Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_01 23 2003_special called hearingLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL CALLED HEARING MINUTE RECORD JANUARY 23,2003 3:30 P.M. I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being ten (10)in number. I I.Members Present:Obray Nunnley,Jr. Mizan Rahman Fred Allen,Jr. Judith Faust Norm Floyd Gary Lang lais Bob Lowry Jerry Meyer Rohn Muse Robert Stebbins Members Absent.:Bill Rector City Attorney:Stephen Giles LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL CALLED HEARING AGENDA JANUARY 23,2003 3:30 P.M. I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum II.Presentation of Hearing Items III.Citizen Communication LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL CALI ED HEARING JANUARY 23,2003 3:30 P.M. ITEMS: 1.Chapel Ridge Apartments Subdivision Site Plan Review (S-1363),located at 9400 Stagecoach Road 2.Brimer Subdivision Replat (S-289-A),located at Mabelvale Cut-Off Road and Bl'Imel Street 3.Midtown —Discussion of Boundaries and Design Concepts January 23,20vd ITEM NO.:'I FILE NO.:S-1363 NAME:Chapel Ridge Apartments Subdivision Site Plan Review LOCATION:9400 Stagecoach Road DEVELOPER:ARCHITECT: ERC Development Group LLC The Hill Firm 815 Fort Street 222 South 16"Street Barung,AR 72923 Fort Smith,AR 72901 AREA:10.2 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS:1 FT.NEW STREET:0 CURRENT ZONING:MF-12 ALLOWED USES:Multi-family 12 units per acre PLANNING DISTRICT:15 CENSUS TRACT:41.05 VARIANCESjWAIVERS REQUESTED:None requested. BACKGROUND: Ordinance No.14,816 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on February 5, 1985 rezoned this property to MF-12 along with four (4)additional parcels to various other zoning classifications.The plan included 50.4 acres of Multi-family zoning,12.6 acres of commercial zoning and 8.6 acres of office zoning. An application was approved by the Little Rock Planning Commission at their April 4, 2002 Public Hearing requesting properties to the north of this site to be rezoned (a 100- foot utility easement)from R-2,Single-family to MF-12.The Little Rock Board of Directors later denied this request. January 23,2003 ITEM NO.:1 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1363 A.PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant proposes to construct 122 units of multi-family housing with a Clubhouse/Leasing Office.There are 241 parking spaces proposed as a part of the development.Site amenities include a swimming pool and playground area. The building materials are proposed as wood frame with brick veneer and vinyl siding.The roof will be constructed of composition shingles. The applicant proposes Building Number 1 and 2 to be one story with the remainder of the buildings to be two-story.The applicant proposes six (6)of the one-story units to be one bedroom (721 square feet each)and four (4)of the one-story units to be two bedrooms (960 square feet each).The two-story structures proposed include two,three and four bedroom units.There are fifty- six (56)units (912 square feet each)of the two bedrooms and forty-eight (48) units (1085 square feet each)of the three bedrooms and eight (8)units (1288 square feet each)of the four bedrooms. The entire site will be landscaped and irrigated to comply with the Little Rock Landscape Ordinance.The applicant proposes the placement of a six (6)foot wooden fence around the north,south and western perimeters of the property with no fencing proposed along Stagecoach Road.There is a single non-gated entrance to the community with no traffic routed through any residential neighborhood.There is no parking proposed parallel to Stagecoach Road.The existing pond at the south side of the site will remain as a natural area. B.EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is a vacant wooded,mostly flat site,with an abundance of undergrowth. There is a major transmission power line located to the north of the site and two churches located east of the site,across Stagecoach.There is a relatively new single-family subdivision located to the south of the site,Westfield,and undeveloped MF-12 zoned property located to the south of the subdivision. Other uses in the area include two parcels of vacant G-1 zoned property to the east and vacant R-2 zoned property located to the southeast.To the north of the site are two PCD's;only one of which has developed and Stagecoach Village,a PRD in which single-family detached and attached housing is currently under construction. Stagecoach Road is a four-lane roadway complete with curb and gutter,and no center turn-lane at this location.There are not sidewalks in place adjacent to the site but are in place to the north and south of the site.There is an open drainage ditch located along the south property line. 2 January 23,2003 ITEM NO.:1 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1363 C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: The Otter Creek Homeowners Association and Southwest United for Progress, along with all property owners within 200 feet of the site,were notified of the public hearing.As of this writing,Staff has received several informational phone calls concerning the proposed development. D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1.Stagecoach Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way 45-feet from centerline at all points will be required. 2.Sidewalks and appropriate handicap ramps are required per the Master Street Plan. 3.All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance. 4.Plans for all works in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 5.A grading permit for flood hazard areas will be required from Public Works. Also,contact the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to construction to obtain a NPDES stormwater permit. 6.Contact the US Army Corps of Engineers,Little Rock District,for approval prior to start of work,regarding wetlands. 7.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.Easements for stormwater detention are required. 8.Provide estimates of all stormwater flows (Q)entering and leaving the property.Demonstrate adequate capacity of on-site and down stream structures to convey all storm water through the property. 9.Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway right-of-way from AHTD District Vl. 10.Remove island at entrance or provide minimum 18-foot entrance lane width. Total driveway width shall not exceed 36-feet. 11.Provide any documentation or assurance,as required by State and Federal agencies or lending institutions,that the development will meet environmental,historic and cultural regulations. 12.Provide a left turn lane on Stagecoach Road into the proposed development. E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENTlCOUNTY PLANNING: Little Rock Wastewater:Sewer main extension required with easements to property line.Private sewer system including gravity mains,manholes,pump station and force main approved for on site.Capacity Contribution Analysis 3 January 23,2003 ITEM NO.:1 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1363 required,contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional deta I Is. ENTERGY:No comment received. Center-Point Ener:No comment received. Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted. Central Arkansas Water:The facilities on-site will be private.When meters are planned off private lines,private facilities shall be installed to Central Arkansas Water's material and construction specifications and installation will be inspected by an engineer,licensed to practice in the State of Arkansas. Execution of Customer Owned Line Agreement is required.A Capital Investment Charge of $3200 for connection to the existing main will apply to this project in addition to normal charges.The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s)will be required.Meter sizes indicated appear to be larger than would be required for this development.Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional details. Fire De artment:Place fire hydrants per code.If the developer installs a gated entrance the gate must maintain a 20-foot opening.Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3752 for additional details. Pl i:N i"d. CATA:Site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus radius,turnout and route. F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Plannin Division:No comment. ~Ed:A t id t I 0 1 «tb ft t th requirements.However,it will be necessary to show placement of on-site utility easements.Areas set aside for utility easements cannot count as land use buffer area. A total of seventy (70)percent of the land use buffers along the northern, southern and western perimeters must remain undisturbed.The average width of undisturbed buffer area along the northern and southern perimeters is twenty- seven (27)feet and twenty-nine (29)feet along the western perimeter. 4 January 23,2003 ITEM NO.:1 Cont.FILE NO.;S-1363 A six (6)foot high opaque screen,either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward,a wall or dense evergreen plantings will be required along the northern,southern and western perimeters of the site. An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. Prior to a building permit,an approved landscaped plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect will be required. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many trees as feasible on this site.Extra credit toward fulfilling landscape ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6)inch caliper or larger. G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(November 21,2002) Mr.Paul Hill of the Hill Architectural Firm and Mr.Aaron Robinson of Bond Engineering Company were present representing the application.Staff presented an overview of the proposed development to the Committee members.Staff stated the proposed development was a subdivision multiple building site plan review.Staff stated this review was a technical review of the ordinance requirements. Staff stated there were general questions related to the proposed development, which would need to be indicated on the proposed site plan.Staff requested all easements on-site and adjoining the proposed development be indicated on the site plan.Staff also requested the applicant indicated the roof treatment,facade treatment and building materials along with the maximum building heights on the site plan. Staff questioned if there would be a development sign.The applicant indicated there would be a sign.Staff stated the sign along with details (heighUarea) should be indicated on the site plan.Staff questioned if the proposed development would be developed in phases or in one phase.The applicant stated the proposed development would be constructed in one phase. Staff questioned if one dumpster location was proposed.Mr.Hill stated the proposal included a trash compactor in one location.He stated this type collection system was currently being used at other locations and was working well. Public Works comments were addressed.Staff stated the proposed drive was to be a maximum of 36-feet with 18-foot entrance lane width.Staff stated the proposed right-of-way indicated for Stagecoach Road was to be 45-feet from centerline in all locations.Staff stated in one area the right-of-way appeared to 5 January 23,2003 ITEM NO.:1 Cont.FILE NG.:8-1363 be a "little short".Staff stated drainage on the site was very critical.Staff stated hydraulics for the highway culvert and water movement through the site were CI ltl Ca l. Landscaping comments were addressed.Staff stated all utility easements were necessary on the proposed site plan.Staff stated utility easements could not be counted as land use buffers.Staff stated the proposed development appeared to meet with the ordinance requirements but without the location of easements it was impossible to tell for certain. Staff stated it would be necessary to locate all trees 6-inch caliper and greater on the proposed site plan.Staff stated City Beautiful Commission recommended preserving as many trees as feasible on the site and extra credit could be given when properly preserving the trees of this caliper.Staff stated at least seventy percent (70'/o)of the land use buffer must be preserved. Staff noted comments from Central Arkansas Water and Little Rock Wastewater utility.Staff suggested the applicant contact each agency for specifics concerning their comments.There was some general discussion concerning the placement of fire hydrants.Staff stated the Little Rock Fire Department could clarify the placement. There being no further issues for discussion,the Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H.ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted revised comments to Staff addressing some of the issues raised at the Subdivision Committee meeting but to date a revised site plan has not been received. Based on comment received the applicant has indicated the development will not be gated and there will not be any fencing along Stagecoach Road.A six (6) foot wooden fence will be placed along the northern,southern and western perimeters of the site. The applicant proposes the placement of a single-trash compactor location on the site.The applicant has indicated one central drop-off location for garbage has been successfully tried in other locations. Based on the initial drawings the proposed parking is sufficient to meet the typical minimum required parking demand.The applicant is proposing to construct 122 units of multi-family housing with a Clubhouse/Leasing Office. 6 January 23,2003 ITEM NQ.:1 Cont.FILE NG.:S-1363 There are 241 parking spaces proposed as a part of the development.The typical minimum parking requirement for a development of this size would be 183 parking spaces or 1.5 spaces per unit. In addition,the applicant is proposing site amenities to include a swimming pool but has not indicated a playground area.These are items not regulated under the site plan review and not a requirement under the City's existing ordinances. The applicant has stated the exterior construction is proposed as a wood frame with brick veneer and vinyl siding.The applicant has indicated both one and two story buildings to be located on the site.The applicant proposes the maximum building height to be 35-feet.The proposal includes a roof treatment of composition shingles. The applicant proposes the placement of a single ground-mounted development sign to be located near the entry drive but the exact location has not been identified due to the lack of a revised site plan.The revised comments indicate the sign will be constructed of wood and masonry and be a maximum of eight (8) feet in length and five (5)feet in height or forty (40)square feet in area including the support columns.Allowable signage in multi-family zones is not to exceed twenty-four (24)square feet in area and six (6)feet in height not including the main supporting structure but all other ornamental attachments.Staff recommends the sign area denoting the complex not exceed the allowable sign area permitted in multi-family zones. The applicant has indicated there is an existing on-site detention pond,which will be utilized as a detention basin.The applicant has suggested the pond will remain in a natural state.Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant will be required to submit detailed drainage plans for review and approval. The applicant has indicated all drive lanes will be maintained at 18-feet and the proposed development will not be a gated community.The applicant has also indicated the maximum driveway width will be 36-feet as requested by Staff. At this writing,review is on-going regarding the drainage issues and the capacity of the AHTD culverts under Stagecoach Road. The requested site plan review is a technical review.From the comments received the applicant has indicated the minimum requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance with regard to building height,landscaping,land use buffering and parking ratios will be complied with.Without a revised drawing it is difficult for Staff to make this determination.Staff has requested all on-site and off-site easements be indicated on the site plan.As per the ordinance easements are not allowed to count as land use buffers.As indicated in the 7 January 23,2003 ITEM NO.:1 Cont.FILE NO.:S-1363 landscape comments section the areas set aside appear to meet the minimum requirements. The site is shown on the Future Land Use Plan as multi-family.The proposed development density is consistent with the existing zoning. The applicant has tried to minimize the negative impacts of surrounding existing residential neighborhoods by placing the buildings within the development away from the southern property line and has indicated they will preserve as many existing trees and as much existing vegetation as feasible during the development.This would further buffer the existing single-family homes in the adjoining neighborhood to the south. If in fact,all the issues raised above are met.to Staff's knowledge,there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request for the subdivision multiple building site plan review as presented.Staff recommends approval of the request should the applicant comply with land use buffers,compliance with signage allowable in multi-family zones and that the development will meet environmental,historic and cultural regulations. I.STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The applicant has not submitted a revised site plan in response to Subdivision Committee review.Staff does not anticipate that there will be substantial changes in the site plan.However,Staff is withholding their recommendation until such time as the revised site plan is submitted. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(DECEMBER 19,2002) Mr.Paul Hill was present representing the application.There were objectors present. Staff stated the applicant was given a condition after Subdivision Committee Meeting, the addition of a turn lane,which he had not been able to resolve.Staff stated the applicant was required to resubmit revised plans within one (1)week of Subdivision Committee meeting or the item was deferred.Staff stated the applicant was not notified of the turn lane until four (4)days before the Commission meeting not allowing him sufficient time to resolve the issue.Staff stated if the applicant was required to "play by the rules"then the City should also be required to "play by the rules".Staff stated the applicant was working with a traffic engineer to determine the traffic counts in the area and less than one (1)week was not sufficient time to generate traffic counts. Staff stated a deferral request was not out of line in this case since the applicant was not given ample notice to resolve the turn lane concern. There was limited discussion.A motion was made to defer the item to the January 23, 2003 Public Hearing.The motion carried by a vote of 6 ayes,3 noes and 2 absent. 