Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7298 Staff AnalysisNovember 14, 2002 NAME: Mountain Side Long -form PD -R LOCATION, County Line Road just East of Vimy Ridge Road BAC Lending 1308 South Bowman Road Little Rock, AR 72211 The Mehlburger Firm P.O. Box 3837 Little Rock, AR 72203 AREA:10.Oacres NUMBEROFLOTS:20 CURRENTZONING- R-2, Single-family ALLOWED USES: Single-family Residential PROPOSED ZONING: PD -R FILE NO.: Z-7298 FT. NEW STREET: 1245 PROPOSED USE: Duplex and SixpleX housing VARIANCESMAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAUREQUEST: The applicant proposes to construct 64 units of duplex and sixplex housing on this 10.0 -acre site through a planned development. The buildings will be constructed on individual lots. The applicant is also proposing a preliminary plat as a part of the development (item #5 File No. S-1356). The plat is somewhat connected to the planned development request in that the lots are various sizes, sized to accommodate the structure which will be located on the site. The applicant has indicated at some point in the future he will sell individual lots (buildings). November 14, 2002 ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) —FILE NO.- Z-7298 The units are proposed as one-story units with brick and vinyl siding exteriors. Each unit will have a double car carport and individual driveway. The units are proposed as two (2) and three (3) bedroom units and approximately 950 to 1150 square feet. The applicant has indicated the development will be gated. The gate allows for a two (2) car stacking length and a turn -around in case a visitor cannot access the site. There is a six (6) foot wooden fence along the eastern, western and northern perimeters of the site and a wood post split rail fence along the front of the development. The development will be developed in two phases with 36 units (10 lots) being constructed in the first phase and 28 units (10 lots) in the second phase. The applicant is proposing a detailed Bill of Assurance for the development with regard to future maintenance and exterior appearance. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is a wooded site, sloping slightly from north to south. County Line Road is a narrow two lane roadway �vith open ditches for drainage. There are new single-family subdivisions developing to the south in Saline County; Carrington Place and South -Fork. On the Pulaski County side there are single-family homes developed on acreage in a rural setting. At the northwest and northeast intersections of Vimy Ridge Road and County Line Road there is a Dollar General Store and a Conoco Quick Stop. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, Staff has received numerous phone calls in opposition to the proposed development. Southwest Little Rock United for Progress, the Quail Run Neighborhood Association, the Alexander Road Neighborhood Association and the Meyer Lane Neighborhood Association, all property owners within 200 feet of the site and all residents, who could be identified, within 300 feet of the site were notified of the public hearing. The Engineer also met with thi neighborhood at a well attended neighborhood meeting (50+ residents). The attendees were from the Alexander Road Neighborhood Association, the Quail Run Neighborhood Association, the Carrington Place neighborhood, the Southfork neighborhood and the City of Shannon Hills (residents and the Mayor, Police Chief and Planning Commissioners). 2 November 14, 2002 [TEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7298 D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1 County Line Road is classified under the Master Street Plan as a local street. Dedicate right-of-way 25 -feet from the centerline. Since the Saline County line forms the southern right-of-way line of County Line Road, a minimum 50 -foot right-of-way dedication as measured from the county line will be required. 2. Provide design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvements to the street including 5 -foot sidewalk with the planned development. 3. Appropriate handicap ramps will be required per current ADA standard. 4. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance. 5. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 6. Obtain permits prior to doing any street cuts or curb cuts. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way. Contact Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1817 (Derick Bergfield) for more information. 7. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 8. Show easements for all major proposed storm drainage and detention facilities. 9. A Grading Permit will be required per Section 29-186 (c) & (d). 10. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required by Section 31-406 of the Little Rock Code. Contact Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1813 (Steve Philpot) for more information regarding street light requirements. .1 11. If this is to be a gated community, provide a proposed entrance gate design that provides a three car stacking depth and turn -out exit for vehicles that enter the driveway but do not enter the site. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements if service is required for the project. Capacity Contribution Analysis required, contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for details. Entergy: No comment received. ARKLA: No comment received. Southwestern Bell: No commQ.nt received. 