HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-1636 Staff AnalysisSeptember 3, 2009
ITEM NO.: 1 FILE NO.:
NAME: Heights Addition Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: Located East of South Ridge Drive, just South of the Walton Heights
Subdivision and North of Trinity Assembly of God Church
DEVELOPER:
Kenneth Shollmier
6000 Scott Hamilton Drive
Little Rock, AR 72209
ENGINEER:
The Holloway Firm, Inc.
Attn. Robert Holloway
200 Cassey Drive
Maumelle, AR 72113
AREA: 16.43 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 30 + 1 Tract FT. NEW STREET: 1,276.63 LF
CURRENT ZONING
PLANNING DISTRICT:
R-2, Single-family
1 — River Mountain
CENSUS TRACT: 42.05
VARIANCESIWAIVERS REQUESTED:
1. Section 31-202(a) — A variance to allow a street to terminate within fifty (50) feet of
the property line.
2. Section 31-207(a) — A variance to allow the development of lots utilizing private
streets.
3. A variance from the Land Alteration Ordinance to allow advanced grading of the
area with the installation of the streets and basic infrastructure of the subdivision.
A. PROPOSAUREQUEST:
The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval to allow the development of
16.43 acres with 30 single-family lots and one Tract to be held as a conservation
easement with a nature trail.
September 3, 2009
CI IRni\/141nN
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.
FILE NO.: S-1636
The request includes variances from the Subdivision Ordinance and a variance
from the City's Land Alteration Ordinance to allow grading of the development
area prior to final platting and the issuance of a building permit. The variances
from the Subdivision Ordinance include development of lots with a private street
and the allowance of ending the street within fifty feet (50) of the property line.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is heavily wooded and appears to contain a significant slope from north
to south. The site abuts the Walton Heights Subdivision to the north and to the
south an area zoned Open Space. The site is adjacent to a City of Little Rock
Fire Station, vacant property, an office building, a church and single-family
homes located on large lots all in excess of five (5) acres accessed from River
Mountain Road. Pleasant Ridge Towne Center is located across Cantrell Road
from the site. The Center has developed with a number of retail and restaurant
uses. Within the general area are a number of apartments, commercial and
office uses all located to southeast and southwest of the site, across Cantrell
Road.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS --
As of this writing, staff has received a number of informational phone calls from
area property owners. All abutting property owners and the Walton Heights
Candlewood Property Owners Association were notified of the public hearing.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS
1. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start
of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way
from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner).
2. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (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. The applicant is
requesting a variance to advance grade the lots with construction of the
street. Provide the reasoning for the advanced grading variance request.
3 Per City code, private streets should be built to public street standards.
Provide the profile of the proposed street showing centerline grade, sight
distance, and horizontal radius of the centerline meets the Master Street
Plan standard.
2
September 3, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.
FILE NO. - S-1636
4. Private access is proposed for these lots. In accordance with Section
31-207, private streets must be designed to the same standards as public
streets. A minimum access easement width of 45 feet is required and street
width of at least 27 feet from back of curb to back of back of curb is also
required. Since the street is proposed to be 27 feet wide, parking will not be
restricted within the subdivision.
5. The typical street detail of curb on only one side of the street does not
conform to City standards. Provide the reason for proposed street detail
and the proposed downstream and upstream side of the detail? A variance
must be requested for the proposed street detail.
6. Measures to control an increase in stormwater drainage should be
implemented to not cause damage onto adjacent property from the
increased impervious area.
7. The stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
8. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water
permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the
start of construction.
9. Provide a letter prepared by a registered engineer certifying the sight
distance at the intersection complies with 2004 AASHTO Green Book
standards.
10. If gates are proposed to be installed at the entrance, turn around must be
provided for a SU-30 vehicle attempting to enter the development. A
stacking distance of 30 feet from the pavement of South Ridge Drive must
also be provided.
11. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the
public right-of-way prior to occupancy.
12. Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Traffic
Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction.
13. Streetlights are required by Little Rock code of ordinances. Contact Traffic
Engineering 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information.
14. Street names and street naming conventions must be approved by Public
Works. Contact David Hathcock at (501) 371-4808. Ridge Drive is
repetitive and very similar to an existing street names.
15. No residential waste collection service will be provided on private streets
unless the property owners association provides a waiver of damage claims
for operations on private property.
