Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3931-D Staff AnalysisJanuary 29, 1985 Item No. A - Z -3931-D Owner: Royal Star Construction Co. Applicant: Ronnie Hall Location: Chicot and Bunch Roads SW Corner Request: Rezone from "OS," "R-2," "MF -6," "MF -12" and "C-2" to "C-3" and "R -7A" Purpose: Mobile Home Subdivision and Commercial Uses Size: 6.5 acres - "C-3" 173.5 acres - "R -7A" Existing Use: Vacant and golf course SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2" South - Vacant and Single Family, Unclassified East - Single Family and Church, Zoned "R-2" West - Vacant and Single Family, Unclassified PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to rezone 173.5 acres to "R -7A" Mobile Home Subdivision and 6.5 acres to "C-3." Both of the proposed "R -7A" and "C-3" areas include land that is currently zoned "OS," "R-2," "MF -6," "MF -12" and "C-2." The proposed site plan for the "R -7A" development has 720 lots which is approximately four units per gross acre or approximately five units per net sellable acre. The density limit for the "R -7A" district shall not be greater than 12 units per acre of net sellable land area. Currently, there is a golf course with two lakes zoned "OS" on the property which is part of the "R -7A" request, but the area is shown to be reserved for community recreation facilities. Leaving that area undeveloped does bring the density down to a more reasonable level. The property is located at the city limits in an area that is not heavily developed, and the primary use is residential on large tracts with some minor nonresidential uses. Because of the existing land use and the development pattern, a project of this size, 720 lots and its compatability with the surrounding area, may be questioned. The "R -7A" district requires that a site plan be submitted and reviewed which also has been filed for the January 29, 1985 Item No. A - Continued December 18 meeting. The site plan review should address the issues of compability and lot arrangement and size. 2. The site is wooded and primarily vacant. The golf course area includes a recreation building, parking areas and tennis courts. A portion of the property also includes an abandoned railroad right-of-way along the southern boundary which is currently outside the city limits. 3. As of this writing, it is unknown whether there are any right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. If additional right-of-way is needed, the plat will provide the right-of-way for both Chicot and Bunch Roads. Chicot is classified as a minor arterial and Bunch is a residential street. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. Engineering has noted that any change in the railroad embankment may allow floodplain encroachment. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. The property was annexed in 1979 and came into the City as "R-2." In 1982, the first rezoning application was filed for "C-3" but it was withdrawn. Then in February 1983, approximately eight acres were rezoned to "C-2" and in March of 1983, two tracts were rezoned to "MF -6" and "MF -12" and one large parcel to "OS." The multifamily rezoning did receive some opposition from nearby residents. Again in 1984, another application was filed to rezone 8.6 acres to "MF -24," but it was withdrawn at the request of the owner. This proposal was for land zoned "R-2," "MF -12" and "C-2." It is the staff's understanding that there is some area opposition to the "R -7A" request. 7. The Suburban Development Plan identifies the general area for single family development. "R -7A" zone is a single family district, but for manufactured housing. With the previous rezoning, the plan was amended to show the commercial and multifamily area. The property is located in the area that was primarily developed prior to being annexed and somewhat removed from what is considered the urbanized portion of Little Rock. January 29, 1985 Item No. A - Continued This does raise the question of compability because of the proposed lot sizes and the residential tracts in the immediate vicinity which are, for the most part, much larger. There has been some concern expressed over a number of units being proposed for the "R -7A" land, but with the "R-2" subdivision, the number of lots would also be significant. Staff supports the "R -7A" and "C-3" request because we believe the proposal is a reasonable use of the land. The City made an effort to encourage affordable housing by adopting the "R -7A" mobile home subdivision district and has approved some "R -7A" projects in locations with similar characteristics. The "R -7A" district is not a mobile home park but rather a district that "provides for mobile home ownership of structure and lot for those mobile homes approved by the Department of Housing and Urban Development." In addition, all mobile homes must be converted to a permanent structure by placement upon paired footings and piers or foundations to be completely enclosed and the removal of all transport elements. The plan is proposing to provide an adequate amount of open space in community areas which represents an effort to make the project appealing and livable. These open areas should remain as such and not be considered for development in the future. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of both the "R -7A" and "C-3" request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12-18-84) The applicant, Ronnie Hall, was present. There were approximately 30 persons in attendance objecting to the request. It was pointed out that petitions were submitted prior to the public hearing. Mr. Hall spoke and indicated that the project would be phased over a period of 10 years, approximately 100 lots per year being constructed. He also stated that the lots would be for sale and the units would be 14' x 75' and placed on a slab with a carport. Darrell Brown, an attorney representing the property owners, then addressed the Commission and presented additional petitions opposed to the request. Mr. Brown said that the residents were very concerned with the proposed lot size because the existing development in the area was on at least one acre tracts and they were opposed to the "R -7A" rezoning. He went on to discuss other issues such as January 29, 1985 Item No. A - Continued schools, inadequate police and fire protection, roads and effect on property values. Basil Butler, a property owner, described the sewer problem and discussed other issues. Ronnie Hall then stated that the proposed developers would be willing to work on the site plan because there was some flexibility with the types of unit and lot size. Darrell Brown spoke and said that he felt there was room for compromise and discussion. Bill Rudkin, another property owner, discussed property values and other issues of concern. Mr. Hall then requested that the site plan be deferred, but not the zoning action. After additional comments, a motion was made to defer both the rezoning and site plan for 30 days to the January 29, 1985, meeting. Mr. Hall agreed to the deferral. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention (Richard Massie). UPDATE: Prior to the January 29, 1985, meeting, the Wastewater Utility provided the staff with written information stating that the density and limit in the area was 6 units per acre. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1-29-85) (Items A and B were discussed at the same time.) The applicant, Ronnie Hall, was present. There were a number of objectors in attendance. Staff informed the Planning Commission that the applicant had submitted a written request for a deferral to the February 12th meeting. Mr. Hall spoke and discussed the deferral request. Darrell Brown, Attorney representing the residents, addressed the Commission and stated that the residents were opposed to a deferral. Mr. Brown went on to say that the residents were still against the rezoning and asked the Planning Commission to act on the request. He then described some of their concerns and that the developer still had not met with the residents as suggested at the December 18, 1984, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Hall spoke again and said that if the developer does not meet with the neighborhood before February 12th, that he would ask for the request to be withdrawn. Mr. Brown spoke, and there was a long discussion about the various issues. Basil Butler, a resident, said that the neighborhood had concerns with the developer and the option on the property. A motion was made to defer the request to the February 12th meeting to allow the developer to meet with the residents. The vote: 5 ayes, 3 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstention (Richard Massie). The motion failed due to a lack of 6 affirmative votes. Mr. Hall asked that the request be approved as filed January 29, 1985 Item No. A - Continued and discussed the various issues. Mr. Brown reviewed the objections of the residents, including the current development pattern in the area and possible effects on property values. He said there was also a question as to whether the proposed buyers would be able to maintain the amenities of the development. Mr. Brown went on to say that the community has been stabilizing and the proposed project could harm that. He said that there was a need for affordable housing, but there were too many uncertainties associated with this project due, in part, to the developer's failure to communicate with the neighborhood. A vote was taken on the request as filed. The vote: 0 ayes, 6 noes, 2 absent and 3 absentions (David Jones, Richard Massie and William Ketcher). The request was denied. December 18, 1984 Item No. 17 - Z -3931-D Owner: Royal Star Construction Co. Applicant: Ronnie Hall Location: Chicot and Bunch Roads SW Corner Request: Rezone from "OS " "R-2 " "MF -6 " q , , , "MF -12" and "C-2" to "C-3" and "R -7A" Purpose: Mobile Home Subdivision and Commercial Uses Size: 6.5 acres - "C-3" 173.5 acres - "R -7A" Existing Use: Vacant and golf course SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2" South - Vacant and Single Family, Unclassified East - Single Family and Church, Zoned "R-2" West - Vacant and Single Family, Unclassified PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to rezone 173.5 acres to "R -7A" Mobile Home Subdivision and 6.5 acres to "C-3." Both of the proposed "R -7A" and "C-3" areas include land that is currently zoned "OS," "R-2," "MF -6," "MF -12" and "C-2." The proposed site plan for the "R -7A" development