Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7126 Staff AnalysisFebruary 14, 2002 ITEM NO.: C FILE NO.: Z-7126 NAME: Pinnacle Valley Subdivision Phase V Short -Form PRD LOCATION: West side of Pinnacle Valley Road approximately 0.6 miles North of Cantrell Road DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Kelton Brown, Jr. McGetrick & McGetrick Engineers #6 Eagle Glenn Cove 319 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72223 Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 4.080 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 11 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED ZONING: PRD ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential PROPOSED USE: Multi -family residential VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant proposes to develop this 4.080 -acre site as an 11 building, 40 -unit apartment community. The proposal includes the placement of seven (7) four-plex buildings and four (4) tri-plex buildings for a total of 40 units. The development will be accessed via a private access and utility easement. The development will provide cross parking, through the preliminary plat, between lots. The applicant proposes 88 parking spaces as a part of the PRD. A preliminary plat has been filed in conjunction with this application and is a separate item on this agenda (Item # 1 February 14, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7126 - Pinnacle Valley Subdivision Phase V --- Preliminary Plat File No. S -992-M). As a part of the preliminary plat, the applicant is requesting a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance. The variances requested are to allow lots without public street frontage, a variance from the standard lot depth to width ratios. There is also a variance being requested to allow a 25 -foot building set back adjacent to an arterial street. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is an undeveloped site with a scattering of trees. There is a creek adjacent to the west property line. A newly developing single-family subdivision abuts the creek on the opposite side to the west. A new single-family residence is under construction to the north of the site and single-family residences are located to the south of the site. Single-family residences on large lots are to the east of the site. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received numerous phone calls and letters from neighbors stating opposition to the application. All property owners within 200 feet of the site, all residents within 300 feet of the site who could be identified and the River Valley Property Owners Association were notified of the Public Hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Pinnacle Valley Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. Dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet from centerline will be required. 2. Provide design of street conforming to "MSP" (Master Street Plan). Construct one-half street improvements to the street including 5 -foot sidewalks with the planned development. Required work may include guardrail. 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. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock Code. All requests should be forwarded to Traffic E February 14, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7126 Engineering. 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. A grading permit will be required on this development. 8. A grading permit and development permit for special flood hazard area is required prior to construction. 9. Contact the ADPC&E for approval prior to start of work. 10. 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. 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: No comment received. Water: Modification of water facilities installed to serve Pinnacle Valley Subdivision Phase 3 will be required. An acreage fee of $300 per acre applies in addition to normal charges for water service to this area. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per city code. Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details. County Planning: No comment received. CATA: Project site is located on Express Bus Route #25 and has not effect on bus radius, turnout and route. 3 February 14, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7126 F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the River Mountain Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Residential Development for eleven buildings of three and four unit residential structures. The property is currently zoned R-2, Single Family. A land use plan amendment for a change to Low Density Residential is a separate item on this agenda (Item # 13 - File No. LU02-01- 01) . City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: This site is located in the area covered by the River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan, which is currently under review. The Land Use Plan will be reviewed as part of that plan review. The current I neighborhood plan contains a Residential Development Goal that recommends the construction of sidewalks in all types of development, installation of underground utilities in all subdivisions, installation of curb and gutter in developing subdivisions, and the installation of street lighting at the time new subdivisions are opened. Landscape Issues: Landscape strips with a minimum width of 6.7 feet are required along each side of the parking areas for each lot. A 6 -foot high opaque screen is required along the southern and western perimeters of the site. Building Codes: No comment received. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (December 61 2001) Mr. Pat McGetrick was present representing the application. The proposed preliminary plat and the PRD were discussed simultaneously. Staff noted some additions, which were needed on the preliminary plat (lot zoning classifications, 10 -foot no access easement adjacent to Pinnacle Valley 4 February 14, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont. FILE NO.: Z-7126 Road). Staff requested Mr. McGetrick provide a phasing plan for the development. Staff also requested details for the roof treatment of the buildings along with building heights for the PRD. Staff requested a statement of the applicant's intentions with regard for future selling or leasing of all or portions of the PRD including land area and dwelling units. Mr. Tad Borkowski, Public Works Staff, noted the dedication of 45 feet of right-of-way would be required along Pinnacle Valley Road and the roadway would be required to be built to Master Street Plan standards. Staff also noted there were three variances to the Subdivision Ordinance, which would need to be requested. 1). The ordinance requires building set backs adjacent to an arterial street to be 35 -feet. The applicant proposes a 25 -foot building set back. 2). The lot depth to width ratios for Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are above the maximum standard set by the ordinance. 3). The ordinance also requires lots to have public street frontage. Lots 2, 3 and 4 do not have public street frontage, which would require a variance to the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Bob Brown, Planning and Development Staff, noted the proposed planned development would require a 6.7 -foot landscape strip on each lot line of the development adjacent to the property lines. After the discussion, the Committee forwarded the preliminary plat and the PRD 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. The applicant has indicated two dumpsters on the site with appropriate screening. The applicant has also indicated there will not be a sign located on the site. The applicant indicated there will not be an on site manager. The applicant has also provided a 10 -foot no ccess easement adjacent to Pinnacle Valley Road. 5 February 14, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont. FILE NO.: Z-7126 The applicant proposes the buildings to be two-story with a maximum height of 25 -feet with a 6:12 roof pitch. The development will be constructed in three phases. The estimated start of construction will be July 2002. The landscaping submitted is insufficient to meet the minimum requirements. The interior landscape strip must be a minimum of 6.7 feet along each side of the parking areas for each lot. The screening adjacent to the single-family must be a minimum of 9 -feet and an average of 14.6 feet. There is a utility easement within and adjacent to the west property line. Utility easements are not allowed to count toward the screening requirement. With the current parking proposed, the minimum of 9 -feet appears to be impossible to provide on the west side (cul-de-sac end) in two places. On the south end of the site, a six-foot wood fence is being proposed adjacent to the single-family. Staff is not supportive of the reduced landscaping on this site due to the proximity to single-family and the inability to meet the sufficient screening requirements. Through a cross parking easement the applicant is proposing 88 parking spaces as a part of the development. The minimum required in a development of this type would be 60 spaces. The proposed parking is more than adequate to meet the minimum requirements. Therefore, the applicant could redesign the interior landscaping to meet the minimum requirements on each of the lot lines. The future land use plan for the site is currently single- family, as is the area around the site. The Pinnacle Valley Road area is currently developing as single-family. There is a new house currently under construction to the north of this site, on a 6+ -acre tract. The proposal is to have six of the seven buildings adjacent to Pinnacle Valley Road be placed with the end of the building directed to the street. From a design stand point, this is a less than desirable situation for building placement. This is compounded by the request to have the buildings located 10 -feet closer to the street than the ordinance standard dictates. Traffic is another major concern of staff. With the development of this site into 40 residential units the 11 February 14, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont. FILE NO.: Z-7126 number of trips per day would dramatically increase as compared to a development of lesser intensity such as patio homes or zero lot line housing. A forty -unit. development would increase the hazards at the already dangerous intersection of Pinnacle Valley Road and Cantrell Road. Staff is not supportive of the application as filed. The concerns of increased traffic, the non-conformance to the future land use plan and the appearance of the inability to meet the minimum screening requirement cause staff to feel the neighborhood would be better served by not allowing a development of this intensity to take place. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the application as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 3, 2002) Mr. Pat McGetrick of McGetrick. and McGetrick Engineers, was present representing the application. There were numerous objectors present. Staff presented the application in conjunction with the preliminary plat (File No. S -992-M Pinnacle Valley Preliminary Plat) , with a recommendation of denial of the PRD rezoning request. Mr. McGetrick indicated there were a few comments he would like to make. He stated the application was in an area bound by Pinnacle Valley Road and a major creek to the west of the site. He stated the area would be difficult to develop as single- family and meet the minimum standards. Mr. McGetrick stated the applicant was willing to improve Pinnacle Valley Road from the railroad tracks to the edge of this property closest to Cantrell Road. Mr. McGetrick requested a deferral to allow sufficient time' to evaluate the options for development of the site. Mr. McGetrick stated' he would look at the density and try to reduce the density to single-family density. Commissioner Lowery made a motion for deferral of the item to the February 14, 2002 Planning Commission Public Hearing. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. 7 February 14, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont. FILE NO.: Z-7126 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 24, 2002) Mr. Pat McGetrick, of McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers, was present representing the application. Staff presented the item and noted that additional information was needed on the parking layout and front yard setback. Public Works comments were also discussed. Staff stated the comments were similar to the previous application; right-of-way requirements would apply, street improvements adjacent to the property and the naming of the access / utility easement "for city address assignment. Commissioner Berry asked how the city calculated traffic trips to generate traffic counts. Tad Borkowski, Public Works staff, stated the city uses 10 trips per day per household. Commissioner Berry then requested information concerning current traffic counts for Pinnacle Valley Road. After a brief discussion the Committee determined there were no outstanding issues associated with proposed Planned Development. The Committee then forwarded the application to the full Commission for final action. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff responding to the issues raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee on January 30, 2002. The revised plan indicated driveways and more clearly identified the building lines adjacent to the 25 -foot access easement. The applicant has applied for single -story duplex structures to be located on 10 lots. On the Future Land Use Plan, the site is designated as Single-family. This designation allows for up to six units per acre. The applicant is proposing 4.9 units per acre, which is consistent with the City's Future Land Use Plan. The proposed development allows for green space and open areas, which the previous application did not allow. With the reduction in the number of units proposed from 40 to 20, this would reduce the traffic concerns by an equivalent. Now instead of an estimated 400 trips per day the site will generate an estimated 200 trips per day. 8 February 14, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7126 As previously stated, the area is developing as single-family. There are new single-family structures being constructed to the north and west of the site as well as a large tract single- family development to the east. Staff feels it is more appropriate for the site to develop as single-family detached housing to conform to the development pattern in the area. Although, it is important to develop integrated housing types throughout the city, it is also important to promote housing in which homeowners feel their investment is protected. Staff agrees the site is a small site, situated on the Ison Creek. With this said, this does not mean the site cannot develop as single-family detached housing. A development on reduced lot sizes would still allow for density not much less than what is currently proposed (realizing there are issues related to easements on the west property line). Staff is not supportive of the application as filed. The development, although, similar in density to single-family does not meet with the desired development pattern in the area. Staff recommends denial of the application as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 14, 2002) Mr. Pat McGetrick of McGetrick and McGetrick Engineering was present representing the application. There were numerous objectors present. Staff presented the application in conjunction with the preliminary plat Pinnacle Valley Phase V - Preliminary Plat File No. S -992-M. Staff recommended denial of the Planned Development subject to denial of the Preliminary Plat since the two were so directly tied together. Mr. McGetrick stated after the last meeting he and the owner had gone back and redesigned the project. The number of units had decreased from 40 to 20. He stated, 20 units was within the density of single-family and requested the Future Land Use Plan amendment be withdrawn. He stated the land was a challenge to develop due to the constraints of the creek and a 70 -foot utility easement for water and sewer. He stated the current proposal allowed for the maximum use of the property. He stated the applicant was willing to make boundary street improvements to Pinnacle Valley Road and the maximum use of the property was an important issue to economically allow for the road improvements. Mr. McGetrick stated the applicant was only -01 February 14, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7126 taking access to Pinnacle Valley Road at one point. He stated due to the location of the floodway and the utility easements the property would be difficult to develop as single-family. Commissioner Berry asked the original