Z-5656 Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: Z-5656
NAME: Hillside Village Townhouses - PRD Short -form
LOCATION: Located at the south end of Fillmore Street, two blocks
south of Cantrell Road.
DEVELOPER:
TOM SCHUECK
#10 Pleasant Valley Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212
AREA: 31,782 sq. feet
ZONING: 0-3 to PRD
PLANNING DISTRICT: 4
CENSUS TRACT: 16
ARCHITECT -
LARRY TOWNLEY
Townley Williams Architect
18 Corporate Hill Drive
Little Rock, AR 72205
224-1900
NUMBER OF LOTS:
PROPOSED USES:
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None specific
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
6 FT. NEW STREET: 0
Attached Townhouses
This appliant's proposal is the construction of a six unit
residential development with 1,500 square foot, 2 bedroom, 2 bath
residences on individual lots with common walls. The proposal
includes a two car garage with each of the several residences.
They will be of wood f rame 'construction with brick veneer. The
project is intended to serve retired or older people and will be
near shopping and business areas. The units will be established as
separate lots, with only the street access/private drive along the
north line as common property.
A party wall will be constructed between each of the units as a
fire wall. This party wall will be 12 inches thick to provide
noise and fire separation. Exteriors of all units will be brick
and may vary somewhat in nature, style and color.
A. PROPOSALLREOUEST:
The applicant's request is the approval of a Short -form PRD
for the establishment of a six lot subdivision. The purpose
being attached townhomes. The several lots involved in this
application are below the minimum standard for residential
zoning classification, therefore, the need for filing a PRD
application. The approval of the site plan for the PRD will
be authorization for staff to do a final plat of six lots for
the owner for a single filing for record.
FILE NO.: Z-5656 Cont.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
This site currently contains some natural vegetation and
trees, with some of the area having been cleared. The
property contains a grade running from the west to east which
will cause some modification in land form in order to develop
the site. Access is by way of an existing dedicated 50 foot
street right-of-way (two blocks in length) to an arterial
street. This roadway, in part, is substandard without curb
and gutter and providing a minimum two lane driving surface.
C. ENGINEERING UTILITY COMMENTS:
Engineering enters no comment on this issue. The Waste Water
Utility reports that it requires more information from the
developer before a specific response. Little Rock Water Works
reports that it has no comment on the proposal.
D. ISSUES LEGAL TECHNICAL DESIGN:
The Planning staff review of this proposal indicates the
following several items require attention.
1. Specific approval by the Fire Department on serving the
rear of the building on the south for fire fighting
capability.
2. A plat in final form for six lots with a Bill of
Assurance in detail providing for common wall
construction.
3. Elevations and/or a detailed section through the site
east to west should be provided.
4. A landscape plan dealing with the treatment along the
private drive and boundary of the property should be
filed.
E. ANALYSIS•
After reviewing the site plan, visiting the site and observing
the use mix in the immediate area, the Planning staff believes
this to be an entirely appropriate development of the land.
The development density is in keeping with low intensity
development in this area. Currently, there are condominiums
and low density multifamily developments lying immediately to
the south and west along Pierce Street. The size of this
tract and the terrain would prohibit development of this
property in single family lots. In fact, this would preclude
more than, perhaps, two single family lots. Staff does not
feel that the reduction to a residential occupancy is
inconsistent with past actions in this area.
FILE NO.: Z-5656 Cont.
F. STAFF RECO NMENDATIONS :
Staff recommends approval of this PRD and the six lot
preliminary and final plat. Approval is subject to
resolution of the several items pointed out above and the
provision of the additional section and site design materials.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(JANUARY 7, 1993)
The applicant, Mr. Townley, was present. He offered a brief
presentation of his proposal. Richard Wood of staff outlined the
several points on the staff's write-up relative to this
development. The Committee discussed the relationship of this site
to the various land uses lying east, west and north of the site.
There were no apparent problems generated through this discussion.
Mr. Townley indicated that he would complete several of the items
which he was currently working on. He is dealing with the section
through the site, grading and other such materials as requested by
the staff and will present those prior to the meeting.
There being no further discussion, the item was deferred to the
full Commission for final resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSYON ACTION:
(JANUARY 26, 1993)
The Chairman asked staff to present its recommendation and
comments. Richard Wood of staff gave a brief overview of the
project with the staff recommendation being approval of the
application for the PRD and the plat which will be required to
carry out the development proposal. The Chairman then asked the
applicant to come forward and present the application. Mr. Larry
Townley, the architect for this project, came forward. He stated
that this application consisted of a proposal to reduce the
existing office zoning on the property to residential into a PRD
for the construction of six single family dwellings. The
construction type would be houses with attached common walls.
