Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-1363 Staff AnalysisV y W Subdivision Committee Comments / November 21, 2002 Item No. 2 5-1363 Chapel Ridge Apartments Subdivision Site Plan Review, located at 9400 Stagecoach Road Planning Staff Comments: 1 �2 4. 5. /6. 7. Provide all easements on -site and adjoining the proposed development on the site plan. qox/ "�'9 G FwI� Will there be a development sign? If so locate the proposed sign and provide details, height/area. Provide roof treatment, fagade treatment and indicate proposed building materials. Designate on the site plan all trees 6-inch caliper or greater. Will the development be a gated development? If so provide the location of the gate entrance, turn -around area and the width of the proposed gate openings. Will there be an on -site manager? Will only one dumpster location be provided? If more than one indicated on the proposed site plan along with required screening (at least two feet above the finished top of the trash receptacle.) %j—la._ Provide a phasing plan if the proposed development will not be constructed entirely with the initial phase. ��,L, � LC'a.J Any fencing located adjacent to Stagecoach Road within the required building setback must not exceed four (4) feet unless a waiver for the fencing height is granted. Any site lighting must be low level and directional away from residentially zoned property. Provide the maximum building height in the general notes. Provide notification of property owners located within 200-feet of the proposed development complete with the certified abstract list, notice form with affidavit executed and proof of mailing. Variance/Waivers: None requested. Public Works: 1. Stagecoach Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way 45-feet from centerline at all points will be required. 2. Sidewalks and appropriate handicap ramps are required per the Master Street Plan. v 3. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance. 4. Plans for all works in right -of --way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 5. A grading permit for flood hazard areas will be required from Public Works. Also, contact the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to construction to obtain a NPDES 6. stormwater permit. Contact US Army Corps Engineers, Little Rock District, for to the of approval prior start of C. work, regarding wetlands. 7. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. Easements for stormwater detention are required. 8. Provide estimates of all stormwater flows (Q) entering and leaving the property. Demonstrate adequate capacity of on -site and down stream structures to convey all storm water through the property. 9. Obtain permits for improvements within Stage Highway right-o€way from AHTD District 10 VI. Remove island at entrance or provide minimum 18-foot entrance lane width. Total driveway width shall not exceed 36-feet. ^ - _ 7 r Utilities and Fire Department/County Planning: Little Rock Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements to property line. Private sewer system including gravity mains, manholes, pump station and force main approved for on site. Capacity Contribution Analysis required, contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688- 1414 for additional details. ENTERGY: No comment received. Center -Point Energy: No comment received. Southwestern Bell: Approved as submitted. Central Arkansas Water: The facilities on -site 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 Capital Investment Charge of $3200 for connection to the existing main will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s) will be required. Meter sizes indicated appear to be larger than would be required for this development. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional details. J Fire department: Place fire hydrants per code. If the developer installs a gated entrance the gattional must maintain a 20-Foot opening. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3752 for ad details. County Planning: No comment received. CATA: Site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus radius, turnout and route. Planning Division: No comment. Landscape: Areas set aside for land use and street buffers meet with ordinance requirements. However, it will be necessary to show placement of on -site utility easements. Areas set aside for utility easements cannot count as land use buffer area. A total of seventy (70) percent of the land use buffers along the northern, southern and western perimeters must remain undisturbed. The average width of undisturbed buffer area along the northern and southern perimeters is twenty-seven (27) feet and twenty-nine (29) feet along the western perimeter. A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall or dense evergreen plantings will be required along the northern, southern and western perimeters of the site. An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. Prior to a building permit, an approved landscaped plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect will be required. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many trees as feasible on this site. Extra credit toward fulfilling landscape ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or larger. Revised plat/plan: Submit four (4) copies of a revised preliminary plat/revised site plan (to include the additional information as noted above) to staff on Wednesday, November 27, 2002. December 19, 2002 ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: S-1363 NAME: Chapel Ridge Apartments Subdivision Site Plan Review LOCATION: 9400 Stagecoach Road DEVELOPER: ERC Development Group LLC 815 Fort Street Barung, AR 72923 Iir= SIMMOMM The Hill Firm 222 South 16th Street Fort Smith, AR 72901 AREA: 10.2 Acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: MF-12 ALLOWED USES: Multi -family 12 units per acre PLANNING DISTRICT: 15 CENSUS TRACT: 41.05 VARIAN C ESMAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 14,816 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on February 5, 1985 rezoned this property to MF-12 along with four (4) additional parcels to various other zoning classifications. The plan included 50.4 