has 720 lots which is approximately four units per gross acre or approximately five units per net sellable acre. The density limit for the "R -7A" district shall not be greater than 12 units per acre of net sellable land area. Currently, there is a golf course with two lakes zoned "OS" on the property which is part of the "R -7A" request, but the area is shown to be reserved for community recreation facilities. Leaving that area undeveloped does bring the density down to a more reasonable level. The property is located at the city limits in an area that is not heavily developed, and the primary use is residential on large tracts with some minor nonresidential uses. Because of the existing land use and the development pattern, a project of this size, 720 lots and its compatability with the surrounding area, may be questioned. The "R -7A" district requires that a site plan be submitted and reviewed which also has been filed for the December 18, 1984 Item No. 17 - Continued December 18 meeting. The site plan review should address the issues of compability and lot arrangement and size. 2. The site is wooded and primarily vacant. The golf course area includes a recreation building, parking areas and tennis courts. A portion of the property also includes an abandoned railroad right-of-way along the southern boundary which is currently outside the city limits. 3. As of this writing, it is unknown whether there are any right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. If additional right-of-way is needed, the plat will provide the right-of-way for both Chicot and Bunch Roads. Chicot is classified as a minor arterial and Bunch is a residential street. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. Engineering has noted that any change in the railroad embankment may allow floodplain encroachment. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. The property was annexed in 1979 and came into the City as "R-2." In 1982, the first rezoning application was filed for "C-3" but it was withdrawn. Then in February 1983, approximately eight acres were rezoned to "C-2" and in March of 1983, two tracts were rezoned to "MF -6" and "MF -12" and one large parcel to "OS." The multifamily rezoning did receive some opposition from nearby residents. Again in 1984, another application was filed to rezone 8.6 acres to "MF -24," but it was withdrawn at the request of the owner. This proposal was for land zoned "R-2," "MF -12" and "C-2." It is the staff's understanding that there is some area opposition to the "R -7A" request. 7. The Suburban Development Plan identifies the general area for single family development. "R -7A" zone is a single family district, but for manufactured housing. With the previous rezoning, the plan was amended to show the commercial and multifamily area. The property is located in the area that was primarily developed prior to being annexed and somewhat removed from what is considered the urbanized portion of Little Rock. December 18, 1984 Item No. 17 - Continued This does raise the question of compability because of the proposed lot sizes and the residential tracts in the immediate vicinity which are, for the most part, much larger. There has been some concern expressed over a number of units being proposed for the "R -7A" land, but with the "R-2" subdivision, the number of lots would also be significant. Staff supports the "R -7A" and "C-3" request because we believe the proposal is a reasonable use of the land. The City made an effort to encourage affordable housing by adopting the "R -7A" mobile home subdivision district and has approved some "R -7A" projects in locations with similar characteristics. The "R -7A" district is not a mobile home park but rather a district that "provides for mobile home ownership of structure and lot for those mobile homes approved by the Department of Housing and Urban Development." In addition, all mobile homes must be converted to a permanent structure by placement upon paired footings and piers or foundations to be completely enclosed and the removal of all transport elements. The plan is proposing to provide an adequate amount of open space in community areas which represents an effort to make the project appealing and livable. These open areas should remain as such and not be considered for development in the future. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of both the "R -7A" and "C-3" request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Ronnie Hall, was present. There were approximately 30 persons in attendance objecting to the request. It was pointed out that petitions were submitted prior to the public hearing. Mr. Hall spoke and indicated that the project would be phased over a period of 10 years, approximately 100 lots per year being constructed. He also stated that the lots would be for sale and the units would be 14' x 75' and placed on a slab with a carport. Darrell Brown, an attorney representing the property owners, then addressed the Commission and presented additional petitions opposed to the request. Mr. Brown said that the residents were very concerned with the proposed lot size because the existing development in the area was on at least one acre tracts and they were opposed to the "R -7A" rezoning. He