Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0969-B Staff AnalysisAugust 8, 1995 ITEM NQ, FILE NO. - -B DAME: CHENAL PARR APARTMENTS -- SITE PLAN REVIEW LOCATION: On the -north side of Chenal Parkway, -approximately 0.25 mile west of the Pride Valley Dr. intersection and entrance to Parkway-Vil-lage:-- - - DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Frank Riggins MLP INVESTMENTS THE MEHLBURGER FIRM 11780 Manchester Rd., Suite 207 P. 0. Box 3837 Des Peres, MO 63131 Little Rock, AR 72203 (314) 821-6900 375-5331 AREA: 15.78 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 1,200 ZONIN • MF-18 & 0-3 PLANNING DISTRICT: 19 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: PROPOSED USES: None Multi -Family Residential The applicant proposes the development of a 15.78 acre lot for an apartment project. A total of seven apartment buildings containing 176 dwelling units is planned. A separate clubhouse - office building is to be provided, with a swimming pool adjacent to this building. A total of 377 parking spaces is proposed. Stormwater detention is proposed to be provided at the southwest corner of the facility in a detention pond. The site plan indicates that the south and west boundary streets are to be fully developed per Master Street Plan standards. A. PROPOSAL RE URST: Planning Commission review and approval of a site plan for the Chenal Park Apartments is requested. No variances from Ordinance requirements are requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is currently undeveloped and heavily wooded. The terrain is rugged. A 110 foot Arkansas Power and Light Co. easement bounds the property across the north property line. August 8, 1995 The south boundary street, Venture Dr., is not constructed. The west boundary street, Perimeter Dr. or Wellington Dr., is under construction. -Chenal Parkway, at the southwest corner of the site, is fully constructed. The existing zoning of the tract includes both MF-18 and 0-3 zoning. The eastern two-thirds of the tract is the MF-18 district; the west one-third is 0-3. South of Venture Dr. is a C-2 district; to the east is Parkway Village, a PRD. Across Perimeter Dr. or Wellington Dr. to the west is 0-3 zoned land. To the north of the site is R-2 development. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: The Public Works staff comments that: 1) Stormwater detention and internal drainage systems shall be submitted for approval. 2) The construction of Venture Dr. will require approval. The construction of the large drainage way, including the box culvert under Venture Dr., will require approval. If an open ditch is planned, the ditch may require concrete lining and fencing to protect the public. 3) A grading and excavation permit is required. ADPC&E should be contacted for a permit prior to beginning any construction. 4) The internal drives must be widened to 27 feet, and sidewalks must be provided to provide for a pedestrian circulation system. The drives should be 36 feet in width at the intersections with Venture Dr. and must provide a minimum 100 foot stack space for left turning vehicles. 5) The address of the project will be 15000 Venture Dr. The address cannot be a Chenal Parkway address. Little Rock Municipal Water Works comments that a water main extension and on -site fire protection will be required. Meters will be off public mains. An acreage charge of $300 per acre applies, and this charge is in addition to other costs. Care must be taken to protect the 39" raw water line that crosses the property. Little Rock Wastewater Utility extension, with easements, will reimbursement fees and capacity charged to this project. 2 comments that a sewer main be required. Sewer main contribution charges will be .August 8, 1995 F4117-3!2 CM• ITEM n FILE - -B Arkansas Power and Light Co. noted that additional easements will be required. Arkansas - Louisiana Gas' "Co . - approved `the' "submittal - without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. commented that easements will be required. The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment. The Neighborhoods and Planning Site Plan Review Specialist comments that the areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet and exceed ordinance requirements. Curb and gutter or another approved border will be required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. A "good neighbor" fence or dense evergreen shrubbery will be required along the north property line abutting the residential zoned property. D. T 5 E LEGAL TECHNICAL DESIGN: The site includes both MF-18 and 0-3 zoned property. Either the site needs to be reduced to occupy only the MF-18 portion of the site, or the applicant needs to pursue rezoning of the 0-3 area. The applicant has not indicated in his project narrative that he proposes to construct Venture Dr. as part of this project; yet, Venture Dr. is shown on the site plan as being fully developed. Providing for the construction of Venture Dr. needs to be established. Sec. 36-502 specifies that, for multi -family developments, 1.5 parking spaces is required for each dwelling unit. The office use will require one space for each 400 square feet of floor area. With 176 apartment units proposed, the Ordinance will require 264 spaces; the office -clubhouse will require an additional 8 spaces for a total required of 272 spaces. The applicant proposes to provide 377 spaces. The Neighborhoods and Planning staff point out that the eastern -most entrance drive has a potential blind corner as it turns northward at the first parking lot. This should be addressed. The site plan also needs to show the location and provision for mail boxes. Any proposed signage needs to be shown on the site plan, with a detail drawing provided. 