Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0548-I Staff AnalysisAugust 29, 1996 ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: S-548-I NAME: CANDLEWOOD APARTMENTS -- SUBDIVISION SITE PLAN REVIEW r_=OCATION: On the south side of the Candlewood Rd. extension, approximately 0.6 mile north of the 14000-Block of Cantrell Rd. and the Kroger Center. DEVELOPER: McCASLIN DEVELOPMENT 5950 Berkshire Ln. Suite 800 LB 37 Dallas, TX 75225 AREA: 39.32 ACRES ZONING• R-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: CENSUS TRACT: 42.05 VARIANCES REQUESTED: ENGINEER: Joe White, Jr. WHITE-DATERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 401 S. Victory St. Little Rock, AR 72201 NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 PROPOSED USES: River Mountain (1) STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: None FT. NEW STREET: 3,500 Multi -Family Residential Proposed is the development of a 39.32 acre tract to include construction of 260 multi -family dwelling units in 13, three- story buildings, containing 20 units each. Each multi -family building is to contain approximately 10,000 square feet per floor. Garage parking for 130 vehicles and open parking for an additional 390 vehicles, for a total of 520 parking spaces, is to be provided. The multi -family facility is to include a 5,000 square foot office and clubhouse building. Internal drives totaling 3400 feet and construction of Candlewood Rd. to the site from its "dead-end" beside the Kroger Center on Cantrell Rd. (a total length of an additional 3100 feet) are proposed. A future public street is to extend from the complex entrance, along the north boundary of the tract, another 1200 feet to the west boundary of the site. No variances are requested. A. PROPOSALJREQUEST: Review and approval by the Planing Commission of a site plan is requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and is extremely rugged and wooded. The terrain is steep, with slopes of 22 to 40%! From the "dead-end" of Candlewood Rd., where the roadway up the slope is to begin, to the entrance drive to the apartments is a August 29, 1996 .,39BDIVISION ITEM NO.: B Cont. FILE NO.: S-548-I rise of 160 feet; from the entrance to the ridge, along which the apartment buildings are to be built is another 40 feet of rise. The existing zoning of the site is R-2; however, there is a pending applicant to be heard on May 9, 1996, for the rezoning of the site to MF-12. There is an R-4 zoned tract to the north of the site, and an R-5 tract which touches the site at the southeast corner of the property. Otherwise, all surrounding properties are zoned R-2 C. ENGINEERING UTILYTY COMMENTS: Public Works comments: The streets must conform to the Master Street Plan, with the location, width, intersections, curve radii, and grades conforming to City ordinances. The roadway to the complex should be 30 feet in width, minimum. The drive to the club house should be 27 feet in width. Drives to each wing of the complex should be 27 feet in width. A sidewalk should be included in the plans along these drives. Grading and ADPC&E permits are required prior to any land alteration. The Stormwater Detention Ordinance applies. Arkansas Power & Light Co. noted that a 20 foot easement will be required around the full perimeter of the site. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal. Little Rock Water Works comments that a water main extension from the tank to the west end of Rivercrest Dr. will be required to obtain water service to this project. On -Site fire protection will be required. Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that a sewer main extension, with easements, will be required. A capacity contribution fee will be chard for this project. Ison Interceptor fees will also be charged for this project. The Fire Department approved the plat, but notes that adequate water pressure will be required to be assured to the fire hydrants. 2 August 29, 1996 SUBDIVISION i_TEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-548-I D. 1S UES LEGAL TE HNICAL DESIGN: Sec. 31.13 requires "large-scale developments involving the construction of two (2) or more buildings (on a site) ... shall be subject to the provisions of this section Because of the multiple buildings being constructed, the Subdivision Regulations require Planning Commission review and approval of the proposed site plan. Sec. 36-130(1) requires that the site plan review submittal indicate the proposed perimeter treatment of the property, indicating screening, etc. This is a multi -family development and land use buffers are required. The topography and natural timber/shrubbery may provide this, but the issue must be addressed and specifically dealt with by the applicant and the Commission. Sec. 36-130(1) requires that the location and dimension of all existing and proposed utility and street easements and all existing public improvements within the site be shown. The submitted site plan is very schematic, and it is not assumed that this requirement has been met. Also, a street (shown as a "Future Public Street") extends westward across the site. No provision for dealing with the street is made, and the dedication of such a street will "subdivide" the lot, leaving a non -conforming tract on the north side of the street. Sec. 36-130(2) requires a topographical cross-section map of the site. In this particular case, this cross-section is mandatory, and it has not been provided. Grades are 40% in some areas, and the relation of buildings to drives and parking areas is critical. Sec. 36-130(4) requires a registered land survey of the site, showing the exact property lines, and including a statement of present and proposed ownership. This has not been done. The submitted plan is not a survey and does not meet the requirements as such. The availability of public utilities has not been fully addressed. Water: A water main extension from the tank to the west end of Rivercrest Drive will be required to obtain water service to this project. on -site fire protection will be required. 