went on to discuss other issues such as December 18, 1984 Item No. 17 - Continued schools, inadequate police and fire protection, roads and effect on property values. Basil Butler, a property owner, described the sewer problem and discussed other issues. Ronnie Hall then stated that the proposed developers would be willing to work on the site plan because there was some flexibility with the types of unit and lot size. Darrell Brown spoke and said that he felt there was room for compromise and discussion. Bill Rudkin, another property owner, discussed property values and other issues of concern. Mr. Hall then requested that the site plan be deferred, but not the zoning action. After additional comments, a motion was made to defer both the rezoning and site plan for 30 days to the January 29, 1985, meeting. Mr. Hall agreed to the deferral. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention (Richard Massie). January 29, 1985 Item No. A - Z -3931-D Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Royal Star Construction Co. Ronnie Hall Chicot and Bunch Roads SW Corner Rezone from "OS," "R-21," "MF -6," "MF -12" and "C-2" to "C-3" and "R -7A" Mobile Home Subdivision and Commercial Uses 6.5 acres - "C-3" 173.5 acres - "R -7A" Vacant and golf course SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2" South - Vacant and Single Family, Unclassified East - Single Family and Church, Zoned "R-2" West - Vacant and Single Family, Unclassified PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to rezone 173.5 acres to "R -7A" Mobile Home Subdivision and 6.5 acres to "C-3." Both of the proposed "R -7A" and "C-3" areas include land that is currently zoned "OS," "R-2," "MF -6," "MF -12" and "C-2." The proposed site plan for the "R -7A" development has 720 lots which is approximately four units per gross acre or approximately five units per net sellable acre. The density limit for the "R -7A" district shall not be greater than 12 units per acre of net sellable land area. Currently, there is a golf course with two lakes zoned "OS" on the property which is part of the "R -7A" request, but the area is shown to be reserved for community recreation facilities. Leaving that area undeveloped does bring the density down to a more reasonable level. The property is located at the city limits in an area that is not heavily developed, and the primary use is residential on large tracts with some minor nonresidential uses. Because of the existing land use and the development pattern, a project of this size, 720 lots and its compatability with the surrounding area, may be questioned. The "R -7A" district requires that a site plan be submitted and reviewed which also has been filed for the January 29, 1985 Item No. A - Continued December 18 meeting. The site plan review should address the issues of compability and lot arrangement and size. 2. The site is wooded and primarily vacant. The golf course area includes a recreation building, parking areas and tennis courts. A portion of the property also includes an abandoned railroad right-of-way along the southern boundary which is currently outside the city limits. 3. As of this writing, it is unknown whether there are any right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. If additional right-of-way is needed, the plat will provide the right-of-way for both Chicot and Bunch Roads. Chicot is classified as a minor arterial and Bunch is a residential street. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the, reviewing agencies at this time. Engineering has noted that any change in the railroad embankment may allow floodplain encroachment. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. The property was annexed in 1979 and came into the City as "R-2." In 1982, the first rezoning application was filed for "C-3" but it was withdrawn. Then in February 1983, approximately eight acres were rezoned to "C-2" and in March of 1983, two tracts were rezoned to "MF -6" and "MF -12" and one large parcel to "OS." The multifamily rezoning did receive some opposition from nearby residents. Again in 1984, another application was filed to rezone 8.6 acres to "MF -24," but it was withdrawn at the request of the owner. This proposal was for land zoned "R-2," "MF -12" and "C-2." It is the staff's understanding that there is some area opposition to the "R -7A" request. 7. The Suburban Development Plan identifies the general area for single family development. "R -7A" zone is a single family district, but for manufactured housing. With the previous rezoning, the plan was amended to show the commercial and multifamily area. The property is located in the area that was primarily developed prior to being annexed and somewhat removed from what is considered the urbanized portion of Little Rock. January 29, 1985 Item No. A - Continued This does raise the question of compability because of the proposed lot sizes and the residential tracts in the immediate vicinity which are, for the most part, much larger. There has been some concern expressed over a number of units being proposed for the "R -7A" land, but with the "R-2" subdivision, the number of lots would also be significant. Staff supports the "R -7A" and "C-3" request because we believe the proposal is a reasonable use