Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6120-I ApplicationCity of Little Rock Planning and Development Filing Fees Date: . [J L3 200 Annexation Board of Adjustment Cond. Use Permit/T.U.P Final Plat Planned Unit Dev. Preliminary Plat Special Use Permit Rezoning Site Plans Street Name Change Street Name Signs Number at ea. Public Hearing Signs Number�_aa'S ea. Total $�� $NOV 12 7003 ���: iV Vf► BUILDING CODE $-11Z� $ �� SEEN 11" 19 i R2 'I—,X— I L .1 .9 0 9• 10 Mxis MG3! � �,lco T 1 13 Vicinity Map Ealq> J 44? qb ell, !!! .. e, �� S AREA ZONING PRD Case: Z-6120-1 Location: CAPITOL HILLS BLVD. AND RUSHMORE AVENUE Ward: 5 PD: 18 CT: 42.07 TRS: T1NR13W7 I 0 225 450 900 Feet mmmmff=�� I LAND USE A51A um „cg r rrfrASuiEsw —�i Vicinity Map Case: Z -6120-I N Location: CAPITOL HILLS BLVD. AND RUSHMORE AVENUE Ward: 5 PD: 18 CT: 42.07 TRS: T1NR13W7 0 225 450 900 Feet t 162 201 1 202 235 l0i 2 IOT 7 -m- TRSTINR13W7 REVISED PD -R CT 42• D8 z-6120-1 PD 18 CAPITOL HILLS BLVD. WARD 5 AND RUSHMORE AVENUE NORTH 00 C3 6 op I TRSTINR13W7 REVISED PD -R CT 42• D8 z-6120-1 PD 18 CAPITOL HILLS BLVD. WARD 5 AND RUSHMORE AVENUE NORTH 00 City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development , Planning 723 West Markham Street Zoning and Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 Subdivision February 8, 2004 Mr. Jay DeHaven 10650 Mauumelle Blvd. Maumelle, AR 72113 Re: Capitol Hills Apartments Revised Long -form PD -R (Z -6120-I), located on the southwest corner of Capitol Hills Boulevard and Rushmore.Avenue Dear Mr. DeHaven: This is to advise you that in connection with your application Case No. Z -6120-I the following action was taken by the Planning Commission at its meeting on January 29, 2004: Approved with conditions. Recommended approval with conditions. Recommended approval as submitted. Denied your request as submitted. Deferred to Meeting. X Other: Withdrew your request without prejudice. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at 371-6821. Respectfully, Donna James, AICP Subdivision Administrator OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 500 West Markham, Ste. 310 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Cynthia S. Dawson Deputy City Attorney January 22, 2004 Andrew V. Francis Attorney at Law 2311 Biscayne Drive, Suite 205 Little Rock, AR 72227 Re: Planning Commission meeting of December 4, 2003 Dear Mr. Francis: Telephone (501) 371-4527 Telecopier (501) 371-4675 After reading the copy of your January 15, 2004 letter to Donna James, Subdivision Administrator, I feel I must respond to some of the statements you have made in your letter and to the characterization of the treatment afforded your client as unfair. We are certainly in agreement with you that all parties benefit when the City impartially adheres to its ordinances and regulations and allows everyone a fair opportunity to avail themselves of the planning process. That is exactly what the City consistently strives to do in all its planning activities and what City staff and planning commissioners were providing on December 4 when your client's matter arose at the Planning Commission. The requirement to place your client's request to defer street construction until such time as the third lot is constructed stemmed not from a "strained interpretation" of the boundary street ordinance but from the PD -R granted to your client. The time for street construction was clearly stated in the approved PD -R. When the division of the property into three lots was later considered by the Commission, the Commission was told that everything else but the division would remain the same. A change in the placement of the road and a delay in its construction were therefore clearly matters that would require revision of the PD -R. Despite your contention that the City had already made a decision to deny the item without granting a hearing, the facts show otherwise. The only action taken by the Planning Commission was simply one to defer the item until the next meeting for a full and fair hearing on that date. No decision was reached about the merits of the PD -R revision. There were a number of concerns that surfaced when your client's item came up for consideration and, unfortunately, there was also a certain amount of confusion that occurred, stemming in part from a lack of timely information about the proposed revision. It is my understanding that Donna James had long before asked for information to understand the specifics of what was being proposed, how it was to work, and why it was being proposed, but it was only on the day of the Planning Commission meeting that a letter from Civil Design giving the requested explanation was received. I think that considering the circumstances, the Commission and the interim chair, although he was inexperienced in that role, did handle the meeting in a reasonable fashion. Although it is arguably not the better practice, it is not unusual for the applicant to wait to present his or her item until after the opposition concerns have been stated so the applicant can fully respond in the limited time available. I can assure you that no slight was intended by the order in which the item proceeded. Certainly your client was not singled out in that regard because a number of other items around the same time were handled in the same manner. At the last meeting on December 18, I did suggest to the Commission that it should let the applicant present the item before moving on to hear from the opposition. Whether it was correct or not, there was some concern raised at the meeting as to whether what was being proposed at the meeting was the same as what had been given to staff. There was also a question raised by the then -Planning Director as to whether the engineers present