Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7113 Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: Z-7113 NAME: Covenant Cove Long -Form PD -R T.nCATION: Southwest Corner of Rutgers Drive and Lehigh Drive DEVELOPER: Pam Brown -Courtney & Associates P.O. Box 55145 Little Rock, AR 72215 ENGINEER: McGetrick & McGetrick Engineers 319 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 10.330 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 52 CURRENT ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED ZONING: PD -R FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential PROPOSED USE: Single-family residential VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant proposes to subdivide this 10.33 -acre site into 52 single-family residential lots a part of a preliminary plat, a separate item on this agenda (Covenant Cove Preliminary Plat Item No. 2 File No. S -1329-A). The preliminary plat does not meet the minimum requirements for a R-2, single-family subdivision. As a part of the PD -R the variances are being resolved. - The average lot size will be 5,200 square feet. The subdivision will have a single access point from Romine Road. The interior street will be a 50 -foot private access FILE NO.: Z-7113 (Cont.) and utility easement. The lots will have rear access with a 35 -foot access and utility easement. There will be a 10 - foot no access easement provided adjacent to the interior roadway and to Romine Road and Leigh Drive. The applicant proposes this development through a Planned Development -Residential. The homes will range in square footage from 1510 to 2065. The applicant proposes three and four bedroom homes all of which will be single story. The typical house plans shown indicate one of the structure has an appendage which extends into the proposed setback. The applicant proposes a "Brodie Creek look" with the homes pulled closer to the street, front porches and rear loading lots for the development. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and tree covered. The area to the north, south, east and west is developed with single-family residences and only a scattering of vacant lots. The site slopes upward from Lehigh Drive to Romine Road. The site is adjacent to Romine Road and Leigh Drive both of which are developed to Master Street Plan standards with the exception of sidewalks. The sidewalks have been constructed on Romine Road with the exception of the frontage adjacent to this site. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from the neighborhood concerning the proposed rezoning. All property owners within 200 feet of the site, all residents within 300 feet who could be identified, and the Twin Lakes "A", Cypress Place, Kensington Place, John Barrow and the Twin Lakes "B" Neighborhood Associations as well as the Twin Lakes Property Owners Association were notified of the Public Hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Lehigh Drive and Romine are classified on the Master Street Plan as collector streets. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline. 2. Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP" (Master Street Plan). Construct one-half street improvements to these streets including 5 -foot sidewalks with the planned development. 2 FILE NO.: Z-7113 (Cont.) 3. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 4. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 5. Obtain permits (barricade/ street cut) for improvements within proposed or existing right-of-way from Traffic Engineering prior to construction in right-of-way. 6. A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan is required prior to Subdivision Committee meeting, or no later than 5 days before Planning Commission hearing. 7. Contact the ADPC&E for approval prior to start of work. 8. Grading permit will be required on this development. 9. This development involves issues related to street lighting. The property owner may be responsible for installation of new streetlights or modification (if required) of existing streetlights. Property owner must contact Traffic Engineering (Steve Philpott @ 340-4880) to verify street lighting requirements for this project. 10. Relocate alley between Lots 7 and 8 to Lot 4 to provide turn -around capability for Lot 1. Paved alley standard is 18 -foot width. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements if service is required for project. Contact Jim Boyd at 376-2903 for details. Entergy: No comment received. ARKLA:. No comment received. Southwestern Bell: Approved as submitted. Water: An acreage charge of $150 per acre applies in addition to normal charges in this area. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No comment received. CATA: Project site is located near Bus Route #14 but has no effect on bus radius, turnout and route. 3 FILE NO.: Z-7113 (Cont.) F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the I-430 Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Development - Residential for 52 dwelling units on 10.33 acres in a neo- traditional setting. The property is currently zoned R-2 Single -Family. A land use plan amendment is not required. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant's property lies in the area covered by., the John Barrow Neighborhood Area Plan. The Neighborhood Revitalization Goal lists an objective of enhancing the climate for home ownership and attracting new residents to the area. An action statement recommending the development of affordable housing through new development and new subdivision development supports the Home Ownership Objective. Landsca a Issues: No comment. Building Codes: No comment received. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (December 6, 2001) Mr. Pat McGetrick was present, representing the application. The proposed preliminary plat and PD -R were discussed simultaneously. Staff briefly noted some additional project information needed on the site plan (signage, building setbacks, perimeter treatment). Staff also noted if the structures were to have any appendages these would need to be shown on the typical. Staff noted the typical shown would not "work" for a few of the lots. Staff listed these lots for Mr. McGetrick and requested a layout be shown for each of these lots. Staff also noted the additions to the preliminary plat. Staff noted a "turn -around" for Lot 1 should be shown. Staff also requested the applicant label the internal sidewalks. Tad Borkowski, Public Works Staff, indicated street improvements would be required. He also stated the Stormwater Detention Ordinance would apply to the project. Mr. Borkowski stated the alley between Lots 7 and 8 should be moved to allow "turn -around" capability for Lot 1. 4 FILE NO.: Z-7113 (Cont.) Staff questioned if the subdivision would have a gate. Mr. McGetrick stated the intent was not to install a gate but with the fencing design to have the appearance of a gated community. Staff noted the comment from the Fire Department and suggested Mr. McGetrick contact the Fire Marshall for additional information. After the discussion, the Committee forwarded the proposed preliminary plat and the proposed PD -R to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff noting most of the concerns raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee. This PD -R is part of a preliminary plat File No. S -1329-A Item No. 2 on this agenda. The plat does not meet the minimum requirements for a R-2 single-family subdivision. As a part of the PD -R the variances are being resolved. The applicant proposes a "Brodie Creek look" with the homes pulled closer to the street, front porches and rear loading lots. The applicant proposes the placement of a brick ground - mounted wall sign at the entrance to the subdivision. The perimeter of the subdivision will be fenced with a six-foot iron fence. The applicant does not propose the subdivision to be gated but, with the fencing, to have the appearance of a gated community. The applicant has provided six typical layouts for the subdivision. These typical structures range from 1510 square feet to 2065 square feet. All are one-story structures with at least three bedrooms. The average lot size is .12 acres with the minimum lot size being .09 acres. One of proposed typical structures has an appendage extending beyond the structure. The applicant has stated each of the lots will maintain a 3.5 -foot side yard setback. The applicant has also indicated chimneys and porches will extend into the setbacks. Minimum building code requires a side yard setback of over 3 -feet but the chimney can encroach into the setback 2 -feet. The applicant indicated the common areas are to be landscaped and to be maintained by the property owners association. The applicant has relocated the alleyway to provide turn -around capability for Lot 1. 