Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6120-E Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: Z -6120-E NAME: Capitol Hills Apartments Long -form PD -R LOCATION: South side of West Kanis Road at Rushmore Avenue DEVELOPER: John W. Deldaren 10605 Maumelle Blvd. Maumelle, AR 72113 AREA: 31.85 Acres CURRENT ZONING NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 MF -12 ENGINEER: White-Daters and Associates #24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ALLOWED USES: Multi -family; 12 units per acre PROPOSED ZONING: PD -R PROPOSED USE: Multi -family; 16.57 units per acre VARIANCESIWAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: On June 20, 1996 the Planning Commission approved a proposal to rezone 42.58- acres from R-2, Single-family to MF -12; Multi -family, The rezoning request was associated with Capitol Lakes Estates preliminary plat, a 190 + acre development (File No. S-1100). The property shown for Multi -family was located in two tracts lying on either side of the proposed realignment of Cooper Orbit Road, south of a proposed minor arterial street. The application was the third version of proposed multi -family zoning associated with Capitol Lakes Estates. I FILE NO.: Z -6120-E Cont. The first version consisted of a proposal to zone 31+ acres at the southeast corner of the Capitol Lakes Estates Plat from R-2 to MF -18. Staff was not supportive -of the proposed density and the application drew opposition from the residents of Spring Valley Manor Subdivision which is adjacent to the south. The application was later withdrawn, at the Planning Commission, by the applicant. The second version consisted of a proposal to zone 33.8+ acres at the intersection of the realigned Cooper Orbit Road and an as yet unnamed minor arterial street from R-2 to MF -12. The proposed multi -family property was in two tracts, a 27+ acre tract lying south of the arterial street and a 7+ acre tract lying north of the arterial. multi -family l�-and`lresidents of that neighborhood supported as moved well north of the Spring Valley Manor Subdivision this version. Staff was also able to recommend approval of the application. The density had been reduced from MF -18 to MF -12. The proposed Multi -family property was basically within the body of the Capitol Lakes Estates plat with only a perimeter relationship to the Oasis Renewal Center on the collector street and an arterial street. There was some opposition to this proposal from the Oasis Renewal Center. The Planning Commission voted to approve this application on April 25, 1996. The applicant continued to work with the Oasis Renewal Center with their concern of locating -the 7+ acres of Multi -family property adjacent to their site. After reaching a compromise with the Oasis Center, the applicant withdrew this second application from the Board of Directors' agenda and filed a third version of the proposed rezoning request. The third version consisted of a proposal to zone 42.58+ acres on either side of the proposed realignment of Cooper Orbit Road from R-2 to MF -12. The proposed Multi -family property was in two tracts on either side of the new alignment of Cooper Orbit Road, south of the proposed new arterial street. The 27+ acre tract lying south of the arterial and west of proposed Cooper Orbit Road is the same as in the second (approved) application. The 7+ acres which was approved on the north side of the arterial (adjacent to the Oasis property) was moved to a point south of the arterial, on the east side of the proposed alignment side Cooper Orbit Road and increased fa the Oasis property) was to remain zoned R-2 and side of the arterial (adjacent was shown as a "reserved" tract on the Capitol Lakes Estates Preliminary Plat. The Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 17,312 rezoning the property from'R-2 to MF -12. with conditions, on November 7, 1996. The conditions were as follows: Any development which occurs on the property described as Tract C, that tract located on the east side of Rushmore Avenue was to be limited to 125 dwelling units, Three acres within the property described as Tract C was to be dedicated as Open Space and not developed, Capitol Lakes Estates was not to be developed prior to implementation of sanitary sewer service, whether brought about through formation of a new sewer improvement district, expansion or the 2 FILE NO.: Z existing sewer improvement district or some other more feasible cooperative alternative, and with respect to that portion of property zoned MF -12 which would front on the newly realigned Cooper Orbit Road, a twenty (20) foot natural buffer was to be maintained along the frontage of the newly aligned Cooper Orbit Road. If it became necessary to regrade the buffer zone, the regraded area within the twenty foot buffer strip was to be replanted to a planting density fifty (50) percent greater than that specified in the Little Rock landscaping ordinance. The rezoning contained Tract A, 27.77 acres, from R-2, Single-family to MF -12 and Tract C, 14.81 acres, from R-2, Single-family to MF -12. Ordinance No. 18,496, in June of 2001, established a PRD titled Village on the Lakes Long -form PRD (this rezoning took a part of Tract C 11.59 acres of the 14.81 acres). The development was proposed to be an attached single-family, townhouse development; 11 buildings with a total of 44 single-family residential dwellings on 11.59 acres located east of the proposed Rushmore Avenue. (A proposed density of 5.3 units per acre.) A. PROPOSAUREQUEST: The applicant proposes to rezone the property to Planned Development — Residential to allow the development of a 528 unit apartment development. The applicant is proposing the placement of 904 parking spaces with the development. The site is currently zoned MF -12 as is property located to the east. The applicant has filed a separate rezoning request to rezone the property to the east from MF -12 to R-2 (File No. Z -6120-F). The applicant proposes the development to be constructed in three phases with 156 units being constructed in Phase of One and Two and 216 units in the third and final phase. West .Kanis Road and Rushmore Avenue are currently under construction and will be completed with Phase I. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is vacant and tree covered with heavy woods surrounding the site. The property is currently zoned MF -12 as is a smaller tract to the east. The remainder of the area is zoned R-2 with the exception of a PRD located just east of the site. The Oasis Renewal Center is located northeast of the site and the Spring Valley Manor Subdivision is located south of the site. Cooper Orbit Road borders the eastern boundary of the Property. The roadway is a narrow unimproved roadway with deep ditches in several locations. 3 FILE NO.: Z -6120-E Cont. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing staff has received numerous phone calls from area residents. The. Spring Valley Manor Neighborhood Association, the Gibraltar Heights/Point West/Timber Ridge Neighborhood Association and the Parkway Place Property Owners Association, along with all residents, who could be identified, within 300 feet of the site, and all property owners within 200 feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PiJBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. West Kanis Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way 50 feet from centerline will be required. 2. Rushmore Avenue is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline will be required. 3. Provide design of street. conforming to "MSP" (Master Street Plan). Construct one-half of a divided 4 -lane parkway, one-half of a 14 -foot median, and 5 -foot sidewalks with Planned Development. 4. Construct off-site one-half arterial to connect to existing Cooper Orbit Road. Show tie-in plan and/or public temporary turnarounds. 5. Dedicate 10 feet of additional right-of-way and construct right -turn lanes per MSP at westernmost driveway and at Rushmore Avenue. 6. Appropriate handicap ramps will be required per current ADA standards. 7. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance. 8. NPDES and grading permits are required prior to construction, site grading, and drainage plan will need to be submitted and approved. 9. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property_ Show adequacy and .phasing, if proposed. 10. Easements shown for proposed storm drainage are required. 11. Obtain permits (barricade/street cut) for improvements within proposed or existing right-of-way from Traffic Engineering prior to construction in right-of-way. 12. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing street lights as required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Contact Traffic Engineering at 340-4880 (Steve Philpott) for more information regarding street light requirements. 13. Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Traffic Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction. In ILE NO.: Z -6120-E (Cont. 14. Show cross-sections of proposed development prior to Planning Commission hearing. Conform to Land Alteration Ordinance, including slopes and terraces. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING. Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements if service is required for project. FNTERGY: Additional easements will be required. Can not be described at this time. Will depend on developer wanting overhead or underground service. Contact Entergy at 954-5165 for additional details. ARKLA: ARKLA has large high pressure main on the backside (west) of this development. It is located in an existing easement. Contact ARKLA at 377-4669 for additional details. Southwestern Bell: No comment received. Water: A water main extension will be required in order to serve this property. On site fire projection will be required. An acreage charge of $600 per acre currently applies in addition to normal charges in this area. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2428 for additional details. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional details at 918-3752. County Planning: No comment received. CATA: Site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus radius, turnout and route. F: ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Ellis Mountain Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Low Density Residential for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Development - Residential for apartments. A land use plan amendment for a change to Multi -family is a separate item on this agenda. (File No. LU02-18-03) 5 FILE NO.: Z -6120-E (Cont.) City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan._ Landscape: Interior landscape islands must be at least 300 square feet in areas and 7 '/ feet in width. Some of the proposed parking lots need additional interior landscaping to break up the large paved areas. A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings is required along the southern and western perimeters of the site. Curb and gutter will be required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. Because of the grade changes, it will be necessary to provide cross- sections. Building Codes: No comment received. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: May 30, 2002 Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the application: Staff briefly described the project noting additions which were needed on the proposed site plan. Staff stated the applicant would be required to rezone the property to the east to keep with an agreement previously made with the Spring Valley Manor Neighborhood with regard to density. The applicant indicated a rezoning application had been filed and the request would be heard by the Commission at their July 11, 2002 Public Hearing. Staff questioned the building materials proposed for the development. Staff stated this would be an issue with the area residents and compatibility was a concern. Staff also stated building elevations would be required. Staff stated the buffer to the south was a zoning buffer and the buffer to the west would need to be increased to meet the ordinance requirement. The applicant stated the interior islands would be increased as recommended by staff and the developer would install dense evergreen plantings along the west and south perimeters. Public Works comments were addressed. Mr. White stated the developer would construct '/Z street improvements as a part of the development. He stated no streets were in place and the streets would have to be constructed for the development to function. Mr. White stated a regional D FILE NO.: Z -6120-E (Cont. detention facility was proposed and an area was set aside for detention and shown on the owner's master plan. There being no further issues for discussion, the Committee forward the application to the full Commission for resolution. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted revised plans to staff indicating the requested changes proposed by Staff and the Subdivision Committee. The applicant provided cross sections and building elevations to represent the intensity of the development on the site. The buildings are proposed at three story (not to exceed 35 -feet in height) and each building have either 24 or 36 units. The applicant proposes the buildings to be constructed of cement fiber siding and brick in selected locations. Due to grade elevations some of the buildings are proposed with pedestrian bridges from the parking area to the building. In Phase I the applicant proposes to construct 156 units in six (6) buildings. The proposal includes five (5) buildings with 24 units each and one building with thirty-six units. Phase II is proposed with two (2) buildings housing 24 units and three (3) buildings housing 36 units for a total of 156 units. The third and final phase is anticipated to have six (6) buildings of 24 units and three (3) buildings of 36 units for a total of 216 units. The applicant proposes to construct 876 parking spaces within the development. The minimum number required per the Zoning Ordinance would be 792 spaces. The applicant's proposed number more than exceeds the minimum required. Each phase of the development will also have sufficient parking to meet the minimum parking requirement per the Zoning Ordinance. The density of the development is proposed at 16.6 units per acre. The site is a 31.85 acre site currently zoned MF -12 or 12 units per acre. As part of the rezoning request in 1996 a 14.81 acre site was zoned MF -12 but limited to 125 units. The rezoning in June of 2001 removed a portion of the acreage allowable (8.28 acres) and zoned the site to PRD at a density of 5.3 units per acre. The applicant is proposing to rezone the entire area (56 acres) in two separate zoning actions to PD -R and R-2, Single-family. The proposal includes 31.85 acres of multi -family and the remainder as single family. Based on previous allowable densities the developer is proposing a similar density but is keeping the density on one site rather than on each side of M FILE NO.: Z -6120-E {Cont. the proposed Rushmore Avenue. Had the developer developed the site as previously approved in 1996 the developer would have been allowed multi -family on 46.66 acres, (125 units on the 14.81 acre site and 382 units on the 31.85 acre site) and 507 units. The current proposal includes 528 units of multi -family an addition of 20 units total units to the area. Staff is supportive of the requested Planned Development - Residential. The density proposed is not greatly different than the density approved by the City and agreed to by the neighborhood previously. The proposed development would confine the multi -family to one site and not on each side of Rushmore Avenue; developing the east side as single family which is in keeping with the indicated desire of the area residents. Otherwise, to staff's knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed development. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Planned Development subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of this report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 11, 2002) Mr. Jim Hathaway and Mr. Joe White were present representing the application. There were two objectors present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the conditions noted in the "Staff Recommendation" above. Mr. Hathaway stated he had met with the Directors of the Property Owners Association and was aware of their concerns. He stated one of the concerns was the limited amenities the development offered; one clubhouse and one pool, and the developer had agreed to add a second clubhouse and pool as well as a fitness center. He stated Spring Valley Manor was 3/8 of a mile south of the development and the Property Owners were :concerned residents of the development would "come down" and use the Association's lakes for recreational activities. Mr. Hathaway also stated the concept behind the use of the Planned Development process was the additional controls the neighborhood received. He stated the PRD as proposed did increase the overall number of units previously approved for the entire Capitol Lakes development but the proposed development concentrated the multi -family on one side of Rushmore Avenue; at the intersection