HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-8503-F Staff AnalysisJanuary 9, 2020
ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: Z-8503-F
NAME: The Pointe at Brodie Creek Long -form PRD
LOCATION: West of Bowman Road between Olds Lane and West 36t" Street
DEVELOPER:
Richardson Properties
9800 Maumelle Boulevard
North Little Rock, AR 72113
501-758-2441
OWNER/AUTHORIZED AGENT:
Richardson Properties/owner
White-Daters & Associates, Inc./Agent
SURVEYOR/ENGINEER:
White-Daters & Associates, Inc.
AREA: 73.949 acres
WARD: 6
CURRENT ZONING
ALLOWED USES:
PROPOSED ZONING
PROPOSED USE
VARIANCE/WAIVERS:
NUMBER OF LOTS: 3
PLANNING DISTRICT: 18
R-2 Single -Family Residential
Single-family residences
--D
FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF
CENSUS TRACT: 42.07
Multifamily Residential, Residential, and 0-1
1. A variance from the Land Alteration Ordinance to allow grading of future phases of the
multi -family development with the development of the initial phase.
January 9, 2020
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 Con:. _ FILE NO.: Z-8503-F
Qnr.KraRnUND:
in nrn+nhnr,)n15 thA manning commission denied a request to rezone 23-acres of a larger
parcel from R-2, Single -Family Residential to Planned Development Residential for the
construction of more than 400 multi -family housing units. An overall development Dian
for the parcel was outlined, including the completion of boundary street improvefTteriis 'to
Bowman Road and a commitment for single-family residential development for the
northern portion of the site, however, the request did not include the entire property of
approximately 70-acres and there were no measures to staff to satisfactorily enforce the
proposals put forward by the developer.
A request was denied by the Board of Directors to rezone this 73.95-acre site from R-2
+- Dr)-D fnr an nvorall AnvPlnnment plan of the property in September 2016. The plan
indicated the northern portion of 27.25-acres was to contain single-family detached home.
Multi -family residential development was shown on 23.45-acres with 408 units proposed.
Floodway and open space would have taken up 11.75-acres of land. The remaining
11.75-acres of the site, located along Bowman Road, was shown to he 0-1, Quiet Office
District uses. The planning commission had reviewed the proposal on November 19,
21015 and recommended .ap.proval of the rezoning
During the public hearing before the Board of Directors meeting on March -1, 2016, the
applicant made three amendments to the application. It was determined by the Board
these were signific@nt modifications and returned the item back to the planning
commission for additional review and consideration.- The planning commission heard the
item with the proposed amendments on May 19, 2016. The applicant provided to staff
the three following amendments-
1 . Contribute $100,000 toward the construction of a traffic signal or roundabout at the
intersection of Brodie Creek Trail and Bowman Road. These funds were to be
available for 5-years following the approval of the PRD.
2. Provide a 50-foot wide buffer along the northern boundary of the PRD. No trees
would be removed from the buffer, but additional plant materials may be added as
part of an approved Landscape Plan.
3. The portion of the PRD shown as "Proposed Residential' would be developed as
single-family residential, with lot widths and home sizes similar to those in either
the Brodie Creek and/or Woodlands Edge developments.
Condition 1 was opposed by staff as it did not cover the cost of a roundabout or the
installation of a traffic signal. The applicant later amended the proposed Condition 1, as
set forth below.
1. Construct a single lane roundabout including landscape and restoration of
landscape within the right-of-way provided or when warranted, and within five
2
January 9, 2020
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.
FILE NO.:
years of approval of the PRD, the developer would pay the City of Little Rock for
the cost of constructing, or construct, a traffic signal. The constructed signal
improvements consist of necessary poles, foundations, mast arms, signal heads,
pedestrian poles and heads for pedestrian crossings as needed, conduits, wiring,
cabinet, controller, radio, video equipment, electrical service connection and all
incidental work related there to.
