Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3682-A Staff AnalysisLITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD JUNE 9, 1981 1:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and finding of a Quorum. A quorum was present, being nine in number. II. Approval of the minutes of the previous meeting. The minutes were approved as mailed out. III. Members present: IV. Members absent: V. Attorney in Attendance: Richard Massie, Chairperson Robert Wright Ron Tabor Jack Taylor Betty Turner Willard Johnson Dorothy Arnett Bill Hastings John Schlereth Calvin Scribner Jerilyn Nicholson Bob Taylor June 9, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7-A Fountain S uare Site Plan Review LOCATION: Near the northeast intersection of Rocky Valley and Imperial Valley Drives - north of Pleasant Valley Waterworks APPLICANT/OWNER: Ralph Bozeman Pleasant Valley, Inc. 570 Prospect Building Little Rock, AR 72207 REQUEST: To rezone an area from its !- present classification as an "R-2" Single Family zoning district to that of a Planned Residential Developmet (PRD) June 9, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7-A - Continued PROPOSAL 1. The construction of 54 owner occupied units, plus a clubhouse (1500 square feet) and maintenance building (1320 square feet) on 11.27 acres. 2. Development according to the following scheme: Building No. of Ft. 4.86% 48,048 Sq. Ft. 9.79% Units-� Units Size 21.08% 128, 450 Land Coverage A 13 1820 Sq. Ft. 23,660 Sq. Ft. B (two-story) 12 2320 Sq. Ft. 13,920 Sq. Ft. C 9 1920 Sq. Ft. 17,658 Sq. Ft. D 15 1500 Sq. Ft. 7.2,500 Sq. Ft. E �5 1740 Sq. Ft. 8,700_Scq_ _Ft. Total 54 86,438 Sq. Ft. Two car garage/ (each unit) 480 Sq. Ft. 25,920 Sq. Ft. storage Total building (2.57 acres) 112,358 22.88% coverage Density ratio 54 units/11.27 acres = 4.79 Unit per acre. 3. The provision of Open Space in the following manner: Private Open Area - 74,722 (1.71 acres) 15.22% Common area: Recreation area Landscaped area Natural open �area Streets and drives Total Open Space 23,850 Sq. Ft. 4.86% 48,048 Sq. Ft. 9.79% 103,493 Sq. Ft. 21.08% 128, 450 _Sq; Ft _ 26.17% 378,856 Sq. Ft. 77.12% (8.70 acres) June 9, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7-A - Continued ' 4. The provision of the following security measures: (a) Brick wall (approximately 6' tall) on the west property line and down Rocky Valley Drive as it enters the Water Plant; (b) chain-link fences at the highway right-of-way, on property where an old barbed wire fence exists, and on property at the Waterworks; (c) brick guard house at the entrance with electrically operated gates of wrought iron. 5. The provision of underground utilities within the property. 6. The provision of enclosed patios or yards with each unit. 7. The provision of the following features and materials: (a) Walls around patios and yards - brick/cedar or redwood (b) Roofs - cedar shingles (c) Walls - brick veneer with wood sidings (d) Exterior Entrance Doors - raised panels. (e) Windows - insulated glass (f) Porches and patios - paved with brick or tile (g) Paint - exterior latex in "Williamsburg colors" 8. The provision of a fountain and island planter as a deterrent to speed as well as for "aesthetic appeal." 9. The provision of a Horizontal Property Owners Regime for maintenance of all common areas and facilities. June 9, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7-A - Continued USES PROPOSED: Condominiums. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Sites considered under the Planned Unit Development concept must be 2.0 acres or greater. This plan complies. 2. The provision of 1.5 parking spaces per unit. This plan complies. 3. Multifamily subdivisions abutting single family subdivisions or areas zoned for single family by use shall protect such areas from potential nuisance by providing a minimum 40' buffer strip and a 6' fence of opaque nature. Though the plan complies with the fence requirement, it is not known whether or not a 40' buffer strip will be provided. This is doubtful considering that there is approximately 10' between the property line and the access easement along the western boundary, which abuts a single family home. 4. Guidelines for Planned Unit Developments advocate the preservance of existing trees whenever possible. The applicant has stated his compliance. 5. A minimum of 10 to 15 percent of gross "PRD" areas shall be designated as common open space. This plan complies. 6. A minimum of 500 square feet of usable private open space shall be provided. This plan complies. 7. Recreation facilities or structures and their accessory uses located in common areas shall be considered as usable open space as long as the total impervious surfaces such as paving widths constitute no more than 10 percent of the total open space. This plan complies. 8. The principal service easement should be a minimum of 45'. This plan does not comply. June 9, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7yA y_Continued 9. A detailed landscape plan should be submitted. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS 1. Consider minor redesign of entrance and first fountain square intersection. 2. Verify emergency equipment access. 3. Verify 1.5 parking spaces per unit. STAFF ANALYSIS A. EFFECT ON ENVIRONS, HEALTH AND PUBLIC SAFETY There is no anticipation of adverse impacts relative to the design of the site. In fact, Staff is supportive of the cluster layout used; and sees it as a reasonable means of developing this particular piece of property. a Traffic wise, the 54 condominium units should generate approximately 373 vehicle trips per day, compared to a detached, single family development of 41 units which would generate 390. Some screening though should be provided along the portion that abuts the Interstate. B. CONFORMANCE TO ORDINANCE This site plan does not conform to the Ordinance requirement for a 45' principal access easement. Because of the closeness of design, Staff is requesting that the applicant indicate where a 45' service and utility easement can be located, and identify the areas where it cannot. The proposal does not comply to an Ordinance requirement for a 40' buffer strip on abutting single family area. Since this is being considered under PUD guidelines, however, this may or may not be an issue. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval subject to the applicant's compliance to the comments made and the submission of a detailed landscape plan. June 9, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item 7-A - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION A motion for approval was made and passed subject to (1) minor redesign of entrance and first fountain square intersection; (2) verification of emergency equipment access; (3) verification of 1.5 parking spaces per unit; and (4) screening along interstate. The vote: 4 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. (Editor's Note: Since the preliminary review of the plat, staff has determined that the proposal is in compliance with the 45' access and service easement requirement.) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A lengthy discussion was held, during which Mr. Ralph Bozeman, the applicant, gave a slide show presentation that highlighted the major components of the proposal. At this time, he also stated his desire after meeting with the property -owners of Pleasant Valley, to revise his application by reducing the number of units to 45, instead of the 54 planned. The Pleasant Valley residents had requested that the plan be reduced to 35 units. Another person to speak favorably of the plan was Mr. Ernie Peters, a transportation consultant with PAWA, Inc. He reported that traffic counts had been conducted both within the vicinity and at nearby traffic locations removed from the site. The results yielded by his study mere similar to that found by Staff and others across the country - single family, detached units generate more vehicle trips per day than multifamily units. Opposition was presented by Pleasant Valley residents. Two persons, Ms. Evelyn Enderlyn and Ms. Janet Steele, represented all of the residents. The main concerns expressed involved their fear that the developer would profit from the Pleasant Valley name at the safety and expense of the residents within the Subdivision, because of the increased traffic and density in the area. They seemed to feel that Imperial Valley/Pleasant Valley Boulevard were not sufficient to handle an increased amount of traffic. A petition signed by 160 residents was submitted, and two requests were made: (1) the building of no more than 20 single family homes, with a limit on future development on the site; and (2) the construction of another collector street off of Rodney Parham Road. W7 June 9, 1981 Item 7-A - Continued Mr. Dale Paschal, spoke in behalf of the five families who are adjacent or near to the site. He stated that these residents were in favor of a high quality condominium project being built on the site, as opposed to an alternate plan, which is for the development of 48 small single family lots which would tend not to preserve the character of the existing Pleasant Valley area. Two concerns, however, were expressed: (1) that the amenities proposed in the plan remain intact; and (2) that the density would not be increased in the future. Mr. Charles Taylor, the owner of the adjacent property to the north and west of the site, spoke, He was not opposed to the project per se, but requested that his property be afforded the same protection with a PRD that it would receive under an "MF -6" classification, which means that a 40' buffer strip and 6' opaque should be provided. A motion was made to approve the preliminary plan for the Fountain Square PRD, subject to the following: (1) a maximum of 45 units, with the applicant waiving the right to increase the total number of units by 5 percent; (2) Staff should approve the revised plan to be submitted, in keeping with the intent of the major concept of the project as presented to the Commission, with no major relocations of units and facilities; (3) screening should be provided on the north and west sides by a brick wall on the far west dimension and a sight -proof fence; and (4) 15' of clear, unobstructed open space should be provided on the north and west perimeters, allowing a 5' distance of unobstructed open space to the fencing on the east side adjacent to the Interstate right-of-way. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. June 9, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. _7�� Fountain _Square Preliminary/PRD _ www _. LOCATION: Near the northeast intersection of Rocky Valley and Imperial Valley Drives - north of Pleasant Valley Waterworks DEVELOPER/OWNER: ENGINEER: Ralph Bozeman Pleasant Valley, Inc. 570 Prospect Buildinq Little Rock, AR 72207 Phone: 664-2405 AREA: 11.27 Acres (490,921 Sq. Ft.) Ronnie Hall Garver and Garver Little Rock, AR Phone: 376-3633 PROPOSED USE: Condominium ,June 9, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 - Continued A. EXISTING CONDITIONS The area involved consists of gentle slopes, and is heavily forested with an abundance of large pines and oaks. The property is bounded immediately on the west by a single family residence within the Pleasant Valley Subdivision; on the south by a City Water Treatment Plant; and on the east by Interstate 430. A 50' raw water easement is clearly visible toward the western portion of the site. B. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL This is a proposal to develop a tract of 11.27 acres into 54 units for condominium use. The project is envisioned as an extremely high quality condominium development that will be tailored to the upper income buyer, and will provide amenities which reflect a leisurely life-style. In formulating a plan for development, several basic guidelines were adhered to: (1) Majority to be one-story structures (80%); (2) Use of (traditional) architectural style; (3) Large rooms; (4) Large walled private patios or yards for each unit; (5) Buyers to come from "Empty Nester," upper-income level with older Pleasant Valley residents a prime marketing prospect; and (6) Streets designed so as to impede excessive speeding. As a means of retaining most of the existing trees, the applicant plans to selectively clear the area by initially eliminating only those that are on the streets and utility lines. The trees .located on the building areas will be reserved until the buildings are laid out; then, only those within the building area will be removed. Out of regard for the residents of the abutting subdivision, and because of its centrality, the clubhouse, pool and tennis courts will be located at the southeastern corner of the site. The applicant plans to minimize the adverse effects from VW June 9, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 - Continued the raw water easement by removing the visible clay and using it for fill in building areas. The topsoil stripped from building areas will be infilled over the easement in order that vegetation may be grown. C. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS Clarify right-of-way dedication along Rocky Valley. D. ANALYSIS Staff is basically in agreement with the plat as proposed. There are several concerns, however, that must be addressed. In regards to Rocky Valley, the applicant should state specifically how much pavement is in place and how much will be for dedication purposes. Staff is also requesting that the applicant provide verification that the utility companies are willing to accept the easements as indicated on the plat. E. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval, subject to the stated comment. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION A motion was made for approval subject to (a) verification that utilities are willing to accept easements as shown on plat before the June 9th Public Hearing; (b) clarification of right-of-way along Rocky Valley. The vote was 4 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A lengthy discussion was held, during which Mr. Ralph Bozeman, the applicant, gave a slide show presentation that highlighted the major components of the proposal. At this time, he also stated his desire after meeting with the property -owners of Pleasant Valley, to revise his application by reducing the number of units to 45, instead of the 54 planned. The Pleasant Valley residents had requested that the plan be reduced to 35 units. Another person to speak favorably of the plan was Mr. Ernie Peters, a transportation consultant with PAWA, Inc. He reported that traffic counts had been conducted both within the vicinity and at nearby traffic locations removed from the site. The results yielded by his study June 9, 1981 Item No. 7 -- Continued were similar to that found by Staff_ and others across the country - single family, detached units generate more vehicle trips per day than multifamily units. Opposition was presented by Pleasant Valley residents. Two persons, Ms. Evelyn Enderlyn and Ms. Janet Steele, represented all of the residents. The main concerns expressed involved their fear that the developer would profit from the Pleasant Valley name at the safety and expense of the residents within the Subdivision, because of the increased traffic and density in the area. They seemed to feel that Imperial Valley/Pleasant Valley Boulevard were not sufficient to handle an increased amount of traffic. A petition signed by 160 residents was submitted, and two requests were made: (1) the building of no more than 20 single family homes, with a limit on future development on the site; and (2) the construction of another collector street off of Rodney Parham Road. Mr. Dale Paschal, spoke in behalf of the five families who are adjacent or near to the site. He stated that these residents were in favor of a high quality condominium project being built on the site, as opposed to an alternate plan, which is for the development of 48 small single family lots which would tend not to preserve the character of the existing Pleasant Valley area. Two concerns, however, were expressed: (1) that the amenities proposed in the plan remain intact; and (2) that the density would not be increased in the future. Mr. Charles Taylor, the owner of the adjacent property to the north and west of the site, spoke. He was not opposed to the project per se, but requested that his property be afforded the same protection with a PRD that it would receive under an "MF -6" classification, which means that a 40' buffer strip and 6' opaque should be provided. A motion was made to approve the preliminary plan for the Fountain Square PRD, subject to the following: (1) a maximum of 45 units, with the applicant waiving the right to increase the total number of units by 5 percent; (2) Staff should approve the revised plan to be submitted, in keeping with the intent of the major concept of the project as presented to the Commission, with no major relocations of units and facilities; (3) screening should be provided on the north and west sides by a brick wall on the far west dimension and a sight -proof fence; and (4) 15' of clear, unobstructed open space should be provided on the north and west perimeters, allowing a 5' distance of unobstructed open space to the fencing on the east side adjacent to the Interstate right-of-way. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.