HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4562-B Staff AnalysisMay 29, 2003
NAME: Hickory Grove Long -form PD -R
LOCATION: Located on Hinson Road,
Subdivision
DEVELOPER:
Jim Markus/Bob Evans
P.O. Box 241400
Little Rock, AR 72223
ENGINEER:
The Mehlburer Firm
201 South Izard Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
6—REA: 38.62 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 83
CURRENT ZONING: MF -6, Multi -family
FILE NO
-4552-B
west side, just south of Pebble Beach
FT. NEIN STREET: 0
ALLOWED USES: Multi -family six (6) units per acre
PROPOSED ZONING: PD -R
PROPOSED development 8 USE: Owner occupied townhouse develo
acre} 3 Units (2.15 units per
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: Plat Variances -
I. A variance to allow the creation of double frontage lots for Lots
2. A variance to allow an increased lot width to depth ratio for Lots'? a 32
3. A variance to allow lots without public street frontage for Lots 63 and 69 79.
and Lots 48 – 61. 2 – 16, Lotss 33 - 46
May 29, 2003
10
►-►I,E NO.:
BACKGROUND:
The property is the remaining 40+ acres of a 120 -acre parcel or t
Property owned by the First Baptist Church. The site was originally
multipurpose facility with residential, schoolhe eastern 113 of the
have since developed as single-family neighborhood.
The property was zoned MF -6, Multi -family District (six (6) units
in mid -1981. A "Declaration of Covenants" was filed and record
with the Property. per gross acre allowed}
p p y. The private covenants regulate the Property's ed in 1981, which runs
Property's development. use and pardon of the
The private covenants state that the property will be develo e
developed pursuant to the Horizontal Property ct being Act P d for condominium units
only, no rental units). The covenants designate certa areas Of of 1961 {units far sale
(Open Space) and require a six (6) foot high privacy fence e the grape
location prior to any construction. The covenants also state t � as OS
be
area of the property not exceed one and one - constructed at one
half stories in height; both located on ures built in one
the
northern boundary of the site.
A preliminary plat and a multiple building site plan review
1997, to allow the construction of 234 units in 10 three-story re filed an the site in May
nt requested the application buildings. Prior to the
Public Hearing; the applica
consideration, n be withdrawn from
A proposal was filed March 2000, to develop a portion of the s'
8.47
buildings of owner occupied condominium housing. The
(1e applicaliration was later
acres) with 22
withdrawn from consideration without prejudice prior to the Public
A. PROPOSAUREQUEST: Hearing.
The applicant proposes to develop this 39 -acre site of MF -6
Planned Residential Development with 83 units. zoned property as a
applica
develop the site in three (3) phases with zero -lot line townhouses, t proposes to
would have its own lot of record. A common wall would beeseach of which
structure, which would be dissected by the common property Shared s each
y line. This
allow some measure of property on each end of the structure would
the building. The structures would have enclosed garages f for maintenance of
with a private courtyard on the rear of each townhouse unit, acing a private street
The applicant is proposing the construction of a bridge
separates this property from Hinson Road. The bridge will be cons
first phase according to the applicant g across the creek that
lic
roadway to connect with Hinson Road and porado applicant is constructed in the
Beach DriveroThe road willsing a be
2
May 29, 2003
NO.: 1 (Con
M
NO. - Z-4
constructed in the third phase of the development. There are two other streets
proposed as a part of the development, which the applicant intends to maintain
as private streets.
There are three areas designated by covenants in the deed that are not to be
encroached upon by building construction. The applicant has indicated the
areas of non -encroachment on the proposed development plan and indicated the
covenants to be in force.
The applicant is requesting variances for lots without public street frontage, an
increased lot depth to width ratio and a variance to allow double frontage lots.
The lots are sized to accommodate the building
Subdivision Ordinance for zero -lot line development, plans as required in the
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 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:
I. Hinson Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A
dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline will be required.
2. Construct curb at all locations as needed. Repair or replace any other curb
and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to
occupancy.
3. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start
of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-
of-way from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield).
3
E
May 29, 2003
ITEM NO.: 1 Cant.
4. A sketch gradin FILE NO,; Z-4562.8
9 and drainage plan, a special flood hazard permit, and a
special grading permit for flood hazard areas are require
NPDES permit is also required. o q d. ADE
5• In accordance with Section 31-176 � and
floodway easements or be dedicated tothe ay areas must be shown as
wide access eaSement is required adjacent to the floodn addition, r . foot
6• Conditional approval from the Federal Emer enc way boundary.
be required prior to start of work. g Y Management Agency
ll
Carps of Engineers will also be requuiredect�on 404 permit from the US Arm�Y
7. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this
8. Bridge Plans must meet ASHTO standards Per property
hopertY
9• Prepare a letter of pending development address Little Rock Code.
code. Cont
by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock act
(501) 37g-1873 (Steve Philpott) .form ng streetlights as required
requirements.
ore information regal rdin street light at
10. Dorado Beach Drive right -off wa lrght
improvements to the current roadw y d street width should match existing
11. Additional drainage easements between lots m
29 of the Code. Particularly, Lots 63 through 81 and
12- All alleys must be designed may bas needed
e required Per section
s9 per !Master Street Pian requirement elsewhere.
ed
13. Street curvature at lots 10
through 17 da not s.
meet minimum radius
requirement of 1501.
14- Any cuts steeper than 3.1 musd be terrac
ordinance. ed per the land
15. Easements must be provided for sidewalksalteration
way. Sidewalks must be continuous along Dorado Beach cated in
the public right -of-
1- ILITIES ANn �iC7C right -of -
Drive.
Wastewater: A sewer main extension is required
• 7YiYliY�7:
with
required for the project. An existing 10" sewer man els ❑ emends, cased alif oserviceng Hinsois
n
on
p
Road in the area of the "Proposed Floadway lm r
the existing main is required to remove manholesoVements". Relocation ❑f
Of the proposed improvements. Other existing main
e located on site
easements that must be retained and sewer main from area
688-1414 for additional details. Contact Little Rork rWastewater Utilitwith
y at
Er�Y: No comment received.
Center -Point Ener : No comment received.
►H
F,
G
May 29, 2003
ITEM NO,: 1 (Con
FILE NO.: Z_4
SBC: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: Apublic water main adequate to Provide
neeed
protection and water service to each lot will be required adjacent thto he
proposed roads. A Capital Investment Charge based on the 5fze o f e
meter connection (s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges.the
This development will have minor impact on existing water
system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide
distribution
and fire protection. Contact Central Arkansas Water atggg2 pressure
additional details. 38 for
Fire De artrnent: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the
Department at 918-3752 for additional details. Little Rock Fire
Count Pla ming: No comment received.
C�: Site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has
radius, turnout and route. no effect on bus
ISSUESITECHNICALIDESIGN:
Plannin Division: This request is located in the River Mo
District. The Land Use Plan shows Low Density Residential for tt i Planning
The applicant has applied for a Planned Residential Development h+s property_
condominiums development. elopment for
Cit Reca nized Nei hborhood Action Plan: The applicant's r
area covered by the River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan. How
this plan does not contain goals and objectives property lies +n the
this particular application. 1 es that are directly relevant
Landsc No comment.
Build+n Caries: No comment received.
SUBDIVISION COMMI7TEE COMMENT: (February27 2
003}
Mr. Frank Riggins was present representing the applicants. St
history of the site indicating there were covenants tied to the off presented a
site and the applicant appeared to have met them. Staff state the development of the
would be a zero lot line development and owner occupied housing- a development
there would be three variances necessary as a part of the lat.
applicant had requested thea Staff stated
appropriate variances in the initial application. Staff stated the
5
May 29, 2003
r
NO.: Z
Staff stated the applicant would be required to plat buildable areas to establish
maximum buildable areas. Mr. Riggins indicated he would designate the
maximum buildable area on the proposed plat.
Staff questioned if the lots on the western boundary would be alley access
d
rear loaded lots. Mr. Riggins stated the applicant was requesting this o tion
since the lots were somewhat steep. p
Staff stated the street improvements would be required with each phase.
Staff
voiced concerns about the developer developing Phases I and 11 and
completing Phase 111. Staff questioned how Dorado Beach Drive would no
b t
completed. Staff stated the roadway was needed because of the limited access
through the neighborhoods in the area. s
Public Works comments were addressed in great length. Staff stated applicant would be required to place curb inlets along Hinson Road. Staff the
the applicant would also be required to grant a 25 -foot access easement long
the floodway. Staff stated the bride nt along
constructed to City standard. Staff also stated Dor do Bewoulach Drive had be thus
u be
far
been constructed to collector standards and the proposed connection thus far
required to match up to the existing roadway. would be
Staff noted comments from Public Works and Central Arkansas Water stating
the applicant should contact these agencies for additional information.
There being no further items for discussion, the Committee then forwa
item to the full Commission for final action. rded the
H. ANAL:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of
raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee members. Theapplicant
the issues
indicated a typical lot setback plan and has indicated five (5 foo shas
setbacks, where applicable, and a five (5) foot rear yard setback adjacent
yard
green spaces. The applicant has indicated a twentyJ nt to the
for Lots 17 — 32, adjacent to Dorado Beach Drive. he afoot rear yard setback
twenty (20) and twenty-five (25) foot front platted building lines
nt has indicated
development. The applicant has also platted a restricted access within the
along the rear of Lots 17 — 32. easement
The applicant has requested Lots 63 — 81 be permitted to be rear loaded through
a thirty (30) foot access easement located on the rear of these lots.
applicant has also requested a thirty (30) foot access easement be locate The
di
front yards of Lots 69 — 73 to allow for flexibility in the development of these
the
se lots.
D
May 29, 2003
ITEM NO.: 1 (Co
FILE NO,: Z-4562-8
The topography of this area is extremely steep and the applicant wou
alternatives for development of these lots. Staff is supportive of this Id like
request.
The applicant has increased the street right-of-way for Dorado Beach D
rive to
sixty (60) feet, as requested by Public Works, to match the existingp
Beach Drive, which currently ends in the Pebble Beach Woods Subdivi io or he
applicant is proposing the two (2) interior streets to be private streets and be
constructed with a twenty-seven (27) foot pavement width. The applicant has
indicated a twenty-five (25) foot access easement adjacent to the floo as
requested by Public Works. dway as
The applicant has indicated a zero -lot line development consisten
requirements for development under the Subdivision Ordinance. Thea l'
t With the
will be required at the time of Final Platting to delineate the maximum building icing
area of each lot so as to provide that no lot will be adversely affected iby
placement of adjoining units and specify the zero -lot -line yard, by
The Proposed site is currently zoned MF -6 or Multi -family up to six units per acre.
The proposed density of the site equates to approximately 2.15 units per acre,
well within the allowable density. The proposed development also includes
previously restricted areas for open spaCe. The area to the north of the site
the 100-f0ot open space buffer indicated on the siteplanone the
also indicated building heights on these lots will not exceed The applicant has
stories. The applicant has also included an open space area ad cean
ntdt one-half
Road, following the creek and floodway as was previously requested. o Hinson
q The third
area of restricted area includes 1.18 acres to the south of the site indicate
as
open spaCe. The applicant has also included an additional 2.87 acres of o
space in this area. pen
The applicant has indicated the proposed development will be has
completion of Dorado Beach Drive will be with the third phase The a
phased and the
proposes the first phase to include access to the site with the construction Of
bridge extending from Hinson Road, the construction applicant
development of Lots 1 — 46, of a private street and the
the second private street and the developmsecond ent of Lots 47 — the construction of
final phase will include the development of Lots 63 _ 83 and2thed theompletiletson of
third
and
Dorado Beach Drive. Staff has some concerns with the dela ed de
c
Dorado Beach Drive until the final phase. y Velopment of
connection of Dorado Beach Drive be completed with the would recommend the
development. second phase of the
The applicant has not indicated an
Staff would recommend if signage desiiredlgthegsignathe ge be Posed tsiteen plan,
signage allowed in multi -€amity zones per the Zoning Ordinance. consistent with
7
May 29, 2003
NO.-- I (Cont
FILE NO.: Z_4562 -B
Staff is supportive of the proposed development as filed with regard to s
design, layout and lot placement. Staff is not supportivetreet
request to
the completion of Dorado Beach Drive until the third ph se.e As stated defer
Staff
would recommend the street be constructed with the second phase of
development to ensure the street is constructed in a timely manner. the
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the application as filed.
