HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6120-M Staff AnalysisJanuary 18, 2007
ITEM NO.: B
FILE NO_: 7 -(312n -M
NAME: Capitol Lakes Estates Tract C Long -form PD -R
LOCATION: Located on the Southeast corner of Capitol Hills Boulevard and Cooper
Orbit Road
DEVELOPER:
Jay DeHaven
10650 Maumelle Blvd.
Maumelle, AR 72113
FNGINFFR-
White-Daters and Associates
#24 Rahling Circle
Little Rock, AR 72223
AREA: 9.45 Acres
CURRENT ZONING:
ALLOWED USES:
PROPOSED ZONING:
PROPOSED USE
NUMBER OF LOTS: 1
R-2, Single-family
Single-family residential
-M
FT. NEW STREET: 1,600 LF
Single-family — 44 Patio Homes
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. A variance from the Land Alteration Ordinance to allow advanced grading of the site
with the construction of the public utilities.
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 (Rushmore Avenue),
south of a proposed minor arterial street (Capitol Hills Boulevard). The application was
the third version of proposed multi -family zoning associated with Capitol Lakes Estates.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B [Cont.
FILE NO.: Z -6120-M
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 applicant at the Planning
Commission Public Hearing later withdrew the application.
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 (Capitol
Hills Boulevard) 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 (Capitol Hills Boulevard) 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 (Rushmore Avenue)
and an arterial street (Capitol Hills Boulevard). 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 (Rushmore Avenue) -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 (Capitol Hills
Boulevard). 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 existing sewer improvement district or some
other more feasible cooperative alternative, and with respect to that portion of property
2
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6120-M
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 regarded
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.)
On July 11, 2002, the Commission reviewed a request to rezone the property on the
.west side of Rushmore Avenue to Planned Development — Residential to allow the
development of a 528 -unit apartment complex. The applicant proposed the placement
of 904 parking spaces within the development. A separate request was also filed fora
property zoned MF -12 and located to the east of the PD -R site. The request to rezone
the property to the east from MF -12 to R-2 was also approved on July 11, 2002. Both
Ordinances were approved by the Little Rock Board of Directors at their August 20,
2002 Public Hearing. Ordinance No. 18,729 rezoned the western MF -12 property to
PD -R and Ordinance No. 18,728 rezoned the eastern MF -12 site to R-2.
The applicant proposed the PD -R development to be constructed in three phases with
156 units being constructed in Phases One and Two and 216 units in the, -third and final
phase. Capitol Hills Boulevard and Rushmore Avenue have been constructed to allow
access to the site as a part of the Phase 1 portion of the PRD.
Ordinance No. 18, 898 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on July 15, 2003,
approved a revision to allow the creation of a three -lot plat following the previously
proposed phasing lines, The applicant indicated all three lots would have public street
frontage but access to the public streets only located on Lots 1 and 3. Lot 2 would take
access through a cross access easement across Lots 1 and 3. The Lots were
numbered according to the previous phase lines. The previous drainage and utility plan
did not changed from the original submission.
The applicant revised the building placement slightly to allow for landscape strips
between lots as required by ordinance. The applicant indicated a cross access parking
agreement was not required since each lot has sufficient parking to meet the typical
minimum parking demand for multi -family development.
The Little Rock Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 18,963 on October 21, 2003,
revising the PD -R to allow the placement of two trash compactors on the site. The
applicant indicated a private contractor would service the compactors once a week.
The applicant stated with the compactors near the entrance this should allow the driver
3
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B Cont. FILE NO.: Z -6120-M
easy access and minimal disturbance to the residents in the early morning hours when
the compactors were serviced.
The development also destroyed the required land use buffer areas previously
proposed on the west and south perimeters of Phase 1 (Lot 1). The request included a
restoration plan for the buffer areas. The restoration plan included plantings in the area
previously designated as the land use buffer area be replanted at double the plantings
required by the landscape ordinance. This included the area to the south and the west
on Lot 1 of the development. The approval included planting of all trees of three inch
caliper and additional 30 -feet of land to the south was to be retained in a conservation
easement and the 30 -feet along with the buffer remaining on Lot 2 be combined with a
tract designated south of Lot 3 to ensure the buffer would be maintained in the future.
