Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-1229-A Staff AnalysisMarch 11, 2004 ITEM NO.: 15 FILE NO.: S-1229-A NAME: Barrow Road Apartments Subdivision Site Plan Review LOCATION: On the West side of John Barrow Road, South of Tanya Drive DEVELOPER: WTH Development 8503 Asher Avenue Little Rock, AR 72204 ENGINEER: Roberts and Williams Associates Landscape Architects 1501 North University Avenue Little Rock, AR 72207 AREA: 13 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 L.F. CURRENT ZONING: MF-12 PLANNING DISTRICT: 11 CENSUS TRACT: 24.04 VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUN The —applicant propose ❑ cons ru buildings of mu E- ami y housing on t his property located on the west side of John Barrow Road, just south of Tanya Drive. The site was zoned MF-12 (Multi -family Residential — 12 units per gross acre) on January 3, 1978 with Ordinance No. 13,393 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors. The west 110 feet of the property ownership was left as R-2 zoning, when the remainder of the property was zoned, to serve as a buffer between this site and the single-family property to the west. The applicant proposed to develop multi -family residences on the site. The density proposed was under the twelve units per gross acre as allowed by the City's Zoning Ordinance. The request was to be heard by the Planning Commission at their January 21, 1999 Public Hearing but was withdrawn by the applicant prior to the Public Hearing. March 11, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1229-A A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is proposing to develop this 34-acre site in a two-part development. The site is currently zoned MF-12 which allows for the development of multi- family housing at a density of 12-units per acre. The applicant has indicated a desire to develop 20.64 acres as a Planned Residential Development (Z-3173-C — Item #19) and the remaining 13.16 acres as a multiple building multi -family residential development. The applicant has indicated the development of the multi -family portion of the site with 126 units (9.6 units per acre). The proposed site plan includes signage for both the single-family subdivision and the multi -family development. Signage will be located near the drive into the multi -family development and at the entrance to the single-family subdivision. The proposed site plan includes a clubhouse, two lakes and two play ground recreational spaces. The development also contains a series of pedestrian trails connecting the multi -family and the single-family development. The clubhouse and pool will be developed as a part of a property owners association through the planned residential development allowing both the single-family homes and the multi -family residents access to the facilities. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is vacant and tree covered sloping from the north and south to the center of the site. There is a developed nursing home located at the northeast corner of the site. Park View High School is located to the northeast of the site and single-family homes are located to the southeast. To the south of the site is an area zoned MF-24 with a welding shop and a separate building containing a contractor's office. Single-family homes are located along West 29 Street to the south=oaf-fhe=site Te=the:-:west=of=the-site-are=also-single-family=,homes=in h Twin Lakes/Campus Place Neighborhood. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several phone calls in opposition of the proposed use from area residents. All residents who could be identified located within 300-feet of the site, the John Barrow Neighborhood Association, the Campus Place Property Owners Association, the Twin Lakes "B" Property Owners Association, Twin Lakes B Special Improvement District and all owners of property located within 200-feet of the site were notified of the public hearing. 2 March 11, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: FILE NO.: S-1229-A 1. The proposed street from John Barrow going west to the last apartment entrance should be designed as a 36 foot collector street. The remainder can be 31 foot as shown on the plan. 2. Provided curve data for the collector street. The standard radius for a normal crown is 275 feet with a 100-foot tangent between reverse curves. 3. 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. Site grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. 4. Alteration of the water course will require approval from the Little Rock District of the US Army Corps of Engineers prior to start of work. 5. Storm water detention applies to the proposed development. Assuming the 0.67-acre lake will serve as detention for the apartment complex, a wider drainage easement for the lake to the John Barrow right-of-way will be required. 6. John Barrow Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A minimum dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline will be required. 7. Repair, replace, or provide any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 8. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock code. Contact Traffic Engineering at SI1Z8-18�3 Steve hil o _ fvr more information re ardin street li ht requirements. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: A private sewer main crosses the property. The private sewer main must be relocated and dedicated to Little Rock Wastewater Utility as a public sewer main with easements. Capacity Contribution Analysis required, contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional details. Entergy: No comment received. Center -Point Energy: Approved as submitted. SBC: No comment received. 3 March 11, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 FILE NO.: S-1229-A Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. The facilities on -site in the area of the apartments will be private. When meters are planned off private lines, private facilities shall be installed to Central Arkansas Water's material and construction specifications and installation will be inspected by an engineer, licensed to practice in the State of Arkansas. Execution of Customer Owned Line Agreement is required. A water main extension will be required in order to provide service to this property. 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. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional information. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3752 for additional details. County Planning: No comment received. CATA: No comment received. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAUDESIGN: Planning Division: No comment. Landscape: Areas set aside for buffer and landscaping appear to meet with the landscape and buffer requirements. Screening is required along the southern perimeter of the site adjacent to the residentially zoned properties. A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wall, or wooden fence with its face side directed outward, or dense evergreen plantings, is required. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. Prior to a building permit being issued, it will be necessary to provide an approved landscape plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees as feasible on this tree -covered site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when properly preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or larger. I:! March 11, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 Cont. FILE NO.: S-1229-A G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (February 19, 2004) Mr. Barry Williams was present representing the request. Staff stated there were two items related to the site, one a single-family development, the second a multi -family site plan review. Staff stated the two items were reviewed separate and would be discussed together. Staff noted there were additional items necessary on each item to complete the review process. Staff first requested additional information for the site plan review. Staff requested the applicant provide details of signage, fencing and a phasing plan, if applicable. The staff also requested the applicant provide the lot size and total building coverage in the general notes section of the site plan. Mr. Williams noted the proposed multi -family units would be constructed as split- level units to better adhere to the terrain. Mr. Williams stated the maximum building height would be 35-feet. Staff requested the applicant provide maximum building height, front yard building lines and total buildable areas for the proposed PRD portion of the development. Staff stated since the request was a PRD there were no setbacks except those imposed at the time of approval. Staff requested the applicant provide details of any proposed signage associated with the new single-family development. Staff requested the applicant provide details concerning lot sizes and the source of water and the means of wastewater disposal. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the proposed street extending west from John Barrow Road should be designed to a 36-foot collector street. Mr. Williams stated the desire of the developers was to narrow the streets to reduce speeds. Staff stated they could support the reduced standard in the single-family portion of the development but the street adjacent to the multi -family hould=be wider -- --_ - - - Staff questioned the watercourse proposed on the site plan. Staff stated the storm water detention ordinance would apply to the site. Staff stated a wider drainage easement for the lake to John Barrow Road right-of-way would be required. Mr. Williams stated the desire was to allow the lake to serve as detention as well as a water feature. Landscaping comments were addressed for the apartment site. Staff noted there would not be any landscaping required for the PRD (single-family) portion of the development. Staff noted the areas set aside for buffering appeared to meet the landscape ordinance requirements for the multi -family portion of the development. Staff also noted screening would be required along the southern perimeter where the site's multi -family portion adjoined single-family zoned property. 5 March 11, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15(Cont.)FILE NO.: S-1229-A There were no further items for discussion. The Committee then forwarded each item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised plan to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the February 19, 2004 Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has indicated details concerning the proposed signage. The applicant has indicated signage consistent with signage allowed in multi -family zones or not to exceed twenty-four square feet in sign area and six feet in height. The applicant indicated there would not be any fencing as a part of the development except in areas, around the lake/detention for security if necessary. The applicant has also indicated fencing will not be added to the recreational areas unless required for safety. The applicant has indicated the development of the site with fourteen buildings both two and three story. The applicant has indicated the maximum building height will be 35-feet on all structures. Due to the topography of the site, seven of the buildings will be two stories on the front and three stories on the back; maximizing the site without developing the site with towering buildings. The applicant has indicated seven of the buildings as two story buildings. The applicant has indicated a total building coverage of 220,500 square feet. The applicant has indicated a total lot area of 573,467 square feet. The minimum lot area per family per the zoning ordinance requires a minimum lot area of 3600 square feet per family or 453,600 square feet. The proposed minimum lot area exceeds the required minimum lot area per the zoning ordinance. pplicant=has-also=indicated--the; tMr�building �.�-��;�=Q�Id��In- separation, which also exceed the minimum requirements. The applicant has indicated the minimum building setback of 64.7 feet from John Barrow Road and 86.5 feet from the southern property line. The zoning ordinance requires a minimum setback from the property line of 25-feet. The minimum building separation allowed is ten feet. The applicant has indicated a minimum building separation of 26.7 feet. The applicant has indicated a playground area on the proposed site plan to serve the multi -family development. The applicant has also indicated a play and recreational area located in Tract C adjacent to the clubhouse office and pool. The applicant has also indicated pedestrian trails through out the development connecting the single-family and multi -family portions of the development. The applicant has indicated these amenities as a part of the Planned Residential Development (Item #19 - File No. Z-3173-C) but has indicated both the single- March 11, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 FILE NO.: S-1229-A family and the multi -family developments will have access to use the facilities. This too exceeds the minimum requirements of the ordinance. The applicant has indicated 252 parking spaces as a part of the development. The minimum parking requirement for a multi -family development of 126 units would be one and one-half