3 °August 8, 1995 ITEM NO.: 5 Cant.) FILE NO.: S-969-H E. ANALYSIS• The site plan, with minor exceptions, meets the requirements of the ordinances. With concerns regarding street improvements being addressed by the applicant, and the need for either changing the zoning of the 0-3 area to a multi- family zoning district or amending the site plan to show the development located only on the MF zoned tract, staff concerns will be addressed. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the site plan, subject to the staff comments being addressed. $U )IVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 20, 1995) No one was present to present the proposed development. Staff outlined the proposal and reviewed with the Committee members present the concerns listed in the discussion outline. The Committee forwarded the site plan to the full Commission for the public hearing. PL-k KING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 8, 1995) The Chairman called this item to public hearing when asked for staff to present its recommendation on the proposal. Richard Wood, of the Planning Staff, offered a brief overview of the history of the application by saying the site plan had been reduced some 30% in land area in order to delete a portion of property which was not zoned properly for apartments. Wood indicated that the staff no longer had specific design concerns about the apartment project, except the drive access from Chenal Parkway has unsolved problems and design. wood also pointed out that there is a proposal to revise the current preliminary plat on this subdivision to accommodate the removal of the 36 foot commercial street running east and west through the project. The developer currently feels that the removal of this street would better accommodate the sales of the lots and development of the project. Wood stated that the Planning Staff was willing to accept the modifications that have been proposed and support the application; therefore, a recommendation is approval subject to resolution of the manner in which the access drive is provided from Chenal Parkway. Mr. Frank Riggins was then recognized by the Chairman. Mr. Riggins came forward to represent the application. He offered a brief history of the project from his perspective. Mr. Riggins 4 August 8, 1995 TIZ . • s pointed out that the write-up in the current Planning Commission agenda did address the larger, former layout of the project. However, much of it remains pertinent to the application before the Commission at this time. He pointed out that the site is now reduced to some 15 acres with a total of 7 buildings and a total of 395 parking spaces on -site to serve the units. Mr. Riggins pointed out that the site plan proposes a significant land area within the project to be retained as open Space. At the conclusion of Mr. Riggins' comments, the Chairman asked for clarification as to whether or not this project would take direct access from the Parkway. Mr. Riggins pointed out that was not the case and the project would be provided access by the subdivision developer at a point which was previously noted for the street intersection. It would be a right turn in and a right turn out with an easement relationship providing access to the apartment project. The Chairman then recognized Commissioner Daniels. Commissioner Daniels offered concern for the submittal of a revision of this magnitude at this late date indicating that the Subdivision Committee had not observed this project. He stated that he was quite uncomfortable with approving something that had not gone through the complaint review process. Mr. Riggins and Richard wood, of the Planning Staff, both responded to Commissioner Daniels' comments by stating that the reason staff was comfortable with the application at this time is because there is not a material change in the layout of the buildings, the parking, landscaping and other design elements of the project. The only significant change is the elimination of the street with the driveway taking access at exactly the same location plus, the elimination of the west 30% or so of the site, zoned O-3. Commissioner Daniels then pointed again to the drawing in his agenda and his concern that what he was looking at before him and what Mr. Riggins was describing, were two different projects in his estimation. A lengthy discussion then followed with concerns of the Commission about not being able to receive information about significant revisions in projects at the last minute. Staff pointed out that this was not always possible primarily due to the early printing time in order to distribute the agenda. However, Staff attempted to be prepared at all times to address these issues verbally and present graphics in meetings indicating changes that have been offered. 