Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4562-E Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: Z -4562-E NAME: Hickory Grove Revised PD -R LOCATION: Located on Hinson Road at Dorado Beach Drive DEVELOPER: EV -Mark Development 2 Dorado Beach Drive P.O. Box 541850 Little Rock, AR 72223 FNr;INFFR• Crafton, Tull and Associates 10825 Financial Center Parkway, Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72211 AREA: 38.62 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 83 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF URRENT ZONING: PD -R ALLOWED USES: Single-family Residential PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PD -R PROPOSED USES Single-family Residential — Time extension for construction of Dorado Beach Drive VARIAN CESMAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: The property is the remaining 40+ acres of a 120 -acre parcel or the eastern 1/3 of the property owned by the First Baptist Church. The site was originally proposed as a multipurpose facility with residential, school and church facility. The western 80 acres have since developed as a single-family neighborhood. This property was zoned MF -6, Multi -family District (six (6) units per gross acre allowed) in mid -1981. A "Declaration of Covenants" was filed and recorded in 1981, which runs with the property. The private covenants regulate the property's use and portion of the property's development. FILE NO.: Z-4562-E Cont. The private covenants state that the property will be developed for condominium units developed pursuant to the Horizontal Property Act being Act 60 of 1961 (units for sale only, no rental units). The covenants designate certain areas of the property as OS (Open Space) and require a six (6) foot high privacy fence be constructed at one location prior to any construction. The covenants also state that structures built in one area of the property not exceed one and one-half stories in height; both located on the northern boundary of the site. A preliminary plat and a multiple building site plan review were filed on the site in May 1997, to allow the construction of 234 apartment units in 10 three-story buildings. Prior to the Public Hearing; the applicant requested the application be withdrawn from consideration. A proposal was filed in March 2000, to develop a portion of the site (18.47 acres) with 22 buildings of owner occupied condominium housing. The application was later withdrawn from consideration without prejudice prior to the Public Hearing. Ordinance No. 18,884 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on June 3, 2003, rezoned this 39 -acre site from MF -6 to a Planned Residential Development with 83 units. The applicant proposed to develop the site in three (3) phases with zero -lot line townhouses, each of which would have its own lot of record. A common wall would be shared by each structure, which would be dissected by the common property line. This would allow some measure of property on each end of the structure for maintenance of the building. The structures would have enclosed garages facing a private street with a private courtyard on the rear of each townhouse unit. The applicant proposed the construction of a bridge across the creek that separates this property from Hinson Road. The bridge would be constructed in the first phase. The applicant proposed a public roadway to connect with Hinson Road and Dorado Beach Drive. The road would be constructed when one of the abutting lots was final platted. There were two other streets proposed as a part of the development, which the applicant intended to maintain as private streets. There were three areas designated by covenants in the deed that were not to be encroached upon by building construction. The applicant indicated the areas of non -encroachment on the proposed development plan and indicated the covenants to be in force. Ordinance No. 18,883, also adopted June 3, 2003, allowed the requested variances for lots without public street frontage, an increased lot depth to width ratio and a variance to allow double frontage lots. The lots were sized to accommodate the building plans as required in the Subdivision Ordinance for zero -lot line developments. Ordinance No. 18,983 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on November 18, 2003, revised the previously approved PD -R. The Commission reviewed this request at their October 16, 2003, public hearing. The applicant proposed to amend the PD -R to allow the creation of 65 detached single-family lots on this 38.62 acre site. The 2 FILE NO.� Z -4562-E developer indicated the retention of the green spaces as was previously proposed in the areas to the north and south of the site. The applicant indicated Dorado Beach Drive would be extended as was previously approved (as one of the lots abutting the roadway was final platted). - This item was to be heard by the Little Rock Board of Directors at their November 18, 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 were many conversations between the 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 should consider 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 at their October 16, 2003, public hearing. 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. In summary the presentation is as follows: 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. 3 FILE NO.: Z -4562-E (Cont. 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 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. This data was provided in October of 2003. 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 stated he was willing to make the connection and move forward with the project. Staff felt the connection was 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 received numerous phone calls from the Pebble Beach area concerning Dorado Beach Drive. All of the callers indicated the need for another connection to Hinson Road. Traffic on Pebble Beach Drive was heavy and dangerous according to the callers. On August 26, 2004, the Planning Commission considered a request to amend the Master Street Plan for Dorado Beach Drive and a revision to the previously approved PD -R. The applicant requested a revision to a previously approved PD -R to remove the connection between Dorado Beach Drive and Hinson Road which in their opinion would allow for a more efficient subdivision layout. It was the position of the applicant that this connection was unnecessary and will not provide any traffic relief for Pebble Beach Drive. It was also the position of the applicant that the amount of traffic on Pebble Beach was such that the level of service was still well within acceptable limits. The Master Street Plan amendment request was denied by the Commission at their August 26, 2004, public hearing. The denial was not appealed to the Board of Directors. The revised plat allowed for the extension of the Phase II cul-de-sacs and a lot count of 86. The site plan indicated the construction of a cul-de-sac at the end of Dorado Beach to allow for emergency back entrance to the subdivision should the bridge on Hinson Road be impassable. A turnaround would be constructed on the west side of the bridge and a single gated access would be constructed for the subdivision. The streets would 2 FILE NO.: Z -4562-E (Cont. remain private but constructed to City standard. All deed -restricted areas would remain in tact. This item was later withdrawn by the applicant. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is now proposing an amendment to the previously approved PD -R to allow a time extension for the construction of Dorado Beach Drive. The existing PD -R states the road will be completed by June 1, 2007. The owners and developers of Hickory Grove Subdivision are requesting an extension of one year from the specified date to June 1, 2008, for completion of the road. An engineering firm has been retained to prepare construction documents for bidding the work. The proposed time frame for design, bidding and construction is anticipated to be completed within the one year time period. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The infrastructure is in place and a final plat has been signed for the Phase I and a portion of Phase II of the subdivision. New homes are being constructed in the subdivision with the Phase I portion being near completion and a few new homes are under construction in the Phase II portion. 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: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area residents. All property owners located within 200 -feet of the site, all residents located within 300 -feet of the site, who could be identified, along with the Westchester Property Owners Association were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Provide the design of the street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvements to the street including a 5 -foot sidewalk with the planned development. 2. No new lots can be platted in this subdivision until construction of Dorado Beach Drive is completed. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements for Phase 3. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information. 5 FILE NO.: Z -4562-E (Cont. Entergy: No comment received. Center -Point Energy: Approved as submitted. AT & T: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. A water main extension and additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of the facilities. Waterline or utility easements will be required for water facilities located outside of public rights-of- way. Fire hydrants will be private. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Fire Department: Place and install fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information. County_Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Chenal Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Low Density Residential for this property. The applicant has applied for a revised PDR to allow a time extension. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Dorado Beach is shown as a Collector on the Master Street Plan. The primary function of a Collector Street is to provide a connection from Local Streets to Arterials. Bicycle_ Plan: A Class I bike route is shown on Hinson Road. A Class I bikeway is built separate from or alongside a road. Additional paving and right of way may be required. City Recognized Neiahborhood Action Plan: The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan. The Residential Development goal states: "Develop Neo -traditional neighborhoods (pedestrian and bicycle friendly neighborhoods, which are less dependent on automobiles), in areas that have not yet developed." 9 FILE NO.: Z -4562-E (Cont. G it Landscape: Compliance with the City's landscape and buffer ordinance is required. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT (March 22, 2007) The applicant was not present. Staff presented an overview of the request stating there were no technical issues associated with the request remaining outstanding. Staff stated the original approval required Dorado Beach Drive to be completed by June 2007. Staff stated the request was to allow a one year time extension for the construction of Dorado Beach Drive or until June 2008. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. ANALYSIS: There were no technical issues associated with the request raised at the March 22, 2007, Subdivision Committee meeting which needed addressing. The applicant is requesting a one-year time extension for the completion of Dorado Beach Drive, from June 2007 to June 2008. The applicant has provided a development schedule indicating the Design/Development — Dorado Beach Drive and Hickory Grove Phase III began in January 2007, and will be completed mid-March 2007. The remaining aspects include review by the Arkansas Department of Health, Little Rock Public Works, Central Arkansas Water and Little Rock Wastewater Utility, Contract — Bidding and Negotiations, Construction — Dorado Beach Drive, Construction — Hickory Grove, Phase III; Senoma Hills, Utilities, etc., Platting — Remaining Lots in Hickory Grove Phase ll, Platting — Hickory Grove Phase III. The timetable indicates the review process will be completed in May 2007. The bidding and negotiations will be completed in June 2007 and construction of Dorado Beach Drive will be completed in November 2007. The remaining time is for completion of Phases II and III of the Hickory Grove Subdivision. Staff is supportive of allowing additional time for completion of the street. The applicants have not begun the governmental review process for the street design which will take time in itself. The applicant has indicated the street construction completed by November/December 2007, with the remaining time allocated for completion of Phases II and III of the subdivision extending the completion date to June 2008. Staff feels the timetable proposed by the applicant is reasonable based on the indicated time frames for each of the indicated activities. Staff feels an additional six months from June 2007, allows adequate time for completion of the street and connecting Dorado Beach Drive to Hinson Road as was previously approved. Staff recommends at the time of completion of Dorado Beach Drive and acceptance by the City the applicant final plat the right of way for the roadway. 