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).