Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7963 Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: Z-7963 NAME: Kanis and Atkins HPR Short -form PD -R LOCATION: On the Northwest corner of Kanis Road and Atkins Road DEVELOPER: Flake and Kelly Management 425 West Capitol, Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72201 ENGINEER: McClelland Consulting Engineers 900 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 4.12 acres CURRENT ZONING ALLOWED USES PROPOSED ZONING: PROPOSED USE NUMBER OF LOTS: R-2, Single-family Single-family Residential -M - Townhouse Development VARIANCESIVVAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAUREQUEST: FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF The applicant is proposing the development of this 4.12 -acre tract as an attached single-family development to be sold under a Horizontal Property Regime. There are forty (40) units being proposed with twenty-eight (28) units located east of Trumpler Street and twelve (12) units located west of Trumpler Street. The units are proposed to be constructed with brick veneer and vinyl siding. The roofs are proposed as composition shingles and vinyl windows are being proposed. The units will be two story units with nine (9) foot ceilings down stairs and eight (8) foot ceilings upstairs. The units will range in size from 1,300 square feet to 1,500 square feet of heated and cooled space. Some of the units will contain a single car garage. The estimated sales price is $149,000 to $159,000. FILE NO.: 2-7963 (Cont. The applicant is also requesting the abandonment of Plaez Avenue located along the property's northwestern boundary west of Trumpler Street. Plaez Avenue located along the northern boundary east of Trumpler Street was previously abandoned. According to the applicant there is not a Bill of Assurance in effect for the site. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site contains a single-family structure and a scattering of trees. There is a large drainage way located near the northeast portion of the site visible from Atkins Road. The roads abutting the proposed development are substandard streets with open ditches for drainage and no sidewalks in place. Trumpler Street has not been constructed adjacent to the site. To the west of the site is a lodge for the Veterans of Foreign War. There are office uses located to the south of the site and a new office development is currently under construction located to the east of the site. North of the site is vacant property. Further north there are single-family homes along with several new homes currently under construction located along Arthur Lane and Atkins Road. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area resident. All property owners located within 200 -feet of the site along with the Gibralter Heights/Point WestMmber Ridge Neighborhood Association and the Parkway Place Property Owners Association were notified of the Public Hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Public Works Conditions: 1. Being a minor arterial street the proposed right-of-way dedication of 45 feet from centerline on Kanis Road meets Master Street Plan requirements. 2. Atkins Road, Trumpler Street and Palez Avenue are classified on the Master Street Plan as residential streets. A dedication of right-of-way 25 feet from centerline will be required. 3. A 20 -foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of Trumpler Street and Kanis Road, Atkins Street and Kanis Road, and Trumpler Street and Palez Avenue. 4. With site development, provide design of the streets conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to these streets including 5 -foot sidewalks with the planned development. Curb and gutter on one side and 20 feet of pavement must be constructed on Palez Avenue or petition to close Palez Avenue. N FILE NO.: Z-7963 Cont. 5. Driveway locations do not meet the traffic access and circulation requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210. The portion of the development west of Trumpler Street must share a single driveway access. The width of driveway must not exceed 36 feet. 6. Turn around must be provided for cars attempting to enter security gate east of Trumpler Street. A stacking distance of 30 feet from pavement must also be provided. 7. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right- of-way from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield). 8. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. 9. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed location for storm water detention facilities on the plan. 10. A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan will be required per Section 29-186 (e). 11. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements, if service is required for the project. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information. Entergy: Approved as submitted. Center -Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. The facilities on-site will be private. When meters are planned off private lines, private facilities shall be installed to Central Arkansas Water's material and construction specifications and installation will be inspected by an engineer, licensed to practice in the State of Arkansas. Execution of Customer Owned Line Agreement is required. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This fee will apply to all meter connections including any metered connections off the private fire system. Additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of the hydrant(s). 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 3 FILE NO.: Z-7963 (Cont. developer. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Fire Department: Install a 20 -foot access gate to the proposed development. Place hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3700 for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAUDESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Ellis Mountain Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Low Density Residential for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned District — Residential for residential town -home development. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Kanis Road is shown as a Minor Arterial on the Master Street Plan and Atkins Road is shown as Local street. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and will/may require street improvements. Kanis Road is shown with an alternative design standard of 90 feet with a four -lane section and 14 -foot center median, median cuts limited to 600 feet minimum spacing, and additional requirements at major intersections. Access to the project should be off of Atkins Road since the median cults may limit eastbound traffic from entering the site. The purpose of a Minor Arterial is to provide connections to and through an urban area. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Bicycle Pian: There are not any bike routes shown in the immediate area. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the Rock Creek Neighborhood Action Plan. The residential goal listed two objectives relevant to this case. They are "Ensure that future developments of existing undeveloped land meet neo -traditional design standards, including the placement of neighborhood passive green space and community services within developing neighborhoods" and "Support a continuous progression of intensity from single-family and multi -family in newly developing areas, placing the multi -family as a buffer between single-family and non-residential uses." This application provides for green space in the center of the area and provides for a denser use to the south towards Kanis, where some non-residential uses are. Landscape: Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required. El FILE NO.: Z-7963 (Cont. A 25 -foot land use landscape buffer is required along the northern property line next to the residentially zoned property. If this area is tree covered, then 70 % of these trees are to remain undisturbed. However, if there are currently no trees in this area, then planting of trees and shrubs will be required. A 28 -foot land use landscape buffer is required along the western property line next to the residentially zoned property. If this area is tree covered, then 70 % of these trees are to remain undisturbed. However, if there are currently no trees in this area, then planting of trees and shrubs will be required. A six foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall or dense evergreen planting, is also required along this northern and western property lines next to the residentially zoned property. A controlled automatic irrigation system is required. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, it will be necessary to provide landscape plans stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees as feasible on this site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or larger. Staff has concerns with the functionality of some of the proposed parking spaces. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (December 8, 2005) The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the proposed development indicating there were additional items necessary to complete the review process. Staff requested the applicant provide proposed building elevations, construction materials, total building height and total square footage for each of the units. Staff questioned if the units would have garages or covered parking. Staff also requested the applicant provide the total area of the indicated open space. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated right-of-way dedications per the Master Street Plan would be required along all abutting roads. Staff stated the indicated gate location did not allow sufficient stacking distance for persons attempting to enter from Trumpler Street. Staff stated a minimum stacking distance of 30 -feet from the edge of the roadway would be required. Staff stated a grading permit would be required prior to any land clearing and the storm water detention ordinance would apply to the proposed development. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated compliance with the City's landscape and buffer ordinances was required. Staff stated the indicated buffer along the northern property line did not appear to meet the 25 -foot minimum land use buffer requirement. Staff also stated screening would be required along the 5 FILE NO.: Z-7963 (Cont. northern and western perimeters of the site. Staff stated landscape plans stamped by a registered landscape architect would be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Staff also stated an automatic irrigation system would be required to water the landscaped areas. Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the December 8, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has provided building elevations, construction materials, total building height and total square footage for each of the units. The building elevation indicates the units will contain a single car garage but the applicant has indicated not all the units will contain a garage. The intent is to allow additional living space if the potential homeowner does not desire a garage. The units are proposed to be brick veneer with vinyl siding and composition shingle roofs with vinyl windows. Each unit is proposed with a minimum of 1,300 square feet of heated and cooled space exclusive of the garage. The units are proposed as two and three bedroom units. The units will have nine -foot ceilings on the ground floor with eight -foot ceilings on the second floor. The buildings are estimated to be a maximum of 24 -feet in height. The proposal is to use the existing topography as much as possible. This will allow for the rooflines to be "stair -stepped" thus breaking the massing of the buildings. In addition, the use of the existing topography will allow limited site work and will allow the development to retain a greater number of the existing on-site trees. The original proposal indicated the placement of a gate for a portion of the development. The revised site plan has removed the gate allowing the site to be full access. The site plan also indicated screening will be placed around the perimeters of the site per City ordinance. The site plan includes the placement of thirty-two percent of the site as common green space. The site plan also indicates several areas of landscape within the parking areas and behind the buildings. The Planned Residential Development section of the ordinance typically requires the placement of ten to fifteen percent of the site as common open space. In addition, each of the units are to have a minimum of five hundred square feet of usable private open space per unit. The site includes the placement of a pavilion and play area for a common space. The indicated open space is more than adequate to meet the minimum requirements of the ordinance. The site plan includes the placement of one hundred fourteen parking spaces. In addition, a portion of the units will have a single car garage. Based on typical FILE NO.: Z-7963 (Cont. minimum parking requirements, 40 -units would require 60 parking spaces. The indicated parking is more than adequate to serve the development. The site plan does not include the placement of signage. Staff would recommend if signage is proposed, signage be limited to signage allowed in multi -family zones or a maximum of six feet in height and not to exceed twenty-four square feet in area. The site is indicated as Low Density Residential on the City's Future Land Use Plan. This designation allows for residential development up to ten units per acre. The applicant is proposing the development of this 4.09 -acre site with 40 units of owner occupied residential housing, resulting in a density comparable to the current land use designation. The applicant is requesting the abandonment of Palez Avenue between Trumpler Street and Gamble Road as a part of this request. The applicant is the owner of the properties located adjacent to the right-of-way with the exception of the VFW owning one lot abutting the right-of-way. All parties have signed on to the abandonment request. Staff does not feel the abandonment will have any adverse impact on the adjoining properties. Palez Avenue between Atkins Road and Trumpler Street was previously abandoned and does not appear to have negatively impacted the area. Staff is supportive of the applicant's request. To staffs knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. The proposal is to develop the site with single-family residential units with a density consistent with the City's Future Land Use Plan. The proposed site plan indicates the construction of new homes utilizing the existing topography to break the massing of the proposed structures. Staff feels the development of the site as proposed should have minimal impact of the adjoining properties. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above agenda staff report. Staff recommends approval of the requested abandonment of Palez Avenue subject to the entirety of the abandonment being retained as a utility and drainage easement. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was not present. There were no presented the item with a recommendation the it 2006, Public Hearing. Staff stated the applicant required by the Planning Commission's By-laws. 7 (JANUARY 5, 2006) registered objectors present. Staff em be deferred to the February 16, failed to notify property owners as FILE NO.: Z-7963 (Cont. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to allow the item to be placed for inclusion on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 16, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above agenda staff report. Mr. Jim McClelland addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. He stated the developers intended to develop the site with townhouse units and the units would be owner occupied units. He stated the developer intended to break the massing of the structure with architectural features and by varying the color of brick on the structures. He stated the neighborhood had provided a proposal to construct the units as one story units. He stated if the units were one story the majority of the green space would be eliminated. He stated the desire of the developer was to provide each of the units with an outdoor area as well as common areas. He stated with the development of the site with one story units the entire site would require leveling and all the existing trees on the site would be lost. Ms. Mary Douglas addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated the neighborhood desired to get the best development that fit the existing character of the area. She stated the neighborhood was opposed to increasing the density from 25 units to 40 units. She stated many of the trees on the site had already been removed. She stated the development as proposed allowed for fragmented green space and did not allow for clustered areas of green space. She stated the development concept of patio homes was to give the appearance of green space while allowing for homes to be constructed on a single level. She stated the indicated development would appear office. She stated the parking was designed in front of the structures and driving by motorist would see parking and garage doors. Ms. Douglas provided the Commission with photo's of the Stagecoach Village development located off Stagecoach Road. She stated the development allowed for common green spaces, the shielding of garage doors and parking areas. She stated the units appeared as individual homes and not a long solid faced structure. She stated most homeowners desired to buy homes similar in appearance to existing residential in the area. Mr. Keith Dover addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated traffic was a concern of the neighborhood. He provided the Commission with photo's of traffic on Kanis Road in the morning and afternoon. He stated traffic typically backed up from the Bowman Kanis intersection to the proposed site. He provided traffic counts for the area indicating the numbers did not include 2005 traffic counts since they were not available. He stated with the current traffic congestion on Chenal Parkway motorist were looking for alternate routes and Kanis Road was used by many to travel from east FILE NO.: Z-7963(Cont.) to west and vise versa. He stated the traffic numbers would only increase as additional data became available. Ms. Shirley McFarlin addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated her property was immediately north of the site and was not vacant as staff had indicated but was a private park which they maintained. She stated the area was home to a number of animals and as development continued in the area more animals were moving to the site. She stated the neighborhood had concerns with the density of the proposed development. She stated currently 24 homes could be constructed on the site and the proposal included the construction of 40 homes. She stated the development would destroy most of the trees on the site with the construction of the new development. She stated the developer had constructed homes to the north of the site and many promises made by him had not been lived up to. She stated brick mailboxes, curbs and gutters and removal of construction debris had not been provided as indicated by the developer. She stated the development would have more than a minimal impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Ron Helton addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated the VFW post was not contacted. He stated the members were opposed to the request to increase the density of the area. The Commission questioned staff as to the notification. Staff provided the Commission proof the notification was mailed as required by the Commission's By-laws. The Commission questioned who signed for the request. Staff stated return receipt was not a requirement. There was a general discussion of the proposed request. The Commission questioned the developer about the design of the buildings and how the massing would be broken. The developer stated bump outs would be used and different architectural styles and elements would be utilized. He stated the roof would be placed at different degrees to the roadway to also assist in breaking of the massing. The Commission questioned the number of parking spaces provided. The applicant stated each of the units would be provided parking along with an area for guest parking. The Commission indicated the site contained a great deal of parking spaces which did not appear to be necessary. The applicant indicated the parking around the center common area could be removed. The applicant stated they were willing to work with the neighborhood to address their concerns with design. The Commission questioned if the applicant was willing to defer the item to work with the neighborhood. The applicant requested a deferral to meet with the neighborhood. A motion was made to defer the item to the March 30, 2006, public hearing. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 recuse (Jeff Yates). �67 FILE NO.: Z-7963 Cont. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 30, 2006) Mr. Gary Dean was present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item indicating the request was deferred from the February 16, 2006, public hearing to allow the applicant and the residents to meet and discuss plan alternatives. Staff stated the current plan indicated the development of 38 units in duplex and triplex structures. Staff stated the units were proposed as one and two story units with two and three bedrooms. Staff stated the units would contain garages and the placement of 50 surface parking spaces. Staff stated they continued to support the request. Mr. Gary Dean addressed the Commission on the merits of the request. He stated the developers had met with the residents and based on the meeting the plan had been revised. He stated he felt the revised plan an asset to the neighborhood and felt the units would blend with the area. There was a question concerning the plans submitted and the plan displayed before the Commission. He stated he had redesigned the footprint to include the additional square footage required for the third bedroom in the units indicated as two and one half bedrooms. He stated the building footprint had not changed. Ms. Mary Douglas addressed the Commission in opposition of the requests. She stated there were a number of concerns related to the proposed development. She stated traffic was a concern of residents in the area. She stated the units were designed with a minimum building separation unlike the development she had previously provided to the Commission. She stated the density was too great for the area. She stated the indicated parking was more than necessary to serve the development and the site would resemble an office development and not a residential development. She stated the traffic along Kanis Road traveled at great speeds and the residents would not be able to exit onto Kanis and travel east because of the volume and speed of motorist. She stated this would require residents of the new development to travel north and exit onto Arthur and Archer Streets further taxing the existing substandard streets. She stated the area was currently developing with new single-family residences also increasing the density of the area. She stated the neighborhood could not support the development based on the density as proposed. Mr. Charles Taylor addressed the Commission as the representative of the VFW. He stated the applicant's had not contacted him concerning the proposed abandonment of the easement located along the western perimeter of the development. Staff stated the alley was abandoned by the City Board of Directors with one-half going to each of the property owners. Staff stated the development was not encroaching onto the VFW property but the VFW had constructed a building which did encroach onto the applicant's property. Chairman Stebbins stated the time had expired. He indicated there were additional cards in opposition. 10 FILE NO.: Z-7963 Cont. There was a general discussion of the Commission concerning the proposed development and the required improvements to the abutting roadways. Staff stated improvements would be required to Kanis Road and Atkins Road per the Master Street Plan. The Commission questioned Ms. Shirley McFarlin as to the meeting held between the developers and the residents. She stated the meeting was a positive and productive meeting but the residents were concerned that the architect had not been hired to design the project only the assist with the rezoning request. She stated the neighborhood was concerned with the proposed density of the development. A motion was made to approve the request. The motion carried by a vote of 6 ayes, 3 noes, 1 absent and 1 recusal (Jeff Yates). 11 March 30, 2006 ITEM NO.: A FILE NAME: Kanis and Atkins HPR Short -form PD -R LOCATION: On the Northwest corner of Kanis Road and Atkins Road DEVELOPER: Flake and Kelly Management 425 West Capitol, Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72201 ENGINEER: McClelland Consulting Engineers 900 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 4.12 acres CURRENT ZONING ALLOWED USES: PROPOSED ZONING PROPOSED USE: NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 R-2, Single-family Single-family Residential .� . Townhouse Development VARIAN CESIWAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. A. PROPOSAUREQUEST: : Z-7963 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF The applicant is proposing the development of this 4.12 -acre tract as an attached single-family development to be sold under a Horizontal Property Regime. There are forty (40) units being proposed with twenty-eight (28) units located east of Trumpler Street and twelve (12) units located west of Trumpler Street. The units are proposed to be constructed with brick veneer and vinyl siding. The roofs are proposed as composition shingles and vinyl windows are being proposed. The units will be two story units with nine (9) foot ceilings down stairs and eight (8) foot ceilings upstairs. The units will range in size from 1,300 square feet to 1,500 square feet of heated and cooled space. Some of the units will contain a single car garage. The estimated sales price is $149,000 to $159,000. March 30, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A Cont. FILE NO.: Z-7963 The applicant is also requesting the abandonment of Plaez Avenue located along the property's northwestern boundary west of Trumpler Street. Plaez Avenue located along the northern boundary east of Trumpler Street was previously abandoned. According to the applicant there is not a Bill of Assurance in effect for the site. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site contains a single-family structure and a scattering of trees. There is a large drainage way located near the northeast portion of the site visible from Atkins Road. The roads abutting the proposed development are substandard streets with open ditches for drainage and no sidewalks in place. Trumpler Street has not been constructed adjacent to the site. To the west of the site is a lodge for the Veterans of Foreign War. There are office uses located to the south of the site and a new office development is currently under construction located to the east of the site. North of the site is vacant property. Further north there are single-family homes along with several new homes currently under construction located along Arthur Lane and Atkins Road. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area resident. All property owners located within 200 -feet of the site along with the Gibralter Heights/Point West/Timber Ridge Neighborhood Association and the Parkway Place Property Owners Association were notified of the Public Hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Public Works Conditions: 1. Being a minor arterial street the proposed right-of-way dedication of 45 feet from centerline on Kanis Road meets Master Street Plan requirements. 2. Atkins Road, Trumpler Street and Palez Avenue are classified on the Master Street Plan as residential streets. A dedication of right-of-way 25 feet from centerline will be required. 3. A 20 -foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of Trumpler Street and Kanis Road, Atkins Street and Kanis Road, and Trumpler Street and Palez Avenue. 