Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4562-F Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: Z -4562-F NAME: The Gardens at Hickory Grove Long -form PD -R LOCATION: Located on Dorado Beach Drive, just west of Hinson Road DEVELOPER: Jim Markus 23 Lascala Court Little Rock, AR 72223 ENGINEER: Crafton Tull and Sparks 10825 Financial Center Parkway, Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72211 AREA: 18.56 acres CURRENT ZONING ALLOWED USES PROPOSED ZONING: PROPOSED USE: NUMBER OF LOTS: 39 -m FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF Single-family residential (12 single-family lots) Revised PD -R Single-family residential (39 single-family lots) VARIANCESIWAIVERS REQUESTED: 1. A variance from Section 31-207 to allow the development of private streets within the residential development. 2. A variance request from the Land Alteration Ordinance grade proposed Lots 55 and 56 and place material in this area for the construction of Road 3. BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 18,983 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on November 18, 2003, approved a PD -R request for a site containing 38.62 acres. The approval allowed for the creation of 63 single-family lots to be developed as gated communities for each of the phases. The lots within the Phase III portion were proposed with a gated access drive constructed adjacent to Dorado Beach Drive. The approval included the retention FILE NO.: Z -4562-F (Cont_ of open spaces along the northern and southern perimeters of the site. The development was proposed in three (3) phases. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: The request is a revision to the previously approved PD -R for the Phase III portion of the subdivision. The applicant is proposing to reconfigure Lots 51 — 62 into 39 smaller lots ranging in size from approximately 4,800 square feet to 11,200 square feet. The lots will be served by six (6) twenty (20) foot wide private drives with curb and gutter and hammerhead turnarounds at the end of each driveway. Each of the six (6) driveways will take access from Dorado Beach Drive. Lots along Dorado Beach Drive will have a twenty (20) foot side yard setback whereas all other setbacks will be five (5) feet. There will be a ten (10) foot wide planted buffer between proposed Lots 51, 89 and 90 and 47, 48, 49 and 50R of Phase I. All open space previously identified and currently shown of the plat will be preserved. A monument type sign will be erected on Dorado Beach Drive to provide phase identification to the new development. The homes are proposed as masonry in construction with roofs of a minimum pitch of 8:12 with architectural shingles. Privacy fences will be allowed as typically allowed in the R-2, Single-family Zoning District. Swimming pools will be allowed and must conform to City regulations concerning rear yard coverage. One (1) story structures will be a minimum of 1,800 square and two (2) story structures will be a minimum of 2,000 square feet. The developer will release the City of liability to allow garbage collection on the private streets. Each of the phases of the Hickory Grove Subdivision (Phases I — III) were final platted and served by a Bill of Assurance for the individual Phase. The amended Bill of Assurance for Hickory Grove Phase III -A was filed with the Circuit Clerk's office on August 8, 2008. The Phase contained the acreage proposed for replatting with the application request. The applicant/developer owns all the property within Phase III -A portion of the Subdivision with the exception of one (1) lot. The Bill of Assurance allows for modifications to the lots shown in the plat area with the approval of seventy percent (70%) of the owners within the subdivision. The Bill of Assurance states anything to the contrary herein notwithstanding, until forty-five (45) of the lots shown on the plat are sold, conveyed, Declarant shall have the right from time to time, without the approval of the owners, or the Board, or the Association to amend the provisions hereof, for the purpose of facilitating the marketing of the Lots, in complying with the requirements pertaining to the property made by financial institutions, title insurance companies and governmental authorities and for any other reasonable purpose; provided that no such amendment will reduce the size of a particular Lot or the improvable area of the Lot without the consent of the Owner so affected. �i FILE NO.: Z -4562-F (Cont.) B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The property is located on the west side of Dorado Beach Drive which was recently constructed to Master Street Plan standard as a collector street. The property slopes upward from Dorado Beach Drive to the west. To the south and west of the site are single-family homes located along Windsor Road and off Shadowcreek Drive within the Burntree and Pebble Beach Woods Subdivisions. Across Dorado Beach Drive are single-family homes constructed as gated communities accessed from LaScala Court and Bella View Drive which is the first and second phases of the Hickory Grove Subdivision. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received a number of informational phone calls from area residents. All property owners located within 200 feet of the site, all residents, who could be identified, located within 300 feet of the site and the Coalition of West Little Rock Neighborhoods were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Street names and street naming conventions must be approved by Public Works. Contact David Hathcock at (501) 371-4808. 2. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed location for stormwater detention facilities on the plan. Additional detention will be required to be installed. 3. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Other than residential subdivisions, site grading and drainage plans must be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. 4. Provide a Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan as required per Section 29-186 (e). 5. Provide the proposed centerline street grades of driveways or access easements. 6. For City garbage collection, the proposed hammerheads must be at least 80 feet in length and at least 20 feet wide. 7. No residential waste collection service will be provided on private streets unless the property owners association provides a waiver of damage claims for operations on private property. 8. Per the Master Street Plan, parking is restricted to one side of the street on a 24 foot wide street. Show on the plan now and on the final plat and bill of assurance, the area along the street where parking is allowed. 3 FILE NO.: Z -4562-F Cont. 9. Streetlights are required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Provide plans for approval to Traffic Engineering. Streetlights must be installed prior to platting/certificate of occupancy. Contact Traffic Engineering 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information. 10. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES stormwater permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction. 11. Provide a letter prepared by a registered engineer certifying the sight distance at the intersections comply with 2004 AASHTO Green Book standards. 12. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner). 13. All driveways, easements, shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance, 14. The driveways should be platted as access easements. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension is required with easements for this project. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for additional information. Entergy: No comment received. Center -Point Energy: No comment received. AT & T: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: No objection. All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding the size and location of the water meter. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This fee will apply to all connections including metered connections off the private fire system. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information. Countv Plannina: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. Parks and Recreation: No comment - 1H FILE NO.: Z -4562-F Cont. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DES Planning Division: This request is located in the Chenal Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Residential Medium Density for this property. The applicant has applied for a revised Planned Residential Development to allow reconfiguration of lots. This is a change to a previously approved PRD, the proposed density remains consistent with the Land Use Plan. This area is covered by the River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan. Their Residential Development Goal states: "Enforce the construction of sidewalks with all types of development." Master Street Plan: Dorado Beach Drive is a Collector. The primary function of a Collector Street is to provide a connection from Local Streets to Arterials. This street may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exists to the site. Bicycle Plan: A Class I is shown along Hinson Road. A Class I bikeway is built separate from or alongside a road. Additional paving and right of way may be required. Landscape: No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (March 18, 2010) Mr. Frank Riggins was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the development stating the area proposed for change was previously final platted with twelve (12) single-family lots. Staff stated the current request was to allow thirty-eight (38) single-family lots served by six (6) private drives extending from Dorado Beach Drive. Staff stated the drives would serve as few as four (4) lots and as many as eight (8) lots. Staff noted all building setbacks had been indicated on the plan. Staff stated the Bill of Assurance proposed for the new subdivision allowed garage structures to be connected. Staff stated the plan as indicated would not allow the connection. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the street names and naming conventions were to be approved by the Public Works Department. Staff stated the City's Stormwater Detention ordinance would apply to the development of the site. Staff stated parking would be restricted to one side of the street and requested Mr. Riggins indicate the side which would not be allowed parking. Staff stated streetlights would be required prior to the issuance of the final plat for the new lots. Staff noted since the development was proposed as single-family there were no additional landscaping comments. Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. 5 FILE NO.: Z -4562-F (Cont. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: Mr. Riggins submitted a revised cover letter and site plan to staff addressing a number of the issues raised at the March 18, 2010, Subdivision Committee meeting. The revised bill of assurance indicates all structures will be detached and no structure will share a common wall. The revised plan also indicates parking restrictions as requested by Public Works staff. The request is to reconfigure Lots 51 — 62 into 39 smaller lots ranging in size from approximately 4,800 square feet to 11,200 square feet. The lots will be served by six (6) twenty (20) foot wide private drives with curb and gutter with hammerhead turnarounds at the end of each driveway. Each of the six (6) driveways will take access from Dorado Beach Drive. The developer will release the City of liability to allow garbage collection on the private streets. The request includes a variance from Section 31-207 to allow the development of private streets within the residential development. The ordinance states private streets for residential development shall be discourages. However, private streets may be approved by the Planning Commission to serve isolated developments. The design standards shall conform to public street standards as specified in subdivision ordinance. Private streets are permissible only in the form of cuts -de -sac and short loop streets and only when it is determined that these streets can be adequately served by all public service vehicles. Such streets will not be permitted where there is a possibility of through traffic or eventual connection to another public street. It shall be incumbent upon the applicant to demonstrate that the private streets will not unreasonably limit access to adjacent parcels, hinder logical traffic pattern, or otherwise be contrary to the public interest. The subdivider shall provide for permanent maintenance of all private streets in the bill of assurance. This maintenance shall include water lines, fire hydrants, or other utility facilities. The street is indicated with 26 feet of pavement as typically required for a residential street. The applicant has provided a secondary access to the site to allow for emergency access should the main entrance drive become blocked. The development is proposed as a single-family detached development with approximately 28 percent of the site in open space. The lots will be allowed swimming pools but no accessory buildings will be allowed. A maximum of 13 percent of the total lot area will be allowed coverage by accessory structures. Interior fencing will be allowed. The fencing is proposed as typically allowed in the R-2, Single-family zoning district. The homes will be frame construction with masonry finish to include brick, stone, or stucco. The major roof area will have an 8:12 pitch and architectural shingles. The minimum square footage of the homes proposed is 1,800 square feet for a .,9 FILE NO.: Z -4562-F Cont. single story home and 2,200 square feet for a two story homes. The anticipated sales price is $250,000. The maximum building height proposed is 35 -feet. Lots along Dorado Beach Drive will have a twenty (20) foot side yard setback whereas all other setbacks will be five (5) feet. There will be a ten (10) foot wide planted buffer between proposed Lots 51, 89 and 90 and 47, 48, 49 and 50R of Phase I. All open space previously identified and currently shown of the plat will be preserved. A monument type sign will be erected on Dorado Beach Drive to provide phase identification to the new development. Development signs in single-family zones are allowed with a maximum height of six (6) feet and a maximum sign area of thirty-two (32) square feet. The request also includes a variance from the Land Alteration Ordinance to allow grading of proposed Lots 55 and 56 and place material within the lot area during the construction of Road 3. According to the applicant the grading is necessary to allow for installation of the required infrastructure in this area. The request is a revision to the previously approved PD -R for a portion of the Hickory Grove Phase III Subdivision. The lots proposed range in size from .096 acres to 0.25 acres. Within the general area there are a variety of lot sizes. The homes within the Carmel Valley Subdivision located to the southeast have been constructed on lots similar in size to the lots proposed within this development. South of this site, within the Windsor Hills Addition there are single-family attached and detached homes. The detached homes have also been constructed on lots similar in size to the lots proposed by the developer. The lots sizes in Pebble Beach and Pebble Beach Woods to the north and west appear to range in size from 0.18 acres to 0.25 acres. Staff is supportive of the request. Staff does not feel the lots as proposed are out of character with existing development in the area. As stated within the general area there are attached homes and detached homes with lot sizes consistent with the lot development standards proposed by the applicant. To staff's knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 8, 2010) Mr. Jim Hathaway of Coldwell Banker Commercial Hathaway Group and Mr. Frank Riggins of Crafton, Tull, Sparks and Associates were present representing the owners. 