PLANNING COMMlSSlON ACTION: z
(MARCH 20, 2003)
Mr. Frank Riggins was present representing the application. There were
present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of a objectors
applicant had revised the phasing plan and had agreed to construct the exte stated the
Dorado Beach Drive in the second phase. nsion of
Staff stated the phasing plan had changed to include Lots 47 — 62 in Ph
— 46 in PhasI Staff stated the remaining lots would develop (Lots 63 ase I and tots 1
phase. Staff —stated the applicant had agreed to construct Dorado Beach83) in the final
any of the lots abutting the road were final platted or when Lots 17 — 32 or 6 Drive when
final platted. 3 83 were
Staff stated the applicant had failed to notify the Property
By-laws. Staff stated the applicant mailed the otices 14 da s as required by the
hearing and a waiver would be required to accept this notification. A oto the public
to approve the notification of property owners 14 -days prior to the public
was made
motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 noes and 3 absent. p c hearing. The
Mr. Riggins addressed the Commission on the merits of the Proposed
He stated the applicant was adhering to the covenants imposed on the Sed development.
the applicant was also leaving additional green spaces around the development
en stated
would only enhance adjacent properties. evelopment which
Ms. Brenda Richardson spoke in Opposition
her primary concern was from lack of nfo mation proposed She eS coned f the She stated
have attached garages Mr. Riggins indicated the units Would have if the units would
She then questioned if the area to the north would be retained as attached garages.
stated the area to the north would be a 110 -font open space undistur er. Mr. Riggins
stated there would not be any trees removed but the area would contain a walking trail.
Ms. Richardson stated she did not received her n bed buffer. He
notice in a timely manner.
Ms. Robin Ombindinger stated she did not receive a notice and if no
she would not have known of the request. Staff questioned when t for her neighbor
Ms. Ombindinger
LV
May 29, 2003
FiLE NQ.: Z -4562-B
bought her home. She stated in February. The Commission indicated this was not
enough time to allow the abstract company to pick up the title transfer.
Mr. Ron Groce spoke in opposition of the proposed development. He stated
his
concern was with the placement of green spaces along the southern edge of he
development. He requested the developer extend the buffer along the south
boundary to encompass his entire lot. ern
Mr. Melvin Mayfield spoke in opposition of the proposed development. He stated he
did
not want Dorado Beach Drive to connect to Hinson Road. He stated if the road were
opened the traffic in the area would increase and the internal streets in Pebble Beach
Woods were not sufficient to handle the traffic. He requested the Commissio
against Staff and not approve the road connection. n go
Ms Neida Hill spoke in opposition of the proposed request. Ms. Hill stated she
concerned with the extra traffic on Hinson Road. She stated her letter indicated 77
units and the proposal before the Commission was for 83 units. She stated each of
the
units would have two (2) cars and at a minimum there would be 176 more cars
Hinson Road each day. She requested the entrance not be changed or moved on
the shown location. from
There was a general discussion concerning the roadways and the narrowness
roads and street parking in Pebble Beach Woods. Staff stated one side of the s eet
the
could be signed for no parking if there was truly apthe only east/west connection Staff stated the road
needed to be constructed since Pebble Beach Drive was nnecon
to Rahling Road. tion
Commissioner Meyer stated the site was zoned MF -6 or multi -family at six fi
units acre. He stated the site could be developed with 240 units. Commissioner Meyer
stated the proposed development was 2.1 units per acre well beloerw w the allowable ble
Staff stated there were to be no trails in the undisturbed area. The lican
there would be no trails in the open area. pp t agreed
A motion was made to approve the application as amended to include no trai
open space. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes 0 noes and 2 absent. Is in the
STAFF UPDATE:
This item was to be heard by the Little Rock Board of Directors at their Ma
2003
Public Hearing. Director Michael Keck requested the item be returned to they Planning
Commission to reconsider the need for the connection of Dorado Beach Drive b tween
Rahling Road and Hinson Road. There have been many conversations betweene the
the
N
May 29, 2003
ITEM NO.: 1 Cont. }
FILE NO.: Z-4562-13
neighborhood, the developer and the Board concerning the connection of the street. In
these conversations the neighborhood did not want the street connection and the
developer indicated he did not desire to build the street. Director Keck was not
convinced the Commission considered all the issues related to the street and if the
development should be developed without the through connection. He stated he was
not stating the street should not be built only that the Commission reconsider the need
for the street connection when making their decision concerning the approval of the
project.
Mr. Jim Lawson, Director of Planning, gave a presentation to the Board of Directors
concerning traffic in the area. The Commission was not given this presentation. The
presentation contained background material concerning when the street was proposed
as a collector street to the City's Master Street Plan, the current development patterns
in the area and traffic counts on Pebble Beach Drive. Director Keck indicated he did
not feel the Commission had all the relevant information and therefore did not consider
the street connection issue or if the subdivision should be developed without the
connection.
The Commission first considered the connection in 1995 when Pebble Beach Estates
was preliminary platted. At the time two (2) streets were proposed to extend eastward
into undeveloped areas; one of which is now deVE�Ioped as Pebble Beach Woods, the
other area is the site being considered by this application. At the time the applicant
proposed to subdivide 39.87 acres into 116 single-family lots. There were two (2)
connections proposed one (1) Beckenham Road and the other Dorado Beach Drive.
Beckenham Road has been shown on the Master Street Plan as a collector street since
1988. Staff and the Commission at the time of the proposal for Pebble Beach Estates
requested Dorado Beach Drive be constructed to Collector Standards. [Per the Master
Street Plan the Commission has the authority to request additional streets at the time of
subdivision. "The exact location and additional need for Collectors will be determined
by the Little Rock Planning Commission upon advise of Staff."]
When the Commission reviewed the Woods at Hinson, now known as Pebble Beach
Woods in June of 1997, the Commission once again requested Dorado Beach Drive b
constructed to Collector Standards. This request extended the street to the west
property line of the current proposed development. The Master Street Plan was never
officially amended to include this connection but the minute record indicates the
Commission's desire for Dorado Beach Drive to extend from Hinson Road to the west.
There is currently one east/west connection in the area, Pebble Beach Drive. The
current traffic counts on Pebble Beach Drive indicate all
per day of through traffic. The service volume of a collector �streetatlylis 5,000ocarsbiler
day. Other average daily traffic counts in the area indicate Pebble Beach Drive carries
approximately 550 automobiles northbound and 575 automobiles southbound on
Montvale Drive. On Valley Park Drive the average daily traffic counts indicate 775
northbound automobiles and 1080 southbound automobiles. The final area analyzed
10
May 29, 2003
TEM NO.: 1 (Cont.)
FILE NO.: Z -4562-B
was on Pebble Beach Drive just east of Valley Park Drive. Estimates indicate there are
approximately 2950 automobiles per day eastbound in this area and 2790 automobiles
per day westbound.
Currently Pebble Beach Estates and Pebble Beach Woods are 85 percent "built-ou ,,
Of the homes constructed there are a number of the homes currently vacant. t
addition there are an additional 50 plus lots, which have been a In
preliminary plat but have not yet began construction in the Chenal Ridge subdivisiwith
on. a
The current proposal involves the completion of the connection of Dorado Beach
Drive
move forward with the project. Staff feels the connection is desirable and
to Hinson Road. The applicant has stated he is willing to make the connection and
shauldb
completed. With construction of Dorado Beach Drive extending from Hinson Road e
the west and connecting to the current terminus the current traffic pressure ❑n pebble
to
Beach Drive would be relieved. Although Beckenham Road has been identified
Master Street Plan as a collector street staff does not feel Beckenham Road will be
oil the
constructed in the near future. Once the connection is made this will aid in relief
traffic pressure on Pebble Beach Drive and Dorado Beach Drive should traffic v ❑f
become an issue. olume
Staff has received numerous phone calls from the Pebble Beach area con
Dorado Beach Drive. All of the callers have indicated the need for another concerning
to Hinson Road. The traffic is heavy and dangerous on Pebble Beach Drive ac i
to the callers. cocordrdinngg
Staff feels this current proposal should be constructed as presented. Staff fe
Beach Drive should be extended, as dedicated by the Master Street plan els Dorado
from the current terminus to Hinson Road. , to the east
11
NO.: Z -4562-B
NAME: Hickory Grove Long -form PD -R
LOCATION: Located on Hinson Road, west side, just south th of Pebble Beach
DEVELOPER:
Jim Markus/Bob Evans
P.O. Box 241400
Little Rock, AR 72223
ENGINEER:
The Mehlburer Firm
201 South Izard Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
A_: 38.62 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 83 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: MF -6, Multi -family
ALLOWED USE Multi -family six (6) units per acre
PROPOSED ZONING: PD -R
PROPOSED USE: Owner occupied townhouse development
acre) P 83 Units (2.15 units per
VARIANCESIWAIVERS REC�UESTED: Plat Variances -
1. A variance to allow the creation of double frontage lots for L —
2. A variance to allow an increased lot width to depth ratio for of 17 32.
nd
3. A variance to allow lots without public scree# frontage for L Lots 63 and 69 —79.
and Lots 48 — 61 _ Lots 2 — 16, Lots 33 - 46
FILE NO.: Z-4552.6 (C
BACKGROUND:
The property is the remaining40+
acres of a 120 -acre parcel or the eastern 113 of the
property owned by the First Baptist Church. The site was ori in
multipurpose facility with residential, school and church facilit g all
have since developed as single-family neighborhood. Y• The western 80 acres
Y
Proposed as a
The property was zoned MF -B,
Multi -family District (six (5) units per grass acre allowed
in mid -1981. A "Declaration of Covenants" was filed and re
with the property. The private covenants regulate the pro ert riled in 1981, which runs
property's development. p y s use and portion of the
The private covenants state that the property will be level
developed pursuant to the Horizontal Property Act beingAc
developed for condominium units
only, no rental units}. The coVenants designate certaiares of he {units far sale
(Open Space) and require a six (6) fact high as of the property as 05
location privy to any construction. The covenants also state
9 privacy fence be constructed at one
area of the property not exCeed one and one-half stories in hei
northern boundary of the site. that structures built in one
ght; both located an the
A preliminary plat and a multiple building site plan review
1997, to allow the construction of 234 units in 10 three-story were filed on the site in May
Public Hearing; the applicant requested the
consideration. orY buildings. Prior to
the
application be withdrawn from
A proposal was filed March 2000, to develop a portion of t
buildings of owner occupied condominium housing.
withdrawn from consideration without re' The he site (18ica acres) with 22
prejudice prior to the Public Hearing.
was later
A. PROPOSAUREQUEST:
The applicant proposes to develop this 39 -acre site of
Planned Residential Development with 83 units. MF -6 zoned property as a
develop the site in three (3) phases with zero-!ot line townhouses,a
would have its awn lot of record. A co applicant proposes to
each
structure, which would be dissected b common wall wouldbeared b which
allow some measure of properly an each tend of the st he common property line. Thiswouldthe building. The structures would have enclosed garages tore for maintenance of
with a private courtyard on the rear of each townhouse s facing a private street
unit.
The applicant is proposing the construction of a brad
separates this property from Hinson Road. The bridge will be
fast phase according to the applicant. pplicant bridge across the creek that
roadway to connect with Hinson Road and Dorado Drive. The road will be
constructed in the
is Proposing a public
Beach ❑r
constructed in the third phase of the development. There are
i
Proposed as a part of the development, which the
other streets
as private streets, pplicant intends to maintain
K
FILE NO.: 2-4562-B Cont.
There are three areas designated by covenants in the deed
encroached upon by building construction. The applicant has indica
ted the as
of non -encroachment on the that are not to be
proposed development plan and indicated r theaecovenants to be in force.
The applicant is requesting variances for lots withoutubli
increased lot depth to width ratio and a variance to allow c street frontage, an
The lots are sized to accommodate the buildingdouble frontage lots.
Subdivision Ordinance for zero -lot line developmentplans as required in the
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS;
The site is currently undeveloped and heavily wooded.
Condominium development and single-family residences The Windsor Court
are located to the
south, with single-family residences to the north. There is
Single-family property to the west, with single-familyresidences
R-2,
Single-family residences and undeveloped R_2 propeare also further west.
Hinson Road to the east. Y e also located across
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Westchester/Heatherbrae Pro ert
Y Owners Association, all residents located
within 300 feet of the site, who could be identified and all
P
located within 200 feet of the site were notified of the PublicHearing.
writing, Staff has received several informational ho owners of property
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS; phone calls from
area ressi of this
dents.
