HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-1088 Staff AnalysisFebruary 13, 1996
FILE NO.: S-10 8
ITEM NO•= F
NAME: WINSLOW COURT ADDITION -- PRELIMINARY PLAT
LOCATION: Along Winslow Dr., approximately 1 block north of
Hughes St., approximately 0.1 mile east of Bryant St. and 0.25
mile south of Cantrell Rd.
DEVELOPER:
ENGI ER:
The Wilson Co., Inc. & Norman Holcomb Samuel L. Davis
2311 Biscayne Dr., Suite 112 S. DAVIS CONSULTING, INC.
P. O. Box 7244 5301 West 8th. Street
Little Rock, AR 72217 Little Rock, AR 72204
223-8651 664-0324
AREA: 5.0 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 17 FT_ NEW STREET: 0
ZONING• R-2 PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Residential
PLANNING DISTRICT: 3
CENSUS TRACT: 22.03
VARIANCES,RE VESTED:
1. Approval of a variance to permit a private residential
street in an access easement.
2. Approval of a variance to permit the front yard =
building setback lines to be set at 15 feet behind the
access easement line.
3. Approval of a variance to permit access to Lots 7 and 8
by way of a 20 foot wide private drive in a 20 foot
access easement.
4. Approval of a variance from the requirement to provide
a sidewalk along at least one side of the street.
STATEMENT OF PROPO AL:
Proposed is the subdivision of a 5-acre tract into 17 single-
family residential lots. An existing home on the tract is
currently served by a 480 foot long private cul-de-sac street,
and it is proposed that this existing street, with its cul-de-
sac, remain "as is"; that a 60 foot wide, minimum, access
easement be platted to encompass the private street and cul-de-
sac; and, that for access to the two proposed lots which are to
the west of and beyond the existing cul-de-sac, a 20 foot wide
drive in a 20 foot access easement be provided. Lots are to be a
February 13, 1996
ITEM F COnI I FILE NO.
minimum of 9,000 square feet in area, with the average lot being
approximately 12,500 square feet in size. Two lots, in the
northeast corner of the tact, are to be in excess of 21,000
square feet in area. The applicant proposes a front building
setback line at 15 feet behind the access easement, and plans no
sidewalks in the subdivision. Access to the subdivision is to be
restricted, with erection of a gate at the point of entry to the
private street and provision of a card access system.
A. PRO 'QSAL/RE4CIEST:
Approval by the Planning Commission of a preliminary plat is
requested.
Approval by the Planning Commission is requested of a
variance to permit a private residential street in an access
easement.
Approval by the Planning Commission is requested of a
variance to permit the front yard building setback lines to
be set at 15 feet behind the access easement line.
Approval of a variance is requested to permit access to Lots
7 and 8 by way of a 20 foot wide private drive in a 20 foot
access easement.
Review by the Planning Commission and a recommendation of
approval to the Board of Directors is requested for a
variance from the requirement that the internal street have
a sidewalk along at least one side of its length.
B. E]XTSTING CONDITIQIS: , ---
The site is currently an "estate", with a A80 foot long
private drive extending from the present..end..of the public
portion of Winslow Dr. to a cul-de-sac in front of a single
residence located at the southwest corner of the tract.
(The cul-de-sac is a 15 foot wide, single -lane design with
an island in the center, with an outside diameter of 62
feet.) The site, except for the area surrounding the
residence, is heavily wooded. The terrain ranges from
fairly level south of the existing private drive, to 50%
grades at the northeast corner of the tract. Much of the
area north of the existing private drive exceeds the 18%
grade which brings the "Hillside Regulations" into play.
The existing zoning of the tract is R-2, with R-2 being the
zoning of all land to the east and south. Land abutting the
northeast three-quarters of the boundary of the tract is
zoned R-5; the remaining quarter of the land abutting the
north boundary is zoned C--3. To the west is an MF-24 zoned
tract. There are apartment developments occupying the sites
to the north and west. Single-family residences abut the
2
February 13, 1996
ITEM NO.: F Cont• FILE No.: 5-1088
site on the south and east, with homes facing the public
portion of Winslow Dr. between the private portion of the
roadway and Hughes St.
C. _ENGIIOERING UTILITY CMME TS:
Public Works comments:
The existing cul-de-sac does not conform to City
standards. The cul-de-sac must be constructed with a
40 foot outside radius, in lieu of the existing 31 foot
radius (62 foot diameter), and a 100 foot diameter
access easement must be platted around the cul-de-sac.