3 November 14, 2002 iTEM NO.: F (Cont.) —FILE NO.; Z-7298 Water: Water main extension will be required. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional details. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3752 for additional details. Counly Planning: No comment received. CATA: 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 Otter Creek Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Development - Residential for a residential development of two and six plexes. Since the Land Use Plan is to be a general guide to the future development of the area, a development of 6.4 residential units per acre is generally consistent with a recommendation of residential 6 units per acre. It is not so dense as to require a Plan Amendment. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant's property is located in the area covered by the Chicot West 1-30 South Neighborhood Action Plan. The plan includes objectives of "Encourage home ownership" and "Strictly enforce building codes, especially for rental property". Action Statements include: "Concentrate development efforts in the more urbanized areas as and "urban reserve" to be developed as market forces become stronger in the area. Landscape Issues: Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet ordinance requirements. A six (6) foot opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall or dense evergreen plantings is required along the northern, eastern and western perimeters of the site. An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. Prior to obtaining a building permit, it will be necessary to submit copies of an approved Landscape Plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect. Building Codes: No comment. 1H November 14, 2002 ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7298 G, SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT, (October 10, 2002) Mr. Frank Riggins of the Mehlburger Firm was present representing the application. Staff presented the development plan indicating the application was two part; a preliminary plat to subdivide the acreage into 20 lots and a planned development to construct duplex and sixplex units. Mr. Riggins stated County Line Road was entirely on the applicant's property and questioned what street improvements would be required. Staff stated Y2 street improvements would be required but the entire dedication of right-of-way would be required (50 -feet). Staff also stated the 1/2street improvements would be from the centerline of the existing pavement and not the centerline of the right-of-way. Staff noted comments from the water and wastewater departments. Staff stated the applicant should contact each department for additional information. Landscaping comments were discussed with regard to the rezoning request. The proposed rezoning was also discussed. The Staff noted additional information, which would be required on the site plan. Staff stated if the community was to be gated, a turn -around would be required. Staff stated it would be possible to allow the stacking onto County Line Road. Staff also requested building elevations and proposed building materials. Staff questioned the proposed ownership of the development and requested a detailed Bill of Assurance, which would govern the site with regard to maintenance. There being no further issues for discussion, the Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to Staff addressing most of the issues raised by Staff and the Subdivision Committee. The applicant has provided a detailed Bill of Assurance, which will govern the future of the site with regard to maintenance, storage and automobile repair, fencing, and the funding of maintenance of common areas. The applicant has indicated the development will be gated. The gate allows for a two (2) car stacking length and a turn -around in case a visitor cannot access the site. There is a six (6) foot wooden fence along the eastern, western and northern perimeters of the site and a four (4) foot wood post split rail fence along the front of the development. The development will be developed in two phases with 36 units (10 lots) being constructed in the first phase and 28 units (10 lots) in the second phase. 5 November 14, 2002 ITEM NO.: F (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7298 The applicant has indicated a development sign to be located west of the driveway and the sign is proposed to be three (3) foot by five (5) foot or 15 square feet in area. The proposed area is consistent with multi -family development signage. The applicant has stated * the development will utilize private garbage collection to serve the residents. The applicant has also stated any site lighting will be low level and directed away from residentially zoned property. The proposed development will consist of duplex and sixplex units. The units will all have a two (2) carport. The units are proposed to be two (2) and three (3) bedroom units and be approximately 950 to 1150 square feet. Each of the buildings will be constructed on a separate lot thus necessitating the need for a preliminary plat (Item #5 File # S-1358). The applicant has indicated at some point in the future individual buildings will be offered for resale leading to the potential for 20 different land owners within the development. This is a concern of Staff. Although, the owner has provided a detailed Bill of Assurance to govern the development the enforcement of a Bill of Assurance is a legal matter that is out of the city's control. Based on past