to speak for the item were properly authorized to represent that particular application. Again, this was no slight to your client or to the engineers, but a concern for the proper procedure to be followed. It was clear that the engineers present said they were working on only one aspect of the development, and that they were not the engineers involved in the aspect of the development that concerned the apartments. But since the street issue was tied to the PD -R for the apartments, there was a concern that they would not be able to provide answers or information to the commissioners on the specific issue before the Planning Commission. Needless to say, it is unusual for the issue of proper representation to arise at the Planning Commission meeting level since that problem is usually caught earlier. Nevertheless, that does not mean that the City should not assure itself that only properly authorized persons represent an application before the Commission. As I said, however, that was only one part of the confusion. There were abundant reasons for the Commission to defer the matter to give more time to understand the item and ensure that the proper process was being followed. I can assure you that there was no intent to keep you or anyone else from appearing or speaking at the Planning Commission meeting that evening. As you know, the meeting always begins at 4:00 p.m. when the doors to City Hall are open. Your client's item happened to be the last one on the agenda, likely because the staff agreed to put it on the agenda despite it not meeting the usual deadlines. (This may have been unequal treatment, but it was in your client's favor.) Because the item was heard late in the evening, the cleaning staff had likely already finished their work and locked the building on their way out. Due to security concerns, the City is not able to keep the doors to City Hall open at all hours of the night. Most people at the time you arrived are leaving the building, not wanting to enter. Even so, you apparently were successful in gaining entry since you appeared in the meeting room as the meeting was ending. There was, as you state, opposition to your client's item, but it is hardly unusual for there to be opposition to agenda items. Certainly the City is not responsible for comments made by those opponents of your client's development. Regardless of the opposition that existed, the City did not fail to provide equal protection, due process or fair treatment to your client. Sincerely, Thomas M. Carpenter City Attorney Cynthia S. Dawson Deputy City Attorney ANDREW V. FRANcis, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAW 2311 BISCAYNE DRIVE, SUITE 205 ANDREW V. FRANCIS LITTLE ROCK, AR 72227 E-MAII..AVFPA@SBCGWBAL_NEf TELEPHONE (501) 954-7390 FACSIMILE (501) 954-7385 January 15, 2004 Ms. Donna James Subdivision Administrator City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development 723 W. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Via Facsimile — 399-3435 and U. S. Maid RE: Capitol Hill Apartments — Proposed revision to PD -R related to construction of Rushmore Avenue as a boundary Street Dear Donna: This letter will confirm our phone conversation yesterday where I informed you that the applicant for the above -referenced matter was withdrawing its application. The applicant sought this revision in response to a strained interpretation of the boundary street ordinance by the City. Despite disagreeing with the City's interpretation of the ordinance, the applicant chose to work with the City and revise the PD -R. As you know, the City staff and the Planning Commission denied the applicant's representative the opportunity to present this item at the subdivision hearing on Thursday, December 4, 2003. It is apparent that the City has already made a decision to deny this item without granting a hearing, and any further attempts to comply with the procedures for presenting and appealing this decision would be futile. Accordingly, the applicant will not continue to pursue this item before the City. I was deeply disappointed at the unfair treatment afforded the applicant by the City staff and Planning Commission at the previous hearing. First, staff followed the reading of its recommendation with a statement that it wanted to continue to "punish" the applicant for an enforcement item which the applicant had already fully resolved with the City. After this introduction, the Planning Commission's chairman attempted to call a vote to deny the item without hearing from the applicant. The Planning Commission then called the parties opposing the item to speak rather than giving the applicant an opportunity to present its item. When the Planning Commission finally called the applicant's representatives, staff denied them the opportunity to speak saying that they were not properly authorized representatives. This was after numerous contacts between the Staff and the applicant's representatives in the previous days, including the day of the meeting. I attempted to attend the meeting after seeing this display Page 2 Ms. Donna James January 15, 2004 being broadcast on the local access channel. However, I could not gain access to the meeting because the doors of City Hall were locked! In my six years of practice before the City I can never remember seeing this rule being enforced against any other applicant. Even one of the Planning Commissioners told me that they had not seen the rule invoked in their seven years on the Commission! I understand that there was opposition to this item. The same objectors have opposed almost every phase of this development. At this meeting they even went so far as to claim that I had lied to them about this item, a ridiculous charge which I vigorously dispute. Despite the