4. With site development, provide design of the streets conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to these streets including 5 -foot sidewalks with the planned development. Curb and gutter on one side and 20 feet of pavement must be constructed on Palez Avenue or petition to close Palez Avenue. 2 March 30, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A Cont. FILE NO.: Z-7963 5. Driveway locations do not meet the traffic access and circulation requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210. The portion of the development west of Trumpler Street must share a single driveway access. The width of driveway must not exceed 36 feet. 6. Turn around must be provided for cars attempting to enter security gate east of Trumpler Street. A stacking distance of 30 feet from pavement must also be provided. 7. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right- of-way from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield). 8. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. 9. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed location for storm water detention facilities on the plan. 10. A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan will be required per Section 29-186 (e). 11. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements, if service is required for the project. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information. Entergy: Approved as submitted. Center -Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water-: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. The facilities on-site will be private. When meters are planned off private lines, private facilities shall be installed to Central Arkansas Water's material and construction specifications and installation will be inspected by an engineer, licensed to practice in the State of Arkansas. Execution of Customer Owned Line Agreement is required. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This fee will apply to all meter connections including any metered connections off the private fire system. Additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and 3 March 30, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont.) _ FILE NO.: Z-7963 contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of the hydrant(s). 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. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Fire Department: Install a 20 -foot access gate to the proposed development. Place hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3700 for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAUDESIGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the Ellis Mountain: Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Low Density Residential for this property. The applicant has applied for a Planned District — Residential for residential town -home development. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Kanis Road is shown as a Minor Arterial on the Master Street Plan and Atkins Road is shown as Local street. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and will/may require street improvements. Kanis Road is shown with an alternative design standard of 90 feet with a four -lane section and 14 -foot center median, median cuts limited to 600 feet minimum spacing, and additional requirements at major intersections. Access to the project should be off of Atkins Road since the median cults may limit eastbound traffic from entering the site. The purpose of a Minor Arterial is to provide connections to and through an urban area. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Bicycle Plan: There are not any bike routes shown in the immediate area. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the Rock Creek Neighborhood Action Plan. The residential goal listed two objectives relevant to this case. They are "Ensure that future developments of existing undeveloped land meet neo -traditional design standards, including the placement of neighborhood passive green space and community services within developing neighborhoods" and "Support a continuous progression of intensity from single-family and multi -family in newly developing areas, placing the multi -family as a buffer between single-family and CI March 30, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A(Cont.)FILE NO_: Z-7963 non-residential uses." This application provides for green space in the center of the area and provides for a denser use to the south towards Kanis, where some non-residential uses are. Landscape: Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required. A 25 -foot land use landscape buffer is required along the northern property line next to the residentially zoned property. If this area is tree covered, then 70 % of these trees are to remain undisturbed. However, if there are currently no trees in this area, then planting of trees and shrubs will be required. A 28 -foot land use landscape buffer is required along the western property line next to the residentially zoned property. If this area is tree covered, then 70 % of these trees are to remain undisturbed. However, if there are currently no trees in this area, then planting of trees and shrubs will be required. A six foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall or dense evergreen planting, is also required along this northern and western property lines next to the residentially zoned property. A controlled automatic irrigation system is required. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, it will be necessary to provide landscape plans stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees as feasible on this site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or larger. Staff has concerns with the functionality of some of the proposed parking spaces. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT; (December 8, 2005) The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the proposed development indicating there were additional items necessary to complete the review process. Staff requested the applicant provide proposed building elevations, construction materials, total building height and total square footage for each of the units. Staff questioned if the units would have garages or covered parking. Staff also requested the applicant provide the total area of the indicated open space. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated right-of-way dedications per the Master Street Plan would be required along all abutting roads. Staff stated the indicated gate location did not allow sufficient stacking distance for �1 March 30, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A Cont. _ FILE NO.: Z-7963 persons attempting to enter from Trumpler Street. Staff stated a minimum stacking distance of 30 -feet from the edge of the roadway would be required. Staff stated a grading permit would be required prior to any land clearing and the storm water detention ordinance would apply to the proposed development. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated compliance with the City's landscape and buffer ordinances was required. Staff stated the indicated buffer along the northern property line did not appear to meet the 25 -foot minimum land use buffer requirement. Staff also stated screening would be required along the northern and western perimeters of the site. Staff stated landscape plans stamped by a registered landscape architect would be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Staff also stated an automatic irrigation system would be required to water the landscaped areas. Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the December 8, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has provided building elevations, construction materials, total building height and total square footage for each of the units. The building elevation indicates_`the units will contain a single car garage but the applicant has indicated not all.the units will contain a garage. The intent is to allow additional living space if the potential homeowner does not desire a garage. The units are proposed to be brick veneer with vinyl siding and composition shingle roofs with vinyl windows. Each unit is proposed with a minimum of 1,300 square feet of heated and cooled space exclusive of the garage. The units are proposed as two and three bedroom units. The units will have nine -foot ceilings on the ground floor with eight -foot ceilings on the second floor. The buildings are estimated to be a maximum of 24 -feet in height. The proposal is to use the existing topography as much as possible. This will allow for the rooflines to be "stair -stepped" thus breaking the massing of the buildings. In addition, the use of the existing topography will allow limited site work and will allow the development to retain a greater number of the existing on-site trees. The original proposal indicated the placement of a gate for a portion of the development. The revised site plan has removed the gate allowing the site to be full access. The site plan also indicated screening will be placed around the perimeters of the site per City ordinance. C: March 30, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NG.: A(Cont.)FILE NO.; Z-7963 The site plan includes the placement of thirty-two percent of the site as common green space. The site plan also indicates several areas of landscape within the parking areas and behind the buildings. The Planned Residential Development section of the ordinance typically requires the placement of ten to fifteen percent of the site as common open space. In addition, each of the units are to have a minimum of five hundred square feet of usable private open space per unit. The site includes the placement of a pavilion and play area for a common space. The indicated open space is more than adequate to meet the minimum requirements of the ordinance. The site plan includes the placement of one hundred fourteen parking spaces. In addition, a portion of the units will have a single car garage. Based on typical minimum parking requirements, 40 -units would require 60 parking spaces. The indicated parking is more than adequate to serve the development. The site plan does not include the placement of signage. Staff would recommend if signage is proposed, signage be limited to signage allowed in multi -family zones or a maximum of six feet in height and not to exceed twenty-four square feet in area. The site is indicated as Low Density Residential on the City's Future Land Use Plan. This designation allows for residential development up to ten units per acre. The applicant is proposing the development of this 4.09 -acre site with 40 units of owner occupied residential housing, resulting in a density comparable to the current land use designation. The applicant is requesting the abandonment of Palez Avenue between Trumpler Street and Gamble Road as a part of this request. The applicant is the owner of the properties located adjacent to the right-of-way with the exception of the VFW owning one lot abutting the right-of-way. All parties have signed on to the abandonment request. Staff does not feel the abandonment will have any adverse impact on the adjoining properties. Palez Avenue between Atkins Road and Trumpler Street was previously abandoned and does not appear to have negatively impacted the area. Staff is supportive of the applicant's request. To staffs knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. The proposal is to develop the site with single-family residential units with a density consistent with the City's Future Land Use Plan. The proposed site plan indicates the construction of new homes utilizing the existing topography to break the massing of the proposed structures. Staff feels the development of the site as proposed should have minimal impact of the adjoining properties. VA March 30, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A(Cont.)FILE NO.: Z-7963 I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above agenda staff report. Staff recommends approval of the requested abandonment of Palez Avenue subject to the entirety of the abandonment being retained as a utility and drainage easement. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 5, 2006) The applicant was not present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented: the item with a recommendation the item be deferred to the February 16, 2006, Public Hearing. Staff stated the applicant failed to notify property owners as required by the Planning Commission's By-laws. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion to allow the item to be placed for inclusion on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 16, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above agenda staff report. Mr. Jim McClelland addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. He stated the developers intended to develop the site with townhouse units and the units would be owner occupied units. He stated the developer intended to break the massing of the structure with architectural features and by varying the color of brick on the structures. He stated the neighborhood had provided a proposal to construct the units as one story units. He stated if the units were one story the majority of the green space would be eliminated. He stated the desire of the developer was to provide each of the units with an outdoor area as well as common areas. He stated with the development of the site with one story units the entire site would require leveling and all the existing trees on the site would be lost. Ms. Mary Douglas addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated the neighborhood desired to get the best development that fit the existing character of the area. She stated the neighborhood was opposed to increasing the density from 8 March 30, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A FILE NO.: Z-7963 25 units to 40 units. She stated many of the trees on the site had already been removed. She stated the development as proposed allowed for fragmented green space and did not allow for clustered areas of green space. She stated the development concept of patio homes was to give the appearance of green space while allowing for homes to be constructed on a single level. She stated the indicated development would appear office. She stated the parking was designed in