Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-1649-B Staff AnalysisNovember 4, 2010 ITEM NO.: 4 NAME: The Valley Estates Subdivision Site Plan Review LOCATION: Located at 9501 Mabelvale Pike DEVELOPER: Richsmith Holdings, LLC 9800 Maumelle Boulevard Maumelle, AR 72118 FNC;INFFR- The Holloway Firm 200 Casey Drive Maumelle, AR 72113 FILE NO.: S-1649-B AREA: 6.155 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 559 LF CURRENT ZONING: C-3, General Commercial District PLANNING DISTRICT: 15 — Geyer Springs West CENSUS TRACT: 41.05 VARIANCESNVAIVERS REQUESTED: 1. A variance from the Land Alteration Ordinance to allow grading on proposed Lot 7 with the development of Lots 5 and 6. 2. A variance from Section 36-301(d) to allow an increase in the building height from 35-feet allowed to a building height of 50-feet 6-inches proposed. BACKGROUND: The Little Rock Planning Commission approved a preliminary plat request on April 8, 2010, to allow the creation of four (4) lots from a 20-acre parcel which included the area proposed for development with the current request. A revision to the preliminary plat was approved on August 12, 2010, to allow the creation of eight (8) lots within this same 20-acre parcel. November 4, 2010 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1649-B A rezoning request from C-3, General Commercial District to PD-R for Lots 3 and 4 was approved to allow these lots to develop as elderly housing. These two (2) buildings were approved with a building height of 50-feet 6-inches. The rezonings were approved by the Board of Directors on May 4, 2010 and September 21, 2010 respectively. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: The applicant is now requesting a subdivision site plan review for the development of Lots 5 and 6 with four (4) buildings, each containing 24 units of multi -family residential housing. The multi -family buildings are proposed three (3) stories with a total height of 50-feet 6-inches. The multi -family buildings are proposed each containing 9,960 square feet. The development is also proposed with a single story clubhouse containing 2,400 square feet. The site plan also includes the placement of a pool, playground areas, volleyball court and two (2) picnic areas. The property is not located within a recorded subdivision therefore there is not a Bill of Assurance for this site. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The street to serve the previously approved PD-R rezoning request is currently under construction. There are a number of large trees located on the site both in the area proposed for development and within the area proposed for future development. In the general area there are a number of uses including commercial, residential and industrial type uses. To the northeast of the proposed development area is a big box retailer, Home Depot. Northwest of the site are two (2) single-family structures and southwest of the site is a single- family structure. All About Tires and Brakes is located northwest of the site fronting Mabelvale Pike. Arkansas Signs and Barricade is located further west of the site on Davmar Drive. Mabelvale Pike is a two lane road with open ditches for drainage. Street improvements have been completed on a number of properties which have redeveloped located to the north. The improvements include curb, gutter and sidewalk. There are no improvements adjacent to this site. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received a few informational phone calls from area. residents. All property owners located within 200-feet of the site, Southwest United for Progress, the Pinedale Neighborhood Association and the Mavis Circle Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing. KA November 4, 2010 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 Cont. FILE NO.: S-1649-B D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS- 1. A temporary turn around consisting of compacted gravel with a radius of 80 feet must be provided at the eastern end of Richsmith Lane for emergency vehicles. 2. Prior to final platting, provide design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct street improvement to Richsmith Lane including sidewalks on both sides. The street should be 36 feet in width with a 60 foot right-of-way. 3. Due to projected volume of vehicle turning movements onto Richsmith Lane and Mabelvale Pike, boundary street improvements are required to be constructed on Mabelvale Pike prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy on the proposed development. 4. 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). 5. Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 6. 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. 7. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 8. Streetlights are required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Provide plans for approval to Traffic Engineering. Streetlights must be installed prior to platting/certificate of occupancy. Contact Traffic Engineering 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information. 9. Damage to public and private property due to hauling operations or operation of construction related equipment from a nearby construction site shall be repaired by the responsible party prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 10. If disturbed area is one (1) or more acres, obtain a NPDES stormwater permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction. 11. Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Traffic Engineering must approve completed plans prior to construction. 3 November 4, 2010 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1649-B E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required, with easements for Lot 6. Contact Little Rock Wastewater for additional information. Entergy: Approved as submitted. Center -Point Ener : Approved as submitted. 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 revisions may be required after additional review. Contact Central Arkansas Water 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. 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. A main extension will be needed to provide water service to the back of this property. Additional fire hydrant(s) will be required. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department to obtain information regarding the required placement of the hydrant(s) and contact Central Arkansas Water regarding procedures for installation of the hydrant(s). A Capital Investment Charge based on the size of meter connection(s) will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. This fee will apply to all connections including metered connections off the private fire system. Due to the nature of this facility, installation of an approved reduced pressure zone backflow preventer assembly (RPZ) is required on the domestic water service. This assembly must be installed prior to the first point of use. Central Arkansas Water (CAW) requires that upon installation of the RPZA, successful tests of the assembly must be completed by a Certified Assembly Tester licensed by the State of Arkansas and approved by CAW. The test results must be sent to CAW's Cross Connection Section within ten days of installation and annually thereafter. Contact the Cross Connection Section at 377-1226 if you would like to discuss backflow prevention requirements for this project. Fire Department-. Gates must maintain a minimum opening width of 20-feet. Install fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department for additional information. County Plannin : No comment received. CATA: The site is not located on a dedicated CATA Bus Route. M November 4, 2010 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1649-B Parks and Recreation: No comment. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN- Planning Division: No comment. Landscape: 1. Site plan must comply with the City's landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. 2. The zoning street buffer ordinance requires an average twenty-six foot (26') wide street buffer along Richsmith Lane and in no case should be less than half. 3. The zoning ordinance requires a thirty-three foot (33') wide land use buffer along the western property lines next to the residentially zoned properties. Seventy percent (70%) of this area is to remain undisturbed. 4. A six foot (6) high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall or dense evergreen planting, is also required along the western property lines next to the residentially zoned property. 5. The landscape ordinance requires a minimum of nine -foot (9) wide landscape strip around the sites entirety. A variance from the City Beautiful Commission must be obtained prior to the issuance of a building permit. 6. The landscape ordinance requires a minimum of 8 % of the paved areas be landscaped with interior islands of at least 7 '/2 feet in width and 300 square feet in area. Interior islands are to be evenly distributed throughout the property. 7. An automatic irrigation system is required. 8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, it will be necessary to provide landscape plans stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect. 9. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees as feasible on this site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or larger. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (October 14, 2010) Mr. Mark Redder of the Holloway firm was present representing the request. Staff presented the item stating there were a few outstanding technical issues associated with the site plan in need of addressing prior to the Commission 5 November 4, 2010 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont. FILE NO.: S-1649-B acting on the request. Staff questioned if the units would be age restricted. Staff also questioned if the units would be market rate units. Staff requested Mr. Redder provide details of any proposed fencing and details of any proposed signage. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a temporary turn -around would be required at the eastern end of the street. Staff stated due to the volume of traffic generated from this development as well as the two previous approvals street construction to Mabelvale Pike would be required at this time. Staff questioned if advanced grading was being requested. Staff also questioned if the development would be gated. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated a land use buffer was required along the western perimeter of the site. Staff stated screening in this area was also required. Staff stated the back-up space located along the eastern perimeter of the site was indicated within the minimum landscape strip. Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification. 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 site plan addressing the issues raised at the October 14, 2010, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant indicated details of the proposed fencing and signage. The lots proposed for development are not proposed as gated. The revised site plan indicates screening will be placed along the western perimeter and the parking has been redesigned to allow for the minimum landscape strip required by the City's Landscape Ordinance along the eastern perimeter. The applicant has indicated the units will not be solely market rate units. The applicant has indicated the units will be income and rent restricted for individuals and persons will have to qualify to occupy the units. The units are proposed as workforce housing with the targeted occupancy as teachers, firemen, police, etc. The development is not "HUD" housing or subsidized housing. The units will not be age restricted. The development is proposed as a multi -family development. The site will maintain an on -site manager and the maintenance personal will also reside on site. The request is a Subdivision Site Plan review to allow for multiple buildings on the proposed lots. The site plan indicates the placement of four (4) buildings on two (2) lots. The buildings are proposed containing 24 units each for a total of November 4, 2010 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO. S-1649-B 96 units. The units are proposed with a single access from Richsmith Lane. There is not a gate proposed