The planned 20 foot drive and access easement for
access to Lots 7 and 8 is not acceptable. The
construction of a minimum 24 foot residential street
for access to all lots will be required, and the street
standards are to conform to the City standards for
minor residential streets.
At the point where Winslow Dr. becomes a private
street, a proper turn -around device must be constructed
to provide a turn -around for "SU" (Single -Unit) trucks
(e.g., garbage trucks) and other vehicles.
The existing 27 foot wide street should be overlaid as
part of the development of the subdivision, and any
damaged piping, curb and gutter, or inlets are to be
repaired or replaced.
Grading permits must be obtained, and -erosion co ntrol
plans must be provided prior to construction. ,All
disturbed areas are to be seeded and mulched for
erosion control prior to final platting of the lots.
Stormwater detention analysis is required.
open ditches are generally not permitted by the
5tormwater Management and Drainage Manual. If ditches
are planned, they must be shown on the preliminary plat
and must be approved by the City Engineer prior to
Planing Commission approval of the plat. (Ref. Sec.
31-89.9 of the Code of ordinances)
Little Rock Municipal Water Works commented that a water
main extension to each lot, and a private fire hydrant, will
be required.
3
February 13, 1996
ITEM N F Cant. FILE No.: 5-1088
Little Rock Wastewater Utility commentd that a sewer main
extension, with easements, will be required. All lots must
be serviced by gravity sewer. ,Abandonment of the existing
sewer mains shall be done by the developer only with the
approval from the Wastewater Utility.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the plat.
southwestern Bell Telephone Co. noted that a 10 foot
easement will be required along the east boundary line of
the tract. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. noted that the
developer must verify easement requirements for access to
the lots from the private street.
The Fire Department noted that the width of the turn -around
at the end of the drive must be increased to 20 feet,
minimum, and that the outside turning radius is inadequate
for access by emergency vehicles.
D. I ES LEGAL TECHNICAL DE IGN:
The submitted information did not include, as required by
Sec. 31-87 of the Code of ordinances: 1) . source of title
of the owner of record, giving deed book and page number or
instrument number; 2) a metes and bounds legal description,
with the acreage to the nearest one -tenth of an acre; 3) a
breakdown of the average and minimum lot sizes; and, 4) any
existing covenants and restrictions.
The following requirements, as cited in Sec. 31-89, are
deficient: 1) Contours are to be shown at 2 foot intervals
for terrain with slopes of less than,,1096 grade, in lieu of
the contours being at 5 foot.intervals, as shown (Contours
at 5 foot intervals may be used in areas where the terrain
exceeds 10% grade); 2) The storm drainage plan and analy-
sis must be provided; 3) The names of recorded subdivisions
abutting the proposed subdivision, with plat book and page
number or instrument number, are to be shown; 4) The names
of owners of all unplatted land contiguous to the proposed
subdivision must be shown, as must the names of owners of all
tracts in excess of 2 1/2 acres; 4) The physical description
of monuments must be noted; 5) The zoning classification of
abutting land is to be shown; 6) Certification that the
survey has been filed in the offices of the state surveyor
and the circuit court clerk within the last 7 years is to be
included in the Certificate of Preliminary Surveying
Accuracy; and, 8) A phasing plan must be provided.
Sec. 31-91 requires that the Certificate of Preliminary
Surveying Accuracy and the Certificate of Preliminary
Engineering Accuracy be completed and executed.
4
February 13, 1996
ITEM Nn.: F Con FILE NO— -1088
Sec. 31-367 through 31-376 is the section known as the
"Hillside Regulations". This division "is designed to
ensure proper integration of physical improvements in rugged
topographical areas...." It applies ,to those portions of a
subdivision plat that have an average slope of 18% or
greater. Such areas of steep slope are recognized as
requiring special... development standards...." The division
continues, "No lot within any hillside area ... shall be less
than 10,000 square feet in area.11The lots in areas with an
average slope of 18% are to meet this minimum size. The
lots in areas with an average slope of 20% are to have a
minimum size of 12,000 square feet.