level of public opposition to a planning item, I do not think the answer is for the City to prevent an applicant from having access to city government, to fail to provide the applicant the equal protection of the law, and denying it due process. Rather, I think all parties are benefited when the City impartially adheres to its ordinances and regulations and allows everyone a fair opportunity to avail themselves of the planning process. If that had been done in this case, I think it would have been clear that the proposed application would have been to the benefit of all parties. Sincerely, ANDREW V. FRANCIS, P.A. Andrew V. Francis /avf cc: Civil Design, Inc. Capitol Lakes Management, LLC Capitol Hill Limited Partnership Ms. Cindy Dawson Dee 04 03 10:lea Civil Design, Inc. 501-868-5099 p.1 15104 Cantrell Road, Ude Rack, Aftr OS Phom (501)BSB-7717,Fox (501)868-5099 7b: Donna James, CLR Planning Faxi 3993435 Phwwa 371-6821 Rai Capitol Hill Apartments 1 pesign, in , From: James Daher Pagesi 3 Data: 12/4/2003 CC: Cap Lakes LLC 851-4887 Andy Francis 954-7385 ❑ Urgent ❑ For Ravlsw ❑ Fleas* Comment ❑ Please Reply 13 Please Recycle Comments: Call with any questions James Dec 04 03 10;10a Civil Design, Inc. RI 501-668-5088 p.2 CIN71 L DESIGN. • INCORPORATED 15104 CANTRELL ROAD LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72223 December 3, 2003 Ms, Donna James Department of Planning & Development City of Little Rock 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Re: Proposed Revision of PD -R Related to Boundary Street Construction Capitol Hills Apartments Dear Donna: The Intern of this letter is to clarify the reasoning behind the proposed revision to the shove referenced project. As you are aware, construction of Phase I of the Capitol Lakes Development is wall underway. Our firm has represented the development on the overall pie tting as well as design and construction supervision for the sing ls4amily portion Of the proisCl while White-Datem has represented the mul44amily portion known as Capitol Hill Apartments. Design of the boundary streets, Capitot Hill Boutevard and Rushmore Avenue, is under the single-family portion of the development and hence is pert of our scope of wor'l. During the course of several design meetings held vhlh the Public Works Department, several issues related to the design of these streets have orison. One such issue is the connection of Capitol H 11 Boulevard to existing Cooper OrbiL Road. The preliminary plan called for two connections to existing Cooper Orbr and a proposed sbandonmen3 of one section of the existing road. The first connection would be at the north line of the development where Capitol Hip Boulevard will He to the existing Coop ar Orbit roadway. The second connection is near the south line of Phase 1 of the development where existing Cooper Orbit Road intersects Rushmore Aver ua. The portion of Cooper Orbit Road between the originally proposed connections was to have been abandoned, which wouid require traffic to be re-routed from Cooper Orbit onto Capitol Hill Sou Ievard, thence to Rushmore Avenue and Ihenee back w existing Cooper Orbit. Those locations have been highlighted on the enclosed drawing for your convenience. Closure of the indicated part of Cooper Orbit would also inter`ere wlth maintenance of access to the Arooz property lying dirsody to the East of the deveiopmenL Closure at this time would conflict with access agreements reached between the Developmer+t and the Araot during preliminary plat and rezoning phases. Our fine has evaluated technical items such as the vert€ el grade separation at both connection points, the limited sight distance issues related to the Rushmore Avenue oonnentian polrnt, and the possible need for temporary closure of Cooper Orbit during construction. As you are well aware, any closure of Cooper Orbit would inconvenience the residents of Spring Valley Manor. With all of the above considered, we have proposed the idea a temporary connection between Cocpor Orbit and Capitol Hili wh€la keep Ing exisling Cooper Orbit road open and not makiN the connection between Cooper Orbit and Rushmore at this time. We feel that we do not need to construct Rushmore until either the developmmnt of Tract C, construction of Phase 3 of the apartments, or beginning construction of Phase 2 of the overall devvelopmentods Proposal @I Wes acceptabla to Public Works ❑apartment except that phasing of the boundary ■ ENGINEERING & SURVEYING SERVICES —TEL (501) 868-7717 • FAX (501) 868-5099 Dec 04 03 10:16a Civil Design, Inc. 501-668-5099 p.3 December 3, 2003 Ms. Donna James Page Two Capitol Hill Apartment Project was not requested during the creation of the PD -R. The developer and we hod assumed that by phasing the construction of the apartments themselves, phasing of lh boundary W eats Ymu ethis Is not the case and that it wM take ; r, has infotmed us e an action of them Planning Camisat SS make such a change to the PD -R. We have recently begun final design work on Phase 2 of the development and are Soaking at some possibla charges to the southward alignment of Rushmore Avenue to lessen future construction impact to existing Cooper Orbit Road. Due to this and the aforementioned considerations we feel that the proposed postponement of the construction of Rushmore Avenue would be in the hest interest of a]I parties and the public at large. The dght•o,way clearing, rough dlnwork and insle11stion of the major drainage facilities have already been performed on the northern section of Rushrnore abutting the future apartment phase. Thane areas have already been seeded and timet stabilized pending any further construction on the finish street. The drainage erosion control features around each of the drainage inlets and pipers will oe