experiences persons are reluctant to take their neighbor to court. The applicant proposes the buildings to be constructed of brick and vinyl siding. The applicant has indicated all structures will be single -story structures each with a patio extending from the rear of the structure. There will not be any internal fencing to screen the patios. The applicant has written into the Bill of Assurance a mechanism that requires three (3) percent of the gross rents to be used to fund the maintenance of common areas. Although, this should ensure the common areas are maintained, this will not ensure the buildings are properly maintained. With multiple owners, based on past experience, exterior building maintenance has been a real issue. Based on the proposed development plans, Staff is not supportive of the proposed request for rezoning. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the proposed development. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 31, 2002) Mr. Frank Riggins was present representing the application. There were objectors present. Mr. Riggins stated he was under the impression the applicant would be allow R November 14, 2002 NO.: F (Cont. FILE NO.: Z-7298 a deferral if fewer than nine (9) Commissioners were present. Mr. Riggins stated several interested persons were told the item would be deferred to the November 14, 2002 Public Hearing. Staff agreed they had also reported to area residents the item would not be heard by the Commission until the November 14, 2002 Public Hearing. Chairman Faust stated nine (9) Commissioners were present. Staff stated it was possible when the item would be heard that fewer than nine (9) Commissioners would be present. Chairman Faust questioned those who had signed cards in opposition of the project if they were in agreement to allow the item to be heard at a later date. They two objectors agreed. There was no further discussion. A motion was made to defer the item to the November 14, 2002 Public Hearing. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 1 no and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 14,2002) Mr. Frank Riggins was present representing the application. There were objectors present. Staff presented the item in conjunction with the proposed preliminary plat (item #E - File No. S-1358) and recommended denial of both. Staff stated the proposed development would possible have 20 different landowners, which based on past experience was not a good situation. Mr. Jamie Hutchinson, President of the Carrington Place Neighborhood Association, spoke on behalf of the neighborhood in opposition of the proposed development. He stated County Line Road was a unimproved secondary road. He stated the emergency response, police and fire, would be slow at best from Little Rock and the nearby community of Shannon Hills would be forced to respond to emergency situations. He stated the financial burden of repair to the road would be on Saline County since they were responsible for maintenance of County Line Road. He stated a concern of the area residents was also the possibility of absentee landlords. He stated the proposed development would have a negative impact on area property owners. Mr. Rickey Lee spoke in opposition of the proposed development. He stated the area was currently in recovery and with the addition of this type multi -family units into the area it would hinder any future development. Mr. Troy Laha, Vice President of the Southwest United for Progress, spoke in opposition of the proposed development. He stated the traffic on Vimy Ridge Road was currently 7000 vehicles per day and this would only add to the traffic load of the already taxed roadway. 7 November 14, 2002 ITEM NO.: ILE NO.: Z-7298 Mr. LaHa stated County Line Road adjacent to the site was entirely in Pulaski County. Mr. Doug Loftin spoke in opposition of the proposed development. He stated he currently had property zoned for multi -family development and the market was not in place for his property to develop so there was not a need for an additional 10 acres. Mr. Mike Kemp, Shannon Hills City Council and Saline County Quorum Court member, spoke in opposition of the proposed development. He stated more than 150+ area residents had signed a petition in opposition of the proposed development. He stated these persons lived in both Pulaski and Saline Counties. He stated the zoning of Shannon Hills mirrored the zoning of Little Rock. He stated this was done intentionally to not allow conflicting developments within an area. He stated drainage was also a concern of area residents. He stated the Otter Creek within Shannon Hills had been channelized and questioned if the creek in this area would also be channelized. Mr. Kemp stated, traffic and safety were concerns as well. He stated with the proposed development police and fire response would come from Shannon Hills since their response time would be somewhat less than Little Rock's. Ms. Janet Berry, President of Southwest United for Progress, spoke in opposition of the proposed development. She stated the proposed development ownership pattern was the primary concern. She stated based on past experience this type ownership pattern did not work in Southwest Little Rock. She stated the infrastructure was not in place to handle the number of cars the proposed development would generate. Ms. Berry stated the open ditches on Vimy Ridge Road there were a safety issue concern. The Commission discussed the proposed response time of the