spaces per unit or 189 parking spaces. The applicant has provided two spaces per unit, more than adequate to serve the proposed development. The applicant has indicated a 35-foot buffer along the southern perimeter of the site to remain undisturbed for a large portion of the area. The applicant has indicated the undisturbed buffer will not be maintained in the area around the lake or where the overflow exits the lake to John Barrow Road. Staff feels this appropriate. The applicant has indicated year around screening will be provided to buffer the single-family zoned properties to the south. The applicant has also included a tract on the site plan that will not be developed to buffer the single- family to the west. Staff is supportive of the proposed development. Staff feels with the overall development plan, the development of single-family and multi -family in an integrated neighborhood the development should be successful due the mixture of residential uses. The applicant has also included amenities for the overall development to provide recreational activities for the single-family and the multi- family uses. The applicant has exceeded the minimum requirements of the ordinance and staff feels if the development is constructed as proposed including the single-family portion of the development, there should be minimal to no adverse impact on adjoining properties. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: — - Staffrecommends approvaf�ef�e=-request subject=to—complianee=With= -e- - conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 11, 2004) The applicant was present representing the request. There were several registered objectors present. Staff presented the item along with a related site plan review (Item # 15 — File No. S-1229-A) indicating support for the rezoning request and the site plan review request. Staff stated they were supportive of reducing the rear radius to 75-feet and narrowing the street to 31-feet of pavement. Staff stated the applicant had indicated the request for the reduced standard was to act as a traffic calming device and the reduced street standard would comply with minor residential street standards. 7 March 11, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 {Cont. FILE NO.: S-1229-A Mr. Barry Williams addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. He stated the desire of the development was to develop the site with a mix of single-family and multi- family units. He stated the proposed development included a clubhouse and pool area that would be shared by the apartment dwellers as well as the single-family homeowners. He stated the development also included a series of trails and pathways to connect the two developments and allow for integration of the neighborhood. Ms. Carolyn Heitman addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed development. She stated the Barrow Road Neighborhood was not in support of the proposed development. Ms. Heitman stated traffic was the primary concern of the Neighborhood Association. She stated the desire was to allow the area to develop with less intense uses. Ms. Heitman stated the John Barrow Road Neighborhood Association had met with the developers but the other Association's in the area had not met with the developers. She requested the Commission defer the item until the developer had met with all the affected neighborhoods and the neighborhoods had the opportunity to discuss the potential project. Mr. George Brown addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated the neighborhood did not want additional apartments. He stated the area currently had 1000 plus apartments which were not fully occupied. He stated traffic was currently a nightmare and the addition of more apartments would only compound the problem. Ms. Francis Harris -Waddell addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated the neighborhood located to the west of the site had signed a petition, which had been given to the Commission. She stated the petition contained 100 percent of the homeowners, which would be directly affected by the proposed development. Ms. Waddell stated apartments would have a devastating effect on the single-family homes in the area. Commissioner Rector stated the discussion was not related to the apartments. He stated the site was zoned for multi -family housing and the proposed development had met all the minimum requirements of the subdivision ordinance for a site plan review. He stated the Commission had no choice but to approve the proposed apartment development. He stated the Commission could discuss the single-family portion of the request which was a rezoning request to down zone approximately two-thirds of the site. Ms. Waddell questioned the square footage of the homes, the estimated sales price, the number of bedrooms and if the homes would have garages. Mr. Brad Norris of the Campus Place Neighborhood Association addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated his neighborhood had not had the opportunity to meet with the developers and discuss the proposed site plan. He E:3 March 11, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 15 (Cont. FILE NO.: S-1229-A requested the Commission defer the item until all the affected neighborhoods had the opportunity to meet with the developers. Chairman Mizan questioned the concerns of the neighborhood. He asked if they were related to issues raised by Ms. Waddell. Mr. Norris stated those were a few of the issues. He stated others were related to landscaping, buffering, detention, and building design. Mr. Kevin Howard, the applicant, addressed the Commission to answer questions related to the proposed development. He stated the homes would be two to four bedroom homes and range in size from 1,100 square feet to 1,800 square feet. He stated the estimated sales price was from $100,000 to $140,000. He stated the lots averaged in size from 8,200 square feet to 11,000 square feet. He stated the development would establish a homeowners association to ensure the green spaces and clubhouse were maintained properly. There was a general discussion concerning the drainage, detention and the proposed lake areas. There was also a general discussion concerning the placement of sidewalks within the proposed development. The applicant indicated sidewalks and trails would be used through out the development to allow for connectivity. Mr. Williams stated the request was to allow the clubhouse within the planned development portion of the request. He stated the apartments would be developed in two phases with seven buildings being constructed in the first phase and six buildings in the