Loading...
Z-3754-D Staff AnalysisAugust 10, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - File No. 202 NAME: LOCATION: OWNER/DEVELOPER: Clint Boshears Wittenburg, Deloney & Davidson Savers Building West Capital and Spring Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 376-6681 Hickory Creek Condominiums Preliminary/PRD Site Plan Review South Side of Hinson Road ENGINEER: Garver & Garver 11th & Battery Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 376-3633 AREA: 54.57 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST: 229,875' ZONING: "PRD" PROPOSED USES: Residential REQUEST: Request for PUD approval of a proposed condominium development. DEVELOPMENT PHILISOPHY This is an attempt to develop a high-quality condominium/townhouse project by utilizing the hills in Western Little Rock as a natural country setting for the new neighborhood. The developer explicitly states that the basis for the project is "careful planning with a concern for the natural ecology, as well as particular attention to creative design for today's relaxed life style." Project construction for the 157 units is to be divided into five phases. The Hickory Creek Plan for developing was created around a central theme of a "planned neighborhood which utilizes the condominium association management concept" with a clustered site design. The applicant states that the clustered neighborhood will be created by: private and common open spaces per house; private street access, visitor parking courts; and common landscaped grounds maintained by the property owners. Other features include the separation of automobile and pedestrian circulation; common open spaces; a security perimeter; and landscaped buffers to adjacent developments. August_ 10, 1982 1 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - File No. 202 - Continued Special environmental features include a series of lakes joined together along the approaches to the development. These lakes form the basic landscape for the neighborhood, parking areas for views for residences, walking trails and mutual park settings. As much as vegetation is being retained in its natural state with additional plant materials added to reinforce the natural area, special pedestrian trails are provided connecting all areas to the development. Open space will be used to the best advantage of each residential cluster, utilizing areas for private and common open space. Automobile circulation and visitor parking is designed as a system independent from the pedestrian trail system, minimizing encounters with the auto. Dnnvnenr. 1. The construction of 157 owner -occupied units on 54.57 acres. 2. Development according to the following schemes: Unit Type No. of Units A 8 3,200 sq.ft. B 31 2,800 sq.ft. C 57 2,400 sq.ft. D 13 2,100 sq.ft. E 16 2,000 sq.ft. F 32 3,200 sq.ft. 3. Schedule of uses and areas: Condominiums - 409,700 sq.ft. Streets - 229,875 sq.ft. Driveways - 94,200 sq.ft. Parking Garaged - 314 sq.ft. (two per unit) Driveways - 314 sq.ft. (two per unit) Street - 235 sq.ft. (1.5 per unit) 4. Site coverage according to the following: Condominiums - 17 percent Streets and driveways - 14 percent Lakes - 12 percent Private open space - 15 percent Total open spaces - 57 percent August 10, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - File No. 202 - Continued SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Sites considered under the planned development concept must be 2.0 acres or greater. This plan complies. 2. A minimum of 10 to 15 of gross planned residential district (PRD) areas shall be designated as common unusable open space. This plan complies. 3. No more than one-half the common usable open space may be covered by water. 4. Guidelines for planned unit developments advocate the preservance of existing trees whenever possible. The applicant has stated his compliance. 5. A detailed landscape plan should be submitted. This plan complies. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS (a) Hinson Road to be constructed as a minor arterial in an 80' right-of-way. (b) Internal drainage plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval. (c) Floodway study or analysis must be included before the proposed dams can be constructed. (d) The intersection with five streets should be modified for safety. STAFF ANALYSIS: With the exception of Engineers comments, no adverse impacts to surrounding areas are expected. Staff is supportive of the type of the cluster layout used; and sees it as a reasonable means of developing the property. The applicant, however, needs to clarify some matters pertaining to internal access, staff feels that the 18' loops specified "D" on the plats are too narrow. They should be at least 201, staff suggests that the engineer of record meet with City Engineers to work out problems with intersections. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to comments by staff and the City Engineer. August 10, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 3 - File No. 202 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION: The applicant was present. He reported that the development would probably be built in five phases and agreed to revise the plat according to the minor design problems indicated by Planning and Engineering. Staff reported that the 50' access easement that crosses this plat from the Willis property to Hinson would need to be reflected. A motion for approval, subject to the comments made, was passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. Several persons representing two separate developments expressed concern over a sanitary sewer easement that runs across the Hickory Creek property. Mr. Joe White and Mr. Bill Hastings, representing owners of property to the north and northeast, requested easements on the north line and parallel to the east line all the way to Hinson. Mr. Bob Richardson, representing another adjacent developer, requested a 10' sanitary sewer along the east line. Mr. Boshears agreed to the easement as public right-of-way so as to accommodate the adjacent owners. Some concern was raised over the access easement that crosses the plat from the Willis property to Hinson. Even though Mr. Willis had agreed in an earlier meeting to release this easement, the Commission realized that there was minimum means of forcing him to vacate the easement. For the protection of the City, the applicant was asked to submit a letter acknowledging his awareness of the easement. Mr. Boshears agreed. A motion for approval subject to these agreements was made and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent.