Loading...
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)