Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0293-A Staff AnalysisAugust 31, 2017 ITEM NO.: FILE NO.: NAME: Waterford Apartments Revised Subdivision Site Plan Review LOCATION: Located at 701 Green Mountain Drive DEVELOPER: Arkansas Sign and Neon 8225 Distribution Drive Little Rock, AR 72209 AREA: 13 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 LF WARD: 4 PLANNING DISTRICT: 2 — Rodney Parham CENSUS TRACT: 22.09 CURRENT ZONING: MF-24, Multi -family 24-units per acre VARIANCEIWAIVERS: A variance from Section 36-552 to allow an increase in the height and sign area for the existing multi -family development. BACKGROUN On January 25, 1983, the Little Rock Planning Commission approved the Shadow Mountain Subdivision Preliminary Plat and Site Plan Review for the Shadow Mountain apartment development. The plan proposed 20 buildings with a total of 256 units. The plan indicated two (2) service buildings and pool areas. The request included a variance for sidewalk placement along both Shackleford Road and Green Mountain Drive. The applicant was to construct sidewalks along the frontage of Green Mountain Drive. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: The Waterford Apartment development is requesting a revision to their previously approved signage plan. The development was approved with signage as allowed in multi -family zones or a maximum of six (6) feet in height and 24 square feet in sign area. The current proposal will allow the sign to be placed on a 36-inch base 120-inches in length. The plan includes a cascading water feature placed on top of the base with a maximum height of 102-inches. The sign lettering is proposed 84-inches in height and 36-inches in width. The overall height of the sign is 11-feet 6-inches with the base being 10-feet in length. August 31, 2017 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) _ FILE NO.: S-293-A The applicant is also proposing the placement of a second sign at the northern driveway entrance to the development. The sign is indicated with a 24-inch high base 48-inches in length. The sign area is 36-inches wide and 84-inches high. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is fully developed with the multi -family apartments. Within the area there are both apartments, condos and property owned as a horizontal property regime. South of the site is the Bristol Commons HPR and west of the site is Green Mountain Condo HPR. There are single-family homes located to the southeast, east and north of the site. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: All property owners located within 200-feet of the site along with the Walnut Valley Property Owners Association and the Woodland Hills/Aspen Highland Property Owners Association were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Due to a concern for the sufficient sight distance, show on the plan the distance of the proposed sign from the access ramp curb cut at the south driveway? E. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (June 28, 2017) The applicant was not present. Staff presented an overview of the item stating there were no outstanding technical issues associated with the request. Staff stated they would work with the applicant to resolve any concerns prior to the item being forwarded to the Commission for final action. There were no more issues for discussion. The Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. F. ANALYSIS: There were few outstanding technical issues associated with the request in need of addressing related to the site plan. The request is a revision to their previously approved signage plan. The request includes a variance from Section 36-552 to allow an increase in the height and sign area for two (2) sign locations to serve an existing multi -family development. The development -was approved with signage as allowed in multi -family zones or a maximum of six (6) feet in height and 24 square feet in sign area. The zoning ordinance states the height of a sign 2 August 31, 2017 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-293-A is measured as the vertical distance measured from the highest point of the sign, including decorate embellishments to the grade of the adjacent street or the surface grade beneath the sign, whichever is less. Sign area is defined as that area enclosed by one (1) continuous line connecting the extreme points or edge of a sign. The area shall be determined using the largest sign area or silhouette visible at any one (1) time from any one (1) point. This area does not include the main supporting sign structure but all other ornamental attachments, inner connecting links, etc., which are not a part of the main supports of the sign, are to be included in determining sign area. The current proposal is to allow the sign to be placed on a 36-inch base 120-inches in length. The plan includes a cascading water feature placed on top of the base with a maximum height of 102-inches. The sign lettering is proposed 84-inches in height and 36-inches in width. The overall height of the sign is 11-feet 6-inches with the base being 10-feet in length for a total sign area of 115 square feet. The applicant is also proposing the placement of a second sign at the northern driveway entrance to the development. The sign is indicated with a 24-inch high base 48-inches in length. The sign face with the lettering is 36-inches wide and 84-inches high. The total height is nine (9) feet and the overall width is three (3) feet and a total sign area of 27 square feet. The applicant has not provided staff with detailed drawing of the proposed sign including the location and placement related to the abutting street. Staff recommends prior to the issuance of a sign permit the applicant provide to traffic engineering detailed drawings of the sign with regard to placement and location and the applicant work with traffic engineering to determine the best placement to eliminate any potential sight distance concerns and visual barriers for motorist from the placement of the new sign. Staff is supportive of the request. To staff's knowledge there are no remaining outstanding technical issues associated with the request. The signs are proposed with architectural enhancements which has become common around the City and with this type development. G. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request subject to the applicant providing to traffic engineering detailed drawings of the sign location and dimensions for approval prior to the issuance of a sign permit. 3 August 31, 2017 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-293-A Staff recommends approval of a variance from Section 36-552 to allow an increase in the height and sign area for the two (2) signs to serve the existing multi -family development. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 20, 2017) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had failed to provide proper notice of the request before the Commission. Staff stated in addition the notice was not provided in a timely manner. Staff presented a recommendation of deferral of the item to the August 31, 2017, public hearing to allow the proper notice to be provided to the property owners. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the consent agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant has provided notice as required by the Planning Commission By-laws. Staff continues to recommend approval of the request to allow the placement of the signage as proposed by the applicant. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 31, 2017) The applicant was present. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the request subject to the applicant providing to traffic engineering detailed drawings of the sign location and dimensions for approval prior to the issuance of a sign permit. Staff presented a recommendation of approval of a variance from Section 36-552 to allow an increase in the height and sign area for the two (2) signs to serve the existing multi -family development. There was no further discussion. The item was placed on the consent agenda and approved as recommended by staff by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 0