acres of Multi -family zoning, 12.6 acres of commercial zoning and 8.6 acres of office zoning. An application was approved by the Little Rock Planning Commission at their April 4, 2002 Public Hearing requesting properties to the north of this site to be rezoned (a 100- foot utility easement) from R-2, Single-family to MF-12. The Little Rock Board of Directors later denied this request. December 19, 2002 ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.. S-1363 A. PROPOSAUREQUEST: The applicant proposes to construct 122 units of multi -family housing with a Clubhouse/Leasing Office. There are 241 parking spaces proposed as a part of the development. Site amenities include a swimming pool and playground area. The building materials are proposed as wood frame with brick veneer and vinyl siding. The roof will be constructed of composition shingles. The applicant proposes Building Number 1 and 2 to be one story with the remainder of the buildings to be two-story. The applicant proposes six (6) of the one-story units to be one bedroom (721 square feet each) and four (4) of the one-story units to be two bedrooms (960 square feet each). The two-story structures proposed include two, three and four bedroom units. There are fifty- six (56) units (912 square feet each) of the two bedrooms and forty-eight (48) units (1085 square feet each) of the three bedrooms and eight (8) units (1288 square feet each) of the four bedrooms. The entire site will be landscaped and irrigated to comply with the Little Rock Landscape Ordinance. The applicant proposes the placement of a six (6) foot wooden fence around the north south and western perimeters of the property with no fencing proposed along Stagecoach Road. There is a single non -gated entrance to the community with no traffic routed through any residential neighborhood. There is no parking proposed parallel to Stagecoach Road. The existing pond at the south side of the site will remain as a natural area. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is a vacant wooded, mostly flat site, with an abundance of undergrowth. There is a major transmission power line located to the north of the site and two churches located east of the site, across Stagecoach. There is a relatively new single-family subdivision located to the south of the site, Westfield, and undeveloped MF-12 zoned property located to the south of the subdivision. Other uses in the area include two parcels of vacant 0-1 zoned property to the east and vacant R-2 zoned property located to the southeast. To the north of the site are two PCD's; only one of which has developed and Stagecoach Village, a PRD in which single-family detached and attached housing is currently under construction. Stagecoach Road is a four -lane roadway complete with curb and gutter, and no center turn -lane at this location. There are not sidewalks in place adjacent to the site but are in place to the north and south of the site. There is an open drainage ditch located along the south property line. 2 December 19, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1363 C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: The Otter Creek Homeowners Association and Southwest United for Progress, along with all property owners within 200 feet of the site, were notified of the public hearing. As of this writing, Staff has received several informational phone calls concerning the proposed development. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Stagecoach Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way 45-feet from centerline at all points will be required. 2. Sidewalks and appropriate handicap ramps are required per the Master Street Plan. 3. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance. 4. Plans for all works in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 5. A grading permit for flood hazard areas will be required from Public Works. Also, contact the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to construction to obtain a NPDES stormwater permit. 6. Contact the US Army Corps of Engineers, Little Rock District, for approval prior to start of work, regarding wetlands. 7. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. Easements for stormwater detention are required. 8. Provide estimates of all stormwater flows (Q) entering and leaving the property. Demonstrate adequate capacity of on -site and down stream structures to convey all storm water through the property. 9. Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway right-of-way from AHTD District VI. 10. Remove island at entrance or provide minimum 18-foot entrance lane width. Total driveway width shall not exceed 36-feet. 11. Provide any documentation or assurance, as required by State and Federal agencies or lending institutions, that the development will meet environmental, historic and cultural regulations. 12. Provide a left turn lane on Stagecoach Road into the proposed development. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Little Rock Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements to property line. Private sewer system including gravity mains, manholes, pump station and force main approved for on site. Capacity Contribution Analysis 3 December 19, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.. 2(Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1363 required, contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional details. ENTERGY: No comment received. Center -Point Energy: No comment received. Southwestern Bell: Approved 'as submitted. Central Arkansas Water: The facilities on -site 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 Capital Investment Charge of $3200 for connection to the existing main will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s) will be required. Meter sizes indicated appear to be larger than would be required for this development. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional details. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. If the developer installs a gated entrance the gate must maintain a 20-foot opening. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3752 for additional details. County Planning: No comment received. CATA:Site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus radius, turnout and route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: No comment. Landscape: Areas set aside for land use and street buffers meet with ordinance requirements. However, it will be necessary to show placement of on -site utility easements. Areas set aside for utility easements cannot count as land use buffer area. A total of seventy (70) percent of the land use buffers along the northern, southern and western perimeters must remain undisturbed. The average width of undisturbed buffer area along the northern and southern perimeters is twenty- seven (27) feet and twenty-nine (29) feet along the western perimeter. 4 December 19, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 FILE NO.: S-1363 A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall or dense evergreen plantings will be required along the northern, southern and western perimeters of the site. An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. Prior to a building permit, an approved landscaped plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect will be required. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many trees as feasible on this site. Extra credit toward fulfilling landscape ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or larger. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE CQ.MMENT: (November 21, 2002) Mr. Paul Hill of the Hill Architectural Firm and Mr. Aaron Robinson of Bond Engineering Company were present representing the application. Staff presented an overview of the proposed development to the Committee members. Staff stated the proposed development was a subdivision multiple building site plan review. Staff stated this review was a technical review of the ordinance requirements. Staff stated there were general questions related to the proposed development, which would need to be indicated on the proposed site plan. Staff requested all easements on -site and adjoining the proposed development be indicated on the site plan. Staff also requested the applicant indicated the roof treatment, facade treatment and building materials along with the maximum building heights on the site plan. Staff questioned if there would be a development sign. The applicant indicated there would be a sign. Staff stated the sign along with details (height/area) should be indicated on the site plan. Staff questioned if the proposed development would be developed in phases or in one phase. The applicant stated the proposed development would be constructed in one phase. Staff questioned if one dumpster location was proposed. Mr. Hill stated the proposal included a trash compactor in one location. He stated this type collection system was currently being used at other locations and was working well. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the proposed drive was to be a maximum of 36-feet with 18-foot entrance lane width. Staff stated the proposed right-of-way indicated for Stagecoach Road was to be 45-feet from centerline in all locations. Staff stated in one area the right-of-way appeared to 5 December 19, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1363 be a "little short". Staff stated drainage on the site was very critical. Staff stated hydraulics for the highway culvert and water movement through the site were critical. Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated all utility easements were necessary on the proposed site plan. Staff stated utility easements could not be counted as land use buffers. Staff stated the proposed development appeared to meet with the ordinance requirements but without the location of easements it was impossible to tell for certain: - Staff stated it would be necessary to locate all trees 6-inch caliper and greater on the proposed site plan. Staff stated City Beautiful Commission recommended preserving as many trees as feasible on the site and extra credit could be given when properly preserving the trees of this caliper. Staff stated at least seventy percent (70%) of the land use buffer must be preserved. Staff noted comments from Central Arkansas Water and Little Rock Wastewater utility. Staff suggested the applicant contact each agency for specifics concerning their comments. There was some general discussion concerning the placement of fire hydrants. Staff stated the Little Rock Fire Department could clarify the placement. There being no further issues for discussion, the Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted revised comments to Staff addressing some of the issues raised at the Subdivision Committee meeting but to date a revised site plan has not been received. Based on comment received the applicant has indicated the development will not be gated and there will not be any fencing along Stagecoach Road. A six (6) foot wooden fence will be placed along the northern, southern and western perimeters of the site. The applicant proposes the placement of a single -trash compactor location on the site. The applicant has indicated one central drop-off location for garbage has been successfully tried in other locations. Based on the initial drawings the proposed parking is sufficient to meet the typical minimum required parking demand. The applicant is proposing to construct 122 units of multi -family housing with a Clubhouse/Leasing Office. 