Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-1299 Staff AnalysisDecember 7, 2000 ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO.: S-1299 NAME: Kanis Apartments - Subdivision Site Plan Review LOCATION: South side of Leander Street, approximately 100 feet south of Kanis Road DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Harley Cox McGetrick and McGetrick c/o McGetrick and McGetrick 319 E. Markham St., Ste. 202 319 E. Markham St., Ste. 202 Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 13.01 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: PRD - Proposed MF-18 ALLOWED USES: PROPOSED USE: Multifamily Multifamily VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: Based on the fact that the applicant is proposing to construct multiple buildings on the site, a subdivision site plan must be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The property is currently zoned PRD. The Planning Commission recently approved a PRD revocation for the property, based on the fact that the PRD has expired. The PRD revocation will be heard by the Board of Directors on December 121 2000. The property will revert to MF-18 zoning, as previously existed. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is proposing a multiple building site plan for a 180-unit apartment complex. A total of 15 apartment buildings is proposed, each to contain 12 units. (120 December 7, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont. FILE NO.: S-1299 two -bedroom units and 60 one -bedroom units). The maximum building height will be 35 feet, with each of the buildings being 3 stories. The applicant is proposing to access the development by way of a private drive (shown as Caulden Dr.) from Leander Street. The old Caulden Drive, which is a small paved street extends from Leander Street through this property and serves two single-family residences to the south. The applicant notes that an access easement will be granted to this south property until a future cul-de-sac is constructed to the east. The proposed site plan also includes an office/clubhouse building and a swimming pool area. The proposed plan shows a total of 343 parking spaces. The applicant notes that a 1-i! mile jogging trail will extend around the perimeter of the development within the existing wooded areas. Please see the attached site plan for the proposed building, parking, drive and landscaping areas. The site plan also notes an apartment complex identification sign along Leander Street and a directional sign near the entrance to the complex. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The proposed apartment site is undeveloped and wooded. There is additional multifamily zoned property to the east across Caulden Road. There is a mixture of commercial and industrial uses across Leander Street to the north. There is undeveloped R-2 zoned property to the south, with several single family residences to the southeast. There is also undeveloped R-2 zoned property and a mobile home park to the west. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received no comment from the neighborhood. The John Barrow, Broadmoor and University Park Neighborhood Associations were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Leander Drive and Caulden Street Plan as commercial 60.feet of right-of-way. are classified on the Master streets. Dedicate a total of `A December 7, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1299 2. Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP" (Master Street Plan). Construct full street improvements to these streets including 5-foot sidewalks with planned development. Construct 24-foot wide street improvements with curb and gutter on west side of Caulden. 3. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 4. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 5. Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities are required. 6. Easements shown for proposed storm drainage are required. 7. Direction of flow for water courses leaving the property. 8. A 20 foot radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of Caulden and Leander. 9. Provide appropriate traffic safety devices along proposed Leander Drive as required. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements to serve property. Capacity Analysis required Contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility for details. AP&L: A 30 foot utility easement is requested along the east and west property lines. ARKLA: No Comment. Southwestern Bell: No Comment received. Water: Water main extension required. The Fire Department needs to assess the need for on -site fire protection. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752 for details. County Planning: No Comment received. CATA: Site is on bus route #3 and has no effect on bus radius, turnout and route. 3 December 7, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: No Comment. Landscape Issues: FILE NO.: S-1299 Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance requirements. A 6-foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward or dense evergreen plantings, is required where adjacent to single family properties to the south, west and north. Credit toward fulfilling this requirement can be given for existing trees and vegetation that can provide the year-round screening required. A minimum of 70% of the required 50-foot wide land use buffer must remain undisturbed. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many of the existing trees as feasible. Extra credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of 6-inch caliper or larger. To receive credit as a preserved tree at least 75% of the critical root zone must remain at undisturbed natural grade. Utility easements cannot count as part of the land use buffers. Utility easements must be shown on the site plan. An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. The landscape plan will have to be prepared by a registered landscape architect prior to a building permit being issued. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (NOVEMBER 16, 2000) Pat McGetrick, Gary Dean and Grey Lasker were present, representing the application. Staff briefly described the proposed site plan and noted that a few additional items needed to be shown on the site plan. The applicant noted 4 December 7, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: 5-1299 that building heights, dumpster and signage would be noted on the site plan. The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed. Public Works staff noted that a cul-de-sac to the southeast of this property was part of the previous PRD site plan and should be constructed in the future (with development of the MF-18 property immediately east of this site) to provide access to the properties to the south. Pat McGetrick noted that an access easement through this property will be provided for access to the south properties and that when the cul-de-sac is constructed, the access easement will go away. After the discussion, the Committee forwarded the site plan to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted a revised site plan to staff on November 21, 2000. The revised plan addresses the issues as raised by staff and the Subdivision Committee. The revised plan notes the sign and dumpster locations as requested. The ordinance requires a minimum of 270 parking spaces for an apartment development of this size (1.5 spaces per unit). The applicant is proposing a total of 343 spaces. Staff has no problem with the parking plan, as the recent trend in apartment developments is closer to two (2) spaces per unit. As noted in paragraph A., the applicant will provide an access easement along the east property line (old Caulden Drive) to serve the residential properties to the south. The access easement will be in place until a future cul-de- sac is constructed to the east with that property's development. The applicant needs to submit a revised site plan noting the access easement. Public Works notes that the "Y" intersection at the property's entrance from the old Caulden Dr. needs to be redesigned as a "T" intersection. The applicant also needs to show this on a revised plan. Bob Brown, of the Planning Department, has reviewed the revised plan and notes that it conforms with the landscape ordinance except for interior landscaping. Mr. Brown notes that some of the interior islands need to be combined for 5 December 7, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1299 minimum 300 square foot islands. The applicant has agreed to do this. Otherwise, to staff s knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed site plan. The proposed plan conforms to ordinance standards with respect to building heights and setbacks, and therefore no variances are requested. Staff feels that the proposed apartment development will have no adverse impact on the general area. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the proposed site plan subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D, E and F of this report. 2. A revised site plan must be. submitted with the following additional notations: a. Redesign entrance to a "T" intersection. b. Access easement to the south property. c. Larger interior landscape islands. 3. The roadway/access easement (old Caulden Dr.) to the south property must remain clear and open until the future cul-de-sac is constructed to the east, with that property's development. 4.Any site lighting must be low-level and directed away from adjacent residential property. 5. The complex identification sign and directional sign must conform to ordinance standards for multifamily property. 6. The PRD revocation must be approved by the Board of Directors. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 7, 2000) Pat McGetrick and Gary Dean were present, representing the application. Staff briefly described the proposed site plan with a recommendation of approval with conditions. Staff noted that a letter of support was received from the John Barrow Neighborhood Association. There were two (2) objectors present. Patrick Farrell, representing the Leander Drive Neighborhood Association, addressed the Commission and asked that the application be deferred for 30 days, so that the neighborhood association could meet with the developer and review the site plan. He noted that the neighborhood association was not notified of the public hearing. He stated that the development 0 December 7, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1299 would have an adverse impact on the area. He also noted traffic concerns with the proposed development. Chair Adcock asked if the Leander Drive Neighborhood Association was registered with the City. Karen Delavan noted that a crime watch association had been registered with the City in the past. This issue was briefly discussed. Ms. Delavan noted that she had the same concerns as Mr. Farrell. She also noted traffic concerns and stated that she had previously asked the City to improve Leander Drive. Gary Dean addressed the Commission in support of the application. He stated that the developer was on a tight schedule and would like not to defer the application. He noted that Leander Drive would be improved from this property to Kanis Road with this proposed development. Commissioner Nunnley asked Mr. Dean if he would not be willing to defer the application. Mr. Dean stated that the developers would prefer not to defer. Commissioner Downing noted that revocation of the existing PRD was a condition of approval. Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, noted that the PRD is expired and the Board of Directors will need to approve the revocation. Mr. Dean noted that he would meet with the neighborhood association and consider slight revisions to the site plan. Commissioner Rector noted that the neighbors could object to the PRD revocation at the Board level. He stated that he felt that the proposed development is a quality development and less dense than previously approved multi -family developments for this property. There was a motion to approve the site plan as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 1 abstention (Nunnley) and 3 absent. 7