Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0150-C Staff AnalysisSUBDIVISION COMMITTEE/STAFF REPORT DEFFERED MATTERS: A. T. B. Devine Returns after failure of notice Issues remain same a. Proper plat boundary b. Street improvement to industrial standards C. Plat submittal requirements including floodway. d. Written request with justification for waivers Note: This issue has received one deferral. B. Anna's Case on Heritage Church C. Johnson Short -form PCD Returns after request for six weeks deferral All issues remain: a. Floodway, handicapped ramps b. Bill of Assurance C. Compatibility with adopted plan d. Large neighborhood objection D. Ton 's Zoning Case 1. Hugh Wells Preliminary Plat Issues are: a. Master Street Plan Right -of -Way on Raines Road 45 feet from centerline. b. Curb, gutter and sidewalk on both streets. C. Drainage easement on Lot 1 d. A water main to serve Lots 2 and 3 will be required. Staff Recommendations: Approval subject to completing the plat filing requirements: (a) certificates (b) tie to land corner (c) PAGIS Monuments Staff supports improvement waivers but right-of-way must be dedicated. 2. R burn Preliminary Plat Issues are: a. Master Street Plan Right -of -Way and improvements for Colonel Glenn Road plus sidewalk.55 feet from centerline. b. Redesign intersection to meet traffic division recommendations. C. Name Street d. Detention and excavation ordinance's apply. e. Complete plat filing requirements. f. Sewer main extension required with easements. g. Water main extension required. Staff Recommendations: Approval of the plat with changes to accommodate items noted above. No to both waivers. Issues are: a. Sidewalks will be required. b. Water main required on each element of Phase V with access easement platted as public service, access and utility easement at minimum 24 feet. 3. Windsor Court Patio Homes Issues are: a. Sidewalks will be required. b. Water main required on each element of Phase V with access easement platted as public service, access and utility easement at minimum 24 feet. C. Complete plat filing requirements. d. Section through site east -west with structures. Staff Recommendations: APPROVAL SUBJECT TO ABOVE 4. Sandpiper West Preliminary Block 7 Issues are: a. Complete plat submittal requirements. b. Verify right-of-way needed on Bowman Road and the improvements will be required plus sidewalk. C. Provide record of creek right-of-way ownership. d. Sidewalk on one side of Creek Side Drive. e. Name short cul-de-sac. f. Some lots appear to be less than 60 feet at building line. g. 35 feet building line on Lots 1 and 36 plus 10 feet vehicle access prohibition zone. h. Drainage at point of plat entry. i. PAGIS Monuments j. Redesign entry to conform to Traffic Engineering recommendation. k. Stormwater and excavation ordinance apply. 1. Sewer main extension required. M. 12 inch water main extension required in Bowman Road to be coordinated with later road improvements. n. Complete rezoning action prior to final plat. o. Need phasing plan if not to be one phase. Staff Recommendations: APPROVAL SUBJECT TO ABOVE BEING RESOLVED. Staff supports the variance on the cul-de-sac, the horizontal radius, 15 foot building line and the in lieu for Bowman Road. 5. South Bend Acres Revised Preliminary Plat Issues are: a. Clarify who is engineer/surveyor. b. Complete plat submittal requirements. C. Sewer main extension is required with easements. d. The 12 inch water main across Lots 35 and 42 requires an easement 7.5 feet on each side of the line. This may be cause for design adjustment. e. Explain offset in Alexander Road Right -of -Way. f. Explain dimension difference between this preliminary plat and the previous plat along the boundary of Lot 45. g. Note about side yard maximum applies to lots in Alexander city limits only. h. Show dedication on Alexander Road at 45 feet from centerline with 30 feet pavement, sidewalks are required. i. Excavation and detention ordinance apply. j. Clarify city limits line. k. Show access easement overlay the rear lot drive on Lots 38-45. Staff Recommendations: Approval subject to above/waivers still good. 6. Savell's PCD (Short -form Issues are: a. No access on Baseline from the site. b. Dailey Drive to be collector standard. Thirty-six feet of pavement in a 60 foot right-of-way, with sidewalk. C. Conformance with the landscape and buffer standards. Screen dumpster site. d. Increase width of handicapped space. e. Screen mobile home park from parking. Staff Recommendations: Approval subject to above. I: Park Lane PRD Issues are: a. Quantify plan on drawing. b. Provide elevations of building's showing texture and form. C. Need specific landscape plan. d. Identify all structural elements. e. Show treatment of land outside landscape and hard surface areas. f. Provide additional 9 feet of right-of-way plus curb, gutter and sidewalk on Park Lane. g. Provide repair of curb and construct sidewalk on East 15th Street. Staff Recommendations: APPROVAL SUBJECT TO ITEMS ABOVE. May 19 , .19 9 2 ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: S-150-C NAME: Windsor Court Patio Homes Preliminary Plat and Site Plan LOCATION: #60 and Above on Windsor Court DEVELOPER• WILLIAM LILE/BY N. HOLCOMB #3 St. Johns Court Little Rock, AR 72207 666-5737 or 664-5148 ENGINEER: SAM DAVIS 5301 West 8th Street Little Rock, AR 72204 664-0324 AREA: 1.99 Ac. NUMBER OF LOTS: 10 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: MP-12 PROPOSED USES: Single Family PLANNING DISTRICT: 16 NAME: Chenal CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The develop proposes to construct upon the several lots, houses of approximately 2,000 square feet of heated area and larger, with attached double garage and an enclosed patio area at the rear of each unit. Access to the homes will be across Windsor Place to be dedicated to the public and by way of private access drives at the front of the Lots 1 through 6, and at the front and rear of Lots 7 through 10. Access easements through the central area of both development areas will be overlaid with a dedicated public service and access easement. Setbacks for the several lots will vary somewhat from the standard provided by the Zoning Ordinance. The standards provided will be in keeping with those provided on the adjacent attached townhomes and condominiums lying to the north and to the east. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: This application consists of ten lots for single family residential use as a continuation of the Windsor homes condominium and attached townhome complex. This plat has been under development and review over an extended period of years. The property in this application is the next to last development parcel within the development. There is one additional area to the south and west which has a terrain which is significantly greater in elevation and contains design constraints of a cul-de-sac and OS zoning currently in place. 1 May 19, •1992. SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 continued FILE NO.: S-150-C B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The tract of land involved in this development has a grade running from west to the east which increases in severity to the south. The sites will be modified significantly in order to place the ten homes on the these two parcels. There will be little or no natural vegetation retained due to this modification. The terracing or land modification will be compatible with that provided on developments to the northeast, which has worked quite successfully. C. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: The Subdivision Ordinance requires that sidewalks be placed along one side of the street and that the existing pavement be certified by the engineer of record as meeting city standards. This roadway was constructed well in advance of this proposal and the right-of-way currently is undedicated. D. ISSUESILEGAL/TECHNICALLDESIGN: The staff's review of this proposal revealed only one modification from the previously approved condominium and attached townhomes' designs. That is these units are placed upon ten separate lots provided access with private access easements. This should not be of concern in as much as there are numerous plats in the immediate area designed with the same type of access, and the lot structuring exists on one phase currently. The type and character of structure to be placed on these lots should be compatible with the existing townhomes and patio homes to the north and east. E, ANALYSIS: The Planning staff's review of this proposal is that the design is adequate for the site and the density proposed is compatible with the neighborhood and less than that allowed by the current MF-12 zoning classification. The only remaining issues to be resolved for this platting are the comments by the Little Rock Water Works as to providing a dedicated public service and access easement over the driveways in order to assure a proper easement and access for placement of water meters for the rear most lots. A follow-up design item which was discussed with the developer at the time of filing deals with a section through the site running east to west identifying the structures and relating the elevation of each structure to its neighbor and to the street. 2 May 19, .1992. SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 Continued FILE NO.: S-150-C F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the plat as proposed with the exception of the sidewalk waiver which will be required to be added to the application or a commitment made to construct. Our recommendation also attaches to the resolution of the access easement water main and the section through the site. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 30, 1992) The Subdivision Committee discussed this proposal at length. The several issues attended to water service, access and setbacks resulted in the following. The applicant was instructed to make adjustments in the design of the roadway, to serve the interior lots of 22 to 24 feet in width. Additionally, the design should be worked with the overlaying access easement so as to provide for sufficient room for the water main to be laid along side the pavement rather than beneath the pavement. The Committee felt strongly that the section through the site should be provided at the earliest possible time so as to provide staff and the Commission a proper view of the siting of the homes on the several lots. The applicant was instructed that if they desire to pursue a waiver of the sidewalk that would need to be requested in writing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 19, 1992) Planning staff reported the status of this application. Staff indicated that there were several issues remaining to be resolved such as those dealing primarily with drainage, access to adjacent properties and screening of the adjacent condominium complex. The Chairman then asked the applicant to make his presentation. Mr. Sam Davis, the project engineer, offered several comments concerning