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.