During the hearing the planning commission requested the timeframe the developer was
willing to fund the roundabout or provide the funds for the traffic signal. In response the
developer committed to funding the improvements to South Bowman Road, including the
roundabout or a traffic signal when the need was met as determined by the City with the
various phases of the proposed apartment development or if the need for the
improvements were not met by the final phase of the apartment construction, then the
developer would place the cost of the improvements with the City in the form of an in -lieu
payment and allow the funds to remain with the City for a period of five years from the
date of completion of the final phase of the apartment development.
The planning commission recommended approval of the request, which was ultimately
denied by the Board of Directors.
On April 5, 2018, the planning commission reviewed and considered a request to rezone
the property from R-2, Single -Family Residential to PRD, Planned Development
Residential, for the development of the site with a mixed -use development composed of
21.75-acres of Multifamily development, 11.75-acres of floodway/open space/buffer,
10.85-acres of mixed use development with the 0-1, Quiet Office District uses as the
permitted uses, and 29.60-acres shown as residential, non -multifamily.
Staff recommended denial of the proposal.
Several objectors spoke to the planning commission stating reasons they were opposed
to the request. Among the reasons stated were lack of commitment for landscaped
buffers and boundary street improvements, existing traffic and additional traffic generated
by the new multifamily units, and the shift away from single-family uses in the area.
The applicant stated the developer sought to build quality housing for future residents on
the property. He added the City had imposed a year -long moratorium on multifamily
development in the area to review the future land use plan and after the study was
completed, no changes were proposed to the future land use plan. He also referred to a
study contracted by the City and completed by UALR concluding multifamily residences
were not a detriment to neighborhoods and did not increase area crime.
The commission asked staff about their position on the previous proposal. Staff stated
they were supportive of the previous proposal; however, there had been no appreciable
change in the area since the Board of Directors denial of the previous proposal,
3
January 9, 2020
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 Cont. FILE NO.: Z-8503-F
contributing to the change to a recommendation for denial from staff. Moreover, Mere
Mere -
were no proposed boundary street improvements to abutting streets in conjunction lI with
the multifamily development and none were proposed until property adjacent to any
boundary streets occurred.
f1 U[IdHI TlUUs rC(:U111111e11UdUU11 IUI UCIIICl1 VVdJ IIIaUC Uy LIIC PIC21111111- t U11IIl Ii.O7J1U11.
A. PROPOSAUREQUEST/APPLICANT'S STATEMENT:
Located immediately north of the Pointe at Brodie Creek, the project would include
21.75-acres of multifamily development with 408 units, 11.75-acres of
floodway/buffer, 10.85-acres of mixed use with the allowed uses being the 0-1
district, and 29.60-acres of residential (non -multifamily).
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
Situated on the west side of South Bowman Road, the property is heavily wooded
and contains one single-family residence.
The first phase of the Pointe at Brodie Creek, developed with 498 units, is
immediateIy sUuth of the properly.
Additional multifamily residential development of between 400 and 500 units Is
located across Bowman Road to the east.
I o on th + side over Road i ni irc nn home d the Sandpiper
Ass.., ..�� �e east sad.. of B,,..man oa,. s a , ,.,�i„� h m an h
Subdivision of single-family homes.
The Brodie Creek neighborhood is to the north.
The Woodland Edge community is to the west and northwest.
Some improvements have been made to South Bowman Road; however, it largely
functions as a two-lane roadway.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
As of this writing, staff has received several phone calls and emails from nearby
property owners. They are generally concerned about adding additional traffic to
the current levels in the area. Notice of the public hearing was sent to all owners
of properties located within 200 feet of the site, as well as the John Barrow and
Woodland's Edge neighborhood associations.
0
January 9, 2020
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8503-F
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
A grading permit in accordance with section 29-186 (c) & (d) will be required
prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Other than
residential subdivisions, site grading and drainage plans must be submitted
and approved prior to the start of construction. Is a variance requested to
advance grade future phases of construction with construction of Phase1?
2. Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed
location for stormwater detention facilities on the plan. Maintenance of the
detention pond and all private drainage improvements is the responsibility of
the developer and/or property owner.
3. If disturbed area is 1 or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water permit from
the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of
construction.
4. A special Grading Permit for Flood Hazard Areas will be required per Sec.
8-283 prior to construction.
5. The minimum Finish Floor elevation of at least 1 ft. above the base flood
elevation of Building 6 and 7 should be shown on grading plans.