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS;
1 Hinson Road is classified on the Master Street Plan
as a dedication of right -Of -way 45 feet from centerline will be re minor arterial. q
2. Construct curb at all locations as needed. required.
and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in he public replace
any other curb
occupancy. g of wa
3- Plans of all work in right-of-wayshall Y prior to
Of work, Obtain be submitted for approval prior to start
barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right -
Of -way from Traffic Engineering at (501 ) 37,9_1817 Derric
4• A sketch grading and drainage plan, a special flood� k Bergfield}, g
special grading permit for flood hazard are sarere hazard
ed permit, and a
NPDES permit is also required. q ADEQ and
5. In accordance with Section 31-176, floodwa
floodway easements or be dedicated to the public a Inmost additio shown as
wide access easement is required adjacent to the floodwan, a 25 -foot
y boundary.
3
ILE NO,: Z-4562 -B (Co
6. Conditional approval from the Federal Emergency Mana
be required prior to start of work. A Section 404 permit fom nt Agency will
Corps of Engineers will also be required. the US Army
7. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
8. Bridge Plans must meet ASHTO standards per the Little
9. Prepare a letter of pending development addressingstreetlights
Code.
by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Contat Traffic
as required
(501) 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information regardingEngineering at
requirements. street light
10. Dorado Beach Drive right -of --way and street width s
improvements to the current roadway. hould match existing
11. Additional drainage eaSements between lots may be
ed
29 of the Code. Particularly, Lots 63 through 81 and asneedper Section
12. All alleys must be designed per Master Street Plan re ed elsewhere.
13. Street curvature at lots 10 through 17 do not quirements.
requirement of 150'. meet minimum radius
14. Any cuts steeper than 3:1 must be terraced
ordinance. per the land alteration
15. Easements must be provided for sidewalks not locate
d in the way. Sidewalks must be continuous along Dorado Beach Drive, c right -of-
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: A sewer main extension is required with easements,
required for the project. An existing 10" sewer main is loco service is
Road in the area of the "Proposed Floodway Improvements".d along Hinson
the existing main is required to remove manholes and sewer
Relocation ❑f
of the proposed improvements. Other existing mains are la
cated on easements that must be retained Contact wer main from area
688-1414 for additional details. Little Rock Wastewater Utilliity with
En�Y: No comment received.
Center -Point Ener : No comment received.
S_: No comment received.
Centra! Arkansas Water: A public water main adequate
protection and water service to each lot will be required adjacent
needed fire
proposed roads. A Capital Investment Charge based on th size to the
meter connection (s) will apply to this project in addition to
This development will have a size of the
system. Proposed water facilities will bepsized act to existing waterndistal b charges. on
provide
and fire protection. Contact Central Arkansas Wate adequate pressure
at 992-2438 for
4
ILE NO.:
additional details.
Fire De artment: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the
Department at 918-3752 for additional details. Little Rock Fire
Count Plannin : No comment received.
Q�T—A: Site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has
radius, turnout and route. s no effect on bus
F. ISS U ESITECHN ICALIDES IG IV:
Division: This request is located in the River
District. The Land Use Plan shows Low Density Residential for this r thi Planning
The applicant has applied for a Planned Residential Ds property.
Plannin
condominiums development. evelopment for
Cit RecO nixed Nei hborhood Action Plan: The applicant's
area covered by the River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan. Ho
this plan does not contain goals and objectivesproperty lies in the
this particular application. that are directly relevant to
Landscape. No comment.
6u+►9in Codes: No comment received.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT; (Februa
Mr. Frank Ri ry 27, 2003)
ggins was present representing the applicants. Staff Presented
history of the site indicating there were covenants tied to the
of the
site and the applicant a a
appeared to have met them. Staff stated ethe development
would be a zero lot line development and owner occupied housing.
there would be three variances necessary as a part of the I
applicant had requested thea Staff stated
appropriate variances in the initial application. Staff stated the
5
FILE IN - Z -4562-B
Staff stated the applicant would be required to plat buildable areas to
establish
maximum buildable areas. Mr. Riggins indicated he would designate the
maximum buildable area on the proposed plat. 9 e the
Staff questioned if the lots on the western boundary would be alley
rear loaded lots. Mr. Riggins stated the applicant was requestn this ss and
since the lots were somewhat steep. g option
Staff stated the street improvements would be required with each
voiced concerns about the developer developing Phases I and 11 a Staff
completing Phase Ill. Staff questioned how Dorado Beach Drive woul
not
completed. Staff stated the roadway was needed because of the limited acCeSS
be
through the neighborhoods in the area.
Public Works comments were addressed in great length. St
applicant would be required to place curb inlets along Hinson Road Staff Stated the
the applicant would also be required to grant a 25 -foot access a Staff Stated
the flvodway. Staff stated the bride Staff
along
constructed to City standard. Staff also stated Dorado Bewoulach Drived be qu�red to be
been constructed to collector standards and the proposed conne • had thus far
required to match up to the existing roadway. coon would be
Staff noted comments from Public Works and Central Arkansas Water stating the
applicant should contact these agencies for additional information
There being no further items for discussion, the Committee the
item to the full Commission for final action. n forwarded the
H. ANAL:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressingmost
raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee members. The
has
indicated a typical Iv# setback plan and has t of the issues
setbacks, where applicable, and a five (5) foot rear
five (5) faotpsidety �
green spaces. The applicant has indicated a twenty yard setback adjacent to the
for Lots 17 — 32. adjacent to Dorado Beach Drive. hee ) foot rear yard setback
twenty (20) and twenty-five (25) foot front platted building
lin has indicated
development. The applicant has also platted a restricted access nes within the
the rear of Lots 17 — 32 easement along
The applicant has requested Lots 63 — 81 be permitted to be re
a thirty (30) foot access easement located on the rear of rear loaded e lot through
applicant has also requested a thirty (36) foot access easement b se fats. The
front yards of Lots fig — 73 to allow for flexibility in the development a located in the
The topography of this area is extremely steep and the a pent of these lots.
alternatives for development of these lots. Staff is supportive of this
would like
is request.
0
FILE NO.; 2-4562-B Cont.
The applicant has increased the street right-of-way
sixty (60) feet, as requested b g way for Dorado Beach Drive to
Beach Drive, which currently ends in the Pebble Beach
Y Public Warks, to match the existing Dorado
applicant is proposing the two (2) interior streets to be Private
Constructed with a twenty-seven Woods Subdivision. The
indicated atwenty-five (25) foot access easement
width, The streets and be
as
requested by Public Works. meat adjacent to the loordwa cant has
Y
The applicant has indicated a zero -lot line development
requirements for development under the Subdivision Ordinan
ce. The will be required at the time of Final Plattingp ent consistent with the
area of each lot so as to provide that nto delineate
the maximum applicant
uuildin t
placement of adjoining units and specify the zero -lot -line adversely affected by
The proposed site is currently zoned MF -6 or Yard.
The proposed density of the site equates to approximllY up to six units per acre,
well within the allowable density.
The a 2.15 units per acre,
Previously restricted areas for open spacepThe area to development also includes the
the I pg -toot open space buffer indicated on the site ian the north is the site has
indicated building heights on these lots will not exceed
Thea p .The applicant has also
applicant has also included an open space area adjacent
following the creek and floodway as waspreviously one and one -halt stories.
restricted area includes 1-18 acres to the so re to Hinson Read,
quested, The third area of
space. The applicant has also included an additional � $�ite indicated as open
in this area. acres of open space
The applicant has indicated the proposed development
completion of Dorado Beach Drive will be with the third
Proposes the first phase to include accessp nt phase. The will be phased and the
bridge extending from Hinson Raad, the to the site With he construction Iicant
development of Lots 7 _ construction of a of a
the el second private street and the development me private street and the
phase will include the construction of
final phase will include the development of Lots 61�ots 47
Dorado Beach Drive. 62 and the third and
Staff has some concerns with the delayed develnd the opment of
Dorado Beach Drive until the final phase. Staff
connection of Dorado Beach Drive be completed with the s pnd t of
would recommend the
development, second phase of the
The applicant has not indicated an
Staff would recommend if signagel+s des�red+�l�egs! on the proposed site plan.
signage allowed in multi -family zones per the tonin Ordinance. be consistent with
Zoning rd+nance.
Staff is supportive of the proposed development as t'
design, layout and lot placement. Staff is not supportive
the completion of Dorado Beach Drive filed with regard to street
would recommend the street be constructed until the third third phase As stated Staff
of the request to defer
development to ensure the street is constructed in a ti the second phase of the
mely manner.
7
62-B
1.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the application as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION
Mr. Frank Riggins was present representing(MARCH 20, 2003)
present. Staff presented the item witha recommendation o
application- There were objectors
applicant had revised the phasing plan and had agreed to c
Dorado Beach Drive in the second f approval. Staff stated the
phase. construct the extension of
Staff stated the phasing plan had changed to include Lo
46 in Phase +. Staff stated the remaining lots would leve 62 63 _
Phase. Staff stated the applicant had is to —Los Phase I and Lets l
any e the lots abutting the road were d agreed to construct D ado Beach
Drive
the final
final platted. platted or when Lots 17 _ rive when
32 or 63 — 83 were
Staff stated the applicant had failed to notify the property By-laws. Staff stated the applicant mailed the notices owners as required b
hearing and a waiver would be required to accept this ces 14 -days q Y the
to approve the notification of property owners 14 -da Y prior to the public
motion carried by t vote of 7 ayes, 1 no notification,iototA motion was
Ys prior to the public hearin made
es and 3 absent. 9- The
Mr. Riggins addressed the Commission on the merits
stated the applicant was adhering to the covenants imposed of the proposed development. He
applicant was also leaving additional on
would only enhance adjacent Properties.green spaces a ud thethethe
pment which
Ms. Brenda Richardson spoke in Opposition
her primary concern was from lack of information. he p 5 posed development. She stated
have attached garages. II/lr. Riggins indicated the units
questioned if the units would
She then questioned if the area to the north would be its would have attached
stated the area to the north would be a 110 -foot open twined as a buffer. garages.
stated .there would not be an p space undisturbed buffer.
Y trees removed but the area would contain a walkingtrail.
Ms. Richardson stated she did not received her notice
in a timely manner, ail.
Ms. Robin Ombindinger stated she did not receive
she would not have known of the request. Staff
a notice and if not far her neighbor
bought her home. She stated in Februar questioned when Ms. Ombindin er
enough time to allow the abstract company to ick u g
Y The Commission indicated this was not
p Y p p the title transfer.
Mr. Ron Croce spoke in Opposition
his
concern was with the Placement Of greenespacevsed develo ment.
development. He requested the developer exten along thepsouthernHedgte stated the
boundary to encompass his entire lot. d the buffer slang the southern
n.
FILE N�4562-B Cont.
Mr. Melvin Mayfield spoke in oppositionof the proposed develo m
not want Dorado Beach Drive to connect to Hinson Road. p ent. He stated he did
opened the traffic in the area would increase and the internal streets i
n Peble Beach
Woods were not sufficient to handle the He stated if the road were
against Staff and nota traffic. He requested the Commb
approve the road connection. ssion go
Ms Neida Hill spoke in opposition of the proposed request
concerned with the extra traffic on Hinson Road, She stated her letter
and the proposal before the Commission w Ms Hill stated she was
would have two (2) cars and at a minimum there wonits. She statedeachof the tuirg�its
Road each day. She requested the entrance not be chadn ed orb more cars on Hinson
location. 9 moved from the shown
There was a general discussion concerning the roadways a
roads and street parking in Pebble Beach Woods Staff stated o
could be signed for no parking if there w y and the narrowness of the
needed to be constructed since Pebble Beach truly
one side of the street
as truly a problem. Staff stated the road
to Rahling Road. a was the only east/West connection
Commissioner Meyer stated the site was zoned MF -6 or multi -
acre. He stated the site could be developed with 240 units.amily at six 6
stated the proposed development was 2.1p units � }units per
density. Commissioner Meyer
per acre well below the allowable
Staff stated there were to be no trails in the undisturbed area. The applicant agreed
there would be no trails in the open area.
A motion was made to approve the application as amended
to open space. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes 0 noes and 2 acblude no trails in the
sent.