7 FILE NO.: Z -4562-E Cont. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above agenda staff report. Staff recommends a six month extension for the completion of Dorado Beach Drive beginning six months from the original approval date or be completed by December 2007. Staff recommends the applicant final plat the Dorado Beach Drive right of way as a public street at the time of completion and acceptance by the City of Little Rock. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 12, 2007) The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of a six month extension of the proposed request. Staff stated the application request included the allowance of a one year time extension but based on the applicant's provided time schedule they felt the road construction would be completed within six months of the originally approved completion date. Staff presented a recommendation of a six month time extension. Mr. Frank Riggins addressed the Commission as the owner's representative. He stated the owners were requesting a one year time extension for the completion of Dorado Beach Drive. He stated the owners were committed to completing the road but were unaware the approval required the completion of the road by June 2007. He stated his owner felt the approval required the road construction to begin by June 2007. He stated staff contacted his clients in January and provided clarification of the completion date. He stated only after being contacted by staff did his owners realize the road was to be completed by June 2007. He stated he felt the additional time would allow the owners to complete the design, review process, bidding and construction. He stated if construction was not initiated in the near future the fall weather would not allow the completion of the road. He stated with the additional time this would keep the owners from coming back to the Commission in December begging for relief. Mr. Danny Broaddrick addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated the developers had been given four years to complete the road and were now asking for additional time. He stated the residents of the abutting subdivision had sat quietly for four years assuming the developers would meet their commitment. He stated presently Valley Park Drive carried a great deal of traffic that should be able to use the new road and exit to Hinson Road. He stated presently all the traffic from Pebble Beach Estates and Pebble Beach Woods only had two choices to exit their subdivisions. He stated the residents on Pebble Beach Road had also been promised the road would be completed to relieve traffic on this roadway as well. He stated the developers had 0 FILE NO.: Z -4562-E (Cont. constructed all the roads within their new subdivision but did not complete Dorado Beach Drive when they were constructing the subdivision infrastructure. Mr. Broaddrick stated the developers had promised in 2003 to construct the road but in 2004 were before the Commission requesting to remove the road from the Master Street Plan and to construct the development a gated community. Mr. Broaddrick stated he did not remember the vote but felt the Commission unanimously rejected the request. He stated he felt the road should be constructed as promised by the developers. He stated six months was acceptable unless the developers came back at the end of six months and requested an additional six months. He stated the residents were requesting the road be constructed as was agreed by the developers. The Commission questioned why the road was not constructed and if the developers had been granted a previous extension. Staff stated the developers misunderstood the previous agreement and felt the road should be started within the time frame and not completed. Staff stated the developers had not been granted any previous extensions. Mr. Evans stated his firm was constructing the homes which ranged from Y2 to over 1 million dollars. He stated his firm had gone to far to not complete Dorado Beach Drive as was previously agreed. He stated the bridge crossing was expensive and the development was looking for financing for the completion of the street. He stated with the addition of one year the development could secure all financing, approvals and complete the road as required by the original approval. There was a general discussion by the Commission concerning the need for additional time and the amount of time it took to complete a road. Commissioner Rahman indicated the completion of the construction season was drawing near if the design was not complete it would be difficult to complete the road by the end of the current construction season. Staff stated during November and December it was difficult for developers to install streets and drainage. The Commission questioned if the developers were given six months to complete the road and it was not completed within the time frame what would be the course of action. Staff stated they would be in violation of their zoning and a revocation could be pursued. Staff stated building permits could also be held for future construction of homes. The Commission discussed their typical procedure for allowance of additional time. The Commission indicated typically a one year time extension was granted to developers on preliminary plat expirations. The Commission acknowledged the road could not be completed by June 2007, and questioned a realistic time frame for completion. Commissioner Yates stated the developers were willing to step up and build the road. He stated Pebble Beach Estates and Pebble Beach Woods had been completed a number of years and no one was willing to develop this property because of the challenge of construction, the bridge, and making the connection from the current terminus to Hinson Road. Commissioner Yates stated right now today these were the only guys willing to construct the road. He stated it was important for the Commission to ensure what they were asking for could be completed in the time frame allowed. X FILE NO.: Z -4562-E (Cont. Commissioner Adcock questioned the time frame for completion of '/ mile of road. Commissioner Rahman stated it would be difficult to complete the road within this construction season. Commissioner Adcock questioned various City street projects and the time for completion. Commissioner Rahman stated completion of pubic projects was vastly different than private projects. The Commissioners questioned staff if the item had been previously placed on the Consent Agenda. Staff stated the item was on the Consent Agenda for approval. The Commission questioned the amount of time the developers would have been given if the item had remained on the Consent Agenda. Staff stated six months. A motion was made to approve the applicant's request which was to allow a one year time extension for the completion of Dorado Beach Drive. The motion stated the road would be completed by June of 2008. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 3 noes and 0 absent. Commissioner Adcock requested a progress report by the owners at the December Planning Commission public hearing. STAFF UPDATE: This item was before the Little Rock Board of Directors on May 15, 2007, for final action. At the meeting staff stated based on additional information provided by the applicant's engineer they were no longer opposed to the request. Mr. Frank Riggins the project engineer addressed the Commission as the owner's representative. He stated the developers were seeking approval of a revision to the PD -R to allow a one year extension for the required street construction of Dorado Beach Drive. Mr. Riggins stated the original date for completion of the road connection was June 2007 and the developers were requesting to be allowed until June 2008 for the completion of the connection of the current terminus with Hinson Road. The Mayor questioned Mr. Riggins if the application was being amended Mr. Riggins stated the developers were seeking until June 2008 to allow the connection. Staff read to the Board of Directors the e-mail which was received by staff — Because of the very hilly topography on the site we are having difficulty in designing a vertical profile for Dorado Beach Drive without cutting or filling "the world". I can say that we are getting closer to a profile that will be up to LR public works and AASHTO Standards. As our work to this point has progressed, we have also determined that the Storm Sewer and Sanitary Sewer lines will need to be sized and placed so that we can ensure adequate cover under not only Dorado Beach but also the proposed parallel road know as Senoma Hills (therefore we are practically 10 ILE NO.: Z -4562-E (Cont. designing the entire subdivision to make sure all utilities and roads work together). Because of the complexity of this project we believe that we may have preliminary profiles for Dorado, Senoma Hills and the storm sewer and sanitary lines by the beginning of July. Then we could possibly go to bid while concurrently receiving ADH, LRPW, CAW, and LRWU approvals for the entire project. After selecting the contractor and working out all comments from the above governing bodies, I believe construction could begin near the start of September. EV -Mark Development would like to have one contractor for the entire job so that they may install all needed utilities under and along Dorado and construct Dorado first, make the connection to the existing road, then move on to Senoma. Short of saying "we're working on it", I believe that we can make the connection to Dorado Beach Drive by the first few months of next year, barring any unforeseen circumstances of course. Staff stated based on the language of the e-mail they felt the developers were offering to complete the road within the first few months of 2008. Staff stated their original opposition was to allowing one year to complete the road but they felt the additional "few" or in their minds two to three months was not a deal breaker. There was a lengthy discussion by the Board of Directors concerning the time frame for completion of the road and the amount of time previously given to complete the road. Staff stated the developers were put on alert in January the road was to be completed by June 2007. The Board indicated with the additional 12 months this was in fact giving the developers 18 months to complete the road. Many of the Board members indicated this was not acceptable. The Board stated they were not in the business of negotiating and debating with developers for specifics of applications. Several Board members requested the item be returned to the Commission for debate and return to the Board of Directors once all the specifics were resolved. An e-mail received from the applicant's representative on May 28, 2007 indicated a proposed time line for completion of Dorado Beach Drive. The e-mail is as follows: Our firm represents Ev-Mark Development ("Ev-Mark"). As you are aware, there was confusion between the City, Ev-Mark and the neighborhood regarding the required completion date for the Dorado Beach Drive extension. This confusion caused my client to request a one year extension of the completion date until June 1, 2008. Although approved by the Planning Commission, upon hearing of the City Board, the matter was sent back to the Planning Commission with a recommendation for the road to be finished by December 31, 2007. As a follow up to the meeting on May 22, 2007, between you and representatives 11 A FILE NO.: Z -4562-E of the City, my clients, Frank Riggins and I have been authorized by the principals of Ev-Mark, Jim Markus and Bob Evans, to submit