Sec. 31-2 defines a "Minor Residential Street" as one that
is (for example) a cul-de-sac street which does not exceed
750 feet in length. Sec. 31-209 notes that sidewalks are
not required along minor residential streets. The public
portion of Winslow Dr., from Hughes St. to the south
boundary of the subject tract, is 300 feet in length. The
existing private street, from the south boundary of the
tract to the center of the cul-de-sac is 480 feet. If a
standard residential cul-de-sac is constructed, as required
by Public Works, with Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9 being "fanned" out
around it, and with the center of the cul-de-sac set at 450
feet from the south boundary of the subdivision, then the
street qualifies as a Minor Residential Street", and no
sidewalk is required. A variance request to the Board of
Directors, if this choice is made, is moot. If the cul-de-
sac is set further west, then a variance from the Board of
Directors will be needed to omit the required sidewalk;
however, the 900 turn in the street, permitted in Minor.,_
Residential Streets, is not permitted in Standard.
Residential Streets, and realignment of. -the street becomes a
requirement and complicataes the situation.
Sec. 31-231 states: "Every lot shall abut upon a public --
street, except where private streets are explicitly approved
by the Planning commission." Sec. 31-207 states:
"...private streets may be approved by the Planning
commission to serve isolated developments. The design
standards shall conform to public street standards....
Private streets are permissible only in the form of culs-de-
sac and short loop streets, and only when it has been
determined that these streets can be adequately served by
all public service vehicles. The subdivider shall provide
for permanent maintenance of all private streets in the Bill
of Assurance. This ... shall include water lines, fire
hydrants, or other utility facilities."
Sec. 31-256 states: "Building lines for residential -lots
shall be at least 25 feet from each street property
line...." The section goes on to say: "(For) lots fronting
on culs-de-sac or curved portions of other streets, (the
61
February 13, 1996
ITEM No -: F Mont. FILE NO.: -1 $
building setback line) shall not be less than 25 feet from
the street right-of-way line at any point.
E. ANALYSIS•
Practically the entire area north and east of the private
street is subject to the "Hillside Regulations", since the
grades are at or are greater than 18%. The required
analysis, as far as staff knows, has not been done;
consequently, staff cannot determine if the subdivision
design {i.e.., number of lots and size of lots) reflects
compliance with the Hillside Regulations. Either the
required analysis needs to be completed, or the applicant
needs to seek a waiver of the requirements from the Board of
Directors.
Public Works has stated that the existing cul-de-sac does
not provide the minimum required turning radius for "SU"
vehicles, and that this existing cul-de-sac cannot suPPlY
the returned turn -around. The Fire Department stated that
the existing cul-de-sac is inadequate. Public works also
rejects the proposal to have access to Lots 7 and 8 be
provided by a 20 foot drive in a 20 foot access easement.
Because of the requirements for the cul-de-sac, and because
the need for a variance from the Board of Directors from the
sidewalk requirement will be avoided with proper placement
of the cul-de-sac, the existing cul-de-sac needs to be
abandoned, and Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9 need to be re -designed to
flair our around a new cul-de-sac.
A proper turn -around device must be provided at the end of
the public street section, where the roadway becomes a
private drive.
The applicant has asked for approval of a variance to permit
a private residential street in an access easement. The
existing street is 27 feet in width, and this meets the
requirements for a Standard Residential Street width. This
street, because of its length from its intersection with
Hughes St. to its termination in the cul-de-sac, and because
of the number of lots which is serves, meets the
qualifications to be classified as a Minor Residential
Street. (The Minor Residential Street standard is a 24 foot
wide street in a 45 foot wide right-of-way.) The 90° turn
in the street would not be permitted in a Standard
Residential Street; however, it is permitted in a Minor
Residential Street. The width of the proposed access
easement is 60 feet. The criteria for the Planing
commission approving a private street are met, as long as
either the street remains a Minor Residential Street- (i.e.,
it is not lengthened beyond the 750 foot length from Hughes
St., and the required cul-de-sac is placed as required by
Public Works); or, it is reconstructed to take the 90° bend
0
February 13, 1996
ITEM N F Cont_ FILE Nd.: 5-1088
out to meet the design standards for a Standard Residential
Street.
The building line along a minor residential street would
normally be 35.5 feet ❑ff the curb line (a 24 foot street in
a 45 foot right--of--way leaves 10.5 feet on either side of
the street, plus the normal 25 foot building line). In the
subject situation, there is a 27 foot street in a 60 foot
access easement, leaving 16.5 feet behind the curb line to
the outside limit of the access easement. With 15 feet for
the building line, the building line will effectively be
31.5 feet off the curb line. The effective variance, then,
is 4 feet. The applicant explains that it is his desire to
reduce the front building setback line in order to increase
the separation of the single-family dwellings from the
apartment buildings to the north and west, as well as from
the homes to the south and east.