STAFF UPDATE:
This item was to be heard by the Little Rock Board of Dir
Public Hearing. Director Michael Keck requested the item b
Commission to reconsider the meed for the Directors at their May 6, 2003
Rahling Road and Hinson Road, There have connection of DoradatBeach urned tDrive betweeno the mg
neighborhood, the developer and the Board concerning he comany nversations between he
these conversations the neighborhood did not want the
developer indicated he did not desire to build connet ection of the street. In
not
convinced the Commission considered all t the streetstr Director Keck was and the
development should be developed without the through conned to the street and if the
not stating the street should not be built only that the Commission
for the street connection when making
their connection. He stated he was
project. g r decision concerninthe approval
the need
g ppraval of the
Mr. Jim Lawson, Director of Planning,
concerning traffic in the area. The Commission pwas not lo ven
9 the Board of Directors
g his presentation. The
FILE NO.: Z-4
presentation contained background material concerning when the street was proposed
as a collector street to the City's Master Street Plan, the current development patterns
in the area and traffic counts on Pebble Beach Drive. Director Keck indicated he did not
feel the Commission had all the relevant information and therefore did not consider the
street connection issue or if the subdivision should be developed without the
connection.
The Commission first considered the connection in 1995 when Pebble Beach Estate
was preliminary platted. At the time two (2) streets were proposed to extend eastward
into undeveloped areas; one of which is now developed as Pebble Beach Woods the
other area is the site being considered by this application. At the time thea applicant
proposed to subdivide 39.87 acres into 116 single-family lots. There were two 2
connections proposed one (1) Beckenham Road and the other Dorado Beach Drive)
Beckenham Road has been shown on the Master Street Plan as a collector street since
1988. Staff and the Commission at the time of the proposal for Pebble Beach Estates
requested Dorado Beach Drive be constructed to Collector Standards. [Per the Master
Street Plan the Commission has the authority to request additional streets at the time
of
subdivision. "The exact location and additional need for Collectors will be determin
by the Little Rock Planning Commission upon advise of Staff."] ed
When the Commission reviewed the Woods at Hinson, now known as Pebble Beach
constructed to Collector Standards. This request extended the street to the west
Woods in June of 1997, the Commission once again requested Dorado Beach Drive
Property line of the current proposed development. The Master Street Plan was never
officially amended to include this connection but the minute record indicates
thest
Commission's desire for Dorado Beach Drive to extend from Hinson Road to the west.
There is currently one east/west connection in the area, Pebble Beach Drive.
current traffic counts on Pebble Beach Drive indicate approximatelyThe
per day of through traffic. The service volume of a collector street lis 050000 automobiles rr
day. Other average daily traffic counts in the area indicate Pebble Beach Drive carries r
approximately 550 automobiles northbound and 575 automobiles southbound on
Montvale Drive. On Valley Park Drive the average daily traffic counts indicate
northbound automobiles and 1080 southbound automobiles. The final area analyzed75
was on Pebble Beach Drive just East of Valley Park Drive. Estimates indicate therare
approximately 2950 automobiles per day eastbound in this area and 2790 automobile
per day westbound, s
Currently Pebble Beach Estates and Pebble Beach Woods are 85 percent "built -out,,.
Of the homes constructed there are a number of the homes currently vacant.
In
addition there are an additional 50 plus lots, which have been approved
preliminary plat but have not yet began construction in the Chenal Ridge �;ubdivisioith a
Subdivision.
The current proposal involves the completion of the connection of Dorado Beach
to Hinson Road. The applicant has stated he is willing to make the connectionDrive
and
move forward with the project. Staff feels the connection is desirable and should be
completed. With construction of Dorado Beach Drive extending from Hinson Road
the west and connecting to the current terminus the current traffic pressure on Pebble
10
FILE NO.: Z -4562-B (Cont.
Beach Drive would be relieved. Although Beckenham Road has been identified on the
Master Street Plan as a collector street staff does not feel Beckenham Road will be
constructed in the near future. Once the connection is made this will aid in relief of
traffic pressure on Pebble Beach Drive and Dorado Beach Drive should traffic volume
become an issue.
Staff has received numerous phone calls from the Pebble Beach area concerning
Dorado Beach Drive. All of the callers have indicated the need for another connection
to Hinson Road. The traffic is heavy and dangerous on Pebble Beach Drive according
to the callers.
Staff feels this current proposal should be constructed as presented. Staff feels Dorado
Beach Drive should be extended, as dedicated by the Master Street Plan, to the east
from the current terminus to Hinson Road.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(MAY 29, 2003)
The applicant was present. There were residents from the Pebble Beach Subdivision
present in favor of the road connection. Mr. Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and
Development, gave the staff presentation and recommendation. Mr. Lawson stated the
item was approved by the Commission at their March 20, 2003 Public Hearing.
Mr. Lawson stated the item was forwarded to the Board of Directors. He stated there
were conversations between the Board members, residents and the developer
indicating the desire to not have the road connected. Mr. Lawson stated the Board was
present information the Commission did not consider in making their decision on the
road connection. He stated at that point Director Keck questioned if the item should be
returned to the Commission for a review in light of the new information. Mr. Lawson
stated the Board members voted the Commission should be furnished the additional
information to make their decision and the item had been returned to the Commission.
Mr. Lawson stated the information furnished to the Board was related to the Master
Street Plan in the area. He stated the Master Street Plan calls for three (3) Collector
Streets in the area. He stated currently only one Collector Street has been constructed,
Pebble Beach Drive. He stated the current traffic counts on Pebble Beach Drive
indicate the road was near capacity.
Mr. Lawson stated in 1995 when Pebble Beach Estates was considered the
Commission determined Dorado Beach Drive should be constructed to Collector
standard. He stated when Pebble Beach Woods was reviewed the Commission once
again reaffirmed Dorado Beach Drive should be constructed to Collector standard. He
stated the intent was when the final piece of property, the site being considered, was
developed Dorado Beach Drive would help relieve some of the traffic on Pebble Beach
Drive.
Mr. Lawson stated the residents of Pebble Beach were assured additional streets would
be constructed in the area to relieve concerns of cut -through when the connection of
Pebble Beach Drive was made to Rahling Road. Mr. Lawson stated there were two
11
FILE NO.: Z -4562-B (Cont.l
proposed Collector streets in the area. One was Dorado Beach Drive and the second
was Beckenham. He stated a large portion of the land area to connect Beckenham was
owned by one property owner and there were no immediate plans for development of
the land.
Mr. Lawson stated currently the traffic in the area traveled Montvale or Valley Park
Drive. He stated Montvale was constructed to Collector standard but Valley Park Drive
was a 27 -foot residential street. He stated the road was not designed to carry the 2000
cars per day the street currently carries. Mr. Lawson stated Montvale did not carry near
the traffic Valley Park Drive carried. Mr. Lawson stated the applicant had indicated
they would construct the road but not the entire road in the first phase. He stated
typically roads were constructed in phases with developments. He stated the city could
not dictate when roads were constructed only that the roads were constructed to
standard.
Commissioner Lowry questioned were the developer stood on the construction of the
road. Mr. Hathaway spoke for the applicant stating the developer was on board to
construct the road as was previously approved by the Commission. He stated the
agreement was when one of the lots abutting the road was developed then the road
would be constructed.
Mr. Danny Broaddrick spoke in favor of the road construction. He stated he lived on
Valley Park Drive. He stated the road should be constructed entirely in the first phase
since Valley Park Drive was carrying more traffic than intended. He requested a time
certain that the road would be constructed. Mr. Broaddrick stated five to ten years was
not reassuring to the residents in the area.
Mr. Hathaway stated the road would be constructed when one of the abutting lots was
developed or in four (4) years.
Mr. Broaddrick questioned why an impact study was not preformed when the western
subdivisions were developed and why this development should bear the brunt of the
cost. Staff stated the city did not require off-site improvements.
Mr. Bill Trice stated he was requesting from the Commission any relief possible. He
stated he lived on Pebble Beach Drive and traffic was a great concern. He stated when
the Commission could require additional east west connections from Hinson Road to
Rahling Road as a part of development this act would help to relieve the traffic on
Pebble Beach Drive.
A motion was made to reaffirm the Master Street Plan and to accept the modification
offer by the applicant to construct the road in four years or as one of the abutting lots
developed. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
12
May 29, 2003
ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.: Z -4562-B
NAME: Hickory Grove Long -form PD -R
LOCATION: Located on Hinson Road, west side, just south of Pebble Beach
Jumvisiun
DEVELOPER:
Jim Markus/Bob Evans
P.O. Box 241400
Little Rock, AR 72223
ENGINEER:
The Mehlburer Firm
201 South Izard Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 38.62 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 83 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: MF -6, Multi -family
ALLOWED USES: Multi -family six (6) units per acre
PROPOSED ZONING: PD -R
PROPOSED USE: Owner occupied townhouse development 83 Units (2.15 units per
acre)
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: Plat Variances -
1. A variance to allow the creation of double frontage lots for Lots 17 — 32.
2. A variance to allow an increased lot width to depth ratio for Lots 63 and 69 — 79.
3. A variance to allow lots without public street frontage for Lots 2 — 16, Lots 33 - 46
and Lots 48 — 61.
May 29, 2003
ITEM NO.: 1 {Cant.
BACKGROUND:
FILE NO.: Z -4562-B
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 single-family neighborhood.
The 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 units in 10 three-story buildings. Prior to the
Public Hearing; the applicant requested the application be withdrawn from
consideration.
A proposal was filed 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.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST-
The applicant proposes to develop this 39 -acre site of MF -6 zoned property as a
Planned Residential Development with 83 units. The applicant proposes 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 is proposing the construction of a bridge across the creek that
separates this property from Hinson Road. The bridge will be constructed in the
first phase according to the applicant. The applicant is proposing a public
roadway to connect with Hinson Road and Dorado Beach Drive. The road will be
0
May 29, 2003
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4562-B
constructed in the third phase of the development. There are two other streets
proposed as a part of the development, which the applicant intends to maintain
as private streets.
There are three areas designated by covenants in the deed that are not to be
encroached upon by building construction. The applicant has indicated the
areas of non -encroachment on the proposed development plan and indicated the
covenants to be in force.
The applicant is requesting variances for lots without public street frontage, an
increased lot depth to width ratio and a variance to allow double frontage lots.
The lots are sized to accommodate the building plans as required in the
Subdivision Ordinance for zero -lot line developments.
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 COMME
The Westchester/Heatherbrae 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. Hinson Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A
dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline will be required.
2. Construct curb at all locations as needed. Repair or replace any other curb
and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to
occupancy.
3. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start
of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-
of-way from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield).
3
May 29, 2003
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.
FILE NO.:
4. A sketch grading and drainage plan, a special flood hazard permit, and a
special grading permit for flood hazard areas are required. ADEQ and
NPDES permit is also required.
5. In accordance with Section 31-176, floodway areas must be shown as
floodway easements or be dedicated to the public. In addition, a 25 -foot
wide access easement is required adjacent to the floodway boundary.
6. Conditional approval from the Federal Emergency Management Agency will
be required prior to start of work. A Section 404 permit from the US Army
Corps of Engineers will also be required.
7. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
8. Bridge Plans must meet ASHTO standards per the Little Rock Code.
9. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required
by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Contact Traffic Engineering at
(501) 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information regarding street light
requirements.
10. Dorado Beach Drive right-of-way and street width should match existing
improvements to the current roadway.
11. Additional drainage easements between lots may be required per Section
29 of the Code. Particularly, Lots 63 through 81 and as needed elsewhere.
12. All alleys must be designed per Master Street Plan requirements.
13. Street curvature at lots 10 through 17 do not meet minimum radius
requirement of 150'.
14. Any cuts steeper than 3:1 must be terraced per the land alteration
ordinance.
15. Easements must be provided for sidewalks not located in the public right-of-
way. Sidewalks must be continuous along Dorado Beach Drive.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: A sewer main extension is required with easements, if service is
required for the project. An existing 10" sewer main is located along Hinson
Road in the area of the "Proposed Floodway Improvements". Relocation of
the existing main is required to remove manholes and sewer main from area
of the proposed 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: No comment received.
0
May 29, 2003
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.
F
A
SBC: No comment received.
FILE NO.: Z -4562-B
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: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
County Planning: No comment received.
CATH: Site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus
radius, turnout and route.
ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the River Mountain Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Low Density Residential for this property.