6. Floodway areas cannot be filled or developed. In accordance with Section
31-176, floodway areas must be shown as floodway easements or be
dedicated to the public. In addition, a 25 foot wide drainage and access
easement is required adjacent to the floodway boundary.
7. Alteration of the water course will require approval from the Little Rock District
of the US Army Corps of Engineers prior to start of work.
8. Prior to construction of retaining walls, an engineer's certification of design
and plans must be submitted to Public Works for approval. After construction,
an as -built certification is required for construction of the retaining wall.
9. The owner and/or manager of each multi -family residence of 100 or more
dwelling units shall provide recycling and encourage participation by the
tenants, renters, or owners of each unit. Contact Melinda Glasgow at
371-4646 for more information.
10. Provide a Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec. 29-186 (e).
11. Bowman Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial.
A dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline will be required.
12. With site development, provide design of street conforming to the Master
Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to Bowman Rd including
5-foot sidewalks with planned development. The new back of curb should be
5
Jai 1uar y 0, 2020
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO - 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.- Z-8503-F
iocated 29.5 ft. from centerline. A left turn lane should be provided for ail
driveways.
3. Sii -m: - a Traiiic impact Study for the proposed project. Study ,--- --dress
trip generation and trip distribution for the development and also should take
into account existing and projected traffic growth. Study should include:
a. Roadway Level of Service Analysis for 2-lane sections of Bowman
Rd. (existing and projected), and
AJ. Signal VY,arrants Analysis ror bo,0,man Koaa ai t--Xe UU11 t:
Drive, Cherryside Drive and Brodie Creek Trail.
1A. If the north driveway will be used for more than a secondary emergency
access now or in the future, provide a letter prepared by a registered engineer
certifying the sight distance at the Intersection(s) comply with 2004 AASHTO
Green Book standards.
15. if the driveway will be used other than secondary emergency access, the
driveway should be paved with asphalt, curb and glitter. if the driveway will
be used for secondary emergency access, the driveway should be gated.
fib. -If-the--n-orth- driveway- -wiH--lie-used- for -more--thart-arm--
rJ,r:vp-w;;v locations do not meet the traffic access and circulation requirements
i c�._.,a:......., qo A3 ..1 '11']1!1 �l r, niv. i.n nrFcriol o+rock is inn fF
o Sect-io s 3V-� a1 U1 J 1 -G 0. Drive VV Caly sNa�.n 1g of I cal Lel — JW
from interSecti %ncand other driveways anri 1 Fn ft, frnm the nrnnPrty line_ A
variance is required to be obtained for the proposed driveway location.
E. UTILITIES/FIRE DEPARTMENT/PARKS/COUNTY PLANNING
Little Rock Water Reclamation Authori :
Sewer main extension required with easements if new sewer service is required
for this project. Capacity Fee Analysis required. FOG analysis required if food
service on site.
Enterg :
Entergy does not object to this proposal. There does not appear to be any conflicts
with existing electrical utilities at this location. The loop would be served from
Bowman Road. Contact Entergy in advance to discuss electrical service
requirements, or adjustments to existing facilities (if any) as this project proceeds.
CenterPoint Ener : No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
0
January 9, 2020
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8503-F
Central Arkansas Water:
All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water
service must be met.
A water main extension will be needed to provide water service to this property.
Please submit plans for water facilities and/or fire protection system to Central
Arkansas Water for review. Plan revisions may be required after additional review.
Contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of water
facilities and/or fire service. Approval of plans by the Arkansas Department of
Health Engineering Division and Little Rock Fire Department is required.
A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of meter connection(s) will apply
to this project in addition to normal charges. This fee will apply to all connections
including metered connections off the private fire system.
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 a Customer Owned
Line Agreement is required.
Fire Department:
Full plan review
Maintain Access:
Fire Hydrants.
Maintain fire apparatus access roads at fire hydrant locations as per Appendix D
of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D103.1 Access road
width with a hydrant. Where a fire hydrant is located on a fire apparatus access
road, the minimum road width shall be 26 feet, exclusive of shoulders.