Public Works has noted that the requested 20 foot private
drive in an access easement is not acceptable, and has
recommended that the cul-de-sac be re -constructed and
located so that all lots have directs access to the street
or cul-de-sac.
Major problems will arise if the street must be classified
as a Standard Residential Street, in lieu of a Minor
Residential Street. The 900 bend in the street is too
severe to be permitted in a Standard Residential Street; so,
the street needs to remain a Minor Residential Street. As a
Minor Residential Street, a sidewalk is not required, and a
variance to permit development of the subdivision without a
sidewalk is moot.
There are, then, a number of deficiencies which need to be
resolved. Some of the requirements noted from Sections 31-
87, 31-88, 31-89, 31-91, and 31-93, are either minor in
nature and easily remedied, or are matters which are
normally supplied after Planning Commission approval of the
Preliminary Plat, but prior to submission of final plats.
Some, as cited above, are critical and affect the number and
layout of the lots.
7
February 13, 1996
ITEM F Cant. FILE NO. : S-1088
F . STAFF RECCjtL NDATI
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, subject
to:
1) The Hillside analysis being completed, and the number
and size of the lots being adjusted according to the
requirements of the Hillside Regulations;
2) The existing cul-de-sac being removed, and a standard
residential cul-de-sac being constructed with its
center point being 450 feet from the south boundary of
the tract;
3) Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9 being flared out around the new
cul-de-sac, each with direct access to the private
street;
4) A proper turn -around device being provided in the
private street where it transitions from a public
street; and,
5) The Public Works requirements regarding overlaying and
repairing the roadway being complied with, as well as
the other miscellaneous Public Works and Planning
requirements.
Staff recommends approval of the variance to permit the
private street in the 60 foot access easement.
Staff recommends approval of the variance to permit the
front yard building setback lines to be set at 15 feet
behind the access easement line, with the effective distance
from the back of the curb to the building line being 31.5
feet in lieu of the 35.5 feet which would normally occur-.`
Staff recommends denial of a variance to permit access to
Lots 7 and 8 by way of a 20 foot wide private drive in a 20
foot access easement, and recommends construction of a
proper cul-de-sac and a re -design of the lots surrounding
the cul-de-sac.
Staff reports that the requested variance from the
requirement to provide a sidewalk along at least one side of
the street is not needed, since the street qualifies as a
Minor Residential Street, and, since converting the street
to a Standards Residential Street (where a sidewalk would be
required) would mean major reconstitution of the street.
::3
February 13, 1996
ITEM NO.: F rr
FILE S-1088
SL7Hi7IVI I C MMITTEE COMMENT
(JANuARY 4, 1996)
Mr. Norman Holcomb, the applicant, and Mr. Sam Davis. the project
engineer were present. Staff reviewed with the Committee members
the nature of the proposed development, and reviewed with the
Committee members and the applicant and his engineer the comments
contained in the discussion outline. David Scherer, with the
Public Works staff, discussed the comments concerning the
inadequacy of the existing cul-de-sac, and the need to re —design
the cul-de-sac as a standard residential cul-de-sac,
that Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9 could all have frontage on the cul-de-
sac. Mr. Scherer noted that the 20 foot drives, proposed for
access to Lots 7 and 8, are not acceptable. Staff also reviewed
with the applicant and his engineer the requirement to provide a
proper turn -around device where the street transitions from a
public to a private street. Mr. Holcomb responded that it may be
better to simply dedicate the existing private street as a public
street, and forego the idea of the gated, private entry. The
Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the
public hearing.
PLANNING C�MMISSxON ACTION: (JANUARY 30, 1996)
Staff reported that the applicant had realized that the survey
which had been used to design the subdivision was erroneous; that
the east and west dimension of the property is actually 30 feet
less than the survey indicated. Staff reported that a revised
plat was prepared, and that it had been submitted to staff on
Friday, January 26, 1996. Staff reported that all outstanding
issues had been resolved, except for the design of the turn-
around at the entrance to the proposed subdivision.- Staff
reported that, in fact, the reduced length of the street had been
helpful in assuring that,the length of the cul-de-sac street does
not exceed 750 feet in length, permitting it to be classified -as
a minor residential street. Staff reported 'that the cul-de-sac
had been redesigned to comply wilth Public Works requirements.
