Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7131 Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: Z-7131 NAME: Polo Club in Chenal Valley Long -Form PRD LOCATION: South and west side of Chenal Valley Drive, approximately 1300 -feet North of Rahling Road. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Consolidated Residential, LLC White Daters, & Assoc. 8621 E. 21st Street North, Suite 180 #24 Rahling Circle Wichita, KS 67206 Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 9.60 Acres CURRENT ZONING: NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 MF -24 PROPOSED ZONING: PRD FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ALLOWED USES: Multi -family, 24 units per acre PROPOSED USE: Multi -family, 8.33 units per acre VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST- The applicant proposed the development of this 9.60 -acre site with 10 buildings of multi -family residential. The development is proposed to be upper -end, low-density rental residences tailored to empty nesters, families waiting for homes to be constructed and business people living away from home for an extended period of time. A total of 80 units are proposed for this development. Each of the units will have a single car attached garage. There are also 12 garage spaces proposed which will be detached from the structures. In addition, the applicant proposes 79 outside FILE NO.: Z-7131 (Cont.) B 5W 0 parking spaces for a total of 171 parking spaces. The development will be surrounded with a 6 -foot security fence and a single gated access from Chenal Valley Drive. The applicant has indicated the fence adjacent to Chenal Valley Drive will be a fence with wooden panels and brick columns. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is heavily wooded and undeveloped as are the areas to the north, south and west. The area to the east was recently approved as a Planned Residential Development for the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Village and the developer has started the site work. Other uses in the area along Chenal Valley Drive include Ashbury Apartments to the south, near Rahling Road, and a City of Little Rock -Fire Station to the northwest, near Chenal Parkway. Single- family residences are located to the north of the site, on LaMarche Drive (the LaMarche Subdivision). NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: All property owners within 200 feet of the site and all residents within 300 feet who could be identified were notified of the public hearing. As of the writing staff has received numerous informational calls concerning the proposed rezoning request. There is not city recognized neighborhood associations in the area. However, the LaMarche homeowners are well aware of the project. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Move the driveway entrance to the south on Chenal Valley Drive to align with the drive of the Teacher Retirement Community. 2. Move the gate of the driveway into the development to align with the proposed parking (3 -spaces) to allow for the stacking of automobiles at the gate. Eliminate the parking at the driveway on the south side. 3_ Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps brought up to current ADA standards. 4_ Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the right-of-way prior to occupancy. 5. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 18,031. 6. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 7. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 2 FILE NO.: Z-7131 (Cont. 8. A grading permit will be required on this development. 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 at 340- 4880) to verify street lighting requirements for this project. 11. Reduce driveway width to 36 feet overall with 6 -foot island. 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. ARIA,: No comment received. Southwestern Bell: Approved as submitted. Water: An acreage charge of $2500 per acre applies in addition to normal charges for water service to this area (9.60 acres $2500 = $24,000.00) On site fire protection will be required. If there are facilities that need to be adjusted and/or relocated, contact Central Arkansas Water. That work would be done at the expense of the developer. Contact Marie Dugan at 992-2438 for details. Fire De artment: Gates must maintain a full 15 -foot opening. Place fire hydrants per city code. Contact the Fire Marshall for details. County Planning: No comment received. CATA: Project site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus radius, turnout and route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Chenal Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Multi -family for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Residential Development for an apartment community containing 80 units 3 FILE NO.: Z-7131 (Cont.) all with attached garages. The property is currently zoned MF -24, Multi -family. A Land Use Plan amendment is not required. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. Landscape Issues: 1. Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance requirements. 2. Because of cuts and fills planned for this site, it -,will be necessary to provide cross-sections of the grade changes. 3. An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. 4. Prior to building permit being issued, it will be necessary to submit an approved landscape plan with the stamp of the seal of a registered landscape architect. 5. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many trees as feasible on this tree -covered site. Extra credit toward fulfilling landscape ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of 6 -inch caliper or larger. Building Codes: No comment received. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (December 20, 2001) Mr. Joe White was present, representing the applicant. Staff briefly described the proposed PRD request. Staff noted that some additional information was needed (distance between buildings, dumpster location, signage details, roof treatment and roof pitch). Mr. White noted that the additional information would be provided as requested. Staff also indicated the existing for the stacking of automobiles. examine increasing the depth of entrance was gated and operated could at times require a car t Staff also indicated the sight d driveway location was not adequate between driveways (this driveway Retirement Development) did r requirement. Mr. White stated hi 4 driveway would not allow Staff requested Mr. White the driveway since the on a call button, which o wait before entering. istance for the proposed and the spacing distance and the Arkansas Teacher Lot meet the minimum would verify the sight FILE NO.: Z-7131 (Cont.) distance and possibly move the driveway to the north. He stated, with the topography, to move the driveway to the south would not work. Staff also noted the driveway width was to be reduced to 36 -feet. Mr. White stated he would work with Public Works to address this concern. With the center island, the effect is not the same as with a standard driveway of this width. The landscape requirements were also discussed. It was noted the proposed site plan conformed to the zoning and buffer and landscape ordinance requirements. Cross sections were requested for the site due to the planned cuts and fills. Staff suggested Mr. White contact the fire department and Central Arkansas Water to obtain details concerning comments received from each agency. After the discussion, the Committee forwarded the PRD to the full Commission for resolution. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the concerns raised by staff. The applicant has indicated a dumpster, with required screening, will be located on the site near the front entrance. The applicant has also indicated the handicap parking spaces (6 proposed) on the site plan. The applicant has indicated the building heights will not exceed 35 -feet, which is the typical maximum building height in the MF -24 zoning district. The building setbacks and building separation exceed the typical minimum requirements for MF -24 zoned property. The applicant has addressed the landscaping issues which were previously raised. The fencing heights on the side and rear property lines are typical for residential zoning districts. The proposed fence height on the front property line (adjacent to the street right-of-way) is 6 -feet. In accordance with the zoning ordinance the maximum fence height between the building setback and the street right-of-way is 4 -feet. Staff is supportive of allowing a 6 -foot fence adjacent to the street right-of-way since the fence will be wood and brick design. The applicant proposes a sign to be placed at the entrance to the community. The applicant has requested the sign be largest allowable under the zoning ordinance. The maximum 5 FILE NO.: Z-7131 (Cont.) sign area typically allowed in multi -family is 24 square feet, not to exceed 6 -feet in height. The sign may only denote the name and address of the complex. Staff is comfortable with the request for signage on the site based on those criteria. The applicant is proposing 171 parking spaces. Eighty of these spaces will be attached garage spaces and twelve will be detached garage spaces. The applicant is proposing 79 surface parking spaces. The typical requirement for a development of this size would be 120 spaces. The number proposed more than adequately meets the normal requirements. The driveway has been moved to the north to allow for an increased sight distance and meet the minimum driveway separation. Public Works has verified the sight distance and is supportive of the new driveway location. Staff is supportive of the application as filed. The density of the proposed development is significantly less than is currently allowed under its zoning of MF -24. The applicant is proposing 8.33 units per acre as opposed to the allowable 24 units per acre. The applicant has satisfied all the concerns of staff. Otherwise, to staff's knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with this proposed PRD. The proposed request for the Polo Club Long -Form PRD should have no adverse impact on the general area. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the PRD rezoning request subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of this report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 17, 2002) Mr. Joe White, White-Daters and Associations was present representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the conditions outlined above in the "staff recommendation" above. 6 FILE NO.: Z-7131 (Cont. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the consent agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. W FILE NO.: Z-7131 (Cont.) January 17, 2002 ITEM NO.: 9 NAME: Polo Club in Chenal Valley Long -Form PRD FILE NO.: Z-7131 LOCATION: South and west side of Chenal Valley Drive, approximately 1300 -feet North of Rahling Road. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Consolidated Residential, LLC White Daters, & Assoc. 8621 E. 21st Street North, Suite 180 #24 Rahling Circle Wichita, KS 67206 Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 9.60 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: MF -24 PROPOSED ZONING: PRD CURRENT ALLOWED USES: Multi -family, 24 units per acre PROPOSED USE: Multi -family, 8.33 units per acre VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant proposed the development of this 9.60 -acre site with 10 buildings of multi -family residential. The development is proposed to be upper -end, low-density rental residences tailored to empty nesters, families waiting for homes to be constructed and business people living away from home for an extended period of time. A total of 80 units are proposed for this development. Each of the units will have a single car attached garage. There are also 12 garage spaces proposed which will be detached from the structures. In addition, the applicant proposes 79 outside parking January 17, 2002 ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) B. C. FBI spaces for a total will be surrounded gated access from indicated the fence a fence with wooden FILE NO.: Z-7131 of 171 parking spaces. The development with a 6 -foot security fence and a single Chenal Valley Drive. The applicant has adjacent to Chenal Valley Drive will be panels an4 brick columns. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is heavily wooded and undeveloped as are the areas to the north, south and west. The area to the east was recently approved as a Planned Residential Development for the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Village and the developer has started the site work. Other uses in the area along Chenal Valley Drive include Ashbury Apartments to the south, near Rahling Road, and a City of Little Rock Fire Station to the northwest, near Chenal Parkway. Single-family residences are located to the north of the site, on LaMarche Drive (the LaMarche Subdivision). NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: All property owners within 200 feet of the site and all residents within 300 feet who could be identified were notified of the public hearing. As of the writing staff has received numerous informational calls concerning the proposed rezoning request. There is not city recognized neighborhood associations in the area. However, the LaMarche homeowners are well aware of the project. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Move the driveway entrance to the south on Chenal Valley Drive to align with the drive of the Teacher Retirement Community. 2. Move the gate of the driveway into the development to align with the proposed parking (3 -spaces) to allow for the stacking of automobiles at the gate. Eliminate the parking at the driveway on the south side. 3. Property frontage needs to have the sidewalks and ramps brought up to current ADA standards. 4. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the right-of-way prior to occupancy. 5. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 18,031. 2 January 17, 2002 ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont. FILE NO.: Z-7131 6. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 7. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 8. A grading permit will be required on this development. 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 at 340- 4880) to verify street lighting requirements for this project. 11. Reduce driveway width to 36 feet overall with 6"foot island. 