a proposed timetable with benchmarks for monitoring compliance for the completion of Dorado Beach Drive. Ev-Mark will diligently proceed with the construction of Dorado Beach Drive as follows: ACTION COMPLETION DATE (2007) Complete construction plans June 15 Plans review and requisite approvals July 15 Sign contract with contractor August 1 Commence Construction August 15 Monthly Status Report to Staff (if requested) September 1 Status Report to Planning Commission October 1 1 Projected Completion Date December 31 While this timetable proposes only one (1) Planning Commission status report, Ev-Mark will be willing to report more often or to appear before the Planning Commission as requested by the Little Rock City Board, the Planning Commission or Staff. Ev-Mark will make every good faith effort to meet this timetable and will affirmatively state and represent that it is the intention of Ev-Mark to have the construction of Dorado Beach Drive completed by December 31, 2007. As I am sure you can understand, events or circumstances outside the control of Ev-Mark could cause Ev-Mark to miss anticipated target dates. In the Ev-Mark reasonably discovers that it will be unable to complete the road within the parameters of time set forth above, Ev-Mark will promptly notify the office of Planning and Development and will coordinate with the office of Planning and Development a modified timetable with the understanding that time is of the essence for any period extending beyond December 31, 2007. The timetable .is not to be construed as a contract with the City of Little Rock and may not be relied on by third parties. Staff is supportive of the time table provided by the applicant. As indicated the applicant is seeking to complete Dorado Beach Drive within this calendar year as previously recommended by staff. To staffs knowledge there are no remaining outstanding issues associated with the request. 12 : Z -4562-E (Cont. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 7, 2007) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the proposed time frame. Staff stated the item was being returned to the Commission by the Board of Directors to establish a time frame for completion of Dorado Beach Drive. Staff stated during the Board of Directors May 15, 2007, public hearing the Board of Directors indicated concern with the proposed 12 -month extension. Staff stated they had worked with the applicant to develop a timetable, which they felt was achievable by the applicant and best served the needs of the neighborhood. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Approval. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position. 13 June 7, 2007 ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: Z -4562-E NAME: Hickory Grove Revised PD -R LOCATION: Located on Hinson Road at Dorado Beach Drive DEVELOPER - EV -Mark Development 2 Dorado Beach Drive P.O. Box 541850 Little Rock, AR 72223 FNC_�INFFR. Crafton, Tull and Associates 10825 Financial Center Parkway, Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72211 AREA: 38.62 acres CURRENT ZONING: ALLOWED USES: PROPOSED ZONING: PROPOSED USE NUMBER OF LOTS: 83 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF Single-family Residential Revised PD -R Single-family Residential — Time extension for construction of Dorado Beach Drive VARIANCESM/AIVERS REQUESTED- None requested. BACKGROUND: The property is the remaining 40+ acres of a 120 -acre parcel or the eastern 1/3 of the property owned by the First Baptist Church. The site was originally proposed as a multipurpose facility with residential, school and church facility. The western 80 acres have since developed as a single-family neighborhood. This property was zoned MF -6, Multi -family District (six (6) units per gross acre allowed) in mid -1981. A "Declaration of Covenants" was filed and recorded in 1981, which runs with the property. The private covenants regulate the property's use and portion of the property's development. June 7, 2007 ITEM NO.: B Cont. FILE NO.: Z -4562-E The private covenants state that the property will be developed for condominium units developed pursuant to the Horizontal Property Act being Act 60 of 1961 (units for sale only, no rental units). The covenants designate certain areas of the property as OS (Open Space) and require a six (6) foot high privacy fence be constructed at one location prior to any construction. The covenants also state that structures built in one area of the property not exceed one and one-half stories in height; both located on the northern boundary of the site. A preliminary plat and a multiple building site plan review were filed on the site in May 1997, to allow the construction of 234 apartment units in 10 three-story buildings. Prior to the Public Hearing; the applicant requested the application be withdrawn from consideration. A proposal was filed in March 2000, to develop a portion of the site (18.47 acres) with 22 buildings of owner occupied condominium housing. The application was later withdrawn from consideration without prejudice prior to the Public Hearing. Ordinance No. 18,884 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on June 3, 2003, rezoned this 39 -acre site from MF -6 to a Planned Residential Development with 83 units. The applicant proposed to develop the site in three (3) phases with zero -lot line townhouses, each of which would have its own lot of record. A common wall would be shared by each structure, which would be dissected by the common property line. This would allow some measure of property on each end of the structure for maintenance of the building. The structures would have enclosed garages facing a private street with a private courtyard on the rear of each townhouse unit. The applicant proposed the construction of a bridge across the creek that separates this property from Hinson Road. The bridge would be constructed in the first phase. The applicant proposed a public roadway to connect with Hinson Road and Dorado Beach Drive. The road would be constructed when one of the abutting lots was final platted. There were two other streets proposed as a part of the development, which the applicant intended to maintain as private streets. There were three areas designated by covenants in the deed that were not to be encroached upon by building construction. The applicant indicated the areas of non -encroachment on the proposed development plan and indicated the covenants to be in force. Ordinance No. 18,883, also adopted June 3, 2003, allowed the requested variances for lots without public street frontage, an increased lot depth to width ratio and a variance to allow double frontage lots. The lots were sized to accommodate the building plans as required in the Subdivision Ordinance for zero -lot line developments. Ordinance No. 18,983 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on November 18, 2003, revised the previously approved PD -R. The Commission reviewed this request at their October 16, 2003, public hearing. The applicant proposed to amend the PD -R to 2 June 7, 2007 ITEM NO.: B (Cont_ FILE NO.: Z -4562-E allow the creation of 65 detached single-family lots on this 38.62 acre site. The developer indicated the retention of the green spaces as was previously proposed in the areas to the north and south of the site. The applicant indicated Dorado Beach Drive would be extended as was previously approved (as one of the lots abutting the roadway was final platted). This item was to be heard by the Little Rock Board of Directors at their November 18, 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 were many conversations between the 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 should consider 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 at their October 16, 2003, public hearing. 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. In summary the presentation is as follows: 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 Kj June 7, 2007 ITEM NO.: B (Cont. FILE NO.: Z -4562-E 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 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. This data was provided in October of 2003. 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 stated he was willing to make the connection and move forward with the project. Staff felt the connection was 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 received numerous phone calls from the Pebble Beach area concerning Dorado Beach Drive. All of the callers indicated the need for another connection to Hinson Road. Traffic on Pebble Beach Drive was heavy and dangerous according to the callers. On August 26, 2004, the Planning Commission considered a request to amend the Master Street Plan for Dorado Beach Drive and a revision to the previously approved PD -R. The applicant requested a revision to a previously approved PD -R to remove the connection between Dorado Beach Drive and Hinson Road which in their opinion would allow for a more efficient subdivision layout. It was the position of the applicant that this connection was unnecessary and will not provide any traffic relief for Pebble Beach Drive. It was also the position of the applicant that the amount of traffic on Pebble Beach was such that the level of service was still well within acceptable limits. The Master Street Plan amendment request was denied by the Commission at their August 26, 2004, public hearing. The denial was not appealed to the Board of Directors. 12 June 7, 2007 ITEM NO.: B (Cont. FILE NO.: Z -4562-E The revised plat allowed for the extension of the Phase II cul-de-sacs and a lot count of 86. The site plan indicated the construction of a cul-de-sac at the end of Dorado Beach to allow for emergency back entrance to the subdivision should the bridge on Hinson Road be impassable. A turnaround would be constructed on the west side of the bridge and a single gated access would be constructed for the subdivision. The streets would remain private but constructed to City standard. All deed -restricted areas would remain in tact. This item was later withdrawn by the applicant. A. PROPOSAUREQUEST: The applicant is now proposing an amendment to the previously approved PD -R to allow a time extension for the construction of Dorado Beach Drive. The existing PD -R states the road will be completed by June 1, 2007. The owners and developers of Hickory Grove Subdivision are requesting an extension of one year from the specified date to June 1, 2008, for completion of the road. An engineering firm has been retained to prepare construction documents for bidding the work. The proposed time frame for design, bidding and construction is anticipated to be completed within the one year time period. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS. The infrastructure is in place and a final plat has been signed for the Phase I and a portion of Phase II of the subdivision. New homes are being constructed in the subdivision with the Phase I portion being near completion and a few new homes are under construction in the Phase II portion. 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: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area residents. All property owners located within 200 -feet of the site, all residents located within 300 -feet of the site, who could be identified, along with the Westchester Property Owners Association were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Provide the design of the street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvements to the street including a 5 -foot sidewalk with the planned development. 9 June 7, 2007 ITEM NO.: B (Cont. FILE NO.: Z -4562-E 2. No new lots can be platted in this subdivision until construction of Dorado Beach Drive is completed. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements for Phase 3. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information. Entergy: No comment received. Center -Point Energy: Approved as submitted. AT & T: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. A water main extension and additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of the facilities. Waterline or utility easements will be required for water facilities located outside of public rights-of- way. Fire hydrants will be private. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Fire Department: Place and install fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN- Planning Division: This request is located in the Chenal Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Low Density Residential for this property. The applicant has applied for a revised PDR to allow a time extension. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Dorado Beach is shown as a Collector on the Master Street Plan. The primary function of a Collector Street is to provide a connection from Local Streets to Arterials. Con June 7, 2007 FILE NO.: Z -4562-E Bicycle Plan: A Class I bike route is shown on Hinson Road. A Class I bikeway is built separate from or alongside a road. Additional paving and right of way may be required. Citv Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan. The Residential Development goal states: "Develop Neo -traditional neighborhoods (pedestrian and bicycle friendly neighborhoods, which are less dependent on automobiles), in areas that have not yet developed." Landscape: Compliance with the City's landscape and buffer ordinance is required. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (March 22, 2007) The applicant was not present. Staff presented an overview of the request stating there were no technical issues associated with the request remaining outstanding. Staff stated the original approval required Dorado Beach Drive to be completed by June 2007. Staff stated the request was to allow a one year time extension for the construction of Dorado Beach Drive or until June 2008. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: There were no technical issues associated with the request raised at the March 22, 2007, Subdivision Committee meeting which needed addressing. The applicant is requesting a one-year time extension for the completion of Dorado Beach Drive, from June 2007 to June 2008. The applicant has provided a development schedule indicating the Design/Development — Dorado Beach Drive and Hickory Grove Phase III began in January 2007, and will be completed mid-March 2007. The remaining aspects include review by the Arkansas Department of Health, Little Rock Public Works, Central Arkansas Water and Little Rock Wastewater Utility, Contract — Bidding and Negotiations, Construction — Dorado Beach Drive, Construction — Hickory Grove, Phase III; Senoma Hills, Utilities, etc., Platting — Remaining Lots in Hickory Grove Phase II, Platting — Hickory Grove Phase III. The timetable indicates the review process will be completed in May 2007. The bidding and negotiations will be completed in June 2007 and construction of Dorado Beach Drive will be completed in November 2007. The remaining time is for completion of Phases II and III of the Hickory Grove Subdivision. Staff is supportive of allowing additional time for completion of the street. The applicants have not begun the governmental review process for the street design which will take time in itself. The applicant has indicated the street construction completed by November/December 2007, with the remaining time allocated for 7 June 7, 2007 ITEM NO.: B (Cont. FILE NO.: Z -4562-E completion of Phases II and III of the subdivision extending the completion date to June 2008. Staff feels the timetable proposed by the applicant is reasonable based on the indicated time frames for each of the indicated activities. Staff feels an additional six months from June 2007, allows adequate time for completion of the street and connecting Dorado Beach Drive to Hinson Road as was previously approved. Staff recommends at the time of completion of Dorado Beach Drive and acceptance by the City the applicant final plat the right of way for the roadway. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above agenda staff report. Staff recommends a six month extension for the completion of Dorado Beach Drive beginning six months from the original approval date or be completed by December 2007. Staff recommends the applicant final plat the Dorado Beach Drive right of way as a public street at the time of completion and acceptance by the City of Little Rock. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 12, 2007) The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of a six month extension of the proposed request. Staff stated the application request included the allowance of a one year time extension but based on the applicant's provided time schedule they felt the road construction would be completed within six months of the originally approved completion date. Staff presented a recommendation of a six month time extension. Mr. Frank Riggins addressed the Commission as the owner's representative. He stated the owners were requesting a one year time extension for the completion of Dorado Beach Drive. He stated the owners were committed to completing the road but were unaware the approval required the completion of the road by June 2007. He stated his owner felt the approval required the road construction to begin by June 2007. He stated staff contacted his clients in January and provided clarification of the completion date. He stated only after being contacted by staff did his owners realize the road was to be completed by June 2007. He stated he felt the additional time would allow the owners to complete the design, review process, bidding and construction. He stated if construction was not initiated in the near future the fall weather would not allow the completion of the road. He stated with the additional time this would keep the owners from coming back to the Commission in December begging for relief. 0 June 7, 2007 ITEM NO.: B (Cont. FILE NO.: Z -4562-E Mr. Danny Broaddrick addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated the developers had been given four years to complete the road and were now asking for additional time. He stated the residents of the abutting subdivision had sat quietly for four years assuming the developers would meet their commitment. He stated presently Valley Park Drive carried a great deal of traffic that should be able to use the new road and exit to Hinson Road. He stated presently all the traffic from Pebble Beach Estates and Pebble Beach Woods only had two choices to exit their subdivisions. He stated the residents on Pebble Beach Road had also been promised the road would be completed to relieve traffic on this roadway as well. He stated the developers had constructed all the roads within their new subdivision but did not complete Dorado Beach Drive when they were constructing the subdivision infrastructure. Mr. Broaddrick stated the developers had promised in 2003 to construct the road but in 2004 were before the Commission requesting to remove the road from the Master Street Plan and to construct the development a gated community. Mr. Broaddrick stated he did not remember the vote but felt the Commission unanimously rejected the request. He stated he felt the road should be constructed as promised by the developers. He stated six months was acceptable unless the developers came back at the end of six months and requested an additional six months. He stated the residents were requesting the road be constructed as was agreed by the developers. The Commission questioned why the road was not constructed and if the developers had been granted a previous extension. Staff stated the developers misunderstood the previous agreement and felt the road should be started within the time frame and not completed. Staff stated the developers had not been granted any previous extensions. Mr. Evans stated his firm was constructing the homes which ranged from Y2 to over 1 million dollars. He stated his firm had gone to far to not complete Dorado Beach Drive as was previously agreed. He stated the bridge crossing was expensive and the development was looking for financing for the completion of the street. He stated with the addition of one year the development could secure all financing, approvals and complete the road as required by the original approval. There was a general discussion by the Commission concerning the need for additional time and the amount of time it took to complete a road. Commissioner Rahman indicated the completion of the construction season was drawing near if the design was not complete it would be difficult to complete the road by the end of the current construction season. Staff stated during November and December it was difficult for developers to install streets and drainage. The Commission questioned if the developers were given six months to complete the road and it was not completed within the time frame what would be the course of action. Staff stated they would be in violation of their zoning and a revocation could be pursued. Staff stated building permits could also be held for future construction of homes. The Commission discussed their typical procedure for allowance of additional time. The Commission indicated typically a one year time extension was granted to developers on X01 June 7, 2007 ITEM NO.: B (Cont. FILE NO.: Z -4562-E preliminary plat expirations. The Commission acknowledged the road could not be completed by June 2007, and questioned a realistic time frame for completion. Commissioner Yates stated the developers were willing to step up and build the road. He stated Pebble Beach Estates and Pebble Beach Woods had been completed a number of years and no one was willing to develop this property because of the challenge of construction, the bridge, and making the connection from the current terminus to Hinson Road. Commissioner Yates stated right now today these were the only guys willing to construct the road. He stated it was important for the Commission to ensure what they were asking for could be completed in the time frame allowed. Commissioner Adcock questioned the time frame for completion of '/ mile of road. Commissioner Rahman stated it would be difficult to complete the road within this construction season. Commissioner Adcock questioned various City street projects and the time for completion. Commissioner Rahman stated completion of pubic projects was vastly different than private projects. The Commissioners questioned staff if the item had been previously placed on the Consent Agenda. Staff stated the item was on the Consent Agenda for approval. The Commission questioned the amount of time the developers would have been given if the item had remained on the Consent Agenda. Staff stated six months. A motion was made to approve the applicant's request which was to allow a one year time extension for the completion of Dorado Beach Drive. The motion stated the road would be completed by June of 2008. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 3 noes and 0 absent. Commissioner Adcock requested a progress report by the owners at the December Planning Commission public hearing. STAFF UPDATE: This item was before the Little Rock Board of Directors on May 15, 2007, for final action. At the meeting staff stated based on additional information provided by the applicant's engineer they were no longer opposed to the request. Mr. Frank Riggins the project engineer addressed the Commission as the owner's representative. He stated the developers were seeking approval of a revision to the PD -R to allow a one year extension for the required street construction of Dorado Beach Drive. Mr. Riggins stated the original date for completion of the road connection was June 2007 and the developers were requesting to be allowed until June 2008 for the completion of the connection of the current terminus with Hinson Road. The Mayor questioned Mr. Riggins if the application was being amended Mr. Riggins stated the developers were seeking until June 2008 to allow the connection. Staff read to the Board of Directors the e-mail which was received by staff — 10 June 7, 2007 ITEM NO.: B (Cont. FILE NO.: Z -4562-E Because of the very hilly topography on the site we are having difficulty in designing a vertical profile for Dorado Beach Drive without cutting or filling "the world". I can say that we are getting closer to a profile that will be up to LR public works and AASHTO Standards. As our work to this point has progressed, we have also determined that the Storm Sewer and Sanitary Sewer lines will need to be sized and placed so that we can ensure adequate cover under not only Dorado Beach but also the proposed parallel road know as Senoma Hills (therefore we are practically designing the entire subdivision to make sure all utilities and roads work together). Because of the complexity of this project we believe that we may have preliminary profiles for Dorado, Senoma Hills and the storm sewer and sanitary lines by the beginning of July. Then we could possibly go to bid while concurrently receiving ADH, LRPW, CAW, and LRWU approvals for the entire project. After selecting the contractor and working out all comments from the above governing bodies, I believe construction could begin near the start of September. EV -Mark Development would like to have one contractor for the entire job so that they may install all needed utilities under and along Dorado and construct Dorado first, make the connection to the existing road, then move on to Senoma. Short of saying "we're working on it", I believe that we can make the connection to Dorado Beach Drive by the first few months of next year, barring any unforeseen circumstances of course. Staff stated based on the language of the e-mail they felt the developers were offering to complete the road within the first few months of 2008. Staff stated their original opposition was to allowing one year to complete the road but they felt the additional "few" or in their minds two to three months was not a deal breaker. There was a lengthy discussion by the Board of Directors concerning the time frame for completion of the road and the amount of time previously given to complete the road. Staff stated the developers were put on alert in January the road was to be completed by June 2007. The Board indicated with the additional 12 months this was in fact giving the developers 18 months to complete the road. Many of the Board members indicated this was not acceptable. The Board stated they were not in the business of negotiating and debating with developers for specifics of applications. Several Board members requested the item be returned to the Commission for debate and return to the Board of Directors once all the specifics were resolved. 