5 August 8, 1995 TT(Cont.FILE - -S This discussion was concluded by remarks from Commissioner Adcock who stated that the Commission should take the time and the opportunity in the near future to have a meeting to discuss these kinds of issues. The Chairman then recognized David Scherer, of Public Works Engineering Section. Mr. Scherer came forward and addressed the issue of the elimination of the commercial street and its replacement by a private drive entrance. He pointed out that his first concern was that the notations should be modified on the internal driveway to reflect 27 feet minimum width where they are now noted as 24 feet. Mr. Scherer also offered comments on the clarification of the sidewalk connection from the exterior development to the interior of the apartment complex. Mr. Scherer offered the primary concern that Public Works had about this project being the driveway and the replacement of the commercial street. He stated that the design which was offered to the commission at this time was a short commercial street. He had several questions concerning termination devices, accessing the adjacent commercial site as well as the apartments. He stated that he if it was going to be constructed in this manner with the T-intersection serving the two adjacent parcels, the 36 foot pavement should be extended some 300 feet into the site and terminated with a cul-de-sac. This would be done in a proper street design. Mr. Scherer offered a second option which would be simply a 36 foot commercial drive coming in off the Parkway on an arc entering the project much as it does currently, reducing from the 36 foot pavement to 27 feet as it enters the site. He concluded his remarks with that statement. In response to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Scherer stated that the driveways could not be constructed in the way that they were indicated on the current drawing. He stated that Public Works' primary preference was that this be dealt with as a private drive. A question was then posed by Commissioner Willis. The question being what does the Master Street Plan intend by a 36 feet on the street? David Scherer responded by stating that the Master Street requires as does the Subdivision Ordinance, a 36 foot pavement for commercial or nonresidential development or large apartment complexes. The primary purposes of this wider pavement was to permit access by larger trucks with long wheel bases, moving vans, sanitation vehicles, fire department and such as that. The Chairman then asked Mr. Riggins if he would like to come forward and address some of the comments and questions that have been made. Mr. Riggins offered a brief commentary on what the developer's proposal is at this time. And in clarification of a 0 August 8, 1995 ■:■ �16 ITEM FILE - --B previous point, he responded to a Chairman's question as to whether the internal drives would be reflected as 27 feet. Mr. Riggins responded in the affirmative and that the sidewalk system internally will be connected to external sidewalk. If it was agreed upon in conversation with Public works and if they are willizig to accept it, the private driveway arrangement would be provided. The Chairman then receiving no further request for commentary, placed the item before the Commission for action as it had been outlined by Mr. Riggins. The application was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent and 1 abstention (Ramsay Ball). 7 August 8, 1995 ITEM NQ. , 5 FILE NO.: - -H NAME: CHENAL PARR APARTMENTS -- SITE PLAN REVIEW LOCATION: On the --north side of Chenal Parkway, -approximately 0.25 mile west of the Pride Valley Dr. intersection and entrance to Parkway - Village : - DEVELOPER• ENGINEER: Frank Riggins MLP INVESTMENTS THE MEHLBURGER FIRM 11780 Manchester Rd., Suite 207 P. O. Box 3837 Des Peres, MO 63131 Little Rock, AR 72203 (314) 821-6900 375-5331 AREA: 15.78 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 1,200 ZONING: MF-18 & 0-3 PROPOSED UES: Multi -Family Residential PLANNING DISTRICT: 19 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes the development of a 15.78 acre lot for an apartment project. A total of seven apartment buildings containing 176 dwelling units is planned. A separate clubhouse - office building is to be provided, with a swimming pool adjacent to this building. A total of 377 parking spaces is proposed. Stormwater detention is proposed to be provided at the southwest corner of the facility in a detention pond. The site plan indicates that the south and west boundary streets are to be fully developed per Master Street Plan standards. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Planning Commission review.. and. approval of a site plan for the Chenal Park Apartments is requested. No variances from Ordinance requirements are requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is currently undeveloped and heavily wooded. The terrain is rugged. A 110 foot Arkansas Power and Light Co. easement bounds the property across the north property line. August 8, 1995 BDIVI I ITEM NO, :- --5 Cont. ) FILE- NQ _: 5--969-B The south boundary street, Venture Dr., is not constructed. The west boundary street, Perimeter Dr. or Wellington Dr., is under construction. Chenal Parkway, at the southwest corner of the site, is fully constructed. The existing zoning of the tract includes both MF-18 and 0-3 zoning. The eastern two-thirds of the tract is the MF-18 district; the west one-third is 0-3. South of Venture Dr. is a C-2 district; to the east is Parkway Village, a PRD. Across Perimeter Dr. or Wellington Dr. to the west is 0-3 zoned land. To the north of the site is R-2 development. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: The Public Works staff comments that: 1) Stormwater detention and internal drainage systems shall be submitted for approval. 2) The construction of Venture Dr. will require approval. The construction of the large drainage way, including the box culvert under Venture Dr., will require approval. If an open ditch is planned, the ditch may require concrete lining and fencing to protect the public. 3) A grading and excavation permit is required. ADPC&E should be contacted for a permit prior to beginning any construction. 