On January 29, 2004, the Little Rock Planning Commission reviewed a request by the
applicant to phase the construction of Rushmore Avenue at the eastern boundary of the
site until Lot 3 was developed, The site was originally approved as a single tract
development and was later revised to allow three lots to develop following previously.
approved phasing lines. The applicant stated since the PD -R for Capitol Hills
Apartments was revised to allow the creation of the three lots a deferral of street
improvements was customary until the lot abutting the roadway was developed (Lot 3).
The applicant withdrew the request from consideration and the roadways were
constructed.
Ordinance No. 19,277 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on February 15,
2005 revised the previously approved PCD for the apartment portion of the overall
development plan. The proposed revision allowed for the construction of covered
parking and a clubhouse with a pool within the Phase II portion of the development.
0
PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The property located at the Southeast corner of Capitol Hills Boulevard and
Rushmore Avenue is proposed for rezoning from R-2, Single-family to PD -R to
allow the development of 9.45 acres with 44 patio home lots. The development
is proposed as a gated community with a single entrance from Rushmore
Avenue. The development will be constructed in a single phase. The request
includes a variance from the Land Alteration Ordinance to allow advanced
grading of the entire site with the construction of the public utilities. The request
also includes the abandonment of a portion of Cooper Orbit Road.
EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site has a number of trees located along the eastern portion of the site. The
western portion of the site was previously cleared and used for storage of dirt for
the construction of Rushmore Avenue. Cooper Orbit Road is the eastern
boundary of the proposed site and Rushmore Avenue is the western boundary.
To the north of the site is a tract which is being used as a regional detention
storage area far the Capitol Hills Development. The area to the south of the site
5l
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B Cont. FILE NO.: Z -6120-M
is wooded_ To the west of the site is an apartment development previously
approved in three phases with only the first phase currently constructed.
Northwest of the site are two single-family subdivisions with new homes being
constructed in these areas. The Spring Valley Manor Subdivision is located
further south. Rushmore Avenue has been constructed to Master Street Plan
standard abutting the properties western boundary.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area
residents. The Spring Valley Manor Neighborhood 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:
1. The minimum horizontal radius of a residential street is 150 feet per the
Master Street Plan.
2. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required
by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Contact Traffic Engineering at
(501) 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information regarding streetlight
requirements.
3. The entrance lane to the subdivision must be at least 20 feet in width. Turn
around must be provided for cars attempting to enter development. A
stacking distance of 30 feet from pavement must also be provided. Due to
the width, the gated entrance does not appear to provide a sufficient
turn -around for a single unit truck SU -30 turning radius. Provide and
adequate turnaround using turning vehicle templates.
4. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site
grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to
the start of construction. Public Works supports a variance for grading of
the lots prior to plat approval.
5. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property.
6. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water
permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the
start of construction.
7. Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Traffic
Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction.
8. Hauling of fill material on or off site over municipal streets and roads
requires approval prior to a grading permit being issued. Contact Public
Works Traffic Engineering at 621 S. Broadway, (501) 379-1817 (Derrick
Bergfield) for more information.
9. Drainage and utility easements should be shown on preliminary plat.
5
F.
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: S Cont.y PILE NO.: Z -6120-M
10. Access should be provided for the adjacent property to the east for future
street access to Rushmore Drive.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements. Contact Little
Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information.
Entergy: Approved as submitted.
Center -Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge
based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition
to normal charges. Water main extensions will be required in order to provide
service to this property. Fire hydrants will be private. Annual charges will apply.
Easements will be required for any water mains that are outside public rights of
way. If there are facilities that need to be adjusted and/or relocated, contact
Central Arkansas Water. That work would be done at the expense of the
developer. This development will have minor impact on the existing water
distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate
pressure and fire protection.