7 FILE NO.: Z -4562-F (Cont.) There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the variance request to allow advanced grading of Lots 55 and 56 with the development of Road 3. Staff also presented a recommendation of approval to allow the development of the lots utilizing private streets. Mr. Frank Riggins addressed the Commission with merits to the request. He stated the minimum lot size proposed was now 6,100 square feet. He stated the change was made after Subdivision Committee to address staff's concerns. He stated the development was proposed with smaller lot to offer a variety of housing options within the development. He stated the developer would maintain all previously identified open space. He stated the development would be served with six (6) private streets accessing Dorado Beach Drive. Ms. Arleta Power addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated she was President of the Bella View Property Owners Association. She stated the neighborhood had a number of concerns related to the development. She stated the residents of Phase I bought into the neighborhood based on a plan presented to them. She stated the residents were told there would be 12 homes located within the area proposed for 39 single-family lots. She stated the area was to develop with walking trails and a large amount of open space. She stated the residents of Phase I questioned how the developer could alter the Bill of Assurance for a subdivision. She provided the Commission with a packet of information and photos of issues within the Phase I portion of the development. She stated the developer had not corrected erosion problems which had lead to a number of drainage issues within the Phase I portion of the development. She stated the residents were concerned with property values. Ms. Power stated the residents of Phase 1 paid an annual assessment of $3,835.00 per year for maintenance. She stated the average price for homes within the Pebble Beach Woods Subdivision was near $295,300.00. She provided the Commission with signatures of residents of Windsor Court. She stated all the residents of Bella View Drive had also signed a petition in opposition of the request. Ms. Power stated the new homes would generate a minimum of 78 additional vehicles per day on Dorado Beach Drive. She stated the speed on Dorado Beach was excessive. She questioned how the fire garbage trucks would access the new homes. Ms. Power requested the Commission defer the request or deny the request. Chairman Yates stated the Commission did not have authority over the Bill of Assurance. He requested the remaining speakers narrow their comments to the development as proposed. Mr. Hari Eswaran addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated his home was located on Dorado Beach Drive and his primary concern was traffic. He stated Dorado Beach Drive was a short-cut from Hinson Road to Rahling Road. He FILE NO.: Z -4562-F (Cont.l stated the road was heavily traveled and the speed of the motorist was excessive. He stated he felt if homes were constructed on the street this would act to slow traffic in the area. He stated the police department had reviewed the speeds on the street and 85 percentile were traveling at 35 mph or greater. He stated the posted speed limit was 25 mph. Ms. Sharon Franke addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated the property proposed for development was located behind her home. She stated the original plan by the developer was to construct bigger homes on larger lots which would compliment property values in the area.- She stated the current proposal would penalize the existing homeowners by reducing property values. Ms. Wanda Hartnuss addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated the development of 39 homes on the site previously proposed for 12 units would cause traffic congestion, lower property values and change the community dynamics of the area. She stated the development as proposed would have an adverse impact on the existing homes in the area. Mr. David Johnson addressed the Commission in opposition. He stated his home was located in Pebble Beach Woods. He stated his concerns were safety and traffic. He stated Dorado Beach Drive was well traveled and motorist were traveling at excessive speeds. He stated in the morning there were a number of cars lining up at Hinson Road to exit the area. Mr. Manish Joshi addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated the cars in the area zipped by his homes like the exit ramp to 1-630. He stated the posted speed was 25 mph but cars were traveling 35 to 40 mph through the neighborhood. He stated his primary concern was the safety of the neighborhood. Mr. Richard Bryan Davis Jr. addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated when he bought his home he asked the agent what would be located in the area proposed for redevelopment. He stated the agent did not indicate a development with the intensity as proposed. Ms. Ruth Bell with the Pulaski County League of Women Voters addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated traffic on Dorado Beach Drive and Hinson Road was a concern. She questioned if the traffic engineers had considered a development this intense when recommending street design standards for this area. Mr. Jim Hathaway addressed the Commission on the merits of the request. He stated the original zoning of the subdivision was MF -6 which would have allowed the 38.62 acres to develop with 231 units. He stated with the R-2, Single-family zoning district and a maximum density of six (6) units per acre this would also allow the site to develop with 231 units. He stated the original approval allowed for 1.6 units per acre and the amended request increased the density to 2.33 units per acre. He stated normal west Little Rock development densities were 2.75 units per acre. He stated the 9 FILE NO_: Z -4562-F (Cont. density proposed for the Phase III portion of the development was within ranges of west Little Rock Development. He stated the Phase III portion proposed for redevelopment contained 11.6 acres. He stated within this area over five (5) acres was being left as open space. He stated the development as proposed within this area would result in a density of 3.36 units per acre which was allowable within the Single-family Land Use classification. Mr. Hathaway addressed traffic and safety. He stated the City forced the developer to connect Dorado Beach Drive to the west. He stated the original concept allowed for three (3) phases with the entire development gated. He stated the developer was not in control of traffic speed. He stated Dorado Beach Drive was constructed as a collector street and could handle the additional traffic with no problem. Mr. Hathaway stated there was no evidence the development would lower property values in the area. He provided the Commission with home sales in the area from January 2009 to February 2010. He stated he was sure there were homes