their provision of the notice letter, which is deficient on the application. The Commission accepted the explanation on the letter. He also commented on their sidewalk waiver request and their reason for the request which is grades on the property. After a lengthy discussion with the applicant, the Chairman then asked the opposition for their spokesperson to make their comments. Mr. Phil Kaplan, an attorney, was present and indicated that he was representing some of the adjacent property owners. Mr. Kaplan addressed their primary concern as being the drainage. He indicated that their on -site drainage system, at this time, could not handle the water coming from this proposed 3 May 19, .19 9 2 , SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 Continued FILE NO.: 5-150-C development area and the development would worsen their circumstance. Mr. Kaplan requested that the Commission defer this matter for a minimum of 30 days in order to allow the neighborhood to meet with the developer and discuss the drainage problem. There was conversation between several of the involved parties that meetings had been attempted previously without success. Sam Davis, the project engineer, indicated the developer would be agreeable to such a meeting, and his client would install the drainage subject to the neighborhood providing easements. After a brief general discussion, the Chairman suggested that it would be appropriate for these involved parties to step out into the hall and determine if they could come to a middle ground. The several parties involved retired to the corridor outside of the Board room, and proceeded to determine a solution. Approximately thirty minutes later, the participants re-entered the Board room and the item was again presented to the Commission with the comments of the participants as follows: The neighbors indicated that they would work with the developer for provision of easements for the location of the physical underground improvements to carry the drainage. Jerry Gardner of the Public Works Department indicated that provision of this drainage would be difficult, but not impossible. Mr. Davis and Mr. Lile indicated that they were willing to accept approval of their plat based upon the arrangement indicated. Mr. Kaplan then asked that the Commission also provide for a provision that this project not tie its private drives to the existing access drive along its east boundary. Mr. Kaplan also inserted a comment at this point to the effect that it was not necessary to barricade the existing street, as requested by some of the property owners to the south. He felt that the eventual development of the property along the cul-de-sac would resolve that problem. Mr. Kaplan also offered comments in support of the sidewalk waiver. His thoughts were that the only use in this area of a sidewalk would be those persons walking their dog in area of their residences. These streets are dead-end and there is no thru traffic. Jerry Gardner of Public Works offered his thoughts which were that sidewalks are not impossible, they are perhaps difficult at this location due to the terrain. However, Public Works does have recommended solutions for construction of sidewalks on such relationships. He suggested that he was a proponent of sidewalks, and they were needed in order to avoid persons having to walk on the driving surface of the street. Mr. Gardner suggested that` he would be reluctant to support sidewalk waiver. .19 May 19, .1992 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 Continued FILE NO.: S-150-C A motion was then made by the Commission to approve this subdivision plat, subject to the developer providing the construction and engineering design for placement of off -site solutions for the drainage problem affecting the development to the east. This condition requires that the commitment financially and by design be completed prior to the signing of the final plat. Furthermore, a good neighbor fence should be constructed along the south property line between the two driveways of the abutting projects. The two access drive easements on the eastern portion of the project should be terminated at least ten feet from the east boundary in order to preclude a drive connection between the projects. The last condition being that this developer market his subdivision utilizing a name which will not be in conflict with the existing condominium projects adjacent. The motion also would also include a recommendation to the Board of Directors that the sidewalk be waived. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 1 nay and 0 absent. 5 1. Meeting Date: June 16, 1992 2. Case No.: S-150-C 3. Reguest: Variances from the sidewalk requirements of the subdivision regulations. 4. Location: Located on both sides of Windsor Court, immediately south of Windsor Drive off Hinson Road. 5. Owner/Applicant: William Lile 6. Existing Status: Vacant land 7. Proposed Use: Single Family Homes 8. Staff Recommendation: Approval of the preliminary plat subject to several conditions. 9. Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval of the preliminary plat subject to the several conditions set forth by staff and offered by objectors. 10. Conditions ❑r Issues Remaining to be Resolved: None 11. Right -of -Way Issues: None 12. Recommendation Forwarded With: A vote of 10 ayes, 1 nay and 0 absent. 13. Objectors: Several adjacent property owners within condominium developments, represented by Mr. Phil Kaplan, attorney. 