Fire De artment: Place fire hydrants
Department for additional information.
opening of 20 -feet.
County Planning: No comment.
per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Gates must maintain a minimum gate
CATH: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route.
ISS UES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
Planning Division: This request is located in the Ellis Mountain Planning District.
The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has
applied for a long form PD -R to allow the placement of 44 patio homes on a
9.45 acre tract to be constructed as a gated community.
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan: Capitol Hill Boulevard is shown as a Minor Arterial on the
Master Street Plan and Rushmore Avenue is shown as a Collector. These
A
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B Cont. FILE NO.: Z -6 120-M
streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street
improvements. A Minor Arterial provides connections to and through an urban
area and their primary function is to provide short distance travel within the
urbanized area. The primary function of a Collector Street is to provide a
connection from Local Streets to Arterials.
Bicycle Plan: Existing or proposed Class I, ll, or III Bikeways are not in the
immediate vicinity of the development.
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: No comment.
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (October 5, 2006).
Mr. Joe White was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview
of the proposed development indicating there were a number of outstanding
issues associated with the request. Staff requested the proposed site plan
include the percentage of building coverage and the percentage of green space
both public and private. Staff also noted the street names were incorrect and
should be revised to reflect the correct street names. Staff also stated previous
agreements had allowed a collector street through the site. Staff stated the
proposed site layout did not allow for the east -west collector connection to
Rushmore Avenue.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a grading permit would be
required prior to development. Staff also stated the entrance to the subdivision
should be a minimum of 20 -feet in width and have a depth sufficient to allow
ample stacking for cars attempting to enter the subdivision.
Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and
agencies suggesting the applicant contact them directly for additional information
and clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee
then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues
raised at the October 5, 2006, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant
has indicated the percentage of building coverage and the percentage of green
space both public and private. The revised plan indicates the corrected street
name of Rushmore Avenue. The revised plan indicates the placement of a
collector street along the northeastern perimeter of the site to allow an east -west
collector and provide access to the adjoining property.
7
January18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B Cont. FILE NO.: Z -6120-M
The development is proposed as a gated community with the call box being
placed at approximately 20 -feet and the gate placed at approximately 43 -feet
from the right-of-way. Staff is not supportive of this placement. Typically to allow
sufficient stacking and turn -around for cars not entering the subdivision the gate
should be placed at 60 -feet and the call box should allow for a minimum stacking
Of two cars waiting the enter the development. Staff is concerned with the
reduced stacking area. With the current configuration, cars will stack onto
Rushmore Avenue, a collector street classification, as they are waiting to enter
the development.
The development indicates an average lot size of 5,500 square feet with a
building footprint of approximately 2,800 square feet. The front and rear yard
setbacks are indicated at 15 -feet and the side yard setbacks are indicated -at
5 -feet. The proposed site plan indicates the placement of a maximum buildable
area for each of the proposed lots. A six foot fence is proposed around the
perimeter of the site. The site plan does not indicate the placement of public
open space. The applicant has indicated all open space will be contained on the
homeowner lot.
The 'site plan indicates the placement of -a subdivision identification sign within
the median area of the proposed drive entrance. The site plan does not indicate
the size of the sign. Staff recommends the signage be limited tosignage
typically allowed in single-family zones or a maximum of six feet in height and
thirty-two square feet in area.
The request includes a variance from the Land Alteration Ordinance to allow
advanced grading of the site. The applicant has not provided staff any
information concerning the need for the request and why the advanced grading is
necessary. Staff is not supportive of the applicant's request for advanced
grading.
The revised site plan indicates the placement of a collector street along the
northeastern portion of the property. The location of the connection of the
proposed collector street to Capitol Hills Boulevard is questionable, Staff feels
the proposed intersection will be located too close to the existing connection of
Rushmore Avenue and an existing bridge located on Cooper Orbit Road. The
applicant has not provided staff with any documentation which would lead staff to
believe the location of the indicated roadway will serve the future needs for a
collector street.