5 FILE NO.: Z-7113 (Cont.) The property must be rezoned to PD -R, Covenant Cove Long - Form PD -R File No. Z-7113 for the plat, Covenant Cove Preliminary Plat File No. S -1329-A to be valid. Otherwise, to staff's knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with this PD -R. The proposed PD -R zoning request for Covenant Cove Long -Form PD -R should have no adverse impact on the general area. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the PD -R subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D and E of this report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 3, 2002) Ms. Pam Brown -Courtney, the developer, and Mr. Pat McGetrick, of McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers, were present representing the application. There were numerous objectors present. Staff presented the rezoning request in conjunction with the preliminary plat, with a recommendation of approval of the PRD rezoning subject to approval of the preliminary plat. Mr. George Brown spoke in support of the application. Mr. Brown stated he lived across the street from the site and had lived in the area for more than 25 years. He stated the project would enhance the neighborhood by the addition of new housing stock to the area and by the addition of sidewalks to Lehigh Drive and Romine Road. He stated the project was only one home over the density currently allowed under R-2, single-family zoning. Ms. Betty Snyder of the John Barrow Neighborhood Action Plan spoke in favor of the application. She stated the neighborhoods had worked over the years to encourage new housing and development in the area. She stated she was unaware of the opposition to the application until recently. Ms. Snyder stated she was available to work with the developer and the neighbors to work out any issues. Chairman Downing stated there were four cards in opposition of the application. He stated each of the persons would be given five minutes each to address the Commission. He then asked Mr. and Ms. Gray to come forward. He stated on their card they had 6 FILE NO.: Z-7113 (Cont.) indicated an opposition to an apartment complex. Chairman Downing stated the project was not apartments but single-family detached housing. Mr. and Mrs. Gray withdrew their opposition. Commissioner Allen questioned if the applicant had met with the neighborhoods. Mr. McGetrick stated the applicant had sent letters to the Kensington Place and the John Barrow Neighborhood Associations and had contacted the Campus Place Neighborhood Association. Mr. McGetrick stated the applicant was told the notification would be placed in the neighborhood association newsletter. Mr. McGetrick stated the property owners within '200 feet of the site were also notified. He stated his office phone number was placed in the notice and he had not received any comment until recently. Commissioner Allen stated the lack of communication with the Campus Place Neighborhood Association appeared to be the problem. He stated he felt if the applicant had met with the neighbors, some of the issues could have been resolved. Ms. Courtney stated in October she was contacted by persons in the area questioning the project. She stated she explained the project to these persons and gave her phone number along with the engineer's phone number to contact for more information. Ms: Courtney stated no one had contacted her or the engineer until very recently. Chairman Downing stated the problem was a miscommunication. He suggested a deferral of the item. Commissioner Faust questioned if the opponents, having heard the project, were still in opposition to the project. They indicated that they were. Commissioner Faust stated a temporary deferral was in order to allow the representatives 10 to 15 minutes to work through some of the issues. The item was deferred for 15 minutes by a vote of 10 ayes, 1 noe and 0 absent. Once the meeting reconvened, Chairman Downing stated the applicant and the property owners were not able to reach an agreement in the time period and the applicant had consented to a two week deferral. A motion was made for the two week deferral and passed by a vote of 11 ayes,.0 noes and 0 absent. Mr. James DeVries stated he would be out of town in two weeks and requested the Commission hear his statements of opposition. The Commission granted Mr. DeVries his request. 7 FILE NO.: Z-7113 (Cont.) Mr. DeVries stated he lived on Vanderbilt Drive adjacent to the site. He stated he was opposed to the project for three reasons; the John Barrow Action Plan called for infill housing to be of the same character as the existing housing; the area had springs and open watercourses, which create environmental concerns; and the increased traffic into the area, which would tax John Barrow Road even further. Commissioner Lowery questioned Mr. DeVries if he would be opposed if the lots were 10 feet wider. Mr. DeVries stated his opposition was to the rezoning. If the property were to develop according to current city standard, he would not be opposed. Commission Floyd stated with the Planned Development, even though the density would be higher the quality would also be higher. With a by -right development, the quality of homes could be significantly less than what was being proposed by Ms. Courtney. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 17, 2002) Ms. Pam Brown -Courtney, the developer, and Mr-. Pat McGetrick of McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers were present representing the application. There were numerous objectors present. Staff presented the item in conjunction with preliminary plat File No. S -1329-A. Staff stated the item was deferred from the January 3, 2002 Public Hearing. Staff indicated due to the large number of persons in opposition of the application at the January 3, 2002 meeting the Commission had suggested the applicant meet with the neighborhood to resolve some of the issues. Staff stated the meeting was held on January 1Cr, 2002 and was well attended. Staff indicated there was still opposition from the neighborhood and the applicant was not willing to change the application or site plan. Staff stated since the last meeting there had been one additional letter of support received. Staff stated the recommendation was approval subject to the conditions previously noted. Mr.. Michael Booker spoke in opposition of the application. He stated he was representing three neighborhoods Twin Lakes, Kensington and Campus Place. He stated the neighborhood meeting was well attended with approximately 80 persons present. He stated the participants voted at the meeting to not support the 8 FILE NO.: Z-7113 (Cont.) application. He stated only one person voted in favor of the application. Mr. Booker stated, there were two petitions in the neighborhood, one with 150 signatures and the other with 45 - 50 signatures indicating opposition for the project. He stated the letter of support for the project was from the John Barrow Neighborhood but Campus Place was not John Barrow. Mr. Booker stated the applicant had indicated a "Brodie Creek" neighborhood feel. He stated he had driven through Brodie Creek and the proposal was not the same. He stated Brodie Creek had green belts and the proposed Planned Development did not. He also stated the Brodie Creek development had been abandoned by the developers. He stated the proposal was a good proposal but not suited for an existing neighborhood. Commissioner Rector asked Mr. Booker what the reasons were for opposition. Mr. Booker stated the density, environmental concerns and the aesthetics. He stated the development was proposed to be a gated community and the remainder of the neighborhood was not gated. He stated the development was not neighborhood friendly. He stated the set backs were minimum which raised concerns for fire safety. Commissioner Rector stated he was on the Commission when St. John's Woods was presented and the neighborhood stated similar concerns. Commissioner Allen stated with the PRD there were some issues, which could be addressed. He stated with a straight R-2 development there would be no input from the neighborhood and the developer could build any type development they desired. Mr. Booker stated this was not a concern of the neighborhood. He stated economic incentives and the market would take care of the concern of the