in the area more expensive but there were 20 homes sold with an average sales price of $249,000.00. He stated the largest property owner in the area was the developer. He stated the developer owned 26 unsold lots and his residence was located in the area so the developer was not going to construct a project that would diminish property values. Mr. Hathaway stated the development was not requesting to clear cut the site. He stated the developer would provide public works staff grading and drainage plans and would adhere to AEDQ requirements during the development of the subdivision and the new homes. He stated the developer was motivated to comply since he was a major property owner in the area. Mr. Hathaway stated the developer would construct all the homes within the new development area. He stated the homes would not be spec homes but all would be pre -sold. He stated the new homes would be constructed to meet LEED certification. He stated the development was classic in -fill development. He stated once the development was complete it would add $10 million to the tax roles. He stated there was a need for quality detached single-family homes in west Little Rock with smaller square footages. He stated the Commission had heard from the area residents but who they had not heard from was the 39 families that would live in the subdivision upon completion. He stated the development would enhance the quality of live for people who lived in the area. He encouraged the Commission to support the request. There was a general discussion of the Commission concerning densities of the area and abutting subdivisions. Mr. Hathaway stated the density was normal for west Little Rock single-family development. He stated the original Bill of Assurance allowed for the areas to be altered. He stated Mr. Markus owed the majority of the property within the Phase proposed for modification. Commissioner Rector stated the Bill of Assurance was a private contract and was not a land use issue. He stated the City did not force the developer to construct Dorado 10 FILE NO.: Z -4562-F (Cont. Beach Drive. He stated the City required the developer to construct a street that was on the Master Street Plan and had been on the plan for a number of years. The Commission question staff has to the issue raised concerning traffic. Staff stated Dorado Beach Drive was a collector street on the Master Street Plan. Staff stated when the development was proposed with larger lots an average of ten (10) trips per day was used to determine traffic volumes. Staff stated based on the smaller lots an estimated eight (8) trips per day was used to generate estimated traffic counts. Staff stated the larger lot development would generate 120 cars per day and the smaller lot development 320 cars per day. Staff stated the capacity of a collector street was 5,000 cars per day. Staff stated a traffic count was conducted in April 2010 at the intersection of Dorado Beach Drive, Bella View Drive and LaScalla Court. Staff stated there were 1,700 to 1,800 cars per day at this intersection. Staff stated at the intersection of Dorado Beach Drive and Montvale Drive there were 660 cars per day. The Commission questioned if the City would be responsible for repair of the private streets. Staff stated the property owners association would be required to sign a waiver of damage claims for operations on private property. Staff stated the City would not repair any street within the proposed subdivision that was private. The Commission questioned signage for the development. Mr. Riggins stated the development would have a subdivision identification sign located on Dorado Beach Drive near Bella View Drive and near the western edge of the subdivision. He stated the signage would comply with signage allowed in single-family zones. He stated low level ground lighting would be used for illumination. The Chair entertained a motion for approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 6 ayes, 3 noes and 2 absent. 11 ITEM NO.: 8. NAME: The Gardens at Hickory Grove Long -form PD -R LOCATION: located on Dorado Beach Drive, just west of Hinson Road Planning Staff Comments: Z -4562-F 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 24, 2010. The Office of Planning and Development must receive the proof of notice no later than April 2, 2010. 2. The PD -R ordinance typically requires open space to be well designed for innovative design and visual attractiveness. Open space shall be a minimum of ten to fifteen percent of gross planned residential district areas and shall be common usable open space. Townhouse developments shall have a minimum of five hundred square feet of usable private open space per unit. Recreational facilities or structures and their accessory uses located in common areas shall be considered as usable open space as long as the total impervious surfaces such as paving and roofs constitute no more than ten percent of the total open space. 3. Dorado Beach Drive is classified on the Master Street Plan as collector streets. The ordinance typically requires a 30 -foot building setback along collector streets. The interior streets are residential streets which typically require the placement of a 25 - foot building setback. Rear yard building setbacks are typically 25 -feet and side yard setbacks are typically 10 percent of the lot width not to exceed 8 feet. 4. Will interior fences be allowed? If so provide a note on the site plan indicating the construction materials allowed, the locations interior fences will be allowed and the maximum heights of interior fences. 5. Provide a note on the site plan indicating the allowance of accessory structures that will be allowed. Specify the percentage of rear yard area the accessory structure may occupy. 6. Provide details of the proposed construction materials/roof pitch and material of the homes. 7. Indicate the maximum building height proposed for the structures. 8. Staff has received a number of calls from area residents requesting typical elevations for the proposed structures. 9. The buildable area extends within the easement located on the rear of Lots 60, 61, 66-69. 10. The Bill of Assurance allows for garages on adjoining lots to be attached. With the setbacks as presently indicated this is not allowed. 11. Provide details of the grading plan for the new lots. Will a variance be requested from the City's Land Alteration Ordinance to allow for advanced grading of the lots with the installation of the new private streets? Variance/Waivers: A variance from Section 31-207 to allow the development of private streets within the residential development. Item # 8. Public Works Conditions: 1. Street names and street naming conventions must be approved by Public Works. Contact David Hathcock at (501) 371-4808. 2. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed location for stormwater detention facilities on the plan. Additional detention will be required to be installed. 3. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Other than residential subdivisions, site grading and drainage plans must be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. Is a variance for advanced grading proposed to be requested? 4. Provide a Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan as required per Section 29-186 (e). 5. Provide the proposed centerline street grades of driveways or access easements. 6. For city garbage collection, the proposed hammerheads must be at least 80 feet in length and at least 20 feet wide. 7. No residential waste collection service will be provided on private streets unless the property owners association provides a waiver of damage claims for operations on private property. 