0 December 19, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 (Cont.) _ FILE NO.: S-1363 There are 241 parking spaces proposed as a part of the development. The typical minimum parking requirement for a development of this size would be 183 parking spaces or 1.5 spaces per unit. In addition, the applicant is proposing site amenities to include a swimming pool but has not indicated a playground area. These are items not regulated under the site plan review and not a requirement under the City's existing ordinances. The applicant has stated the _exterior construction is proposed as a wood frame with brick veneer and vinyl siding. The applicant has indicated both one and two story buildings to be located on the site. The applicant proposes the maximum building height to be 35-feet. The proposal includes a roof treatment of composition shingles. The applicant proposes the placement of a single ground -mounted development sign to be located near the entry drive but the exact location has not been identified due to the lack of a revised site plan. The revised comments indicate the sign will be constructed of wood and masonry and be a maximum of eight (8) feet in length and five (5) feet in height or forty (40) square feet in area including the support columns. Allowable signage in multi -family zones is not to exceed twenty-four (24) square feet in area and six (6) feet in height not including the main supporting structure but all other ornamental attachments. Staff recommends the sign area denoting the complex not exceed the allowable sign area permitted in multi -family zones. The applicant has indicated there is an existing on -site detention pond, which will be utilized as a detention basin. The applicant has suggested the pond will remain in a natural state. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant will be required to submit detailed drainage plans for review and approval. The applicant has indicated all drive lanes will be maintained at 18-feet and the proposed development will not be a gated community. The applicant has also indicated the maximum driveway width will be 36-feet as requested by Staff. At this writing, review is on -going regarding the drainage issues and the capacity of the AHTD culverts under Stagecoach Road. The requested site plan review is a technical review. From the comments received the applicant has indicated the minimum requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance with regard to building height, landscaping, land use buffering and parking ratios will be complied with. Without a revised drawing it is difficult for Staff to make this determination. Staff has requested all on -site and off -site easements be indicated on the site plan. As per the ordinance easements are not allowed to count as land use buffers. As indicated in the 7 December 19, 2002 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 2 Cont. FILE NO.: S-1363 landscape comments section the areas set aside appear to meet the minimum requirements. The site is shown on the Future Land Use Plan as multi -family. The proposed development density is consistent with the existing zoning. The applicant has tried to minimize the negative impacts of surrounding existing residential neighborhoods by placing the buildings within the development away from the southern property line and has indicated they will preserve as many existing trees and as much existing vegetation as feasible during the development. This would further buffer the existing single-family homes in the adjoining neighborhood to the south. If in fact, all the issues raised above are met to Staff's knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request for the subdivision multiple building site plan review as presented. Staff recommends approval of the request should the applicant comply with land use buffers, compliance with signage allowable in multi -family zones and that the development will meet environmental, historic and cultural regulations. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The applicant has not submitted a revised site plan in response to Subdivision Committee review. Staff does not anticipate that there will be substantial changes in the site plan. However, Staff is withholding their recommendation until such time as the revised site plan is submitted. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 19, 2002) Mr. Paul Hill was present representing the application. There were objectors present. Staff stated the applicant was given a condition after Subdivision Committee Meeting, the addition of a turn lane, which he had not been able to resolve. Staff stated the applicant was required to resubmit revised plans within one (1) week of Subdivision Committee meeting or the item was deferred. Staff stated the applicant was not notified of the turn lane until four (4) days before the Commission meeting not allowing him sufficient time to resolve the issue. Staff stated if the applicant was required to "play by the rules" then the City should also be required to "play by the rules". Staff stated the applicant was working with a traffic engineer to determine the traffic counts in the area and less than one (1) week was not sufficient time to generate traffic counts. Staff stated a deferral request was not out of line in this case since the applicant was not given ample notice to resolve the turn lane concern. There was limited discussion. A motion was made to defer the item to the January 23, 2003 Public Hearing. The motion carried by a vote of 6 ayes, 3 noes and 2 absent. 0 January 23, 2003 ITEM NO.: 1 NAME: Chapel Ridge Apartments Subdivision Site Plan Review LOCATION: 9400 Stagecoach Road DEVELOPER: ARCHITECT: ERC Development Group LLC The Hill Firm 815 Fort Street 222 South 16th Street Barung, AR 72923 Fort Smith, AR 72901 AREA: 10.2 Acres CURRENT ZONING NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 MF-12 FILE NO.: S-136 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ALLOWED USES: Multi -family 12 units per acre PLANNING DISTRICT: 15 CENSUS TRACT: 41.05 VARIANCESM/AIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 14,816 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on February 5, 1985 rezoned this property to MF-12 along with four (4) additional parcels to various other zoning classifications. The plan included 50.4 acres of Multi -family zoning, 12.6 acres of commercial zoning and 8.6 acres of office zoning. An application was approved by the Little Rock Planning Commission at their April 4, 2002 Public Hearing requesting properties to the north of this site to be rezoned (a 100- foot utility easement) from R-2, Single-family to MF-12. The Little Rock Board of Directors later denied this request. January 23, 2003 ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: FILE NO.: S-1363 The applicant proposes to construct 122 units of multi -family housing with a Clubhouse/Leasing Office. There are 241 parking spaces proposed as a part of the development. Site amenities include a swimming pool and playground area. The