8 January 23,2003 ITEM NG.:1 Cont.FILE NG.:S-1363 PLANNING CGMMISSIGN ACTIGN:(JANUARY 23,2003) Mr.Paul Hill,Mr.Tommy Bond and Mr.John Clayton were present representing the application.There were numerous objectors present.Staff introduced the item then requested the Commission defer the item.Staff stated Mr.Moore,City Manager,had indicated the proposed development would require a Section 106 Environmental Review.Staff stated Mr.Moore had indicated when Federal Funds were used to finance a project a Section 106 Review was required and to Staff's knowledge a review had not been performed.There was a lengthy discussion concerning the merits of the request and the purpose the deferral would serve.Staff stated it was not uncommon for Staff to request a deferral in an attempt to resolve outstanding issues or to receive additional information. Mr.Phil Kaplan spoke on behalf of the applicant in opposition of the deferral. Mr.Kaplan stated the request was for a site plan approval.He stated the applicant had met all the minimum requirements of the Subdivision Grdinance related to site plan review.Mr.Kaplan stated the applicant had submitted to Staff all the requested additional information in a timely manner.Mr.Kaplan stated the applicant had also met all the requirements of the tending institution.He stated the project had been deferred once and he requested the hearing move forward. Mr.Stephen Giles stated the request was a Subdivision Site Plan Review.He stated the applicant would be required to provide evidence prior to a building permit being issued that all the conditions of the approval had been met. A motion was made to defer the item.The motion failed by a vote of 1 aye,9 noes and 1 absent. Mr.Paul Hill addressed the Commission outlining the development proposal.He stated the proposal met the minimum requirements set forth in the Subdivision Grdinance and requested the Commission approve the application as filed. Ms.B.J.Wyrick,City Director Ward 7,addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed development.She stated the neighborhood was concerned with safety of the300pluschildrenwhocouldpossibleliveinthefuturecomplex.She stated to the south of the development there was an open ditch,which carried a large amount of water. Ms.Wyrick requested the ditch be piped and covered in a manner that children would not be at risk of drowning.Ms.Wyrick stated the detention pond should also be fenced for safety reasons. Ms.Wyrick stated the lack of public transportation was also a concern.She stated Stagecoach Road did not have sidewalks in its entirety and not in this area.Ms.Wyrick stated if the residents did not have an automobile then shopping would be dangerous since sidewalks were not in place and 2500 cars per day traveled Stagecoach Road. 9 January 23,2003 ITEM NO.:1 Cont.FILE NO.:8-1363 Ms.Wyrick requested the applicant install a permanent fence rather than a wood fence. She stated wood fencing was only durable for a few years and then the fence began to decay and fall down.Ms.Wyrick also stated she had seen a map indicating mounds in the area and the floodway.She stated a portion of the property was located in the floodway.She stated the archeological significance of the site along with the floodway were important issues to be considered by the Commission. Mr.Tommy Hodges addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed development.He questioned why the turn lane was no longer a requirement. Mr.Hodges stated with the proposed bedroom make-up there could be 270 children on the site.He stated the proposed playground area was not sufficient to meet the needs of this number of children and the children would spill out into the neighborhood. Mr.Hodges stated the density mix was too great. Mr.Mark Vaughn spoke in opposition of the proposed development.He stated he was the Vice-President of the Otter Creek Homeowners Association and had lived in the area for ten (10)years.Mr.Vaughn stated his concerns were the lack of sidewalks on Stagecoach Road,the lack of playground area,the lack of public transportation,the single entry into the development and the density of the proposed development.He stated the traffic problems on Stagecoach Road were not addressed with the widening. Mr.Troy Laha spoke in opposition of the proposed development.He stated he was the Vice-President of the Southwest United for Progress.He stated the Association had voted to support the Neighborhood in their opposition to the proposed development. Mr.John Clayton of ERC (the applicant)spoke in support of the development.Ke stated his company had performed a market analysis and determined there was a need for multi-family in the area.He stated most of the issues raised by the opposition were related to zoning.He stated a traffic analysis had been conducted and both Public Works and the Highway Department had determined a turn lane was not required. Mr.Clayton stated fencing of the detention was not usually desire.He stated fencing was not aesthetically pleasing and with high water trash and debris would catch in thefence.He also stated the fence would become a dam which also created a problem. Mr.Clayton stated the pond would be a maximum of (4)feet deep. Mr.Clayton stated the proposed development included a significant amount of green space.He stated the playground area was placed in the current location to allow the children to be supervised from as many buildings as possible without parents actually being outside. There was a general discussion between the Commissioners and the applicant as to what was enough play area.Mr.Clayton stated typically the four (4)-bedroom units rent to person without children.He stated he could not confirm if the estimate of 200 children was accurate.He stated the development included a pool and clubhouse for 10 January 23,2003 ITEM NG.:1 Cont.FILE NG.:S-1363 after school activities and summer recreation.Mr.Clayton stated there was not a set rule for the amount of playground area needed to satisfy the units. Mr.Hill stated the site plan could be modified to add a second play area.He stated the relocation of Building 5 would allow a "Tot-Lot"be constructed in the area.He also stated the green space around the development was proposed as casual play area. Mr.Hill stated the applicant would be willing to pipe the ditch on their property,Mr.Hill stated the entirety of the ditch was not on property owned by the applicant so the entire length of the ditch would not be enclosed. There was a discussion concerning the single access into the site.Mr.Hill stated a second