Mr. Sam Davis, the project engineer, and Mr. Norman Holcomb, the
applicant, were present. Mr. Davis said that the needed
information, noted in the staff report, had been made, and that
the revised plat had been submitted to staff.
Commissioners Putnam, Mizan, and Daniel expressed concern that the
revised plat had not been submitted to staff earlier, so that the
needed staff review could be made and reported to the Commission.
Staff reminded the Commissioners and the applicant that the
Subdivision Committee meeting had been held on January 4, 1996,
and that the deficiencies had been noted at that time.
A motion was made and seconded to defer the hearing of the
preliminary plat approval until the February 13, 1996 Rezoning
9
February 13, 1996
ITEM NO.= F 1 Cont.
FILE NO.: 5-1088
Hearing, to permit staff to review the revised submittal and to
prepare the proper report to the Commission. The motion carried
with the vote of 7 ayes, 1 nay, 1 absent, and 2 abstentions.
pL I G MMI roN A TI N: (FEBRUARY 27, 1996)
Staff reported that, since the January 30, 1996 Commission
meeting, the application has been amended; that: 1) the
applicant, who was, initially, Bob Wilson, with The Wilson Co.,
and Norman Holcomb, has been amended to withdraw Norman Holcomb
as an applicant, with Bob Wilson continuing as the sole
applicant; 2) the requested variance to permit a private cul-de-
sac street has been withdrawn, with the applicant intending to
improve the street to City street standards and dedicate it as a
public street; 3) the turn -around device at the south boundary
of the property, since the street will not transition into a
private street, is not to be provided; 4) in lieu of a 60 foot
private street easement, a 50 foot street right-of-way is to be
dedicated; 5) the initial request for a 15 foot setback behind a
60 foot easement line is amended to a 20.5 foot setback behind
the proposed 50 foot right-of-way line, with the variance
request, then, becoming a 4.5 foot variance; 6)..the requested
variance to omit the sidewalk in the subdivision is moot, since
the street qualifies as a minor residential street along which no
sidewalk is required; and, 7) in lieu of meeting the ordinance
requirement for side lot lines along curving streets to be radial
to the street lines, a variance is requested to permit the side
lot lines to run due north and south between Lots 4 and 5, 5 and
6, 6 and 7, 8 and 9, 9 and 10, and 10 and 11.
)Staff explained that Sec. 31-231.e and Sec. 31-235 require side
/lot lines to be radial to curving street lines, "unless a
variation will give a better lot plan or allow better utilization
of conservation of energy". Staff noted that initially staff --had
indicated that the lot lines "flare -out" around the cul-de-sac,
but that the design professional had chosen to keep the side lot
lines parallel with the abutting lot lines, and not adhere to the
provision concerning the lot lines around the cul-de-sac being
radials, because there are existing and required new utility
easements which run north and south, and the lot lines need to
follow these easements. The provision in Sec. 31-235 permits the
needed variation, and staff recommends approval of the variance
to permit the side lot lines abutting the cul-de-sac to be
parallel with the lot lines on lots to the'east along the street.
Staff recommended approval of the 4.5 foot front building setback
variance, noting that the land slopes rapidly upward at the north
and east sides of the property, and, on the south, there is a
need to add distance between the rear of the homes within -the
subdivision from the side of the existing homes in the addition
to the south.
F11f;
February 13, 1996
ITEM No.: F Cont. FILE NC.: S-1088
The applicant, Mr. Bob Wilson, and the project engineer, Mr. Sam
Davis, were present• Mr. Wilson confirmed the staff report and
noted that he would comply with whatever requirements were
imposed by Public Works in improvements to the street for it to
be accepted as a public street. Mr. Davis explained that there
is an existing sewer line running along the proposed lot line
between Lots 8 and 9■ and that there is a needed new stormwater
line which is to run along the property line between Lots 6 and
7; these necessitating the variance to permit the side lot lines
to run north and south, in lieu of being radials to the street
lines.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the preliminary plat,
with the variances requested: i.e., the 4.5 foot front building
setback line variance, and the side lot lines not being radials
to the street lines at Lots 4 through 11. The motion carried
with the vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent, and 0 abstentions.
11