of two major streets. NO.: Z -6120-E (C Ms. Eulalia Araoz spoke in opposition of the development. She stated her property adjoined the development to the east with frontage to Cooper Orbit Road. She stated with the realignment of Cooper Orbit Road to the new Rushmore Avenue her property would no longer have access to a public street. Ms. Araoz stated according to Public Works staff her property would be provided a pave access through the proposed development. Mr. Hathaway stated he had been in contact with Ms. Araoz's attorney and furnished him with copies of agreements made when the property was rezoned to PRD. He stated the agreement at the time of preliminary platting for Capitol Lakes Estates a commitment was made to allow the Araoz's access through a deed and not just an easement. He stated upon completion of Phase I the Araoz's would be given a deed to sufficient land to allow a road into their property, He stated further more when Tract C was rezoned to PRD a second agreement was made to allow access to the southern portion of their property. from Rushmore Avenue. He stated the Araoz's would have two (2) points of access to their property both of which were tied to development of surrounding land. Mr. Rusty Sparks spoke in opposition of the application as filed. He stated he was representing the Capitol Lakes Estates Property Owner's Association. Mr. Sparks stated there were several concerns with the development. He stated those were traffic, ingress and egress from the site, the existing narrow bridge located in the County on Cooper Orbit Road and the lack of landscaping shown on the site plan. He stated the developer had not furnished grading plans as were previously provided. He stated the site was a difficult site to develop due to the terrain. He stated grading plans were essential to determine the cuts and fills required for building the site. Mr. Sparks stated as a part of the previous approval a 20 -foot buffer was required along Rushmore Avenue. He stated the current proposal did not indicate a buffer. He stated the residents desire was to maintain the rural character of the area and the buffer was the only assurance the character of the area would be maintained. He stated the residents were unclear as to the height of the buildings. He stated the residents had been told the maximum building height would be 35 -feet but the buildings proposed were three story. He stated stressed the importance of clarification of building heights. He stated the neighborhood was opposed to a major entrance onto Rushmore Avenue. He stated the development would require two entrances but both those should be located on West Kanis Road. 9 July 11,2002 ITEM NO.: B {Cont. LE NO.: Z-61 He stated the residents were unclear as to the height of the buildings. He stated the residents had been told the maximum building height would be 35 -feet but the buildings proposed were three story. He stated stressed the importance.,of clarification of building heights. He stated the neighborhood was opposed to a major entrance onto Rushmore Avenue. He stated the development would require two entrances but both those should be located on West Kanis Road. Mr. Hathaway stated the bridge was outside the confines of the Capitol Lakes Estates property boundary. He stated currently off-site improvements were not required by the City for a development to occur: He stated the buildings were to be three stories in height and the terrain would determine the finished elevation. Mr. Hathaway stated the proposed density of the development was not significantly greater than previously approved. He stated a new traffic impact analysis would not show any significant change from the previous analysis. Mr. Hathaway stated the current proposal included a buffer along Rushmore - Avenue. He stated in some cases the buffer was well above the 20 -feet but in some places the buffer dropped below the 20 -feet. Mr. Hathaway stated if the developer were required to keep the 20 -foot buffer some areas currently show above the 20 -feet would be eliminated. Mr. Hathaway stated the site was a challenge to work with and the current proposal was designed to maximize the green areas while still allowing for development to occur. Mr. Hathaway stated two entrances were proposed for the site. He stated there would be a grand entrance on West Kanis Road and a secondary entrance on Rushmore Avenue. Mr. Hathaway stated West Kanis Road was proposed as a principal arterial and Rushmore Avenue was proposed as a collector. He stated the roadway design would lend itself amenable to the potential traffic produced from the site. Mr. Hathaway stated the current proposal with the addition of the clubhouse and pool on the eastern perimeter made the appearance of two smaller developments. He stated the massing of multi -family in one area was good planning practice allowing the east side of Rushmore Avenue to develop as single-family. Commissioner Nunnley questioned the bridge design and public safety. Public Works Staff stated traffic was not an issue raised in the review by Traffic Engineering. Staff stated redevelopment of the area would necessitate the reconstruction of the bridge. Staff stated the roadway was approved in 1997 as iC July 11, 2002 ITEM NO.: B (Cont) FILE NO.: Z -6120-E a five -lane roadway and at that time no mechanism was put in place to replace the existing bridge. There was a general discussion concerning the lack of a Capitol Improvements Plan for the City. A question was raised concerning the 20 -foot buffer not being shown. Staff stated the 20 -foot buffer was a condition of approval not a Landscaping Ordinance requirement. A motion was made to accept the proposed PD -R as filed. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 1 noe, 1 absent and 1 vacant position. 