenance of Tract A is to be the responsibility of the abutting Otter Creek Racquet Club. A. PROPO ALRE ❑E T• Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for a Planned Development - Residential for the development of the patio home project. Review and approval by the Planning Commission is requested for a variance from the required minimum 25 foot front building setback line to permit 10 and 20 foot front building setback lines, as shown on the plat. Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation for approval to the Board of Directors is requested to permit lots of less than 100 feet in average depth. B. EXI TING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and wooded. It lies between the Otter Creek villas Apartments on the east and the Otter Creek Racquet Club on the west. The topography of the buildable area is fairly level, with only a 2 foot grade differential across the lot. At the rear (north) edge of the buildable area is the floodway of the Calleghan Branch Creek. The current zoning of the tract is MF -18, with this zoning district extending eastward to include the apartments to the east. The remaining property surrounding the site, includ- ing across Otter Creek Parkway, is zoned R-2. Otter Creek Baptist Church lies across otter Creek Parkway to the south. C. ENGINEERINGIDTILITY COMMENTS: The Public Works staff comments include: The 100 -year base flood elevations and the floodway conflict with each other and with the FIRM. The engineer of record must develop the BFE and floodway boundary data that is approved by the Corps of Engineers, or observe 100 to 115 foot setback (as is on 2 ti FILE Z- 4 4-A n FIRM) from the centerline of the creek. Several lots could be impacted. An AFDC&E permit and site grading and excavation permits (including a Development Permit) from the City shall be obtained prior to beginning any work. The loop street qualifies as a minor residential street. The street layout is acceptable, and no sidewalks are required by the Ordinance. A sidewalk is required to be constructed along the Otter Creek Parkway frontage of the site. Stormwater detention is required. Shared driveways at the corner lots are recommended, due to the limited street frontage. Soils engineering shall be submitted to determine street design requirements. Denial is recommended of the 22 foot space between the garage and street, since an unsafe sight distance is created. Little Rock Municipal Water Works comments that a water main extension will be required. Little Rock Wastewater utility notes that a sewer main extension, with easements, will be required. Arkansas Power and Light Co. approved the submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require a 10 foot easement along the rear of all lots (10 foot total at back- to-back lots). Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal. The Fire Department approve the submittal. D. IS SUESILEGALITECHNICAL/DESIGN: The Neighborhoods and Planning staff comments include: For the PD -R, a preliminary plat is required. The submitted drawing needs to comply with the submittal requirements for a preliminary plat, showing all required information as required by Sec. 31-89 thru 31- 91 of the Code; including: c1 It FILE N Z- 454-A _(Conl;.) Sec. 31-89 requires that the proposed design of the streets must be shown. The 50 foot right-of- way for a public street is shown, as are the street lines. The street width, however, is not shown. It is not indicated whether the street is to be a 27 foot street, or a 24 foot wide street, as would be permitted for a minor residential street. Sec. 31-89 requires a storm drainage analysis and a preliminary storm drainage plan be provided. This has not bee furnished. Sec. 31-89 requires that the physical description of monuments be indicated, noting their size and material. No identification of monuments has been furnished. Sec. 31-89 requires that certification that the plat has been surveyed and duly filed for record in the office of the state surveyor and the county circuit clerk/recorder within the last 7 years be provided. No certification has been included. Sec. 31-91 requires the inclusion of the Certificate of Preliminary Surveying Accuracy, Certificate of Preliminary Engineering Accuracy, and Certificate of Preliminary Plat Approval. No Certifications have been included on the plat. Tract A does not have the required access to a public street. Provision for access to this tract must be made. The applicant has stated that Tract A is to be joined with property to the west, with the Racquet Club property, and is to be maintained by the Association. This will provide the required access, but access must be legally achieved and recorded. Sec. 31-256 requires building lines for residential lots to be at leas 25 feet from the street property line. The applicant has requested a 10 foot front building line at all but two of the lots, and a 20 foot building line on these two. The 10 foot front building setback line proposal does not provide sufficient stacking space between the curb line and the building line for vehicles. Vehicles parked in so close a proximity to the curb do not provide sufficient sight distance for pedestrians walking from behind a parked car. Sec..31-232.b states that: "No lot ... shall avenge less than one hundred (100) feet in depth." The proposed lots range from 78.15 feet along one of the sides of one of the lots to well over 100 feet in depth, with 4 I& FILE Z- 4 4-A JQ n the average length of side lot lines being 90 feet. A variance to permit lots of less than the 100 feet of average depth is required. Sec. 31-232.f, which states that corner lots for residential use shall have a minimum width of 75 feet, is apparently not applicable in this situation. The lots with front and side frontages are along a loop street, and so are not technically "corner" lots. No variance, in this case, is required from the provisions of Sec. 31-232.f. Sec. 31-232.a states that the minimum lot dimensions are to conform to the requirements of the Zoning ordinance for the particular zoning district. Minimum lot widths, except as noted above, are not specified in the Subdivision Regulations. Since the proposal is a planned development, the minimum lot widths established by the Zoning Regulations are not applicable. In the R-2 zoning district, for example, the minimum lot width is 60 feet. In the R-3 district, the minimum lot width is 50 feet. The proposed patio home development has lot widths averaging 53 feet. Two of the "flared" lots at the curve in the loop street have lot widths at the right-of-way line of just under 30 feet; two others have frontages of just over 30 feet; a few of the lots