building materials are proposed as wood frame with brick veneer and vinyl siding. The roof will be constructed of composition shingles. The applicant proposes Building Number 1 and 2 to be one story with the remainder of the buildings to be two-story. The applicant proposes six (6) of the one-story units to be one bedroom (721 square feet each) and four (4) of the one-story units to be two bedrooms (960 square feet each). The two-story structures proposed include two, three and four bedroom units. There are fifty- six (56) units (912 square feet each) of the two bedrooms and forty-eight (48) units (1085 square feet each) of the three bedrooms and eight (8) units (1288 square feet each) of the four bedrooms. The entire site will be landscaped and irrigated to comply with the Little Rock Landscape Ordinance. The applicant proposes the placement of a six (6) foot wooden fence around the north, south and western perimeters of the property with no fencing proposed along Stagecoach Road. There is a single non -gated entrance to the community with no traffic routed through any residential neighborhood. There is no parking proposed parallel to Stagecoach Road. The existing pond at the south side of the site will remain as a natural area. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is a vacant wooded, mostly flat site, with an abundance of undergrowth. There is a major transmission power line located to the north of the site and two churches located east of the site, across Stagecoach. There is a relatively new single-family subdivision located to the south of the site, Westfield, and undeveloped MF-12 zoned property located to the south of the subdivision. Other uses in the area include two parcels of vacant 0-1 zoned property to the east and vacant R-2 zoned property located to the southeast. To the north of the site are two PCD's; only one of which has developed and Stagecoach Village, a PRD in which single-family detached and attached housing is currently under construction. Stagecoach Road is a four -lane roadway complete with curb and gutter, and no center turn -lane at this location. There are not sidewalks in place adjacent to the site but are in place to the north and south of the site. There is an open drainage ditch located along the south property line. 4 January 23, 2003 ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1363 C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: The Otter Creek Homeowners Association along with all property owners within 200 public hearing. As of this writing, Staff has calls concerning the proposed development. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: and Southwest United for Progress, feet of the site, were notified of the received several informational phone 1. Stagecoach Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way 45-feet from centerline at all points will be required. 2. Sidewalks and appropriate handicap ramps are required per the Master Street Plan. 3. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance. 4. Plans for all works in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 5. A grading permit for flood hazard areas will be required from Public Works. Also, contact the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to construction to obtain a NPDES stormwater permit. 6. Contact the US Army Corps of Engineers, Little Rock District, for approval prior to start of work, regarding wetlands. 7. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. Easements for stormwater detention are required. 8. Provide estimates of all stormwater flows (Q) entering and leaving the property. Demonstrate adequate capacity of on -site and down stream structures to convd� all storm water through the property. 9. Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway right-of-way from AHTD District VI. 10. Remove island at entrance or provide minimum 18-foot entrance lane width. Total driveway width shall not exceed 36-feet. 11. Provide any documentation or assurance, as required by State and Federal agencies or lending institutions, that the development will meet environmental, historic and cultural regulations. 12. Provide a left turn lane on Stagecoach Road into the proposed development. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Little Rock Wastewater: Sewer main extension required with easements to property line. Private sewer system including gravity mains, manholes, pump station and force main approved for on site. Capacity Contribution Analysis 3 January 23, 2003 ITEM NO.: 1 Cont. FILE NO.: S-1363 required, contact Little Rock Wastewater Utility at 688-1414 for additional details. ENTERGY: No comment received. Center -Point Energy: No comment received. Southwestern Bell: Approved as submitted. Central Arkansas Water: The facilities on -site 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 Capital Investment Charge of $3200 for connection to the existing main will apply to this project in addition to normal charges. The Little Rock Fire Department needs to evaluate this site to determine whether additional public and/or private fire hydrant(s) will be required. Meter sizes indicated appear to be larger than would be required for this development. Contact Central Arkansas Water at 992-2438 for additional details. Fire Department: Place fire hydrants per code. If the developer installs a gated entrance the gate must maintain a 20-foot opening. Contact the Little Rock Fire Department at 918-3752 for additional details. CountV Planning: No comment received. CATA:Site is not located on a dedicated bus route and has no effect on bus radius, turnout and route. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: No comment. Landscape: Areas set aside for land use and street buffers meet with ordinance requirements. However, it will be necessary to show placement of on -site utility easements. Areas set aside for utility easements cannot count as land use buffer area. A total of seventy (70) percent of the land use buffers along the northern, southern and western perimeters must remain undisturbed. The average width of undisturbed buffer area along the northern and southern perimeters is twenty- seven (27) feet and twenty-nine (29) feet along the western perimeter. !! January 23, 2003 ITEM NO.: FILE NO.: S-1363 A six (6) foot high opaque screen, either a wooden fence with its face side directed outward, a wall or dense evergreen plantings will be required along the northern, southern and western perimeters of the site. An irrigation system to water landscaped areas will be required. Prior to a building permit, an approved landscaped plan stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect will be required. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many trees as feasible on this site. Extra credit toward fulfilling landscape ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or larger. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (November 21, 2002) Mr. Paul Hill of the Hill Architectural Firm and Mr. Aaron Robinson of Bond Engineering Company were present representing the application. Staff presented an overview of the proposed development to the Committee members. Staff stated the proposed development was a subdivision multiple building site plan review. Staff stated this review was a technical review of the ordinance requirements. Staff stated there were general questions related to the proposed development, which would need to be indicated on the proposed site plan. Staff requested all easements on -site and adjoining the proposed development be indicated on the site plan. Staff also requested the applicant indicated the roof treatment, fagade treatment and building materials along with the maximum building heights on the site plan. Staff questioned if there would be a development sign. The applicant indicated there would be a sign. Staff stated the sign along with details (height/area) should be indicated on the site plan. Staff questioned if the proposed development would be developed in phases or in one phase. The applicant stated the proposed development would be constructed in one phase. Staff questioned if one dumpster location was proposed. Mr. Hill stated the proposal included a trash compactor in one location. He stated this type collection system was currently being used at other locations and was working well. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated the proposed drive was to be a maximum of 36-feet with 18-foot entrance lane width. Staff stated the proposed right-of-way indicated for Stagecoach Road was to be 45-feet from centerline in all locations. Staff stated in one area the right-of-way appeared to y� January 23, 2003 ITEM NO.: 1 be a "little short". hydraulics for the critical. FILE NO.: S-1363 Staff stated drainage on the site was very critical. Staff stated highway culvert and water movement through the site were Landscaping comments were addressed. Staff stated all utility easements were necessary on the proposed site plan. Staff stated utility easements could not be counted as land use buffers. Staff stated the proposed development appeared to meet with the ordinance requirements but without the location of easements it was impossible to tell for certain. Staff stated it would be necessary to locate all trees 6-inch caliper and greater on the proposed site plan. Staff stated City Beautiful Commission recommended preserving as many trees as feasible on the site and extra credit could be given when properly preserving the trees of this caliper. Staff stated at least seventy percent (70%) of the land use buffer must be preserved. Staff noted comments from Central Arkansas Water and Little Rock Wastewater utility. Staff suggested the applicant contact each agency for specifics concerning their comments. There was some general discussion concerning the placement of fire hydrants. Staff stated the Little Rock Fire Department could clarify the placement. There being no further issues for discussion, the Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. H. ANALYSIS: The applicant submitted revised comments to Staff addressing some of the issues raised at the Subdivision Committee meeting but to date a revised site plan has not been received. Based on comment received the applicant has indicated the development will not be gated and there will not be any fencing along Stagecoach Road. A six (6) foot wooden fence will be placed along the northern, southern and western perimeters of the site. The applicant proposes the placement of a single -trash compactor location on the site. The applicant has indicated one central drop-off location for garbage has been successfully tried in other locations. Based on the initial drawings the proposed parking is sufficient to meet the typical minimum required parking demand. The applicant is proposing to construct 122 units of multi -family housing with a Clubhouse/Leasing Office. 0 January 23, 2003 ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont. FILE NO_: S-1363 There are 241 parking spaces proposed as a part of the development. The typical minimum parking requirement for a development of this size would be 183 parking spaces or 1.5 spaces per unit. In addition, the applicant is proposing site amenities to include a swimming pool but has not indicated a playground area. These are items not regulated under the site plan review and not a requirement under the City's existing ordinances. The applicant has stated the exterior construction is proposed as a wood frame with brick veneer and vinyl siding. The applicant has indicated both one and two story buildings to be located on the site. The applicant proposes the maximum building height to be 35-feet. The proposal includes a roof treatment of composition shingles. The applicant proposes the placement of a single ground -mounted development sign to be located near the entry drive but the exact location has not been identified due to the lack of a revised site plan. The revised comments indicate the sign will be constructed of wood and masonry and be a maximum of eight (8) feet in length and five (5) feet in height or forty (40) square feet in area including the support columns. Allowable signage in multi -family zones is not to exceed twenty-four (24) square feet in area and six (6) feet in height not including the main supporting structure but all other ornamental attachments. Staff recommends the sign area denoting the complex not exceed the allowable sign area permitted in multi -family zones. The applicant has indicated there is an existing on -site detention pond, which will be utilized as a detention basin. The applicant has suggested the pond will remain in a natural state. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant will be required to submit detailed drainage plans for review and approval. The applicant has indicated all drive lanes will be maintained at 18-feet and the proposed development will not be a gated community. The applicant has also indicated the maximum driveway width will be 36-feet as requested by Staff. At this writing, review is on -going regarding the drainage issues and the capacity of the AHTD culverts under Stagecoach Road. The requested site plan review is a technical review. From the comments received the applicant has indicated the minimum requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance with regard to building height, landscaping, land use buffering and parking ratios will be complied with. Without a revised drawing it is difficult for Staff to make this determination. Staff has requested all on -site and off -site easements be indicated on the site plan. As per the ordinance easements are not allowed to count as land use buffers. As indicated in the 7 January 23, 2003 ITEM NO.: 1 Cont. FILE NO.: S-1363 landscape comments section the areas set aside appear to meet the minimum requirements. The site is shown on the Future Land Use Plan as multi -family. The proposed development density is consistent with the existing zoning. The applicant has tried to minimize the negative impacts of surrounding existing residential neighborhoods by placing the buildings within the development away from the southern property line and has indicated they will preserve as many existing trees and as much existing vegetation as feasible during the development. This would further buffer the existing single-family homes in the adjoining neighborhood to the south. If in fact, all the issues raised above are met to Staff's knowledge, there are no outstanding issues associated with the proposed request for the subdivision multiple building site plan review as presented. Staff recommends approval of the request should the applicant comply with land use buffers, compliance with signage allowable in multi -family zones and that the development will meet environmental, historic and cultural regulations. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The applicant has not submitted a revised site plan in response to Subdivision Committee review. Staff does not anticipate that there will be substantial changes in the site plan. However, Staff is withholding their recommendation until such time as the revised site plan is submitted. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 19, 2002) Mr. Paul Hill was present representing the application. There were objectors present. Staff stated the applicant was given a condition after Subdivision Committee Meeting, the addition of a turn lane, which he had not been able to resolve. Staff stated the applicant was required to resubmit revised plans within one (1) week of Subdivision Committee meeting or the item was deferred. Staff stated the applicant was not notified of the turn lane until four (4) days before the Commission meeting not allowing him sufficient time to resolve the issue. Staff stated if the applicant was required to "play by the rules" then the City should also be required to "play by the rules". Staff stated the applicant was working with a traffic engineer to determine the traffic counts in the area and less than one (1) week was not sufficient time to generate traffic counts. Staff stated a deferral request was not out of line in this case since the applicant was not given ample notice to resolve the turn lane concern. There was limited discussion. A motion was made to defer the item to the January 23, 2003 Public Hearing. The motion carried by a vote of 6 ayes, 3 noes and 2 absent. 0 January 23, 2003 ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont. FILE NO.: S-1363 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 23, 2003) Mr. Paul Hill, Mr. Tommy Bond and Mr. John Clayton were present representing the application. There were numerous objectors present. Staff introduced the item then requested the Commission defer the item. Staff stated Mr. Moore, City Manager, had indicated the proposed development would require a Section 106 Environmental Review. Staff stated Mr. Moore had indicated when Federal Funds were used to finance a project a Section 106 Review was required and to Staff's knowledge a review had not been performed. There was a lengthy discussion concerning the merits of the request and the purpose the deferral would serve. Staff stated it was not uncommon for Staff to request a deferral in an attempt to resolve outstanding issues or to receive additional information. Mr. Phil Kaplan spoke on behalf of the applicant in opposition of the deferral. Mr. Kaplan stated the request was for a site plan approval. He stated the applicant had met all the minimum requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance related to site plan review. Mr. Kaplan stated the applicant had submitted to Staff all the requested additional information in a timely manner. Mr. Kaplan stated the applicant had also met all the requirements of the lending institution. He stated the project had been deferred once and he requested the hearing move forward. Mr. Stephen Giles stated the request was a Subdivision Site Plan Review. He stated the applicant would be required to provide evidence prior to a building permit being issued that all the conditions of the approval had been met. A motion was made to defer the item. The motion failed by a vote of 1 aye, 9 noes and 1 absent. Mr. Paul Hill addressed the Commission outlining the development proposal. He stated the proposal met the minimum requirements set forth in the Subdivision Ordinance and requested the Commission approve the application as filed. Ms. B.J. Wyrick, City Director Ward 7, addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed development. She stated the