Grade
Maintain fire apparatus access roads as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire
Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D103.2 Grade. Fire apparatus access roads shall
not exceed 10 percent in grade except as approved by the fire chief.
Loading
Maintain fire apparatus access road design as per Appendix D of the 2012
Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D102.1 Access and loading.
Facilities, buildings or portions of buildings hereafter constructed shall be
accessible to fire department apparatus by way of an approved fire apparatus
7
January 9, 2020
SUBDIVISION
NO.: 8 (Cont.
FILE NO. - Z-8503-F
access road with an asphalt, concrete or other approved driving suface capabl:,
of supporting the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds.
f—% air Tii o-Fa1mfly Res"a ltlai ❑ey2:.;1:.➢"rle nis.
As ner Annnnelliv )1 Rag -firm n107,1 of the Arkansas Fire PrAventinn Code
%V'01 A ^ i _Fa roily AM&Velling rncir!®r1�i_m1 AaApelnnenAnts new,=1r%nm,=ntc
Y V1. 11 tOIIG- VI 1 •!V-1 QI11IIr M��61111'I IJ. Iva�Mv116.41
of one- or two-family dwellings where the number of dwelling units exceeds
30 shall be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads,
and shall meet the requirements of Section D104.3.
Exceptions:
1. Where there are more than 30 dwelling units on a single public or
private fire apparatus access road and al dwelling units are equipped
throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system in
accordance with Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2 or 903.3.1.3 of the
Arkansas Fire Code; access from two directions shall not be required.
2. The number of dwelling units on a single fire apparatus access road shall
not be increased unless fire apparatus access roads will connect with
future. development, as determined .by the..fire code. official.
Fire Hydrants
Locate Fire Hydrants as per Appendix C of the 2012 Arkansas Fire
Prevention Code. Section C101 — C105, in conjunction with Central Arkansas
ire T..�� rnA ��� AnAL\ ..1 LI- Little
k Fire A hales (""Ince
Water (Daf IIe1 I u11 5U I -3I r - 1 2-45) anU a Ie Litilo Ri�Cn Fire v Marshal's a v1 u� c
(Capt. Tony Rhodes 501-918-3757 or Capt. John Hogue 501-918-3754). Number
and (Distribution of Fire Hydrants as per Table C105.1.
Parks and Recreation: No comment received.
County Planning: No comment.
F. BUILDING CODESILANDSCAPE:
Building Code:
Project is subject to -full -commercial plan --review and -approval prior to issuance of
a building permit. For information on submittal requirements and the review
process, contact a commercial plans examiner:
Curtis Richey at 501.371.4724; criche littlerock. ov or
Steve Crain at 501-371-4875; strain littlerock. ov
0
January 9, 2020
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) _ FILE NO.: Z-8503-F
Landscape:
1. Any new site development must comply with the City's minimal landscape and
buffer ordinance requirements.
2. A perimeter planting strip is required along any side of a vehicular use area that
abuts adjoining property. This strip shall be at least nine (9) feet wide. Provide
trees with an average linear spacing of not less than thirty (30) feet within the
perimeter planting strip. Provide three (3) shrubs or vines for every thirty (30)
linear feet of perimeter planting strip.
3. A land use buffer six (6) percent of the average width/depth of the lot will be
required when an adjacent property has a dissimilar use of a more restrictive
nature. The maximum width of the required buffer is fifty (50) feet. A minimum
of seventy (70) percent of the land use buffer shall be undisturbed. Easements
cannot count toward fulfilling this requirement. The properties to the north, east
and west are zoned R-2.
4. A as a component of all land use buffer requirements, opaque screening,
whether a fence or other device, six (6) feet in height shall be required upon
the property line side of the buffer. In addition to the required screening, buffers
are to be landscaped at the rate of one (1) tree and three (3) shrubs for every
thirty (30) linear feet.
5. Eight percent (8%) of the vehicular use area must be designated for green
space; this green space needs to be evenly distributed throughout the parking
area(s). For developments with more than one hundred fifty (150) parking
spaces the minimum size of an interior landscape area shall be three hundred
(300) square feet. Interior islands must be a minimum of seven and one half
(7 1/2) feet in width. Trees shall be included in the interior landscape areas at
the rate of one (1) tree for every twelve (12) parking spaces.