maintained as long as needed. As previously stated, the Public Works Department has not had any objections to our proposed staging of the construction. We feel that this 1s an appropriate plan of action for the project and hope with Chia additional information, the Planning Staff can concur with our recommendations. We hope that the Commission will act in our favor on this issue by allowing phasing of construction. if you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to Cali. Respectfully Submitted, Civil Design, Inc. "C�'t'— James Dreher, E.I. Staff Engineer JHDljd cc. Andy Francis Capitol Lakes Management, LLC Via Regular Mail October 29, 2003 Mr. Andrew V. Francis Attorney at Law 2311 Biscayne Drive Suite 205 Little Rock, Arkansas 72227 RE: Request to Revise Boundary Street Improvements Capitol Hills Apartments, Phase 1 Dear Mr. Francis: We have reviewed your request to eliminate the construction of Rushmore Avenue at the eastern boundary of your site. Your request pledges to build it at a later date when the lot abutting Rushmore — "Lot 3" — is developed. We understand that this lot is newly created within the apartment complex, which raises the issue that perhaps a boundary street improvement is no longer applicable under Article VI of Section 30 of the Little Rock Code. That is because no building work has been permitted on Lot 3 and no access is required to Rushmore. Public Works has determined that matters of phasing or delaying construction of boundary streets are outside our purview and belong to the Planning Commission. Your site is an approved PD -R under the city's zoning ordinance Sec. 36-451 et seq. The Planning Commission approved street completion concurrent with Phase 1. Sections 36- 453 (a) and (d) allow staging including streets and require adherence to the plan. Unfortunately, your application did not contemplate nor request any such staging. Additional language in the ordinance requires final plan approval before the first building permit within the PD -R can be issued. This approval has already occurred. Creating lots through the subdivision process is an option for the owner/developer, but does not preclude the conditions and plan established for the PD -R. Clearly, a revision to the final plan must return to the Planning Commission for approval. We have no comment at this time regarding the staff's recommendation about the staging request. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 244-5402. Sincerely, David Hamilton, P.E. Permit Review Engineer Cc: Steve Haralson, Civil Engineering Manager Dana Carney, Subdivision and Zoning Manager ANDREW V. FRANCIS, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LA W 2311 BiscAYNEDRivE, SUIT5205 ANDREW V. FRANCIS ' LiTTLEROCK,'AR 72227 !-YAWAw1PA&9C0L0RALNHT TELEPHONE(501) 954-7390 P.ACS1M1LR(501) 954-7385 October 28, 2003 Mr. David Hamilton City of Little Rock Department of Public Works 701 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Via Farsimil — 371-4460 and U. S. Mall RE: Capitol Hill Apartments — Review of application of boundary street ordinance to building permit of Lot I, Capitol Hill Apartments Dear David: I am writing to request that the City of Little Rock, Department of Public Works, revisit the application of the boundary street ordinance to the Capitol Hill Apartments development pursuant to the existing building permit for Phase I of Capitol Hill Apartments. Please recall that when the City issued the building permit for Phase I of Capitol Hill Apartments, the property was platted as a single lot, zoned PRD. The building permit applied to the construction of the first phase of.gpartments on Phase I of the PRD, which property is owned by Capitol Hill Limited Partnership. -The building permit required construction of Capitol Hills Boulevard (f/k/a West Kanis Road) along the northern boundary of the PRD and the construction of Rushmore Avenue along the eastern boundary of the PRD in accordance with the boundary street ordinance, Article VI of Section 30 of the Little Rock City Code. Since the issuance of the building permit, Capitol Hill Apartments has been re -platted into three separate lots, each zoned PRD, along the previous phase lines. The construction which is taking place pursuant to the previously -issued building permit is only occurring on Lot 1. Lot 1 lies at the western edge of the Capitol Lakes. Estates property and is not bordered by Rushmore Avenue. Accordingly, the property owner would like staff to review the application of the boundary street ordinance to the previously issued bililding permit. It is the property owners' position that, since Rushmore Avenue no longer borders Lot 1, the boundary street ordinance should not require its construction in conjunction with the .building permit for Lot 1. Of course, this will not affect the construction of Capitol Hills Boulevard. Also, the property owner will comply with the boundary street ordinance upon development of either Lot 3, Capitol Hill Apartments or Tract C, Capitol Lakes Estates, both of which border Rushmore Avenue. .Jct.28. 