density. Mr. McGetrick stated the original application called for 44 units on the site. Mr. McGetrick stated the original proposal contained 11 lots and the current application contained 10 lots. He stated the current proposal translated to 4.9 units per acre. Commissioner Floyd asked the floodplain elevation and the mean elevation for the site. Mr. McGetrick stated the floodplain elevation was 264 and the mean elevation was 265 to 270 depending on where the measurement was taken on the site. Commissioner Rector questioned the road improvements and the cost of these improvements. Mr. McGetrick stated the applicant would improve approximately 800 feet along Pinnacle Valley Road and the cost would be $50,000 to $70,000. He stated the applicant would be required to develop 18 -foot from the centerline and place curb, gutter and/or shoulders on the roadway. Commissioner Rector asked if the development would be cost prohibited as single-family. Mr. McGetrick stated with the easement restrictions, the floodway, the cost of the roadway, the density restrictions of single-family and the configuration of the property all combined would make the site difficult to develop as single-family. Mr. Harry Willims spoke in opposition of the application. He stated he and his wife owned property at 5800 Pinnacle Valley Road directly south of the proposed site. Mr. Willims stated the applicant was approved some time ago to develop a 40 unit apartment development just north of this site on Pinnacle Valley Road. He stated the development was not yet completed and the area had not felt the true impact of the development. He stated there were only three of the 12 buildings constructed or 12 of the potential 40 apartments. He stated the applicant still had an additional 28 units to develop and not until completion of the entire project could the neighborhood truly gage the traffic impact. 10 February 14, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont. FILE NO.: Z-7126 Mr. Willims stated the area surrounding the site had developed as single-family. He stated the area was developing as homes on acreage facing the roadway. He stated with the current design the roadway would look like an apartment corridor with six of the 10 buildings abutting the roadway and the development to the north having the side of the building facing the roadway. Mr. Willims stated with the 40 multi -family units already in the immediate area the area had enough multi -family for Pinnacle Valley Road. Mr. Willims stated there was a 30 -foot access easement located on the south corner of the property allowing access to his property. He stated this was shown on the preliminary plat, which was approved a few years ago but was not indicated on this plat. He stated his property had the right of ingress and egress but a platted easement would be a better solution. Mr. Steven Giles, City Attorney's office, stated the previous plat was a preliminary plat and if the plat would have gone forward then the easement would have been recorded. The area was never final platted so the easement was never recorded. Mr. Giles advised Mr. Willims to get with the property owner and secure a separate access easement and record the document with the County Courthouse. Ms. Rosanna H. Loket spoke in opposition of the application. She stated she was President of the River Valley Property Owners Association, which was located in the County but monitored zoning activities within the City, which affected their area. She stated the proposed development was located on their drive home so the request would be considered in their area. Ms. Loket stated she was present to object to the application on behalf of the Property Owners Association. Ms. Loket stated Pinnacle Valley Road was the gateway to three parks and two marinas; the Maumelle State Park, the Pinnacle State Park and the Twin Rivers City Park. She stated the Maumelle State Park had released traffic counts previously, which estimated 50,000 persons per year visit the park. She stated the traffic flows in the area change with the seasons. Ms. Loket stated the area was indeed getting a traffic light at Pinnacle Valley Road and Cantrell Road, which would assist motorist exiting Pinnacle Valley Road, and make the intersection less dangerous. She stated the opposition to the application was to the general traffic management in the area. 11 February 14, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont. FILE NO.: Z-7126 Ms. Loket stated the approval of the application would "fly in the face" of the Vision Little Rock process. She cited three goals: Encourage the Utilization of City Parks, Make Little Rock a Greener City and To Strengthen Neighborhood Based Planning. Ms. Loket stated the issue was a capital issue. She stated the widening of Pinnacle Valley Road piecemeal was not an idea situation. She stated people tend to speed on the roadway which in turn leads to them "slipping off" and clipping electrical poles. Ms. Loket stated the additional development would tax the already constrained police and fire departments. Ms. Loket stated the Planning Commission approved a soccer field and horse arena a few years earlier approximately 300 feet north of the site. She stated the proposed development contradicted the direction the development pattern was heading with the previous approvals. Mr. Jim Greenfield spoke in opposition to the application. He stated he lived across the street from the proposed development and he felt the development was growing in the wrong direction. He stated the need for apartments at this time was not necessary. He stated the proposed development would be demeaning to property values in the area. He stated resale of property would be more difficult with less buyers willing to purchase next to apartments. Mr. Greenfield stated he moved to the area for privacy and the beauty of the roadway. He stated most of the homes along Pinnacle Valley Road faced the roadway. He stated the proposed application was not facing the units to the roadway but putting the backs to the roadway. Mr. Greenfield questioned the beauty of the backside of any building. Mr. Wingfield Martin spoke in opposition of the proposed development. He stated he lived on County Farm Road and traveled Pinnacle Valley Road daily. He handed to the Commission a Plate of the Corp of Engineers Study, which included the proposed site. He stated the areas highlighted were 260 contours, the elevation of the site. Mr. Martin stated the area was subject to frequent flooding. Commissioner Downing asked Mr. Martin what the highest and best use of the proposed property would be with the demand of the City for street improvements. He asked if density would become an issue to help pay for the improvements and the development 12 February 14, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) cost. FILE NO.: Z-7126 Mr. Martin stated not all property had to be developed. Mr. Martin stated the proposed development did not follow the parks plan. He stated the roadway construction would be a concern. He stated the County paid to widen the road from the railroad tracks to Two Rivers Park but the City did not have the funds to widen the road from the railroad tracts to Cantrell Road. Mr. Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, stated the easements and the floodplain were in place when the applicant bought the property. He stated it was not up to the taxpayers and the city to help the applicant work through the constraints of the property. Commissioner Berry asked if staff would support the application if it were single-family. Mr. Lawson stated staff would support a single-family development for the site. Commissioner Berry questioned if the floodplain issue was really the issue. Mr. Lawson stated the applicant had indicated the property could not be developed as single-family. Mr. Lawson stated the applicant had indicated the only way economically to develop the property was with a higher density. Mr. Lawson stated Mr. Brown had built single-family in the area and his own home adjoining this site. Mr. Lawson stated it would appear single-family would work for the site since it has worked everywhere else. Mr. McGetrick stated the property in question was not in the floodplain. He stated 40 to 60 acres would not be developed which was located in the floodway. He stated the applicant owns 2200 feet along Pinnacle Valley Road and this area along with the area adjacent to the railroad tracks were the only two areas in which the applicant proposed to develop. Commissioner Berry asked for traffic counts on Pinnacle Valley Road. Mr. Steve Beck, Public Works Staff, stated current counts were 2530 per day. He stated projected traffic counts in 20 years would be 6871 per day. He stated the roadway did not currently handle the traffic loads and with the projected traffic on the roadway, regardless of what happens to the site, the roadway cannot handle the traffic flows. Commissioner Rahman asked how many single-family homes could be placed on the site. Mr. Lawson stated it would be difficult to 13 February 14, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7126 say. He stated there were a number of factors, which go into dividing a piece of land. He stated normally there would be 3 to 5 units per2 acre in a single-family subdivision. Mr. Lawson stated, past experience had shown, a duplex development would be twice as many as a single-family development. Commissioner Berry questioned the staff write-up concerning the statement of the undersupply of this housing in the area. Mr. Lawson stated staff must have felt there was a demand for duplex housing in west Little Rock or they would not have made the statement. Mr. Lawson stated the issue was not the duplex housing type, the issue was the development. He stated Mr. Brown first approached the city with this site combined with the site, which was approved adjacent to the railroad tracts. He stated Mr. Brown determined it was in his best interest to file the applications separately. Mr. Lawson stated the issue before the Commission was does the development fit the site and with the constraints will the development work. Mr. Lawson stated Mr. Brown had taken an area, which was thought would never develop and developed the area as single-family. He stated single-family had worked to the north and west of the site up to this point. Mr. Lawson asked why would single-family not work for this site if single-family had worked on the adjoining sites. Commissioner Berry stated if the site did not have the boundary street requirements it would be more feasible to develop as single-family. He stated with the city requirements and the limitations of the site the developer could not afford to develop the site as single-family. Mr. Lawson stated the applicant would make the street improvements to the site but the area across Pinnacle Valley Road was developing on 5 -acre tracts. He stated the street improvements would not be put in place across the street until the city widened the road. Mr. Lawson stated from a traffic circulation stand point it is not good to have the roadway widened in segments and not all the way through. A motion was made to approve the Planned Development as filed by the applicant. The motion failed 2 ayes, 9 noes and 0 absent. 