with this phase of the development. The site is presently zoned C-3, General Commercial District which allows for multi -family development at a density not to exceed the R-5 zoning district or 36 units per acre., Lot 5 contains 2.516 acres and is proposed with 48 units for a density of 19.07 units per acre and Lot 6 is proposed with 2.434 acres and 48 units for a density of 19.72 units per acre. The overall density of the two (2) lots is 19.35 units per acre. The units are proposed as three (3) story with a maximum building height of 50-feet 6-inches. The C-3, General Commercial Zoning District allows a maximum building height of 35-feet. The applicant is seeking a variance to allow the increased building height. The two (2) developments approved for elderly housing to the west were approved with the same building height as proposed for this development. The applicant has indicated a single development sign will be located near the entrance to the development. The sign is proposed consistent with signage allowed in multi -family zones or a maximum of six (6) feet in height and thirty-two (32) square feet in area. Building signage will comply with building signage allowed in multi -family zones. The site plan indicates the placement of a perimeter fence. The fencing along Richsmith Lane, the western and northern perimeter is proposed as a six (6) foot decorative fence with brick columns. The fencing along the western perimeter is proposed as a six (6) foot decorative fence with plantings placed within this area to provide the required screening. The applicant has indicated they do not desire to construct the improvements to Mabelvale Pike with the current application request. The applicant has indicated they do not feel the addition of this phase of the development will generate enough traffic to warrant the street construction. Staff does not feel this is the case. With the two (2) previous approvals near 200 units of multi -family housing are being constructed on this section of the street. Staff feels there will be a need for a turn lane from Mabelvale Pike adjacent to this site and the addition of paving on the street would allow the turn lane to be installed. Although staff is supportive of the application request and the associated variance to allow the increased building height staff is not supportive of request to not make the improvements to Mabelvale Pike with this development. Therefore, staff can not support the request as filed. 7 November 4, 2010 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION FILE NO.: S-1649- (NOVEMBR 4, 2010) Mr. Robert Holloway was present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item stating the applicant had agreed to constructing improvements to Mabelvale Pike. Staff stated they were now supportive of the request. Staff stated the specifics of the improvements were that the street improvements along the east side of Mabelvale Pike would be initiated within twenty-four (24) months of the issuance of a building permit for construction of this development (Lot 5 & 6 of the Orchards of Mabelvale Addition). Staff stated the street construction would include the widening of Mabelvale Pike and the installation of a maximum 150 linear feet of left turn lane onto Richsmith Lane and the associated taper section. Staff stated at the time of development of Lots 1 or 2 of the Orchards of Mabelvale Addition the entire improvements would be completed. Staff presented a recommendation of 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 presented a recommendation of approval of the variance request from Section 36-301(d) to allow an increased building height for the development. Staff also presented a recommendation of approval of the variance request to allow grading on proposed Lot 7 with the development of Lots 5 and 6. Mr. Randy Blue addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated his neighborhood was concerned with the additional traffic the multi -family units would generate. He stated the neighborhood was not opposed to the elderly housing because these units would most likely not generate the same number of vehicles as a true multi -family development. Ms. April Washington addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated the concerns were traffic and safety. She stated there were a number of apartments on Stagecoach Road and there were safety concerns within the area. She stated elderly housing would not generate traffic the same as multi -family. She stated Stagecoach Road was a four lane road and Mabelvale Pike was only a two lane road. She stated the additional units would generate traffic which would impact the residents of Pinedale. Mr. Holloway stated the developers would install street improvements to help minimize the traffic concerns of the residents. He stated Ms. Danielle Null was the owners representative and would address some of the concerns of the residents. Ms. Null stated the development would have on -site security and an on -site maintenance person. She stated the company conducted criminal and credit checks on all tenants. She November 4, 2010 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: S-1649-B stated the only persons allowed within the residents were persons on the lease. She stated if an of age child moved back in with the parents the child would have to be added to the lease or leave. Commissioner Rector stated the purpose of the review was not if the use was allowed but if the site met the development criteria of the ordinance. He stated the developers were complying with ordinance standards with the exception of the height variance. He stated under the current zoning a maximum of 36-units per acre were allowed. He stated the developers were proposing a little over 19-units per acre which was allowed under the current zoning. There was a motion to approve the applicant's request for a variance from the City's Land Alteration Ordinance. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 2 open positions. A motion was made to approve the site plan review and the associated building height variance. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 2 open positions. 9