Although, there is not a collector street indicated on the Master Street Plant
extending from this site to the east, staff feel the placement of a collector street in
the area is critical to ensure traffic flows in the area based on the development
pattern in the area and potential future development. Per the Master Street Pian
Section 2: Road Classifications — Street Functional Classifications — Collector -
(Paragraph 2) - "The spacing of Collectors may be decreased and/or the right of
way and paving surface increased due to density of residential development and
the locations of commercial areas or other large traffic generators. At the time of
the subdivision, the exact location and additional need for Collectors will be
determined by the Little Rock Planning Commission upon advice by City Staff."
Also Sectio
31-20'1(b) states "the street layout should be appropriate for the
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B Cont. FILE NO.: Z -6120-M
type of development proposed and properly integrated with the street system in
the area adjoining the subdivision. The layout shall also conform to the existing
and proposed land uses and the most advantageous development pattern of the
surrounding area". Staff feels this additional collector street is necessary to
serve future developable lands located to the east of the site.
The applicant is seeking the abandonment of the right of way for Cooper Orbit
Road to allow the development of the preliminary plat as proposed. Staff has
concerns with the abandonment of the right of way with the current request. The
applicant has not provided staff with the required information from the utility
companies indicating their need for easement. Staff feel all the required
documentation should be provided prior to the Commission acting on the
req uest.
Staff has concerns with the application as proposed. There are a number of
issues which staff feels should be addressed to allow the development to move
forward. The location of the collector street could potentially affect the lot layout
and the development of the property. Staff feels the location of this street should
be addressed prior to the Commission acting on the application request. -
1. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends denial of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(OCTOBER 26, 2006)
The applicant was present' representing the request. There were -no registered
objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had submitted a request dated October 11,
2006, requesting the item be deferred to the December 7, 2006, public hearing. Staff
stated they were supportive of the deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(DECEMBER 7, 2006)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented
the item with a recommendation of denial. Staff stated the was not enough information
provided to allow them to make a complete review of the proposed development
including outstanding issues associated with the location of a proposed collector street
extending to the east. Staff stated the request also included a variance from the Land
Alteration Ordinance. Staff stated they did not have enough information to support the
request. Staff stated there were a number of issues related to the design of the
proposed subdivision. Staff stated the indicated gates did not allow sufficient stacking
9
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B Con#. FILE NO.: Z -6120-M
on the site and there was a potential for cars stacking into the right of way. Staff stated
the request included an abandonment of the 'old" Cooper Orbit right of way. Staff
stated they were not in the position of making a recommendation since the applicant
had not provide staff with comments for all the utility companies. Staff stated of the
comments provided a number of the utilities had indicated their desire to maintain the
area as an easement. Staff stated with the current lot layout a number of the homes
would be constructed over utilities.
Staff stated the developers had provided a location of an east -west collector street on
the site plan. Staff stated no data had been provided to ensure the street could be
constructed in the proposed location.
Mr. Andy Francis addressed the Commission on behalf of the developer. He stated the
developer was no longer requesting a gated entrance. He stated this should eliminate
staff's concerns related to the gate design and stacking of automobiles into the right of
way. He stated the developers engineering firm had indicated a location of a collector
street along the northeastern portion of the property. He stated - according to his
engineering firm the location of the collector street would accommodate staff's request
for a collector street running east -west through the area. He stated his owner was
willing to dedicate the right of way for the street but was not willing to construct the
street. He stated staff was also requesting a second collector street located to the
south of Tract C. He stated his client did not feel this street was required due to spacing
requirements for collector streets.
Commissioner Yates stated he felt he was in support of the concept of the development
but he was confused as to the request. He stated he felt the proposed application was
lacking detail and information to allow stafF and the Commission to act on the request.
He stated since the meeting was a public hearing and not a work session he did not feel
this was the place to work out the details.