6. Building landscape areas shall be provided between the vehicular use area
used for public parking and the general vicinity of the building. These shall be
provided at the rate equivalent to planter strip three (3) feet wide along the
vehicular use area. One (1) tree and four (4) shrubs shall be planted in the
building landscape areas for each forty (40) linear feet of vehicular use area
abutting the building.
7. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas shall be required for
developments of one (1) acre or larger.
8. The development of two (2) acres or more requires the landscape plan to be
stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect.
9. 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.
9
January 0, 2020
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 Cont. FILE NO.- Z-8503-F
C. TRANSPORTATION/PLANNING-
Rock
Planning Division: The request is in t1se rElulic AAnj 1nt-=in Dl�nninn nitrict TheIVIWUIILUn1I 1wnn11�c
---� i__ ru_� shows
Residential
Low
n.........:+.. /1"71 \ n....:.a.....+:-1 11A-,4;..— r1..--;4..
Lan❑ use Plan snows Residential Low Densi Ly (RL), ReSiUCI ILIGI IVIGUIUI II LJUI 1011-Y
(RM) and PK/OS Park/Open Space (PK/OS) for the requested area. The
Residential Low Density category provides for single family homes at densities not
to exceed 6 dwelling units per acre. Such residential development is typically
characterized by conventional single family homes, but may also include patio or
garden homes and cluster homes, provided that the density remain less than
6 units per acre. The Residential Medium Density category accommodates a
broad rang_ a of housing types including single family attached, single family
detached, duplex, town homes, multi -family and patio or garden homes. Any
combination of these and possibly other housing types may fall in this category
provided that the density is between six (6) and twelve (12) dwelling units per acre.
The Park/Open Space category includes all public parks, recreation facilities,
greenbelts, flood plains, and other designated opens space and recreational land.
The application is a _change an area from R-2 (Side Family District) to PRD _
(PlanneduResidential Development) District to expand an existing multifiamir----_--
__ _ �_ _ i�_ i_ ate:- .1.. 'aV A7 i....ar'...�,. r wPi® '+.+
complex from l 1e south of-, LU his propef"Ly, with I ! Uuildings and ArvU uniLO
(18.8 units per acre); have 10.8 acres of future Quiet Office use; have 11.8 Acres
of future Open SpaceiFioodway use; and have 20.6 Acres of future Low Density
P,-cirientinl 111se.
Master Street Plan- To the east is Bowman Road and it is a Minor Arterial on the
Master Street Plan. To the North is Olds Lane and it is a Local Street on the Master
Street Plan. The proposed extension of the Collector, South Trail Drive is through
the western section of this application area. A Minor Arterial provides connections
to and through an urban area and their primary function is to provide short distance
travel within the urbanized area. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize
negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on Bowman Road since it is a Minor
Arterial. The primary function of a Collector Road is to provide a connection from
Local Streets to Arterials. The primary function of Local Streets is to provide access
to adjacent properties. Local Streets that are abutted by non-residential
zoning/use or more intensive zoning than duplexes are considered as "Commercial
Streets". A Collector design standard is used for Commercial Streets. These
streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street
improvements for entrances and exits to the site.
Bicycle Plan: There is a Class li Bike Route shown on Bowman Road. This Bike
Lane provides a portion of the pavement for the sole use of bicycles.
10
January 9, 2020
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8503-F
H. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: December 11, 2019
The applicant was present. Staff presented the item to the committee.
Planning staff requested additional information on the proposed residential
development on the north portion of the site, such as minimum lot sizes, buffering,
and setbacks. Also, in regard to the multifamily development, the proposed
building setbacks from property lines and building separation should be indicated
on the site plan, as well as any proposed phasing. Dumpster locations should be
clearly shown and proposed screening provided. Proposed hours for solid waste
and recycling collection should be provided. Any proposed signage should be
described. Details on proposed gates or fences was requested. Open space
should be indicated on the site plan or stipulation of compliance with minimum
standards. Proposed building elevations, dimensions and materials were
requested. Lastly, the number of proposed parking spaces for the multifamily
development with details on number of covered and uncovered spaces should be
provided.