11 June 7, 2007 ITEM NO.: B (Cont. FILE NO.: Z -4562-E An e-mail received from the applicant's representative on May 28, 2007 indicated a proposed time line for completion of Dorado Beach Drive. The e-mail is as follows: Our firm represents Ev-Mark Development ("Ev-Mark"). As you are aware, there was confusion between the City, Ev-Mark and the neighborhood regarding the required completion date for the Dorado Beach Drive extension. This confusion caused my client to request a one year extension of the completion date until June 1, 2008. Although approved by the Planning Commission, upon hearing of the City Board, the matter was sent back to the Planning Commission with a recommendation for the road to be finished by December 31, 2007. As a follow up to the meeting on May 22, 2007, between you and representatives of the City, my clients, Frank Riggins and I have been authorized by the principals of Ev-Mark, Jim Markus and Bob Evans, to submit a proposed timetable with benchmarks for monitoring compliance for the completion of Dorado Beach Drive. Ev-Mark will diligently proceed with the construction of Dorado Beach Drive as follows: A('TIC)N COMPLETION DATE f2007) Complete construction plans June 15 Plans review and requisite approvals July 15 Sign contract with contractor August 1 Commence Construction August 15 Monthly Status Report to Staff (if requested) September 1 Status Report to Planning Commission October 11 Projected Completion Date December 31 While this timetable proposes only one (1) Planning Commission status report, Ev-Mark will be willing to report more often or to appear before the Planning Commission as requested by the Little Rock City Board, the Planning Commission or Staff. Ev-Mark will make every good faith effort to meet this timetable and will affirmatively state and represent that it is the intention of Ev-Mark to have the construction of Dorado Beach Drive completed by December 31, 2007. As I am sure you can understand, events or circumstances outside the control of Ev-Mark could cause Ev-Mark to miss anticipated target dates. In the Ev-Mark `K June 7, 2007 ITEM NO.: B (Cont. FILE NO.: Z -4562-E circumstances outside the control of Ev-Mark could cause Ev-Mark to miss anticipated target dates. In the Ev-Mark reasonably discovers that it will be unable to complete the road within the parameters of time set forth above, Ev-Mark will promptly notify the office of Planning and Development and will coordinate with the office of Planning and Development a modified timetable with the understanding that time is of the essence for any period extending beyond December 31, 2007. The timetable is not to be construed as a contract with the City of Little Rock and may not be relied on by third parties. Staff is supportive of the time table provided by the applicant. As indicated the applicant is seeking to complete Dorado Beach Drive within this calendar year as previously recommended by staff. To staff's knowledge there are no remaining outstanding issues associated with the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 7, 2007) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the proposed time frame. Staff stated the item was being returned to the Commission by the Board of Directors to establish a time frame for completion of Dorado Beach Drive. Staff stated during the Board of Directors May 15, 2007, public hearing the Board of Directors indicated concern with the proposed 12 -month extension. Staff stated they had worked with the applicant to develop a timetable, which they felt was achievable by the applicant and best served the needs of the neighborhood. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Approval. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position. 13 FILE NO.: Z -4562-E NAME: Hickory Grove Revised PD -R LOCATION: Located on Hinson Road at Dorado Beach Drive DEVELOPER: EV -Mark Development 2 Dorado Beach Drive P.O. Box 541850 Little Rock, AR 72223 ENGINEER: Crafton, Tull and Associates 10825 Financial Center Parkway, Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72211 AREA: 38.62 acres CURRENT ZONING: ALLOWED USES PROPOSED ZONING PROPOSED USE: NUMBER OF LOTS: 83 -M Single-family Residential Revised PD -R FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF Single-family Residential — Time extension for construction of Dorado Beach Drive VARIAN CESM/AIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: The property is the remaining 40+ acres of a 120 -acre parcel or the eastern 1/3 of the property owned by the First Baptist Church. The site was originally proposed as a multipurpose facility with residential, school and church facility. The western 80 acres have since developed as a single-family neighborhood. This property was zoned MF -6, Multi -family District (six (6) units per gross acre allowed) in mid -1981. A "Declaration of Covenants" was filed and recorded in 1981, which runs with the property. The private covenants regulate the property's use and portion of the property's development. FILE NO.: Z -4562-E (Cont. The private covenants state that the property will be developed for condominium units developed pursuant to the Horizontal Property Act being Act 60 of 1961 (units for sale only, no rental units). The covenants designate certain areas of the property as OS (Open Space) and require a six (6) foot high privacy fence be constructed at one location prior to any construction. The covenants also state that structures built in one area of the property not exceed one and one-half stories in height; both located on the northern boundary of the site. A preliminary plat and a multiple building site plan review were filed on the site in May 1997, to allow the construction of 234 apartment units in 10 three-story buildings. Prior to the Public Hearing; the applicant requested the application be withdrawn from consideration. A proposal was filed in March 2000, to develop a portion of the site (18.47 acres) with 22 buildings of owner occupied condominium housing. The application was later withdrawn from consideration without prejudice prior to the Public Hearing. Ordinance No. 18,884 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on June 3, 2003, rezoned this 39 -acre site from MF -6 to a Planned Residential Development with 83 units. The applicant proposed to develop the site in three (3) phases with zero -lot line townhouses, each of which would have its own lot of record. A common wall would be shared by each structure, which would be dissected by the common property line. This would allow some measure of property on each end of the structure for maintenance of the building. The structures would have enclosed garages facing a private street with a private courtyard on the rear of each townhouse unit. The applicant proposed the construction of a bridge across the creek that separates this property from Hinson Road. The bridge would be constructed in the first phase. The applicant proposed a public roadway to connect with Hinson Road and Dorado Beach Drive. The road would be constructed when one of the abutting lots was final platted. There were two other streets proposed as a part of the development, which the applicant intended to maintain as private streets. There were three areas designated by covenants in the deed that were not to be encroached upon by building construction. The applicant indicated the areas of non -encroachment on the proposed development plan and indicated the covenants to be in force. Ordinance No. 18,883, also adopted June 3, 2003, allowed the requested variances for lots without public street frontage, an increased lot depth to width ratio and a variance to allow double frontage lots. The lots were sized to accommodate the building plans as required in the Subdivision Ordinance for zero -lot line developments. Ordinance No. 18,983 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on November 18, 2003, revised the previously approved PD -R. The Commission reviewed this request at their October 16, 2003, public hearing. The applicant proposed to amend the PD -R to allow the creation of 65 detached single-family lots on this 38.62 acre site. The developer indicated the retention of the green spaces as was previously proposed in the 2 FILE NO.: Z -4562-E (Cont. areas to the north and south of the site. The applicant indicated Dorado Beach Drive would be extended as was previously approved (as one of the lots abutting the roadway was final platted). This item was to be heard by the Little Rock Board of Directors at their November 18, 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 were many conversations between the 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 should consider 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 at their October 16, 2003, public hearing. 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. In summary the presentation is as follows: 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. 3 FILE NO.: Z -4562-E (Cont. 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 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. This data was provided in October of 2003. 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 stated he was willing to make the connection and move forward with the project. Staff felt the connection was 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 received numerous phone calls from the Pebble Beach area concerning Dorado Beach Drive. All of the callers indicated the need for another connection to Hinson Road. Traffic on Pebble Beach Drive was heavy and dangerous according to the callers. On August 26, 2004, the Planning Commission considered a request to amend the Master Street Plan for Dorado Beach Drive and a revision to the previously approved PD -R. The applicant requested a revision to a previously approved PD -R to remove the connection between Dorado Beach Drive and Hinson Road which in their opinion would allow for a more efficient subdivision layout. It was the position of the applicant that this connection was unnecessary and will not provide any traffic relief for Pebble Beach Drive. It was also the position of the applicant that the amount of traffic on Pebble Beach was such that the level of service was still well within acceptable limits. The Master Street Plan amendment request was denied by the Commission at their August 26, 2004, public hearing. The denial was not appealed to the Board of Directors. The revised plat allowed for the extension of the Phase II cul-de-sacs and a lot count of 86. The site plan indicated the construction of a cul-de-sac at the end of Dorado Beach to allow for emergency back entrance to the subdivision should the bridge on Hinson Road be impassable. A turnaround would be constructed on the west side of the bridge and a single gated access would be constructed for the subdivision. The streets would 4 FILE NO.: Z -4562-E (Cont. remain private but constructed to City standard. All deed -restricted areas would remain in tact. This item was later withdrawn by the applicant. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is now proposing an amendment to the previously approved PD -R to allow a time extension for the construction of Dorado Beach Drive. The existing PD -R states the road will be completed by June 1, 2007. The owners and developers of Hickory Grove Subdivision are requesting an extension of one year from the specified date to June 1, 2008, for completion of the road. An engineering firm has been retained to prepare construction documents for bidding the work. The proposed time frame for design, bidding and construction is anticipated to be completed within the one year time period. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The infrastructure is in place and a final plat has been signed for the Phase I and a portion of Phase II of the subdivision. New homes are being constructed in the subdivision with the Phase I portion being near completion and a few new homes are under construction in the Phase II portion. 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: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area residents. All property owners located within 200 -feet of the site, all residents located within 300 -feet of the site, who could be identified, along with the Westchester Property Owners Association were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: Provide the design of the street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvements to the street including a 5 -foot sidewalk with the planned development. 2. No new lots can be platted in this subdivision until construction of Dorado Beach Drive is completed. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements for Phase 3. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information. I.1 FILE NO.: Z -4562-E (Cont. F Entergy: No comment received. Center -Point Enerav: Approved as submitted. AT & T: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. A water main extension and additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of the facilities. Waterline or utility easements will be required for water facilities located outside of public rights-of- way. Fire hydrants will be private. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Fire Department: Place and install fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Chenal Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Low Density Residential for this property. The applicant has applied for a revised PDR to allow a time extension. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Dorado Beach is shown as a Collector on the Master Street Plan. The primary function of a Collector Street is to provide a connection from Local Streets to Arterials. Bicycle Plan: A Class I bike route is shown on Hinson Road. A Class I bikeway is built separate from or alongside a road. Additional paving and right of way may be required. City Recognized Nei hborhood Action Plan: The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan. The Residential Development goal states: "Develop Neo -traditional neighborhoods (pedestrian and bicycle friendly neighborhoods, which are less dependent on automobiles), in areas that have not yet developed." L FILE NO.: Z -4562-E (Cont. Landscape: Compliance with the City's landscape and buffer ordinance is required. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (March 22, 2007) The applicant was not present. Staff presented an overview of the request stating there were no technical issues associated with the request remaining outstanding. Staff stated the original approval required Dorado Beach Drive to be completed by June 2007. Staff stated the request was to allow a one year time extension for the construction of Dorado Beach Drive or until June 2008. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: There were no technical issues associated with the request raised at the March 223 2007, Subdivision Committee meeting which needed addressing. The applicant is requesting a one-year time extension for the completion of Dorado Beach Drive, from June 2007 to June 2008. The applicant has provided a development schedule indicating the Design/Development — Dorado Beach Drive and Hickory Grove Phase III began in January 2007, and will be completed mid-March 2007. The remaining aspects include review by the Arkansas Department of Health, Little Rock Public Works, Central Arkansas Water and Little Rock Wastewater Utility, Contract — Bidding and Negotiations, Construction — Dorado Beach Drive, Construction — Hickory Grove, Phase III; Senoma Hills, Utilities, etc., Platting — Remaining Lots in Hickory Grove Phase II, Platting — Hickory Grove Phase III. The timetable indicates the review process will be completed in May 2007. The bidding and negotiations will be completed in June 2007 and construction of Dorado Beach Drive will be completed in November 2007. The remaining time is for completion of Phases II and III of the Hickory Grove Subdivision. Staff is supportive of allowing additional time for completion of the street. The applicants have not begun the governmental review process for the street design which will take time in itself. The applicant has indicated the street construction completed by November/December 2007, with the remaining time allocated for completion of Phases II and III of the subdivision extending the completion date to June 2008. Staff feels the timetable proposed by the applicant is reasonable based on the indicated time frames for each of the indicated activities. Staff feels an additional six months from June 2007, allows adequate time for completion of the street and connecting Dorado Beach Drive to Hinson Road as was previously approved. Staff recommends at the time of completion of Dorado Beach Drive and acceptance by the City the applicant final plat the right of way for the roadway. 7 FILE NO.: Z -4562-E (Cont. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above agenda staff report. Staff recommends a six month extension for the completion of Dorado Beach Drive beginning six months from the original approval date or be completed by December 2007. Staff recommends the applicant final plat the Dorado Beach Drive right of way as a public street at the time of completion and acceptance by the City of Little Rock. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. (APRIL 12, 2007) The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of a six month extension of the proposed request. Staff stated the application request included the allowance of a one year time extension but based on the applicant's provided time schedule they felt the road construction would be completed within six months of the originally approved completion date. Staff presented a recommendation of a six month time extension. Mr. Frank Riggins addressed the Commission as the owner's representative. He stated the owners were requesting a one year time extension for the completion of Dorado Beach Drive. He stated the owners were committed to completing the road but were unaware the approval required the completion of the road by June 2007. He stated his owner felt the approval required the road construction to begin by June 2007. He stated staff contacted his clients in January and provided clarification of the completion date. He stated only after being contacted by staff did his owners realize the road was to be completed by June 2007. He stated he felt the additional time would allow the owners to complete the design, review process, bidding and construction. He stated if construction was not initiated in the near future the fall weather would not allow the completion of the road. He stated with the additional time this would keep the owners from coming back to the Commission in December begging for relief. Mr. Danny Broaddrick addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated the developers had been given four years to complete the road and were now asking for additional time. He stated the residents of the abutting subdivision had sat quietly for four years assuming the developers would meet their commitment. He stated presently Valley Park Drive carried a great deal of traffic that should be able to use the new road and exit to Hinson Road. He stated presently all the traffic from Pebble Beach Estates and Pebble Beach Woods only had two choices to exit their subdivisions. He stated the residents on Pebble Beach Road had also been promised the road would be completed to relieve traffic on this roadway as well. He stated the developers had constructed all the roads within their new subdivision but did not complete Dorado Beach Drive when they were constructing the subdivision infrastructure. 0 FILE NO.: Z -4562-E (Cont.) Mr. Broaddrick stated the developers had promised in 2003 to construct the road but in 2004 were before the Commission requesting to remove the road from the Master Street Plan and to construct the development a gated community. Mr. Broaddrick stated he did not remember the vote but felt the Commission unanimously rejected the request. He stated he felt the road should be constructed as promised by the developers. He stated six months was acceptable unless the developers came back at the end of six months and requested an additional six months. He stated the residents were requesting the road be constructed as was agreed by the developers. The Commission questioned why the road was not constructed and if the developers had been granted a previous extension. Staff stated the developers misunderstood the previous agreement and felt the road should be started within the time frame and not completed. Staff stated the developers had not been granted any previous extensions. Mr. Evans stated his firm was constructing the homes which ranged from Y2 to over 1 million dollars. He stated his firm had gone to far to not complete Dorado Beach Drive as was previously agreed. He stated the bridge crossing was expensive and the development was looking for financing for the completion of the street. He stated with the addition of one year the development could secure all financing, approvals and complete the road as required by the original approval. There was a general discussion by the Commission concerning the need for additional time and the amount of time it took to complete a road. Commissioner Rahman indicated the completion of the construction season was drawing near if the design was not complete it would be difficult to complete the road by the end of the current construction season. Staff stated during November and December it was difficult for developers to install streets and drainage. The Commission questioned if the developers were given six months to complete the road and it was not completed within the time frame what would be the course of action. Staff stated they would be in violation of their zoning and a revocation could be pursued. Staff stated building permits could also be held for future construction of homes. The Commission discussed their typical procedure for allowance of additional time. The Commission indicated typically a one year time extension was granted to developers on preliminary plat expirations. The Commission acknowledged the road could not be completed by June 2007, and questioned a realistic time frame for completion. Commissioner Yates stated the developers were willing to step up and build the road. He stated Pebble Beach Estates and Pebble Beach Woods had been completed a number of years and no one was willing to develop this property because of the challenge of construction, the bridge, and making the connection from the current terminus to Hinson Road. Commissioner Yates stated right now today these were the only guys willing to construct the road. He stated it was important for the Commission to ensure what they were asking for could be completed in the time frame allowed. 