The applicant has applied for a Planned Residential Development for
condominiums development.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant's property lies in the
area covered by the River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan. However,
this plan does not contain goals and objectives that are directly relevant to
this particular application.
Landscape: No comment.
Buildina Codes: No comment received.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(February 27, 2003)
Mr. Frank Riggins was present representing the applicants. Staff presented a
history of the site indicating there were covenants tied to the development of the
site and the applicant appeared to have met them. Staff stated the development
would be a zero lot line development and owner occupied housing. Staff stated
there would be three variances necessary as a part of the plat. Staff stated the
applicant had requested the appropriate variances in the initial application.
9
May 29, 2003
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4562-B
Staff stated the applicant would be required to plat buildable areas to establish
maximum buildable areas. Mr. Riggins indicated he would designate the
maximum buildable area on the proposed plat.
Staff questioned if the lots on the western boundary would be alley access and
rear loaded lots. Mr. Riggins stated the applicant was requesting this option
since the lots were somewhat steep.
Staff stated the street improvements would be required with each phase. Staff
voiced concerns about the developer developing Phases I and II and not
completing Phase III. Staff questioned how Dorado Beach Drive would be
completed. Staff stated the roadway was needed because of the limited access
through the neighborhoods in the area.
Public Works comments were addressed in great length. Staff stated the
applicant would be required to place curb inlets along Hinson Road. Staff stated
the applicant would also be required to grant a 25 -foot access easement along
the floodway. Staff stated the bridge proposed would be required to be
constructed to City standard. Staff also stated Dorado Beach Drive had thus far
been constructed to collector standards and the proposed connection would be
required to match up to the existing roadway.
Staff noted comments from Public Works and Central Arkansas Water stating
the applicant should contact these agencies for additional information.
There being no further items for discussion, the Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee members. The applicant has
indicated a typical lot setback plan and has indicated five (5) foot side yard
setbacks, where applicable, and a five (5) foot rear yard setback adjacent to the
green spaces. The applicant has indicated a twenty (20) foot rear yard setback
for Lots 17 — 32, adjacent to Dorado Beach Drive. The applicant has indicated
twenty (20) and twenty-five (25) foot front platted building lines within the
development. The applicant has also platted a restricted access easement
along the rear of Lots 17 — 32.
The applicant has requested Lots 63 — 81 be permitted to be rear loaded through
a thirty (30) foot access easement located on the rear of these lots. The
applicant has also requested a thirty (30) foot access easement be located in the
front yards of Lots 69 — 73 to allow for flexibility in the development of these lots.
May 29, 2003
ITEM NO.: 1 Cont. FILE
The topography of this area is extremely steep and the applicant would like
alternatives for development of these lots. Staff is supportive of this request.
The applicant has increased the street right-of-way for Dorado Beach Drive to
sixty (60) feet, as requested by Public Works, to match the existing Dorado
Beach Drive, which currently ends in the Pebble Beach Woods Subdivision. The
applicant is proposing the two (2) interior streets to be private streets and be
constructed with a twenty-seven (27) foot pavement width. The applicant has
indicated a twenty-five (25) foot access easement adjacent to the floodway as
requested by Public Works.
The applicant has indicated a zero -lot line development consistent with the
requirements for development under the Subdivision Ordinance. The applicant
will be regUired at the time of Final Platting to delineate the maximum building
area of each lot so as to provide that no lot will be adversely affected by
placement of adjoining units and specify the zero -lot -line yard.
The proposed site is currently zoned MF -6 or Multi -family up to six units per acre.
The proposed density of the site equates to approximately 2.15 units per acre,
well within the allowable density. The proposed development also includes the
previously restricted areas for open space. The area to the north of the site has
the 100 -foot open space buffer indicated on the site plan. The applicant has
also indicated building heights on these lots will not exceed one and one-half
stories. The applicant has also included an open space area adjacent to Hinson
Road, following the creek and floodway as was previously requested. The third
area of restricted area includes 1.18 acres to the south of the site indicated as
open space. The applicant has also included an additional 2.87 acres of open
space in this area.
The applicant has indicated the proposed development will be phased and the
completion of Dorado Beach Drive will be with the third phase. The applicant
proposes the first phase to include access to the site with the construction of a
bridge extending from Hinson Road, the construction of a private street and the
development of Lots 1 — 46. The second phase will include the construction of
the second private street and the development of Lots 47 — 62 and the third and
final phase will include the development of Lots 63 —.83 and the completion of
Dorado Beach Drive. Staff has some concerns with the delayed development of
Dorado Beach Drive until the final phase. Staff would recommend the
connection of Dorado Beach Drive be completed with the second phase of the
development.
The applicant has not indicated any proposed signage on the proposed site plan.
Staff would recommend if signage is desired the signage be consistent with
signage allowed in multi -family zones per the Zoning Ordinance.
7
May 29, 2003
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.
FILE NO.: Z -4562-B
Staff is supportive of the proposed development as filed with regard to street
design, layout and lot placement. Staff is not supportive of the request to defer
the completion of Dorado Beach Drive until the third phase. As stated Staff
would recommend the street be constructed with the second phase of the
development to ensure the street is constructed in a timely manner.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the application as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 20, 2003)
Mr. Frank Riggins was present representing the application. There were objectors
present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval. Staff stated the
applicant had revised the phasing plan and had agreed to construct the extension of
Dorado Beach Drive in the second phase.
Staff stated the phasing plan had changed to include Lots 47 — 62 in Phase I and Lots 1
— 46 in Phase I. Staff stated the remaining lots would develop (Lots 63 — 83) in the final
phase. Staff stated the applicant had agreed to construct Dorado Beach Drive when
any of:the lots abutting the road were final platted or when Lots 17 — 32 or 63 — 83 were
final platted.
Staff stated the applicant had failed to notify the property owners as required by the
By-laws. Staff stated the applicant mailed the notices 14 -days prior to the public
hearing and a waiver would be required to accept this notification. A motion was made
to approve the notification of property owners 14 -days prior to the public hearing. The
motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 noes and 3 absent.
Mr. Riggins addressed the Commission on the merits of the proposed development.
He stated the applicant was adhering to the covenants imposed on the site. He stated
the applicant was also leaving additional green spaces around the development which
would only enhance adjacent properties.
Ms. Brenda Richardson spoke in opposition of the proposed development. She stated
her primary concern was from lack of information. She questioned if the units would
have attached garages. Mr. Riggins indicated the units would have attached garages.
She then questioned if the area to the north would be retained as a buffer. Mr. Riggins
stated the area to the north would be a 110 -foot open space undisturbed buffer. He
stated there would not be any trees removed but the area would contain a walking trail.
Ms. Richardson stated she did not received her notice in a timely manner.
Ms. Robin Ombindinger stated she did not receive a notice and if not for her neighbor
she would not have known of the request. Staff questioned when Ms. Ombindinger
0
May 29, 2003
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.
FILE NO.: Z -4562-B
bought her home. She stated in February. The Commission indicated this was not
enough time to allow the abstract company to pick up the title transfer.
Mr. Ron Groce spoke in opposition of the proposed development. He stated his
concern was with the placement of green spaces along the southern edge of the
development. He requested the developer extend the buffer along the southern
boundary to encompass his entire lot.
Mr. Melvin Mayfield spoke in opposition of the proposed development. He stated he did
not want Dorado Beach Drive to connect to Hinson Road. He stated if the road were
opened the traffic in the area would increase and the internal streets in Pebble Beach
Woods were not sufficient to handle the traffic. He requested the Commission go
against Staff and not approve the road connection.
Ms Neida Hill spoke in opposition of the proposed request. Ms. Hill stated she was
concerned with the extra traffic on Hinson Road. She stated her letter indicated 77
units and the proposal before the Commission was for 83 units. She stated each of the
units would have two (2) cars and at a minimum there would be 176 more cars on
Hinson Road each day. She requested the entrance not be changed or moved from
the shown location.
There was a general discussion concerning the roadways and the narrowness of the
roads and street parking in Pebble Beach Woods. Staff stated one side of the street
could be signed for no parking if there was truly a problem. Staff stated the road
needed to be constructed since Pebble Beach Drive was the only east/west connection
to Rahling Road.
Commissioner Meyer stated the site was zoned MF -6 or multi -family at six (6) units per
acre. He stated the site could be developed with 240 units. Commissioner Meyer
stated the proposed development was 2.1 units per acre well below the allowable
density.
Staff stated there were to be no trails in the undisturbed area. The applicant agreed
there would be no trails in the open area.
A motion was made to approve the application as amended to include no trails in the
open space. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes 0 noes and 2 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
This item was to be heard by the Little Rock Board of Directors at their May 6, 2003
Public Hearing. Director Michael Keck requested the item be returned to the Planning
Commission to reconsider the need for the connection of Dorado Beach Drive between
Rahling Road and Hinson Road. There have been many conversations between the
D
May 29, 2003
ITEM NO.: 1 Cont. FILE NO.: Z -4562-B
neighborhood, the developer and the Board concerning the connection of the street. In
these conversations the neighborhood did not want the street connection and the
developer indicated he did not desire to build the street. Director Keck was not
convinced the Commission considered all the issues related to the street and if the
development should be developed without the through connection. He stated he was
not stating the street should not be built only that the Commission reconsider the need
for the street connection when making their decision concerning the approval of the
project.
Mr. Jim Lawson, Director of Planning, gave a presentation to the Board of Directors
concerning traffic in the area. The Commission was not given this presentation. The
presentation contained background material concerning when the street was proposed
as a collector street to the City's Master Street Plan, the current development patterns
in the area and traffic counts on Pebble Beach Drive. Director Keck indicated he did
not feel the Commission had all the relevant information and therefore did not consider
the street connection issue or if the subdivision should be developed without the
Connection.
The Commission first considered the connection in 1995 when Pebble Beach Estates
was preliminary platted. At the time two (2) streets were proposed to extend eastward
into undeveloped areas; one of which is now developed as Pebble Beach Woods, the
other area is the site being considered by this application. At the time the applicant
proposed to subdivide 39.87 acres into 116 single-family lots. There were two (2)
connections proposed one (1) Beckenham Road and the other Dorado Beach Drive.
Beckenham Road has been shown on the Master Street Plan as a collector street since
1988. Staff and the Commission at the time of the proposal for Pebble Beach Estates
requested Dorado Beach Drive be constructed to Collector Standards. [Per the Master
Street Plan the Commission has the authority to request additional streets at the time of
subdivision. "The exact location and additional need for Collectors will be determined
by the Little Rock Planning Commission upon advise of Staff."]
When the Commission reviewed the Woods at Hinson, now known as Pebble Beach
Woods in June of 1997, the Commission once again requested Dorado Beach Drive be
constructed to Collector Standards. This request extended the street to the west
property line of the current proposed development. The Master Street Plan was never
officially amended to include this connection but the minute record indicates the
Commission's desire for Dorado Beach Drive to extend from Hinson Road to the west.
There is currently one east/west connection in the area, Pebble Beach Drive. The
current traffic counts on Pebble Beach Drive indicate approximately 1,500 automobiles
per day of through traffic. The service volume of a collector street is 5,000 cars per
day. Other average daily traffic counts in the area indicate Pebble Beach Drive carries
approximately 550 automobiles northbound and 575 automobiles southbound on
Montvale Drive. On Valley Park Drive the average daily traffic counts indicate 775
northbound automobiles and 1080 southbound automobiles. The final area analyzed
10
May 29, 2003
NO.: 1 (Cont.
LLE NO.: Z -4562-B
was on Pebble Beach Drive just east of Valley Park Drive. Estimates indicate there are
approximately 2950 automobiles per day eastbound in this area and 2790 automobiles
per day westbound.
Currently Pebble Beach Estates and Pebble Beach Woods are 85 percent "built -out".
Of the homes constructed there are a number of the homes currently vacant. In
addition there are an additional 50 plus lots, which have been approved with a
preliminary plat but have not yet began construction in the Chenal Ridge Subdivision.
The current proposal involves the completion of the connection of Dorado Beach Drive
to Hinson Road. The applicant has stated he is willing to make the connection and
move forward with the project. Staff feels the connection is desirable and should be
completed. With construction of Dorado Beach Drive extending from Hinson Road to
the west and connecting to the current terminus the current traffic pressure on Pebble
Beach Drive would be relieved. Although Beckenham Road has been identified on the
Master Street Plan as a collector street staff does not feel Beckenham Road will be
constructed in the near future. Once the connection is made this will aid in relief of
traffic pressure on Pebble Beach Drive and Dorado Beach Drive should traffic volume
become an issue.