14. Neighborhood Plan: Chenal Valley ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 31 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS PROVIDING FOR A WAIVER SIDEWALK REQUIREMENTS BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That Chapter 31 of the Code of Ordinances be amended to provide for waiver of certain requirements within the Subdivision Regulations of the City of Little Rock for Windsor Court Patio Homes as follows: Subsection a. That Section 31-175 of the Code of Ordinances be amended to provide for the elimination of sidewalk along Windsor Court. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days from and after its passage. PASSED: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor FILE NO.: S-150-C NAME: Windsor Court Patio Homes Preliminary Plat and Site Plan LOCATION: #60 and Above on Windsor Court DEVELOPER• WILLIAM LILE/BY N. HOLCOMB #3 St. Johns Court Little Rock, AR 72207 666-5737 or 664-5148 ENGINEER• SAM DAVIS 5301 West 8th Street Little Rock, AR 72204 664-0324 AREA: 1.99 Ac. NUMBER OF LOTS: 10 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: MF-12 PROPOSED USES: Single Family PLANNING DISTRICT: 16 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES RESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: NAME• Chenal The develop proposes to construct upon the several lots, houses of approximately 2,000 square feet of heated area and larger, with attached double garage and an enclosed patio area at the rear of each unit. Access to the homes will be across Windsor Place to be dedicated to the public and by way of private access drives at the front of the Lots 1 through 6, and at the front and rear of Lots 7 through 10. Access easements through the central area of both development areas will be overlaid with a dedicated public service and access easement. Setbacks for the several lots will vary somewhat from the standard provided by the Zoning Ordinance. The standards provided will be in keeping with those provided on the adjacent attached townhomes and condominiums lying to the north and to the east. A. PROPOSAL RE UEST: This application consists of ten lots for single family residential use as a continuation of the Windsor homes condominium and attached townhome complex. This plat has been under development and review over an extended period of years. The property in this application is the next to last development parcel within the development. There is one additional area to the south and west which has a terrain which is significantly greater in elevation and contains design constraints of a cul-de-sac and OS zoning currently in place. 1 FILE NO.: S -15Q-C Continued B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The tract of land involved in this development has a grade running from west to the east which increases in severity to the south. The sites will be modified significantly in order to place the ten homes on the these two parcels. There will be little or no natural vegetation retained due to this modification. The terracing or land modification will be compatible with that provided on developments to the northeast, which has worked quite successfully. C. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: The Subdivision Ordinance requires that sidewalks be placed along one side of the street and that the existing pavement be certified by the engineer of record as meeting city standards. This roadway was constructed well in advance of this proposal and the right-of-way currently is undedicated. D. ISSUES LEGAL TECHNICAL ❑ESIGN: The staff's review of this proposal revealed only one modification from the previously approved condominium and attached townhomes' designs. That is these units are placed upon ten separate lots provided access with private access easements. This should not be of concern in as much as there are numerous plats in the immediate area designed with the same type of access, and the lot structuring exists on one phase currently. The type and character of structure to be placed on these lots should be compatible with the existing townhomes and patio homes to the north and east. E. ANALYSIS• The Planning staff's review of this proposal is that the design is adequate for the site and the density proposed is compatible with the neighborhood and less than that allowed by the current MF-12 zoning classification. The only remaining issues to be resolved for this platting are the comments by the Little Rock Water Works as to providing a dedicated public service and access easement over the driveways in order to assure a proper easement and access for placement of water meters for the rear most lots. A follow-up design item which was discussed with the developer at the time of filing deals with a section through the site running east to west identifying the structures -and relating the elevation of each structure to its neighbor and to the street. OIA FILE NO.c S�150-C Continued F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the plat as proposed with the exception of the sidewalk waiver which will be required to be added to the application or a commitment made to construct. Our recommendation also attaches to the resolution of the access easement water main and the section through the site. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 30, 1992) The Subdivision Committee discussed this proposal at length. The several issues attended to water service, access and setbacks resulted in the following. The applicant was instructed to make adjustments in the design of the roadway, to serve the interior lots of 22 to 24 feet in width. Additionally, the design should be worked with the overlaying access easement so as to provide for sufficient room for the water main to be laid along side the pavement rather than beneath the pavement. The Committee felt strongly that the section through the site should be provided at the earliest possible time so as to provide staff and the Commission a proper view of the siting of the homes on the several lots. The applicant was instructed that if they desire to pursue a waiver of the sidewalk that would need to be requested in writing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 19, 1992) Planning staff reported the status of this application. Staff indicated that there were several issues remaining to be resolved such as those dealing primarily with drainage, access to adjacent properties and screening of the adjacent condominium complex. The Chairman then asked the applicant to make his presentation. Mr. Sam Davis, the project engineer, offered several comments concerning their provision of the notice letter, which is deficient on the application. The Commission accepted the explanation on the letter. He also commented on their sidewalk waiver request and their reason for the request which is grades on the property. After a lengthy discussion with the applicant, the Chairman then asked the opposition for their spokesperson to make their comments. Mr. Phil Kaplan, an attorney, was present and indicated that he was representing some of the adjacent property owners. Mr. Kaplan addressed their primary concern as being the drainage. He indicated that their on -site drainage system, at this time, could not handle the water coming from this proposed 3 FILE NO.! S­150-C .(Continued development area and the development would worsen their circumstance. Mr. Kaplan requested that the Commission defer this matter for a minimum of 30 days in order to allow the neighborhood to meet with the developer and discuss the drainage problem. There was conversation between several of the involved parties that meetings had been attempted previously without success. Sam Davis, the project engineer, indicated the developer would be agreeable to such a meeting, and his client would install the drainage subject to the neighborhood providing easements. After a brief general discussion, the Chairman suggested that it would be appropriate for these involved parties to step out into the hall and determine if they could come to a middle ground. The several parties involved retired to the corridor outside of the Board room, and proceeded to determine a solution. Approximately thirty minutes later, the participants re-entered the Board room and the item was again presented to the Commission with the comments of the participants as follows: The neighbors indicated that they would work with the developer for provision of easements for the location of the physical underground improvements to carry the drainage. Jerry Gardner of the Public Works Department indicated that provision of this drainage would be difficult, but not impossible. Mr. Davis and Mr. Lile indicated that they were willing to accept approval of their plat based upon the arrangement indicated. Mr. Kaplan then asked that the Commission also provide for a provision that this project not tie its private drives to the existing access drive along its east boundary. Mr. Kaplan also inserted a comment at this point to the effect that it was not necessary to barricade the existing street, as requested by some of the property owners to the south. He felt that the eventual development of the property along the cul-de-sac would resolve that problem. Mr. Kaplan also offered comments in support of the sidewalk waiver. His thoughts were that the only use in this area of a sidewalk would be those persons walking their dog in area of their residences. These streets are dead-end and there is no thru traffic. Jerry Gardner of Public Works offered his thoughts which were that sidewalks are not impossible, they are perhaps difficult at this location due to the terrain. However, Public Works does have recommended solutions for construction of sidewalks on such relationships. He suggested that he was a proponent of sidewalks, and they were needed in order to avoid persons having to walk on the driving surface of the street. Mr. Gardner suggested that he would be reluctant to support sidewalk waiver. 4 FILE NO.s S-150-C (Continued A motion was then made by the Commission to approve this subdivision plat, subject to the developer providing the construction and engineering design for placement of off -site solutions for the drainage problem affecting the development to the east. This condition requires that the commitment financially and by design be completed prior to the signing of the final plat. ,R Furthermore,_ a good neighbor fence should be constructed along the south property 1 n� a between a wo driveways of the abuttin projects.._ The two access drive easements on the eastern portion I f--the project should be terminated at least ten feet from the east boundary in order to preclude a drive connection between the projects. The last condition being that this developer market his subdivision utilizing a name which will not be in conflict with the existing condominium projects adjacent. The motion also would also include a recommendation to the Board of Directors that the sidewalk be waived. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 1 nay and 0 absent. Nor Q (::�Np' ©N] -v�� 5