Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3970 Staff AnalysisF y 22, 1986 Z ON'I NG Item No. 9 - Pleasant Valley Planned Residential District Condominiums NAME: Pleasant Valley Point Condominiums By: Ronald Wilkinson LOCATION• Pleasant Ridge Road south off State Highway 10 (Cantrell Road) REQUEST. To be permitted to rent the existing units in the project until such time as marketing, financing and scheduling will permit a sales format and conversion to condominiums. STAFF REPORT: This matter is before the Planning Commission as the result of a request for final certificate of occupancy. The Planning and Enforcement staff rejected issuance of a permit after noting upon site inspection that a large sign had been erected marketing the project as apartments. Our review of the case files and the minute records reflect that all written material in the application indicates the use to be condominiums. This reference is carried forward and included the adopted ordinance. The project was approved by the City Board by Ordinance No. 14,438 on May 3, 1983, on a plan area of approximately 39.5 acres. The project was limited to 120 units in the first phase due to the sewer density limitation of three units per acre. The issue at hand involves that first phase. The developer has suggested that several problems including litigation are holding up the marketing of this development as condominiums. The facts are that the units have been "for rent" units since the first buildings were completed. The owner was advised early that the PRD was limited to condominium occupancy. In our communication with the owner/developer, we advised him to send notice to the neighbors of this proposal inasmuch as the Piedmont residents immediately to the west were only supportive of the project if they could be assured they could be owner occupied. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff will respond to questions as necessary but will not offer a specific recommendation at this time. IF _1986 r NG Item No. 9 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-22-86) There were no objectors in attendance. The applicant, Mr. Ronald Wilkinson, was present. The staff offered a brief overview of the circumstances. The applicant offered comments in support of his request to continue renting the existing complex for a period of years. A lengthy discussion followed. It was determined that there was reason to believe that the owner had intent to rent this development for approximately five years and that permitting such an occupancy was appropriate. A motion to that effect was made and passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent. The motion carried a requirement that the developer sell these units within the five-year time frame or return to the Planning Commission for further review of this proposal. 14) March 29, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - File No. 316 NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER Seven Hot Springs P.O. Box 1951 Montgomery, Ala AREA: 39.53 acres Corp. 36103 Pleasant Valley Condominiums Pleasant Ridge, approx. 1600' south of Highway 10 ENGINEER: Edward G. Smith and Associates 401 Victory Little Rock, AR Phone: 374-1666 NO. OF LOTS: 4 FT. OF NEW ST.: 1700' ZONING: (Existing) "R-2" (Proposed) "PRD" PROPOSED USES: Residential - Condominiums REQUEST: For reclassification from "R-2" to "PRD." DEVELOPMENT PHILOSOPHY: This proposal has been submitted for review as a "Planned Residential Development" that will provide a high quality and preferred living environment. The concept for development was based upon three general factors: (1) society's changing life-styles; (2) increasing age of persons in the area; and (3) the advantages of condominium living. It will be geared mainly toward that component of the community which can be described as "empty -nesters," (adults whose children are grown) and toward professionals with no more than] one child. The development provides an extensive package of amenities. Recreational facilities will include two tennis courts, swimming pools, whirlpools and cabana. Individual unit features are to be two and three-bedroom flats and three-bedroom town houses with fireplaces, wet bars, washer and dryer connections, vaulted ceilings for living rooms, formal dining rooms, fully equipped kitchens with self cleaning ovens, frost free refrigerators/ice makers, wall to wall carpeting, six panel doors, one covered parking space with one or more open spaces. March 29, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - Continued Access to and through Pleasant Valley Condominiums is by Pleasant Ridge Road, a collector street, which will provide immediate access to State Highway 10, I-430 and the local interstate system. The development is geared toward complementing the City's Master Plan for the area; which envisions office park development along this thoroughfare. Residential streets leading from Pleasant Ridge are designed for the maximum of privacy and security, with the preservation of much of the existing mature vegetation. It is hoped that this will help create a plush landscaping scheme and provide one of the "garden spots of Little Rock." Architecture will be formal, traditional exterior with bay windows and high pitched roofs. As for maintenance and ownership, the developer plans to build these as "for sale" units, which exceed the registration for condominium construction. A legal document will be filed establishing each residential unit as a separate condominium. Due to the instability of the economic climate, the units may be leased for awhile. Any resident leasing a unit will be given the first option to purchase their unit. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS: A. B. Parcel Size - - - - - --- - -- - - - - - 39.53 Acres (1,619,900 sq. ft.) Unit Construction Phase I - - - - - Phase II -- - - - C. Unit Scheme No. of Units 68 Total Floor Area 272 Total Floor Area Total Area 11-i+- c; -o 3 -Bedroom Town Houses 2 -Bedroom Flat 184 units 156 units T40 units total Floor Area 1,500 sq. ft. 102,000 sq. ft. 1,265 sq. ft. 344,080 sq. ft. 446,080 sq. ft. March 29, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - Continued D. Building Coverage: No. of Total Bldg. Type Bldgs'- Size Floor Area Type I 34 4,490 sq. ft. 152,660 Type II 17 5,060 sq. ft. 86,020 Total Bldg. Coverage - - - - - - - - 238,680 sq. ft. E. Common Open Space: (1) Usable - - - - 23.93 acres - - - 1,042,620 sq. ft. (2) Nonusable (paved) 7.77 acres - - 338,600 sq. ft. Total 31.7 acres (1,381,220 sq. ft.) Percentage of Site - - - 80% F. Parking - - - 2 spaces per dwelling unit - - - 680 G. Development Time Frame Project Start Completion Phase I - - - - July 1, 1983 December 31, 1984 Phase II - - - - Spring 1985 Summer 1986 SPECIAL GUIDELINES FOR PUD'S: 1. Sites considered must be 2.0 acres or greater. This plan complies. 2. A minimum of 10-15% of gross "PRD" areas shall be designated as landscaped open space, not to be used for streets or parking. This plan complies. 3. When the common open space is deeded to a homeowners' association, the developer shall file a declaration of covenants and restrictions in the Bill of Assurance. The applicant has stated his compliance. March 29, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - Continued 4. A detailed landscaping plan must be submitted. This plan complies. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS: (1) Request internal drainage plan. (2) The Post Office has directed a centralized mail delivery location of each driveway off Pleasant Ridge Road. (3) Request a concrete apron be constructed at the entrance of each private street. (4) Construct Pleasant Ridge to collector standards. ANALYSIS: Staff is supportive of this development. There are, however, several issues to be dealt with. The most significant is the proposal's failure to comply with the sewer capacity limit of three units per acre in this area. A plan amendment will be needed relative to density and sewer. A 50' buffer is composed as a protective device for the single family area on the abutting south. Perhaps the applicant would like to lessen the density by providing small, attached single family homes with small lots in this area of the site. He should also look into the termination of Desoto Forest Street, which abuts this property and runs through the single family neighborhood. Since this development is phased, the applicant should adhere to the construction time frame submitted. Staff has no objections to phasing the construction of Pleasant Ridge Road, provided that it coincides with that indicated on the site plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deferral, until above issues are resolved. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The applicant was present. A discussion relative to the sewer and density issues was held. A representative of the developer stated that this plan differed from the original March 29, 1983 SUBDIVSIONS Item No. 1 - Continued one presented to the staff in preliminary discussions by a reduction in density and the addition of a buffer and fence. He felt that these measures addressed staff's concern with the single family area to the south. The Committee expressed concern that approval would be taking sewer capacity away from others, since this proposal won't be developed until two years from now, and the current policy is not on a "first come, first served" basis. It was decided that perhaps a shift in policy was needed. A motion was made for approval of the plan, subject to a resolution of the issues involved. The motion passed by a vote of: 2 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. Staff reported that the proposal had been reviewed and was considered to be a good development. It was suggested, however, that the density should be lessened in the area adjacent to the single family neighborhood on the south, so as to provide a transition zone, and that Desoto, a residential street abutting the development on the south, should be terminated. Staff then requested that the proposal be deferred until the existing sewer policy, which limits development in the area to three units per acre is formally changed by the Board of Directors, or the project is phased to accommodate the sewer capacity. A lengthy discussion ensued, wherein the developer stated objections, based on economic infeasibility, to reducing the number of units. Property owners from both the Pleasant Forest Subdivision on the south and the Piedmont Subdivision on the west requested buffers of 100' or more. The applicant agreed to revise his plan accordingly. A motion for a two-week deferral was made and passed whereby the applicant was directed along with staff to determine from the Planning Commission Retreat and Sewer Committee's decisions, whether or not the sewer policy would be changed. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 1 no, 2 absent. (No vote - Commissioner Jones) March 29, 1983 SUBDIVSIONS Item No. 1 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: There were objectors present. The objectors were represented by Sarah Murphy who indicated that she spoke for 19 Piedmont owners, Mr. Rick Ellis speaking for his area and Pleasant Forest Addition and Ernestine Okobo also from Pleasant Forest. The owners presented arguments against the project related to the amount of green space adjacent to their lots, the location of the collector street, the density of the project and the overall design of the proposal. The application was presented by Mr. Joe White from Edward G. Smith and Associates. He and the developer offered a presentation of the proposal outlining some modifications which they had drafted since the last meeting on this matter. They proposed now to reduce the number of units from 340 to 335. They also proposed a 50 -foot buffer along the western boundary in its entirety in place of the 25 -foot buffer previously submitted. The developers also offered to the Commission the idea that they were receptive to building only 120 units in the first phase which would be allowable density on this total site for three units per acre. The balance of their holdings would, of course, not be allowed development rights until the sewer issue is resolved. The Planning Commission then discussed the matter at length introducing further comment from both staff, the applicant and the neighborhood. Significant comment was received relative to the sewer department (Wastewater Utility) position relative to the Maumelle interceptor proposed to relieve the District 222 density restriction. It was understood by all present that the sewer department with the endorsement of the Planning Commission and the City Board would seek to have the Sewer Committee establish the Maumelle interceptor as a priority for next construction. Following the discussion, a motion was made to approve the application modified as follows: The first change would be to limit the first phase to 120 units and additional phases be disallowed until the sewer limit is lifted. The second item was a 50 -foot buffer on the west be undisturbed by any construction or site preparation activity except for the location and erection of any required screening fences. The third point was accepting the reduction of the total unit count from 340 to 335 total for this development. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 1 open position. Y v March 29, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - File No. 316 NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER Pleasant Valley Condominiums Pleasant Ridge, approx. 1600' south of Highway 10 ENGINEER: Seven Hot Springs Corp. Edward G. Smith and Associates P.O. Box 1951 401 Victory Montgomery, Ala 36103 Little Rock, AR Phone: 374-1666 AREA: 39.53 acres NO. OF LOTS: 4 FTS OF NEW ST.: 1700' ZONING: (Existing) "R-2" (Proposed) "PRD" PROPOSED USES: Residential - Condominiums REQUEST: For reclassification from "R-2." to "PRD." DEVELOPMENT PHILOSOPHY: This proposal has been submitted for review as a "Planned Residential Development" that will provide a high quality and preferred living environment. The concept for development was based upon three general factors: (1) society's changinq life-styles; (2) increasing age of persons in the area; and (3) the advantages of condominium living. It will be geared mainly toward that componentof the community which can be described as "empty -nesters, (adults whose children are grown) and toward professionals with no more than, one child. The development provides an extensive package of amenities. Recreational facilities will include two tennis courts, swimming pools, whirlpools and cabana. Individual unit features are to be two and three-bedroom flats and three-bedroom town houses with fireplaces, wet bars, washer and dryer connections, vaulted ceilings for living rooms, formal dining rooms, fully equipped kitchens with self cleaning ovens, frost free refrigerators/ice makers, wall to wall carpeting, six panel doors, one covered parking space with one or more open spaces. W March 29, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 -- Continued Access to and through Pleasant Valley Condominiums is by Pleasant Ridge Road, a collector street, which will provide immediate access to State Highway 10, I-430 and the local interstate system. The development is geared toward complementing the City's Master Plan for the area; which envisions office park development along this thoroughfare. Residential streets leading from Pleasant Ridge are designed for the maximum of privacy and security, with the preservation of much of the existing mature vegetation. It is hoped that this will help create a plush landscaping scheme and provide one of the "garden spots of Little Rock." Architecture will be formal, traditional exterior with bay windows and high pitched roofs. As for maintenance and ownership, the developer plans to build these as "for sale" units, which exceed the registration for condominium construction. A legal document will be filed establishing each residential unit as a separate condominium. Due to the instability of the economic climate, the units may be leased for awhile. Any resident leasing a unit will be given the first option to purchase their unit, PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS° W 0 Parcel Size - - -- - - - - .