16. Vegetation must be established on disturbed area within 21 days of
completion of harvest activities.
3
September 3, 2009
ci ian1\/1g1nn1
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.
FILE NO.: S-1636
17. A note on the preliminary and final plats must indicate the streets and
drainage as private within the subdivision.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements for this project.
Gravity sewer service required. Force main not acceptable for this project.
Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for additional information.
Enter : Approved as submitted.
Center -Point Ener : No comment received.
AT & T: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at
the time of request for water service must be met. Please submit plans for water
facilities to Central Arkansas Water for review. Plan revision may be required
after additional require. Contact Central Arkansas Waster regarding procedures
for installation of water facilities. Approval of plans by Central Arkansas Water,
the Arkansas Department of Health Engineering Division and Little Rock Fire
Department is required prior to final platting. This development will have minor
impact on the existing water distribution system. Proposed water facilities will be
sized to provide adequate pressure and fire protection.
Fire Department: Section D107.1 of the 2006 International Fire Code states
developments of one and two family dwellings where the number of dwellings
units exceeds 30 must provide a separate and approved fire apparatus access
road and must meet the minimum specifications for construction including a
minimum pavement width of 26-feet where a fire hydrant is located on the fire
apparatus road. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional
information.
County Planning: No comment
CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. The site is
located near CATA Bus Route #25 — the Highway 10 Express Route.
Parks and Recreation: The developer may want to consider donating Tract -A
Conservancy Dedication to City in a Park Conservancy and Land Trust and zone
it PR. One can expect a deduction in taxes with this donation. I recommend
they discuss this with a knowledgeable attorney and if donation is desired contact
Kellie Wilhite at 603-9900 to make arrangements. If developer concurs with this
0
September 3, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.
F.
G
LE NO.: S-1636
proposal, then we would take responsibility for maintenance of trail and land as
part of parks system under PR zoning.
Parks and Recreation would also appreciate participating in locating the trail in
Tract -A in order to enhance its function and enjoyment as well as coordinating it
with future extension towards Arkansas River Trail. We have been visiting with
neighborhood association to improve trail opportunities for the entire area from
Conner Park to Arkansas River Trail.
ISSUESITECHNICALIDESIGN:
Plannina Division: No comment.
Landscape: No comment.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(August 13, 2009)
Mr. Mark Redder of the Holloway Firm and Mr. Kenneth Shollmier were present
representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the proposed plat
stating there were additional items in need of addressing prior to the plat being
forwarded to the Commission for final action. Staff stated there were a number
of variances proposed with the plat request. Mr. Redder stated the variances
associated with setbacks would be eliminated. He stated the setbacks would
comply with the R-2, Single-family Zoning District.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the request included a
variance from the City's Land Alteration Ordinance to allow grading of the future
lots prior to the issuance of building permits for the new homes. Staff requested
Mr. Redder provide a written justification for the request. Mr. Redder stated he
would but in summary the request was necessary due to the grades of the
property. Staff also stated the entry drives, if gated, would require a turn around
for an SU-30 vehicle.
Staff stated the site was proposed with thirty-three lots and according to the
International Fire Code, developments with thirty lots or more require the
placement of a separate fire apparatus access road. Staff suggested Mr. Redder
contact the Fire Department for additional information and options.
Staff noted the comment received from the Parks Department suggesting
Mr. Shollmier and Mr. Redder contact Ms. Wilhite for additional information.
Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies
suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification.
5
September 3, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1
FILE NO.: S-1636
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat to staff addressing the issues
raised at the August 13, 2009, Subdivision Committee meeting. The revised plat
indicates building setbacks consistent with the R-2, Single-family zoning district.
Tract A contains 8.355 acres and is indicated as a Conservancy Dedication. The
applicant has indicated negotiations will continue with the City of Little Rock
Parks and Recreation Department and the National Conservancy to determine
the entity the open space area will be dedicated to. The developer has reduced
the number of lots to 30 to comply with the 2006 International Fire Code thus not
requiring a secondary fire access road.
The plat indicates the construction of a single cul-de-sac street extending from
South Ridge Drive to the east for 1,276.63 feet. The street is proposed as a
private street with 25 feet of pavement. The development is not proposed as a
gated development.
