HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0955 Staff AnalysisSeptember 22, 1992
ITEM NO.: 8 FILE NO.: S-955
NAME: Ridgehill Apartments - Subdivision Site Plan Review
LOCATION: North side of Highway 10 at the intersection north of
Sam Peck Road
DEVELOPER:
ENGINEER•
SOUTHWIDE MARKETING, INC. WHITE-DATERS AND ASSOCIATES
300 East Roosevelt Road 401 Victory Street
Little Rock, AR 72206 Little Rock, AR 72201
AREA: 30± acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING: MF-12, Multifamily PROPOSED USES: Apartments
PLANNING DISTRICT: River Mountain (1)
CENSUS TRACT: 42.05
VARIANCES -REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
This application was filed for purposes of restoring a multifamily
site plan and classification on this property. At an earlier time,
this site was classified as planned residential district, and a
site plan had been approved for apartment structures in a scattered
location along the south slope of the Walton Heights hill. The
developer proposes the construction of 264 apartment units on the
site which will consist of two phases. The two phases will consist
of 132 units each and will include one and two bedroom units. The
project will be served by a single serpentine road winding
northward from Highway 10 at its intersection with Sam Peck Road.
A common access point with Sam Peck Road is proposed in order to
expedite access to and from the site.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting a subdivision site plan review
which will accompany a rezoning application, which is Item
No. 9 on this agenda. This rezoning action is proposed by the
applicant to recapture the previous density approved on the
property as a planned residential district. The neighborhood
land use plan indicates the site for multifamily at a density
compatible with this application.
1
September 22, 1992
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-955
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The subject site contains some moderate to difficult grade
which slopes from the Walton Heights hillside to Highway 10.
The site contains several residential structures, a barn and a
small lake at about midpoint in the site. There is a
significant drainage course coming from the northwest corner
and one from the northeast corner which converge on the lake
area. The lower elevation of the property along Highway 10
has the more moderate slope.
C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS:
The construction of sidewalks along the Highway 10 frontage is
required. The redesign of the entry way from Highway 10 in a
manner that will properly accommodate a workable flow at the
intersection of Highway 10. Remove any traffic islands or
other conflicting control devices in the center of the
pavement. Provide a minimum of 200 feet of 36 foot pavement
for purposes of a three lane entry way to allow a left turn
movement from the site. Stormwater Detention and Excavation
Ordinances apply.
Little Rock Waste Water Utility
A sewer main extension is required to serve this site with
appropriate easements and capacity contribution analysis. The
Isom Creek interceptor fee must be paid on this property prior
to sewer main extension and construction, contact Waste Water
Utility for details.
Fire Department
The department requires that a minimum 20 foot width be
provided on all interior access streets and "no parking" signs
be placed everywhere, except in designated parking spaces to
provide an accessible fire lane. This is due to the limited
circulation for this project.
D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICAL/DESIGN:
The Landscape and Buffer Ordinance applies to three sides of
this property which will require large buffers and significant
landscape strips. Every effort should be made to obtain
natural foliage or possible and in those areas where parking
and drives intrude upon the buffer and landscaping. A
specific plan must be submitted to mitigate the removal of
existing foliage. The building adjacent to Highway 10 should
be removed to front 100 feet from Highway 10 in order to
comply with the Highway 10 Overlay District. Buffering and
landscaping along Highway 10 should be provided in a manner to
retain existing mature trees and landscape elements now in
September 22, 1992
ITEM NO.: 8 Cont. FILE NO.: S-955
place. The overlay ordinance requires a sprinkler system to
water landscape areas. The landscape ordinance requires
landscape borders such as curb and gutter be installed to
protect landscape areas from vehicular use. A planting of
evergreen shrubs, 30 inches in height, about the vehicular use
area would be effective screening and permitted as the
required screen for Highway 10.
Particular attention should be paid to the design of parking
and landscaping in the front 40 feet due to the elevation of
Highway 10 being somewhat below the area to be landscaped.
The parking area immediately west of the entrance drive from
Highway 10 should be modified to accommodate the 40 foot
required landscape buffer or the intrusion must be mitigated
at another point. The design of the serpentine roadway to
serve this project indicates several areas with parking spaces
backing into a curve, this could be a dangerous traffic
movement. Further review of this design should be
accomplished with a view to reducing potential collision.
