Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7074 Staff AnalysisOctober 26, 2006 ITEM NO.: K FILE NO • Z-7174 NAME: The Cottages in the Pines Long -form PD -R Revocation LOCATION: Located on the West side of Heinke Road approximately 1200 feet South of Johnson Road. DEVELOPER: Rolling Pines Limited Partnership #2 Otter Creek Circle Little Rock, AR 72210 ENGINEER: McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers 10 Otter Creek Court, Suite A Little Rock, AR 72210 AREA: 5.340 Acres CURRENT ZONING ALLOWED USES: PROPOSED ZONING ALLOWED USE NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 W0a:7 Multi -family housing R-2, Single-family Single-family residential FT. NEW STREET: 0 VARIANCESNVAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 18,778 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on November 19, 2002, established The Cottages in the Pines Long -form PD -R. The rezoning was to allow the development of the site with elderly housing through a PD -R. The site was located outside the City Limits at the time of the PD -R zoning action. The site was located in an area the City exercised subdivision jurisdiction but did not exercise zoning jurisdiction. The Little Rock Board of Directors approved an annexation request for the site on July 16, 2002, by the adoption of Ordinance No. 18,726. October 26, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: K Cont. _ _ _ FILE NO.: Z-7174 Section 36-179(a) states territory which may hereafter be annexed to the City shall be classified in the R-2, Single-family district immediately upon acceptance by the City unless or until a zoning plan for the area is prepared or adopted. With the approval of the revocation the property would revert to the R-2, Single-family zoning district. A. PROPOSAUREQUEST: Per Section 36-458(a) Cause for revocation as enforcement action. The Planning Commission may recommend to the Board of Directors that any PUD or PD approval be revoked and all building permits or certificates of occupancy be voided under the following circumstances: (1) The applicant has not submitted a final development plan to staff. Where a staged development plan is approved the Board of Directors may revoke the entire preliminary plan or may revoke only that stage on which a final plan has not been submitted and approved. (2) Construction has not commenced within the time allowed. (3) The applicant has not adhered to the development schedule as stated in the approved preliminary plan. In addition, to the revocation for cause, Section 36-454(e) final development plan states the applicant shall have three years from the date of passage of the ordinance approving the preliminary approval to submit the final development plan. Request for extensions of time shall be submitted in writing to the Planning Commission which may grant one extension of not more than two years. Failure of the applicant to file a timely extension shall be cause for revocation of the PUD as provided in the ordinance. Per the ordinance requirement of the procedure for revocation, staff has contacted the applicant indicating the default of approval and setting a time to appear before the Planning Commission to show cause why steps should not be made to totally or partially revoke the PD -R zoning classification. According to the ordinance, the Planning Commission shall provide a recommendation which shall be forwarded to the Board of Directors for disposition as in the original approval. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS - The site is a vacant heavily wooded site adjacent to an abandoned railroad right-of- way. The area to the east is single-family with what appears to be an old salvage yard. North of the site is a wastewater utility pump station. Other uses in the area include a mix of single-family and manufactured housing scattered along Heinke Road and the roads, which feed onto Heinke Road. Heinke Road is an unimproved roadway with no shoulders and deep ditches on both sides. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing staff has not received any comment from area residents. All property owners within 200 feet, all residents within 300 feet of the site who could be identified 2 October 26, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: K (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7174 and the Shilo, Rolling Pines and Southwest Little Rock United for Progress Neighborhood Associations were notified of the Public Hearing. D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff feels the approval should be voided since the applicant has failed to satisfy the requirements of the approval process. Staff recommends the current PD -R zoning classification be revoked and the property be zoned R-2, Single-family. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (September 14, 2006) The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Chairman Stebbins stated there were only eight (8) Commissioners present. He stated the Commission's policy was to offer the applicant a deferral when fewer than eight (8) Commissioners were present. He questioned the applicant if they would like to take the deferral option. Staff stated even though they were the applicant since the developer was requesting a deferral they were not opposed to a deferral. The Commission questioned staff as to the date of the public hearing. Staff stated October 26, 2006, would be the date of public hearing. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for deferral of the item to the October 26, 2006, public hearing. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. STAFF UPDATE: There has been no change in this application request since the previous public hearing. Staff continues to recommend the current zoning classification be revoked and R-2, Single-family restored to the property. 3 October 26, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: K (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7174 and the Shilo, Rolling Pines and Southwest Little Rock United for Progress Neighborhood Associations were notified of the Public Hearing. D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff feels the approval should be voided since the applicant has failed to satisfy the requirements of the approval process. Staff recommends the current PD -R zoning classification be revoked and the property be zoned R-2, Single-family. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (September 14, 2006) The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Chairman Stebbins stated there were only eight (8) Commissioners present. He stated the Commission's policy was to offer the applicant a deferral when fewer than eight (8) Commissioners were present. He questioned the applicant if they would like to take the deferral option. Staff stated even though they were the applicant since the developer was requesting a deferral they were not opposed to a deferral. The Commission questioned staff as to the date of the public hearing. Staff stated October 26, 2006, would be the date of public hearing. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for deferral of the item to the October 26, 2006, public hearing. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. STAFF UPDATE: There has been no change in this application request since the previous public hearing. Staff continues to recommend the current zoning classification be revoked and R-2, Single-family restored to the property. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 26, 2006) Staff was the applicant on the request. Mr. Tommy Hodges the property owner was present to address the reasons for not revoking the PD -R zoning classification. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of revocation of the current PD -R zoning and the restoration of R-2, Single-family zoning. Mr. Hodges stated he had owned the property for 25 to 30 years and development in the area had been stagnant. He stated the proposal was to develop the site with elderly housing similar to his development in Otter Creek but he was having financing difficulties. He stated he was not willing to give up on the project and requested the Commission maintain his zoning to allow additional time to find funding for the project. He stated the Commission was not bound to revoke the zoning. He stated the ordinance read the Commission may recommend a revocation of the zoning. He stated recently he gave the 3 October 26, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: K (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7174 City of Little Rock 92 single-family lots as a gift. He stated this was a sizable donation to the City of Little Rock to allow for future development. He stated he understood if the zoning was not revoked he would have to come before the Commission and the Board of Directors to reestablish the site plan but the zoning would remain on the property. He stated the zoning would aid him in his search for funding. There was a general discussion between the Commission and staff concerning the reasoning for revocation. Staff stated the zoning was expired and they were just following up with the ordinance requirements. Staff also stated the residents in the area had requested staff request the revocation as a part of their short-term goals for future development of the area. A motion was made to approve the revocation request. The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 9 noes and 2 absent. 2 September 14, 2006 ITEM NO.: 29. FILE NO.2-7174 NAME: The Cottages in the Pines Long -form PD -R Revocation LOCATION: located on the West side of Heinke Road approximately 1200 feet South of Johnson Road. DEVELOPER.- Rolling EVELOPER: Rolling Pines Limited Partnership #2 Otter Creek Circle Little Rock, AR 72210 FNC;INIFFR- McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers 10 Otter Creek Court, Suite A Little Rock, AR 72210 AREA: 5.340 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: PD -R ALLOWED USES: Multi -family housing PROPOSED ZONING: R-2, Single-family ALLOWED USE: Single-family residential VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 18,778 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on November 19, 2002, established The Cottages in the Pines Long -form PD -R. The rezoning was to allow the development of the site with elderly housing through a PD -R. The site was located outside the City Limits at the time of the PD -R zoning action. The site was located in an area the City exercised subdivision jurisdiction but did not exercise zoning jurisdiction. The Little Rock Board of Directors approved an annexation request for the site on July 16, 2002, by the adoption of Ordinance No. 18,726. Section 36-179(a) states territory which may hereafter be annexed to the City shall be classified in the R-2, Single-family district immediately upon acceptance by the City unless or until a zoning plan for the area is prepared or adopted. With the approval of the revocation the property would revert to the R-2, Single-family zoning district. September 14, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 29 (CONT. A. PROPOSAUREQUEST: FILE NO.: Z-7174 Per Section 36-458(a) Cause for revocation as enforcement action. The Planning Commission may recommend to the Board of Directors that any PUD or PD approval be revoked and all building permits or certificates of occupancy be voided under the following circumstances: (1) The applicant has not submitted a final development plan to staff. Where a staged development plan is approved the Board of Directors may revoke the entire preliminary plan or may revoke only that stage on which a final plan has not been submitted and approved. (2) Construction has not commenced within the time allowed. (3) The applicant has not adhered to the development schedule as stated in the approved preliminary plan. In addition, to the revocation for cause, Section 36-454(e) final development plan states the applicant shall have three years from the date of passage of the ordinance approving the preliminary approval to submit the final development plan. Request for extensions of time shall be submitted in writing to the Planning Commission which may grant one extension of not more than two years. Failure of the applicant to file a timely extension shall be cause for revocation of the PUD as provided in the ordinance. Per the ordinance requirement of the procedure for revocation, staff has contacted the applicant indicating the default of approval and setting a time to appear before the Planning Commission to show cause why steps should not be made to totally or partially revoke the PD -R zoning classification. According to the ordinance, the Planning Commission shall provide a recommendation which shall be forwarded to the Board of Directors for disposition as in the original approval. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is a vacant heavily wooded site adjacent to an abandoned railroad right -of= way. The area to the east is single-family with what appears to be an old salvage yard. North of the site is a wastewater utility pump station. Other uses in the area include a mix of single-family and manufactured housing scattered along Heinke Road and the roads, which feed onto Heinke Road. Heinke Road is an unimproved roadway with no shoulders and deep ditches on both sides. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing staff has not received any comment from area residents. All property owners within 200 feet, all residents within 300 feet of the site who could be identified and the Shilo, Rolling Pines and Southwest Little Rock United for Progress Neighborhood Associations were notified of the Public Hearing. D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 2 September 14, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 29 (CONT. ILE NO.: Z-7174 Staff feels the approval should be voided since the applicant has failed to satisfy the requirements of the approval process. Staff recommends the current PD -R zoning classification be revoked and the property be zoned R-2, Single-family. 3 I September 14, 2006 ITEM NO.: 29. FILE NO.2-7174 NAME: The Cottages in the Pines Long -form PD -R Revocation LOCATION: located on the West side of Heinke Road approximately 1200 feet South of Johnson Road. DEVELOPER: Rolling Pines Limited Partnership #2 Otter Creek Circle Little Rock, AR 72210 ENGINEER: McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers 10 Otter Creek Court, Suite A Little Rock, AR 72210 AREA: 5.340 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: PD -R ALLOWED USES: Multi -family housing PROPOSED ZONING: R-2, Single-family ALLOWED USE: Single-family residential VARIANCESMAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 18,778 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on November 19, 2002, established The Cottages in the Pines Long -form PD -R. The rezoning was to allow the development of the site with elderly housing through a PD -R. The site was located outside the City Limits at the time of the PD -R zoning action. The site was located in an area the City exercised subdivision jurisdiction but did not exercise zoning jurisdiction. The Little Rock Board of Directors approved an annexation request for the site on July 16, 2002, by the adoption of Ordinance No. 18,726. Section 36-179(a) states territory which may hereafter be annexed to the City shall be classified in the R-2, Single-family district immediately upon acceptance by the City unless or until a zoning plan for the area is prepared or adopted. With the approval of the revocation the property would revert to the R-2, Single-family zoning district. September 14, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 29 CONT. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: FILE NO.: Z-7174 Per Section 36-458(a) Cause for revocation as enforcement action. The Planning Commission may recommend to the Board of Directors that any PUD or PD approval be revoked and all building permits or certificates of occupancy be voided under the following circumstances: (1) The applicant has not submitted a final development plan to staff. Where a staged development plan is approved the Board of Directors may revoke the entire preliminary plan or may revoke only that stage on which a final plan has not been submitted and approved. (2) Construction has not commenced within the time allowed. (3) The applicant has not adhered to the development schedule as stated in the approved preliminary plan. In addition, to the revocation for cause, Section 36-454(e) final development plan states the applicant shall have three years from the date of passage of the ordinance approving the preliminary approval to submit the final development plan. Request for extensions of time shall be submitted in writing to the Planning Commission which may grant one extension of not more than two years. Failure of the applicant to file a timely extension shall be cause for revocation of the PUD as provided in the ordinance. Per the ordinance requirement of the procedure for revocation, staff has contacted the applicant indicating the default of approval and setting a time to appear before the Planning Commission to show cause why steps should not be made to totally or partially revoke the PD -R zoning classification. According to the ordinance, the Planning Commission shall provide a recommendation which shall be forwarded to the Board of Directors for disposition as in the original approval. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is a vacant heavily wooded site adjacent to an abandoned railroad right-of- way. The area to the east is single-family with what appears to be an old salvage yard. North of the site is a wastewater utility pump station. Other uses in the area include a mix of single-family and manufactured housing scattered along Heinke Road and the roads, which feed onto Heinke Road. Heinke Road is an unimproved roadway with no shoulders and deep ditches on both sides. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing staff has not received any comment from area residents. All property owners within 200 feet, all residents within 300 feet of the site who could be identified and the Shilo, Rolling Pines and Southwest Little Rock United for Progress Neighborhood Associations were notified of the Public Hearing. D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 2 September 14, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 29 CONT. FILE NO.: Z-7174 D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff feels the approval should be voided since the applicant has failed to satisfy the requirements of the approval process. Staff recommends the current PD -R zoning classification be revoked and the property be zoned R-2, Single-family. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (September 14, 2006) The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Chairman Stebbins stated there were only eight (8) Commissioners present. He stated the Commission's policy was to offer the applicant a deferral when fewer than eight (8) Commissioners were present. He questioned the applicant if they would like to take the deferral option. Staff stated even though they were the applicant since the developer was requesting a deferral they were not opposed to a deferral. The Commission questioned staff as to the date of the public hearing. Staff stated October 26, 2006, would be the date of public hearing. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for deferral of the item to the October 26, 2006, public hearing. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. 3 FILE NO.: Z-7074 NAME: Cottages in the Pines Long -form PD -R LOCATION: On the West side of Heinke Road approximately 1,200 feet South of Johnson Road. DEVELOPER: Rolling Pines Limited Partnership #2 Otter Creek Circle Little Rock, AR 72210 AREA: 5.340 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 ENGINEER: McGetrick & McGetrick Engineers 319 President Clinton Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: Not Zoned. (The applicant has applied for annexation to the City of Little Rock. The Public Hearing has been set for May 21, 2002.) PROPOSED ZONING: PD -R PROPOSED USE: Multi -family housing VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAUREQUEST: The applicant proposes the placement of 14 four-plex buildings (a total of 56 -units) and a 61 -foot by 30 -foot clubhouse on this 5.340 -acre site. The applicant has indicated he plans to develop the site as two bedroom four-plex apartments for empty nesters and persons fifty years of age plus. Each building will be 3825 square feet (76.5 feet by 50 feet) with each unit being approximately 950 square feet. The development includes the placement of 110 parking spaces with a single access from Heinke Road. FILE NO.: Z-7074 (Cont.) B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is a vacant heavily wooded site adjacent to an abandoned railroad right- of-way. The area to the east is single-family with what appears to be an old salvage yard. North of the site is a wastewater utility pump station. Other uses in the area include a mix of single-family and manufactured housing scattered along Heinke Road and the roads, which feed onto Heinke Road. Heinke Road is an unimproved roadway with no shoulders and deep ditches on both sides. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing staff has received several phone calls both in favor- and opposition of the proposed application. All property owners within 200 feet, all residents within 300 feet of the site who could be identified and the Shilo, Rolling Pines and Southwest Little Rock United for Progress Neighborhood Associations were notified of the Public Hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: Existing topographical information at maximum 5 -foot contour interval and the 100 -year base flood elevation will be required prior to completion of a detailed review. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: A sewer main extension will be required, with easements, if service is required for the project. Capacity Analysis required, contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 376-2903 fore details. ENTERGY: No comment received. ARKLA: Approved as submitted. Southwestern Bell: No comment received. Water: A development fee will be assessed in addition to normal charges for water connections to this project. This fee will range from $2600 for 6" connection to $4400 for 10" connection. The LRFD needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrants(s) will be required. Contact Marie Dugan for additional details at 992-2438. 2 ENO.: Z-7074 Fire Department: Maintain a 20 -foot drive between buildings. Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Dennis Free at the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information at 918-3752. County Planning: No comment received. CATA: No comment received. F. ISSUESITECHNICAUDESIGN: Plannina Division: This request is located in the Otter Creek Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Residential Development for a special population multi -family development A Land Use Plan amendment for a change to Low Density Residential is a separate item on this agenda (LU02-16-03 Item #7). 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. Landsca a Issues: 1. Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance requirements. 2. An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. 3. Prior to a building permit being issued, it will be necessary to provide an approved landscape plan stamped with the seal of a registered landscape architect. Building Codes: No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (April 18, 2002) Mr. Pat McGetrick, McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers, was present representing the application. Staff briefly described the proposed zoning request. Staff stated the site was the location of the annexation request from the April 11, 2002 Planning Commission Public Hearing. Staff stated the applicant had applied for a residential development for elderly housing. Staff stated elderly housing was a use defined in the Zoning Ordinance and specifically outlined requirements with regard to parking etc. 3 FILE NO.: Z-7074 Cont. Mr. McGetrick stated the parking ratio was 2 to 1 whereas multi -family was 1.5 to 1. Mr. Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, stated the applicant should consider defining the development as multi -family and not elderly housing. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff questioned the alignment of the proposed County Line Road. Staff stated this was an issue that must be resolved prior to the application proceeding to the full Commission. Staff stated if the alignment was in fact the abandoned railroad right-of-way, then platted - building lines on the rear of the property would need to be adjusted. Mr. McGetrick stated he would work with Public Works to determine the alignment of the roadway prior to the Commission meeting. Public Works requested the applicant a submit topographical survey and a storm water detention plan. Staff also stated the maximum driveway width would be 30 -feet and the pull in must be increased to 75 -feet. The applicant indicated he would remove the island rather than increase the depth to 75 -feet. Staff stated the ordinance was worded such that the Planning Commission may require a maximum driveway width of 30 -feet. After the discussion the Committee forwarded the Planned Development to the full Commission for final action. Staff Update: The applicant met with Public Works Staff and Planning Staff on April 23, 2002 concerning the alignment of the proposed County Line Road. Public Works Staff has determined the roadway will either follow the existing railroad right-of-way or will be north of the railroad right-of-way and will not affect this site. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revise plan to Staff on April 24, 2002 addressing most of the issues raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee. The applicant has indicated the drive to be a 36 -foot driveway, stated any site lighting will be low level and directed away from residentially zoned property and located the handicapped parking stalls and accessibility. The applicant has met with Public Works and Planning Staff and resolved the issues of the Master Street Plan. The proposed minor arterial, County Line Road, will travel north of the site along the abandoned railroad right-of-way or north of the right-of-way. The property owner has indicated he currently owns the property on both sides of the abandoned railroad and is willing to donate right-of-way for the proposed roadway. 4 FILE NO.: Z-7074 (Cont.) _ The applicant has indicated a single ground -mounted sign to be located adjacent to Heinke Road in the 25 -foot building setback. The sign is proposed to be within the allowable square footage for a multi -family development (not to exceed 24 - feet in sign area). The applicant is proposing the development to be primarily housing for empty nesters and persons fifty years of age and older. The parking proposed is more than adequate to meet the parking minimum for a multi -family development (110 parking spaces proposed - 84 parking spaces required). The development, 56 units on 5.34 acres, is consistent with Low Density Residential. The site is located adjacent to a proposed Minor Arterial, County Line Road, which, when built, will offer choices for connectivity throughout the City. Although, Heinke Road is a substandard roadway, development within the City has occurred on numerous occasions on substandard roadways. If the City were to limit development to areas with adequate infrastructure, development would be limited. Staff is supportive of the request to allow a Planned Residential Development to occur for Cottages in the Pines Short -form PD -R. Otherwise, to Staff's knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed zoning request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Planned Development for Cottages in the Pines Short -form PD -R subject to the conditions outlined in Paragraphs D, E and F of this report. ' PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 9, 2002) Mr. Pat McGetrick, McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers, was present representing the application. There were several objectors present. The Chairman stated since there were fewer than nine (9) Commissioners present the applicant had the option of a deferral. A motion was made to defer the item to the June 20, 2002 Public Hearing. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 20, 2002) Mr. Tommy Hodges, the applicant, and Mr. Pat McGetrick of McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers were present representing the application. There was one objector present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval. Staff stated the applicant 5 FILE NO.: Z-7074 had revised the site plan to include ten (10) buildings of four-plex units and not the previous fourteen (14) buildings. Mr. Hodges gave a brief description of the project indicating the development would be primarily for elderly housing. Mr. Mark Dixon spoke in opposition of the proposal. He stated his concerns were the elevation of the site. He stated the site was low and the proposed development could create problems with drainage. He stated the site had long been used as a dumping site and he was concerned with toxic materials, which were possibly located on the site. He stated traffic was another concern. Mr. Dixon stated his primary concern was with the effect the development would have on property values in the area. Commissioner Floyd questioned if the funds the developer would pay to widen Heinke Road could be in the form of an in -lieu contribution which could then be used to develop Heinke Road from Johnson Road to the site. Mr. Steven Giles, Deputy City Attorney, stated the question would then be ,off-site improvements. He stated if the applicant offers this form of payment for street improvements then the Commission could accept the in -lieu funding of road improvements as a condition the applicant placed on themselves and not a Commission imposed condition. Commissioner Rector stated the development would be required to detain the storm water and an environmental assessment would be required from the Environment Protection Agency prior to the start of construction. There was no further discussion. A motion was made to approve the proposed planned development as filed subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "staff recommendation" above. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 noe, 2 absent and 1 vacant position. 2 June 20, 2002 ITEM NO.: D FILE NO.: Z-7174 NAME: Cottages in the Pines Long -form PD -R LOCATION: On the West side of Heinke Road approximately 1,200 feet South of Johnson Road. DEVELOPER: Rolling Pines Limited Partnership #2 Otter Creek Circle Little Rock, AR 72210 AREA: 5.340 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: ENGINEER: McGetrick & McGetrick Engineers 319 President Clinton Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: Not Zoned. (The applicant has applied for annexation to the City of Little Rock. The Public Hearing has been set for May 21, 2002.) PROPOSED ZONING: PD -R PROPOSED USE: Multi -family housing VARIANCESNVAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSALIREQUEST: The applicant proposes the placement of 14 four-plex buildings (a total of 56 -units) and a 61 -foot by 30 -foot clubhouse on this 5.340 -acre site. The applicant has indicated he plans to develop the site as two bedroom four-plex apartments for empty nesters and persons fifty years of age plus. Each building will be 3825 square feet (76.5 feet by 50 feet) with each unit being approximately 950 square feet. The development includes the placement of 110 parking spaces with a single access from Heinke Road. June 20, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D Cont. FILE NO.: Z-7174 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is a vacant heavily wooded site adjacent to an abandoned railroad right- of-way. The area to the east is single-family with what appears to be an old salvage yard. North of the site is a wastewater utility pump station. Other uses in the area include a mix of single-family and manufactured housing scattered along Heinke Road and the roads, which feed onto Heinke Road. Heinke Road is an unimproved roadway with no shoulders and deep ditches on both sides. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing staff has received several phone calls both in favor and opposition of the proposed application. All property owners within 200 feet, all residents within 300 feet of the site who could be identified and the Shilo, Rolling Pines and Southwest Little Rock United for Progress Neighborhood Associations were notified of the Public Hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: Existing topographical information at maximum 5 -foot contour interval and the 100 -year base flood elevation will be required prior to completion of a detailed review. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: A sewer main extension will be required, with easements, if service is required for the project. Capacity Analysis required, contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 376-2903 fore details. ENTERGY: No comment received. ARKLA: Approved as submitted. Southwestern Bell: No comment received. Water: A development fee will be assessed in addition to normal charges for water connections to this project. This fee will range from $2600 for 6" connection to $4400 for 10" connection. The LRFD needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrants(s) will be required. Contact Marie Dugan for additional details at 992-2438. 2 June 20, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7174 Fire Department: Maintain a 20 -foot drive between buildings. Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Dennis Free at the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information at 918-3752. County Planning: No comment received. CATA: No comment received. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Otter Creek Planning District. The Land Use'Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Residential Development for a special population multi -family development. A Land Use Plan amendment for a change to Low Density Residential is a separate item on this agenda (LU02-16-03 Item #7). 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. Landsca a Issues: 1. Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance requirements. 2. An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. 3. Prior to a building permit being issued, it will be necessary to provide an approved landscape plan stamped with the seal of a registered landscape architect. Buildin Codes: No comment. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (April 18, 2002) Mr. Pat McGetrick, McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers, was present representing the application. Staff briefly described the proposed zoning request. Staff stated the site was the location of the annexation request from the April 11, 2002 Planning Commission Public Hearing. Staff stated the applicant had applied for a residential development for elderly housing. Staff stated elderly housing was a use defined in the Zoning Ordinance and specifically outlined requirements with regard to parking etc. 3 June 20, 2002 SUBD1V1SlON ITEM ND.: D Cant. FILE NO.: Z-7174 Mr. McGetrick stated the parking ratio was 2 to 1 whereas multi -family was 1.5 to 1. Mr. Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, stated the applicant should consider defining the development as multi -family and not elderly housing. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff questioned the alignment of the proposed County Line Road. Staff stated this was an issue that must be resolved prior to the application proceeding to the full Commission. Staff stated if the alignment was in fact the abandoned railroad right-of-way, then platted - building lines on the rear of the property would need to be adjusted. Mr. McGetrick stated he would work with Public Works to determine the alignment of the roadway prior to the Commission meeting. Public Works requested the applicant a submit topographical survey and a storm water detention plan. Staff also stated the maximum driveway width would be 30 -feet and the pull in must be increased to 75 -feet. The applicant indicated he would remove the island rather than increase the depth to 75 -feet. Staff stated the ordinance was worded such that the Planning Commission may require a maximum driveway width of 30 -feet. After the discussion the Committee forwarded the Planned Development to the full Commission for final action. Staff U date: The applicant met with Public Works Staff and Planning Staff on April 23, 2002 concerning the alignment of the proposed County Line Road. Public Works Staff has determined the roadway will either follow the existing railroad right-of-way or will be north of the railroad right-of-way and will not affect this site. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revise plan to Staff on April 24, 2002 addressing most of the issues raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee. The applicant has indicated the drive to be a 36 -foot driveway, stated any site lighting will be low level and directed away from residentially zoned property and located the handicapped parking stalls and accessibility. The applicant has met with Public Works and Planning Staff and resolved the issues of the Master Street Plan. The proposed minor arterial, County Line Road, will travel north of the site along the abandoned railroad right-of-way or north of the right-of-way. The property owner has indicated he currently owns the property on both sides of the abandoned railroad and is willing to donate right-of-way for the proposed roadway. 4 June 20, 2002 SUBDIVISEON ITEM NO.: D FILE NO.: Z-7174 The applicant has indicated a single ground -mounted sign to be located adjacent to Heinke Road in the 25 -foot building setback. The sign is proposed to be within the allowable square footage for a multi -family development (not to exceed 24 - feet in sign area). The applicant is proposing the development to be primarily housing for empty nesters and persons fifty years of age and older. The parking proposed is more than adequate to meet the parking minimum for a multi -family development (110 parking spaces proposed - 84 parking spaces required). The development, 56 units on 5.34 acres, is consistent with Low Density Residential. The site is located adjacent to a proposed Minor Arterial, County Line Road, which, when built, will offer choices for connectivity throughout the City. Although, Heinke Road is a substandard roadway, development within the City has occurred on numerous occasions on substandard roadways. If the City were to limit development to areas with adequate infrastructure, development would be limited. Staff is supportive of the request to allow a Planned Residential Development to occur for Cottages in the Pines Short -form PD -R. Otherwise, to Staff's knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed zoning request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Planned Development for Cottages in the Pines Short -form PD -R subject to the conditions outlined in Paragraphs D, E and F of this report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 9, 2002) Mr. Pat McGetrick, McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers, was present representing the application. There were several objectors present. The Chairman stated since there were fewer than nine (9) Commissioners present the applicant had the option of a deferral. A motion was made to defer the item to the June 20, 2002 Public Hearing. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. 5 May 9, 2002 ITEM NO.: 7.1 FILE NO.: Z-7074 NAME: Cottages in the Pines Long -form PD -R LOCATION: On the West side of Heinke Road approximately 1200 feet South of Johnson Road. DEVELOPER: Rolling Pines Limited Partnership #2 Otter Creek Circle Little Rock, AR 72210 AREA: 5.340 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 ENGINEER: McGetrick & McGetrick Engineers 319 President Clinton Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: Not Zoned. (The applicant has applied for annexation to the City of Little Rock. The Public Hearing has been set for May 21, 2002.) OPOSED ZONING: PD -R PROPOSED USE: Multi -family housing VARIANCESMAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAUREQUEST: The applicant proposes the placement of 14 four-plex buildings (a total of 56 - units) and a 61 -foot by 30 -foot clubhouse on this 5.340 -acre site. The applicant has indicated he plans to develop the site as two bedroom four-plex apartments for empty nesters and persons fifty years of age plus. Each building will be 3825 square feet (76.5 feet by 50 feet) with each unit being approximately 950 square feet. The development includes the placement of 110 parking spaces with a single access from Heinke Road. May 9, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: FILE NO.: Z-7074 The site is a vacant heavily wooded site adjacent to an abandoned railroad right- of-way. The area to the east is single-family with what appears to be an old salvage yard. North of the site is a wastewater utility pump station. Other uses in the area include a mix of single-family and manufactured housing scattered along Heinke Road and the roads, which feed onto Heinke Road. Heinke Road is an unimproved roadway with no shoulders and deep ditches on both sides. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing staff has received several phone calls both in favor and opposition of the proposed application. All property owners within 200 feet, all residents within 300 feet of the site who could be identified and the Shilo, Rolling Pines and Southwest Little Rock United for Progress Neighborhood Associations were notified of the Public Hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: Existing topographical information at maximum 5 -foot contour interval and the 100 -year base flood elevation will be required prior to completion of a detailed review. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: A sewer main extension will be required, with easements, if service is required for the project. Capacity Analysis required, contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 376-2903 fore details. ENTERGY: No comment received. ARKLA: Approved as submitted. Southwestern Bell: No comment received. Water: A development fee will be assessed in addition to normal charges for water connections to this project. This fee will range from $2600 for 6" connection to $4400 for 10" connection. The LRFD needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrants(s) will be required. Contact Marie Dugan for additional details at 992-2438. 