There was a general discussion concerning the location of the proposed collector street
which was previously proposed through Tract C. Mr. Francis stated his client was not
willing to bisect the tract with a collector street when an acceptable alternative location
had been identified. He stated the volume of traffic in the area did not warrant the
placement of two collector streets in the area. He stated the previous commitments had
required the property adjacent to Tract C legal and physical access to a roadway prior
to the abandonment of Cooper Orbit Road. He stated the previous owner had no other
access. Mr. Francis stated now Rocket Properties owned the land and they did have
access to the east without the placement of a connection or collector street in the area
to serve the property. He stated he felt the connection should be made to Capitol Hills
Boulevard and not Rushmore Avenue since Rushmore Avenue was a collector street
and Capitol Hills Boulevard was an arterial roadway. He stated the developer would
give the right of way through Tract D to allow the connection to be made to Capitol Hills
Boulevard. The Commission questioned the ownership of Tract D. Mr. Francis stated
the Property Owners Association owned the tract. The Commission questioned how the
10
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO. � B (Cont.
FILE NO.: Z -6120-M
developer could provide the right of way if he did not own the property. The
Commission then questioned who would build the road. Mr. Francis stated his client
was not willing to construct the section of road through Tract D. He stated the
developer was willing to provide the right of way.
Mr. Baker Kurrus addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated his
property was located along the east side of Cooper Orbit Road and he was not
agreeable to the abandonment unless access to the property could be resolved. He
stated currently he had access along the western frontage of this property and his
desire was to maintain this access. He stated there were a number of utilities which
would have to be relocated prior to the construction of the street. He questioned at
whose expense this would be undertaken. He also stated he was not willing to
construct street improvements to property he did not own and was not able to develop.
He stated he was not sure the location of the street would work since Tract D, the
location of the proposed connection, held the detention pond. He stated presently the
detention pond was leaking. and any construction could cause instability for the
structure.
Mr. Kurrus provided the Commission with a history of the site and agreements which
had been made. He stated an agreement from the Public Works Department in 1999
stated the road would be constructed to 31 feet of pavement and would provide legal
and physical access to his property in two locations.
Mr. Ron Tyne addressed the Commission with concerns. He stated the collector street
system was designed to allow automobiles to move through the area. He state within
his current development collector streets had been designed to make the western
connection. He stated in preliminary meetings with staff a collector street was
requested to allow flow and connectivity through out the area. He stated staff's request
for the 2nd Collector street could be addressed if he had additional time to meet with
staff and provide a preliminary lot layout plan. He stated he understood staff's concerns
since no future planning had been completed in the area to determine the need for
additional streets.
Mr. Tyne stated the location proposed for the connection near Tract C was
questionable. He stated it would be difficult to construct street improvements on
property his company did not own. The Commission stated it would also be difficult for
the City to fund the street improvements under the current budget constraints.
Mr. Robert Arnold addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated
his concerns were primarily safety concerns. He stated with the grade of Rushmore
Avenue residents were unable to enter their subdivision during bad weather. He stated
he did not feel Cooper Orbit Road should be abandoned until such time the grade of
Rushmore Avenue was corrected.
11
January 18, 2007
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6120-M
Mr. Francis stated due to the questions and the concerns his client was willing to accept
a deferral to work with staff to resolve outstanding issues associated with the request.
The Commission questioned the deferral date. Staff stated the date would be
January 18, 2007. A motion was made to defer the item to the January 18, 2007, public
hearing. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
STAFF UPDATE:
The applicant submitted a request dated December 21, 2006 requesting this item be
withdrawn from consideration. This area will be combined with a proposed preliminary
plat located to the south of the site to be held for future development. See Item No. C,
File No. S-1100-1 for additional information.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 18, 2007)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff syated the
applicant had submitted a request dated December 21, 2006 requesting the item be
withdrawn from consideration. Staff stated the area was being combined with a
proposed preliminary plat located to the south of the site and would be held for future
development. Staff stated the item would be combined with Item No. C, File No.
5-1100-1 and suggested this item be consulted for additional information.