Staff has received numerous phone calls from the Pebble Beach area concerning
Dorado Beach Drive. All of the callers have indicated the need for another connection
to Hinson Road. The traffic is heavy and dangerous on Pebble Beach Drive according
to the callers.
Staff feels this current proposal should be constructed as presented. Staff feels Dorado
Beach Drive should be extended, as dedicated by the Master Street Plan, to the east
from the current terminus to Hinson Road.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 29, 2003)
The applicant was present. There were residents from the Pebble Beach Subdivision
present in favor of the road connection Mr. Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and
Development, gave the staff presentation and recommendation. Mr. Lawson stated the
item was approved by the Commission at their March 20, 2003 Public Hearing.
Mr. Lawson stated the item was forwarded to the Board of Directors. He stated there
were conversations between the Board members,
residents and the develor
indicating the desire to not have the road connected. Mr. Lawson stated the Board vas
present information the Commission did not consider in making their decision on the
road connection. He stated at that point Director Keck questioned if the item should be
returned to the Commission for a review in light of the new information. Mr. Lawson
stated the Board members voted the Commission should be furnished the additional
information to make their decision and the item had been returned to the Commission.
11
May 29, 2003
ITEM NO.: 1 Cont,
FILE NO.: Z -4552-B
Mr. Lawson stated the information furnished to the Board was related to the Master
Street Plan in the area. He stated the Master Street Plan calls for three (3) Collector
Streets in the area. He stated currently only one Collector Street has been constructed,
Pebble Beach Drive. He stated the current traffic counts on Pebble Beach Drive
indicate the road was near capacity.
Mr. Lawson stated in 1995 when Pebble Beach Estates was considered the
Commission determined Dorado Beach Drive should be constructed to Collector
standard. He stated when Pebble Beach Woods was reviewed the Commission once
again reaffirmed Dorado Beach Drive should be constructed to Collector standard. He
stated the intent was when the final piece of property, the site being considered, was
developed Dorado Beach Drive would help relieve some of the traffic on Pebble Beach
Drive.
Mr. Lawson stated the residents of Pebble Beach were assured additional streets would
be constructed in the area to relieve concerns of cut -through when the connection of
Pebble Beach Drive was made to Rahling Road. Mr. Lawson stated there were two
proposed Collector streets in the area. One was Dorado Beach Drive and the second
was Beckenham. He stated a large portion of the land area to connect Beckenham
was owned by one property owner and there were no immediate plans for development
of the land.
Mr. Lawson stated currently the traffic in the area traveled Montvale or Valley Park
Drive. He stated Montvale was constructed to Collector standard but Valley Park Drive
was a 27 -foot residential street. He stated the road was not designed to carry the 2000
cars per day the street currently carries. Mr. Lawson stated Montvale did not carry near
the traffic Valley Park Drive carried. Mr. Lawson stated the applicant had indicated
they would construct the road but not the entire road in the first phase, He stated
typically roads were constructed in phases with developments. He stated the city could
not dictate when roads were constructed only that the roads were constructed to
standard.
Commissioner Lowry questioned were the developer stood on the construction of the
road. Mr. Hathaway spoke for the applicant stating the developer was on board to
construct the road as was previously approved by the Commission. He stated the
agreement was when one of the lots abutting the road was developed then the road
would be constructed.
Mr. Danny Broaddrick spoke in favor of the road construction. He stated he lived on
Valley Park Drive. He stated the road should be constructed entirely in the first phase
since Valley Park Drive was carrying more traffic than intended. He requested a time
certain that the road would be constructed. Mr. Broaddrick stated five to ten years was
not reassuring to the residents in the area.
12
May 29, 2003
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4562-B
Mr. Hathaway stated the road would be constructed when one of the abutting lots was
developed or in four (4) years.
Mr. Broaddrick questioned why an impact study was not preformed when the western
subdivisions were developed and why this development should bear the brunt of the
cost. Staff stated the city did not require off-site improvements.
Mr. Bill Trice stated he was requesting from the Commission any relief possible. He
stated he lived on Pebble Beach Drive and traffic was a great concern. He stated when
the Commission could require additional east west connections from Hinson Road to
Rahling Road as a part of development this act would help to relieve the traffic on
Pebble Beach Drive.
A motion was made to reaffirm the Master Street Plan and to accept the modification
offer by the applicant to construct the road in four years or as one of the abutting lots
developed. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
13
FILE NO.: Z-4562_8
NAME: Hickory Grove Long -form PD -R
LOCATION: Located on Hinson Road, west side, just south of Pebble Beach
Subdivision
DEVELOPER:
Jim Markus/Bob Evans
P.O. Box 241400
Little Rock, AR 72223
ENGINEER:
The Mehlburer Firm
201 South Izard Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 38.62 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 83 FT. NEW STREET: 0
CURRENT ZONING: MF -6, Multi -family
ALLOWED USES: Multi -family six (6) units per acre
PROPOSED ZONING: PD -R
PROPOSED USE: Owner occupied townhouse development 83 Units (2.15 units per
acre)
VARIANCESNVAIVERS REQUESTED: Plat Variances -
1. A variance to allow the creation of double frontage lots for Lots 17 — 32.
2. A variance to allow an increased lot width to depth ratio for Lots 63 and 69 — 79
3. A variance to allow lots without public street frontage for Lots 2 — 16, Lots 33 - 46
and Lots 48 — 61.
FILE NO.: Z -4562-g Cont.
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 single-family neighborhood.
The 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 units in 10 three-story buildings.. Prior to the
Public Hearing; the applicant requested the application be withdrawn from
consideration.
A proposal was filed 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.
A. PROPOSAUREQUEST:
The applicant proposes to develop this 39 -acre site of MF -6 zoned property as a
Planned Residential Development with 83 units. The applicant proposes 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 is proposing the construction of a bridge across the creek that
separates this property from Hinson Road. The bridge will be constructed in the
first phase according to the applicant. The applicant is proposing a public
roadway to connect with Hinson Road and Dorado Beach Drive. The road will be
constructed in the third phase of the development. There are two other streets
proposed as a part of the development, which the applicant intends to maintain
as private streets.
2
EE N562 -B
There are three areas designated by covenants in the deed that are not to be
encroached upon by building construction. The applicant has indicated the areas
of non -encroachment on the proposed development plan and indicated the
covenants to be in force.
The applicant is requesting variances for lots without public street frontage,
increased lot depth to width ratio and a variance to allow double frontage loan
The lots are sized to accommodate the buildingg he
Subdivision Ordinance for zero -lot line development. plans as required in the
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 w
Single-family residences and undeveloped R-2 property are also located acros
Hinson Road to the east. ss
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Westchester/Heatherbrae Property Owners Association, all residents located
within 300 feet of the site, who could be identified and all owners of ra eed
located within 200 feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearin . As op rt
writing, Staff has received several informational phone calls from area residents.
ls
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS.
PUBblC WORKS CONDlTlONS:
dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline will be required.
I. Hinson Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial
A
2. Construct curb at all locations as needed. Repair or replace an other
and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way curb
occupancy. y prior to
3. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start
f
work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-wa
from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield). Y
4. A sketch grading and drainage plan, a special flood hazard permit an
d a
special grading permit for flood hazard areas are required. ADEQ and
NPDES permit is also required.
5. In accordance with Section 31-176, floodway areas must be shown
as
floodway easements or be dedicated to the public. In addition, a 25 -foot
wide access easement is required adjacent to the floodway boundary.
3
FILE NO.: Z -4562-B (Cont.
6. Conditional approval from the Federal Emergency Management Agency will
be required prior to start of work. A Section 404 permit from the US Army
Corps of Engineers will also be required.
7. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
8. Bridge Plans must meet ASHTO standards per the Little Rock Code.
9. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required
by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Contact Traffic Engineeringat
(501) 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information regarding street light
requirements.
10. Dorado Beach Drive right-of-way and street width should match existing
improvements to the current roadway.
11. Additional drainage easements between lots may be required per Section 29
of the Code. Particularly, Lots 63 through 81 and as needed elsewhere.
12. All alleys must be designed per Master Street Plan requirements.
13. Street curvature at lots 10 through 17 do not meet minimum radius
requirement of 150'.
14.Any cuts steeper than 3:1 must be terraced per the land alteration ordinance.
15. Easements must be provided for sidewalks not located in the public right-of-
way. Sidewalks must be continuous along Dorado Beach Drive.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENTICOUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: A sewer main extension is required with easements, if service is
required for the project. An existing 10" sewer main is located along Hinson
Road in the area of the "Proposed Floodway Improvements". Relocation of the
existing main is required to remove manholes and sewer main from area of the
Proposed 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: No comment received.
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.
Cl
FILE NO.: Z -4552-B Cont.
F
Cr
Fire De artment: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
County Planning: No comment received.
CATH: Site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus
radius, turnout and route.
ISS UESITEC H N I CALIDESIG N :
Plannin Division: This request is located in the River Mountain Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Low Density Residential for this property.
The applicant has applied for a Planned Residential Development for
condominiums development.
Cit Reco nixed Nei hborhood Action Plan: The applicant's property lies in the
area covered by the River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan. However, this
plan does not contain goals and objectives that are directly relevant to this
particular application.
Landscape: No comment.
Buildin Codes: No comment received.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (February 27, 2003)
Mr. Frank Riggins was present representing the applicants. Staff presented a
history of the site indicating there were covenants tied to the development of the
site and the applicant appeared to have met them. Staff stated the development
would be a aero lot line development and owner occupied housing. Staff stated
there would be three variances necessary as a part of the plat. Staff stated the
applicant had requested the appropriate variances in the initial application.
Staff stated the applicant would be required to plat buildable areas to establish
maximum buildable areas. Mr, Riggins indicated he would designate the
maximum buildable area on the proposed plat.
Staff questioned if the lots on the western boundary would be alley access and
rear loaded lots. Mr. Riggins stated the applicant was requesting this option
since the lots were somewhat steep.
Staff stated the street improvements would be required with each phase. Staff
voiced concerns about the developer developing Phases I and 11 and not
completing Phase 111. Staff questioned how Dorado Beach Drive would be
completed. Staff stated the roadway was needed because of the limited access
through the neighborhoods in the area.
5
FILE NO.: Z -4562-B (Cont.
Public Works comments were addressed in great length. Staff stated the
applicant would be required to place curb inlets along Hinson Road. Staff stated
the applicant would also be required to grant a 25 -foot access easement along
the floodway. Staff stated the bridge proposed would be required to be
constructed to City standard. Staff also stated Dorado Beach Drive had thus far
been constructed to collector standards and the proposed connection would be
required to match up to the existing roadway.
Staff noted comments from Public Works and Central Arkansas Water stating the
applicant should contact these agencies for additional information.
There being no further items for discussion, the Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final actien.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee members. The applicant has
indicated a typical lot setback plan and has indicated five (5) foot side yard
setbacks, where applicable, and a five (5) foot rear yard setback adjacent to the
green spaces. The applicant has indicated a twenty (20) foot rear yard setback
for Lots 17 — 32, adjacent to Dorado Beach Drive. The applicant has indicated
twenty (20) and twenty-five (25) foot front platted building lines within the
development. The applicant has also platted a restricted access easement along
the rear of Lots 17 — 32.
The applicant has requested Lots 63 — 81 be permitted to be rear loaded through
a thirty (30) foot access easement located on the rear of these lots. The
applicant has also requested a thirty (30) foot access easement be located in the
front yards of Lots 69 -- 73 to allow for flexibility in the development of these lots.
The topography of this area is extremely steep and the applicant would like
alternatives for development of these lots. Staff is supportive of this request.
The applicant has increased the street right-of-way for Dorado Beach Drive to
sixty (60) feet, as requested by Public Works, to match the existing Dorado
Beach Drive, which currently ends in the Pebble Beach Woods Subdivision. The
applicant is proposing the two (2) interior streets to be private streets and be
constructed with a twenty-seven (27) foot pavement width. The applicant has
indicated a twenty-five (25) foot access easement adjacent to the floodway as
requested by Public Works.
The applicant has indicated a zero -lot line development consistent with the
requirements for development under the Subdivision Ordinance. The applicant
will be required at the time of Final Platting to delineate the maximum building
area of each lot so as to provide that no lot will be adversely affected by
placement of adjoining units and specify the zero -lot -line yard.