4) The internal drives must be widened to 27 feet, and sidewalks must be provided to provide for a pedestrian circulation system. The drives should be 36 feet in width at the intersections with Venture Dr. and must provide a minimum 100 foot stack space for left turning vehicles. 5) The address of the project will be 15000 Venture Dr. The address cannot be a Chenal Parkway address. Little Rock Municipal Water Works comments that a water main extension and on -site fire protection will be required. Meters will be off public mains. An acreage charge of $300 per acre applies, and this charge is in addition to other costs. Care must be taken to protect the 39" raw water line that crosses the property. Little Rock Wastewater Utility comments that a sewer main extension, with easements, will be required. Sewer main reimbursement fees and capacity contribution charges will be charged to this project. 2 August 8, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) _ FILE. NO.: 5-969-B Arkansas Power and Light Co. noted that additional easements will be required. Arkansas - Louisiaria Gas --Co'. _ approved --the "submittal without comment. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. commented that easements will be required. The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment. The Neighborhoods and Planning Site Plan Review Specialist comments that the areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet and exceed ordinance requirements. Curb and gutter or another approved border will be required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. A "good neighbor" fence or dense evergreen shrubbery will be required along the north property line abutting the residential zoned property. D. ISSUES LEGAL TECHNICAL DESIGN: The site includes both MF-18 and 0-3 zoned property. Either the site needs to be reduced to occupy only the MF-18 portion of the site, or the applicant needs to pursue rezoning of the 0-3 area. The applicant has not indicated in his project narrative that he proposes to construct Venture Dr. as part of this project; yet, Venture Dr. is shown on the site plan as being fully developed. Providing for the construction of Venture Dr. needs to be established. Sec. 36-502 specifies that, for multi -family developments, 1.5 parking spaces is required for each dwelling unit. The office use will require one space for each 400 square feet of floor area. with 176 apartment units proposed, the Ordinance will require 264 spaces; the office -clubhouse will require an additional 8 spaces for a total required of 272 spaces. The applicant proposes to provide 377 spaces. The Neighborhoods and Planning staff point out that the eastern -most entrance drive has a potential blind corner as it turns northward at the first parking lot. This should be addressed. The site plan also needs to show the location and provision for mail boxes. Any proposed signage needs to be shown on the site plan, with a detail drawing provided. 3 August 8, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM n FILE NO.: S- 6 -B E. ANALYSIS: The site plan, with minor exceptions, meets the requirements of the ordinances. With concerns regarding street improvements being addressed by the applicant, and the need for either changing the zoning of the 0-3 area to a multi- family zoning district or amending the site plan to show the development located only on the MF zoned tract, staff concerns will be addressed. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the site plan, subject to the staff comments being addressed. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JULY 20, 1995) No one was present to present the proposed development. Staff outlined the proposal and reviewed with the Committee members present the concerns listed in the discussion outline. The Committee forwarded the site plan to the full Commission for the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 8, 1995) The Chairman called this item to public hearing when asked for staff to present its recommendation on the proposal. Richard Wood, of the Planning Staff, offered a brief overview of the history of the application by saying the site plan had been reduced some 30% in land area in order to delete a portion of property which was not zoned properly for apartments. Wood indicated that the staff no longer had specific design concerns about the apartment project, except the drive access from Chenal Parkway has unsolved problems and design. Wood also pointed out that there is a proposal to revise the current preliminary plat on this subdivision to accommodate the removal of the 36 foot commercial street running east and west through the project. The developer currently feels that the removal of this street would better accommodate the sales of the lots and development of the project. Wood stated that the Planning Staff was willing to accept the modifications that have been proposed and support the application; therefore, a recommendation is approval subject to resolution of the manner in which the access drive is provided from Chenal Parkway. Mr. Frank Riggins was then recognized by the Chairman. Mr. Riggins came forward to represent the application. He offered a brief history of the project from his perspective. Mr. Riggins 4 August 8, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 5 (gont ) FILE NO.: S-969-H pointed out that the write-up in the current Planning Commission agenda did address the larger, former layout of the project. However, much of it remains pertinent to the application before the Commission at this time. He pointed out that the site is now reduced to some 15 acres with a total of 7 buildings and a total of 395 parking spaces on -site to serve the units. Mr. Riggins