14 February 14, 2002 ITEM NO.: D Sub)ect: Setting of public hearing for adoption of the 2000-2001 Zoning Ordinance Amendments Request: That the Planning Commission receive comments from interested parties, report from the Plans Committee and set a date for the public hearing to adopt the 2000-2001 Zoning Ordinance Amendment package. History: Throughout late 1999 and into 2000, the Planning Staff began compiling a list of issues for the Planning Commission to consider as part of the 2000-2001 Ordinance Amendment Package. In late 2000, the Commission accepted the list and forwarded it to the Plans Committee for review. The Plans Committee reviewed the various issues at several meetings,in late 2000, into 2001. During the course of the many work sessions, the Committee and staff agreed to delete three of the issues. One issue, day care family home Special Use Permit, was brought forward to the Commission and dealt with separately. The remaining items are brought to the full Commission with the endorsement of the Plans Committee. An attached discussion outline briefly identifies each change within the ordinance text. The Ordinance Amendment contact list of 50± persons/organizations has been advised of this date and asked to submit comments. Any comments received by staff will be forwarded to the Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 3, 2002) Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff presented the Amendment package. He informed the Commission that staff had received only one comment as a result of mailing the ordinance amendment package to the contact list. He stated the League of Women voters of Pulaski County had voiced support for the proposed amendments. Commissioner Lowry spoke on behalf of the Plans Committee. He voiced support for the amendment package. There was.a brief discussion of the proposed amendments. February 14, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) A motion was made to set the date for public hearing and adoption of the Ordinance Amendment package as February 14, 2002. The motion was approved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 14, 2002) Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, presented the Amendment Package. There were no other persons present to speak either for or against the amendments. A second notice had been sent.to the contact list of persons. Mr. Carney informed the Commission that only one informational request had been received. There was no discussion. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. K, January 3, 2002 ITEM NO.: 13.1 FILE NO.: Z-7126 NAME: Pinnacle Valley Subdivision Phase V Short -Form PRD LOCATION: West side of Pinnacle Valley Road approximately 0.6 miles North of Cantrell Road DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Kelton Brown, Jr. McGetrick & McGetrick Engineers #6 Eagle Glenn Cove 319 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72223 Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 4.080 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 11 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: R-2 PROPOSED ZONING: PRD ALLOWED USES: Single-family residential PROPOSED USE: Multi -family residential VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant proposes to develop this 4.080 -acre site as an 11 building, 40 -unit apartment community. The proposal includes the placement of seven (7) four-plex buildings and four (4) tri-plex buildings for a total of 40 units. The development will be accessed via a private access and utility easement. The development will provide cross parking, through the preliminary plat, between lots. The applicant proposes 88 parking spaces as a part of the PRD. A preliminary plat has been filed in conjunction with this application and is a separate item on this agenda (Item # 1 - Pinnacle Valley Subdivision Phase V - Preliminary Plat 1 January 3, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13.1 (Cont. File No. S -992-M). FILE NO.: Z-7126 As a part of the preliminary plat, the applicant is requesting a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance. The variances requested are to allow lots without public street frontage, a variance from the standard lot depth to width ratios. There is also a.variance being requested to allow a 25 -foot building set back adjacent to an arterial street. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is an undeveloped site with a scattering of trees. There is a creek adjacent to the west property line: A newly developing single-family subdivision abuts the creek on the opposite side to the west. A new single-family residence is under construction to the north of the site and single-family residences are located to the south of the site. Single-family residences on large lots are to the east of the site. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received numerous phone calls and letters from neighbors stating opposition to the application. All property owners within 200 feet of the site, all residents within 300 feet of the site who could be identified and the River Valley Property Owners Association were notified of the Public Hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Pinnacle Valley Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. Dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet from centerline will be required. 2. Provide design of street conforming to "MSP" (Master Street Plan). Construct one-half street improvements to the street including 5 -foot sidewalks with the planned development. Required work may include guardrail. 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. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock Code. All requests should be forwarded to Traffic Engineering. 2 January 3, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13.1 (Cont_ FILE NO.: Z-7126 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. A grading permit will be required on this development. 8. A grading permit and development permit for special flood hazard area is required prior to construction. 9. Contact the ADPC&E for approval prior to start of work. 10. 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. 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. Enter No comment received. ARKS: No comment received. Southwestern Bell: No comment received. Water: Modification of water facilities installed to serve Pinnacle Valley Subdivision Phase 3 will be required. An acreage fee of $300 per acre applies in addition to normal charges for water service to this area. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per city code. Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details. County Plannin : No comment received. CATA: Project site is located on Express Bus Route #25 and has not effect on bus radius, turnout and route. 3 January 3, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7126 F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the River Mountain Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Residential Development for eleven buildings of three and four unit residential structures. The property is currently zoned R-2, Single Family. A land use plan amendment for a change to Low Density Residential is a separate item on this agenda (Item # 13 - File No. LU02-01- 01) . City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: This site is located in the area covered by the River Mountain Neighborhood Action Plan, which is currently under review. The Land Use Plan will be reviewed as part of that plan review. The current neighborhood plan contains a Residential Development Goal that recommends the construction of sidewalks in all types of development, installation of underground utilities in all subdivisions, installation of curb and gutter in developing subdivisions, and the installation of street lighting at the time new subdivisions are opened. Landscape Issues: Landscape strips with a minimum width of 6.7 feet are required along each side of the parking areas for each lot. A 6 -foot high opaque screen is required along the southern and western perimeters of the site. 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 the PRD were discussed simultaneously. Staff noted some additions, which were needed on the preliminary plat (lot zoning classifications, 10 -foot no access easement adjacent to Pinnacle Valley 4 January 3, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7126 Road). Staff requested Mr. McGetrick provide a phasing plan for the development. Staff also requested details for the roof treatment of the buildings along with building heights for the PRD. Staff requested a statement of the applicant's intentions with regard for future selling or leasing of all or portions of the PRD including land area and dwelling units. Mr. Tad Borkowski, Public Works Staff, noted the dedication of 45 feet of right-of-way would be required along Pinnacle Valley Road and the roadway would be required to be built to Master Street Plan standards. Staff also noted there were three variances to the Subdivision Ordinance, which would need to be requested. 1). The ordinance requires building set backs adjacent to an arterial street to be 35 -feet. The applicant proposes a 25 -foot building set back. 2). The lot depth to width ratios for Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are above the maximum standard set by the ordinance. 3). The ordinance also requires lots to have public street frontage. Lots 2, 3 and 4 do not have public street frontage, which would require a variance to the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Bob Brown, Planning and Development Staff, noted the proposed planned development would require a 6.7 -foot landscape strip on each lot line of the development adjacent to the property lines. After the discussion, the Committee forwarded the preliminary plat and the PRD 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. The applicant has indicated two dumpsters on the site with appropriate screening. The applicant has also indicated there will not be a sign located on the site. The applicant indicated there will not be an on site manager. The applicant has also provided a 10 -foot no ccess easement adjacent to Pinnacle Valley Road. 5 January 3, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7126 The applicant proposes the buildings to be two-story with a maximum height of 25 -feet with a 6:12 roof pitch. The development will be constructed in three phases. The estimated start of construction will be July 2002. The landscaping submitted is insufficient to meet the minimum requirements. The interior landscape strip must be a minimum of 6.7 feet along each side of the parking areas for each lot. The screening adjacent to the single-family must be a minimum of 9 -feet and an average of 14.6 feet. There is a utility easement within and adjacent to the west property line. Utility easements are not allowed to count toward the screening requirement. With the current parking proposed, the minimum of 9 -feet appears to be impossible to provide on the west side (cul-de-sac end) in two places. On the south end of the site, a six-foot wood fence is being proposed adjacent to the single-family. Staff is not supportive of the reduced landscaping on this