11 FILE NO.: Z -6120-E NAME: Capitol Hills Apartments Long -form PD -R LOCATION: South side of West Kanis Road at Rushmore Avenue DEVELOPER, John W. Deldaren 10605 Maumelle Blvd. Maumelle, AR 72113 FNGINFFR- White-Daters and Associates #24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 31.85 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: MF -12 ALLOWED USES: Multi -family; 12 units per acre PROPOSED ZONING: PD -R PROPOSED USE: Multi -family; 16.57 units per acre VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: On June 20, 1996 the Planning Commission approved a proposal to rezone 42.58+ acres from R-2, Single-family to MF -12, Multi -family. The rezoning request was associated with Capitol Lakes Estates preliminary plat, a 190 + acre development (File No. S-1100). The property shown for Multi -family was located in two tracts lying on either side of the proposed realignment of Cooper Orbit Road, south of a proposed minor arterial street. The application was the third version of proposed multi -family zoning associated with Capitol Lakes Estates. FILE NO.: Z -6120-E Cont.) The first version consisted of a proposal to zone 31+ acres at the southeast corner of the Capitol Lakes Estates Plat from R-2 to MF -18. Staff was not supportive of the proposed density and the application drew opposition from the residents of Spring Valley Manor Subdivision which is adjacent to the south. The application was later withdrawn, at the Planning Commission, by the applicant. The second version consisted of a proposal to zone 33.8+ acres at the intersection of the realigned Cooper Orbit Road and an as yet unnamed minor arterial street from R-2 to MF -12. The proposed multi -family property was in two tracts, a 27+ acre tract lying south of the arterial street and a 7+ acre tract lying north of the arterial. The multi -family property was moved well north of the Spring Valley Manor Subdivision and residents of that neighborhood supported this version. Staff was also able to recommend approval of the application. The density had been reduced from MF -18 to MF -12. The proposed Multi -family property was basically within the body of the Capitol Lakes Estates plat with only a perimeter relationship to the Oasis Renewal Center on the collector street and an arterial street. There was some opposition to this proposal from the Oasis Renewal Center. The Planning Commission voted to approve this application on April 25, 1996. The applicant continued to work with the Oasis Renewal Center with their concern of locating the 7+ acres of Multi -family property adjacent to their site. After reaching a compromise with the Oasis Center, the applicant withdrew this second application from the Board of Directors' agenda and filed a third version of the proposed rezoning request. The third version consisted of a proposal to zone 42.58+ acres on either side of the proposed realignment of Cooper Orbit Road from R-2 to MF -12. The proposed Multi -family property was in two tracts on either side of the new alignment of Cooper Orbit Road, south of the proposed new arterial street. The 27+ acre tract lying south of the arterial and west of proposed Cooper Orbit Road is the same as in the second (approved) application. The 7+ acres which was approved on the north side of the arterial (adjacent to the Oasis property) was moved to a point south of the arterial, on the east side of the proposed alignment of Cooper Orbit Road and increased to 14.81 acres. The 7+ acres on the north side of the arterial (adjacent to the Oasis property) was to remain zoned R-2 and was shown as a "reserved" tract on the Capitol Lakes Estates Preliminary Plat. The Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 17,312 rezoning the property from R-2 to MF -12, with conditions, on November 7, 1996. The conditions were as follows: Any development which occurs on the property described as Tract C, that tract located on the east side of Rushmore Avenue was to be limited to 125 dwelling units, Three acres within the property described as Tract C was to be dedicated as Open Space and not developed, Capitol Lakes Estates was not to be developed prior to implementation of sanitary sewer service, whether brought about through formation of a new sewer improvement district, expansion or the 4 FILE NO.: Z -6120 - existing sewer improvement district or some other more feasible cooperative alternative, and with respect to that portion of property zoned MF -12 which would front on the newly realigned Cooper Orbit Road, a twenty (20) foot natural buffer was to be maintained along the frontage of the newly aligned Cooper Orbit Road, If it became necessary to regrade the buffer zone, the regraded area within the twenty foot buffer strip was to be replanted to a planting density fifty (50) percent greater than that specified in the Little Rock landscaping ordinance. The rezoning contained Tract A, 27.77 acres, from R-2, Single-family to MF -12 and Tract C, 14.81 acres, from R-2, Single-family to MF -12. Ordinance No. 18,496, in June of 2001, established a PRD titled Village on the Lakes Long -form PRD (this rezoning took a part of Tract C 11.59 acres of the 14.81 acres). The development was proposed to be an attached single-family, townhouse development; 11 buildings with a total of 44 single-family residential dwellings on 11.59 acres located east of the proposed Rushmore Avenue. (A proposed density of 5.3 units per acre.) A. PROPOSAUREQUEST: The applicant proposes to rezone the property to Planned Development — Residential to allow the development of a 528 unit apartment development. The applicant is proposing the placement of 904 parking spaces with the development. The site is currently zoned MF -12 as is property located to the east. The applicant has filed a separate rezoning request to rezone the property to the east from MF -12 to R-2 (File No. Z -6120-F). The applicant proposes the development to be constructed in three phases with 156 units being constructed in Phase of One and Two and 216 units in the third and final phase. West Kanis Road and Rushmore Avenue are currently under construction and will be completed with Phase I. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is vacant and tree covered with heavy woods surrounding the site. The property is currently zoned MF -12 as is a smaller tract to the east. The remainder of the area is zoned R-2 with the exception of a PRD located just east of the site. The Oasis Renewal Center is located northeast of the site and the Spring Valley Manor Subdivision is located south of the site. Cooper Orbit Road borders the eastern boundary of the property. The roadway is a narrow unimproved roadway with deep ditches in several locations. 3 FILE NO.: Z -6120-E (Cont.) C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing staff has received numerous phone calls from area residents. The Spring Valley Manor Neighborhood Association, the Gibraltar Heights/Point West/Timber Ridge Neighborhood Association and the Parkway Place Property Owners Association, along with all residents, who could be identified, within 300 feet of the site, and all property owners within 200 feet of the site were notified of the Public Hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. West Kanis Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way 50 feet from centerline will be required. 2. Rushmore Avenue is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline will be required. 3. Provide design of street conforming to "MSP" (Master Street Plan). Construct one-half of a divided 4 -lane parkway, one-half of a 14 -foot median, and 5 -foot sidewalks with Planned Development. 4. Construct off-site one-half arterial to connect to existing Cooper Orbit Road. Show tie-in plan and/or public temporary turnarounds. 5. Dedicate 10 feet of additional right-of-way and construct right -turn lanes per MSP at westernmost driveway and at Rushmore Avenue. 6. Appropriate handicap ramps will be required per current ADA standards. 7. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance. 8. NPDES and grading permits are required prior to construction, site grading, and drainage plan will need to be submitted and approved. 9. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. Show adequacy and phasing, if proposed. 10. Easements shown for proposed storm drainage are required. 11. Obtain permits (barricade/street cut) for improvements within proposed or existing right-of-way from Traffic Engineering prior to construction in right-of-way. 12. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing street lights as required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Contact Traffic Engineering at 340-4880 (Steve Philpott) for more information regarding street light requirements. 13. Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Traffic Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction. 4 FILE NO.: Z -6120-E 14. Show cross-sections of proposed development prior to Planning Commission hearing. Conform to Land Alteration Ordinance, including slopes and terraces. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements if service is required for project. ENTERGY: Additional easements will be required. Can not be described at this time. Will depend on developer wanting overhead or underground service. Contact Entergy at 954-5165 for additional details. ARKLA: ARKLA has large high pressure main on the backside (west) of this development. It is located in an existing easement. Contact ARKLA at 377-4669 for additional details. Southwestern Bell: No comment received. Water: A water main extension will be required in order to serve this property. On site fire projection will be required. An acreage charge of $600 per acre currently applies in addition to normal charges in this area. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2428 for additional details. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional details at 918-3752. County Planning: No comment received. CATA: Site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus radius, turnout and route. ' F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Ellis Mountain Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Low Density Residential for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Development - Residential for apartments. A land use plan amendment for a change to Multi -family is a separate item on this agenda. (File No. LU02-18-03) 4 FILE NO.: Z -6120-E (Cont.) City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. Landscape: Interior landscape islands must be at least 300 square feet in areas and 7 Y2 feet in width. Some of the proposed parking lots need additional interior landscaping to break up the large paved areas. A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall, or dense evergreen plantings is required along the southern and western perimeters of the site. Curb and gutter will be required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. Because of the grade changes, it will be necessary to provide cross- sections. Buildinq Codes: No comment received. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: May 30, 2002 Mr. Joe White of White-Daters and Associates was present representing the application. Staff briefly described the project noting additions which were needed on the proposed site plan. Staff stated the applicant would be required to rezone the property to the east to keep with an agreement previously made with the Spring Valley Manor Neighborhood with regard to density. The applicant indicated a rezoning application had been filed and the request would be heard by the Commission at their July 11, 2002 Public Hearing. Staff questioned the building materials proposed for the development. Staff stated this would be an issue with the area residents and compatibility was a concern. Staff also stated building elevations would be required. Staff stated the buffer to the south was a zoning buffer and the buffer to the west would need to be increased to meet the ordinance requirement. The applicant stated the interior islands would be increased as recommended by staff and the developer would install dense evergreen plantings along the west and south perimeters. Public Works comments were addressed. Mr. White stated the developer would construct Y2 street improvements as a part of the development. He stated no streets were in place and the streets would have to be constructed for the development to function. Mr. White stated a regional n FILE NO.: Z -6120-E (C detention facility was proposed and an area was set aside for detention and shown on the owner's master plan. There being no further issues for discussion, the Committee forward the application to the full Commission for resolution. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted revised plans to staff indicating the requested changes proposed by Staff and the Subdivision Committee. The applicant provided cross sections and building elevations to represent the intensity of the development on the site. The buildings are proposed at three story (not to exceed 35 -feet in height) and each building have either 24 or 36 units. The applicant proposes the buildings to be constructed of cement fiber siding and brick in selected locations. Due to grade elevations some of the buildings are proposed with pedestrian bridges from the parking area to the building. In Phase I the applicant proposes to construct 156 units in six (6) buildings. The proposal includes five (5) buildings with 24 units each and one building with thirty-six units. Phase II is proposed with two (2) buildings housing 24 units and three (3) buildings housing 36 units for a total of 156 units. The third and final phase is anticipated to have six (6) buildings of 24 units and three (3) buildings of 36 units for a total of 216 units. The applicant proposes to construct 876 parking spaces within the development. The minimum number required per the Zoning Ordinance would be 792 spaces. The applicant's proposed number more than exceeds the minimum required. Each phase of the development will also have sufficient parking to meet the minimum parking requirement per the Zoning Ordinance. The density of the development is proposed at 16.6 units per acre. The site is a 31.85 acre site currently zoned MF -12 or 12 units per acre. As part of the rezoning request in 1996 a 14.81 acre site was zoned MF -12 but limited to 125 units. The rezoning in June of 2001 removed a portion of the acreage allowable (8.28 acres) and zoned the site to PRD at a density of 5.3 units per acre. The applicant is proposing to rezone the entire area (50 acres) in two separate zoning actions to PD -R and R-2, Single-family. The proposal includes 31.85 acres of multi -family and the remainder as single family. Based on previous allowable densities the developer is proposing a similar density but is keeping the density on one site rather than on each side of 7 FILE NO.: Z -6120-E (Cont. the proposed Rushmore Avenue. Had the developer developed the site as previously approved in 1996 the developer would have been allowed multi -family on 46.66 acres, (125 units on the 14.81 acre site and 382 units on the 31.85 acre site) and 507 units. The current proposal includes 528 units of multi -family an addition of 20 units total units to the area. Staff is supportive of the requested Planned Development - Residential. The density proposed is not greatly different than the density approved by the City and agreed to by the neighborhood previously. The proposed development would confine the multi -family to one site and not on each side of Rushmore Avenue; developing the east side as single family which is in keeping with the indicated desire of the area residents. Otherwise, to staff's knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed development. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Planned Development subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of this report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Mr. Jim Hathaway and Mr. Joe White v There were two objectors present. recommendation of approval subject to the "Staff Recommendation" above. (JULY 11, 2002) are present representing the application. Staff presented the item and a compliance with the conditions noted in Mr. Hathaway stated he had met with the Directors of the Property Owners Association and was aware of their concerns. He stated one of the concerns was the limited amenities the development offered; one clubhouse and one pool, and the developer had agreed to add a second clubhouse and pool as well as a fitness center. He stated Spring Valley Manor was 3/8 of a mile south of the development and the Property Owners were concerned residents of the development would "come down" and use the Association's lakes for recreational activities. Mr. Hathaway also stated the concept behind the use of the Planned Development process was the additional controls the neighborhood received. He stated the PRD as proposed did increase the overall number of units previously approved for the entire Capitol Lakes development but the proposed development concentrated the multi -family on one side of Rushmore Avenue; at the intersection of two major streets. Esq FILE NO.: Z -5120-E (Cont.) Ms. Eulalia Araoz spoke in opposition of the development. She stated her property adjoined the development to the east with frontage to Cooper Orbit Road. She stated with the realignment of Cooper Orbit Road to the new Rushmore Avenue her property would no longer have access to a public street. Ms. Araoz stated according to Public Works staff her property would be provided a pave access through the proposed development. Mr. Hathaway stated he had been in contact with Ms. Araoz's attorney and furnished him with copies of agreements made when the property was rezoned to PRD. He stated the agreement at the time of preliminary platting for Capitol Lakes Estates a commitment was made to allow the Araoz's access through a deed and not just an easement. He stated upon completion of Phase I the Araoz's would be given a deed to sufficient land to allow a road into their property. He stated further more when Tract C was rezoned to PRD a second agreement was made to allow access to the southern portion of their property. from Rushmore Avenue. He stated the Araoz's would have two (2) points of access to their property both of which were tied to development of surrounding land. Mr. Rusty Sparks spoke in opposition of the application as filed. He stated he was representing the Capitol Lakes Estates Property Owner's Association. Mr. Sparks stated there were several concerns with the development. He stated those were traffic, ingress and egress from the site, the existing narrow bridge located in the County on Cooper Orbit Road and the lack of landscaping shown on the site plan. He stated the developer had not furnished grading plans as were previously provided. He stated the site was a difficult site to develop due to the terrain. He stated grading plans were essential to determine the cuts and fills required for building the site. Mr. Sparks stated as a part of the previous approval a 20 -foot buffer was required along Rushmore Avenue. He stated the current proposal did not indicate a buffer. He stated the residents desire was to maintain the rural character of the area and the buffer was the only assurance the character of the area would be maintained. He stated the residents were unclear as to the height of the buildings. He stated the residents had been told the maximum building height would be 35 -feet but the buildings proposed were three story. He stated stressed the importance of clarification of building heights. He stated the neighborhood was opposed to a major entrance onto Rushmore Avenue. He stated the development would require two entrances but both those should be located on West Kanis Road. �9 July 11, 2002 ITEM NO.: B Cont.l FILE NO.: Z -5120-E He stated the residents were unclear as to the height of the buildings. He stated the residents had been told the maximum building height would be 35 -feet but the buildings proposed were three story. He stated stressed the importance of clarification of building heights. He stated the neighborhood was opposed to a major entrance onto Rushmore Avenue. He stated the development would require two entrances but both those should be located on West Kanis Road. Mr. Hathaway stated the bridge was outside the confines of the Capitol Lakes Estates property boundary. He stated currently off-site improvements were not required by the City for a development to occur. He stated the buildings were to be three stories in height and the terrain would determine the finished elevation. Mr. Hathaway stated the proposed density of the development was not significantly greater than previously approved. He stated a new traffic impact analysis would not show any significant change from the previous analysis. Mr. Hathaway stated the current proposal included a buffer along Rushmore Avenue. He stated in some cases the buffer was well above the 20 -feet but in some places the buffer dropped below the 20 -feet. Mr. Hathaway stated if the developer were required to keep the 20 -foot buffer some areas currently show above the 20 -feet would be eliminated. Mr. Hathaway stated the site was a challenge to work with and the current proposal was designed to maximize the green areas while still allowing for development to occur. Mr. Hathaway stated two entrances were proposed for the site. He stated there would be a grand entrance on West Kanis Road and a secondary entrance on Rushmore Avenue. Mr. Hathaway stated West Kanis Road was proposed as a principal arterial and Rushmore Avenue was proposed as a collector. He stated the roadway design would lend itself amenable to the potential traffic produced from the site. Mr. Hathaway stated the current proposal with the addition of the clubhouse and pool on the eastern perimeter made the appearance of two smaller developments. He stated the massing of multi -family in one area was good planning practice allowing the east side of Rushmore Avenue to develop as single-family. Commissioner Nunnley questioned the bridge design and public safety. Public Works Staff stated traffic was not an issue raised in the review by Traffic Engineering. Staff stated redevelopment of the area would necessitate the reconstruction of the bridge. Staff stated the roadway was approved in 1997 as 10 July 11, 2002 ITEM NO.: B (Cont. FILE NO.: Z -6120-E a five -lane roadway and at that time no mechanism was put in place to replace the existing bridge. There was a general discussion concerning the lack of a Capitol Improvements Plan for the City. A question was raised concerning the 20 -foot buffer not being shown. Staff stated the 20 -foot buffer was a condition of approval not a Landscaping Ordinance requirement. A motion was made to accept the proposed PD -R as filed. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 1 noe, 1 absent and 1 vacant position. 11