developer building housing which were not similar to the existing housing stock. Mr. Charles Armstrong spoke in opposition to the application stating his concerns were environmental. He stated the area contained a great amount of pavement and run-off from the area would create environmental concerns. He stated there was a creek located within the development. He stated this development was not a Brodie Creek development because the application did not incorporate green spaces. FILE NO.: Z-7113 (Cont.) Ms. Sandra Goins spoke in opposition of the application. She stated her concern was the type of housing that would be constructed. Commissioner Downing asked if she was aware the minimum square footage of the proposed homes was to be 1500 square feet and the selling price was $125,000 and up. Commissioner Downing asked Ms. Goins the average square footage of homes in the area. Ms. Goins stated she was aware of the proposed square footage. She stated the homes in the neighborhood were diverse. She stated on Vanderbilt Drive there were 14 homes, some larger and some smaller than her home. She stated, her home, was 2100 square feet. Ms. Pearlie Rattiff stated the proposed project was directly in her back yard. She stated her opposition was to density. Ms. Rattiff stated if the applicant were to build at the density currently allowable under R-2 she would not be opposed to the project. Mr. Brad Norris stated Campus Place and Kensington were brother and sister neighborhoods. He stated uniformity was important in a neighborhood. He stated the development should "look -like" what was currently developed in the neighborhood. Commissioner Floyd questioned Mr. Norris if he was aware should the PRD fail the applicant could subdivide the property into 40 - 45 lots and construct 800 square feet rental units. Mr. Norris stated he was not concerned because the market would drive the housing that would be constructed. Ms. Jacqueline Love -Ryan stated her opposition was to the number of homes. She stated more than 44 or what was currently allowed under R-2 zoning would not be beneficial to the neighborhood. Mr. Pat McGetrick stated the application had met with all city requirements. He stated the applicant would place sidewalks along Romine Road and Lehigh Drive and on the interior of the subdivision. Mr. McGetrick stated the utilities would be underground. He stated the subdivision would meet the detention ordinance and meet the fire department requirements. He stated there would be only one entrance to the subdivision from Romine Road and an emergency fire entrance from Leigh Drive. Mr. McGetrick stated the drainage would be piped underground in two directions. 10 FILE NO.: Z-7113 (Cont. Ms. Pam Brown -Courtney stated she had meet with the neighborhood as recommended by the Commission. She stated the neighborhood had not indicated a desire to work with her on the development. Ms. Courtney stated the homes in the area are 20 years old and her project would revitalize the area. She stated she to owned property in Kensington. Ms. Courtney stated she was not willing to change her application because of opposition. She stated the application was different and the neighborhood did not appear to welcome change. Ms. Debries spoke in opposition of the application. She stated the number of homes and the increased traffic were concerns. She stated the Brodie Creek design did include more green space than the proposed development. Mr. George Brown spoke in support of the application. He stated there were 50 persons attending the meeting which was held January 10, 2002. He stated with the development the neighborhood would benefit. Mr. Brown stated the development would construct sidewalks on Lehigh and Romine and construct curb and gutter on Lehigh Drive. He stated the Subdivision would carry a Bill of Assurance and the utilities would be placed underground. He stated the proposed application would do noting but increase property values in the area. Commissioner Rector stated homogeneity in neighborhoods had driven the separation of community. He stated a community must have different sorts of places to live. Commissioner Rector stated two very old areas of the city, Heights and Hillcreast, had this diversity. Commissioner Mizan stated the development was a good development for an area of land, which had set vacant for a number of years. Commissioner Nunnley stated he was opposed to the development based on the neighborhood concerns. He stated the Commission and the Board had empowered the neighborhoods by giving them a voice and it was important to listen to that voice. He stated the neighborhood was very clear that the development was not right for their neighborhood:- Commissioner eighborhood: Commissioner Berry stated diversity in housing types adds value to property and improves, over time, the segregation of housing. He stated the impact of the development would not be much more than a traditional single-family subdivision built on the site. 11 FILE NO.: Z-7113 (Cont.) Commissioner Allen stated the development was indeed a good development but not for the site which had been selected. He stated he would listen to and vote with the neighborhood. Commissioner Faust stated the development was a good residential in -fill development. She stated the density difference between what could be constructed and what was proposed was to small to not allow this development. A motion was made to approve the Planned Residential Development as filed, to include all staff recommendations and comments. The vote carried with 6 ayes, 4 noes and 1 absent. 12 ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z-7113 NAME: Covenant Cove Long -Form PD -R LOCATION: Southwest Corner of Rutgers Drive and Lehigh Drive DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Pam Brown -Courtney McGetrick & McGetrick Engineers & Associates 319 East Markham Street P.O. Box 55145 Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72215 10.330 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 52 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED ZONING: PD -R CURRENT ALLOWED USES PROPOSED USE Single-family residential Single-family residential VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUE,TED: None requested. I A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant proposes to subdivide this 10.33 -acre site into 52 single-family residential lots a part of a preliminary plat, a separate item on this agenda (Covenant Cove Preliminary Plat Item No. 2 File No. S -1329-A). The preliminary plat does not meet the minimum requirements for a R-2, single-family subdivision. As a part of the PD -R the variances are being resolved. The average lot size will be 5,200 square feet. The subdivision will have a single access point from Romine Road. The interior street will be a 50 -foot private access and utility easement. The lots will have rear access with a 35 -foot access and utility easement. There will be a 10- 1 va14uai1i _�, QVVL SUBDIVISION ITEM NO. 8 (Cont.) _ FILE NO.: Z-7113 foot no access easement provided adjacent to the interior roadway and to Romine Road and Leigh Drive. The applicant proposes this development through a Planned Development -Residential. The homes will range in square footage from 1510 to 2065. The applicant proposes three and four bedroom homes all of which will be single story. The typical house plans shown indicate one of the structure has an appendage which extends into the proposed setback. The applicant proposes a "Brodie Creek look" with the homes pulled closer to the street, front porches and rear loading lots for the development. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and tree covered. The area to the north, south, east and west is developed with sipgle-family residences and only a scattering of vacant lotsi The site slopes upward from Lehigh Drive to Romine Road. The site is adjacent to Romine Road and Leigh Drive both of which are developed to Master Street Plan standards with the exception of sidewalks. The sidewalks have been constructed on Romine Road with the exception of the frontage adjacent to this site. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from the neighborhood concerning the proposed rezoning. A11 property owners within 200 feet of the site, all residents within 300 feet who could be identified, and the Twin Lakes "A", Cypress Place, Kensington Place, John Barrow and the Twin Lakes "B" Neighborhood Associations as well as the Twin Lakes Property Owners Association were notified of the Public Hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Lehigh Drive and Romine are classified on the Master Street Plan as collector streets. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline. 2. Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP" (Master Street Plan). Construct one-half street improvements to these streets including 5 -foot sidewalks with the planned development. - 3. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for 2 January ,3, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7113 approval prior to start of work. 4. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 5. Obtain permits (barricade/ street cut) for improvements within proposed or existing right-of-way from Traffic Engineering prior to construction in right-of-way. 6. A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan is required prior to Subdivision Committee meeting, or no later than 5 days before Planning Commission hearing. 7. Contact the ADPC&E for approval prior to start of work. 8. Grading permit will be required on this development. 9. This development involves issues related to street lighting. The property owner may be responsible for installation of new streetlights or modification (if required) of existing streetlights. Property owner must contact Traffic Engineering (Steve Philpott @ 340-4880) to verify street lighting requirements for this project. 10. Relocate alley between Lots 7 and 8 to Lot 4 to provide turn -around capability for Lot 1. Paved alley standard is 18 -foot width. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension service is required for project. 2903 for details. Enterq No comment received. ARKLA: No comment received. required with easements if Contact Jim Boyd at 376 - Southwestern Bell: Approved as submitted. Water: An acreage charge of $150 per acre applies in addition to normal charges in this area. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No comment received. CATH: Project site is located near Bus Route #14 but has no effect on bus radius, turnout and route. 3 January 3, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 F Cont. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: FILE NO.: Z-7113 This request is located in the I-430 Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Development Residential for 52 dwelling units on 10.33 acres in. a neo- traditional setting. The property is currently zoned R-2 Single -Family. A land use plan amendment is not required. Cit Reco Hired Nei hborhood Action Plan: The applicant's property lies in the area covplred by the John Barrow Neighborhood Area Plan. The Neighborhood Revitalization Goal lists an objective of enhancing the climate for home ownership and attracting new residents to the area. An action statement recommending the development of affordable housing through new development and new subdivision development supports the Home Ownership Objective. Landscape Issues: No comment. Buildin Codes: No comment received. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (December 6, 2001) Mr. Pat McGetrick was present, representing the application. The proposed preliminary plat and. PD -R were discussed simultaneously. Staff briefly noted some additional project information needed on the site plan (signage, building setbacks, perimeter treatment). Staff also noted if the structures were to have any appendages these would need to be shown on the typical. Staff noted the typical shown would not "work" for a few of the lots. Staff listed these lots for Mr. McGetrick and requested a layout be shown for each of these lots. Staff also noted the additions to the preliminary plat. Staff noted a "turn -around" for Lot 1 should be shown. requested the applicant label the internal sidewalks. also Tad Borkowski, Public Works Staff, indicated street improvements would be required. He also stated the n January 3, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7113 Stormwater Detention Ordinance would apply to the project. Mr. Borkowski stated the alley between Lots 7 and 8 should be moved to allow "turn -around" capability for Lot 1. Staff questioned if the subdivision would have a, gate. Mr. McGetrick stated the intent was not to install a gate but with the fencing design to have the appearance of a gated community. Staff noted the comment from the Fire Department and suggested Mr. McGetrick contact the Fire Marshall for additional information. After the discussion, the Committee forwarded the proposed preliminary plat and the proposed PD -R to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff noting most of the concerns raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee. This PD -R is part of a preliminary plat File No. S -1329-A Item No. 2 on this agenda. The plat does not meet the minimum requirements for a R-2 single-family subdivision. As a part of the PD -R the variances are being resolved. The applicant proposes a "Brodie Creek look" with the homes pulled closer to the street, front porches and rear loading lots. The applicant proposes the placement of a brick ground - mounted wall sign at the entrance to the subdivision. The perimeter of the subdivision will be fenced with a six-foot iron fence. The applicant does not propose the subdivision to be gated but, with the fencing, to have the appearance of a gated community. The applicant has provided six typical layouts for the subdivision. These typical structures range from 1510 square feet to 2065 square feet. All are one-story structures with at least three bedrooms. The average lot size is .12 acres with the minimum lot size being .09 acres. One of proposed typical structures has an appendage extending beyond the structure. The applicant has stated each of the lots will maintain a 3.5 -foot side yard setback. The applicant has also indicated chimneys and 5 January 3, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 tCont. FILE NO.: Z-7113 porches will extend into the setbacks. Minimum building code requires a side yard setback of over 3 -feet but the chimney can encroach into the setback 2 -feet. The applicant indicated the common areas are to be landscaped and to be maintained by the property owners association. The applicant has relocated the alleyway to provide turn -around capability for Lot 1. The property must be rezoned to PD -R, Covenant Cove Long - Form PD -R File No. Z-7113 for the plat, Covenant Cove Preliminary Plat File No. 5-1329-A to be valid. Otherwise, to staff's knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with this PD -R. The proposed PD -R zoning request for Covenant Cove Long -Form PD -R should have no adverse impact on the general area. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the PD -R subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D and E of this report. 0 FILE NO.: Z-7113 NAME: Covenant Cove Long -Form PD -R LOCATION: Southwest Corner of Rutgers Drive and Lehigh Drive DEVELOPER: Pam Brown -Courtney McGetrick & McGetrick Engineers & Associates 319 East Markham Street P.O. Box 55145 Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72215 AREA: 10.330 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 52 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED ZONING: PD -R CURRENT ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential PROPOSED USE: Single-family residential VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant proposes to subdivide this 10.33 -acre site into 52 single-family residential lots a part of a preliminary plat, a separate item on this agenda (Covenant Cove Preliminary Plat Item No. 2 File No. 5-1329-A). The preliminary plat does not meet the minimum requirements for a R-2, single-family subdivision. As a part of the PD -R the variances are being resolved. The average lot size will be 5,200 square feet. The subdivision will have a single access point from Romine Road. The interior street will be a 50 -foot private access FILE NO.: Z-7113 (Cont. and utility easement. The lots will have rear access with a 35 -foot access and utility easement. There will be a 10 - foot no access easement provided adjacent to the interior roadway and to Romine Road and Leigh Drive. The applicant proposes this development through a Planned Development -Residential. The homes will range in square footage from 1510 to 2065. The applicant proposes three and four bedroom homes all of which will be single story. The typical house plans shown indicate one of the structure has an appendage which extends into the proposed setback. The applicant proposes a "Brodie Creek look" with the homes pulled closer to the street, front porches and rear loading lots for the development. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and tree covered. The area to the north, south, east and west is developed with single-family residences and only a scattering of vacant lots. The site slopes upward from Lehigh Drive to Romine Road. The site is adjacent to Romine Road and Leigh Drive both of which are developed to Master Street Plan standards with the exception of sidewalks. The sidewalks have been constructed on Romine Road with the exception of the frontage adjacent to this site. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from the neighborhood concerning the proposed rezoning. All property owners within 200 feet of the site, all residents within 300 feet who could be identified, and the Twin Lakes "A", Cypress Place, Kensington Place, John Barrow and the Twin Lakes "B" Neighborhood Associations as well as the Twin Lakes Property Owners Association were notified of the Public Hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Lehigh Drive and Romine are classified on the Master Street Plan as collector streets. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline. 2. Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP" (Master Street Plan). Construct one-half street improvements to these streets including 5 -foot sidewalks with the planned development. E FILE NO.: Z-7113 (Cont.) 3_ Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 4. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 5. Obtain permits (barricade/ street cut) for improvements within proposed or existing right-of-way from Traffic Engineering prior to construction in right-of-way. 6. A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan is required prior to Subdivision Committee meeting, or no later than 5 days before Planning Commission hearing. 7. Contact the ADPC&E for approval prior to start of work. 8. Grading permit will be required on this development. 9. This development involves issues related to street lighting. The property owner may be responsible for installation of new streetlights or modification (if required) of existing streetlights. Property owner must contact Traffic Engineering (Steve Philpott @ 340-4880) to verify street lighting requirements for this project. 10. Relocate alley between Lots 7 and 8 to Lot 4 to provide turn -around capability for Lot 1. Paved alley standard is 18 -foot width. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements if service is required for project. Contact Jim Boyd at 376-2903 for details. Entergy: No comment received. ARKLA: No comment received. Southwestern Bell: Approved as submitted. Water: An acreage charge of $150 per acre applies in addition to normal charges in this area. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No comment received. CATA: Project site is located near Bus Route #14 but has no effect on bus radius, turnout and route. 3 FILE NO.: Z-7113 (Cont.) F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the I-430 Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Development - Residential for 52 dwelling units on 10.33 acres in a neo- traditional setting. The property is currently zoned R-2 Single -Family. A land use plan amendment is not required. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant's property lies in the area covered by,, the John Barrow Neighborhood Area Plan. The Neighborhood Revitalization Goal lists an objective of enhancing the climate for home ownership and attracting new residents to the area. An action statement recommending the development of affordable housing through new development and new subdivision development supports the Home Ownership Objective. Landscape Issues: No comment. Building Codes: No comment received. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (December 6, 2001) Mr. Pat McGetrick was present, representing the application. The proposed preliminary plat and PD -R were discussed simultaneously. Staff briefly noted some additional project information needed on the site plan (signage, building setbacks, perimeter treatment). Staff also noted if the structures were to have any appendages these would need to be shown on the typical. Staff noted the typical shown would not "work" for a few of the lots. Staff listed these lots for Mr. McGetrick and requested a layout be shown for each of these lots. Staff also noted the additions to the preliminary plat. Staff noted a "turn -around" for Lot 1 should be shown. Staff also requested the applicant label the internal sidewalks. Tad Borkowski, Public Works Staff, indicated street improvements would be required. He also stated the Stormwater Detention Ordinance would apply to the project. Mr. Borkowski stated the alley between Lots 7 and 8 should be moved to allow "turn -around" capability for Lot 1. 4 FILE NO.: Z-7113 (Cont. Staff questioned if the subdivision would have a gate. Mr. McGetrick stated the intent was not to install a gate but with the fencing design to have the appearance of a gated community. Staff noted the comment from the Fire Department and suggested Mr. McGetrick contact the Fire Marshall for additional information. After the discussion, the Committee forwarded the proposed preliminary plat and the proposed PD -R to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff noting most of the concerns raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee. This PD -R is part of a preliminary plat File No. S -1329-A Item No. 2 on this agenda. The plat does not meet the minimum requirements for a R-2 single-family subdivision. As a part of the PD -R the variances are being resolved. The applicant proposes a "Brodie Creek look" with the homes pulled closer to the street, front porches and rear loading lots. The applicant proposes the placement of a brick ground - mounted wall sign at the entrance to the subdivision. The perimeter of the subdivision will be fenced with a six-foot iron fence. The applicant does not propose the subdivision to be gated but, with the fencing, to have the appearance of a gated community. The applicant has provided six typical layouts for the subdivision. These typical structures range from 1510 square feet to 2065 square feet. All are one-story structures with at least three bedrooms. The average lot size is .12 acres with the minimum lot size being .09 acres. One of proposed typical structures has an appendage extending beyond the structure. The applicant has stated each of the lots will maintain a 3.5 -foot side yard setback. The applicant has also indicated chimneys and porches will extend into the setbacks. Minimum building code requires a side yard setback of over 3 -feet but the chimney can encroach into the setback 2 -feet. The applicant indicated the common areas are to be landscaped and to be maintained by the property owners association. The applicant has relocated the alleyway to provide turn -around capability for Lot 1. 5 FILE NO.: Z-7113 (Cont.) The property must be rezoned to PD -R, Covenant Cove Long - Form PD -R File No. Z-7113 for the plat, Covenant Cove Preliminary Plat File No. 5-1329-A to be valid. Otherwise, to staff's knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with this PD -R. The proposed PD -R zoning request for Covenant Cove Long -Form PD -R should have no adverse impact on the general area. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the PD -R subject to the following conditions: 1.Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D and E of this report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 3, 2002) Ms. Pam Brown -Courtney, the developer, and Mr. Pat McGetrick, of McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers, were present representing the application. There were numerous objectors present. Staff presented the rezoning request in conjunction with the preliminary plat, with a recommendation of approval of the PRD rezoning subject to approval of the preliminary plat. Mr. George Brown spoke in support of the application. Mr. Brown stated he lived across the street from the site and had lived in the area for more than 25 years. He stated the project would enhance the neighborhood by the addition of new housing stock to the area and by the addition of sidewalks to Lehigh Drive and Romine Road. He stated the project was only one home over the density currently allowed under R-2, single-family zoning. Ms. Betty Snyder of the John Barrow Neighborhood Action Plan spoke in favor of the application. She stated the neighborhoods had worked over the years to encourage new housing and development in the area. She stated she was unaware of the opposition to the application until recently. Ms. Snyder stated she was available to work with the developer and the neighbors to work out any issues. Chairman Downing stated there were four cards in opposition of the application. He stated each of the persons would be given five minutes each to address the Commission. He then asked Mr. and Ms. Gray to come forward. He stated on their card they had 6 FILE NO.: Z-7113 (Cont.) indicated an opposition to an apartment complex. Chairman Downing stated the project was not apartments but single-family detached housing. Mr. and Mrs. Gray withdrew their opposition. Commissioner Allen questioned if the applicant had met with the neighborhoods. Mr. McGetrick stated the applicant had sent letters to the Kensington Place and the John Barrow Neighborhood Associations and had contacted the Campus Place Neighborhood Association. Mr. McGetrick stated the applicant was told the notification would be placed in the neighborhood association newsletter. Mr. McGetrick stated the property owners within 200 feet of the site were also notified. He stated his office phone number was placed in the notice and he had not received any comment until recently. Commissioner Allen stated the lack of communication with the Campus Place Neighborhood Association appeared to be the problem. He stated he felt if the applicant had met with the neighbors, some of the issues could have been resolved. Ms. Courtney stated in October she was contacted by persons in the area questioning the project. She stated she explained the project to these persons and gave her phone number along with the engineer's phone number to contact for more information. Ms. Courtney stated no one had contacted her or the engineer until very recently. Chairman Downing stated the problem was a miscommunication. He suggested a deferral of the item. Commissioner Faust questioned if the opponents, having heard the project, were still in opposition to the project. They indicated that they were. Commissioner Faust stated a temporary deferral was in order to allow the representatives 10 to 15 minutes to work through some of the issues. The item was deferred for 15 minutes by a vote of 10 ayes, 1 noe and 0 absent. Once the meeting reconvened, Chairman Downing stated the applicant and the property owners were not able to reach an agreement in the time period and the applicant had consented to a two week deferral. A motion was made for the two week deferral and passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. Mr. James DeVries stated he would be out of town in two weeks and requested the Commission hear his statements of opposition. The Commission granted Mr. DeVries his request. rl FILE NO.: Z-7113 (Cont.) Mr. DeVries stated he lived on Vanderbilt Drive adjacent to the site. He stated he was opposed to the project for three reasons; the John Barrow Action Plan called for infill housing to be of the same character as the existing housing; the area had springs and open watercourses, which create environmental concerns; and the increased traffic into the area, which would tax John Barrow Road even further. Commissioner Lowery questioned Mr. DeVries if he would be opposed if the lots were 10 feet wider. Mr. DeVries stated his opposition was to the rezoning. If the property were to develop according to current city standard, he would not be opposed. Commission Floyd stated with the Planned Development, even though the density would be higher the quality would also be higher. With a by -right development, the quality of homes could be significantly less than what was being proposed by Ms. Courtney. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 17, 2002) Ms. Pam Brown -Courtney, the developer, and Mr-. Pat McGetrick of McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers were present representing the application. There were numerous objectors present. Staff presented the item in conjunction with preliminary plat File No. S -1329-A. Staff stated the item was deferred from the January 3, 2002 Public Hearing. Staff indicated due to the large number of persons in opposition of the application at the January 3, 2002 meeting the Commission had suggested the applicant meet with the neighborhood to resolve some of the issues. Staff stated the meeting was held on January 10, 2002 and was well attended. Staff indicated there was still opposition from the neighborhood and the applicant was not willing to change the application or site plan. Staff stated since the last meeting there had been one additional letter of support received. Staff stated the recommendation was approval subject to the conditions previously noted. Mr. Michael Booker spoke in opposition of the application. He stated he was representing three neighborhoods Twin Lakes, Kensington and Campus Place. He stated the neighborhood meeting was well attended with approximately 80 persons present. He stated the participants voted at the meeting to not support the 8 FILE NO.: Z-7113 (Cont.) application. He stated only one person voted in favor of the application. Mr. Booker stated, there were two petitions in the neighborhood, one with 150 signatures and the other with 45 - 50 signatures indicating opposition for the project. He stated the letter of support for the project was from the John Barrow Neighborhood but Campus Place was not John Barrow. Mr. Booker stated the applicant had indicated a "Brodie Creek" neighborhood feel. He stated he had driven through Brodie Creek and the proposal was not the same. He stated Brodie Creek had green belts and the proposed Planned Development did not. He also stated the Brodie Creek development had been abandoned by the developers. He stated the proposal was a good proposal but not suited for an existing neighborhood. Commissioner Rector asked Mr. Booker what the reasons were for opposition. Mr. Booker stated the density, environmental concerns and the aesthetics. He stated the development was proposed to be a gated community and the remainder of the neighborhood was not gated. He stated the development was not neighborhood friendly. He stated the set backs were minimum which raised concerns for fire safety. Commissioner Rector stated he was on the Commission when St. John's Woods was presented and the neighborhood stated similar concerns. Commissioner Allen stated with the PRD there were some issues, which could be addressed. He stated with a straight R-2 development there would be no input from the neighborhood and the developer could build any type development they desired. Mr. Booker stated this was not a concern of the neighborhood. He stated economic incentives and the market would take care of the concern of the developer building housing which were not similar to the existing housing stock. Mr. Charles Armstrong spoke in opposition to the application stating his concerns were environmental. He stated the area contained a great amount of pavement and run-off from the area would create environmental concerns. He stated there was a creek located within the development. He stated this development was not a Brodie Creek development because the application did not incorporate green spaces. 0 FILE NO.: Z-7113 (Cont.) Ms. Sandra Goins spoke in opposition of the application. She stated her concern was the type of housing that would be constructed. Commissioner Downing asked if she was aware the minimum square footage of the proposed homes was to be 1500 square feet and the selling price was $125,000 and up. Commissioner Downing asked Ms. Goins the average square footage of homes in the area. Ms. Goins stated she was aware of the proposed square footage. She stated the homes in the neighborhood were diverse. She stated on Vanderbilt Drive there were 14 homes, some larger and some smaller than her home. She stated, her home, was 2100 square feet. Ms. Pearlie Rattiff stated the proposed project was directly in her back yard. She stated her opposition was to density. Ms. Rattiff stated if the applicant were to build at the density currently allowable under R-2 she would not be opposed to the project. Mr. Brad Norris stated Campus Place and Kensington were brother and sister neighborhoods. He stated uniformity was important in a neighborhood. He stated the development should "look -like" what was currently developed in the neighborhood. Commissioner Floyd questioned Mr. Norris if he was aware should the PRD fail the applicant could subdivide the property into 40 - 45 lots and construct 800 square feet rental units. Mr. Norris stated he was not concerned because the market would drive the housing that would be constructed. Ms. Jacqueline Love -Ryan stated her opposition was to the number of homes. She stated more than 44 or what was currently allowed under R-2 zoning would not be beneficial to the neighborhood. Mr. Pat McGetrick stated the application had met with all city requirements. He stated the applicant would place sidewalks along Romine Road and Lehigh Drive and on the interior of the subdivision. Mr. McGetrick stated the utilities would be underground. He stated the subdivision would meet the detention ordinance and meet the fire department requirements. He stated there would be only one entrance to the subdivision from Romine Road and an emergency fire entrance from Leigh Drive. Mr. McGetrick stated the drainage would be piped underground in two directions. 