2 May 9, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.- Z-7074 F G. Fire Department: Maintain a 20 -foot drive between buildings. Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Dennis Free at the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information at 918-3752. County Planning: No comment received. CATA: No comment received. ISSU ESITECHN ICALIDESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Otter Creek Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Residential Development for a special population multi -family development. A Land Use Plan amendment for a change to Low Density Residential is a separate item on this agenda (LU02-16-03 Item #7). 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 Issues: 1. Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance requirements. 2. An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. 3. Prior to a building permit being issued, it will be necessary to provide an approved landscape plan stamped with the seal of a registered landscape architect. Building Codes: No comment. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (April 18, 2002) Mr. Pat McGetrick, McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers, was present representing the application. Staff briefly described the proposed zoning request. Staff stated the site was the location of the annexation request from the April 11, 2002 Planning Commission Public Hearing. Staff stated the applicant had applied for a residential development for elderly housing. Staff stated elderly housing was a use defined in the Zoning Ordinance and specifically outlined requirements with regard to parking etc. c May 9, 2002 SUBDIVISION M NO.: 7.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7074 Mr. McGetrick stated the parking ratio was 2 to 1 whereas multi -family was 1.5 to 1. Mr. Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, stated the applicant should consider defining the development as multi -family and not elderly housing. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff questioned the alignment of the proposed County Line Road. Staff stated this was an issue that must be resolved prior to the application proceeding to the full Commission. Staff stated if the alignment was in fact the abandoned railroad right-of-way, then platted - building lines on the rear of the property would need to be adjusted. Mr. McGetrick stated he would work with Public Works to determine the alignment of the roadway prior to the Commission meeting. Public Works requested the applicant a submit topographical survey and a storm water detention plan. Staff also stated the maximum driveway width would be 30 -feet and the pull in must be increased to 75 -feet. The applicant indicated he would remove the island rather than increase the depth to 75 -feet. Staff stated the ordinance was worded such that the Planning Commission may require a maximum driveway width of 30 -feet. After the discussion the Committee forwarded the Planned Development to the full Commission for final action. Staff Update: The applicant met with Public Works Staff and Planning Staff on April 23, 2002 concerning the alignment of the proposed County Line Road. Public Works Staff has determined the roadway will either follow the existing railroad right-of-way or will be north of the railroad right-of-way and will not affect this site. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revise plan to Staff on April 24, 2002 addressing most of the issues raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee. The applicant has indicated the drive to be a 36 -foot driveway, stated any site lighting will be low level and directed away from residentially zoned property and located the handicapped parking stalls and accessibility. The applicant has met with Public Works and Planning Staff and resolved the issues of the Master Street Plan. The proposed minor arterial, County Line Road, will travel north of the site along the abandoned railroad right-of-way or north of the right-of-way. The property owner has indicated he currently owns the property on both sides of the abandoned railroad and is willing to donate right-of-way for the proposed roadway. C! May 9, 2002 UBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 7.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7074 The applicant has indicated a single ground -mounted sign to be located adjacent to Heinke Road in the 25 -foot building setback. The sign is proposed to be within the allowable square footage for a multi -family development (not to exceed 24 - feet in sign area). The applicant is proposing the development to be primarily housing for empty nesters and persons fifty years of age and older. The parking proposed is more than adequate to meet the parking minimum for a multi -family development (110 parking spaces proposed - 84 parking spaces required). The development, 56 units on 5.34 acres, is consistent with Low Density Residential. The site is located adjacent to a proposed Minor Arterial, County Line Road, which, when built, will offer choices for connectivity throughout the City. Although, Heinke Road is a substandard roadway, development within the City has occurred on numerous occasions on substandard roadways. If the City were to limit development to areas with adequate infrastructure, development would be limited. Staff is supportive of the request to allow a Planned Residential Development to occur for Cottages in the Pines Short -form PD -R. Otherwise, to Staffs knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed zoning request. AFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Planned Development for Cottages in the Pines Short -form PD -R subject to the conditions outlined in Paragraphs D, E and F of this report. 5