front of the structures and driving by motorist would. see parking and garage doors. Ms. Douglas provided the Commission with photo's of the Stagecoach Village development located off Stagecoach Road. She stated the development allowed for common green spaces, the shielding of garage doors and parking areas. She stated the units appeared as individual homes and not a long solid faced structure. She stated most homeowners desired to buy homes similar in appearance to existing residential in the area. Mr. Keith Dover addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated traffic was a concern of the neighborhood. He provided the Commission with photo's of traffic on Kanis Road in the morning and afternoon. He stated traffic typically backed up from the Bowman Kanis intersection to the proposed site. He provided traffic counts for the area indicating the numbers did not include 2005 traffic counts since they were not available. He stated with the current traffic congestion on Chenal Parkway motorist were looking for alternate routes and Kanis Road was used by many to :travel from east to west and vise versa. He stated the traffic numbers would only increase as additional data became available. Ms. Shirley McFarlin addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated her property was immediately north of the site and was not vacant as staff had indicated but was a private park which they maintained. She stated the area was home to a number of animals and as development continued in the area more animals were moving to the site. She stated the neighborhood had concerns with the density of the proposed development. She stated currently 24 homes could be constructed on the site and the proposal included the construction of 40 homes. She stated the development would destroy most of the trees on the site with the construction of the new development. She stated the developer had constructed homes to the north of the site and many promises made by him had not been lived up to. She stated brick mailboxes, curbs and gutters and removal of construction debris had not been provided as indicated by the developer. She stated the development would have more than a minimal impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Ron Helton addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated the VFW post was not contacted. He stated the members were opposed to the request to increase the density of the area. The Commission questioned staff as to the notification. Staff provided the Commission proof the notification was mailed as required by the Commission's By-laws. The Commission questioned who signed for the request. Staff stated return receipt was not a requirement. March 30, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont. li•li1WAIFOD-91 There was a general discussion of the proposed request. The Commission questioned the developer about the design of the buildings and how the massing would be broken. The developer stated bump outs would be used and different architectural styles and elements would be utilized. He stated the roof would be placed at different degrees to the roadway to also assist in breaking of the massing. The Commission questioned the number of parking spaces provided. The applicant stated each of the units would be provided parking along with an area for guest parking. The Commission indicated the site contained a great deal of parking spaces which did not appear to be necessary. The applicant indicated the parking around the center common area could be removed. The applicant stated they were willing to work with the neighborhood to address their concerns with design. The Commission questioned if the applicant was willing to defer the item to work with the neighborhood. The applicant requested a deferral to meet with the neighborhood. A motion was made to defer the item to the March 30, 2006, public hearing. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 recuse (Jeff Yates). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 30, 2006) Mr. Gary Dean was present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item indicating the request was deferred from the February 16, 2006, public hearing to allow the applicant and the residents to meet and discuss plan alternatives. Staff stated the current plan indicated the development of 38 units in duplex and triplex structures. Staff stated the units were proposed as one and two story units with two and three bedrooms. Staff stated the units would contain garages and the placement of 50 surface parking spaces. Staff stated they continued to support the request. Mr. Gary Dean addressed the Commission on the merits of the request. He stated the developers had met with the residents and based on the meeting the plan had been revised. He stated he felt the revised plan an asset to the neighborhood and felt the units would blend with the area. There was a question concerning the plans submitted and the plan displayed before the Commission. He stated he had redesigned the footprint to include the additional square footage required for the third bedroom in the units indicated as two and one half bedrooms. He stated the building footprint had not changed. Ms. Mary Douglas addressed the Commission in opposition of the requests. She stated there were a number of concerns related to the proposed development. She stated traffic was a concern of residents in the area. She stated the units were designed with a minimum building separation unlike the development she had previously provided to the 10 March 30, 2006 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: A (Cont. FILE NO.: Z-7963 Commission. She stated the density was too great for the area. She stated the indicated parking was more than necessary to serve the development and the site would resemble an office development and not a residential development. She stated the traffic along Kanis Road traveled at great speeds and the residents would not be able to exit onto Kanis and travel east because of the volume and speed of motorist. She stated this would require residents of the new development to travel north and exit onto Arthur and Archer Streets further taxing the existing substandard streets. She stated the area was currently developing with new single-family residences also increasing the density of the area. She stated the neighborhood could not support the development based on the density as proposed. Mr. Charles Taylor addressed the Commission as the representative of the VFW. He stated the applicant's had not contacted him concerning the proposed abandonment of the easement located along the western perimeter of the development. Staff stated the alley was abandoned by the City Board of Directors with one-half going to each of the property owners. Staff stated the development was not encroaching onto the VFW property but the VFW had constructed a building which did encroach onto the applicant's property. Chairman Stebbins stated the time had expired. He indicated there were additional cards in opposition. There was a general discussion of the Commission concerning the proposed development and the required improvements to the abutting roadways. Staff stated improvements would be required to Kanis Road and Atkins Road per the Master Street Plan. The Commission questioned Ms. Shirley McFarlin as to the meeting held between the developers and the residents. She stated the meeting was a positive and productive meeting but the residents were concerned that the architect had not been hired to design the project only the assist with the rezoning request. She stated the neighborhood was concerned with the proposed density of the development. A motion was made to approve the request. The motion carried by a vote of 6 ayes, 3 noes, 1 absent and 1 recusal (Jeff Yates). 