have frontages of around 45 feet. Sec. 31-232.b provides that lot width shall be measured at the building line, and that for lots abutting culs-de-sac, the average width of the lot shall be used. If the width of the lots at the building lines, or the average lot width provision is applied to the flared lots, then the lot widths are at least in conformance with the R-3 requirements. Sec. 36-254 requires side yards in the R-2 zoning district to be a minimum of 10% of the average lot width, up to a maximum required side yard of 8 feet. Sec. 36-255 requires side yards in the R-3 zoning district to be a minimum of 10% of the average lot width, up to a maximum required side yard of 5 feet. The proposed development does not identify the proposed minimum side yard dimensions, and these need to be indicated. Possibly, "buildable" areas need to be shown on the plat to. Sec. 36-254 (the R-2 regulations) and Sec. 36-255 (the R-3 regulations) require rear yards of not less than 25 feet. The proposal is for 20 foot rear yards. Again, since the application is for a planned development, the rear .yards established for lots in the specified zoning districts are not applicable, but may be used as a guide in determining whether the proposed rear yard dimension in the planned development is appropriate. 5 e FILE N Z- 4 4--A (Cont.) Sec. 31-2 and Sec. 31-209 permit loop streets of less than 1500 feet in length to be classified as a minor residential street. The total length of the proposed loop street, including the entrance street, is 1200 feet. The street, therefore, may be 24 feet in width, with no sidewalk being required. The sidewalk along otter Creek Parkway, however, is not excluded from the requirement. The Plans Review Specialist comments that, in the case of a residential planned development, no landscaping comments are applicable. The Planning staff comments that the site is in the otter Creek District. The adopted Land Use Plan recommends multi- family use for the site. The request is for a small lot single-family development, and, this type use is appropriate for the area. No Land Use Plan amendment is required. E. ANALYY ISIS: The applicant has proposed a small lot development, with a number of standards being less than would be permitted in a subdivision developed according to the standard Subdivision and Zoning Regulations. The lots, which average 53 feet in width, are in conformance with the R-4 regulations; the lot depth of less than 100 feet is not. With smaller homes, with the desire of "empty nesters" for less yard to maintain, with the proximity of open space and recreation amenities, the shallower lots are not perceived as objectionable or a significant variance from the required 100 foot minimum depth. The 20 foot rear yard dimension, since the rear of the lots do not abut other residential developments, is not objectionable. The 10 foot front yard setback, however, is objectionable; here is a safety concern in this case. Either a minimum 15 foot front building setback line needs to be maintained, or garages need to be set back to provide the needed vehicle stacking space. Common drives with side or rear entrances to garages could be a possibility to address this concern. overall, the applicant has (or can) address the concerns of the Neighborhoods and Planning staff and the Public Works staff. There are deficiencies in the plat which must be added or provided, but these can be dealt with by the applicant and his engineer after Planning Commission approval, but prior to staff accepting the plat as the approved version. 6 FILg O.: z -3454-A Gont.?_ F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the planned development, subject to the Board of Directs approving the required variance. Staff recommends approval of the requested 10 foot front yard setback, subject to provision being made to assure adequate safe vehicle stacking space at the garages. Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to permit the lots of less than 100 feet in average depth. SUBDIVI$ION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 22, 1996) Mr. Tommy Hodges, the applicant, and Mr. Pat McGetrick, the project engineer, were present. The Neighborhoods and Planning staff presented the proposed development plat and outlined the proposal. David Scherer, with the Public works staff, presented the Public Works comments, and specifically noted the concerns regarding the floodway information, the sidewalk requirement along Otter Creek Parkway, and the need for shared driveways, especially at corner lots. The Neighborhoods and Planning staff reviewed with the applicant and the Subdivision Committee members the concerns noted in the discussion outline. Mr. McGetrick responded that he would make the necessary amendments to the plat which were cited. The various variances and waivers were discussed; the need to provide adequate vehicle stacking space which did not pose a hazard for pedestrians, especially children, walking from behind parked cars, was discussed. With this discussion, the Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 14, 1996) Staff reported that the applicant had submitted a revised site plan which addressed the deficiencies noted and discussed at the Subdivision Committee meeting, and had amended his request from a 10 -foot front building setback line, in lieu of the standard 25 foot setback, to a 15 foot from t building setback on all but two of the lots, Lots 24 and 35, two back-to-back lots on the inner circle which have the least amount of depth, for which a 10 - foot setback is continued to be requested. Staff noted that the Traffic Engineer had notified the applicant that parking will be prohibited along the inside curb of the circle street. Staff explained that staff can support the amended variance request for 15 foot setbacks on all but the two cited lots, since there will be no parking on the inner side of the street. Staff reported that there were no land use issues involved in the applicant, and that no communications from area property owners had been received by staff. Staff recommended approval. of the PD -R, subject to 7 FILE N Z- 4 4-A(Cont.) compliance with the staff comments cited in the staff report; approval of the 15 foot front building setback line variance for all lots except for Lots 24 and 35 for which a 10 foot building setback line is requested; approval of the 20 foot rear building setback line; and, approval of the variance to permit the less than 100 foot deep lots. The recommendation for approval was included on the Consent Agenda for Approval, and was approved with the vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, 0 abstentions, and 1 open position. 8