Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-1135-D Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: Z-4562-C NAME: Hickory Grove Revised Long -form PD-R LOCATION: on the west side of Hinson Road, south of Pebble Beach DEVELOPER: EV-Mark'Development, LLC P.O. Box 241850 Little Rock, AR 72223 FNGINFFR: The Mehlburger Firm 201 South Izard Street Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 38.62 Acres CURRENT ZONING: ALLOWED USES: PROPOSED ZONING: NUMBER OF LOTS: 65 .� . Townhouse development Revised PD-R FT. NEW STREET 9 PROPOSED USE- Detached Single-family VARIANCESMAIVERS REQUESTED: Plat Variances — 1. Reduced lot width for Lots 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 24, 25, 26, 33, 34, 40, 44 and 45. 2. Increased lot depth to width ratio for Lots 10, 11, 13 — 15 and 51, 57 — 61. 3. Reduced front and side yard setbacks — 5-feet on each and a reduced rear yard setback 10-feet. 4. A variance to allow Lots 15, 16, 17, 24, 25, 26 and 33 — 38 to develop as double frontage lots. BACKGROUND: The property is the remaining 40+ acres of a 120-acre parcel or the eastern 1/3 of the property owned by the First Baptist Church. The site was originally proposed as a multipurpose facility with residential, school and church facility. The western 80 acres have since developed as a single-family neighborhood. FILE NO.: Z-4562-C (Cont.) This property was zoned MF-6, Multi -family District (six (6) units per gross acre allowed) in mid-1981. A "Declaration of Covenants" was filed and recorded in 1981, which runs with the property. The private covenants regulate the property's use and portion of the property's development. The private covenants state that the property will be developed for condominium units developed pursuant to the Horizontal Property Act being Act 60 of 1961 (units for sale only, no rental units). The covenants designate certain areas of the property as OS (Open Space) and require a six (6) foot high privacy fence be constructed at one location prior to any construction. The covenants also state that structures built in one area of the property not exceed one and one-half stories in height; both located on the northern boundary of the site. A preliminary plat and a multiple building site plan review were filed on the site in May 1997, to allow the construction of 234 apartment units in 10 three-story buildings. Prior to the Public Hearing; the applicant requested the application be withdrawn from consideration. A proposal was filed in March 2000, to develop a portion of the site (18.47 acres) with 22 buildings of owner occupied condominium housing. The application was later withdrawn from consideration without prejudice prior to the Public Hearing. Ordinance No. 18,884 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on June 3, 2003, rezoned this 39-acre site from MF-6 to a Planned Residential Development with 83 units. The applicant proposed to develop the site in three (3) phases with zero -lot line townhouses, each of which would have its own lot of record. A common wall would be shared by each structure, which would be dissected by the common property line. This would allow some measure of property on each end of the structure for maintenance of the building. The structures would have enclosed garages facing a private street with a private courtyard on the rear of each townhouse unit. The applicant proposed the construction of a bridge across the creek that separates this property from Hinson Road. The bridge would be constructed in the first phase. The applicant proposed a public roadway to connect with Hinson Road and Dorado Beach Drive. The road would be constructed when one of the abutting lots was final platted. There were two other streets proposed as a part of the development, which the applicant intended to maintain as private streets. There were three areas designated by covenants in the deed that were not to be encroached upon by building construction. The applicant indicated the areas of non -encroachment on the proposed development plan and indicated the covenants to be in force. 4 FILE NO.: Z-4562-C (Cont. Ordinance No. 18,883, also adopted June 3, 2003, allowed the requested variances for lots without public street frontage, an increased lot depth to width ratio and a variance to allow double frontage lots. The lots were sized to accommodate the building plans as required in the Subdivision Ordinance for zero -lot line developments. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant proposes to amend the PD-R to allow the creation of 65 detached single-family lots on this 38.62 acre site. The developer has indicated the retention of the green spaces as was previously proposed in the areas to the north and south of the site. The applicant has indicated Dorado Beach Drive will be extended as was previously approved (as one of the lots abutting the roadway is final platted). The applicant is requesting variances from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow an increased depth to width ratio, a reduced front lot width, a reduced platted building line and reduced side and rear yard setbacks for specific lots within the development. The developer has indicated the internal streets will be maintained as private streets and be gated. The applicant has also indicated the development will be constructed in three phases. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is currently undeveloped and heavily wooded. The Windsor Court Condominium development and single-family residences are located to the south, with single-family residences to the north. There is undeveloped R-2, Single-family property to the west, with single-family residences further west. Single-family residences and undeveloped R-2 property are also located across Hinson Road to the east. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: The Westchester/Heatherbrae Neighborhood Association and the Hillsborough Property Owners Association, all residents located within 300 feet of the site, who could be identified and all owners of property located within 200 feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing. As of this writing, Staff has received several informational phone calls from area residents. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Ali previous comments apply on this subdivision apply to this modification. 2. A sidewalk is required on Dorado Beach Drive including the bridge. 3 FILE NO.: Z-4562-C (Cont.) _ 3. The gated entrances will have to be re -designed to prevent stacking of vehicles out into the public street. Gates should be set back three car lengths (60') from the right-of-way and provide a lane for entrance u-turns. 4. Regarding fence and wall construction: In accordance with Section 32-8, no obstruction to visibility shall be located within a triangular area 50 feet back from the intersecting right-of-way line (or intersecting tangent lines for radial dedications) at street intersections. 5. Additional hill -side drainage easements should be provided. Relocation of existing drainage ways should be minimized. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements if service is required for the project. Existing 10-inch sewer main located along Hinson Road is area of proposed floodway improvements. Relocation of the existing main is required to remove manholes and sewer main from the area of improvements. Other existing mains are located on site with easements that must be retained. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional details. Entergy: No comment received. Center -Point Energ Approved as submitted. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: A public water main adequate to provide needed fire protection and water service to each lot will be required adjacent to the proposed roads. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This development will have minor impact on existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional details. Fire Department: All gates must have a 20-foot opening. Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3752 for additional details. County Planning: No comment received. CATA: No comment received. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Chenal Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Low Density Residential for this property. The applicant has applied for a revision of an existing Planned Development - Residential for new houses. 4 FILE NO.: Z-4562-C (Cont. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan. The Residential Development goal listed the objective of developing Neo-traditional neighborhoods (pedestrian and bicycle friendly neighborhoods, which are less dependent on automobiles), in areas that have not yet developed. Action statements listed include enforcing the construction of sidewalks with all types of development, insuring the physical continuity of sidewalks, enforcing the installation of curb and gutter, require the installment of underground utilities, and requiring the installation of street lighting by the time streets are opened. Landscape: No comment received. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (September 25, 2003) The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented the item indicating the request was to revise a previously approved PD-R to allow the construction of detached single-family homes. Staff noted the areas set aside for buffer were still intact. Staff suggested the applicant remove these areas from the lots and retain the areas as tracts to be maintained by the Property Owners Association. Staff expressed concerns with the development only allowing a five foot front yard setback. Staff questioned homeowners backing from their drives into the right-of-way before being able to see oncoming traffic. There was a lengthy discussion concerning building placement and driveway location, which would not require motorist to back into the right-of-way prior to viewing oncoming traffic. Staff suggested the applicant review the proposed design and provide additional information of how staff concerns could be addressed. Staff also indicated the proposed gate design did not meet with ordinance requirements. Staff stated the applicant should reconsider the design to allow sufficient area for motorist to wait and not back up traffic in the street. Public Works Comments were addressed. Staff noted all previous comments would continue to apply to the proposed development. Staff asked if the street would be developed as was previously proposed. The applicant indicated the street would be constructed when any of the lots abutting Dorado Beach Drive began to develop. Staff noted comments from other reporting agencies. There being no further items for discussion, the Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. FILE NO.: Z-4562-C (Cont. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the September 25, 2003 Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has removed the buffer areas from the proposed lots. Staff is supportive of this arrangement. Staff feels the undisturbed areas should not be included in prospective lots to avoid any possibility of the property owner clearing the area at some point in the future. The applicant has indicated Dorado Beach Drive will be extended as was previously approved. The road will be extended when any lot abutting the road is final platted. This includes Lots 15 — 17, 24 —26, 33 — 38 and 51 — 65. The applicant has indicated the development as a gated community. There are two gates from Dorado Beach Drive just past the Hinson Road intersection; one to gate the area to the south and one to gate the area to the north. The applicant has set the gate at sixty feet from the intersection as required by Traffic Engineering. The applicant has indicated the gates will maintain an eighteen foot opening as required by the Fire Department. There is also a gate located near where Dorado Beach Drive exits the subdivision. This will gate the lots located in Phase III, which are to be accessed by a private service drive paralleling Dorado Beach Drive. This proposed gate does not meet ordinance requirements. The applicant has not indicated a no right -of -vehicle access along the rear of the lots abutting Dorado Beach Drive. Staff feels this should be put in place to limit the number of curb cuts along the roadway; a collector street. The applicant has indicated a maximum building area on the proposed lots. The applicant has requested a 20-foot platted building line if the lots are to be