8. Per the Master Street Plan, parking is restricted to one side of the street on a 24 foot wide street. Show on the plan now and on the final plat and bill of assurance, the area along the street where parking is allowed. 9. Streetlights are required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Provide plans for approval to Traffic Engineering. Streetlights must be installed prior to platting/certificate of occupancy. Contact Traffic Engineering 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information. 10. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES stormwater permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction. 11. Provide a letter prepared by a registered engineer certifying the sight distance at the intersections comply with 2004 AASHTO Green Book standards. 12. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner). 13. All driveways, easements, shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance. 14. The driveways should be platted as access easements. Utilities and Fire Department/County Planning: Wastewater: Sewer main extension is required with easements for this project. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for additional information. Entergy: No comment received. Center -Point Energy: No comment received. AT & T: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: No objection. All Central Arkansas Water requirements in Item # 8. effect at the time of request for water service must be met. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding the size and location of the water meter. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This fee will apply to all connections including metered connections off the private fire system. Fire Department: Place 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 dedicated CATA Bus Route. Parks and Recreation: No comment. Planning Division: This request is located in the Chenal Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Residential Medium Density for this property. The applicant has applied for a revised Planned Residential Development to allow reconfiguration of lots. This is a change to a previously approved PRD, the proposed density remains consistent with the Land Use Plan. This area is covered by the River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan. Their Residential Development Goal states: "Enforce the construction of sidewalks with all types of development." Master Street Plan: Dorado Beach Drive is a Collector. The primary function of a Collector Street is to provide a connection from Local Streets to Arterials. This street may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exists to the site. Bicycle Plan: A Class I is shown along Hinson Road. A Class I bikeway is built separate from or alongside a road. Additional paving and right of way may be required. Landscape: No comment. Revised plat/plan: Submit four (4) copies of a revised preliminary plat/plan (to include the additional information as noted above) to staff on Wednesday, March 24, 2010. Item # 8. April 8, 2010 ITEM NO.: 8 NAME: The Gardens at Hickory Grove Long -form PD -R FILE NO.: Z -4562-F LOCATION: Located on Dorado Beach Drive, just west of Hinson Road DEVELOPER: Jim Markus 23 Lascala Court Little Rock, AR 72223 ENGINEER: Grafton Tull and Sparks 10825 Financial Center Parkway, Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72211 AREA: 18.56 acres CURRENT ZONING ALLOWED USES PROPOSED ZONING PROPOSED USE: NUMBER OF LOTS: 39 -M FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF Single-family residential (12 single-family lots) Revised PD -R Single-family residential (39 single-family lots) VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: 1. A variance from Section 31-207 to allow the development of private streets within the residential development. 2. A variance request from the Land Alteration Ordinance grade proposed Lots 55 and 56 and place material in this area for the construction of Road 3. BACKGROUND Ordinance No. 18,983 adopted by the Little Rock Board .of Directors on November 18, 2003, approved a PD -R request for a site containing 38.62 acres. The approval allowed for the creation of 63 single-family lots to be developed as gated communities for each of the phases. The lots within the Phase III portion were proposed with a gated access drive constructed adjacent to Dorado Beach Drive. The approval included the retention April 8, 2010 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont. FILE NO.: Z- 1-562-F of open spaces along the northern and southern perimeters of the site. The development was proposed in three (3) phases. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: The request is a revision to the previously approved PD -R for the Phase III portion of the subdivision. The applicant is proposing to reconfigure Lots 51 — 62 into 39 smaller lots ranging in size from approximately 4,800 square feet to 11,200 square feet. The lots will be served by six (6) twenty (20) foot wide private drives with curb and gutter and hammerhead turnarounds at the end of each driveway. Each of the six (6) driveways will take access from Dorado Beach Drive. Lots along Dorado Beach Drive will have a twenty (20) foot side yard setback whereas all other setbacks will be five (5) feet. There will be a ten (i o) foot wide planted buffer between proposed Lots 51, 89 and 90 and 47, 48, 49 and 50R of Phase I. All open space previously identified and currently shown of the plat will be preserved. A monument type sign will be erected on Dorado Beach Drive to provide phase identification to the new development. The homes are proposed as masonry in construction with roofs of a minimum pitch of 8:12 with architectural shingles. Privacy fences will be allowed as typically allowed in the R-2, Single-family Zoning District. Swimming pools will be allowed and must conform to City regulations concerning rear yard coverage. One (1) story structures will be a minimum of 1,800 square and two (2) story structures will be a minimum of 2,000 square feet. The developer will release the City of liability to allow garbage collection on the private streets. Each of the phases of the Hickory Grove Subdivision (Phases I — lll} were final platted and served by a Bill of Assurance for the individual Phase. The amended Bill of Assurance for Hickory Grove Phase Ill -A was filed with the Circuit Clerk's office on August 8, 2008. The Phase contained the acreage proposed for replatting with the application request. The applicant/developer owns all the property within Phase III -A portion of the Subdivision with the exception of one (1) lot. The Bill of Assurance allows for modifications to the lots shown in the plat area with the approval of seventy percent (70%) of the owners within the subdivision. The Bill of Assurance states anything to the contrary herein notwithstanding, until forty-five (45) of the fats shown on the plat are said, conveyed, Declarant shall have the right from time to time, without the approval of the owners, or the Board, or the Association to amend the provisions hereof, for the purpose of facilitating the marketing of the Lots, in complying with the requirements pertaining to the property made by financial institutions, title insurance companies and governmental authorities and for any other reasonable 2 April 8, 2010 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont. FILE NO.: Z -4562-F purpose; provided that no such amendment will reduce the size of a particular Lot or the improvable area of the Lot without the consent of the Owner so affected. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The property is located on the west side of Dorado Beach Drive which was recently constructed to Master Street Plan standard as a collector street. The property slopes upward from Dorado Beach Drive to the west. To the south and west of the site are single-family homes located along Windsor Road and off Shadowcreek Drive within the Burntree and Pebble Beach Woods Subdivisions. Across Dorado Beach Drive are single-family homes constructed as gated communities accessed from LaScala Court and Bella View Drive which is the first and second phases of the Hickory Grove Subdivision. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received a number of informational phone calls from area residents. Ali property owners located within 200 feet of the site, all residents, who could be identified, located within 300 feet of the site and the Coalition of West Little Rock Neighborhoods were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Street names and street naming conventions must be approved by Public Works. Contact David Hathcock at (501) 371-4808. 2. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed location for stormwater detention facilities on the plan. Additional detention will be required to be installed. 3. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grayling activities at the site. Other than residential subdivisions, site graving and drainage plans must be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. 4. Provide a Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan as required per Section 29-186 (e). 5. Provide the proposed centerline street grades of driveways or access easements. 6. For City garbage collection, the proposed hammerheads must be at least 80 feet in length and at least 20 feet wide. 3 April 8, 2010 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 Cont. FILE NO.: Z -4562-F 7. No residential waste collection service will be provided on private streets unless the property owners association provides a waiver of damage claims for operations on private property. 8. Per the Master Street Plan, parking is restricted to one side of the street on a 24 foot wide street. Show on the plan now and on the final plat and bill of assurance, the area along the street where parking is allowed. _ 9. Streetlights are required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Provide plans for approval to Traffic Engineering. Streetlights must be installed prior to platting/certificate of occupancy. Contact Traffic Engineering 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information. 10. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES stormwater permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction. 11. Provide a letter prepared by a registered engineer certifying the sight distance at the intersections comply with 2004 AASHTO Green Book standards. 12. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner). 13. All driveways, easements, shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance. 14. The driveways should be platted as access easements. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENTICOUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension is required with easements for this project. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for additional information. Enter : No comment received. Center -Point Ener : No comment received. AT & T: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: No objection. All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding the size and location of the water meter. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This fee will apply to all connections including metered connections off the private fire system. 51 April 8, 2010 SUBDIVISION EM NO.: 8 (Cont. FILE NO.: Z -4562-F Fire Department: Place 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 dedicated CATA Bus Route. Parks and Recreation: No comment. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: G. Planninq Division: This request is located in the Chenal Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Residential Medium Density for this property. The applicant has applied for a revised Planned Residential Development to allow reconfiguration of lots. This is a change to a previously approved PRD, the proposed density remains consistent with the Land Use Plan. This area is covered by the River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan. Their Residential Development Goal states: "Enforce the construction of sidewalks with all types of development." Master Street Plan: Dorado Beach Drive is a Collector. The primary function of a Collector Street is to provide a connection from Local Streets to Arterials. This street may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exists to the site. Bicycle Plan: A Class I is shown along Hinson Road. A Class I bikeway is built separate from or alongside a road. Additional paving and right of way may be required. Landscape: No comment. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COIVIMENT: (March 18, 2010) Mr. Frank Riggins was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the development stating the area proposed for change was previously final platted with twelve (12) single-family lots. Staff stated the current request was to allow thirty-eight (38) single-family lots served by six (6) private drives extending from Dorado Beach Drive. Staff stated the drives would serve as few as four (4) lots and as many as eight (8) lots. Staff noted all building setbacks had been indicated on the plan. Staff stated the Bill of Assurance proposed for the new subdivision allowed garage structures to be connected. Staff stated the plan as indicated would not allow the connection. 5 April 8, 2010 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.J. FILE NO., Z -4562-F Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the street names and naming conventions were to be approved by the Public Works Department. Staff stated the City's Stormwater Detention ordinance would apply to the development of the site. Staff stated parking would be restricted to one side of the street and requested Mr. Riggins indicate the side which would not be allowed parking. Staff stated streetlights would be required prior to the issuance of the final plat for the new lots. Staff noted since the development was proposed as single-family there were no additional landscaping comments. Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: Mr. Riggins submitted a revised cover letter and site plan to staff addressing a number of the issues raised at the March 18, 2010, Subdivision Committee meeting. The revised bill of assurance indicates all structures will be detached and no structure will share a common wall. The revised plan also indicates parking restrictions as requested by Public Works staff. The request is to reconfigure Lots 51 — 62 into 39 smaller lots ranging in size from approximately 4,800 square feet to 11,200 square feet. The lots will be served by six (6) twenty (20) foot wide private drives with curb and gutter with hammerhead turnarounds at the end of each driveway. Each of the six (6) driveways will take access from Dorado Beach Drive. The developer will release the City of liability to allow garbage collection on the private streets. The request includes a variance from Section 31-207 to allow the development of private streets within the residential development. The ordinance states private streets for residential development shall be discourages. However, private streets may be approved by the Planning Commission to serve isolated developments. The design standards shall conform to public street standards as specified in subdivision ordinance. Private