The Public Works comments were noted as the same as the previous submittal.
Landscaping comments were also indicated to be similar to the previous
application.
Staff reminded the applicant responses were to be received by December 18,
2019. The committee forwarded the item to the full commission.
I ANALYSIS
A revised site plan detailing the proposed multifamily development was provided
The multifamily development would be constructed in four phases.
A buffer typically exceeding more than 100-feet in width from the proposed
multifamily buildings to and the edge of the property to be developed with future
residential uses is provided on the site plan.
Dumpster locations and proposed screening is indicated on the revised site plan.
The screening is to be masonry on three sides with a gate on the fourth. Solid
waste and recycling collection would be limited to daylight hours.
A total of 890 parking spaces are shown on the site plan. The number of spaces
to be covered would include 102 spaces in garage structures and 198 spaces in
carports dispersed around the property.
11
January 9, 2020
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 Cont. FILE NO.: Z-8503-F
Avinyi-coated steel fence is proposed on the north and east sides of the rnultifarrilly
development.
Building heights would be a maximum UI-45-Ieel. Building materials would e a
combination Ibil laLio l� of br icl< and "Jular dy By Qrd11, i i I L1,1 III tI Ia �..xisting .c Ll Mciur.a..c.� in I I•I-
w _ea1_ rI_:�a_ -a n-_r:_ i+___i-
1 U1 Me r 'rote at DIUU1e l.i1CC11%.
The current proposal for the residential development would be for minimum lot
sizes conforming to the R-2 District. At this time, the developer is not committing
to additional buffers between this residential subdivision and the subdivision to the
north; however, it is possible additional buffer area might be provided. Any
development of this property would require the approval of a revised site plan
through an amended PRD process.
The 408 multifamily units would be a second phase of the existing 498 unit
apartment complex located to the south.
An emergency access drive to Bowman Road would be constructed to the south
of the proposed multi -family development All typical vehicular access would be
via the existing drive servicing the Pointe at Brodie Creek.
The applicant proposes to improve South Bowman Road as the property with the
frontage is developed. As noted, there have been limited improvements made to
Rnwman Rnarl• hnwever moct of the road remains unimproved as a two-lane road.
The Land Use Plan reflects Residential Low Density (RL ), Residential Medium
Density (RM) and PK/OS Park/Open Space (PK/OS) for the requested area.
Residential Low Density category suggests the development of single-family
residences at densities of no more than 6 dwelling units per acre. Patio homes,
garden homes, and cluster homes would also be included in this category,
provided that the density remains under 6 units per acre. The Residential Medium
Density category is composed of a broader range of housing types including single
family attached, single family detached, duplex, town homes, multi -family and patio
or garden homes. Any combination of these and possibly other housing types may
be included in this use category provided the overall density is between 6 and 12
dwelling units per acre. The Park/Open Space category includes all public parks,
recreation facilities, greenbelts, flood plains, and other designated open space and
recreational land.
Public Works staff indicated this proposal is substantially identical to the previous
application and no additional information has been provided to supplement the
application.
12
January 9, 2020
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.)
J. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
FILE NO.: Z-8503-F
Staff recommends denial of the application. There continues to have been no
appreciable change in the area since the previous denial. Furthermore, the lack
of boundary street improvements in conjunction with the multi -family development
and specificity for the majority of the parcel abutting the single-family neighborhood
to the north and the Bowman Road frontage do not provide staff with a clear and
compelling vision for development compatible with the surrounding properties and
uses.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 9, 2020)
The applicant was present. There were numerous registered objectors present.
Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial as outlined in the "staff
recommendation" above.
Mr. David Vandergriff with the law firm of Quattlebaum, Grooms, & Tull, attorney for the
developer, addressed the commission. He also noted Tim Daters of White-Daters &
Associates was present on behalf of the application. He was generally in agreement with
the staff analysis, but disagreed with the staff recommendation. He asserted the proposal
was a reasonable plan for development in the area. He then retained his time to respond
after those opposed spoke.