3 August 29, 1996 SUBDIVISION i-TEM ND • B (Cont. ) FILE _NO.: 5-548 I The areas of the site to be devoted to landscaping have not been identified. Sec. 36-502(b.d.2) specifies, for multi -family complexes, that i% parking spaces be provided for each dwelling unit. The applicant has provided 2 spaces for each unit. The Master Street Plan currently shows Candlewood Rd. as a collector street, extending on over to Pennicle Valley Rd. The applicant, in this application, is not proposing to provide for this extension, nor to build the street to collector standards. If a change in the Master Street Plan is desired by the applicant and deemed desirable by the Planning and Public Works staffs, and concurrence is given by the Planning Commission and Board of Directors, a change should be made. Otherwise, conformance with the Master Street Plan is mandated. The Plans Review Specialist comments: The proposed building setbacks are sufficient to allow for the required buffer areas. There is sufficient area for landscaping. to comply with both the Ordinances. E. ANALYSIS: The development will be required Land Use Buffer and Landscaping The applicant reports that, with "super -elevation" of the roadway at the reverse curves going up the slope, the roadway can meet Master Street Plan requirements. ("Super - elevation" means warping, or sloping, the road bed at the curves, like is done on a race tract, so that it is not a flat road at the curved sections.) In any event, compliance with Master Street Plan standards is a requirement noted by Public Works. The internal drives, too, must meet Public Works standards. Unless the applicant is prepared to comply with the Master Street Plan, an application to amend the Plan needs to be initiated by the applicant. The issue of subdividing the property with the provision of the right-of-way along the north edge of the property needs to be addressed. 4 August 29, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S--548--I_ F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the applicant's request to withdrawn the Site Plan application. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (APRIL 4, 1996) Mr. Tim Daters, with White-Daters and Associates, Inc., the project engineering firm representing the applicant, was present. Staff presented the discussion outline to Mr. Daters and to the Committee members. Staff reviewed with the Committee the proposed site plan. David Scherer, with the Public works staff, reported on the Public works comments, and discussed in detail the issues of the standards to which Candlewood Rd. must be built, the requirement for extending Candlewood Rd. to the west, as shown on the Master Street Plan, and the requirements for the internal drives. Mr. Daters responded that he would discuss the issues raised with the developer. The Planning staff discussed the deficiencies in the submitted drawings and information, indicating, especially, that cross-section topographic information is mandatory. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 25, 1996) Staff reported that the applicant requested a deferral to the May 9th. Rezoning Agenda, to coincide with the rezoning request on the property which will be heard on that date. Staff recommended approval of the requested deferral, and the deferral was included on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The deferral was approved with the vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent, and 0 abstentions. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MAY 16, 1996) This item was not discussed in as much as there are continuing discussions between the developer and staff on street issues. The item requires deferral to the July 18, 1996 Subdivision meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 6, 1996) This item was placed on the Consent Agenda by the Commission as suggested by the Subdivision Committee in order to permit additional time for the developer and staff to complete discussion of the street issues and the developer to determine acquisition of the property. 5 August 29, 1996 UBDIVI iON ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-548-I The Consent Agenda for deferral until July 18, 1996 was approved by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 27, 1996) This item was not discussed at the Subdivision Committee meeting due to the applicant's failure to provide additional information as to resolution of the site plan access and location of the primary road to the site. The Staff and Committee would suggest that this item be continued one additional deferral or until August 29, 1996. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996) The Staff offered comment to the effect that this applicant and the staff require additional time to determine the design of certain street access to serve the proposed development. Staff suggested this matter will be resolved prior to the next Subdivision Committee meeting on August 8 or staff will ask that it be withdrawn from further consideration. Staff suggested that it be placed on the Consent Agenda for deferral until August 29, 1996. After a brief discussion, the Commission determined it appropriate to defer the item to August 29, 1996. A motion to that effect was made and passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent and 1 open position. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 8, 1996) Mr. Tim Daters, project engineer asked to withdrawn the Site Plan request. The item will be forwarded to the full Commission for action on the withdrawal request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 29, 1996) The Staff relayed the applicant's request to withdraw the Site Plan Review. This item was included as part of the Consent Withdrawal Agenda. A motion to approve the Consent Withdrawal Agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 open position. 2