11 ITEM NO.: 12. NAME: Kanis and Atkins HPR Short -form PD -R LOCATION: on the Northwest corner of Kanis Road and Atkins Road Z-796 Planning Staff Comments: 1. Provide notification of property owners located within 200 -feet of the site, complete with the certified abstract list, notice form with affidavit executed and proof of mailing. 2. Provide details of the proposed building materials, building heights, total square footage of the units, building elevations, estimated sales price, any proposed covered parking, any buildings proposed for construction in the "open space" area such as pavilions. 3. The site plan indicates the development as a HPR — Will in fact the units be sold and not rental units as an apartment development. 4. Will the site be lowered or will the units be constructed into the topography of the site? 5. The site plan includes the placement of a security fence along the northern, eastern and western perimeters of the site. Provide details of the proposed construction materials. 6. Provide details of the proposed garbage collection. Will the site be served with a dumpster? If so locate the proposed dumpster on the site plan along with a note concerning the required screening and the proposed screening materials. 7. The site plan includes the abandonment of Palez Avenue. Provide the adjacent property owners authorization and participation to the abandonment. 8. Provide letters from the five utility companies indicting their desire for the retention of the right-of-way and their request for any necessary easements. 9. Any proposed site lighting must be low level and directional, directed inward away from residentially zoned properties. 10. The PRD Ordinance typically requires a residential development to contain 10 to 15 percent of the total site area as common open space. Indicate on the site plan the total common open space provided. Variance/Waivers: None requested. Public Works Conditions: 1. Being a minor arterial street the proposed right-of-way dedication of 45 feet from centerline on Kanis Road meet Master Street Plan requirements. 2. Atkins Road, Trumpler Street and Palez Avenue are classified on the Master Street Plan as residential streets. A dedication of right-of-way 25 feet from centerline will be required. 3. Closure of Palez Avenue west of Trurripler Street is not supported. 4. A 20 -foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of Trumpler Street and Kanis Road, Atkins Street and Kanis Road, and Trumpler Street and Palez Avenue. 5. With site development, provide design of streets conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to these streets including 5 -foot sidewalks with planned development. Curb and gutter on one side and 20 feet of pavement must be constructed on Palez Avenue or petition to close Palez Avenue. 6. Driveway locations do not meet the traffic access and circulation requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210. The portion of the development west of Trumpler Street must share a single driveway access. The width of driveway must not exceed 36 feet. 7. Turn around must be provided for cars attempting to enter security gate east of Trumpler Street. A stacking distance of 30 feet from pavement must also be provided. 8. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1817 (Derrick Bergfield). 9. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. 10. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed location for storm water detention facilities on the plan. 11. A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan will be required per Section 29-186 (e). 12. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction. Utilities and Fire Department/County Planning: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements, if service is required for the project. Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional information. Entergy: Approved as submitted. Center -Point Energy: No comment received. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. The facilities on-site will be private. When meters are planned off private lines, private facilities shall be installed to Central Arkansas Water's material and construction specifications and installation will be inspected by an engineer, licensed to practice in the State of Arkansas. Execution of Customer Owned Line Agreement is required. A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of the meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This fee will apply to all meter connections including any metered connections off the private fire system. Additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of the hydrant(s). 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. This development will have minor impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection. Fire Department: Install a 20 -foot access gate to the proposed development. Place hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3700 for additional information. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. Plannina Division: Landscape: Compliance with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances is required_ A 25 foot land use landscape buffer is required along the northern property line next to the residentially zoned property. If this area is tree covered, then 70 % of these trees are to remain undisturbed. However, if there are currently no trees in this area, then planting of trees and shrubs will be required. A 28 foot land use landscape buffer is required along the western property line next to the residentially zoned property. If this area is tree covered, then 70 % of these trees are to remain undisturbed. However, if there are currently no trees in this area, then planting of trees and shrubs will be required. A six foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall or dense evergreen planting, is also required along this northern and western property lines next to the residentially zoned property. A controlled automatic irrigation system is required. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, it will be necessary to provide landscape plans stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees as feasible on this site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or larger. Staff has concerns with the functionality of some of the proposed parking spaces. Revised plat/plan: Submit four (4) copies of a revised preliminary plan (to include the additional information as noted above) to staff on Wednesday, December 14, 2005.