of the land. The City made an effort to encourage affordable housing by adopting the "R -7A" mobile home subdivision district and has approved some "R -7A" projects in locations with similar characteristics. The "R -7A" district is not a mobile home park but rather a district that "provides for mobile home ownership of structure and lot for those mobile homes approved by the Department of Housing and Urban Development." In addition, all mobile homes must be converted to a permanent structure by placement upon paired footings and piers or foundations to be completely enclosed and the removal of all transport elements. The plan is proposing to provide an adequate amount of open space in community areas which represents an effort to make the project appealing and livable. These open areas should remain as such and not be considered for development in the future. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of both the "R -7A" and "C-3" request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (12-18-84) The applicant, Ronnie Hall, was present. There were approximately 30 persons in attendance objecting to the request. It was pointed out that petitions were submitted prior to the public hearing. Mr. Hall spoke and indicated that the project would be phased over a period of 10 years, approximately 100 lots per year being constructed. He also stated that the lots would be for sale and the units would be 14' x 75' and placed on a slab with a carport. Darrell Brown, an attorney representing the property owners, then addressed the Commission and presented additional petitions opposed to the request. Mr. Brown said that the residents were very concerned with the proposed lot size because the existing development in the area was on at least one acre tracts and they were opposed to the "R -7A" rezoning. He went on to discuss other issues such as January 29, 1985 Item No. A - Continued schools, inadequate police and fire protection, roads and effect on property values. Basil Butler, a property owner, described the sewer problem and discussed other issues. Ronnie Hall then stated that the proposed developers would be willing to work on the site plan because there was some flexibility with the types of unit and lot size. Darrell Brown spoke and said that he felt there was room for compromise and discussion. Bill Rudkin, another property owner, discussed property values and other issues of concern. Mr. Hall then requested that the site plan be deferred, but not the zoning action. After additional comments, a motion was made to defer both the rezoning and site plan for 30 days to the January 29, 1985, meeting. Mr. Hall agreed to the deferral. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention (Richard Massie). UPDATE: Prior to the January 29, 1985, meeting, the Wastewater Utility provided the staff with written information stating that the density and limit in the area was 6 units per acre. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1-29-85) (Items A and B were discussed at the same time.) The applicant, Ronnie Hall, was present. There were a number of objectors in attendance. Staff informed the Planning Commission that the applicant had submitted a written request for a deferral to the February 12th meeting. Mr. Hall spoke and discussed the deferral request. Darrell Brown, Attorney representing the residents, addressed the Commission and stated that the residents were opposed to a deferral. Mr. Brown went on to say that the residents were still against the rezoning and asked the Planning Commission to act on the request. He then described some of their concerns and that the developer still had not met with the residents as suggested at the December 18, 1984, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Hall spoke again and said that if the developer does not meet with the neighborhood before February 12th, that he would ask for the request to be withdrawn. Mr. Brown spoke, and there was a long discussion about the various issues. Basil Butler, a resident, said that the neighborhood had concerns with the developer and the option on the property. A motion was made to defer the request to the February 12th meeting to allow the developer to meet with the residents. The vote: 5 ayes, 3 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstention (Richard Massie). The motion failed due to a lack of 6 affirmative votes. Mr. Hall asked that the request be approved as filed January 29, 1985 Item No. A - Continued and discussed the various issues. Mr. Brown reviewed the objections of the residents, including the current development pattern in the area and possible effects on property values. He said there was also a question as to whether the proposed buyers would be able to maintain the amenities of the development. Mr. Brown went on to say that the community has been stabilizing and the proposed project could harm that. He said that there was a need for affordable housing, but there were too many uncertainties associated with this project due, in part, to the developer's failure to communicate with the neighborhood. A vote was taken on the request as filed. The vote: 0 ayes, 6 noes, 2 absent and 3 absentions (David Jones, Richard Massie and William Ketcher). The request was denied.