driveway could be added for emergency access.He stated the design allowed for secondary access with breakaway gates near the southern parking area. The Commission questioned why the turn lane was no longer a requirement of approval.Staff stated a traffic study had been completed and the study indicated the turn lane was not needed.Staff stated on large developments Traffic Engineering typically requested turn lanes.Staff stated when it was determined that a turn lane was not warranted Staff would then change their recommendation. Ms.Pat Dicker spoke in opposition of the proposed development.She stated when the project was reviewed by the County it was determined the City would review the project and determine the merits of the development.She stated the existing pond was not sufficient to meet the stormwater detention requirements and the site would have flooding issues.She stated the site was also contained Indian mounds and there were historic artifacts on the site.Ms.Oicker also stated the schools were not adequate to meet the needs of the large number of children the site would generate. There was a motion was made to approve the proposed development to include all Staff comments (except 412 of the Public Works comments)and to include the amendments made by the applicant at the hearing (the placement of a second access to the site with breakaway gates,the addition of playground equipment in a second location and the piping of the drainage ditch on the south property line). The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes,3 noes and 1 absent. 11 January 23,20u3 ITEM NO.:2 FILE NG.:S-289-A NAME:Brimer Subdivision Replat LOCATION:Gn the south side of Mabelvale Cut-off and north of Brimer Street near the intersection of Mabelvale Cut-off,University and Woodbridge Streets DEVELOPER:ENGINEER: Mystery Properties Inc.McGetrick and McGetrick P.G.Box 56403 319 President Clinton Avenue Little Rock,AR 72215 Little Rock,AR 72201 AREA:1.65 acres NUMBER OF LOTS:8 FT.NEW STREET:0 CURRENT ZONING:R-2,CUP PLANNING DISTRICT:15 CENSUS TRACT:41.05 VARIANCESNVAIVERS REQUESTED:In-lieu contribution for street construction to Mabelvale Cut-off. BACKGROUND: On July 13,1982,the Planning Commission approved a two-lot plat (and a CUP for a Church on Lot A)for the Light House Baptist Temple Lots A and B.The plat was final platted and recorded December 1,1982.The current proposal includes the land area of Lot A,which has not developed.(Lot B was replatted into Courtney Subdivision.) A.PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to replat Lot A into eight (8)single-family residential lots. The lots will have street frontage on Mabelvale Cut-off and Brimer Road.The lots average 7020 square feet;adequate to meet the minimum requirement of the Subdivision Ordinance.The applicant proposes a 35-foot platted building line adjacent to Mabelvale Cut-off and a 25-foot platted building line adjacent to Brimer Road as required by the Subdivision Ordinance. January 23,2003 ITEM NO.:2 Cont.F I LE NO.:S-289-A The applicant has indicated right-of-way will be dedicated and one-half street improvements made to Brimer Road.The applicant has indicated right-of-way dedication but is requesting an in-lieu contribution for street construction to Mabelvale Cut-off. B.EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is vacant with a scattering of trees.Brimer Road is a narrow unimproved (no sidewalk)roadway with open ditches for drainage.Mabelvale Cut-off is an unimproved roadway also with open ditches for drainage.One-half street improvements have been made to the property located to the west of the site on Mabelvale Cut-off. There are single-family residences located in the immediate area with the homes south of Mabelvale Cut-off being on large lots.The homes north of Mabelvale Cut-off,in the Woodbridge Subdivision,are located on similar sized lots as the lots proposed.There is a relatively new single-family home located immediately west of the site. C.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing,Staff has not received any comment from area residents.The West Baseline Neighborhood Association and Southwest United for Progress, along with all abutting property owners were notified of the Public Hearing. D.ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1.Mabelvale Cut-off is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way 45-feet from the centerline will be required (the proposed dedication is acceptable). 2.Brimer Road is classified as a local street and a right-of-way width of 50-feet is acceptable. 3.Provide design of Brimer Street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvements to the street including a 5-foot sidewalk with the planned development.Provide contribution in-lieu of construction for Mabelvale Cut-off. 4.All residential lots should take driveway access from Brimer or a single access point on Mabelvale Cut-off. 5.Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 6.Plans for all work in the right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 2 January 23,2003 ITEM NO.:2 Cont.FILE NO.:S-289-A E.UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Little Rock Wastewater:Sewer main extension required,with easements,if service is required for Lots 1 through 3.Contact Little Rock Wastewater at 688-1414 for additional details. ENTERGY:No comment received. Center-Point Ener:No comment received. Southwestern Bell:Approved as submitted. Central Arkansas Water:A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the meter connection (s)will apply to this project in addition to normal charges.The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public fire hydrant(s)will be required.If additional fire hydrant(s)are required,they will be installed at the Developer's expense.Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional details. Fire De artment:Place fire hydrants per code.Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3752 for additional details. G~tPI:M t d. CATA:Site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus radius,turnout and route. F.ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Plannin Division:No comment. Landsca e Issues:No comment. G.SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:(November 21,2002) Mr.Pat McGetrick,McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers,was present representing the application.Staff gave an overview of the proposed development to the Subdivision Committee indicating there were additional items necessary on the proposed preliminary plat.Staff stated the proposed source of water and the proposed means of wastewater disposal were needed in the General Notes of the proposed preliminary plat.Staff stated the applicant was to include the number of lots and the average lot size in ihe General Notes as well. Staff stated there was a concern related to three driveway locations onto Mabelvale Cut-off and requested Mr.McGetrick try to minimize the number of 3 January 23,2003 ITEM NO.:2 Cont.FILE NO.:S-289-A driveway locations.Mr.McGetrick indicated the proposed development would have two driveway locations with Lots 2 and 3 sharing a driveway on the lot line and Lot 1's driveway would be located as far as feasible away from this break as possible.Staff requested Mr.McGetrick indicate the driveway locations on the proposed preliminary plat.Staff stated there were some concerns of the buildability of Lot 1 and requested Mr.McGetrick indicate on the proposed preliminary plat the buildable area of Lot 1. Staff noted comments from Central Arkansas Water and Little Rock Wastewater requesting Mr.McGetrick contact these agencies for additional information. There being no further issues for discussion,the Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H.ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to Staff addressing most of the issues raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee.The applicant has indicated in the General Notes the proposed source of water (Central Arkansas Water Association)and the proposed means of wastewater disposal (Little Rock Wastewater Utility).The applicant has also indicated the average Iot size and the number of lots. The applicant has indicated on the preliminary plat the proposed dedication of right-of-way to both streets,Brimer Road and Mabelvale Cut-off,and indicated street improvements will be made to Brimer Road.The applicant has also indicated an in-lieu contribution for Mabelvale Cut-off rather than street construction.Staff is supportive of this request. The proposed lots meet the minimum requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance,being greater than 60-feet in width and more than 7,000 square feet in area,as required for R-2,Single-family zoning. Staff is supportive of the proposed preliminary plat.Although,the lots are somewhat smaller than the land area of homes located around the site,the lots average 7,020 square feet comparable to the lots to the north of the site in the Woodbridge Subdivision.The applicant.has indicated the buildable area for Lot 1 and in that area it appears that a 1,800 —2,000 single-story home could be constructed on the lot. To Staff's knowledge,there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed preliminary plat.Staff recommends approval of the proposed plat for the Brimer Subdivision as presented. 4 January 23,2003 ITEM NQ.:2 Cont.FILE NQ.:S-289-A I.STAFF RECQMMENDATIQNS: Staff recommends approval of the proposed plat subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D,E and F of this report. Staff recommends approval of the request to allow an in-lieu contribution for street construction of Mabelvale Cut-off. PLANNING CQMMISSIQN ACTIQN:(DECEMBER 19,2002) Mr.Pat McGetrick of McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers was present representing the application.There were objectors present.Chairman Lowry stated the Planning Commission's policy was to allow the applicant a deferral option when fewer than nine (9)Planning Commissioners were present.He stated there were only eight (8) Commissioners present. Mr,McGetrick requested the item be deferred to the January 23,2003 Public Hearing, There was no further discussion.A motion was made to defer the item and approved by a vote of 8 ayes,0 noes and 3 absent. PLANNING CQMMISSIQN ACTIQN:(JANUARY 23,2003) Mr.Pat McGetrick was present representing the applicant.There were numerous objectors present.Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval.Staff stated the proposed preliminary plat complied fully with the Subdivision Qrdinance. Staff stated the application was not requesting any waivers or variances. Mr.McGetrick stated he had met with the neighborhood on two (2)occasions.He stated the neighborhood was opposed to the size of the lots.He stated the property owner did not want to decrease the number of lots and wanted to proceed as filed. Mr.Fred Worthington spoke in opposition of the proposed development.He stated drainage was a concern.He stated the property drained across his property and drainage was currently an issue without development.Mr.Worthington stated Staff had commented the lot sizes were similar to lot sizes to the north of Mabelvale Cut-off but the proposed lot sizes did not compare to the lot sizes to the south of Mabelvale Cut- off.He stated south of Mabelvale Cut-off the lots were near one (1)acre. Mr.Worthington stated he was not opposed to single-family development and suggested the applicant reconsider and subdivide the site into five (5)lots.Two (2)lots on Mabelvale Cut-off and three (3)lots on Brimmer Street. 5 January 23,2003 ITEM NO.:2 Cont.F I LE NO.:S-289-A Mr.Troy Laha spoke in opposition of the proposed preliminary plat.He stated he represented the Southwest United for Progress and the Association had voted to support the Legion Hut Neighborhood Association in their opposition of the proposed development. Ms.B.J.Wyrick,City Director Ward 7,spoke in opposition of the proposed preliminary plat.She stated the proposed plat was not conducive to the surrounding neighborhood. She stated the neighborhood was in favor of three single-family lots accessing Brimmer Street and a single lot development as a commercial or office development accessed by Mabelvale Cut-off. Mr.Jay Reba spoke in opposition of the proposed development.Mr.Reba stated the proposed development was too intense for the road.He stated three (3)driveway locations on Mabelvale Cut-off was excessive.He stated the neighborhood had met with Mr.McGetrick on two (2)occasions and made recommendations for modifications to the proposed plat.Mr.Reba stated the applicant was unwilling to take the advice of the neighborhood and reduce the number of lots. Mr.L.W.Perry stated he lived adjacent to the site and was opposed to the proposed