Alvin Weintraub spoke in opposition to the request. He and his wife are residents of the
Woodlands Edge neighborhood. His wife Gail, who was unable to attend the hearing is
Board President of the Woodlands Edge Community Association. Mr. Weintraub was
speaking on behalf of the Board, as no members were able to attend due to work conflicts.
The Board was unanimous in their disapproval of the request. Among the reasons
Mr. Weintraub cited for their opposition were the more than 2000 multifamily units within
2.5 miles of this site and the potential for additional cut -through traffic in the surrounding
neighborhoods.
William Rausch, also of Woodlands Edge, informed the commission of his opposition. He
explained to them the large contingent of people wearing red in the audience were all
opposed to this request and the red color was meant to be like a stop sign and to say
"STOP" to this development. He stated he sought to protect the quality of life in the area
and believes density is inverse to quality of life. The proposed development would double
the number of apartment units of the first phase of the Pointe at Brodie Creek. Installation
of a roundabout on Bowman Road would not help traffic getting out of the neighborhood,
as the volume of traffic on Bowman Road was already high.
13
January Q, 2020
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO_: 8 Cont. FILE NO-, Z-8503-F
Caivin Biggers identified his home on the sketch and requested the commission deny hle
application. He was concerned additional cars would be funneled into the surrounding
neighborhoods. He also referenced the 705 cars coming to the Baptist Health College at
the intersection of Bowman Road with Colonel Glenn adding to the traffic in the area.
-'- _J _„ ice_ �a_ �y., r.1� I___J .-. 4_ . 1;A Llo � 4,4i A
Jamie Shipley noted ailIle points user previous speaners iiau iiiauc vdcre vane. , ,c Gtu%Ao�
there are too many apartments on Bowman and Kanis Roads. It is difficult to make a
left -turn and traffic often backs up in the neighborhood. Drivers pull out in front of
oncoming vehicles in order to get out of the neighborhood. Traffic through the
neighborhood is a concern to him due to the number of children in the neighborhood.
Also, the greenspace in the neighborhood encouraged residents to walk in the
neighborhood and some drivers put those walkers in danger with their speeding on
neighborhood streets.
Dan Veach spoke about the Land Use Plan adopted for the community. It had already
been altered for the Brodie Creek and Bowman Pointe apartments. He asserted approval
of this request would lead to more apartments on this property and others in the area
because the balance would be tipped toward multifamily development and apartments
would overwhelm the single-family development in the area. He asked the commission
to keep the neighborhood residential.
Elizabeth Wahl of the Brodie, Creek Property Owners Association stated she and the
board were unanimously opposed to the request. The board has five members and there
ore AR homes in the neighborhood.
Melissa Smith told the commission she is strongly opposed to the request. She stated
the first murder of the veer in the city had occurred at an apartment complex on Kanis
Road. Also, there have been a high number of calls for public safety response from
apartments owned or built by the developer. She was concerned approval of this request
would create a foothold in changing additional property from R-2 zoning to allow more
apartments. Lastly, she believes it would be a mistake to connect or extend a road into
the Woodlands Edge neighborhood.
Stephen Parker spoke in opposition to the proposal. He and his family moved into the
neighborhood a year ago. He appreciated how the natural state of the land was
preserved. His family liked to walk on the neighborhood trails. He was also concerned
the potential environmental impacts of the proposed development would not be
appropriately addressed.
Ann Mitchell seconded all the previous remarks made by those opposed to the request
and stated she vehemently opposes the proposed development. While she agrees the
city needs property tax, we should not forget the whole of the community in obtaining new
revenue. More tax dollars are needed for roads and we need these roads because of
sprawl. Bowman Road was built as a country road and remains largely that today,
14
January 9, 2020
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8503-F
although there has been significant development nearby. She suggested a new paradigm
to developers —build home places near work places.
Mr. Vandergriff readdressed the commission to indicate there was no response from the
applicant to the comments from those opposed to the request.
Commissioner Thomas asked the number of homes in the Woodlands Edge
neighborhood. The response was there were approximately 670 homes.
She noted the large representation from the community present at the public hearing.
