Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3968 Staff AnalysisT `p— March 29, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - File No. 319 NAME: Point Pleasant "PRD" LOCATION: On Hinson Road lying South of Windsor Ct. Townhomes and North of Hillsborough DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Fred Hunt & Co. Edward G. Smith & Associates 401 Victory Street APPLICANT/AGENT: Little Rock, AR Phone: 374-1666 John Castin Manes, Castin and Massie 2501 Willow Street P.O. Box 1035 N. L. R., AR 72115 Phone: (501) 758-1360 AREA: 5.1 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 ZONING: "R-2" (Existing) "PRD" (Proposed) PROPOSED USES: Condominiums REQUEST: FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 To reclassify an area zoned "R-2" to "PRD." I. DEVELOPMENT PHILOSOPHY AND OBJECTIVES (1) To provide a secure enclave for elderly and retired couples with a single entry point off Hinson Road. (2) To provide an entrance into the luxury condominium market for the developer, who has previously developed only single family. (3) To accommodate the life-style of the elderly, affluent home buyer in Little Rock. 41 March 29, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - Continued II. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS A. Parcel Size - - - - - -- - 5.1 acres B. Existinq zoning - - - - - "R-2" C. Density - - - - - - - - -- 4.9 D. Development Scheme (1) No. of Units - - - - 25 (2) Unit Type - - - - - Not Provided (3) Unit Size - - - - - Not Provided E. Building Coverage - - - Not Provided F. Perimeter Treatment - - Not Provided G. Parkinq (Total) - - - 119 4 Average Spaces/Unit = 100 Front Guest Parking = 19 Parking Unit Ratio - 4.76 spaces/unit H. Desiqn Features: (1) Predominately single level living. (2) Attached garages. (3) Private outdoor enclosed patio spaces. (4) Ample indoor and outdoor storage. (5) Central security system and single entrance road. (6) A maintenance free life-style with a condominium homeowners' association. (7) Elimination of exposed street parking and parking in the front of the residential units. March 29, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - Continued (8) Extensive landscaping throughout. Construction Time Frame: (1) Ten units by summer of 1983, the remainder depends upon market conditions. III. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS (1) Improve Hinson Road to minor arterial standards. (2) Entrance island and mail pickup area appears to prompt traffic conflicts. Request that developer's engineer contact City Engineer prior to preparing final street plans. (3) Internal streets should be a minimum of 20' wide. IV. STAFF ANALYSIS This proposal presents several issues for discussion. The applicant has submitted this as a short form PUD, but it is slightly over the acreage limit for such review. The applicant should consider filing this as a standard "PUD" or rezoning the property to "MF -6" and filing it as a site plan for a multiple building site. The site plan indicates an intrusion of a drive into the 40' buffer that shields a single family area to the south, leaving a 15' setback and a 6' fence. This is allowed by Ordinance if the 15' is left in its natural state; however, the residents in this location were extremely vocal when this property was previously presented for conditional use review for the construction of a church. Technically, the space between Buildings 21 and 22 at their closest point, do not appear to meet the requirement of at least 10' between detached buildings. Finally, the most significant problem with the plan has to do with sewer capacity for the area. Since this plan proposes to develop over the allowable density of three units per acre for sewer capacity, the applicant will need to resolve this issue with Wastewater utilities. At the time of this writing, no utility comments have been received. Due to the late submission of these plans, the applicant will be required to distribute copies to the appropriate agencies and utilities. kl/ March 29, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - Continued STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff suggest deferring action on this until the sewer issue is resolved. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The applicant submitted a revised plan which reduced the units to 24 parcels, and includes only a 20' setback on the northeast. Relative to staff's comments, the Committee did not feel that the acreage limit was significant since it was only a fraction over what was required. They also felt that the distance between buildings 21 and 22 was satisfactory since it averaged 101. The applicant stated that he wanted to proceed with 15 units until the sewer issue was resolved. A motion was made and passed to approve this item, subject to resolution of the sewer issue. The vote: 2 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: �! The applicant was present. Thera_ were no objectors. Staff reported that the sewer issue had been settled by the applicant's proposal to phase the development. Staff reported that adequate notification had not been given, since notices had not been sent out until the 11th. A motion was made and passed to defer the item for two weeks. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent, and I abstention. (Abstaining Commissioner Richard Massie) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: There were several persons present in objection. The neighborhood offered a petition of objection containing 26 owners' signatures. Mr. Joe Robinson and two others offered objection to the proposal. The developer, Mr. Hunt, and his planner, Jack Castin, were present and made a presentation. There followed a lengthy discussion of use, buffers, fencing, setbacks and transfer of density rights. The Commission determined that several items on the plan required modification. These were (1) expansion of the buffer alonq the south pro�F ne to a nimum of 15 feet; (2) ovision of a sz -fa —S Tth property line; (3) movement of all buildings to a o setbac from the south property line; (4) extension of variances in the 40 -foot building line on Hinson Road March 29, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - Continued to accommodate the building adjustments required along the south line; (5) relief from the buffer requirement adjacent to Windsor Town Homes; (6) commitment from the Fellowship Bible Church to permit a nine unit TDR to occur between the church property and the subject property. This will involve a legal description of the offered site and a letter from the church board or legally designated agent making the commitment. The Commission voted unanimously to recommend the Planned Unit Development for approval subject to the six items noted in the above comments. The vote 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent, 1 open position. E-1 SUBURBAN SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 0222 1500 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 March 29, 198: Little Rock Planning Commission City Hall Little Rock, Arkansas Re: Rezoning/Sewer Policy - West Little Rock Gentlemen: The undersigned are the Commissioners of Suburban Sanitary Sewer Improvement District #222. District 222 lies generally west of Rodney Parham Road and south of Highway #10. In fact, the boundaries of our District make up a large portion of the area which, since approximately 1980, has been the subject of a planning policy which limits development to not more than 3 sewer tie -ons per acre because of concern on the part of the Little Rock Waste- water Utility that sanitary sewer treatment facility capacity necessitated such limitations. We now understand that the Wastewater Utility has plans for increased treatment capacity and, incident thereto, has agreed or will agree that the above described limitations are no longer necessary. Generally speaking, we favor the removal of these restrictions. Our concern is that unless and until the additional treatment facilities are actually built that the removal of the restrictions could adversely effect lands in our District as presently constituted in that unrestricted present development in the West Little Rock area might later be said to have completely used up the available sewage treatment capacity in the event the additional treatment facilities are not built. In other words, land owners now apparently have Y an "entitlement", -.of -3 tie -ons per acre. However, unres'tricted'`development might use up the entitlement for every- one if the new facilities are not actually built. We would be very much opposed to that happening and thus would recommend that the restrictions not be removed until the new facilities are built or their construction is absolutely assured. Yours very truly, Floyd Fulkerson John R. Marlowe, Jr. Eugene Pfiefer, III October 26, 1982 Item No. 1 - Z-3889 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Little Rock Land Co., Inc. John A. Castin Hinson Road across from Windsor Court Condominiums Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "MF -12" Multifamily Condominium Development 18.6 acres + Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" South - Residential, Zoned "R-2" East - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" West - Residential, Zoned "MF -6" 1 STAFF COMMENT: Staff has received a letter from the owner stating that he is requesting deferral of this matter to the October 12 Planning Commission meeting. COMMISSION ACTION: (9-28-82) The Commission moved to defer this item to the October 12 Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed: 11 ayes and 0 noes. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: This property lies within an area shown on the Suburban Development Plan for low density multifamily development; however, is also subject to certain restrictions upon development because of the limited sewer capacity in northwest Little Rock. Additionally, there are concerns about the time of the proposed zoning in light'of the fact that Hinson Road has not been completed to City standards and is not due for completion until April 1984. Likewise, project quality is an issue or concern to the neighborhood. October 26, 1982 Item No.1 - Continued 1. Sewer Capacity Sewer capacity is a matter of serious concern in this area. The Wastewater Utility has stated that it has the ability to serve a population of 11,000 Y City has informally maintainedeapdevelopmentadensitnd the three units per gross acre. Y cap of improvements to the system which will eliminateathe gcapacity deficiencies. For now, however, zoning requests involving multifamily districts in this area should retain an overal density limit of three dwelling units per acre. this has been accomplished b Previously, development of other tracts owned cbyg restrictions onh same owner. These have been referred toas"transferablety developments" and have been recorded in the form of restricted covenants to run with the land. 2• Hinson Road Improvements Likewise, the agreements as to the timing of street improvements on Hinson Road are tied to similar documents. Some residents of Windsor Court have complained to'the Planning Department about the lack of street improvements on Hinson Road, and yet there are no guarantees of any chane until 1984. There are about 16 acres presently under g development in the Windsor Court project, and there are another 37.5 acres zoned for "MF -6 IF any Specific development proposal at development but without this T additional 20 acres being proposed, if deVeloped,would put tremendous pressure on Hinson Road. approved, there would be nearly75 acres If this ;tied is multifamily development in this immediate area. to 3• Suburban Development Immediately east of this tract is a zoned "MF -6" for a number of years andhich isbeen developed as a detached single family residential subdivision. This suggests continuing demand for detached single family living in the upper income levels. adjacent tract recently zoned "MF -6" b c large Y this a remains undeveloped. pplicant The Planning staff has undertaken an assessment of Suburban Development Plan implications of this request and anticipates submitting a plan change involving some modification to the multifamily designated land in this area at an upcoming Planning Commission meeting, this property is designated multifamily on. the eplanhand swith proper safeguards is appropriate for that use. October 26, 1982 Item No .1 - Continued STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Long-term, expectation for development of this property is for attached single family residential, but to zone the Property at this time would be premature pending satisfactory resolution of the issues outlined above. Staff recommends adoption of a planned unit development approach which can address all of the major concerns. COMMISSION ACTION: (October 12, 1982) The applicant was present, and there were three or four interested neighbors who could to some degree be classified as objectors. The applicant presented a site plan showing the concept for a three-phase development at a proposed density of four or five units per acre, providing for a total of 88 units on this site. There was a lengthy discussion of the proposal, the type of buildings to be constructed and the procedural steps for accomplishing a planned unit development approach to the property. Beverly Rochelle representing the Windsor Court Townhome Property Owners Association, spoke to the Planning Commission about the timing of the Hinson Road improvements and stated that they felt that "MF -1211 was too high density for this property since it was across the street from their Project, and she presented a petition asking for deferral of the zoning until the Hinson Road improvements are made and to limit the development of the property to the "MF -6" density. Rick English representing Norman Holcomb, who is constructing Windsor Court, stated that in their view Hinson Road improvements must precede zoning. Don Reader, President of the Marlowe Manor Property Owners Association, stated that they had no particular problem with the "MF -6" density being discussed, but were also interested in the Hinson Road improvements. Finally, ,Ian Nicholson, who is building a single family development to the east of this proposed project, stated his concern about the proposal and asked if the PUD process would remove the public from a Position to make comments and express interest in the project. He stated that the property owners on the property to the east were opposed to the higher densities being proposed. After a lengthy discussion, the Planning Commission moved to defer action on this project to the October 26 Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed: 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and I abstention (Richard Massie abstained, conflict of interest). citing U October 26, 1982 Item No. 1 - Continued COMMISSION ACTION: (10-26-82) The applicant was present, and there were two or three other interested arti about the Pes. There was a brief discussion procedural steps for filing of a planned unit development request, and once these matters were cleared the Planning Commission deferred the item to the Planning Commission meeting of November 9 uP► Project to . with the ening The motion 90 to the Subdivision with onaOctobert28. Passed: 10 ayes, p noes and 1 absent.