- - - - - - 39.53 Acres (1,619,900 sq, ft.) Unit Construction Phase I -- - - - - - Phase II - - -- - C. Unit Scheme I No, of Units 68 Total Floor Area 272 Total Floor Area Total Area 9 r1.,,+- c;- 3 -Bedroom Town Houses 2 -Bedroom Flat 184 units 156 units 7U units total Floor Area 1,500 sq. ft. 102,000 sq, ft. 1,265 sq, ft. 344,080 sq. ft. 446,080 sq, ft. March 29, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - Continued D. Building Coverage: No. of Total Bldg. Type Bldgs. Size Floor. Area Type I 34 4,490 sq. ft. 152,660 Type II 17 5,060 sq. ft. 86,020 Total Bldg. Coverage - - - - - - - - 238,680 sq. ft. E. Common Open Space: (1) Usable - - - - 23.93 acres - - - 1,042,620 sq. ft. (2) Nonusable (paved) 7.77 acres - - 338,600 sq. ft. Total 31.7 acres (1,381,220 sq. ft.) Percentaqe of Site - - - 80% F. Parking - - - 2 spaces per dwelling unit - - - 680 G. Development Time Frame Projec Start Completion Phase I - - - - July 1, 1983 December 31, 1984 Phase II -- - - - Spring 1985 Summer 1986 SPECIAL GUIDELINES FOR PUD'S: 1. Sites considered must be 2.0 acres or greater. This plan complies. 2. A minimum of 10-15% of gross "PRD" areas shall be designated as landscaped open space, not to be used for streets or parking. This plan complies. 3. When the common open space is deeded to a homeowners' association, the developer shall ;�file a declaration of covenants and restrictions in th;e Bill of Assurance. The applicant has stated his comlliance. 41 March 29, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 1 - Continued 4. A detailed landscaping plan must be submitted. This plan complies. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS: (1) Request internal drainage plan. (2) The Post Office has directed a centralized mail delivery location of each driveway off Pleasant Ridge Road. (3) Request a concrete apron be constructed at the entrance of each private street. (4) Construct Pleasant Ridge to collector standards. ANALYSIS: Staff is supportive of this development. There are, however, several issues to be dealt with. The most significant is the proposal's failure to comply with the sewer capacity limit of three units per acre in this area. A plan amendment will be needed relative to density and sewer. A 50' buffer is composed as a protective device for the single family area on the abutting south. Perhaps the applicant would like to lessen the density by providing small, attached single family homes with small lots in this area of the site. He should also look into the termination of Desoto Forest Street, which abuts this property and runs through the single family neighborhood. Since this development is phased, the applicant should adhere to the construction time frame submitted. Staff has no objections to phasing the construction of Pleasant Ridge Road, provided that it coincides with that indicated on the site plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deferral, until above issues are resolved, SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The applicant was present. A discussion relative to the sewer and density issues was held. A representative of the developer stated that this plan differed from the original 41 March 29, 1983 SUBDIVSIONS Item No. 1 - Continued one presented to the staff in preliminary discussions by a reduction in density and the addition of a buffer and fence. He felt that these measures addressed staff's concern with the single family area to the south. The Committee expressed concern that approval would be taking sewet capacity away from others, since this proposal won't be developed until two years from now, and the current policy is not on a "first come, first served" basis. It was decided that perhaps a shift in policy was needed. A motion was made for approval of the plan, subject to a resolution of the issues involved. The motion passed by a vote of: 2 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. Staff reported that the proposal had been reviewed and was considered to be a good development. It was suggested, hoiaever, that the density should be lessened in the area adjacent to the single family neighborhood on the south, so as to provide a transition zone, and that Desoto, a residential street abutting the development on the south, should be terminated. Staff then requested that the proposal be deferred until the existing sewer policy, which limits development in the area to three units per acre is formally changed by the Board of Directors, or the project is phased to accommodate the sewer capacity. A lengthy discussion ensued, wherein the developer stated objections, based on economic infeasibility, to reducing the number of units. Property owners from both the Pleasant Forest Subdivision on the south and the Piedmont Subdivision on the west requested buffers of 100' or more. The applicant agreed to revise his plan accordingly. A motion for a two-week deferral was made and passed whereby the applicant was directed along with staff to determine from the Planning Commission Retreat and Sewer Committee's decisions, whether or not the sewer policy would be changed. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 1 no, 2 absent. (No vote - Commissioner Jones) 4 March 29, 1983 1 SUBDIVSIONS Item No. 1 - Continued :61�d PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: There were objectors present. The objectors were represented by Sarah Murphy who indicated that she spoke for 19 Piedmont owners, Mr. Rick Ellis speaking for.his area and Pleasant Forest Addition and Ernestine Okobo also from Pleasant Forest. The owners presented arguments against the project related to the amount of green space adjacent to their lots, the location of the collector street, the density of the project and the overall design of the proposal. The application was presented by Mr. ,Joe White from Edward G. Smith and Associates. He and the developer offered a presentation of the proposal outlining some modifications which they had drafted since the last meeting on this matter. They proposed now to reduce the number of units from 340 to 335. They also proposed a 50 -foot buffer along the western boundary in its entirety in place of the 25 -foot buffer previously submitted. The developers also offered to the Commission the idea that they were receptive to building only 120 units in the first phase which would be allowable density on this total site for three units per acre. The balance of their holdings would, of course, not be allowed development rights until the sewer issue is resolved. The Planning Commission then discussed the matter at length introducing further comment from both staff, the applicant and the neighborhood. Significant comment was received relative to the sewer department (Wastewater Utility) position relative to the Maumelle interceptor proposed to relieve the District 222 density restriction. It was understood by all present that the sewer department with the endorsement of the Planning Commission and the City Board would seek to have the Sewer Committee establish the Maumelle interceptor as a priority for next construction. Following the discussion, a motion was made to approve the application modified as follows: The first change would be to limit the first phase to 120 units and additional phases be disallowed until the sewer limit is lifted. The second item was a 50 -foot buffer on -the west be undisturbed by any construction or site preparation activity except for the location and erection of any required screening fences. The third point was accepting the reduction of the total unit count from 340 to 335 total for this development. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, 1 open position. 40 WOW, 4' y 2 2 `,.19 16 RECEIVED ' Z ON I NO' MAY g 1988 Item No. 9 - Pleasant Valley Point -- Planned Residential District Condominiums a...» -WA NAME: Pleasant Valley Point Condominiums By: Ronald Wilkinson LOCATION: Pleasant Ridge Road south off State Highway 10 (Cantrell Road) REQUEST: To be permitted to rent the existing units in the project until such time as marketing, financing and scheduling will permit a sales format and conversion to condominiums. STAFF REPORT: This matter is before the Planning Commission as the result of a request for final certificate of occupancy. The Planning and Enforcement staff rejected issuance of a permit after noting upon site inspection that a large sign had been erected marketing the project as apartments. Our review of the case files and the minute records reflect that all written material in the application indicates the use to be condominiums. This reference is carried forward and included the adopted ordinance. The project was approved by the City Board by Ordinance No. 14,438 on May 3, 1983, on a plan area of approximately 39.5 acres. The project was limited to 120 units in the first phase due to the sewer density limitation of three units per acre. The issue at hand involves that first phase. The developer has suggested that several problems including litigation are holding up the marketing of this development as condominiums. The facts are that the units have been "for rent" units since the first buildings were completed. The owner was advised early that the PRD was limited to condominium occupancy. In our communication with the owner/developer, we advised him to' send notice to the neighbors of this proposal inasmuch as the Piedmont residents immediately to the west were only supportive of the project if they could be assured they could be owner occupied. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff will respond to questions as necessary but will not offer a specific recommendation at this time. C ) J ,ontinued :SSION ACTION: (-22-86) There were no objectors in attendance. The applicant, Mr. Ronald Wilkinson, was present. The staff offered a brief overview of the circumstances. The applicant offered comments in support of his request to continue renting the existing complex for a period of years. A lengthy discussion followed. It was determined that there was reason to believe that the owner had intent to rent this development for approximately five years and that permitting such an occupancy was appropriate. A motion to that effect was made and passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent. The motion carried a requirement that the developer sell these units within the five-year time frame or return to the Planning Commission for further review of this proposal.