front - loaded garages and a 5-foot platted building line if the lots are to be side loaded garages. The applicant is also requesting 10-foot rear yard setbacks and 5-foot side yard setback. Staff has reservations of supporting this request. Although the applicant has indicated the Bill of Assurance will detail the building lines and no owner of a front loaded garage will be able to build to the 5-foot build line staff feels this causes confusion on the part of potential homeowners. Staff feels the reduced side and rear yard setbacks do not warrant a 5-foot front yard setback. Staff feels allowing the buildings to be constructed to a 20-foot front yard setback allows for sufficient area for construction of the potential homes. Staff would however recommend if the Commission feels a 5-foot build line is acceptable for the development that the Commission limit the area to the garages only and require the actual body of the home to be constructed at the 20-foot build line. The applicant has indicated signage has not been determined. The applicant has stated signage will comply with signage allowed in residential zones. The applicant has indicated should signage not comply with allowable signage then a variance will be sought. The applicant also has not indicated fencing. The A FILE NO.: Z-4562-C (Cont. applicant has indicated fencing has not yet been determined and if fencing does not comply with ordinance requirements for residential zones, a variance will be requested. Staff recommends the applicant resolve the signage and fencing issue at this time since any variances must be addressed through the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors. In a written opinion from the City Attorney the applicant has meet the criteria of the previously imposed covenants. The applicant has indicated and not intruded into the previously identified green spaces. Although staff is supportive of the concept of the development staff is not supportive of the request as filed by the applicant. Staff feels there are too many unresolved issues associated with the request (front platted building line, the proposed signage, the proposed fencing, the no right -of -vehicle access along Dorado Beach Drive and the gate at the private service drive paralleling Dorado Beach Drive) to allow staff to recommend approval of the request. TAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 16, 2003) The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report. Staff also presented a recommendation of approval of the requested variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow a reduced lot width for Lots 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 24, 25, 26, 33, 34, 40, 44 and 45, a variance to allow an increased lot depth to width ratio for Lots 10, 11, 13 — 15 and 51, 57 — 61, a variance to allow a reduced front and side yard setback — 5-feet on each and a reduced rear yard setback 10-feet and a variance to allow Lots 15, 16, 17, 24, 25, 26 and 33 — 38 to develop as double frontage lots. There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the consent agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. 7 FILE NO.: Z-4562-C NAME: Hickory Grove Revised Long -form PD-R LOCATION: on the west side of Hinson Road, south of Pebble Beach DEVELOPER: EV-Mark Development, LLC P.O. Box 241850 Little Rock, AR 72223 ENGINEER: The Mehlburger Firm 201 South Izard Street Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 38.62 Acres CURRENT ZONING ALLOWED USES: PROPOSED ZONING NUMBER OF LOTS: 65 .m Townhouse development Revised PD-R FT. NEW STREET: 0 PROPOSED USE: Detached Single-family VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: Plat Variances — 1. Reduced lot width for Lots 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 24, 25, 26, 33, 34, 40, 44 and 45. 2. Increased lot depth to width ratio for Lots 10, 11, 13 — 15 and 51, 57 — 61. 3. Reduced front and side yard setbacks — 5-feet on each and a reduced rear yard setback 10-feet. 4. A variance to allow Lots 15, 16, 17, 24, 25, 26 and 33 — 38 to develop as double frontage lots. BACKGROUND: The property is the remaining 40+ acres of a 120-acre parcel or the eastern 1/3 of the property owned by the First Baptist Church. The site was originally proposed as a multipurpose facility with residential, school and church facility. The western 80 acres have since developed as a single-family neighborhood. FILE NO.: Z-4562-C (Cont. This property was zoned MF-6, Multi -family District (six (6) units per gross acre allowed) in mid-1981. A "Declaration of Covenants" was filed and recorded in 1981, which runs with the property. The private covenants regulate the property's use and portion of the property's development. The private covenants state that the property will be developed for condominium units developed pursuant to the Horizontal Property Act being Act 60 of 1961 (units for sale only, no rental units). The covenants designate certain areas of the property as OS (Open Space) and require a six (6) foot high privacy fence be constructed at one location prior to any construction. The covenants also state that structures built in one area of the property not exceed one and one-half stories in height; both located on the northern boundary of the site. A preliminary plat and a multiple building site plan review were filed on the site in May 1997, to allow the construction of 234 apartment units in 10 three-story buildings. Prior to the Public Hearing; the applicant requested the application be withdrawn from consideration. A proposal was filed in March 2000, to develop a portion of the site (18.47 acres) with 22 buildings of owner occupied condominium housing. The application was later withdrawn from consideration without prejudice prior to the Public Hearing. Ordinance No. 18,884 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on June 3, 2003, rezoned this 39-acre site from MF-6 to a Planned Residential Development with 83 units. The applicant proposed to develop the site in three (3) phases with zero -lot line townhouses, each of which would have its own lot of record. A common wall would be shared by each structure, which would be dissected by the common property line. This would allow some measure of property on each end of the structure for maintenance of the building. The structures would have enclosed garages facing a private street with a private courtyard on the rear of each townhouse unit. The applicant proposed the construction of a bridge across the creek that separates this property from Hinson Road. The bridge would be constructed in the first phase. The applicant proposed a public roadway to connect with Hinson Road and Dorado Beach Drive. The road would be constructed when one of the abutting lots was final platted. There were two other streets proposed as a part of the development, which the applicant intended to maintain as private streets. There were three areas designated by covenants in the deed that were not to be encroached upon by building construction. The applicant indicated the areas of non -encroachment on the proposed development plan and indicated the covenants to be in force. 