The development is proposed on 16.438 acres with 8.355 acres set aside for
common useable open space. The development is proposed with 30 lots and
one tract resulting in a density of 1.82. The average lot size proposed is
0.220 acres.
The request includes variances from the Subdivision Ordinance and a variance
from the City's Land Alteration Ordinance to allow grading within the lot areas
prior to final platting and the issuance of a building permit. The applicant has
indicated the variance request from the Land Alteration Ordinance is necessary
to allow the site to balance. The applicant has indicated the new street will be
constructed on a ridge and the advanced grading will allow a place to store the
dirt during the construction process.
The variances from the Subdivision Ordinance include development of lots with
private streets and the allowance of ending a street within fifty feet of the property
line. The Subdivision Ordinance states private streets for residential development
shall be discouraged. However, private streets may be approved by the Planning
Commission to serve isolated developments. The design standards shall conform
to public street standards as specified in Chapter 31. Private streets are
permissible only in the form of cul-de-sac and short loop streets and. only when it
has been determined that these streets can be adequately served by all public
service vehicles.
0
September 3, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1636
The Subdivision Ordinance also states where a street does not extend to the
boundary of a subdivision, and its continuation is not necessary for access to
adjoining property, its terminus shall not be closer than fifty (50) feet to such
boundary. The applicant has indicated the cul-de-sac street located within ten
feet of the property line.
The preliminary plat indicates the placement of a retaining wall along the
southern portion of the cul-de-sac at the east end. The height of the wall must
comply with the City's Land Alteration Ordinance. The design plans for the
retaining wall must be submitted to staff and certified by a professional engineer
prior to construction and as built plans must be provided to staff and certified by a
professional engineer prior to final platting.
Staff is supportive of the request. The development is a single-family subdivision
with a density of 1.82 units per acre, well within the density allowed per the City's
Future Land Use Plan. Due to the terrain of the site, staff is supportive of the
variance request to allow advanced grading of the lots with the placement of the
infrastructure for the subdivision. Staff feels the applicant has done a good job in
addressing concerns raised related to the development of the property for this
residential subdivision. To staff's knowledge there are no outstanding technical
issues associated with the request.
AFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda
staff report.
Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow advanced grading of
the individual lots with the placement of the basic infrastructure.
Staff recommends approval of the variance request from the Subdivision
Ordinance to allow the development of the subdivision utilizing private streets
and the variance request to allow the street to terminate within fifty (50) feet of
the property line.
The design plans for the retaining wall must be submitted to staff and certified by
a professional engineer prior to construction and as built plans must be provided
to staff and certified by a professional engineer prior to final platting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 3, 2009)
Mr. Bob Holloway and Mr. Mark Redder were present representing the request. Staff
presented the item with a recommendation of approval of the preliminary plat and the
7
September 3, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO,: 1 (Cont.
FILE NO.: S-1636
associated variances and the requested variance from the City's Land Alteration
Ordinance to allow advanced grading on the site.
Mr. Bob Holloway was present representing the applicant. He stated the development
was a special development. He stated the developer wanted to take advantage of the
commercial in the area. He stated the lots were smaller lots and larger homes. He
stated the developer wanted to be a good neighbor to adjoining property owner by
leaving a large buffer between the existing homes and the new homes. He stated the
entrance to the subdivision was located as far north as possible and the sight distance
meet the requirements of the City. He stated the development would not be gated but
the street would be constructed as a private street.
Mr. Steve Reed, President of the Walton Heights Neighborhood Association, addressed
the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated the City code only allowed for
30 homes to be placed on a cul-de-sac. He stated Walton Heights was the longest
cul-de-sac with 465 homes presently located in the area. He stated he was aware the
second access was removed by the City at the request of the neighborhood a number
of years ago. He stated the subdivision was 15.5 times the maximum number of homes
allowed on a cul-de-sac per the code. He stated the dramatic sloping sharp curve in
Southridge Drive where the developer wanted to place access was the most dangerous
traffic area in the neighborhood. He stated there had been a number accidents in this
location over the years. He stated vehicles missed the sharp turn and also vehicles
coming up the hill cut the curve entering the opposite travel lane. He stated residents
had expressed skepticism regarding the location of the access and its compliance with
AASHTO standards.