fire and police departments to the site. The Commission questioned the response time of the fire department. Staff stated response would be from the Otter Creek Fire Station and the response time would depend on the time of day. Mr. Riggins stated any time given would be speculative. Mr. Riggins stated the developer would dedicate the entire road right-of-way and would develop 1/2 street improvements to the road adjoining his property. He stated staffs concern of the development not working based on past experience was not a valid argument. He stated the development was being prejudged before it had a change to prove it validity. -Mr. Mike McKinner, Raney Realty Property Management group, spoke on behalf of the application. He stated his firm would represent the property management in the initial stages. A Commissioner asked what amount of time the initial stages included. Mr. McKinner stated the contract had not yet been set and the details of the contract had not been established. N. November 14, 2002 ITEM NO.: IF (Cont.) FILE NO.- Z-7298 There was a general discussion concerning the proposed development and the issues raised by staff. The Commission questioned if staff would have reviewed the application differently if the development would have been under a single ownership. Staff stated it was possible. A motion was made to approve the proposed planned development request. The motion failed by a vote of 1 ayes, 7 noes, 2 abstain and 1 absent. (Obray Nunnley, Jr. and Bill Rector abstaining) go Subdivision Committee Meeting October 10, 2002 ITEM NO.: 15 NAME: Mountain Side Long -form PD -R FILE NO.: Z-72& LOCATION- County Line Road just East of Vimy Ridge Road BAC Lending The Mehlburger Firm 1308 South Bowman Road P.O. Box 3837 Little Rock, AR 72211 Little Rock, AR 72203 AREA:10.Oacres NUMBEROFLOTS:20 FT. NEW STREET: 1245 CURRENT ZONING- R-2, Single-family ALLOWED USES- Single-family Residential PROPOSED ZONING, PD -R PROPOSED USE: Duplex and Six-plex housing VARIANCESANAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS: 1 . Provide a certified list of property owners within 200 -feet of the site along with notice form, affidavit executed, and proof of mailing. 2. Indicate fencing materials and height. 3. Will the development be gated? If so provide a turn -around. 4. Will there be a development sign? If so locate and give details (height/area). 5. Any site lighting must be low level and directed away from residentially zoned property. 6. Provide the location of the dumpster(s) or indicate garbage collection method. 7. Indicate on the site plan if the streets are to remain as private streets. 8. Will the project be phased? If so indicate a phasing plan on the site plan. 9. Give details of future ownership. 10. Provide elevations of the proposed development. 11. Provide building materials. 12. Provide the detailed bill of assurance addressing concerns of maintenance, future ownership, property owners association and legal authority. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS-. (No comment received.) Subdivision Committee Meeting October 10, 2002 UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENTICOUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements if service is required for the project. Capacity Contribution Analysis required, contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for details. Entergy: ARKLA: Southwestern Bell: Water: Water main extension will be required. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional details. Fire Department: County Planni : No comment received. CATA: Site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus radius, turnout and route. ISSUES/TECHNICALIDESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Otter Creek Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Single Family for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned Development - Residential for a residential development of two and six plexes. Since the Land Use Plan is to be a general guide to the future development of the area, a development of 6.4 residential units per acre is generally consistent with a recommendation of residential to 6 units per acre. It is not so dense as to require a Plan Amendment. Cifty Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant's property is located in the area covered by the Chicot West 1-30 South Neighborhood Action Plan. The plan includes objectives of "Encourage home ownership" and "Strictly enforce building codes, especially for rental property". Action statements include: "Concentrate development efforts in the more urbanized areas as and "urban reserve" to be developed as market forces become stronger in the area." Subdivision Committee Meeting October 10, 2002 Landscape Issues: Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet ordinance requirements. A six (6) foot opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall or dense evergreen plantings is required along the northern, eastern and western perimeters of the site. An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. Prior to obtaining a building permit, it will be necessary to submit copies of an approved Landscape Plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect. Building Codes: No comment, REVISED PLAT/PLAN: SUBMIT FOUR (4) COPIES OF A REVISED SITE PLAN (TO INCLUDE THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AS NOTED ABOVE) TO STAFF NO LATER THAN NOON ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2002.