Z-5656-A Staff AnalysisJanuary 4; 1994
ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: Z -5656-B
NAME: HILLSIDE VILLAGE TOWNHOUSES -- AMENDED SHORT -FORM PRD
LOCATION: Two blocks south of Cantrell Road, beyond the end of
Fillmore Street
DEVELOPER:
ARCHITECT:
TOM SCHUECK TOWNLEY-WILLIAMS, ARCHITECTS, INC.
#10 Pleasant Valley Drive #18 Corporate Hill Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212 Little Rock, AR 72205
225-4625 224-1900
AREA: 0.73 ACRES ± NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0
ZONING• PRD
PLANNING DISTRICT: 4
CENSUS TRACT• 16
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None
STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL:
PROPOSED USES: Residential
An amendment to a previously approved Planned Residential
Development District is proposed in order to decrease the number
of residences which were formerly approved and to change the
scheme from attached townhouses to detached, free-standing homes.
Five homes, each 33 feet wide, with 4 foot interior side yards
and 8 foot exterior side yards on the two end homes are proposed.
A 25 foot rear yard setback is proposed, leaving approximately 48
feet for the front yards and the 20 foot private drive. The
exteriors are proposed to vary somewhat in style, color, look,
etc., but all five homes are to be basically identical plans with
brick veneer exteriors. Access is to be provided by way of
Fillmore Street which "dead -ends" at the edge of the property.
A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board
of Directors is requested for an amendment to the previously
approved Hillside Village Townhouses PRD. The original
request was heard by the Planning Commission on March 9,
1993 and was approved by the Board of Directors on April 6.
The plan which was approved was for six "attached", row -type
townhouses. The request at this time is to amend the PRD to
permit five single-family detached residences on five
individual lots. Units 1 and 5 would be on 45 foot lots,
with 8 feet between these two end units and the boundary of
the PRD and 4 feet to the internal property lines. The
January 14, 1994
ITEM NO • 6 (continued) FILE NO.: Z-565
remaining 3 homes would be on 41 foot lots with 4 foot side
yards, providing 8 feet between each of the units. A
private drive is proposed and access to the drive is to be
from Fillmore Street which currently terminates at the north
boundary of the property.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is currently undeveloped and mostly overgrown. The
site is conditionally zoned PRD. (Unless the previously
approved PRD is constructed within the time frame required
by the ordinance, the zoning of the property will revert to
0-3.) Property to the north, through which the access is to
be derived, is zoned R-2. To the south and west is 0-3
property. To the east is MF -12 property.
C. ENGINEERINGIUTILITY COMMENTS:
The City Engineering office indicates that the Detention and
Excavation Ordinances are applicable. Improvements to
Fillmore Street will be required at the access point to the
street.
Water Works reports no comments.
Wastewater indicates that the sewer is available in 1 -01 -
Street, and that Wastewater Utility needs to be contacted
prior to construction.
Arkansas Power and Light Co. will require easements.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. and Southwestern Bell Telephone
approved the submittal without comment.
The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment.
D. ISS ES LE AL TECHNICAL DESIGN:
The application is deficient in the following ways: an
application form has not been furnished; a survey and legal
description have not been furnished; a preliminary plat,
with all required information pursuant to the Subdivision
Regulations, has not been furnished; the schematic site plan
does not meet minimum submittal requirements; no preliminary
Bill of Assurance has been provided, etc.
A statement is made that the private drive in front of each
of the five homes will be common area, yet there is no
provision for maintenance of this area.
The proposed treatment of the perimeter and a schematic
landscaping plan are to be provided.
0a
January 4, 1994
ITEM NC.: 6 Continued FILE NO.: Z-56 6---B
The proposed improvements to the public street are to be
indicated.
A development schedule is to be outlined.
Any anticipated signage needs to be described and located as
part of the review documents.
E. ANALYSIS•
The documents submitted for review are deficient as noted
above. Critical information for a proper review by staff is
not available.
The Planning staff indicates that the adopted Land Use Plan
recommends office use for this site. However, staff
continues, if the development is to take access through
residential street from the north rather than from the 0-3
zoned land to the south, then low density multi -family or
single family uses are appropriate.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends deferral of the hearing of this application
pending receipt of appropriate drawings and related
documentation. If the required exhibits are submitted and the
comments and concerns have been addressed as outlined above, then
staff recommends approval of the amended PRD.
❑BDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (DECEMBER 9, 1993)
Mr. Larry Townley, the project architect, was present to
represent the applicant. Staff outlined the request and
presented the deficiencies noted in the discussion outline. The
Committee members reviewed the proposal and asked Mr. Townley to
submit complete exhibits to staff. Mr. Townley indicated that he
would prepare and submit the needed documents. The Committee
referred the item to the Commission for the hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION (JANUARY 4, 1994)
Staff presented the request. Mr. Townley, the applicant's
representative, was present. Mr. W. F. Burris was present in
opposition to the request.
Mr. Burris complained that the street could not accommodate any
added traffic. He also reported that he had title to and had
maintenanced a strip of the land along his south property line
3
Janu&ry 4!, 1994
ITEM NO.: 5 (Continued) _ _ FILE NO.: Z -5655-B
that was included in the applicant's survey. Staff and
Mr. Townley reported that the strip of land in question was being
excluded from the developed area. The fence, which encloses the
land claimed by Mr. Burris, was being retained.
A motion was made and seconded to recommend approval of the
request to the Board. The motion passed with the vote of 8 ayes,
1 no, 2 absent, and no abstentions.
4