site due to the proximity to single-family and the inability to meet the sufficient screening requirements. Through a cross parking easement the applicant is proposing 88 parking spaces as a part of the development. The minimum required in 'a development of this type would be 60 spaces. The proposed parking is more than adequate to meet the minimum requirements. Therefore, the applicant could redesign the interior landscaping to meet the minimum requirements on each of the lot lines. The future land use plan for the site is currently single- family, as is the area around the site. The Pinnacle Valley Road area is currently developing as single-family. There is a new house currently under construction to the north of this site, on a 6+ -acre tract. The proposal is to have six of the seven buildings adjacent to Pinnacle Valley Road be placed with the end of the building directed to the street. From a design stand point, this is a less than desirable situation for building placement. This is compounded by the, request to have the buildings located 10 -feet closer to the street than the ordinance standard dictates. Traffic is another major concern of staff. With the development of this site into 40 residential units the 6 January 3, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7126 number of trips per day would dramatically increase as compared to a development of lesser intensity such as patio homes or zero lot line housing. A forty -unit development would increase the hazards at the already dangerous intersection of Pinnacle Valley Road and Cantrell Road. Staff is not supportive of the application as filed. The concerns of increased traffic, the non-conformance to the future land use plan and the appearance of the inability to meet the minimum screening requirement cause staff to feel the neighborhood would be better served by not allowing a development of this intensity to take place. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the application as filed. WA Item No. 13.1 Pinnacle Valley Subdivision Phase V —Short -Form PRD (Z-7126) Planning Staff Comments: 1. Provide a certified list of abutting property owners along with notice form with affidavit executed and proof of mailing. 2. Indicate on the site plan any screening to be used to screen the adjacent single-family residences. 3. Will there be a dumpster on the site? If so, show on the site plan with required screening (3 sides with 8' high opaque fence or wall. 4. Will there be a ground -mounted sign? If so show on the site plan with details (height and area). 5. Show dimension distances between buildings on the site plan. 6. Show distances from structure to property lines on the site plan. 7. Provide details on roof treatment, (flat, pitched) 8. Show on the site plan building height and total number of floors for each building. 9. Will there be an on site manager? 10. Label cross parking, access and utility easement. (Provide for the cross parking in the Bill of Assurance.) 11. Provide a 10' no access easement on Pinnacle Valley Road. 12. Provide a statement of the applicant's intentions with regard to future selling or leasing of all or portions of the PRD including land area and dwelling units. 13. Provide a phasing plan and development schedule. Variance/Waivers: None requested. Public Works: 1. Pinnacle Valley Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. Dedication of right-of- way to 45 feet from centerline will be required. 2. Provide design of street conforming to "MSP" (Master Street Plan). Construct one-half street improvement to the street including 5 -foot sidewalks with planned development. Required work may include guardrail. 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. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock Code. All requests should be forwarded to Traffic Engineering. 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. A grading permit will be required on this development. 8. A grading permit and development permit for special flood hazard area is required prior to construction. 9. Contact the ADPC&E for approval prior to start of work. 10. 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. Utilities and ]lire Department/County Planning: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements if service is required for project. Contact Jim Boyd at 376-2903 for details. Page 2 Pinnacle Valley Subdivision Phase V — Short -Form PRI) (Z-7126) ENTERGY: No comment received.. ARKLA: No comment received. Southwestern Bell: Approved as submitted. Water: Modification of water facilities installed to serve Pinnacle Valley Subdivision Phase 3 will be required. An acreage fee of $300 per acre applies in addition to normal charges for water service to this area. Contact Marie Dugan at 992-2438 for details. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details. County Planning_ No comment received. CATH: Project site is located on Express Bus Route #25 and has no effect on bus radius, turnout and route. Planning Division: This request is located in the River Mountain Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Residential Development to construct eleven buildings of three and four unit residential structures. The property is currently zoned R-2 Single -Family. A land use plan amendment for a change to Low Density Residential is a separate item on this agenda. Landscape: Landscape strips with a minimum width of 6.7 feet are required along each side of the parking areas for each lot. A 6 -foot high opaque screen is required along the southern and western perimeters of the site. 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.