Loading...
Z-3889 Staff AnalysisNovember 9, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 20 NAME: r noAmrnav - Faulkerson Property - Site Plan Review Hinson Road across from Windsor Court Condominiums OWNER: APPLICANT: Little Rock Land Company, Ince .john A. Castin STAFF REPORT This item is related to a rezoning action which was on the Planning Commission agenda on October 12 and again on October 26. `_i°he applicant also submitted a site plan for review by the Subdivision Committee. Staff's review of the site plan yielded the following requirements to be fulfilled by the applicant: 1. A cover letter and general statements describing the character of development and the rationale behind the assumptions and choices. 2. For purposes of public record, the project should be provided with a name. 3. Initial work should be accomplished on a preliminary plat, including drainageways and topographic information. 4. A typical. cross-section of the site showing the relief and buildings should be provided, the line of this section to be at the applicant's discretion. 5. The statement of development character should include a description of the treatment of the east property line with respect to screening, inasmuch as the ordinance normally requires a 6` board fence. 6. The development statement should also include an outline of the treatment proposal on the two large open space and buffer zones along Hinson Road. • November 9, 1982 . SUBDIVISIONS Item :tubo` 20 ' Continued 7. The cover statement should include a layout of the development scheduling with respect to the time periods for development of the severa:.l. phases. 8. A statement of lease, sale; and ownership arrangement should be included. 9= Contact should be made with the Sign Code Enforcement staff for purposes of determining whether the entrance sign proposed will. be permitted. 10„ The cover statement should deal with the transfer of development rights issue as related to the large hill mass line 'to the north. COMMitment should be made in this statement as to the development density remaining on the balance of the property outside this PUD. 11. A state jl,e,,-�t fl-om the owner should be included with this statement of commitment to construct Hinson Road in its entire`=a along the entire west boundary of this PUD with the first phase. STAFF -RECOMMENDATION:, Approval, Subject to the stated comments. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10-12--82) The applicant was present, and there were three or four interested neighbors who could to some degree be classified as objectors. The applicant presented a site plan showing the concept for a three --phase development at a proposed density Of four or five units per acre, providing for a total of 88 units on tizis rite® There was a lengthy discussion of the proposal, the type of buildings to be constructed and the procedural steps for accomplishing a planned unit development approach to the property. Beverly Rochelle representing. the Windsor Court Townhome Property Owners Association, sPoke to the Planning COMMission about the tit-flitig of the HlnSon Road improvements and stated that they felt that "MF -12" was too high density for this property since it was across the street from their pro0e.ct, and she presented a petition asking for deferral of the zoning until the Hinson Road improvements are made and to lifiiit the development of the property to the "MF -6" density_ Rick English representing Norman Holcomb, who is constructing Windsor Court, stated that in their view Hinson .� November 9, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No' 20 - Continued Road improvements must precede zoning. Don Reader, President of the Marlowe Manor Property Owners Association, stated that they had no particular problem with the "MF -6" density being discussed, but were also interested in the Hinson Road improvements. Finally, Jan Nicholson, who is building a single family development to the east of this proposed project, stated his concern about the proposal and asked if the PUD process would remove the public from a position to make comments and express interest in the project. He stated that the property owners on the property to the east were opposed to the higher densities being proposed. After a lengthy discussion, the Planning Commission moved to defer action on this project to the October 26 Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed: 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstention (Richard Massae abstained, citing conflict of interest). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10-26-82) The applicant was present, and there were two or three other interested. parties. There was a brief discussion about the procedural steps for filing of a planned unit development request, and once these matters were cleared up, the Planning Commission deferred the item to the Planning Commission meeting of November 9, with the plans for the project to go to the Subdivision Committee on October 280 The motion passed: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (11-9-82) The applicant was present. There were no objectors. Staff reported that two issues were involved with this request. One involved delinquent required improvements for Windsor Townhomese The Commission was asked not to authorize further development in the neighborhood until the developer complies with this requirement. The second question revolved around the extent of improvements to be completed in Phase la Mr. John Casti.n, the applicant, stated that 800 linear feet on both sides of Hinson Road would be done. The improvements will be completed prior to issuance of a building permit. A motion was made for approval, subject to this item not being forwarded to the Board of Directors until the improvements are completed as previously agreed. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 abstention, 1 absent and 1 open position. Commission Massie abstained.) October 26, 1982 Item No. 1 - Z-3889 Owner: Little Rock Land Co., Inc. Applicant: John A. Castin Location: Hinson Road across from Windsor Court Condominiums Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "MF -12" Multifamily Purpose: Condominium Development Size: 18.6 acres + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" South - Residential, Zoned "R-2" East - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" West - Residential, Zoned "MF -6" STAFF COMMENT: Staff has received a letter from the owner stating that he is requesting deferral of this matter to the October 12 Planning Commission meeting. COMMISSION ACTION: (9-28-82) The Commission moved to defer this item to the October 12 Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed: 11 ayes and 0 noes. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: This property lies within an area shown on the Suburban Development Plan for low density multifamily development; however, is also subject to certain restrictions upon development because of the limited sewer capacity in northwest Little Rock. Additionally, there are concerns about the time of the proposed zoning in light of the fact that Hinson Road has not been completed to City standards and is not due for completion until April 1984. Likewise, project quality is an issue or concern to the neighborhood. October 26, 1982 Item No. 1 - Continued 1. Sewer Capacity Sewer capacity is a matter of serious concern in this area. The Wastewater Utility has stated that it has the ability to serve a population of 11,000 people in this area, and the City has informally maintained a development density cap of three units per gross acre. There is talk of making improvements to the system which will eliminate the capacity deficiencies. For now, however, zoning requests involving multifamily districts in this area should retain an overal density limit of three dwelling units per acre. Previously, this has been accomplished by placing restrictions on development of other tracts owned by the same property owner. These have been referred to as "transferable developments" and have been recorded in the form of restricted covenants to run with the land. 2. Hinson Road Improvements Likewise, the agreements as to the timing of street improvements on Hinson Road are tied to similar documents. Some residents of Windsor Court have complained to the Planning Department about the lack of street improvements on Hinson Road, and yet there are no guarantees of any change until 1984. There are about 16 acres presently under development in the Windsor Court project, and there are another 37.5 acres zoned for "MF -6" development but without any specific development proposal at this time. The additional 20 acres being proposed, if developed, would put tremendous pressure on Hinson Road. If this zoning is approved, there would be nearly 75 acres committed to multifamily development in this immediate area. 3. Suburban Development Immediately east of this tract is a property which has been zoned "MF -6" for a number of years and is now being developed as a detached single family residential subdivision. This suggests continuing demand for detached single family living in the upper income levels. A large adjacent tract recently zoned "MF -6" by this applicant remains undeveloped. The Planning staff has undertaken an assessment of Suburban Development Plan implications of this request and anticipates submitting a plan change involving some modification to the multifamily designated land in this area at an upcoming Planning Commission meeting. Nevertheless, this property is designated multifamily on the plan and with proper safeguards is appropriate for that use. October 26, 1982 Item No. 1 - Continued STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Long-term, expectation for development of this property is for attached single family residential, but to zone the property at this time would be premature pending satisfactory resolution of the issues outlined above. Staff recommends adoption of a planned unit development approach which can address all of the major concerns. COMMISSION ACTION: (October 12, 1982) The applicant was present, and there were three or four interested neighbors who could to some degree be classified as objectors. The applicant presented a site plan showing the concept for a three-phase development at a proposed density of four or five units per acre, providing for a total of 88 units on this site. There was a lengthy discussion of the proposal, the type of buildings to be constructed and the procedural steps for accomplishing a planned unit development approach to the property. Beverly Rochelle representing the Windsor Court Townhome Property Owners Association, spoke to the Planning Commission about the timing of the Hinson Road improvements and stated that they felt that "MF -12" was too high density for this property since it was across the street from their project, and she presented a petition asking for deferral of the zoning until the Hinson Road improvements are made and to limit the development of the property to the "MF -6" density. Rick English representing Norman Holcomb, who is constructing Windsor Court, stated that in their view Hinson Road improvements must precede zoning. Don Reader, President of the Marlowe Manor Property Owners Association, stated that they had no particular problem with the "MF -6" density being discussed, but were also interested in the Hinson Road improvements. Finally, Jan Nicholson, who is building a single family development to the east of this proposed project, stated his concern about the proposal and asked if the PUD process would remove the public from a position to make comments and express interest in the project. He stated that the property owners on the property to the east were opposed to the higher densities being proposed. After a lengthy discussion, the Planning Commission moved to defer action on this project to the October 26 Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed: 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstention (Richard Massie abstained, citing conflict of interest). October 26, 1982 Item No. 1 - Continued COMMISSION ACTION: (10-26-82) The applicant was present, and there were two or three other interested parties. There was a brief discussion about the procedural steps for filing of a planned unit development request, and once these matters were cleared up, the Planning Commission deferred the item to the Planning Commission meeting of November 9, with the plans for the project to go to the Subdivision Committee on October 28. The motion passed: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. October 12, 1982 Item No. 16 - Z-3889 Owner: Little Rock Land Co., Inc. Applicant: John A. Castin Location: Hinson Road across from Windsor Court Condominiums Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "MF -12" Multifamily Purpose: Condominium Development Size: 18.6 acres + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" South - Residential, Zoned "R-2" East - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" West - Residential, Zoned "MF -6" STAFF COMMENT: Staff has received a letter from the owner stating that he is requesting deferral of this matter to the October 12 Planning Commission meeting. COMMISSION ACTION: (9-28-82) The Commission moved to defer this item to the October 12 Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed: 11 ayes and 0 noes. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: This property lies within an area shown on the Suburban Development Plan for low density multifamily development; however, is also subject to certain restrictions upon development because of the limited sewer capacity in northwest Little Rock. Additionally, there are concerns about the time of the proposed zoning in light of the fact that Hinson Road has not been completed to City standards and is not due for completion until April 1984. Likewise, project quality is an issue or concern to the neighborhood. October 12, 1982 Item No. 16 - Continued 1. Sewer Capacity Sewer capacity is a matter of serious concern in this area. The Wastewater Utility has stated that it has the ability to serve a population of 11,000 people in this area, and the City has informally maintained a development density cap of three units per gross acre. There is talk of making improvements to the system which will eliminate the capacity deficiencies. For now, however, zoning requests involving multifamily districts in this area should retain an overal density limit of three dwelling units per acre. Previously, this has been accomplished by placing restrictions on development of other tracts owned by the same property owner. These have .been referred to as "transferable developments" and have been recorded in the form of restricted covenants to run with the land. 2. Hinson Road Improvements Likewise, the agreements as to the timing of street improvements on Hinson Road are tied to similar documents. Some residents of Windsor Court have complained to the Planning Department about the lack of street improvements on Hinson Road, and yet there are no guarantees of any change until 1984. There are about 16 acres presently under development in the Windsor Court project, and there are another 37.5 acres zoned for "MF -6" development but without any specific development proposal at this time. The additional 20 acres being proposed, if developed, would put tremendous pressure on Hinson Road. If this zoning is approved, there would be nearly 75 acres committed to multifamily development in this immediate area. 3. Suburban Development Immediately east of this tract is a property which has been zoned "MF -6" for a number of years and is now being developed as a detached single family residential subdivision. This suggests continuing demand for detached single family living in the upper income levels. A large adjacent tract recently zoned "MF -6" by this applicant remains undeveloped. The Planning staff has undertaken an assessment of Suburban Development Plan implications of this request and anticipates submitting a plan change involving some modification to the multifamily designated land in this area at an upcoming Planning Commission meeting. Nevertheless, this property is designated multifamily on the plan and with proper safeguards is appropriate for that use. October 12, 1982 Item No. 16 - Continued STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Long-term, expectation for development of this property is for attached single family residential, but to zone the property at this time would be premature pending satisfactory resolution of the issues outlined above. Staff recommends adoption of a planned unit development approach which can address all of the major concerns. COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present, and there were three or four interested neighbors who could to some degree be classified as objectors. The applicant presented a site plan showing the concept for a three-phase development at a proposed density of four or five units per acre, providing for a total of 88 units on this site. There was a lengthy discussion of the proposal, the type of buildings to be constructed and the procedural steps for accomplishing a planned unit development approach to the property. Beverly Rochelle representing the Windsor Court Townhome Property Owners Association, spoke to the Planning Commission about the timing of the Hinson Road improvements and stated that they felt that "MF -12" was too high density for this property since it was across the street from their project, and she presented a petition asking for deferral of the zoning until the Hinson Road improvements are made and to limit the development of -the property to the "MF -6" density. Rick English representing Norman Holcomb, who is constructing Windsor Court, stated that in their view Hinson Road improvements must precede zoning. Don Reader, President of the Marlowe Manor Property Owners Association, stated that they had no particular problem with the "MF -6" density being discussed, but were also interested in the Hinson Road improvements. Finally, Jan Nicholson, who is building a single family development to the east of this proposed project, stated his concern about the proposal and asked if the PUD process would remove the public from a position to make comments and express interest in the project. He stated that the property owners on the property to the east were opposed to the higher densities being proposed. After a lengthy discussion, the Planning Commission moved to defer action on this project to the October 26 Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed: 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstention (Richard Massie abstained, citing conflict of interest).