second phase. He stated the clubhouse and pool would also be constructed in the first phase to ensure the development of the single-family portion of the site. He stated once the PRD was established the developer would have no choice but to construct the single-family portion of the development or return to the Commission for a rezoning. There were questions related to the street and the narrowness of the proposed street. Staff�tate�he=proposed=development=wouid-handle4ess han='F 40 ars peF la Gh less than a standard residential street. Staff stated the narrow street was acceptable and the curves and radius, if increased to 75-feet, would also be acceptable. Commissioner Adcock questioned if no parking signs would be available. Staff stated parking would typically be allowed on one side of the street. Mr. Williams stated if Public Works required three lanes at the intersection this would not be an issue. He stated the right-of-way would be in place to allow a 36-foot street at the intersection. There was a general discussion concerning the proposed management of the apartment development. Mr. Howard stated the developers had not executed a contract but were interviewing potential management firms. He stated two were local firms. 0 March 11, 2004 SUBDIVISION FILE NO.: S-1229-A Chairman Mizan stated a condition of the approval would be the developer meet with the neighborhood prior to the Board of Directors meeting. A motion was made to approve the requested site plan review as amended. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 1 noe and 2 absent. 10 ITEM NO, 15 FILE NO.: S-1229-A Gt NAME: Sage Meadows Apartments Subdivision Site Plan Review 7` G, to LOCATION: On the west side of John Barrow Road, South of Tan a Drive U' w°- Y -'7 Tanning Staff Comments: 4y�4. Provide notification of property owners located within 200, f et of the site, complete with the certified abstract list, notice form with affidavit executed and . roof of mailing. g 2. Provide dimensions of building setbacks and distance between buildings on the proposed site plan. 3. Provide details of any proposed signage (height/area/location) on the proposed site plan. ` '. 4. Any new site lighting must be low level and directional, directed inward away from �' residentially zoned properties. �] 5. Provide details of any proposed fencing (height/material/location) on the proposed site plan. 6. Provide a phasing plan, if applicable, for the proposed development. �� 7. Provide the lot size and legal description of the proposed site. aid . Provide the total building area (total square feet) in the general notes section of the site plan. 9. Provide the total building coverage in the general notes section of the proposed site plan. 10. Detail the screening treatment of the proposed compactor. �J 11. Locate the proposed swimming pool on the proposed site plan: � G r b 1d'.'L' �V,Nta?iance/waivers: None requested. Public Works: 'P 1. The proposed street from John Barrow going west to the last apartment entrance should be designed as a 36 foot collector street. The remainder can be 31 foot as shown on the plan. n , 2. Provided curve data for the collector street. The standard radius for a normal crown is 275 feet with a 100-foot tangent between reverse curves. 3. A grading permit in accordance 9 9 p e with section 29-186 (c) & (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site grading, and drainage planswill need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. 4. Alteration of the water course will require approval from the Little Rock District of the US Army Corps of Engineers prior to start of work. 5. Storm water detention applies to the proposed development. Assuming the 0.67-acre lake will serve as detention for the apartment complex, a wider drainage easement for the lake to jy the John Barrow right-of-way will be required. 6. John Barrow Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A minimum �p dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline will be required. 7. Repair, replace, or provide any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. , 1 0" 0"\�u 4, \j-'6-k 8. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing streetlights as required by Section 31- 403 of the Little Rock code. Contact Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1813 (Steve Philpott) for more information regarding street light requirements. Utilities and Fire Department/County Planning: Wastewater: A private sewer main crosses the property. The private sewer main must be relocated and dedicated to Little Rock Wastewater Utility as a public sewer main with easements. Capacity Contribution Analysis required, contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional details. Enterqy: No comment received. Center -Point Ener : Approved as submitted. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: All Central Arkansas Water requirements in effect at the time of request for water service must be met. The facilities on -site in the area of the apartments will be private. When meters are planned off private lines, private facilities shall be installed to Central Arkansas Water's material and construction specifications and installation will be inspected by an engineer, licensed to practice in the State of Arkansas. Execution of Customer Owned Line Agreement is required. A water main extension will be required in order to provide service to this property. 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. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional information. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918- 3752 for additional details. County Planning: No comment received. CATA: No comment received. Planning Division: No comment. Landscape: Areas set aside for buffer and landscaping appear to meet with the landscape and buffer requirements. Screening is required along the southern perimeter of the site adjacent to the residentially zoned properties. A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wall, or wooden fence with its face side directed outward, or dense evergreen plantings, is required. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. Prior to a building permit being issued, it will be necessary to provide an approved landscape plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees as feasible on this tree -covered site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when properly preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or larger. Revised platlplan; Submit four (4) copies of a revised preliminary plan (to include the additional information as noted above) to staff on Wednesday, February 25, 2004.