neighborhood was concerned with safety of the 300 plus children who could possible live in the future complex. She stated to the south of the development there was an open ditch, which carried a large amount of water. Ms. Wyrick requested the ditch be piped and covered in a manner that children would not be at risk of drowning. Ms. Wyrick stated the detention pond should also be fenced for safety reasons. Ms. Wyrick stated the lack of public transportation was also a concern. She stated Stagecoach Road did not have sidewalks in its entirety and not in this area. Ms. Wyrick stated if the residents did not have an automobile then shopping would be dangerous since sidewalks were not in place and 2500 cars per day traveled Stagecoach Road. 7 January 23, 2003 ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont.) _ FILE NO.: S-1363 Ms. Wyrick requested the applicant install a permanent fence rather than a wood fence. She stated wood fencing was only durable for a few years and then the fence began to decay and fall down. Ms. Wyrick also stated she had seen a map indicating mounds in the area and the floodway. She stated a portion of the property was located in the floodway. She stated the archeological significance of the site along with the floodway were important issues to be considered by the Commission. Mr. Tommy Hodges addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed development. He questioned why the turn lane was no longer a requirement. Mr. Hodges stated with the proposed bedroom make-up there could be 270 children on the site. He stated the proposed playground area was not sufficient to meet the needs of this number of children and the children would spill out into the neighborhood. Mr. Hodges stated the density mix was too great. Mr. Mark Vaughn spoke in opposition of the proposed development. He stated he was the Vice -President of the Otter Creek Homeowners Association and had lived in the area for ten (10) years. Mr. Vaughn stated his concerns were the lack of sidewalks on Stagecoach Road, the lack of playground area, the lack of public transportation, the single entry into the development and the density of the proposed development. He stated the traffic problems on Stagecoach Road were not addressed with the widening. Mr. Troy Laha spoke in opposition of the proposed development. He stated he was the Vice -President of the Southwest United for Progress. He stated the Association had voted to support the Neighborhood in their opposition to the proposed development. Mr. John Clayton of ERC (the applicant) spoke in support of the development. He stated his company had performed a market analysis and determined there was a need for multi -family in the area. He stated most of the issues raised by the opposition were related to zoning. He stated a traffic analysis had been conducted and both Public Works and the Highway Department had determined a turn lane was not required. Mr. Clayton stated fencing of the detention was not usually desire. He stated fencing was not aesthetically pleasing and with high water trash and debris would catch in the fence. He also stated the fence would become a dam which also created a problem. Mr. Clayton stated the pond would be a maximum of (4) feet deep. Mr. Clayton stated the proposed development included a significant amount of green space. He stated the playground area was placed in the current location to allow the children to be supervised from as many buildings as possible without parents actually being outside. There was a general discussion between the Commissioners and the applicant as to what was enough play area. Mr. Clayton stated typically the four (4)-bedroom units rent to person without children. He stated he could not confirm if the estimate of 200 children was accurate. He stated the development included a pool and clubhouse for 10 January 23, 2003 ITEM NO.: 1 (Cont. FILE NO.: S-1363 after school activities and summer recreation. Mr. Clayton stated there was not a set rule for the amount of playground area needed to satisfy the units. Mr. Hill stated the site plan could be modified to add a second play area. He stated the relocation of Building 5 would allow a "Tot -Lot" be constructed in the area. He also stated the green space around the development was proposed as casual play area. Mr. Hill stated the applicant would be willing to pipe the ditch on their property. Mr. Hill stated the entirety of the ditch was not on property owned by the applicant so the entire length of the ditch would not be enclosed. There was a discussion concerning the single access into the site. Mr. Hill stated a second driveway could be added for emergency access. He stated the design allowed for secondary access with breakaway gates near the southern parking area. The Commission questioned why the turn lane was no longer a requirement of approval. Staff stated a traffic study had been completed and the study indicated the turn lane was not needed. Staff stated on large developments Traffic Engineering typically requested turn lanes. Staff stated when it was determined that a turn lane was not warranted Staff would then change their recommendation. Ms. Pat Dicker spoke in opposition of the proposed development. She stated when the project was reviewed by the County it was determined the City would review the project and determine the merits of the development. She stated the existing pond was not sufficient to meet the stormwater detention requirements and the site would have flooding issues. She stated the site was also contained Indian mounds and there were historic artifacts on the site. Ms. Dicker also stated the schools were not adequate to meet the needs of the large number of children the site would generate. There was a motion was made to approve the proposed development to include all Staff comments (except #12 of the Public Works comments) and to include the amendments made by the applicant at the hearing (the placement of a second access to the site with breakaway gates, the addition of playground equipment in a second location and the piping of the drainage ditch on the south property line). The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 3 noes and 1 absent. 11