development.He stated his home was built in 1994 and was 100-foot off the roadway, Mr.Perry stated the proposed plat only indicated a 35-foot platted building line,which was to close to the roadway.He stated the site sloped from north to south five (5)to fifteen (15)feet.He stated drainage was an issue for the site and would continue to be an issue once the site was developed. Mr.Perry stated cars traveled Mabelvale Cut-off at an excessive rate of speed even though the posted speed limit was 35 miles per hour.Mr.Perry stated cars backing out of their drives onto the street would be in great danger. Mr.Perry stated the applicant had indicated the sales price of the homes to be $80,000. Mr.Perry stated his home was recently appraised at $107,000.Mr.Perry stated there was more to a neighborhood than selling houses.He stated the proposed lots would not allow for a yard,which was out of character with the neighborhood.He stated the proposed development would change the appearance of Brimmer Road. There was a general discussion concerning the Commission's role when the applicant met the minimum requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance.Mr.Giles stated Richardson vs.the City of Little Rock had determined the Commission was required to approve the request. A motion was made to approve the application as filed.The motion failed by a vote of 5 ayes,3 noes,1 abstain (Robert Stebbins),1 recuse (Fred Allen)and 1 absent. 6 January 23,20ud ITEM NO.:3 MIDTOWN UPDATE Name:Midtown District and Design concepts Location:I-630 to Lee Ave.,McKinley to University Receuest:Approve a Redevelopment District area and Design Concepts for the area Source:Midtown Task Force PROPOSAL /REQUEST: To approve the boundaries for a redevelopment district in the Markham/University area and agree with the general design concepts to be used in the area. EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING: The area between l-630 and B Street from University to McKinley is generally zoned 'C3',General Commercial.This area is currently commercial in use.There are two mails,a hospital and various commercial uses in the area.To the north between B Street and Tirbou's Way the area is generally zoned 'O3',General Office.The existing use pattern is an office tower with several other office uses and a couple of multifamily developments located within this area. Along the east side of University,north of Markham there are a mix of zoning classifications.Some of the area is zoned 'R3',Single Family,some is classified '03', General Office and some 'R5',Urban Residential with a small area of 'C3',General Commercial.The use pattern is predominately single family with some office,and multifamily use. MASTER STREET PLAN: The Master Street Plan shows both University Avenue and Markham as Arterials.Each road should be four or more lanes and carry vehicles around and through the City. McKinley and Lee Avenue/Tirbou's Way are Collectors,which should be designed to be two or three lane roads.These roads should be built to carry people and goods to the arterial system. PARKS: War Memorial Park and Golf Course is located to the southeast of the proposed district at Markham/University Avenue.The Park System Master Plan calls for open space or park land to be within eight blocks of any development.With the use of open space or recreational areas at Churches,private schools,and public schools all areas within the proposed district should be within the eight blocks recommended by the Plan.Future January 23,20u3 ITEM NO.:3 Cont.MIDTOWN UPDATE developments should consider including open space/recreation within them in keeping with the Plan's —City within a Park concept. HISTORIC DISTRICTS: There are no historic districts in the area of this proposed district.However there is a National Register District,which overlaps a small portion of the district along Markham to the extreme east. CITY RECOGNIZED NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PLAN: The property under review is located in an area covered by three different City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plans —Briarwood,Hillcrest and Midtown.The Briarwood Plan does not address the redevelopment of the University corridor. However the Plan does want to keep the neighborhoods character intact,so any redevelopment should be such that the adjacent neighborhood's character is not adversely affected.The Midtown Plan specifically recommends allowing the development pattern suggested in the ULI-Midtown report to occur.The Hillcrest Plan makes several comments,which should be considered with any redevelopment.They want no net loss of residential units;to encourage and improve the walkability of the neighborhood;to locate intensive uses around the neighborhood edge or current neighborhood commercial area;to encourage quality infill building of a similar scale. ANALYSIS: At the request of residents for the Hillcrest area and concerns of the City about the current situation in the Markham-University area,the City arranged for the Urban Land Institute to complete a design and redevelopment plan for the area.In April 2001 a team of expertise arrived in Little Rock and began work.Both the Little Rock Planning Commission and Board of Directors have reviewed the Plan that was produced. A group of interested citizens,with City representation,formed in the summer of 2002. This group's goal has been to work toward the implementation of the ULI-Midtown report.The group membership included representatives of surrounding neighborhoods, development interests,owners,the school district and the City.This group has been reviewing financing,organization,design and formation of the district.The Midtown Task Force believes the next step is to form a District by setting boundaries.A Plan for the area will then be developed and finally the District can use various funding mechanisms to implement the Plan.The Task Force has developed a proposed district and design concept for consideration. The Task Force believes that this is only the first step of the process.Once the District is formed,a Plan is developed for the District.This Plan will be brought before the Planning Commission and Board of Directors for approval.Once the Plan is approved, redevelopment activities within the District can begin. 