01 FILE NO.: Z -4562-E Commissioner Adcock questioned the time frame for completion of '/ mile of road. Commissioner Rahman stated it would be difficult to complete the road within this construction season. Commissioner Adcock questioned various City street projects and the time for completion. Commissioner Rahman stated completion of pubic projects was vastly different than private projects. The Commissioners questioned staff if the item had been previously placed on the Consent Agenda. Staff stated the item was on the Consent Agenda for approval. The Commission questioned the amount of time the developers would have been given if the item had remained on the Consent Agenda. Staff stated six months. A motion was made to approve the applicant's request which was to allow a one year time extension for the completion of Dorado Beach Drive. The motion stated the road would be completed by June of 2008. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 3 noes and 0 absent. Commissioner Adcock requested a progress report by the owners at the December Planning Commission public hearing. W] April 12, 2007 ITEM NO.: 9 NAME: Hickory Grove Revised PD -R LOCATION: Located on Hinson Road at Dorado Beach Drive DEVELOPER: EV -Mark Development 2 Dorado Beach Drive P.O. Box 541850 Little Rock, AR 72223 ENGINEER: Crafton, Tull and Associates 10825 Financial Center Parkway, Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72211 FILE NO_: Z -4562-F AREA: 38.62 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 83 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF CURRENT ZONING: PD -R ALLOWED USES: Single-family Residential PROPOSED ZONING: Revised PD -R PROPOSED USE: Single-family Residential — Time extension for construction of Dorado Beach Drive VARIANCESIWAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: The property is the remaining 40+ acres of a 120 -acre parcel or the eastern 1/3 of the property owned by the First Baptist Church. The site was originally proposed as a multipurpose facility with residential, school and church facility. The western 80 acres have since developed as a single-family neighborhood. This property was zoned MF -6, Multi -family District (six (6) units per gross acre allowed) in mid -1981. A "Declaration of Covenants" was filed and recorded in 1981, which runs with the property. The private covenants regulate the property's use and portion of the property's development. April 12, 2007 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 Cont. FILE NO.: Z -4562-E The private covenants state that the property will be developed for condominium units developed pursuant to the Horizontal Property Act being Act 60 of 1961 (units for sale only, no rental units). The covenants designate certain areas of the property as OS (Open Space) and require a six (6) foot high privacy fence be constructed at one location prior to any construction. The covenants also state that structures built in one area of the property not exceed one and one-half stories in height; both located on the northern boundary of the site. A preliminary plat and a multiple building site plan review were filed on the site in May 1997, to allow the construction of 234 apartment units in 10 three-story buildings. Prior to the Public Hearing; the applicant requested the application be withdrawn from consideration. A proposal was filed in March 2000, to develop a portion of the site (18.47 acres) with 22 buildings of owner occupied condominium housing. The application was later withdrawn from consideration without prejudice prior to the Public Hearing. Ordinance No. 18,884 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on June 3, 2003, rezoned this 39 -acre site from MF -6 to a Planned Residential Development with 83 units. The applicant proposed to develop the site in three (3) phases with zero -lot line townhouses, each of which would have its own lot of record. A common wall would be shared by each structure, which would be dissected by the common property line. This would allow some measure of property on each end of the structure for maintenance of the building. The structures would have enclosed garages facing a private street with a private courtyard on the rear of each townhouse unit. The applicant proposed the construction of a bridge across the creek that separates this property from Hinson Road. The bridge would be constructed in the first phase. The applicant proposed a public roadway to connect with Hinson Road and Dorado Beach Drive. The road would be constructed when one of the abutting lots was final platted. There were two other streets proposed as a part of the development, which the applicant intended to maintain as private streets. There were three areas designated by covenants in the deed that were not to be encroached upon by building construction. The applicant indicated the areas of non -encroachment on the proposed development plan and indicated the covenants to be in force. Ordinance No. 18,883, also adopted June 3, 2003, allowed the requested variances for lots without public street frontage, an increased lot depth to width ratio and a variance to allow double frontage lots. The lots were sized to accommodate the building plans as required in the Subdivision Ordinance for zero -lot line developments. 2 April 12, 2007 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4562-E Ordinance No. 18,983 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on November 18, 2003, revised the previously approved PD -R. The Commission reviewed this request at their October 16, 2003, public hearing. The applicant proposed to amend the PD -R to allow the creation of 65 detached single-family lots on this 38.62 acre site. The developer indicated the retention of the green spaces as was previously proposed in the areas to the north and south of the site. The applicant indicated Dorado Beach Drive would be extended as was previously approved (as one of the lots abutting the roadway was final platted). This item was to be heard by the Little Rock Board of Directors at their November 18, 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 were many conversations between the 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 should consider 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 at their October 16, 2003, public hearing. 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. In summary the presentation is as follows: 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."] 3 April 12, 2007 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4562-E 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 utomobilesper 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 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. This data was provided in October of 2003. 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 stated he was willing to make the connection and move forward with the project. Staff felt the connection was 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 received numerous phone calls from the Pebble Beach area concerning Dorado Beach Drive. All of the callers indicated the need for another connection to Hinson Road. Traffic on Pebble Beach Drive was heavy and dangerous according to the callers. On August 26, 2004, the Planning Commission considered a request to amend the Master Street Plan for Dorado Beach Drive and a revision to the previously approved PD -R. The applicant requested a revision to a previously approved PD -R to remove the connection between Dorado Beach Drive and Hinson Road which in their opinion would allow for a more efficient subdivision layout. It was the position of the applicant that this connection was unnecessary and will not provide any traffic relief for Pebble Beach 9 April 12, 2007 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 FILE NO.: Z -4562-E Drive. It was also the position of the applicant that the amount of traffic on Pebble Beach was such that the level of service was still well within acceptable limits. The Master Street Plan amendment request was denied by the Commission at their August 26, 2004, public hearing. The denial was not appealed to the Board of Directors. The revised plat allowed for the extension of the Phase II cul-de-sacs and a lot count of 86. The site plan indicated the construction of a cul-de-sac at the end of Dorado Beach to allow for emergency back entrance to the subdivision should the bridge on Hinson Road be impassable. A turnaround would be constructed on the west side of the bridge and a single gated access would be constructed for the subdivision. The streets would remain private but constructed to City standard. All deed -restricted areas would remain in tact. This item was later withdrawn by the applicant. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is now proposing an amendment to the previously approved PD -R to allow a time extension for the construction of Dorado Beach Drive. The existing PD -R states the road will be completed by June 1, 2007. The owners and developers of Hickory Grove Subdivision are requesting an extension of one year from the specified date to June 1, 2008, for completion of the road. An engineering firm has been retained to prepare construction documents for bidding the work. The proposed time frame for design, bidding and construction is anticipated to be completed within the one year time period. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The infrastructure is in place and a final plat has been signed for the Phase I and a portion of Phase II of the subdivision. New homes are being constructed in the subdivision with the Phase I portion being near completion and a few new homes are under construction in the Phase II portion. 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: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area residents. All property owners located within 200 -feet of the site, all residents located within 300 -feet of the site, who could be identified, along with the Westchester Property Owners Association were notified of the public hearing. 5 April 12, 2007 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: FILE NO.: Z -4562-E 1. Provide the design of the street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvements to the street including a 5 -foot sidewalk with the planned development. 2. No new lots can be platted in this subdivision until construction of Dorado Beach Drive is completed. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements for Phase 3. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information. Entergy: No comment received. Center -Point Energy: Approved as submitted. AT & T: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. A water main extension and additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of the facilities. Waterline or utility easements will be required for water facilities located outside of public rights-of- way. Fire hydrants will be private. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Fire Department: Place and install fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route. N W H April 12, 2007 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 Cont. FILE NO.: Z -4562-E F. ISSUESITECHNICALIDES IGN: Plan iing Division: This request is located in the Chenal Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Low Density Residential for this property. The applicant has applied for a revised PDR to allow a time extension. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Dorado Beach is shown as a Collector on the Master Street Plan. The primary function of a Collector Street is to provide a connection from Local Streets to Arterials. Bic cle Plan: A Class I bike route is shown on Hinson Road. A Class I bikeway is built separate from or alongside a road. Additional paving and right of way may be required. City Recognized Nei hborhood Action Plan: The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan. The Residential Development goal states: "Develop Neo -traditional neighborhoods (pedestrian and bicycle friendly neighborhoods, which are less dependent on automobiles), in areas that have not yet developed." Landscape: Compliance with the City's landscape and buffer ordinance is required. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (March 22, 2007) The applicant was not present. Staff presented an overview of the request stating there were no technical issues associated with the request remaining outstanding. Staff stated the original approval required Dorado Beach Drive to be completed by June 2007. Staff stated the request was to allow a one year time extension for the construction of Dorado Beach Drive or until June 2008. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. ANALYSIS: There were no technical issues associated with the request raised at the March 22, 2007, Subdivision Committee meeting which needed addressing. The applicant is requesting a one-year time extension for the completion of Dorado Beach Drive, from June 2007 to June 2008. The applicant has provided a development schedule indicating the Design/Development — Dorado Beach Drive and Hickory Grove Phase III began in January 2007, and will be completed mid-March 2007. The remaining aspects include review by the Arkansas 7 April 12, 2007 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont. FILE NO.: Z -4562-E Department of Health, Little Rock Public Works, Central Arkansas Water and Little Rock Wastewater Utility, Contract — Bidding and Negotiations, Construction — Dorado Beach Drive, Construction — Hickory Grove, Phase III; Senoma Hills, Utilities, etc., Platting — Remaining Lots in Hickory Grove Phase II, Platting — Hickory Grove Phase III. The timetable indicates the review process will be completed in May 2007. The bidding and negotiations will be completed in June 2007 and construction of Dorado Beach Drive will be completed in November 2007. The remaining time is for completion of Phases II and III of the Hickory Grove Subdivision. Staff is supportive of allowing additional time for completion of the street. The applicants have not begun the governmental review process for the street design which will take time in itself. The applicant has indicated the street construction completed by November/December 2007, with the remaining time allocated for completion of Phases II and III of the subdivision extending the completion date to June 2008. Staff feels the timetable proposed by the applicant is reasonable based on the indicated time frames for each of the indicated activities. Staff feels an additional six months from June 2007, allows adequate time for completion of the street and connecting Dorado Beach Drive to Hinson Road as was previously approved. Staff recommends at the time of completion of Dorado Beach Drive and acceptance by the City the applicant final plat the right of way for the roadway. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above agenda staff report. Staff recommends a six month extension for the completion of Dorado Beach Drive beginning six months from the original approval date or be completed by December 2007. Staff recommends the applicant final plat the Dorado Beach Drive right of way as a public street at the time of completion and acceptance by the City of Little Rock. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 12, 2007) The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of a six month extension of the proposed request. Staff stated the application request included the allowance of a one year time extension but based on the applicant's provided time schedule they felt the road April 12, 2007 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont. FILE NO.: Z -4562-E construction would be completed within six months of the originally approved completion date. Staff presented a recommendation of a six month time extension. Mr. Frank Riggins addressed the Commission as the owner's representative. He stated the owners were requesting a one year time extension for the completion of Dorado Beach Drive. He stated the owners were committed to completing the road but were unaware the approval required the completion of the road by June 2007. He stated his owner felt the approval required the road construction to begin by June 2007. He stated staff contacted his clients in January and provided clarification of the completion date. He stated only after being contacted by staff did his owners realize the road was to be completed by June 2007. He stated he felt the additional time would allow the owners to complete the design, review process, bidding and construction. He stated if construction was not initiated in the near future the fall weather would not allow the completion of the road. He stated with the additional time this would keep the owners from coming back to the Commission in December begging for relief. Mr. Danny Broaddrick addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated the developers had been given four years to complete the road and were now asking for additional time. He stated the residents of the abutting subdivision had sat quietly for four years assuming the developers would meet their commitment. He stated presently Valley Park Drive carried a great deal of traffic that should be able to use the new road and exit to Hinson Road. He stated presently all the traffic from Pebble Beach Estates and Pebble Beach Woods only had two choices to exit their subdivisions. He stated the residents on Pebble Beach Road had also been promised the road would be completed to relieve traffic on this roadway as well. He stated the developers had constructed all the roads within their new subdivision but did not complete Dorado Beach Drive when they were constructing the subdivision infrastructure. Mr. Broaddrick stated the developers had promised in 2003 to construct the road but in 2004 were before the Commission requesting to remove the road from the Master Street Plan and to construct the development a gated community. Mr. Broaddrick stated he did not remember the vote but felt the Commission unanimously rejected the request. He stated he felt the road should be constructed as promised by the developers. He stated six months was acceptable unless the developers came back at the end of six months and requested an additional six months. He stated the residents were requesting the road be constructed as was agreed by the developers. The Commission questioned why the road was not constructed and if the developers had been granted a previous extension. Staff stated the developers misunderstood the previous agreement and felt the road should be started within the time frame and not completed. Staff stated the developers had not been granted any previous extensions. Mr. Evans stated his firm was constructing the homes which ranged from % to over 1 million dollars. He stated his firm had gone to far to not complete Dorado Beach Drive as was previously agreed. He stated the bridge crossing was expensive and the N April 12, 2007 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont. FILE NO.: Z -4562-E development was looking for financing for the completion of the street. He stated with the addition of one year the development could secure all financing, approvals and complete the road as required by the original approval. There was a general discussion by the Commission concerning the need for additional time and the amount of time it took to complete a road. Commissioner Rahman indicated the completion of the construction season was drawing near if the design was not complete it would be difficult to complete the road by the end of the current construction season. Staff stated during November and December it was difficult for developers to install streets and drainage. The Commission questioned if the developers were given six months to complete the road and it was not completed within the time frame what would be the course of action. Staff stated they would be in violation of their zoning and a revocation could be pursued. Staff stated building permits could also be held for future construction of homes. The Commission discussed their typical procedure for allowance of additional time. The Commission indicated typically a one year time extension was granted to developers on preliminary plat expirations. The Commission acknowledged the road could not be completed by June 2007, and questioned a realistic time frame for completion. Commissioner Yates stated the developers were willing to step up and build the road. He stated Pebble Beach Estates and Pebble Beach Woods had been completed a number of years and no one was willing to develop this property because of the challenge of construction, the bridge, and making the connection from the current terminus to Hinson Road. Commissioner Yates stated right now today these were the only guys willing to construct the road. He stated it was important for the Commission to ensure what they were asking for could be completed in the time frame allowed. Commissioner Adcock questioned the time frame for completion of Y mile of road. Commissioner Rahman stated it would be difficult to complete the road within this construction season. Commissioner Adcock questioned various City street projects and the time for completion. Commissioner Rahman stated completion of pubic projects was vastly different than private projects. The Commissioners questioned staff if the item had been previously placed on the Consent Agenda. Staff stated the item was on the Consent Agenda for approval. The Commission questioned the amount of time the developers would have been given if the item had remained on the Consent Agenda. Staff stated six months. A motion was made to approve the applicant's request which was to allow a one year time extension for the completion of Dorado Beach Drive. The motion stated the road would be completed by June of 2008. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 3 noes and 0 absent. 10 April 12, 2007 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 9 Cont. FILE NO.: Z -4562-E Commissioner Adcock requested a progress report by the owners at the December Planning Commission public hearing. 11 !TEM NO.: 9. Z -4562-E NAME: Hickory Grove Revised PD -R LOCATION: located on Hinson Road at Dorado Beach Drive Planning Staff Comments: 1. Provide notification of property owners located within 200 -feet of the site, complete with the certified abstract list, notice form with affidavit executed and proof of mailing. The notice must be mailed no later than March 28, 2007. The Office of Planning and Development must receive the proof of notice no later than April 5, 2007. 2. Previous agreements indicated the street should be constructed by June 2007. The application indicates a one year time extension for the construction of the street. Provide a detailed justification for the one year extension request. The cover letter indicates an attached construction schedule but one was not provided. Variance/Waivers: None requested. Public Works Conditions: 1. Provide the design of the street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvements to the street including a 5 -foot sidewalk with the planned development. 2. No new lots can be platted in this subdivision until construction of Dorado Beach Drive is completed. Utilities and Fire Department/County Planning: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements for Phase 3. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information. Entergy: No comment received. Center -Point Energy: Approved as submitted. AT & T: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. A water main extension and additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department to obtain information regarding the required placement Item # 9 of the hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of the facilities. Waterline or utility easements will be required for water facilities located outside of public rights-of-way. Fire hydrants will be private. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Fire Department; Place and install fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a CATA Bus Route. Planning Division: This request is located in the Chenal Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Low Density Residential for this property. The applicant has applied for a revised PDR to allow a time extension. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Dorado Beach is shown as a Collector on the Master Street Plan. The primary function of a Collector Street is to provide a connection from Local Streets to Arterials. Bicycle Plan. A Class I bike route is shown on Hinson Road. A Class I bikeway is built separate from or alongside a road. Additional paving and right of way may be required. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Pian: The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan. The Residential Development goal states: "Develop Neo -traditional neighborhoods (pedestrian and bicycle friendly neighborhoods, which are less dependent on automobiles), in areas that have not yet developed." Landscape: Revised plat/plan:. Submit four (4) copies of a revised preliminary plat (to include the additional information as noted above) to staff on Wednesday, March 28, 2007. Item # 9