Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-1229-B Staff AnalysisJune 9, 2005 ITEM NO.:. D FILE NO.: S-1229-B 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: White-Daters and Associates 24 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 AREA: 33.80 Acres CURRENT ZONING: PLANNING DISTRICT: CENSUS TRACT NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 M F-12 11 24.04 FT. NEW STREET: 0 L.F. VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: 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. In 1999, a proposal was submitted 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 The request was to be heard by the Planning Commission at their January 21, 1999, Public Hearing but was withdrawn by the applicant prior to the Public Hearing. June 9, 2005 ITEM NO.:. D (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1229-B The Little Rock Planning Commission reviewed a request for a Subdivision Site Plan Review at their March 11, 2004, Public Hearing. The applicant proposed to develop the 34-acre site with a two-part development plan. The applicant indicated a desire to develop 20.64 acres as a Planned Residential Development as a separate item on the agenda (Z-3173-C through a Planned Residential Development) and the remaining 13.16 acres as a multiple building multi -family residential development. The applicant indicated the development of the multi -family portion of the site with 126 units or at a density of 9.6 units per acre. The proposed site plan included signage for both the single-family subdivision and the multi -family development. The signage was to be located near the drive into the multi- family development and at the entrance to the single-family subdivision. The proposed site plan included a clubhouse, two lakes and two play ground recreational spaces. The development also contained a series of pedestrian trails connecting the multi -family and the single-family development. The clubhouse and pool would 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. The Little Rock Board of Directors adopted an ordinance on May 17, 2005, revoking the PD-R zoning for 20.64 acres of the site; restoring the MF-12 zoning to the entirety of this 33.80 acre site. A. PROPOSAUREQUEST: The applicant is proposing a site plan review for the Phase I portion of this proposed multi -family development. The applicant has indicated when development plans for Phases II and III are finalized, site plans will be submitted for approval. The Phase I portion of the development includes the development of 128 apartment units along with a clubhouse and pool facility. The site plan includes the placement of 13 apartment buildings with a maximum building height of 35-feet and one building for the clubhouse. The applicant has indicated 262 parking spaces on the site plan, resulting in a parking ratio of 2.04 spaces per unit. The applicant has indicated a total building footprint area of 98,000 square feet. Ten of the buildings are proposed as split-level; three stories tall on one side and two stories tall on the opposite site. The remaining buildings are proposed as two story buildings. The applicant has indicated the minimum building setback along the southern property line as 153-feet and 156-feet along the western property line. There is a 125-foot undisturbed buffer along the western property line. The applicant has indicated 10 acres of the site will remain undistributed. The site plan includes 2 June 9, 2005 ITEM NO.:. ❑ (Contl FILE NO.: S-1229-B the placement of two lakes. One of the proposed lakes will contain 0.32 acres and the second proposed lake will contain 1.43 acres. The applicant has indicated fishing piers will be added to the large lake. The site plan also includes the placement of a playground area near the clubhouse pool area. A second playground area has been added near the northern boundary of the Phase I portion of the development. One sign is proposed as a part of the development. The applicant has indicated the proposed sign will be consistent with signage allowed in multi -family zones. The applicant is also proposing the development as a gated community. The applicant has indicated the gates are not a part of the immediate plans but is requesting the option of adding gates in the future. The proposed site plan includes dedication of right-of-way along John Barrow Road per the Master Street Plan requirement. 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 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 29th Street to the south of the site. To the west of the site are also single-family homes in the 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. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: 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. Provide 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 June 9, 2005 ITEM NO.:. D (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1229-B 3. The residential street curve radius at the northwest corner of the development does not meet the standard 150-foot radius. 4. 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. 5. Show the location and preliminary sizing for all storm drains. Easements must be provided for all storm drains. Assuming the 0.48-acre lake will serve as detention for the residential subdivision, easements are likewise required for that drainage. 6. 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. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Private sewer main crossing property. 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: Easements are required to serve the proposed development. Contact Entergy at 954-5158 for additional information. Center -Point Energy: 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. 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. 4 June 9, 2005 ITEM NO.:. D (Cont. County Planning: No comment received. CATA: No comment received. F. ISSUES/T'ECHNICAUDESIGN: Planning Division: No comment. FILE NO.: S-1229-B 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. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (February 10, 2005) The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the proposed request indicating the proposed site plan could not move forward until the issue of revocation was resolved. Staff stated there were additional items necessary to complete the review process. Staff requested the applicant indicate on the proposed site plan locations of playground areas. Staff also questioned if amenities such as fishing piers would be added to the lake areas. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated proposed gates should be located to allow sufficient turn -around. Staff also stated the roadway should be designed as a 36-foot drive near John Barrow Road. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated areas set aside for buffers and landscaping appeared to meet with the landscape and buffer requirements. Staff noted screening would be required along the perimeters adjacent to residentially zoned property. 5 June 9, 2005 ITEM NO.:. FILE NO.: S-1229-B Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and agencies, indicating the applicant should contact them individually for further 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 to staff addressing most of the issues raised at the February 10, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The Little Rock Board of Directors adopted an ordinance on May 17, 2005, revoking the previous PD-R zoning of a portion of this site restoring the entirety of the site to MF-12 with a 110-foot R-2 zoned strip along the western perimeter. The applicant has indicated the proposed gates with sufficient turn -around to allow an escape should a visitor not be able to access the site. The applicant has also indicated the roadway as a 36-foot drive near the intersection with John Barrow, per staffs request. The applicant has also indicated two playground areas and fishing piers for the proposed lakes. Landscaping comments have been addressed. The applicant has indicated screening will be placed along the southern and western perimeters of the site to comply with the buffer and landscape ordinance requirements. The proposed site plan complies with all requirements for the Subdivision Ordinance for a Multiple Building Site Plan Review. The applicant has indicated building setbacks, building heights, density, signage and parking in compliance with the ordinance requirements. The applicant has indicated a minimum building setback of 153-feet. The ordinance typically requires a minimum building setback of 25-feet. The applicant has a maximum building height of 35-feet, consistent with building heights allowed in the MF-12 zoning district. The applicant has indicated a proposed density of 3.79 units per acre, well below the allowable 12 units per acre. This takes into account the remainder of the MF-12 zoned 33.8 acres which is shown for future development. The site plan includes the placement of 262 parking spaces. The minimum parking required for 128 apartment units would be 192 parking spaces. The applicant has indicated signage will comply with signage allowed in multi -family zones or a maximum of twenty-four square feet of sign area for a ground -mounted sign. Staff is supportive of the applicant's request. To staff's knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request. The indicated site plan appears to fully comply with minimum ordinance requirements for a multiple building site plan review per the Subdivision Ordinance. C~ June 9, 2005 ITEM NO.:. D (Cont. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: FILE NO-: S-1229-B Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 9, 2005) The applicant was present representing the request. There was one registered objector present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval. Staff stated the proposed site plan appeared to meet all the minimum requirements for a subdivision site plan review with regard to landscaping, setbacks and buffers. Staff noted there were a few technical issues, which would be resolved between the applicant and staff at the time of building permit. Staff stated the main issue was related to the proposed driveway location and width. Ms. Betty Snyder addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated she was representing the John Barrow Neighborhood Association and wanted to go on the public record in opposition to additional apartment units in the John Barrow Neighborhood. She stated the association did not feel the proposed development was a "fit" with the neighborhood. She stated the neighborhood did not support the tax credit application approved by the Mayor and Board of Directors at their previous meeting for the proposed development. She questioned if the ADFA funds were not available would the development be constructed. Ms. Snyder stated if the development was going to be a part of the neighborhood then the John Barrow Neighborhood Association was requesting the developer provide the association with an office within the development. She stated the association wanted to keep a handle on the proposed development and additionally the association was looking for a place to store files. Ms. Snyder stated John Barrow Road was currently congested and questioned if a traffic light was proposed as a part of the development. She stated with the addition of 100 plus units and the completion of the three phases proposed within the development this would generate a great deal of traffic. She stated it was difficult to exit onto John Barrow Road currently and with the additional units the residents would not be able to exit the development safely. The Commission questioned if a traffic signal was warranted. Staff stated it was not warranted at this time. The developer stated the ADFA funding that had been applied for typically had available funds. He stated an office use for the association was something the owners would be willing to entertain as an allowable activity. He stated the association would be welcome to hold their monthly meetings on the site at the clubhouse facility. 7 June 9, 2005 ITEM NO.:. D (Cont. FILE NO.: S-1229-B There was a general discussion concerning the approval being sought and the Commission's role. Staff stated the Commission's charge was to review the site plan to ensure compliance with the minimum ordinance standards. A motion was made to approve the request. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 1 no and 1 absent.