10 FILE NO.: Z-7113 (Cont.) Ms. Pam Brown -Courtney stated she had meet with the neighborhood as recommended by the Commission. She stated the neighborhood had not indicated a desire to work with her on the development. Ms. Courtney stated the homes in the area are 20 years old and her project would revitalize the area. She stated she to owned property in Kensington. Ms. Courtney stated she was not willing to change her application because of opposition. She stated the application was different and the neighborhood did not appear to welcome change. Ms. Debries spoke in opposition of the application. She stated the number of homes and the increased traffic were concerns. She stated the Brodie Creek design did include more green space than the proposed development. Mr. George Brown spoke in support of the application. He stated there were 50 persons attending the meeting which was held January 10, 2002. He stated with the development the neighborhood would benefit. Mr. Brown stated the development would construct sidewalks on Lehigh and Romine and construct curb and gutter on Lehigh Drive. He stated the Subdivision would carry a Bill of Assurance and the utilities would be placed underground. He stated the proposed application would do noting but increase property values in the area. Commissioner Rector stated homogeneity in neighborhoods had driven the separation of community. He stated a community must have different sorts of places to live. Commissioner Rector stated two very old areas of the city, Heights and Hillcreast, had this diversity. Commissioner Mizan stated the development was a good development for an area of land, which had set vacant for a number of years. Commissioner Nunnley stated he was opposed to the development based on the neighborhood concerns. He stated the Commission and the Board had empowered the neighborhoods by giving them a voice and it was important to listen to that voice. He stated the neighborhood was very clear that the development was not right for their neighborhood. Commissioner Berry stated diversity in housing types adds value to property and improves, over time, the segregation of housing. He stated the impact of the development would not be much more than a traditional single-family subdivision built on the site. 11 FILE NO.: Z-7113 (Cont.) Commissioner Allen stated the development was indeed a good development but not for the site which had been selected. He stated he would listen to and vote with the neighborhood. 11 Commissioner Faust stated the development was a good residential in -fill development. She stated the density difference between what could be constructed and what was proposed was to small to not allow this development. A motion was made to approve the Planned Residential Development as filed, to include all staff recommendations and comments. The vote carried with 6 ayes, 4 noes and 1 absent. V u 12 I January 3, 2002 ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z-7113 NAME: Covenant Cove Long -Form PD -R LOCATION: Southwest Corner of Rutgers Drive and Lehigh Drive DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Pam Brown -Courtney McGetrick & McGetrick Engineers & Associates 319 East Markham Street P.O. Box 55145 Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72215 AREA: 10.330 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 52 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED ZONING: PD -R CURRENT ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential PROPOSED USE: Single-family residential VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant proposes to subdivide this 10.33 -acre site into 52 single-family residential lots a part of a preliminary plat, a separate item on this agenda (Covenant Cove Preliminary Plat Item No. 2 File No. S -1329-A). The preliminary plat does not meet the minimum requirements for a R-2, single-family subdivision. As a part of the PD -R the variances are being resolved. The average lot size will be 5,200 square feet. The subdivision will have a single access point from Romine Road. The interior street will be a 50 -foot private access and utility easement. The lots will have rear access with a 35 -foot access and utility easement. There will be a 10- 1 January 3, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont. FILE NO.: Z-7113 foot no access easement provided adjacent to the interior roadway and to Romine Road and Leigh Drive. The applicant proposes this development through a Planned Development -Residential. The homes will range in square footage from 1510 to 2065. The applicant proposes three and four bedroom homes all of which will be single story. The typical house plans shown indicate one of the structure has an appendage which extends into the proposed setback. The applicant proposes a "Brodie Creek look" with the homes pulled closer to the street, front porches and rear loading lots for the development. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and tree covered. The area to the north, south, east and west is developed with single-family residences and only a scattering of vacant lots. The site slopes upward from Lehigh Drive to Romine Road. The site is adjacent to Romine Road and Leigh Drive both of which are developed to Master Street Plan standards with the exception of sidewalks. The sidewalks have been constructed on Romine Road with the exception of the frontage adjacent to this site. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from the neighborhood concerning the proposed rezoning. All property owners within 200 feet of the site, all residents within 300 feet who could be identified, and the Twin Lakes "A", Cypress Place, Kensington Place, John Barrow and the Twin Lakes "B" Neighborhood Associations as well as the Twin Lakes Property Owners Association were notified of the Public Hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Lehigh Drive and Romine are classified on the Master Street Plan as collector streets. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline. 2. Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP" (Master Street Plan). Construct one-half street improvements to these streets including 5 -foot sidewalks with the planned development. 3. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for K January 3, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont. FILE NO.: Z-7113 approval prior to start of work. 4. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 5. Obtain permits (barricade/ street cut) for improvements within proposed or existing right-of-way from Traffic Engineering prior to construction in right-of-way. 6. A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan is required prior to Subdivision Committee meeting, or no later than 5 days before Planning Commission hearing. 7. Contact the ADPC&E for approval prior to start of work. S. Grading permit will be required on this development. 9. This development involves issues related to street lighting. The property owner may be responsible -'for installation of new streetlights or modification (if required) of existing streetlights. Property owner must contact Traffic Engineering (Steve Philpott @ 340-4880) to verify street lighting requirements for this project. 10. Relocate alley between Lots 7 and 8 to Lot 4 to provide turn -around capability for Lot 1. Paved alley standard is 18 -foot width. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension service is required for project. 2903 for details. Enter: No comment received. ARKLA: No comment received. required with easements if Contact Jim Boyd at 376 - Southwestern Bell: Approved as submitted. Water: An acreage charge of $150 per acre applies in addition to normal charges in this area. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No comment received. CATA: Project site is located near Bus Route #14 but has no effect on bus radius, turnout and route. 