2003 12:04PM Andrew V FranCIS,N - N "U V'� Page 2 l &. David Hamilton October 28, 2003 Thank you very much and please call me with any questions. Cordially, ANDREW V. FRANCIS, P.A. drew V. Francis /avf cc: Capitol Hill Limited Partnership Civil Design, Inc. Oct 30 03 03:15p LIT City of Little Rock _ Engineering Division Department of r 701 West Markham Public Works Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1300 371-4811 FAX 371-4460 Via Regular Mail October 30, 2003 Mr. Andrew V. Francis Attorney at Law 2311 Biscayne Drive Suite 205 Little Rock, Arkansas 72227 RE- Request to Revise Boundary Street Improvements Capitol Hills Apartments,. Phase 1 Dear Mr. Francis: We have reviewed your request to -phase the construction of Rushmore Avenue at the eastern boundary of your site. Your request pledges to build it at a later date when the lot abutting Rushmore — "Lot 3" — is developed. We understand that this lot is newly created within the apartment complex, which raises the issue that perhaps a boundary street improvement is no longer applicable under Article VI of Section 30 of the Little Rock Code. That is because no building work has been permitted on Lot 3 and no access is required to Rushmore. Public Works has determined that your client's original application was approved by the Plannuig Commission without a request for phasing boundary street construction so any change to that must be approved by them as well. Your site is an approved PD -R under the city's zoning ordinance Sec. 36-451 et seq. The Planning Commission approved street completion concurrent with Phase" 1. Sections 36-453 (a) and (d) allow staging including streets and require adherence to the plan. Unfortunately, your application did not contemplate nor request any such staging. Additional language in the ordinance requires final plan approval before the first:building permit within the PD -R can be issued. This approval has already occurred. Cre4ting lots through the subdivision process is an option for the owner/developer, but does riot preclude the conditions and plan established for the PD -R. Clearly, a revision to the final planInust return to the Planning Commission for approval. We have no comment at this time regarding the staff's recommendation about the staging request. Received Time Oct•30. 2:13PM Oct 30 03 03:15p If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 244-5402. Sincerely, David Hamilton, P.E. Permit Review Engineer Cc: Steve Haralson, Civil Engineering Manager Dana Carney, Subdivision and Zoning Manager Received Time Oct -30. 2:1.3PM p.2 ANDREW V. FRANCIS E-MAIL:AVFPA [Ci SBCGLOBALNET October 30, 2003 ANDREW V. FRANCIs, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAW' 2311 BISCAYNE DRIVE, SUITE 205 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72227 TELEPHONE(501)954-7390 i ACSIMILE (501) 954-73 85 Ms. Donna James City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development 723 W. Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Capitol Hill Apartments — Proposed revision to PD -R related to construction of Rushmore Avenue as a boundary street. Dear Donna: I previously corresponded with David Hamilton in the City's Department of Public Works regarding a request to phase the construction of Rushmore Avenue within the Capitol Lakes Estates development. My client made *this request because the replat of Capitol Hill Apartments PD -R which divided it into three lots...Accordingly, my client did not want to construct Rushmore Avenue, on the eastern boundary of Lot 3 of Capitol Hill Apartments, until that lot was developed. David's response was that we would need to seek approval of the Planning Commission on this matter. A copy bf his correspondence to me is enclosed for your request. Please place the above -referenced matter on the Planning Commission Agenda for the December 4, 2003 subdivision meeting. Enclosed please find my check in the amount of $250 as the filing fee for this application. Thank you very much and please call me with any questions. Cordially, AND V. FRANCIS, P.A. drew V. Francis /avf Enclosures cc: Mr. James Dreher (w/encloslires) Mr. Joe White (w/enclosures) Capitol Lakes Management, LLC (w/enclosures) City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development Planning 723 West Markham Street Zoning and Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 Subdivision December 8, 2003 Mr. Jay DeHaven 10650 Mauumelle Blvd. Maumelle, AR 72113 Re: Capitol Hills Apartments Revised Long -form PD -R (Z -6120-I), located on the southwest corner of Capitol Hills Boulevard and Rushmore Avenue Dear Mr. DeHaven: This is to advise you that in connection with your application Case No. Z -6120-I the following action was taken by the Planning Commission at its meeting on December 4, 2003: Approved with conditions. Recommended approval with conditions. Recommended approval as submitted. Denied your request as submitted. X Deferred to January 24, 2004 Meeting. Other: If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at 371-6821. Respectfully, Donna James, AICP Subdivision Administrator REGISTRATION FORM FOR PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION This card can be picked up at any time in the Planning and Development Office, 723 West Markham, Little Rock, Arkansas. I wish to speak about Item # {� _ on the agenda. I am opposed for Name 1' L' Address L k Date I Z I� 10 `]7-Z/D Telephone No. REGISTRATION FORM FOR PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION This card can be picked up at any time in the Planning and Development Office, 723 West Markham, Little Rock, Arkansas. I wish to speak about Item # I am opposed ! Name for 2/ Address Telephone No. Date'` on the agenda. REGISTRATION FORM FOR PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION This card can be picked up at any time in the Planning and Development Office, 723 West Markham, Little Rock, Arkansas. I wish to speak about Item # I C/ on the agenda. I am opposed / for Name / 0 5' �� L Pc.