Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4073 Staff Analysisr January 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 - File No. 120-A NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Wally Green Amber Oaks Planned Residential District Short Form West Side of Monroe Street at "B" Street P.TT(_TMVVD. Robert J. Richardson 1717 Rebsamen Park Road Little Rock, AR AREA: 1.06 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "R-2" Single Family PROPOSED USES: Request change to "PRD" Condominiums 12 units at 12 per acre VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. A. Existing Conditions The 1.06 acres in this request are at present developed as a five lot single family subdivision with a cul-de-sac serving the lots off Monroe Street. Lots are buildable as is for single family. The access to this property at "B" Street is not the best, but the only available and should not present serious problems for the density proposed. The lot slopes down grade to the north and west about 25' to a creek running across the northwest corner. This creek drains a large area into Coleman Creek. The adjacent neighborhood is all zoned Single Family with 16 residences backing onto this site. All utilities and public services are available. B. Development Proposal 1. To reclassify the site "PRD" for construction of 12 condominiums. 2. To develop the units in a Williamsburg architecture. 4 January 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 - Continued C. to E. 3. Provide 20,168 square feet of living Ispace in four duplexes and one four unit building. 4. Provide 24 off-street parking spaces. 5. Provide 6 -foot opaque perimeter fence. 6. The site will be landscaped to City Ordinance requirements. 7. Closure of the West 165 feet of the access street. 8. The project is proposed for construction beginning March 1984 for Phase I which contains the three buildings at the west end of the site. The remaining units constructed later in Phase II. Legal Considerations None evidenced at this writing. Engineerinq Considerations Entrance street is closed. easement be established. Analysis Request that public access The project proposed is somewhat similar to the previous proposal on this site titled Avance Square. That project was unsuccessful at all levels of review except the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission approved the plan by a six vote majority. Both the Subdivision Committee and staff recommended approval of that plan with certain modifications. The Board of Directors review resulted in denial on June 17, 1980. That plan as proposed offered two town house structures with six units east, four units east/west with a total of 18 parking spaces. The plan presented here is, in our estimation, an improvement over the concept of Avance Square and should reduce many of the objections offered prior. However, there are several points in addition to the Engineer comment we would like to offer. (1) All rear yard area should be thoroughly landscaped. (2) The four unit building should be reduced to thereby providing a total of 10 units on the site. (3) All landscaping or development in the street should be reviewed for franchise if retained as public thoroughfare. l January 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 - Continued (4) All drainage work effected by this project be reviewed by the City Engineer (5) Upon entering final plan and plat stage, provide all details of elevations sectioned through the site and landscape plans. F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to the comments made in the analysis. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. The Committee reviewed the application. The applicant stated his feelings that this project was an improvement over the previous one since it involved some detached structures. He was advised to prepare elevations and typicals for presentation at the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were approximately 17 persons present in opposition. Mr. George Wimberly, spokesperson for the group, submitted a petition with 56 signatures opposing the development. The opposers claimed that the proposal was too dense, did not include adequate setbacks and buffering, was detrimental to the single family neighborhood and was suspect since a court order pertaining to the previous proposal described the property as inadequate for PUD development. The Commission's general reaction was that the project was too dense and that staff should request a legal opinion from the City Attorney that would determine if there are any restrictions against considering this proposal, due to the previous court order. A motion was made and passed to defer the item until January 31 based on obtaining the legal opinion. The motion passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. January 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 - File No. 120-A NAME: Amber Oaks Planned Residential District Short Form LOCATION: West Side of Monroe Street at --- - "B" Street DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Wally Green Robert J. Richardson 1717 Rebsamen Park Road Little Rock, AR AREA: 1.06 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "R-2" Single Family PROPOSED USES: Request change to "PRD" Condominiums 12 units at 12 per acre VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. A: Existing Conditions The 1.06 acres in this request are at present developed as a five lot single family subdivision with a cul-de-sac serving the lots off Monroe Street. Lots are buildable as is for single family. The access to this property at "B" Street is not the best, but the only available and should not present serious problems for the density proposed. The lot slopes down grade to the north and west about 25' to a creek running across the northwest corner. This creek drains a large area into. Coleman Creek. The adjacent neighborhood is all zoned Single Family with 16 residences backing onto this site. All utilities and public services are available. B. Development Proposal 1. To reclassify the site "PRD" for construction of 12 condominiums. 2. To develop the units in a Williamsburg architecture. January 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 - Continued 3. Provide 20,168 square feet of living space in four duplexes and one four unit building. 4. Provide 24 off-street parking spaces. 5. Provide 6 -foot opaque perimeter fence. 6. The site will be landscaped to City Ordinance requirements. 7. Closure of the West 165 feet of the access street. 