3 January. 3, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7113 F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the I-430 Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Development - Residential for 52 dwelling units on 10.33 acres in a neo- traditional setting. The property is currently zoned R-2 Single -Family. A land use plan amendment is not required. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the John Barrow Neighborhood Area Plan. The Neighborhood Revitalization Goal lists an objective of enhancing the climate for home ownership and attracting new residents to the area. An action statement recommending the development of affordable housing through new development and new subdivision development supports the Home Ownership Objective. Landscape Issues: No comment. Building Codes: No comment received. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (December 6, 2001) Mr. Pat McGetrick was present, representing the application. The proposed preliminary plat and PD -R were discussed simultaneously. Staff briefly noted some additional project information needed on the site plan (signage, building setbacks, perimeter treatment). Staff also noted if the structures were to have any appendages these would need to be shown on the typical. Staff noted the typical shown would not "work" for a few of the lots. Staff listed these lots for Mr. McGetrick and requested a layout be shown for each of these lots. Staff also noted the additions to the preliminary plat. Staff noted a "turn -around" for Lot 1 should be shown. Staff also requested the applicant label the internal sidewalks. Tad Borkowski, Public Works Staff, indicated street improvements would be required. He also stated the 4 January•3, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7113 Stormwater Detention Ordinance would apply to the project. Mr. Borkowski stated the alley between Lots 7 and 8 should be moved to allow "turn -around" capability for Lot 1. Staff questioned if the subdivision would have a gate. Mr. McGetrick stated the intent was not to install a gate but with the fencing design to have the appearance of a gated community. Staff noted the comment from the Fire Department and suggested Mr. McGetrick contact the Fire Marshall for additional information. After the discussion, the Committee forwarded the proposed preliminary plat and the proposed PD -R to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff noting most of the concerns raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee. This PD -R is part of a preliminary plat File No. S -1329-A Item No. 2 on this agenda. The plat does not meet the minimum requirements for a R-2 single-family subdivision. As a part of the PD -R the variances are being resolved. The applicant proposes a "Brodie Creek look" with the homes pulled closer to the street, front porches and rear loading lots. The applicant proposes the placement of a brick ground - mounted wall sign at the entrance to the subdivision. The perimeter of the subdivision will be fenced with a six-foot iron fence. The applicant does not propose the subdivision to be gated but, with the fencing, to have the appearance of a gated community. The applicant has provided six typical layouts for the subdivision. These typical structures range from 1510 square feet to 2065 square feet. All are one-story structures with at least three bedrooms. The average lot size is .12 acres with the minimum lot size being .09 acres. One of proposed typical structures has an appendage extending beyond the structure. The applicant has stated each of the lots will maintain a 3.5 -foot side yard setback. The applicant has also indicated chimneys and 5 January, 3, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7113 porches will extend into the setbacks. Minimum building code requires a side yard setback of over 3 -feet but the chimney can encroach into the setback 2 -feet. The applicant indicated the common areas are to be landscaped and to be maintained by the property owners association. The applicant has relocated the alleyway to provide turn -around capability for Lot 1. The property must be rezoned to PD -R, Covenant Cove Long - Form PD -R File No. Z-7113 for the plat, Covenant -Cove Preliminary Plat File No. S -1329-A to be valid. Otherwise, to staff's knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with this PD -R. The proposed PD -R zoning request for Covenant Cove Long -Form PD -R should have no adverse impact on the general area. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the PD -R subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D and E of this report. ri Item No. , 8., Covenant Cove Long -Form PkD (Z-7113) Planning Staff Comments: 1. Provide a certified list of abutting property owners along with notice form with affidavit executed and proof of mailing. 2. Show vicinity map to scale. 3. Are there interior sidewalks? If so label interior sidewalks. 4. Provide proposed treatment of the perimeter of the site. Indicate any fencing and/gates within the proposed development including details (heights, materials). 5. Provide a phasing plan. 6. Will there be a ground -mounted sign on the site? If so, show on the site plan with details (height and area). 7. What are the outer edges of the access and utility easements? 8. Will there be any porches, chimneys, steps or stairs, which extend beyond the typical structure shown? If so indicate on the typical showing setback from the appendage. 9. Show typical rear yard setback off 35' access easement. 10. The PRD indicates all are one story structures. Are there any two story structures proposed? If so show a typical on the site plan. 11. Provide a 10' no access easement abutting all streets within and adjacent to the site. 12. Indicate the purpose and maintenance provisions of the common areas (landscape islands) in the roadway. 13. Provide a typical structure with setbacks for Lots 1, 12, 13, 22, 23, 24, 31, 32, 33, 38, 39, 45, 46 and 52. ariance/Waivers: None requested. Public Works: 1. Lehigh Drive and Romine Road are classified on the Master Street Plan as collector streets. Dedicate right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline. 2. Provide design of street conforming to "MSP" (Master Street Plan). Construct one-half street improvement to these streets including 5 -foot sidewalks with planned development. 3. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 4. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 5. Obtain permits (barricade/street cut) for improvements within proposed or existing right-o€way from Traffic Engineering prior to construction in right-of-way. 6. A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan is required prior to subdivision committee meeting, or no later than 5 days before Planning Commission hearing. 7. Contact the ADPC&E for approval prior to start of work. 8. Grading permit will be required on this development. 9. This development involves issues related to street lighting. The property owner may be responsible for installation of new street lights or modification (if required) of existing street lights. Property owner must contact Traffic Engineering (Steve Philpott @ 340-4880) to verify street lighting requirements for this project. 10. Relocate alley between Lots 7 and 8 to Lot 4 to provide turn -around capability for Lot 1. Paved alley standard is 18 -foot width. Utilities and Fire Department/County Department/CountyPlanning Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements if service is required for project. Contact Jim Boyd at 376-2903. Page 2 Covenant Cove Long -Form PRD (Z-7113) ENTERGY: No comment received. ARKLA: No comment received. Southwestern Bell: Approved as submitted. Water: An acreage charge of $150 per acre applies in addition to normal charges in this area. Contact Marie Dugan at 992-2438 for details. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No comment received. CATA: Project site is located near Bus Route 414 but has no effect on bus radius, turnout and route. Planning Division: This request is located in the I-430 Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Residential Development for 52 dwelling units on 10.33 acres in a neo -traditional setting. The property is currently zoned R-2 Single -Family. A land use plan amendment is not required. Landscape. No comment. Submit 4 copies of the revised site plan (to include the additional information as noted above) to staff no later than Wednesday, December 12, 2001.