There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for
placement of the item on the consent agenda for withdrawal. The motion carried by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
12
ITEM NO.: 14, Z-61
NAME: Capitol Lakes Estates Tract C Long -form PD -R
LOCATION: located on the Southeast corner of Capitol Hills Boulevard and Cooper
Orbit Road
Planning Staff Comments:
1. Provide notification of property owners located within 200 -feet of the site, complete
with the certified abstract list, notice form with affidavit executed and proof of
mailing. The notice must be mailed no later than October 11, 2006. The Office of
Planning and Development must receive the proof of notice no later than October
20, 2006.
2. Verify General Notes 8 and 12. The plan indicates the development of a single
phase and the note indicates advanced grading. Is the request to allow the clearing
of the entire site and not just areas of streets and utilities?
3. The site plan must indicate a maximum building footprint for future construction of
the homes.
4. Provide the total percentage of building coverage, percentage of green space both
public and private.
5. Cooper Orbit Road has not been abandoned revise the note.
6. Cooper Orbit Road should be named Rushmore Avenue along the western
boundary.
7. Previous agreements indicate the placement of a collector street through this site.
Variance/Waivers:
A variance from the Land Alteration Ordinance to allow advanced grading of the site
with the construction of the public utilities.
Public Works Conditions:
1. The minimum horizontal radius of a residential street is 150 feet per the Master
Street Plan.
2. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required by
Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Contact Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-
1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information regarding streetlight requirements.
3. The entrance lane to the subdivision must be at least 20 feet in width. Turn around
must be provided for cars attempting to enter development. A stacking distance of
30 feet from pavement must also be provided. Due to the width, the gated entrance
does not appear to provide a sufficient turn -around for a single unit truck SU -30
turning radius. Provide and adequate turnaround using turning vehicle templates.
4. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be required prior
to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site grading, and drainage plans
will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. Public
Item # 14
Works supports a variance for grading of the lots prior to plat approval.
5. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property.
6. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water permit from
the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction.
7. Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Traffic Engineering
must approve completed plans prior to construction.
8. Hauling of fill material on or off site over municipal streets and roads requires
approval prior to a grading permit being issued. Contact Public Works Traffic
Engineering at 621 S. Broadway, (501) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield) for more
information.
9. Drainage and utility easements should be shown on preliminary plat.
10.Access should be provided for the adjacent property to the east for future street
access to Rushmore Drive.
Utilities and Fire Department/County Planning:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements. Contact Little Rock
Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center -Point Energy: No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the
time of request for water service must be met. A Capital Investment Charge based on
the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal
charges. Water main extensions will be required in order to provide service to this
property. Fire hydrants will be private. Annual charges will apply. Easements will be
required for any water mains that are outside public rights of way. If there are facilities
that need to be adjusted and/or relocated, contact Central Arkansas Water. That work
would be done at the expense of the developer. This development will have minor
impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized
to provide adequate pressure and fire protection.
Fire De artment: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire
Department for additional information. Gates must maintain a minimum gate opening of
20 -feet.
County Planning: No comment.
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route,
Planning Division_ This request is located in the Ellis Mountain Planning District. The
Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a
long form PD -R to allow the placement of 44 patio homes on a 9.45 acre tract to be
constructed as a gated community.
Item # 14
The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan.
Master Street Plan: Capitol Hill Boulevard is shown as a Minor Arterial on the Master
Street Plan and Rushmore Avenue is shown as a Collector. These streets may require
dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. A Minor Arterial
provides connections to and through an urban area and their primary function is to
provide short distance travel within the urbanized area. The primary function of a
Collector Street is to provide a connection from Local Streets to Arterials.
Bicycle Plan: Existing or proposed Class I, II, or III Bikeways are not in the immediate
vicinity of the development.
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: No comment.
Revised plat/plan: Submit four (4) copies of a revised preliminary plat (to include the
additional information as noted above) to staff on Wednesday, October 11, 2006.
Item # 14