Chairman Walker then asked Mr. Townley if he had illustrations or
prepared elevations of the proposed project. Staff produced from
the file the plans presented by Mr. Townley. They consisted of a
footprint layout of the buildings upon the several lots, and a
section through the site which was actually a north elevation of
the project. Mr. Townley offered a brief overview of the size of
the units for setbacks. He commented on a private drive to serve
the project from the end of Fillmore Street, and stated that units
would each be at a different elevation due to the fall of the land
from southwest corner of the project to the northeast corner of the
project. He pointed out that each unit would have a two car garage
with a space behind on the driveway for the parking of two
additional cars, if necessary.
3
FILE NQ.: Z--5555(Cont -
Mr. Townley pointed that he had had a plan prepared for grading of
the site to determine that the construction of these units and the
manner indicated could be accomplished. This plan reflected the
reality of this proposal.
Chairman Walker then identified three persons in attendance
desiring to speak on this issue. The first person to present
objection to this application was Mr. David Bryles. Mr. Bryles
stated that he was not opposed to the project; however, his
concerns were more related to the street and access to the project.
Mr. Bryles stated he felt the staff comments about the width of the
road and its current conditions were perhaps deficient. He felt
that currently it was totally deficient. He felt like this project
would be the compounding of the access issue along this street, and
not presenting any answer. Mr. Bryles stated that was his only
objection.
The Chairman then recognized the next gentleman, Mr. George Fisher,
to offer objection. Mr. Fisher offered an extended commentary on
the deficiencies of the developments of the several parcels on the
hill above his neighborhood. He pointed out the many occasions in
which there were a number of promises offered, but were not kept.
His comments then moved to the substandard nature of the streets in
the area such as Grant and Pierce, which serve a significant amount
of traffic flow. Mr. Fisher pointed out that the neighborhood had
long suffered the problems of these developments adjacent and
desired the Commission's consideration.
Mr. Burriss, an adjacent neighbor, came forward to offer his
concerns. Mr. Burriss offered the same general concerns as offered
by Mr. Fisher. These having to do with past promises and offerings
by developers on the hilltop to the east and south. He discussed
drainage problems that exist in this area which most were generated
by the business developments on the Prospect Building site.
Commissioner Putnam then posed a question as to whether or not the
objectors were discussing issues related to the Rector Phillips
Morse development of the Prospect Building site. He further
expanded his question to the applicant as to whether this was their
first development in this area. Mr. Townley, the architect for
this project, responded by saying that this is the first project
which he has done in the area. However, he pointed out that
Mr. Tom Schueck is the owner. He was not aware of whether
Mr. Schueck owned additional properties or had developed land in
this area. The Chairman asked Mr. Townley if had a response to the
neighbors' concerns about the streets and their conditions. He
stated that his only comment was, all of the streets in this area
are somewhat substandard and need work. But, this was something
his development or the property owner could not deal with.
The Chairman then asked Mr. Townley
enhancing the stormwater detention
that his project would enhance the
4
whether his project would be
in the area. Mr. Townley stated
drainage relationship with the
FILE NO.: Z-5656 (Cont.)
property owner immediately to the north. The Chairman then asked
whether Jerry Gardner of Public Works could come forward and
enlighten the Commission on whether there were projects in the
works to relieve drainage problems in this area.
Mr. Gardner came forward and offered a brief statement on public
projects underway in the area to the south along this drainageway.
He also pointed out the size of this project, being less than one
acre, the on-site detention requirements would not be applied.
Commissioner Oleson then raised the question as to why this is a
PRD instead of downzoning it to residential. Richard Wood of staff
that the lot size and the development format require a PUD
approach.
Several of the objectors present then came forward and offered
additional comments on their relationship with the development on
these properties to the south. They restated much of the concerns
which had been previously offered. Mr. Townley then pointed out
for the record that he was the architect for this project. He had
no further comment, except he sympathized with the neighborhood and
their concerns.
The Chairman then noted there being no further discussion by the
commissioners, that a vote on Item No. 4 as presented would be in
order. A vote on the application produced a count of 5 ayes,
4 nays, 1 absent and 1 abstention (Nicholson). Chairman Walker
determined because of this vote that this item would be deferred to
the March 9, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. The deferral due to
the 6 vote requirement in the bylaws and the automatic deferral
when 6 votes are not gained.
Mr. Townley then came forward to the lectern and asked the Chairman
to identify the issues which had been discussed and needed to be
resolved. The Chairman pointed out that he felt the stormwater
detention issue and how water would be handled and discharged from
this site are the primary issues. The second would be the
utilization of the existing road to access this property. The
third would be the density issue as raised by the neighborhood six
units on this small parcel of land.
Commissioner Oleson suggested that
neighborhood what those conditions
as far as the design considerations
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Mr. Townley might offer to the
were that he had agreed to meet
for the project.
(MARCH 9, 1993)
The applicant's representative, Mr. Larry Townley, the project
architect, was present. One person in opposition to the project,
Mr. George Fisher, completed and turned in to staff, a card
indicating his desire to address the Commission. Two other persons
in attendance at the hearing, but who did not turn in cards, also
spoke in opposition to the proposal, as did one additional person
who supported the project.
5
FILE NO.: Z-5656(Cont.)
Staff presented the item and deferred to Mr. Townley to bring
matters up to date since the item was last heard. Mr. Townley
reported that he had spoken with Jim Boyd of Waste Water Utilities
regarding the availability of sewer service to the site, and he
reported that it is available by way of an eight (8) inch main. He
had talked with Jerry Gardner in the City Engineering office
regarding run-off from the site, and he and Mr. Gardner concurred
that with the way the site was contoured, development of the site
will not add to drainage problems which exist in the neighborhood.
Mr. Townley reported that Jim Pawlowski, Fire Marshall, no longer
had reservations about the development. He had also talked with
Carroll Ball in the City Engineering offices regarding the City's
requirements for street improvements on Fillmore Street and it had
been confirmed that since Fillmore Street is a dead-end street into
the subject property where the private drive will commence, the
only required street improvement will be the apron approach to the
private drive. Mr. Townley asked the Commission to approve the
"PRD".
Mr. Fisher then addressed the Commission. He explained that the
development did not affect him directly; instead, he was speaking,
although unofficially, for neighbors who were to be adversely
affected. He displayed four enlarged photographs of street and
drainage conditions which exist on Fillmore Street. He showed and
commented on the narrow streets with open ditch drainage,
undersized culverts, and on -street parking due to the
unavailability of off-street parking. He pleaded for the
Commission to deny the application and not to add to the street
congestion in the area.
Mr. John Burnett, realtor involved in the project, spoke in support
of the project. He responded to Mr. Fisher by saying that he, too,
was a long-time resident of the area, but that the City could not
hold the land "hostage", not allowing it to be developed, because
of the poor condition of the streets in the Heights area.
Mr. Jerry Gardner, Public Works Department Engineer, responded to
Mr. Fisher's questions regarding the poor street conditions in the
Heights area. It was explained that, when the 1986 Bond Program
was formulated, it had been determined that 2500 blocks of sub-
standard streets existed throughout the City. At $35,000-$50,000
per block to reconstruct streets to standard, the $6 million
allotted to street reconstruction had already been allocated, and
that only one-tenth of the 2,500 blocks were able to be programmed.
Unfortunately, he added, Fillmore Street and other streets in the
Heights neighborhood had not been included in the program.
Mr. W. F. Burris addressed the Commission. He, too, identified
himself as a resident of the neighborhood, and he denounced the
project. He said that development in the area had caused drainage
problems to adjoining property. He expressed frustration at the
amount of taxes he pays on his property and contrasted that with
what he claimed is the almost total lack of benefit his
neighborhood receives from those taxes.
6
FILE NO-: Z-5656 Cont,
Ms. Michelle Adams spoke. She explained that she lives in one of
the houses on Fillmore Street; that the house has no off-street
parking available; that she has to park in front of her house; that
one of Mr. Fisher's photos showing cars parked on Fillmore Street
was a photo of her auto; and that, indeed, with her car and other's
cars on the street, Fillmore is no more than a one -lane street
which would, with the addition of six new homes, have to serve up
to twelve additional cars.
Commissioner Bill Putnam explained that the Planning Commission
was not the appropriate body from which to seek a remedy for
sub -standard streets. Rather, he added, the residents of the
Heights area need to seek help in forming an improvement district
to fund building adequate street and drainage facilities.
When no one else indicated a desire to speak on the issue, a motion
was made and seconded to recommend to the Board of Directors the
approval of the "PRD". The motion carried, 7 to 2.
0l
1. Meeting Date: April 6, 1993
2. Case No.: Z-5656
3. Request: Approval of Hillside Village Townhouses PRD
4. Location: South end of Fillmore Street, two blocks south of
Cantrell Road
5. owner/Applicant: Tom Schueck
6. Existing status: Undeveloped
7. Proposed Use: Six (6) Townhouses with common walls
8. Staff Recommendation: Approval
9. Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval
10. Conditions or Issues Remaining to be Resolved: None
11. Right-of-Way issues: None
12. Recommendation Forwarded With: N/A
13. Objectors: George Fisher, W. F. Burris, Michelle Adams
14. Neighborhood Plan: Hillcrest (4)