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. ARFLA: No comment received. Southwestern Bell: Approved as submitted. Water: An acreage charge of $2500 per acre applies in addition to normal charges for water service to this area (9.60 acres $2500 = $24,000.00) On site fire protection will be required. If there are facilities that need to be adjusted and/or relocated, contact Central Arkansas Water. That work would be done at the expense of the developer. Contact Marie Dugan at 992-2438 for details. Fire Department: Gates must maintain a full 15 -foot opening. Place fire hydrants per city code. Contact the Fire Marshall for details. County Planning: No comment received. CATA: Project site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus radius, turnout and route. 3 January 17, 2002 ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: FILE NO.: Z-7131 This request is located in the Chenal Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Multi -family for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Residential Development for an apartment community containing 80 units all with attached garages. The property is currently zoned MF -24, Multi -family. A Land Use Plan amendment is not required. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The property under review is not located in an area covered by a City of Little Rock recognized neighborhood action plan. Landscape Issues: 1. Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance requirements. 2. Because of cuts and fills planned for this site, it will be necessary to provide cross-sections of the grade changes. 3. An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. 4.Prior to building permit being issued, it will be necessary to submit an approved landscape plan with the stamp of the seal of a registered landscape architect. 5. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many trees as feasible on this tree -covered site. Extra credit toward fulfilling landscape ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of 6 -inch caliper or larger. Building Codes: No comment received. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (December 20, 2001) Mr. Joe White was present, representing the applicant. Staff briefly described the proposed PRD request. Staff noted that some additional information was needed (distance 4 January 17, 2002 ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7131 between buildings, dumpster location, signage details, roof treatment and roof pitch). Mr. White noted that the additional information would be provided as requested. Staff also indicated the existing driveway would not allow for the stacking of automobiles. Staff requested Mr. White examine increasing the depth of the driveway since the entrance was gated and operated on a call button, which could at times require a car to wait before entering. Staff also indicated the sight distance for the proposed driveway location was not adequate and the spacing distance between driveways (this driveway and the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Development) did not meet the minimum requirement. Mr. White stated he would verify the sight distance and possibly move the driveway to the north. He stated, with the topography, to move the driveway to the south would not work. Staff also noted the driveway width was to be reduced to 36 -feet. Mr. White stated he would work with Public Works to address this concern. With the center island, the effect is not the same as with a standard driveway of this width. The landscape requirements w noted the proposed site plan buffer and landscape ordinance were requested for the site fills. :re also discussed. It was conformed to the zoning and requirements. Cross sections due to the planned cuts and Staff suggested Mr. White contact the fire department and Central Arkansas Water to obtain details concerning comments received from each agency. After the discussion, the Committee forwarded the PRD to the full Commission for resolution. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the concerns raised by staff. The applicant has indicated a dumpster, with required screening, will be located on the site near the front entrance. The applicant has also indicated the handicap parking spaces (6 proposed) on the site plan. The applicant has indicated the building heights will not exceed 35 -feet, which is the typical maximum building height in the MF -24 zoning district. The 41 January 17, 2002 ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7131 building setbacks and building separation exceed the typical minimum requirements for MF -24 zoned property. The applicant has addressed the landscaping issues which were previously raised. The fencing heights on the side and rear property lines are typical for residential zoning districts. The proposed fence height on the front property line (adjacent to the street right-of-way) is 6 -feet. In accordance with the zoning ordinance the maximum fence height between the building setback and the street right-of-way is 4 -feet. Staff is supportive of allowing a 6 -foot fence adjacent to the street right-of-way since the fence will be wood and brick design. The applicant proposes a sign to be placed at the entrance to the community. The applicant has requested the sign be largest allowable under the zoning ordinance. The maximum sign area typically allowed in multi -family is 24 square feet, not to exceed 6 -feet in height. The sign may only denote the name and address of the complex. Staff is comfortable with the request for signage on the site based on those criteria. The applicant is proposing 171 parking spaces. Eighty of these spaces will be attached garage spaces and twelve will be detached garage spaces. The applicant is proposing 79 surface parking spaces. The typical requirement for a development of this size would be 120 spaces. The number proposed more than adequately meets the normal requirements. The driveway has been moved to the north to allow for an increased sight distance and meet the minimum driveway separation. Public Works has verified the sight distance and is supportive of the new driveway location. Staff is supportive of the application as filed. The density of the proposed development is significantly less than is currently allowed under its zoning of MF -24. The applicant is proposing 8.33 units per acre as opposed to the allowable 24 units per acre. The applicant has satisfied all the concerns of staff. Otherwise, to staff's knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with this proposed PRD. The proposed request for the Polo Club Long - Form PRD should have no adverse impact on the general area. 0 January 17, 2002 ITEM NO.: 9 (Cont.) I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: FILE NO.: Z-7131 Staff recommends approval of the PRD rezoning request subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of this report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 17, 2002) Mr. Joe White, White-Daters and Associations was present representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the conditions outlined above in the "staff recommendation" above. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the consent agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 7