� � lJ Address /5-0 Telephone No. Date — l L/e�'/o City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development Planning 723 West Markham Street Zoning and Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 Subdivision December 18, 2003 Ms. Anita Spence 15 Vista Drive Little Rock, AR 72210 Dear Citizen: On behalf of the Little Rock Planning Commission, I would like to thank you for your participation in the December 4, 2003 commission meeting. It is very important to the City staff and the Planning Commission to have citizen input in the planning decision-making process. Capitol Hills Apartments Long -form PD -R deferred to the January 29, 2004 Public Hearing. This meeting will begin at 4:00 pm and be held at 500 West Markham Street, City Hall, on the 2nd Floor. For additional information, you can contact the Planning staff at 371-4790. Staff responsibilities are as follows: Rezoning and Zoning Variance — Monte Moore Subdivision and Planned Unit Developments — Donna James Conditional and Tower Use Permits — Dana Carney Thank you again for your input. Sincerely, Jim Lawson Secretary to Little Rock Planning Commission Et City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 December 18, 2003 Mr. Ross Phillips 34 Vista Drive Little Rock, AR 72210 Dear Citizen: Planning Zoning and Subdivision On behalf of the Little Rock Planning Commission, I would like to thank you for your participation in the December 4, 2003 commission meeting. It is very important to the City staff and the Planning Commission to have citizen input in the planning decision-making process. Capitol Hills Apartments Long -form PD -R deferred to the January 29, 2004 Public Hearing. This meeting will begin at 4:00 pm and be held at 500 West Markham Street, City Hall, on the 2nd Floor. For additional information, you can contact the Planning staff at 371-4790. Staff responsibilities are as follows: Rezoning and Zoning Variance — Monte Moore Subdivision and Planned Unit Developments — Donna James Conditional and Tower Use Permits — Dana Carney Thank you again for your input. Sincerely, Jim Lawson Secretary to Little Rock Planning Commission City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development Planning 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334tLN Zoning and Phone: (501) 371-4790 ' Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 Subdivision December 18, 2003 Mr. Roger Lewis 15000 Gorgeous View Trail Little Rock, AR 72210 Dear Citizen: On behalf of the Little Rock Planning Commission, I would like to thank you for your participation in the December 4, 2003 commission meeting. It is very important to the City staff and the Planning Commission to have citizen input in the planning decision-making process. Capitol Hills Apartments Long -form PD -R deferred to the January 29, 2004 Public Hearing. This meeting will begin at 4:00 pm and be held at 500 West Markham Street, City Hall, on the 2°d Floor. For additional information, you can contact the Planning staff at 371-4790. Staff responsibilities are as follows: Rezoning and Zoning Variance — Monte Moore Subdivision and Planned Unit Developments — Donna James Conditional and Tower Use Permits — Dana Carney Thank you again for your input. Sincerely, Jim Lawson Secretary to Little Rock Planning Commission City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development Planning 723 West Markham Street Zoning and Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Subdivision Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION ON A REQUEST FOR A REZONING THROUGH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO: Spring Valley Manor Property Owners Association ATTENTION: Ms. Anita Spence ADDRESS: #15 Vista Drive Little Rock AR 72210 REQUEST: Capitol Hills Apartments Revised PD -R (Z-6120-1), a request to revise the previously approved Planned Residential Development PRD to allow Rushmore Avenue to not be constructed until Phase III or Lot 3 is developed. GENERAL LOCATION OR ADDRESS: On the southwest corner of Capitol Hills Boulevard and Rushmore Avenue OWNED BY: Jay DeHaven NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT an application for Rezoning —(Planned Development of the above property has been filed with the Department of Planning and Development. A public hearing will be held by the L.R. Planning Commission in the Board of Directors Chamber, second floor, City Hall, on December 4, 2403 at 4:00 P.M. This notice is provided in order to assure that neighborhood associations are aware of issues that may affect their neighborhood. Information requests should be directed to the Planning Staff (Donna James) at 371-4790. Jim Lawson, Director Dec 04 03 11:50a Civil Design, Inc. 501-968-5099 p.2 CIVIL DESIGN • INCORPORATED 15104 CANTRELL ROAD LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72223 December 3, 2003 Ms. Donna James Department of Planning & Development City of Little Rock 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Re: Proof of Public Notice Proposed Revislon of PD -R Capitol Hills Apartments Dear Donna: Please find enclosed a ropy of the Notice of Public Hearing and the certified mail return receipts for the above referenced project. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Civil Design, Inc. lm='U'aher, E.I. StefP Engineer JHD/fid cc: Andy Francis Capitcl Lakes Management, LLC ■ ENGINEERING & SURVEYING SERVICES —TEL (501) 868-7717 • FAX (501) 868-5099 Dec 04 03 11:50a Civil Design, Inc. 501-868-5099 F.3 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION ON AN PROPOSED REVISION TO A PDR To ALL owners of land lying within 200 feet of the boundary of the property located at. Address: General Location: _ Scuth side of Caoi of Hill Boulevard. West of oo-.;r Qrhit Road Owned by: C itol Lakes Man aoem mt LLC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT an application for a Planned Zoning Development of the above property requesting a change of classification from Residential District to PZD has been filed with the Department of Planning and Development A public hearing to review a preliminary plat for this property will be held by the Little Rock Planning Commission on December 41h , at 4:00 P -M. in the Soard of Directors Chamber, second