streets are permissible only in the form of cull -de -sac and short loop streets and only when it is determined that these streets can be adequately served by all public service vehicles. Such streets will not be permitted where there is a possibility of through traffic or eventual connection to another public street. It shall be incumbent upon the applicant to demonstrate that the private streets will not unreasonably limit access to adjacent parcels, hinder logical traffic pattern, or otherwise be contrary to the public interest. The subdivider shall provide for permanent maintenance of L April 8, 2010 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4562-F all private streets in the bill of assurance. This maintenance shall include water lines, fire hydrants, or other utility facilities. The street is indicated with 26 feet of pavement as typically required for a residential street. The applicant has provided a secondary access to the site to allow for emergency access should the main entrance drive become blocked. The development is proposed as a "single-family detached development with approximately 28 percent of the site in open space. The lots will be allowed swimming pools but no accessory buildings will be allowed. A maximum of 13 percent of the total lot area will be allowed coverage by accessory structures. Interior fencing will be allowed. The fencing is proposed as typically allowed in the R-2, Single-family zoning district. The homes will be frame construction with masonry finish to include brick, stone, or stucco. The major roof area will have an 8:12 pitch and architectural shingles. The minimum square footage of the homes proposed is 1,800 square feet for a single story home and 2,200 square feet for a two story homes. The anticipated sales price is $250,000. The maximum building height proposed is -35 -feet. Lots ,a -long Dorado Beach Drive will have a twenty (20) foot side yard setback whereas all other setbacks will be five (5) feet. There will be a ten (10) foot wide planted buffer between proposed Lots 51, 89 and 90 and 47, 48, 49 and 50R of Phase I. All open space previously identified and currently shown of the plat will be preserved. A monument -type -sign will be, -.erected -.on Dorado -Beach Drive to_provi'de phase identification to -the new development. -Development signs in single-family zones are allowed with a maximum height of six (6) feet and a maximum sign area of thirty-two (32) square feet. The request also includes a variance from the Land Alteration Ordinance to allow grading of proposed Lots 55 and 56 and place material within the lot area during the construction of Road 3. According to the applicant the grading is necessary to allow for installation of the required infrastructure in this area. The request is a revision to the previously approved PD -R for a portion of the Hickory Grove Phase III Subdivision. The lots proposed range in size from .096 acres to 0.25 acres. Within the general area there are a variety of lot sizes. The homes within the Carmel Valley Subdivision located to the southeast have been constructed on lots similar in size to the lots proposed within this development. South of this site, within the Windsor Hills Addition there are single-family attached and detached homes. The detached homes have also been constructed on lots similar in size to the lots proposed by the developer. 7 April 8, 2010 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4562-F The lots sizes in Pebble Beach and Pebble Beach Woods to the north and west appear to range in size from 0.18 acres to 0.25 acres. Staff is supportive of the request. Staff does not feel the lots as proposed are out of character with existing development in the area. As stated within the general area there are attached homes and detached homes with lot sizes consistent with the lot development standards proposed by the applicant. To staff's knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 8, 2010) Mr. Jim Hathaway of Coldwell Banker Commercial Hathaway Group and Mr. Frank Riggins of Crafton, Tull, Sparks and Associates were present representing the owners. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. Staff presented a recommendation of approval of the variance request to allow advanced grading of Lots 55 and 56 with the development of Road 3. Staff also presented a recommendation of approval to allow the development of the lots utilizing private streets. Mr. Frank Riggins addressed the Commission with merits to the request. He stated the minimum lot size proposed was now 6,100 square feet. He stated the change was made after Subdivision Committee to address staff's concerns. He stated the development was proposed with smaller lot to offer a variety of housing options within the development. He stated the developer would maintain all previously identified open space. He stated the development would be served with six (6) private streets accessing Dorado Beach Drive. Ms. Arleta Power addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated she was President of the Bella View Property Owners Association. She stated the neighborhood had a number of concerns related to the development. She stated the residents of Phase I bought into the neighborhood based on a plan presented to them. She stated the residents were told there would be 12 homes located within the area proposed for 39 single-family lots. She stated the area was to develop with walking trails and a large amount of open space. She stated the residents of Phase I questioned how the developer could alter the Bill of Assurance for a subdivision. She IQ April 8, 2010 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4582-F provided the Commission with a packet of information and photos of issues within the Phase I portion of the development. She stated the developer had not corrected erosion problems which had lead to a number of drainage issues within the Phase I portion of the development. She stated the residents were concerned with property values. Ms. Power stated the residents of Phase I paid an annual assessment of $3,835.00 per year for maintenance. She stated the average price for homes within the Pebble Beach Woods Subdivision was near $295,300.00. She provided the Commission with signatures of residents of Windsor Court. She stated all the residents of Bella View Drive had also signed a petition in opposition of the request. Ms. Power stated the new homes would generate a minimum of 78 additional vehicles per day on Dorado Beach Drive. She stated the speed on Dorado Beach was excessive. She questioned how the fire garbage trucks would access the new homes. Ms. Power requested the Commission defer the request or deny the request. Chairman Yates stated the Commission did not have authority over the Bill of Assurance. He requested the remaining speakers narrow their comments to the development as proposed. Mr. Hari Eswaran addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated his home was located on Dorado Beach Drive and his primary concern was traffic. He stated Dorado Beach Drive was a short-cut from Hinson Road to Rahling Road. He stated the road was heavily traveled and the speed of the motorist was excessive. He stated he felt if homes were constructed on the street this would act to slow traffic in the area. He stated the police department had reviewed the speeds on the street and 85 percentile were traveling at 35 mph or greater. He stated the posted speed limit was 25 mph. Ms. Sharon Franke addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated the property proposed for development was located behind her home. She stated the original plan by the developer was