2 January 23,2003 ITEM NQ.:3 Cont.MIDTOWN UPDATE The Task Force is recommending that the redevelopment district include both the primary and secondary areas of the ULI-Midtown report.This area is:3)between University Avenue and McKinley from I-630 to Tirbou's Way;2)north of Markham to I ee Avenue and from University to Pierce;3)north of Lee Avenue to Evergreen and from University Avenue to Buchanan;4)east of Pierce to Pine,between Markham and A Street. A draft ordinance for setting the district boundaries is included for review.This boundary is based on that used by the ULI Midtown Report.Finally there is a set of drawings to illustrate the design concepts recommended.These concepts are based on the recommendations in the ULI Midtown Report. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations:Evergreen,Hillcrest, University Park,and Briarwood. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: In early December,Staff received a request to defer this item to January 23,2003. Staff recommends deferral. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 9,2003) The item was placed on the Consent Agenda for deferred to January 23,2003 by unanimous vote the item was deferred. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:(JANUARY 23,2003) Dick Downing,Chair of Midtown Task Group,reminded the Commission that they hadbeenchargedwithrecommendingactionforMidtownarea.The work done so far isbasedontheUrbanLandInstituteStudy(already reviewed by the Commission).To give background Mr.Downing reviewed with the Commission the Urban Land InstituteprocessfordevelopmentoftheMidtownStudy.As part of his review,Mr.DowningnotedusingthesynergyofthemedicalinstitutionsalongI-630 and that the study area is the "GUT"of City as shown by graphics prepared with the study.The recommendation of the study is for "urban village"type of redevelopment-retail officeandresidentialthatisfamilyaswellaspedestrianoriented. The study is made of three and a half areas.The first is the already declining University Mall area.The second area is the still strong Park Plaza area.The thirdareaiseastofUniversityandnorthofMarkham.This area is the one likely to redevelop soonest.The half area is two "pipe stem"areas along Markham (to the east)and University (to the north).Since the report does not call out design or redevelopment proposals,the recommendation is to not include the area corridor alongUniversityAvenue. 3 January 23,2OU3 ITEM NO.:3 Cont.MIDTOWN UPDATE Mr.Downing went over a proposed timeline.The desire today is for the Commission to vote for the creation of the District.Next governance,public purpose and design guidelines must be developed.The powers of the district were viewed.The items which should be included in a project plan were delineated.Finally,financing and the"TIF"process were outlined for the Commission. Mr.Mark Spradley,an attorney and Task Group member,presented his background with improvement districts.Mr.Spradley reviewed how the law came to be and outlined the "3-steps"necessary to create a District.First is creation of the District-Boundaries, Second is a project plan and third is financing.Ordinances after full notification are required for each step. Craig Berry,Task Group member,reviewed the design concepts with the Commission. The guiding principals were the ULI Midtown Study,a simple review process, predictability,and incentives for added elements.Mr.Berry reviewed the Design intentions —parking,transit pedestrian links,safety,pedestrian oriented,signs village atmosphere,etc.He showed several slides illustrating some of these "intentions". Chairman Nunnley opened the item for questions.Commissioner Meyer asked about timing relative to implementation/project review/etc.Mr.Downing responded with information on TIF implementation.Discussion about timing of infrastructure improvements to actual projects followed. Commissioner Allen asked that the make-up of the group closely mirror the community. Mr.Downing indicated efforts would be made to accomplish this. Commissioner Rahman asked about the boundary,if redevelopment were developer driven,etc.Mr.Downing responded with discussion of TIF and timing of improvements. There was discussion about the University Corridor (north of I ee)by Commissioners Faust and Stebbins with Mr.Downing.The area can be amended later if so desired to add areas. Commissioner Floyd asked about the Markham corridor (east)and to make sure the area does not become like Rodney Parham. Commissioner Langlais asked if this is saying the existing Department stores must move.Mr.Downing indicated no,only what should be done if they leave.Without them (the department stores),a change in retail mix would be better for the area. Commissioner Faust stated that though this may have been sparked by a possible regional mall and a new infill development,unless something is done in the next 5 to 20 years the area will no longer be a thriving commercial area. Chairman Nunnley asked about the timing of assessment change.Mr.Spradley reviewed the "TIF"process and reasons for assessment change.Mr.Nunnley asked about using other revenue to do work in the area.Mr.Spradley indicated the City could use other sources of funds in the area.Mr.Nunnley asked about a "freeze"until the January 23,2003 ITEM NG.:3 Cont.MIDTOWN UPDATE plan is completed.Mr.I3owning indicated there was no desire for a moratorium on development.Mr.Nunnley asked if the golf course {VVar Memorial)was in the area. Mr.Downing indicated it was not.There was discussion about the size of the Authority Board. Mr.I3owning indicated the task group was next going to address size and composition. To date it has been agreed not to be too big and to have a diverse group of interests represented at the table.Commissioner Meyer moved to accept and forward the proposals to the Board of l3irectors.By a vote of 10 for 0 against (one absent)the item was approved as recommended by the work group. 5 Pl ANNING COMMISSION VOTE RECORD DATE,:-'c.='=- MEMBER ALLEN,FRED,JR. FAUST,JUDITH FLOYD,NORM e LANGLAIS,GARY LONI RY,BGB MEYER,JERRY MUSE,RGHN NUNNLEY,OBRAY,JR.~w o o RAHMAN,MIZAN RECTOR,BILL STEBBINS,ROBERT y MEMBER ALLEN,FRED,JR. FAUST,JUDITH FLOYD,NORM LANGLAIS,GARY LORRY,BOB MEYER,JERRY MUSE,ROHN NUNNLEY,OBRAY,JR. RAHMAN,MIZAN RECTOR,BILL STEBBINS,ROBERT MeetIng Adjourned ~==-'.M. NAvs A AsssNT ~SAssTAm ~sscusc January 23,2003 There being no further business before the Commission,the meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Date ~Seer ry Chairm n