floor, Little Rock City Hatt, Igcated at 500 W Markham Street. Note: The platting into lots and streets may involve a request for variances or waivers from the standards set forth in the Subdivision Regulations of the City of Little Rock. ALL PARTIES IN INTEREST MAY APPEAR and be heard at the above cited time and place, or any party in interest may notify the Planning Commission of their views on this matter by letter. Alf persons interested in this request are invited to call or visil the Department of Planning and Development located at 77.3 W. IVlarkhom St., 371-4790, to review and discuss the applicattan information with the Planning staff. Correspondence to the Planning Commission may oa addressee to the Commission as a whole or to individual Commission membera in care of the Little Rock Department of Planning and Development, 723 W. Markham 5L, Little Rock, AR 72201. AFFIDAVIT I hereby certify that I have notified all the property mars of record within 200 feel ct the above property that subject property is being considered for rezoning and that a Puctic Hearing is to be held by the Little Rock Planning Commission at the time and place described above. Applicant (Owner or Authorized Agent) ON r�- L-� (Name) (Date) Dec 04 03 11:50a Civil Design, Inc. 501-868-5099 p.4 t` SENDER-. a ■ Com7ktr Ater. t s air• 2 for adH;ti' W scr, res. in lJor14+tMr NOMI S. rA.•n W 4h d Pr •d ,Feta r#rrMf mry irtkl'45s �n file revs ren of this form so that •n'n cm F return Ms N emd is ycu. • Alrets alis loan to tl•e faint c' tin mailpiene, ar o•r lho back tt spaca does Fail ■+Mt �' .�: rra ,+are r/csdP+ fin xv..ztrd 7r n•n n Mk.yrn uaxw u a of cia nnmhM m ■Y1r. Rnrnr+Rc:E'+1v, if slw.l".+vtFon Y+cm4c•�xn�C�•r*4d niW lhr, data Qo're+od. 4a. Aif le I' C also wish to receive the following services ([or an extra `eej: 1. [1 Addressees Address U � 2 ElRestrIctEd Delivery 0 Consult postmaster for fee a a 3. Arl.rAp A::d essad o E Sib eooS SSS Z m �bTPrl6 S mo _m C�Ptzac. Lnl<GS r ;b. $ervl;e iYga a� Q Registered �, aoX t3zst, tai � ❑ Express 7,dai �.\ Tl VE �� AX % 7 1 + ❑ 9e'Lrn Rece pt lar Merchandise 7. Dzte of 0e8vefy _ - . / e.. 5. Received S • (Prkr! NR 0.1 S. A and fee is p -aid) w 6.51 oawre: I'Addrasse cr gen 1 °a. W 102595.98 -f? -0229 qan PS Fern December 5 4 SBS � p,�,rtified r❑ Inswed Q COD 'o a. !e'eu5-=fs'd z n F- Ratu rn �$ SENDER:also wish to receive the a Complete llpma r andror 2 for additional 5erices. foNoveing services (for an u • Complete Iteral I4d, Cn0 40. d rPh,li y�wr nwx prtd rrld'p95 in 1110 fOvere^. 01 :Ills form so Ihst V. -a usn "elm live extra feel: r�f610 �ray. a Atiacbt f Es n to the tro d of thri minp ace, or en the beta fa it apaco dces n 1 :. ❑ Addressee's Address ��ryry Fµr,lba Avh.� Aii iWQ[M`SfP:r•4n 'np lkkt IplprJg ha t�k irilWQ rHarber. 2. ❑ Restricted Delive rA ' ■ The Anti air -W*l K• ' »Ifnw b K ro'r Il•o nrpd� wu XcrNaU rrld"dd:n Consul[ posimester for fee daPvg'ou 0 3, Article Addressed to: 4g. Adtcie Nunber, _a mac '7000 5530 o 105 $FSZ957Bw a 1pnnce Type 3 E s-�g1�fN5 gJ1t_t1t�i\v j t;a F+a:sslered L'd`Certitied � 3riPl Ls? sf.s Zzct AQL -12201 i❑ Express Me!; ❑ Insured � w ly ❑ Return ReCaAi for terchnrdise [i COD 7 A 7. vrfx 01 Da�,Va y $ 5. Recr}weo By: 1prrnf hSeme7 e. Adfeassvl; A`dress (0my it requested F and fee is paid) t ¢ $. Ei�tafur8: (.�dnhLPsxse cr.4genf) - r x a » PS Form 3811, onembsir 1994 1C2595•9B•n?t2:!i 0nms5fio Return Receipt Ar1DxEw V. FRANCIS, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAW 2311 BISCAYNE DRivE, SurrE 205 ANDREW V. FRANCIS LITTLE RocK, AR 72227 E-MAII.;AVFPA@SBCGWBAGNET TELEPHONE (501) 954-7390 FACSIMILE (501) 954-7385 November 13, 2003 Ms. Donna James City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development 723 W. Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 Via Hand Delive RE: Capitol Hill Apartments — Proposed revision to PD -R related to construction of Rushmore Avenue as a boundary street. Dear Donna: Enclosed please find my firm's check number 1190 in the amount of $250. This will replace the lost check number 1173 in the amount of $250 as the filing fee for the above -referenced matter. Thank you very much and please call me with any questions. Cordially, ANDREW V. FRANCIS, P.A. 1:'717_ -- - -- - -_ - -- --- - Andrew V- Francis /avf Enclosure cc: Mr. James Dreher (w/enclosure) Capitol Lakes Management, LLC (w/enclosure) JUN -0-02 07:22 FROM -Beach A"tract 501-376-5667 T-971 P. 002/003 F-341 o- Beach Abstract & Guaranty ComVany 100 Center Street • P.O. Box 2580 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 Telephone: (501) 376-3301 Fax: (501) 376-5667 (Title Dept.) • Fax: (501) 376-5603 (Escrow Dept.) Ifiay 22, 2002 Mr. Brian Dale V,'l=ite-Daters tc �'_ssocit:tes, Inc:. 24 Rahling Circle Little Pock, Arkansas 72223 1:e: property lyitaF; vlltbin 200 feet of port of V1, Section 7, `fovnsyiip I Nurt'h, Range 13 'nest - (Capi Lol Hills Apnrtment5 ) Deer P.1r . Dale; Vie have examined the 7'6e01'cls of Pulaski Count:y, Ar•k- azZsas, up to Apvil 25, 200 r? 8:00 A. M_ as tc7 tI.Le pr ipe.rty lying iiithin 200 feet of U11c proxicrty' desc:vibd on the a.tta(:I ed sheet. lr;e find tl*::t tree folloviin7 clescribed p-_,operties lies lgit._in 200 feet of tUo subject; jWoperty. Real Yropertiec;, Inc., StephL-ns Blclgl, I,it;tie P�ocl: kr 72201 NEf : , Secti m 12, Townstiii-p l Nortli, Range 11L West. Capitol Lakes Estat:es, LLC, PO for. 13256, Little Rock, AT' 7211.3 PF -rt Wrr" 7 Section 7, Towns1iip 1 I-Torth, P.;.npe. 13 VICSt (long; metes & t)ourlds clescripLicn. V1e do not certify as to v; lic3:_ty OP title. F_ddressrs cif Jv1ners pre ijut pruar•anteed -to be accurate. . A. Bov,en, Jr. CI -1p.. ir01E,n JUN -03702 07:23 FROM -Beach Ah- Tact 501-376-566" T-971 P.003/003 F-341 LEGAL DESCRIPTION PART OF THE NW1/4,- SECTION 7, T -1--N, R -13--W, LITTLE ROCK, PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS: COMMENCING AT THE NE CORNER OF THE SE1/4, NN1/4, SECTION 7, T -1—N, R -13—W, LITTLE ROCK, PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS; THENCE 5544 36'20"W, 812.98 FT. TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S14'51'38"E,. 