She was concerned about emergency vehicle access to the area based upon previous
experience in the vicinity where cars had to pull off the road in order for emergency
vehicles to pass.
She remarked on the number of apartment units in the area, as brought up by several of
the opposition speakers.
Referencing these points, she indicated she was not in favor of the request.
Commissioner Hart asked staff for the location of Brodie Creek Trail and about the
possible street connection into the Woodlands Edge neighborhood.
Staff informed the commissioner that Brodie Creek Trail was the street connecting the
Brodie Creek and Woodlands Edge neighborhoods to Bowman Road.
Mr. Hood suggested a road could connect to the Woodlands Edge neighborhood via an
extension of South Trail Drive, the south spoke from the roundabout at the end of Brodie
Creek Trail. Much of the route this street would cover is located in the flood plain or flood
way. A permit would be required in order to fill the land to bring it out of the flood plain or
flood way. No plans had been filed with this application or in general to build this street.
Commissioner Betton stated he had been driving Kanis Road to and from his home since
1991. Safety is a primary issue and it is already difficult for emergency vehicles in the
area due to traffic congestion. There is a need to improve roads. He would be voting
against this request.
Commissioner Rahman referenced the Land Use Plan and inquired of staff and the
developer on how they evaluated this proposal based on the Land Use Plan.
Alex Koenig responded that staff took into consideration the proposed low -density
residential and medium -density residential designations for the property would allow for
the proposed single-family development on the portion of the site and also for more dense
residential development, such as patio homes, attached single-family residential uses,
15
van nary 9, 2)020
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8(Cont.) FILE. NO.. Z-8503-F
and multifamily uses. However, overall, as stated in the recommendation, both the
development proposal and the context of the area, particularly regarding the road
infrastructure, had not significantly changed in order for staff to recommend the proposal
L LL-:�:_
at L111s ime.
wa
- 1"�, a.... Imo... behalf
.6 +L... developer .� rJ rd �L+c nr+mmi��inn �hc ini�i�l time
IVII. UdLCIJ JpU(�C V11 {.JGIIQII VI LIIG UGVGIVi./G1 Qllu Icll nllucu u!c a..V1lnlnosv!! L!!� nn!
this was brought forward for consideration, it was recommended for approval by the
planning commission in 2016. He also referred to the study conducted on multifamily
development this section of the city. No changes to the Land Use Plan were proposed
resulting from that study. The road improvements, such as the roundabout or traffic signal
at the intersection of Bowman Road and Brodie Creek Trail were offered as an
inducement for support of the previous proposal from the neighborhoods. He agreed the
substance of the application had not changed, but that there had been changes in the
area. He stated this site is likely to be developed eventually.
Chair,manLatture commented the City of Little Rock does typically not build roads and it
takes a long time to build a road. The options are to build roads and wait for development
or develop and then fix the traiiic issues that result from the deveiopment.
Commissioner Berry asked what boundary street improvement would be constructed
,LiUUIU LFII ICglIe3L UC i7pprUVCU.
Mr. Hood answered there would be a limited amount along Bowman Read by the
multifamily portion of the development. The portions abutting the proposed single-family
and office uses would happen latter when those portions were developed.
Commissioner Berry wondered if the developer had learned through the multiple
applications to develop this property. He believes the nature of development has
changed and people wanted more housing choices and workplaces near housing. He
would not be voting for the application and thinks the time for it has come and gone.
Commissioner Brooks inquired of those who were opposed to the request were opposed
to all development on the site or just the apartments. Mr. Weintraub spoke for the
collective of those opposed and stated generally it was the apartments people were
against. Single-family would be acceptable because the property is already zoned for
such development.
Commissioner Thomas asked if this request were to be approved if the proposed
apartments could be built and also develop additional apartments.
Director Collins responded as the proposal was for a planned development, anything
constructed would have to conform to the approved site plan as it is laid out. Additional
development would have to be reviewed and approved as a revised planned
development.
16
January 9, 2020
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO: Z-8503-F
Chairman Latture called for a motion.
Vice Chairman Hamilton made a motion to accept the staff conditions and
recommendation for denial. Commissioner Haynes seconded. The vote was 10 ayes,
0 noes, and one absent.
17