9
FILE NO.: Z 452 -B fC
The proposed site is currently zoned MF -6 or Multi -family up to six units per acre.
The proposed density of the site equates to a p e.
its per acre,
well within the allowable density. The proposed development�alsonincludes the
previously restricted areas for open space. The area to the north of the site has
the 100 -foot open space buffer indicated on the site plan. The applicant has also
indicated building heights on these lots will not exceed one and one-half stories.•
The applicant has also included an open space area adjacent to Hinson
following the creek and floodway as was previously requested. The third are
ad
,
o
restricted area includes 1.18 acres to the south of the site indicated as ea of
pen
p p
space. The applicant has also included an additional 2.87 acres of open space
in this area.
The applicant has indicated the proposed development will be phased
completion of Dorado Beach Drive will be with the third phase Thea applicant
and the
Proposes the €irst phase to include access to the site with the construction of a
bridge extending from Hinson Road, the construction of pp ant
development of Lots 1 – 46. The second phase will include 'the econstr reet and the
the second private street and the development of Lots 47 – 62 and the construction of
final phase will include the development of Lots 63 – 83 and the coin herd and
Dorado Beach Drive. Staff has some concerns with the delayed developmentlof
Dorado Beach Drive until the final hese•aff of
connection of Dorado Beach Drive be completed with the sewouldcond recommend ao the
development. p of the
The applicant has not indicated any proposed signage on the Proposed
site
Staff would recommend if signage is desired the signage be Iconsisten plan.
signage allowed in multi -family zones per the Zoning Ordinance. tent with
Staff is supportive of the proposed development as filed with regard
to street
t to defer
design, layout and lot placement. Staff is not supportive of the request
the completion of Dorado Beach Drive until the third phaSe. As stated
would recommend the street be constructed with the second phaseo Staff
development to ensure the street is constructed in a timely manner,f the
l STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the application as filed.
PLANNING GOMMiSSION ACTION: 4 —�~~
(MARCH 20, 2003)
Mr. Frank Riggins was present representing the application. There
were objectors
present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval. Staff stated
applicant had revised the phasing plan and had agreed to construct the a nsio the
Dorado Beach Drive in the second phase. xtension of
7
FILE NO.: Z-4562-8 Cont.)
Staff stated the phasing plan had changed to include Lots 47 — 62 in Phase I and Lots 1
— 46 in Phase I. Staff stated the remaining lots would develop (Lots 63 -- 83) in the final
phase. Staff stated the applicant had agreed to construct Dorado Beach Drive when
any of the lots abutting the road were final platted or when Lots 17 — 32 or 63 — 83 were
final platted.
Staff stated the applicant had failed to notify the property owners as required. by the
By-laws. Staff stated the applicant mailed the notices 14 -days prior to the public
hearing and a waiver would be required to accept this notification. A motion was made
to approve the notification of property owners 14 -days prior to the public hearing. The
motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 noes and 3 absent.
Mr. Riggins addressed the Commission on the merits of the proposed development. He
stated the applicant was adhering to the covenants imposed on the site. He stated the
applicant was also leaving additional green spaces around the development which
would only enhance adjacent properties.
Ms. Brenda Richardson spoke in opposition of the proposed development. She stated
her primary concern was from lack of information. She questioned if the units would
have attached garages. Mr. Riggins indicated the units would have attached garages.
She then questioned if the area to the north would be retained as a buffer. Mr. Riggins
stated the area to the north would be a 11 0 -foot open space undisturbed buffer. He
stated there would not be any trees removed but the area would contain a walking trail.
Ms. Richardson stated she did not received her notice in a timely manner.
Ms. Robin. Ombindinger stated she did not receive a notice and if not for her neighbor
she would not have known of the request. Staff questioned when Ms. Ombindinger
bought her home. She stated in February. The Commission indicated this was not
enough time to allow the abstract company to pick up the title transfer.
Mr. Ron Groce spoke in opposition of the proposed development. He stated his
concern was with the placement of green spaces along the southern edge of the
development. He requested the developer extend the buffer along the southern
boundary to encompass his entire lot.
Mr. Melvin Mayfield spoke in opposition of the proposed development. He stated he did
not want Dorado Beach Drive to connect to Hinson Road. He stated if the road- were
opened the traffic in the area would increase and the internal streets in Pebble Beach
Woods were not sufficient to handle the traffic. He requested the Commission go
against Staff and not approve the road connection.
Ms Neida Hill spoke in opposition of the proposed request. Ms. Hill stated she was
concerned with the extra traffic on Hinson Road. She stated her letter indicated 77 units
and the proposal before the Commission was for 83 units. She stated each of the units
would have two (2) cars and at a minimum there would be 176 more cars on Hinson
Road each day. She requested the entrance not be changed or moved from the shown
location.
0
E NO.: Z -4562-B Cont.
There was a general discussion concerning the roadways and the narrowness of the
roans and street parking in Pebble Beach Woods. Staff stated one side of the street
could be signed for no parking if there was truly a problem. Staff stated the road
needed to be constructed since Pebble Beach Drive was the only east/west connection
to Rahling Road.
Commissioner Meyer stated the site was zoned MF -6 or multi -family at six (6) units per
acre. He stated the site could be developed with 240 units. Commissioner Meyer
stated the proposed development was 2.1 units per acre well below the allowable
density.
Staff stated there were to be no trails in the undisturbed area. The applicant agreed
there would be no trails in the open area.
A motion was made to approve the application as amended to include no trails in the
open space. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes 0 noes and 2 absent.
9
March 20, 2003
ITEM
NAME: Hickory Grove Long -form PD -R
LOCATION: Located on Hinson Road,
5bbdlvision
DEVELOPER:
Jim Markus/Bob Evans
P.O. Box 241400
Little Rock, AR 72223
ENGINEER:
The Mehiburer Firm
201 South hard Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 38.62 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 83
CURRENT ZONING: MF -6, Multi -family
west side, just south of Pebble Beach
FT. NEW STREET: 0
ALLOWED USES: Multi -family six (6) units per acre
PROPOSED ZONING: PD -R
PROPOSED USE: Owner occupied townhouse development 83 U 2.1
acre) nits ( 5 units per
VARIANCESNVAlVERS REQUESTED: Plat Variances -
1. A variance to allow the creation of double frontage lots for Lots 17 — 32.
2. A variance to allow an increased lot width to depth ratio for Lots 63 and
3. A variance to allow lots without public street frontage for Lots 2 — 16 69 79.
and Lots 48 — 61. , Lots 33 _ 46
w arch 20, 2003
SU6DIVISION
BACKGROUND:
The property is the remaining4Q.�
Property owned he the First B 0+ acres Chu ch 120 -acre
multipurpose facility with residential, school Parcel or the eastern se of the
have since developed it single-family The site was originally
and church facility. The Yesterpn 80 as a
9 amply neighborhood. acres
The property was zoned
T mid -1981. MF -6, Multi -family District {six (6) units per rosy
A "Declaration Of Covenants" was filed and record
With the property. The private covenants re 9 acre allowed}
Property's development. regulate the property's ed in 1981, which runs
p Periy's use and portion of the
The private covenants state that the Propertyw'
units
developed pursuant to the Horizontal Property all be developed far condominium
only, no rental units). The covenants designte t being Act 60 of 1967 (units for sale
(Open Space) and require a six 6 certain areas of the property sale
location prior to any construction. (6) foot high
Y as OS
9 privacy fence t s constructed at one
area of the property not exceed one and one-half Sto° state that structures built in on
northern boundary of the site. stories in height; bath located an e
the
A Preliminary plat and a multiple building Site la
1997= to allow the construction of 234 units in 7
Public Plan review were filed an the site in May
Hearing; the applicant re 0 three-story
consideration. quested the ry bu�ld�ngs. Prior to the
application be withdrawn from
A proposal was filed March 2000, to develop a portion of the site (78.47 acres
withdrawn from consideration without Prejudice priominium t)with 22
housing. The application was later
A prior to the Public Hearing.
PR�PQSgLIRE�UEST:
The applicant propoSeS to develop this 39 -acre '
Planned Residential Developmentsite of MF -6 zoned
develop the site n three 3 with 83 units. Thea Property as a
would have its own lot of}recd phases with zero -lot fine townhouuses, each of hant Proposes to
Structure, which would be dissected by he comA common mon
would be shared b which
ne. This would
allow some measure of grope mon ro Y each
the building. property on each end of the structure for maintenance of
The structures would have enclosed garages facing
with a private courtyard on the rear of each townhousea of
unit. a private street
The applicant is Proposingfrom the construction of a bridge across the creek th
first phase accordinto r the i son Road. The bridge will be construct at
separates this property
ng a
roadway to connect with Hinson Road and Dv adv plicant. The appis ed in the
Beach Drive. oThe road will ble
2
March 20, 2003
SU11DiVIS10N
constructed in the third phase of the development.
ere are two streets
FILE NO.: �-45g2_B
Proposed as a part of the development, which the applicant intends toother
mai
as private streets. maintain
There are three areas designated by covenants in the deed that are not to be
encroached upon by building construction, The applicant has indicated the ar
of non -encroachment on the proposed development plan and indicated eas
covenants to be in force. +toted the
The applicant is requesting variances for lots without public street frontage,
increased lot depth to width ratio and a variance to allow double fr mage an
The lots are sized to accommodate the buildingoutage lots. the
Subdivision Ordinance for zero -lot line developments. plans as required in the
B- EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is currently undeveloped and heavily wooded. The W'
Condominium development and single-family residences are Iota
Windsor Court
south, with single-family residences to the north. There is undeveloped to the
Single-family property to the west, with single-family residences further R-2,
Single-family residences and undeveloped R-2 property are also lot rther west.
Hinson Road to the east. located across
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The Westchester/Heatherbrae Property Owners Association, all residents
within 300 feet of the site, who could be identified and all owners o
located within 200 feet of the site were notified oft located
writing, Staff has received several informational he Public Hearin fAs of property
phone calls from area residents.ls
h
p o
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORItS CONDITIQNS:
1. Hinson Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor
arterial. A
dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline will be required.
2• Construct curb at all locations as needed. Repair or replace any
and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way the i curb
Occupancy. p or to
3. Plans of all work in right -of -Way shall be submitted for approvalprior
of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work inthe Start
of way from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-48'17 (Derrick Berg ) field . r+ght-
K3
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
O.: 5
Cli C' A1r% . �
F.
4. A sketch grading and drainage plan, a special flood hazard permit, and a
special grading permit for flood hazard areas are required. ADEQ and
NPDES permit is also required.
5. In accordance with Section 31-176, floodway areas must be shown as
floodway easements or be dedicated to the public. In addition, a 25 -foot
wide access easement is required adjacent to the floodway boundary.
6. Conditional approval from the Federal Emergency Management Agency will
be required prior to start of work. A Section 404 permit from the US Army
Corps of Engineers will also be required.
7. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
8. Bridge Plans must meet ASHTO standards per the Little Rock Code.
9. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required
by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Contact Traffic Engineering at
(501) 379-1813 (Steve Phiipott) for more information regarding street light
requirements.
10. Dorado Beach Drive right-of-way and street width should match existing
improvements to the current roadway.
11. Additional drainage easements between lots may be required per Section
29 of the Code. Particularly, Lots 63 through 81 and as needed elsewhere.
12. All alleys must be designed per Master Street Plan requirements.
13. Street curvature at lots 10 through 17 do not meet minimum radius
requirement of 150'.
14. Any cuts steeper than 3:1 must be terraced per the land alteration
ordinance.
15. Easements must be provided for sidewalks not located in the public right-of-
way. Sidewalks must be continuous along Dorado Beach Drive.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: A sewer main extension is required with easements, if service is
required for the project. An existing 10" sewer main is located along Hinson
Road in the area of the "Proposed Floodway Improvements". Relocation of the
existing main is required to remove manholes and ,sewer main from area of the
proposed improvements. Other existing mains are located on site with
easements that must be retained. Contact Little Rack Wastewater Utility at 688-
1414 for additional details.
EnPY: No comment received.
Center -Paint Ener No comment received.
E
March 20, 2003
SUBD1V1510N
M NO,: 5
LE NO.: Z
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: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
County Plannin : No comment received.
CATA: Site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus
radius, turnout and route.