E. ANALYSIS:
The site plan offered is somewhat similar in nature to the one
previously approved by the Planning Commission. The location
of multiple apartment buildings on this hillside is limited
and almost any approach will be similar to the one offered in
this plan. The neighborhood relationships, access and
compatibility with the adopted land use plan suggest this
project to be entirely appropriate to this site.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the application as filed subject
to the resolution of the design issues raised above.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (SEPTEMBER 3, 1992)
A lengthy discussion of this proposal was held. There were several
offerings from staff which the developer felt could not be,properly
pursued without adversely affecting the project. Public Works had
originally recommended the driveway entrance be moved to the west
as a safety feature. Planning staff suggested that this
application would be better served if the driveway access on
Highway 10 aligned with Sam Peck Road in a way, that at some point,
a traffic signal could be located and provide better access for
both sides of Highway 10. Left turn movements at a point further
west were felt to be difficult, especially during peak traffic
hours.
The Traffic Engineers staff decided that the movement of the
driveway to the west was not a necessity, and if properly
redesigned as a street entry into Highway 10, the driveway could be
3
September 22, 1992
ITEM NO.: 8 Cont. FILE NO.: S-955
placed at the Sam Peck intersection. There were comments offered
about drainage and some general design with no resolution of the
issues.
The Committee forwarded this item to the full Commission for final
resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 22, 1992)
Mr. Charles Owen was present and represented the application.
Staff offered its recommendation and in doing so pointed out to
the Commission that it had come to their attention that the design
intent of this project included a vertical cut in the hill mass
between 30 and 40 feet along the north property line. This is
entirely unacceptable and not permitted by ordinance. At this
point, Mr. Owen presented a revised site plan of the project. The
site plan, as offered, redesigned the layout of parking, drives and
buildings in order to move the development westward on the site and
to the south away from the potential hillside cut.
A lengthy discussion then followed as to the appropriateness of
accepting the revised plan at this point. Richard Wood of staff
pointed out that the plan was detailed enough that we could accept
it at this point as the revised plan subject to the applicant
placing detail dimensions and information on the site plan. All of
the basic numbers of units and other factors would remain the same.
Mr. Owen was instructed to provide staff with revised copies of the
plan.
A brief discussion followed involving the various participants in
this issue resulting in a motion to approve this application for
site plan review. This approval is subject to the conditions
proposed by the Traffic Engineers office concerning the access
point onto Highway 10, the Highway 10 Overlay standards and
redesign to avoid the hillside cut. The motion passed by a vote of
8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 abstention (Ramsay Ball).
4
September 22, 1992
ITEM NO.: 8 Cont. FILE NO.: S-955
placed at the Sam Peck intersection. There were comments offered
about drainage and some general design with no resolution of the
issues.
The Committee forwarded this item to the full Commission for final
resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 22, 1992)
Mr. Charles Owen was present and represented the application.
Staff offered its recommendation and in doing so pointed��o the
Commission that it had come to their attention that the design
intent of this project included a vertical cut in the hill mass
between 30 and 40 feet along the north property line. This is
entirely unacceptable and not permitted by ordinance. At this
point, Mr. Owen presented a revised site plan of the project. The
site plan, as offered, redesigned the layout of parking, drives and
buildings in order to move the development westward on the site and
to the south away from the potential hillside cut.
A lengthy discussion then followed as to the appropriateness of
accepting the revised plan at this point. Richard Wood of staff
pointed out that the plan was detailed enough that we could accept
it at this point as the revised plan subject to the applicant
placing detail dimensions and information on the site plan. All of
the basic numbers of units and other factors would remain the same.
Mr. Owen was instructed to provide staff with revised copies of the
plan.
A brief discussion followed involving the various participants in
this issue resulting in a motion to approve this application for
site plan review. This approval is subject to the conditions
proposed by the Traffic Engineers office concerning the access
point onto Highway 10, the Highway 10 Overlay standards and
redesign to avoid the hillside cut. The motion passed by a vote of
8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent and 1 abstention (Ramsay Ball).
4