Mr. Reed stated it was no secret the intersection of Southridge and Cantrell Road was
one of the most traveled and congested intersections in the City. He stated because of
the four traffic lights on Cantrell Road within such a short distance, it was not
uncommon for morning traffic to be stopped and the intersection full of east bound traffic
when Southridge finally was allowed it's very brief green time it was impossible to enter
the intersection.
Mr. Reed stated the neighborhood felt based on the four concerns raised was a basis
for the Commission to deny the request. He stated the development was purely a
financial issue for the developer but to the 465 families within almost 1000 vehicles
1000 voters and 2000 residents this was a matter of safety consideration for the
residents as well as the numerous visitors, school buses and delivery vehicles in the
neighborhood. He requested the Commission enforce the City's existing codes and
require the developer access Cantrell Road in a different location. He stated the
neighborhood understood the current access was the cheapest solution for the
developer, but they felt the safety of all the thousands of residents and visitors was
immeasurable more important.
September 3, 2009
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 1
FILE NO.: S-
Mr. Reed also stated the retention ponds were indicated on the site plan with very little
information. He questioned if the retention ponds would pollute the adjacent park areas.
Mr. Steve Jennings addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated
he was opposed to the development and the addition traffic. He stated the access point
created concern. He stated currently it was difficult to leave the subdivision in the
morning and with the additional homes the traffic would only increase.
Mr. Jim Pearsell addressed the Commission in opposition. He stated his home backed
up to the area proposed for development. He stated presently his view was of trees
and soon his view would be of roof tops. He stated the lots as proposed were out of
character for the neighborhood. He stated he did not like the idea of the subdivision in
this location.
Mr. Steve Giles addressed the Commission in opposition. He stated the concern was
with traffic both on Southridge and Cantrell Road. He stated with the abandonment of
the secondary access to the neighborhood there was a large volume of traffic existing
the neighborhood at one exit. He stated there were discussions at the neighborhood
meeting concerning how traffic could be relieved at the intersection of the subdivision
and Cantrell Road. He stated the neighborhood wanted to send a message to the City
who could then request from Metroplan who could then request of AHTD a study to
review the problem area and suggest solutions to the congestion.
Mr. Holloway addressed the Commission stating the access was located as far away
from the curve as could be located. He stated the curve was signed 10 mph and the
remainder of Southridge was signed 30 mph. He stated screening would be placed
along the rear of lots along Southridge. He stated the green space proposed was 500
feet in the widest point. He stated by right the developer could develop the area left as
a conservation easement but he did not desire to develop the site at the maximum
density. He state the developer did not want to commit to joining the Walton Heights
Property Owners Association but to leave this choice to the future homeowners.
Mr. Mark Redder addressed the Commission on behalf of the owner. He stated almost
one-half of the acreage was being dedicated to green space. He stated the speeds on
Southridge needed to be addressed some other way other than not allowing access to
the new subdivision. He stated there was no other access to this property other than
Southridge. He stated the neighborhood could have a second access but elected to
create the current situation of one way in and out of the subdivision.
There was a general discussion of the Commission and why the Master Street Plan was
amended to remove the second connection from the area. Staff stated a developer had
applied to the City to develop some multi -family zoned property and construct the
western access to Candlewood. Staff stated the neighborhood was not in support of
allowing those people access to their neighborhood and the meet the wishes of the
9
September 3, 2009
SUBDIVISION
19:40TWISM
residents the City removed the connection from the Master Street Plan and abandoned
right of way to no longer physically allow the connection.
There was a general discussion by the Commission concerning the development, the
speeds on Southridge, traffic congestion on Cantrell Road, and the sight distance of the
entrance to the subdivision. Staff stated the sight distance.,provided was minimal but
traffic engineering had reviewed the request and approved the location of the street.
The Commission questioned the minimum lot size and the average lot size proposed
within the subdivision. Mr. Redder stated the average lot size was one quarter of an
acre or 9,000 square feet. The Commission questioned the sales projects for the
development. Mr. Redder stated he was not sure but felt the lots would sell in a short
period of time.
A motion was made to approve the request as presented by staff including all staff
comments and conditions. The motion failed by a vote of 5 ayes, 5 noes and 1 absent.
A motion was made to approve the variance request from the City's Land Alteration
Ordinance. The motion failed by a vote of 4 ayes, 6 noes and 1 absent.
10