6 FILE NO.: Z-4562-C (Cont. Ordinance No. 18,883, also adopted June 3, 2003, allowed the requested variances for lots without public street frontage, an increased lot depth to width ratio and a variance to allow double frontage lots. The lots were sized to accommodate the building plans as required in the Subdivision Ordinance for zero -lot line developments. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant proposes to amend the PD-R to allow the creation of 65 detached single-family lots on this 38.62 acre site. The developer has indicated the retention of the green spaces as was previously proposed in the areas to the north and south of the site. The applicant has indicated Dorado Beach Drive will be extended as was previously approved (as one of the lots abutting the roadway is final platted). The applicant is requesting variances from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow an increased depth to width ratio, a reduced front lot width, a reduced platted building line and reduced side and rear yard setbacks for specific lots within the development. The developer has indicated the internal streets will be maintained as private streets and be gated. The applicant has also indicated the development will be constructed in three phases. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is currently undeveloped and heavily wooded. The Windsor Court Condominium development and single-family residences are located to the south, with single-family residences to the north. There is undeveloped R-2, Single-family property to the west, with single-family residences further west. Single-family residences and undeveloped R-2 property are also located across Hinson Road to the east. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: The Westchester/Heatherbrae Neighborhood Association and the Hillsborough Property Owners Association, all residents located within 300 feet of the site, who could be identified and all owners of property located within 200 feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing. As of this writing, Staff has received several informational phone calls from area residents. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. All previous comments apply on this subdivision apply to this modification. 2. A sidewalk is required on Dorado Beach Drive including the bridge. 3 FILE NO.: Z-4562-C Cont. 3. The gated entrances will have to be re -designed to prevent stacking of vehicles out into the public street. Gates should be set back three car lengths (60') from the right-of-way and provide a lane for entrance u-turns. 4. Regarding fence and wall construction: In accordance with Section 32-8, no obstruction to visibility shall be located within a triangular area 50 feet back from the intersecting right-of-way line (or intersecting tangent lines for radial dedications) at street intersections. 5. Additional hill -side drainage easements should be provided. Relocation of existing drainage ways should be minimized. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements if service is required for the project. Existing 10-inch sewer main located along Hinson Road is area of proposed floodway improvements. Relocation of the existing main is required to remove manholes and sewer main from the area of improvements. Other existing mains are located on site with easements that must be retained. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional details. Entergy: No comment received. Center -Point Energy: Approved as submitted. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: A public water main adequate to provide needed fire protection and water service to each lot will be required adjacent to the proposed roads. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This development will have minor impact on existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional details. Fire Department: All gates must have a 20-foot opening. Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3752 for additional details. County Planning: No comment received. CATA: No comment received. F. I SSUESITECHN ICAVDESIGN: Planninq Division: This request is located in the Chenal Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Low Density Residential for this property. The applicant has applied for a revision of an existing Planned Development - Residential for new houses. 4 FILE NO.: Z-4562-C (Cont.) The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan. The Residential Development goal listed the objective of developing Neo-traditional neighborhoods (pedestrian and bicycle friendly neighborhoods, which are less dependent on automobiles), in areas that have not yet developed. Action statements listed include enforcing the construction of sidewalks with all types of development, insuring the physical continuity of sidewalks, enforcing the installation of curb and gutter, require the installment of underground utilities, and requiring the installation of street lighting by the time streets are opened. Landscape: No comment received. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (September 25, 2003) The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented the item indicating the request was to revise a previously approved PD-R to allow the construction of detached single-family homes. Staff noted the areas set aside for buffer were still intact. Staff suggested the applicant remove these areas from the lots and retain the areas as tracts to be maintained by the Property Owners Association. Staff expressed concerns with the development only allowing a five foot front yard setback. Staff questioned homeowners backing from their drives into the right-of-way before being able to see oncoming traffic. There was a lengthy discussion concerning building placement and driveway location, which would not require motorist to back into the right-of-way prior to viewing oncoming traffic. Staff suggested the applicant review the proposed design and provide additional information of how staff concerns could be addressed. Staff also indicated the proposed gate design did not meet with ordinance requirements. Staff stated the applicant should reconsider the design to allow sufficient area for motorist to wait and not back up traffic in the street. Public Works Comments were addressed. Staff noted all previous comments would continue to apply to the proposed development. Staff asked if the street would be developed as was previously proposed. The applicant indicated the street would be constructed when any of the lots abutting Dorado Beach Drive began to develop. Staff noted comments from other reporting agencies. There being no further items for discussion, the Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. 5 FILE NO.: Z-4562-C Cont. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the September 25, 2003 Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has removed the buffer areas from the proposed lots. Staff is supportive of this arrangement. Staff feels the undisturbed areas should not be included in prospective lots to avoid any possibility of the property owner clearing the area at some point in the future. The applicant has indicated Dorado Beach Drive will be extended as was previously approved. The road will be extended when any lot abutting the road is final platted. This includes Lots 15 — 17, 24 —26, 33 — 38 and 51 — 65. The applicant has indicated the development as a gated community. There are two gates from Dorado Beach Drive just past the Hinson Road intersection; one to gate the area to the south and one to gate the area to the north. The applicant has set the gate at sixty feet from the intersection as required by Traffic Engineering. The applicant has indicated the gates will maintain an eighteen foot opening as required by the Fire Department. There is also a gate located near where Dorado Beach Drive exits the subdivision. This will gate the lots located in Phase III, which are to be accessed by a private service drive paralleling Dorado Beach Drive. This proposed gate does not meet ordinance requirements. The applicant has not indicated a no right -of -vehicle access along the rear of the lots abutting Dorado Beach Drive. Staff feels this should be put in place to limit the number of curb cuts along the roadway; a collector street. The applicant has indicated a maximum building area on the proposed lots. The applicant has requested a 20-foot platted building line if the lots are to be front - loaded garages and a 5-foot platted building line if the lots are to be side loaded garages. The applicant is also requesting 10-foot rear yard setbacks and 5-foot side yard setback. Staff has reservations of supporting this request. Although the applicant has indicated the Bill of Assurance will detail the building lines and no owner of a front loaded garage will be able to build to the 5-foot build line staff feels this causes confusion on the part of potential homeowners. Staff feels the reduced side and rear yard setbacks do not warrant a 5-foot front yard setback. Staff feels allowing the buildings to be constructed to a 20-foot front yard setback allows for sufficient area for construction of the potential homes. Staff would however recommend if the Commission feels a 5-foot build line is acceptable for the development that the Commission limit the area to the garages only and require the actual body of the home to be constructed at the 20-foot build line. The applicant has indicated signage has not been determined. The applicant has stated signage will comply with signage allowed in residential zones. The applicant has indicated should signage not comply with allowable signage then a variance will be sought. The applicant also has not indicated fencing. The [. FILE NO.: Z-4562-C Cont. applicant has indicated fencing has not yet been determined and if fencing does not comply with ordinance requirements for residential zones, a variance will be requested. Staff recommends the applicant resolve the signage and fencing issue at this time since any variances must be addressed through the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors. In a written opinion from the City Attorney the applicant has meet the criteria of the previously imposed covenants. The applicant has indicated and not intruded into the previously identified green spaces. Although staff is supportive of the concept of the development staff is not supportive of the request as filed by the applicant. Staff feels there are too many unresolved issues associated with the request (front platted building line, the proposed signage, the proposed fencing, the no right -of -vehicle access along Dorado Beach Drive and the gate at the private service drive paralleling Dorado Beach Drive) to allow staff to recommend approval of the request. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 16, 2003) The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report. Staff also presented a recommendation of approval of the requested variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow a reduced lot width for Lots 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 24, 25, 26, 33, 34, 40, 44 and 45, a variance to allow an increased lot depth to width ratio for Lots 10, 11, 13 — 15 and 51, 57 — 61, a variance to allow a reduced front and side yard setback — 5-feet on each and a reduced rear yard setback 10-feet and a variance to allow Lots 15, 16, 17, 24, 25, 26 and 33 — 38 to develop as double frontage lots. There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the consent agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. 7