73.58 FT.; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A 1259.78 FT. RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF S02721'14"W, 745.69 FT.; THENCE N80'16'23"W. 369.35 FT.: THENCE N48'16'23"W, 185.00 FT.; THENCE N70'11'08"W, 963.49 FT.; THENCE N87*16'53"W, 505.54 FT. TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 7; THENCE N01'43'370E ALONG SAID WEST UNE, 666.49 FT.; THENCE S88'15'51"E, 243.57 FT.; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A 2055.33 FT. RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF S7601'57"E, 730.15 FT.; THENCE S6748'02"E, 411.98 FT.; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A 950.00 FT. RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A CHORD BEARING 1 AND DISTANCE OF S8418'30"E, 539.82 FT.; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A 25.00 FT. RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF S5750'15"E, 34.09 FT. TO THE. POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 31.85 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. June 20, 199',6 ITEM NO.: 5 Z -6120-A (Corit.) Commissioner Lichty asked if someone could provide a figure of the amount of buildable/usable acreage available in the eastern tract. Mr. Hathaway responded that the gross acreage was 14.81± acres; deducting the right-of-way leaves 13.4± acres. Mr. Hathaway estimated the lake feature to be approximately 3 acres; bringing the net -buildable acreage down to 10.4± acres. Commissioner Lichty noted that the difference between this proposal and the previously approved rezoning was approximately 3 acres, or 36 units at 12 units per acre. Commissioner Hawn noted that the 3 acres represented by the lake feature would be zoned MF -12 which would add to the density of apartments which could be developed on the remaining property. Commissioner Lichty asked if the lake was an essential element for stormwater detention purposes. David Scherer, of the Public Works Department, stated that there were several ways to address stormwater detention. He noted that the issue before the Commission was not a Planned Development or site plan which could assure that the lake would be developed as shown by the applicant. Mr. Scherer stated that he could not require the construction of a 3 acre lake at the time of development unless the applicant committed to that through the rezoning. Mr. Hathaway stated that he was willing to amend the application so as to limit the number of units which could be constructed on the eastern tract. O. C. Sparks, representing the Spring Valley Manor Property Owners Association, addressed the Commission. He presented a map showing the larger area around the property in question. He discussed the Master Street Plan and the impact of the proposed roads on the area. Mr. Sparks spoke in opposition to the proposed multifamily zoning. He stated that the neighborhood was opposed to moving the multifamily zoning closer to the Spring Valley Manor Subdivision. In response to a statement from Chairman Woods, Mr. Sparks stated that the neighborhood had suggested that the density be reduced on the eastern tract. Mr. Sparks stated that the location was not as significant as the density. Mr. Hathaway then stated that the applicant was willing to amend the application to reduce the density of the development that would occur on the eastern tract. He stated that the density would be reduced by 36 units, the estimated number of units corresponding to the 3 acre water feature, and in conjunction with that, the applicant would designate 3 acres from within that tract (most likely in the location where the water feature is shown) to be reserved as 5 June 2 0., 19M ITEM NO.: 5 Z -6120-A Cont. open space which would not be built upon. In addition, Mr. Hathaway stated that the MF -12 calculation would be based upon the acreage net of the right-of-way, 13.4± acres instead of 14.81± acres. This would result, Mr. Hathaway stated, in 52 units less than if the entire 14.81± acres were developed at MF -12 density. Mr. Lawson asked Mr. Hathaway if he could restate the amendment to state that within the rezoning request, an "X" number of units was being requested. Mr. Hathaway stated that 14.81± acres zoned MF -12 would result in 177 units and he was proposing to reduce that by 52 units, leaving 125 units. In response to a question from the Commission, Mr. Hathaway stated that the amended application included leaving 3 acres as open space. A motion was made to approve the application as amended to include the conditions offered by the applicant that any development on the eastern tract be limited to 125 units and that 3 acres within the eastern tract be dedicated as open space. Assistant City Attorney Cindy Dawson stated that she was uncomfortable with the amended application and suggested that the item be deferred to allow the City Attorney's Office an opportunity to review it. Mr. Lawson suggested that the Commission vote on the item and that any questions be resolved prior to the item being forwarded to the Board of Directors. In response to a question from Commissioner Daniel, Mr. Sparks stated that the Spring Valley Manor neighborhood could live with the amended application. A vote was taken on the amended application. The vote was 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. Mr. Lawson stated that staff would recommend approval of the amended application to the Board of Directors. 2