pointed out that the site plan proposes a significant land area within the project to be retained as Open Space. At the conclusion of Mr. Riggins' comments, the Chairman asked for clarification as to whether or not this project would take direct access from the Parkway. Mr. Riggins pointed out that was not the case and the project would be provided access by the subdivision developer at a point which was previously noted for the street intersection. It would be a right turn in and a right turn out with an easement relationship providing access to the apartment project. The Chairman then recognized Commissioner Daniels. Commissioner Daniels offered concern for the submittal of a revision of this magnitude at this late date indicating that the Subdivision Committee had not observed this project. He stated that he was quite uncomfortable with approving something that had not gone through the complaint review process. Mr. Riggins and Richard wood, of the Planning Staff, both responded to Commissioner Daniels' comments by stating that the reason staff was comfortable with the application at this time is because there is not a material change in the layout of the buildings, the parking, landscaping and other design elements of the project. The only significant change is the elimination of the street with the driveway taking access at exactly the same location plus, the elimination of the west 30% or so of the site, zoned O-3. Commissioner Daniels then pointed again to the drawing in his agenda and his concern that what he was looking at before him and what Mr. Riggins was describing, were two different projects in his estimation. A lengthy discussion then followed with concerns of the Commission about not being able to receive information about significant -revisions in projects at the last minute. Staff pointed out that this was not always possible primarily due to the early printing time in order to distribute the agenda. However, Staff attempted to be prepared at all times to address these issues verbally and present graphics in meetings indicating changes that have been offered. 5 August 8, 1995 BDIVI I ITEM NO.: 5 _Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-969-B This discussion was concluded by remarks from Commissioner Adcock who stated that the Commission should take the time and the opportunity in the near future to have a meeting to discuss these kinds of issues. The Chairman then recognized David Scherer, of Public Works Engineering Section. Mr. Scherer came forward and addressed the issue of the elimination of the commercial street and its replacement by a private drive entrance. He pointed out that his first concern was that the notations should be modified on the internal driveway to reflect 27 feet minimum width where they are now noted as 24 feet. Mr. Scherer also offered comments on the clarification of the sidewalk connection from the exterior development to the interior of the apartment complex. Mr. Scherer offered the primary concern that Public Works had about this project being the driveway and the replacement of the commercial street. He stated that the design which was offered to the Commission at this time was a short commercial street. He had several questions concerning termination devices, accessing the adjacent commercial site as well as the apartments. He stated that he if it was going to be constructed in this manner with the T-intersection serving the two adjacent parcels, the 36 foot pavement should be extended some 300 feet into the site and terminated with a cul-de-sac. This would be done in a proper street design. Mr. Scherer offered a second option which would be simply a 36 foot commercial drive coming in off the Parkway on an arc entering the project much as it does currently, reducing from the 36 foot pavement to 27 feet as it enters the site. He concluded his remarks with that statement. In response to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Scherer stated that the driveways could not be constructed in the way that they were indicated on the current drawing. He stated that Public Works' primary preference was that this be dealt with as a private drive. A question was then posed by Commissioner Willis. The question being what does the Master Street Plan intend by a 36 feet on the street? David Scherer responded by stating that the Master Street requires as does the Subdivision Ordinance, a 36 foot pavement for commercial or nonresidential development or large apartment complexes. The primary purposes of this wider pavement was to permit access by larger trucks with long wheel bases, moving vans, sanitation vehicles, fire department and such as that. The Chairman then asked Mr. Riggins if he would like to come forward and address some of the comments and questions that have been made. Mr. Riggins offered a brief commentary on what the developer's proposal is at this time. And in clarification of a August 8, 1995 1 C ■ It !E$ItNI ITEM on . FILE NO.: - 6 -B previous point, he responded to a Chairman's question as to whether the internal drives would be reflected as 27 feet. Mr. Riggins responded in the affirmative and that the sidewalk system internally will be connected to external sidewalk. If it was agreed upon in conversation with Public works and if they are willing to accept it, the private driveway arrangement would be provided. The Chairman then receiving no further request for commentary, placed the item before the Commission for action as it had been outlined by Mr. Riggins. The application was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent and 1 abstention (Ramsay Ball). 7