F. ISSU ESITEC H N ICAUDESIGN:
Planning ❑ivision: This request is located in the River Mountain Planning
District. The Land Use Plan shows Low Density Residential for this property.
The applicant has applied for a Planned Residential Development for
condominiums development.
Cit Reco nized Nei hborhood Action Plan: The applicant's property lies in the
area covered by the River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan. However,
this plan does not contain goals and objectives that are directly relevant to
this particular application.
Landscape: No comment.
Building ,odes: No comment received.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (February 27, 2003)
Mr. Frank Riggins was present representing the applicants. Staff presented a
history of the site indicating there were covenants tied to the development of the
site and the applicant appeared to have met them. Staff stated the development
would be a zero lot line development and owner occupied housing. Staff stated
there would be three variances necessary as a part of the plat. Staff stated the
applicant had requested the appropriate variances in the initial application.
5
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4562 -
Staff stated the applicant would be required to plat buildable areas to establish
maximum buildable areas. Mr. Riggins indicated he would designate the
maximum buildable area on the proposed plat.
Staff questioned if the lots on the western boundary would be alley access and
rear loaded lots. Mr. Riggins stated the applicant was requesting this option
since the lots were somewhat steep.
Staff stated the street improvements would be required with each phase. Staff
voiced concerns about the developer developing Phases I and II and not
completing Phase III. Staff questioned how Dorado Beach Drive would be
completed. Staff stated the roadway was needed because of the limited access
through the neighborhoods in the area.
Public Works comments were addressed in great length. Staff stated the
applicant would be required to place curb inlets along Hinson Road. Staff stated
the applicant would also be required to grant a 25 -foot access easement along
the floodway. Staff stated the bridge proposed would be required to be
constructed to City standard. Staff also stated Dorado Beach Drive had thus far
been constructed to collector standards and the proposed connection would be
required to match up to the existing roadway.
Staff noted comments from Public Works and Central Arkansas Water stating the
applicant should contact these agencies for additional information.
There being no further items for discussion, the Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee members. The applicant has
indicated a typical lot setback plan and has indicated five (5) foot side yard
setbacks, where applicable, and a five (5) foot rear yard setback adjacent to the
green spaces. The applicant has indicated a twenty (20) foot rear yard setback
for Lots 17 — 32, adjacent to Dorado Beach Drive. The applicant has indicated
twenty (20) and twenty-five (25) foot front platted building lines within the
development. The applicant has also platted a restricted access easement along
the rear of Lots 17 — 32.
The applicant has requested Lots 63 — 81 be permitted to be rear loaded through
a thirty (30) foot access easement located on the rear of these lots. The
applicant has also requested a thirty (30) foot access easement be located in the
front yards of Lots 69 — 73 to allow for flexibility in the development of these lots.
0
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
FILE NO.. Z -4562-B
The topography of this area is extremely steep and the applicant would like
alternatives for development of these lots. Staff is supportive of this request.
The applicant has increased the street right-of-way for Dorado Beach Drive to
sixty (60) feet, as requested by Public Works, to match the existing Dorado
Beach Drive, which currently ends in the Pebble Beach Woods Subdivision. The
applicant is proposing the two (2) interior streets to be private streets and be
constructed with a twenty-seven (27) foot pavement width. The applicant has
indicated a twenty-five (25) foot access easement adjacent to the floodway as
requested by Public Works.
The applicant has indicated a zero -lot line development consistent with the
requirements for development under the Subdivision Ordinance. The applicant
will be required at the time of Final Platting to delineate the maximum building
area of each lot so as to provide that no lot will be adversely affected by
Placement of adjoining units and specify the zero -lot -line yard.
The proposed site is currently zoned MF -6 or Multi -family up to six units per acre.
The proposed density of the site equates to approximately 2.15 units per acre,
well within the allowable density. The proposed development also includes the
previously restricted areas for open space. The area to the north of the site has
the 100 -foot open space buffer indicated on the site plan. The applicant has also
indicated building heights on these lots will not exceed one and one-half stories.
The applicant has also included an open space area adjacent to Hinson Road,
following the creek and floodway as was previously requested. The third area of
restricted area includes 1.18 acres to the south of the site indicated as open
space. The applicant has also included an additional 2.87 acres of open space
in this area.
The applicant has indicated the proposed development will be phased and the
proposes the first phase to include access to the site with
completion of Dorado Beach Drive will be with the third phase. The applicant
the construction cof a
bridge extending from Hinson Road, the construction of a private street and the
development of Lots 1 — 46. The second phase will include the construction of
the second private street and the development of Lots 47 — 62 and the third and
final phase will include the development of Lots 63 — 83 and the completion of
Dorado Beach Drive. Staff has some concerns with the delayed development of
Dorado Beach Drive until the final phase. Staff would recommend the
connection of Dorado Beach Drive be completed with the second phase of the
development.
The applicant has not indicated any proposed signage on the proposed site plan.
Staff would recommend if signage is desired the signage be consistent with
signage allowed in multi -family zones per the Zoning Ordinance.
7
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.
Staff is supportive of the proposed development as filed with regard to street
design, layout and lot placement. Staff is not supportive of the request to defer
the completion of Dorado Beach Drive until the third phase. As stated Staff
would recommend the street be constructed with the second phase of the
development to ensure the street is constructed in a timely manner.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the application as filed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 20, 2003)
Mr. Frank Riggins was present representing the application. There were objectors
present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval. Staff stated the
applicant had revised the phasing plan and had agreed to construct the extension of
Dorado Beach Drive in the second phase.
Staff stated the phasing plan had changed to include Lots 47 — 62 in Phase I and Lots 1
— 46 in Phase I. Staff stated the remaining lots would develop (Lots 63 — 83) in the final
phase. Staff stated the applicant had agreed to construct Dorado Beach Drive when
any of the lots abutting the road were final platted or when Lots 17 — 32 or 63 — 83 were
final platted.
Staff stated the applicant had failed to notify the property owners as required by the
By-laws. Staff stated the applicant mailed the notices 14 -days prior to the public
hearing and a waiver would be required to accept this notification. A motion was made
to approve the notification of property owners 14 -days prior to the public hearing. The
motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 noes and 3 absent.
Mr. Riggins addressed the Commission on the merits of the proposed development. He
stated the applicant was adhering to the covenants imposed on the site. He stated the
applicant was also leaving additional green spaces around the development which
would only enhance adjacent properties.
Ms. Brenda Richardson spoke in opposition of the proposed development. She stated
her primary concern was from lack of information. She questioned if the units would
have attached garages. Mr. Riggins indicated the units would have attached garages.
She then questioned if the area to the north would be retained as a buffer. Mr. Riggins
stated the area to the north would be a 110 -foot open space undisturbed buffer. He
stated there would not be any trees removed but the area would contain a walking trail.
Ms. Richardson stated she did not received her notice in a timely manner.
Ms. Robin Ombindinger stated she did not receive a notice and if not for her neighbor
she would not have known of the request. Staff questioned when Ms. Ombindinger
0
March 20, 2003
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.
bought her home. She stated in February. The Commission indicated this was not
enough time to allow the abstract company to pick up the title transfer.
Mr. Ron Groce spoke in opposition of the proposed development. He stated his
concern was with the placement of green spaces along the southern edge of the
development. He requested the developer extend the buffer along the southern
boundary to encompass his entire lot.
Mr. Melvin Mayfield spoke in opposition of the proposed development. He stated he did
not want Dorado Beach Drive to connect to Hinson Road. He stated if the road were
opened the traffic in the area would increase and the internal streets in Pebble Beach
Woods were not sufficient to handle the traffic. He requested the Commission go
against Staff and not approve the road connection.
Ms Neida Hill spoke in opposition of the proposed request. Ms. Hill stated she was
concerned with the extra traffic on Hinson Road. She stated her letter indicated 77 units
and the proposal before the Commission was for 83 units. She stated each of the units
would have two (2) cars and at a minimum there would be 176 more cars on Hinson
Road each day. She requested the entrance not be changed or moved from the shown
location.
There was a general discussion concerning the roadways and the narrowness of the
roads and street parking in Pebble Beach Woods. Staff stated one side of the street
could be signed for no parking if there was truly a problem. Staff stated the road
needed to be constructed since Pebble Beach Drive was the only east/west connection
to Rahling Road.
Commissioner Meyer stated the site was zoned MF -6 or multi -family at six (6) units per
acre. He stated the site could be developed with 240 units. Commissioner Meyer
stated the proposed development was 2.1 units per acre well below the allowable
density.
Staff stated there were to be no trails in the undisturbed area. The applicant agreed
there would be no trails in the open area.
A motion was made to approve the application as amended to include no trails in the
open space. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes 0 noes and 2 absent.
Subdivision Committee Comments
�,A.�9
ITEM NO.: 5 _ _ _ �V-29A
NAME: Hickory Grove Long -form PD -R
February 27, 2003
?_
FILE No - 7
Im
LOCATION: Located on Hinson Road, west side, just south of Pebble Beach
Subdivision
Plannin Staff Comments:
1.
2
3.
Q
�J
4_
�Xllv
i
Provide notification � '
ton of abutting property owners complete with the certified abstract
list, notice form with affidavit executed and proof of mailing.
Provide on the generalized site plan the proposed locations and dimensions of all
buildings, accessory uses and other improvements. Provide platted building lines on
all sides of each lot for purposes of delineating the maximum buildable area of each
lot and specify the zero -lot -line yard.
om-
Identify the Green Spaces shown on the plat as Tracts and set -out in the Bill of %)'lJ
Assurance a mechanism for maintenance.r
Provide the maximum building height on all lots.
The applicant is proposing the development to develop in three(3)
phases. L
ots 48 will develop in Phase I, Lots 49 — 64 will develop in Phase II and Lots 65 — 83 1'
develop in Phase III. Street construction will be phased with adjoining lots. will
Variance/Waivers- Plat Variances:
1.
2.
3.
Pu
A variance to allow the creation of double frontage lots for Lots 17 — 33.
A variance to allow an increased lot width to depth ratio for Lots 60 and 65 — 69.
A variance to allow lots without public street frontage for Lots 2 — 16, Lots 34
and Lots 45 — 58.
}Ifc Works'.
1
V!
1. Hinson Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A
dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline will be required
2.
4
u
43
Construct curb at all locations as needed. Repair or replace any other curb and
gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way `J
9 y prior to occupancy.
Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of
work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way from
Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield).
A sketch grading and drainage plan, a special flood hazard permit, and a special
Ird
k, c 4 V
�.V �V C xer
grading permit for flood hazard areas are required. ADEQ and NPDES permit is
also required.
5. In accordance with Section 31-176, floodway areas must be shown as floodway
easements or be dedicated to the public. In addition, a 25 foot wide access
easement is required adjacent to the floodway boundary.
6. Conditional approval from the Federal Emergency Management Agency will be
required prior to start of work. A Section 404 permit from the US Army Corps of
Engineers will also be required.
7. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
8. Bridge Plans must meet ASHTO standards per the Little Rock Code.
9. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing street lights as required by
Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Contact Traffic Engineering at (501)
379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information regarding street light
requirements.
10. Dorado Bea rive ri -of-way and street wl Id match existing
improvem nts to the
11.Additional drainage ease a en o s may be required per Section 29 of
the Code. Particularly, lots 60 through 75 and as needed elsewhere.
12. All alleys must be designed per Master Street Plan requirements.
13. Street curvature at lots 10 through 17 do not meet minimum radius requirement
of 150'.
14. Any cuts steeper than 3:1 must be terraced per the land alteration ordinance.
15. Easements must be provided for sidewalks not located in the public right-of-way.
Sidewalks must be continuous along Dorado Beach Drive.
Utilities and Fire Department/County Planning:
AYstewater: A sewer main extension is required with easements, if service is required
for the project. An existing 10" sewer main is located along Hinson Road in the
area of the "Proposed Floodway Improvements". Relocation of the existing main is
required to remove manholes and sewer main from area of the proposed
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 Enera No comment received.
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. 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 De artment: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department at 918-3752 for additional details.
County Planr ln�: No comment received.
CATH: Site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus radius,
turnout and route.
Plannin Division: This request is located in the River Mountain Planning District. The
Land Use Plan shows Low Density Residential for this property. The applicant has
applied for a Planned Residential Development for condominiums and single- family
houses.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Landscape: No comment.
Revised latl tan: Submit four (4) copies of a revised site plan (to include the
additional information as noted above) to staff on Wednesday, March 5, 2003.