to construct bigger homes on larger lots which would compliment property values in the area. She stated the current proposal would penalize the existing homeowners by reducing property values. Ms. Wanda Hartnuss addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated the development of 39 homes on the site previously proposed for 12 units would cause traffic congestion, lower property values and change the community dynamics of the area. She stated the development as proposed would have an adverse impact on the existing homes in the area. Mr. David Johnson addressed the Commission in opposition. He stated his home was located in Pebble Beach Woods. He stated his concerns were safety and traffic. He stated Dorado Beach Drive was well traveled and motorist were traveling at excessive A April 8, 2010 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4562-F speeds. He stated in the morning there were a number of cars lining up at Hinson Road to exit the area. Mr. Manish Joshi addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated the cars in the area zipped by his homes like the exit ramp to 1-630. He stated the posted speed was 25 mph but cars were traveling 35 to 40 mph through the neighborhood. He stated his primary concern was the safety of the neighborhood. Mr. Richard Bryan Davis Jr. addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated when he bought his home he asked the agent what would be located in the area proposed for redevelopment. He stated the agent did not indicate a development with the intensity as proposed. Ms. Ruth Bell with the Pulaski County League of Women Voters addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated traffic on Dorado Beach Drive and Hinson Road was a concern. She questioned if the traffic engineers had considered a development this intense when recommending street design standards for this area. Mr. Jim Hathaway addressed the Commission on the merits of the request. He stated the original zoning of the subdivision was MF -6 which would have allowed the 38.62 acres to develop with 231 units. He stated with the R-2, Single-family zoning district and a maximum density of six (6) units per acre this would also allow the site to develop with 231 units. He stated the original approval allowed for 1.6 units per acre and the amended request increased the density to 2.33 units per acre. He stated normal west Little Rock development densities were 2.75 units per acre. He stated the density proposed for the Phase III portion of the development was within ranges of west Little Rock Development. He stated the Phase III portion proposed for redevelopment contained 11.6 acres. He stated within this area over five (5) acres was being left as open space. He stated the development as proposed within this area would result in a density of 3.36 units per acre which was allowable within the Single-family Land Use classification. Mr. Hathaway addressed traffic and safety. He stated the City forced the developer to connect Dorado Beach Drive to the west. He stated the original concept allowed for three (3) phases with the entire development gated. He stated the developer was not in control of traffic speed. He stated Dorado Beach Drive was constructed as a collector street and could handle the additional traffic with no problem. Mr. Hathaway stated there was no evidence the development would lower property values in the area. He provided the Commission with home sales in the area from January 2009 to February 2010. He stated he was sure there were homes in the area more expensive but there were 20 homes sold with an average sales price of $249,000.00. He stated the largest property owner in the area was the developer. He 10 April 8, 2010 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4562-F stated the developer owned 26 unsold lots and his residence was located in the area so the developer was not going to construct a project that would diminish property values. Mr. Hathaway stated the development was not requesting to clear cut the site. He stated the developer would provide public works staff grading and drainage plans and would adhere to AEDQ requirements during the development of the subdivision and the new homes. He stated the developer was motivated to comply since he was a major property owner in the area. Mr. Hathaway stated the developer would construct all the homes within the new development area. He stated the homes would not be spec homes but all would be pre -sold. He stated the new homes would be constructed to meet LEED certification. He stated the development was classic in -fill development. He stated once the development was complete it would add $10 million to the tax roles. He stated there was a need for quality detached single-family homes in west Little Rack .with smaller square footages. He stated the Commission had heard from the area residents but who they had not heard from was the 39 families that would live in the subdivision upon completion. He stated the development would enhance the quality of live for people who lived in the area. He encouraged the Commission to support the request. There was a general discussion of the Commission concerning densities of the area and abutting subdivisions. Mr. Hathaway stated the density was normal for west Little Rock single-family development. He stated the original Bill of Assurance allowed for the areas to be altered. He stated Mr. Markus owed the majority of the property within the Phase proposed for modification. Commissioner Rector stated the Bill of Assurance was a private contract and was not a land use issue. He stated the City did not force the developer to construct Dorado Beach Drive. He stated the City required the developer to construct a street that was on the Master Street Plan and had been on the plan for a number of years. The Commission question staff has to the issue raised concerning traffic. Staff stated Dorado Beach Drive was a collector street on the Master Street Plan. Staff stated when the development was proposed with larger lots an average of ten (10) trips per day was used to determine traffic volumes. Staff stated based on the smaller lots an estimated eight (8) trips per day was used to generate estimated traffic counts. Staff stated the larger lot development would generate 120 cars per day and the smaller lot development 320 cars per day. Staff stated the capacity of a collector street was 5,000 cars per day. Staff stated a traffic count was conducted in April 2010 at the intersection of Dorado Beach Drive, Bella View Drive and LaScalla Court.. Staff stated there were 1,700 to 1,800 cars per day at this intersection. Staff stated at the intersection of Dorado Beach Drive and Montvale Drive there were 660 cars per day. 11 April 8, 2010 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4562-F The Commission questioned if the City would be responsible for repair of the private streets. Staff stated the property owners association would be required to sign a waiver of damage claims for operations on private property. Staff stated the City would not repair any street within the proposed subdivision that was private. The Commission questioned signage for the development. Mr. Riggins stated the development would have a subdivision identification sign located on Dorado Beach Drive near Bella View Drive and near the western edge of the subdivision. He stated the signage would comply with signage allowed in single-family zones. He stated low level ground lighting would be used for illumination. The Chair entertained a motion for approval of the item as presented by staff. The motion carried by a vote of 6 ayes, 3 noes and 2 absent. 12