8. The project is proposed for construction beginning March 1984 for Phase I which contains the three buildings at the west end of the site. The remaining units constructed later in Phase II. C. Legal Considerations None evidenced at this writing. D. Engineering Considerations Entrance street is closed. Request that public access, easement be established. E. Analysis The project proposed is somewhat similar to the previous proposal on this site titled Avance Square. That project was unsuccessful at all levels of review except the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission approved the plan by a six vote majority. Both the Subdivision Committee and staff recommended approval of that plan with certain modifications. The Board of Directors review resulted in denial on June 17, 1980. That plan as proposed offered two town house structures with six units east, four units east/west with a total of 18 parking spaces. The plan presented here is, in our estimation, an improvement over the concept of Avance Square and should reduce many of the objections offered prior. However, there are several points in addition to the Engineer comment we would like to offer. (1) All rear yard area should be thoroughly landscaped. (2) The four unit building should be reduced to thereby providing a total of 10 units on the site. (3) All landscaping or development in the street should be reviewed for franchise if retained as public thoroughfare. January 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 - Continued (4) All drainage work effected by this project be reviewed by the City Engineer (5) Upon entering final plan and plat stage, provide all details of elevations sectioned through the site and landscape plans. F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to the comments made in the analysis. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. The Committee reviewed the application. The applicant stated his feelings that this project was an improvement over the previous one since it involved some detached structures. He was advised to prepare elevations and typicals for presentation at the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were approximately 17 persons present in opposition. Mr. George Wimberly, spokesperson for the group, submitted a petition with 56 signatures opposing the development. The opposers claimed that the proposal was too dense, did not include adequate setbacks and buffering, was detrimental to the single family neighborhood and was suspect since a court order pertaining to the previous proposal described the property as inadequate for PUD development. The Commission's general reaction was that the project was too dense and that staff should request a legal opinion from the City Attorney that would determine if there are any restrictions against considering this proposal, due to the previous court order. A motion was made and passed to defer the item until January 31 based on obtaining the legal opinion. The motion passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. January 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item NO. 8 File No, N AME I�OCA ZIO -. DEVELOPER: Wally Green AREA' ZONING' 1.06 acres 120-A Planned Residential Amber Oaks District Short Form of Monroe Street at West Side 118' Street ENGIN Robert J • Richards Road 1-117 Rebsamen Little Rock, AR NEW ST.: 0 NO. OF� S' OF 11R-2" Single Family 11 Condominiums PROPOSED USES: Request change to 'PRD 12 units at 12 per acre VARIANCEQUE— --�` None• Conditions at present developed A. Existing request are a in this subdivision with Lots The 1.06 acressingle family Monroe Street. as a five lot the lots off The access to serving single family - cul -de -sac best, but the cul-de-sac is for is not the are buildable as �,B„ Street serious problems erty at not present eS down grade to this Prop should The lot sloe across only available and oposed• to a creek running e area for the densitWest about 25 creek drains a large all the north and corner. This neighborhood onto Creek. The adjacent backing the northwest 16 residences are into Coleman Family with residence services zoned Single All utilities and public this site. available. Proposal Development ,PRD" for construction o B. site 1• To reclassify the in a Williamsburg 12 condominiums 2. To develop the units architecture. v 7 77 January 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS l Item No. 8 - Continued 3. Provide 20,168 square feet of living space in four duplexes and one four unit building. 4. Provide 24 off-street parking spaces. 5. Provide 6 -foot opaque perimeter fence. landscaped to City Ordinance 6. The site will be requirements. the West 165 feet of the access street. 7. Closure of The is proposed for construction beginning 8. project March 1984 for Phase I which contains the three The buildings at the west end of the site. units constructed later in Phase II. remaining C. Legal Considerations None evidenced at this writing. D. Engineering Considerations Entrance street is closed. Request that public access easement be established. E. Analysis The project proposed is somewhat similar to the this site titled Avance Square. previous proposal on at all levels of review That project was unsuccessful except the Planning Commission. The Planning vote majority. Commission approved the plan by a six Committee and staff recommended Both the Subdivision that plan with certain modifications. The approval of Board of Directors review resulted in denial on offered two town June 17, 1980. That plan as proposed with six units east, four units house structures The plan a total of 18 parking spaces. east/west with presented here is, in our estimation# an improvement reducere over the concept of Avance Square and should objections offered prior. However, th many of the several points in addition to the Engineer comment are we would like to offer. (1) All rear yard area should be thoroughly landscaped. (2) The four unit building should be reduced to on the site. _ thereby providing a total of 10 units development in the street ' (3) All landscaping or should be reviewed for franchise if retained as public thoroughfare.,,.,, January,10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 - Continued (4) All drainage work effected by this project be reviewed by the City Engineer (5) Upon entering final plan and plat stage, provide all details of elevations sectioned through the site and landscape plans. F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to the comments made in the analysis. f SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. The Committee reviewed the application. The applicant stated his feelings that this project was an improvement over the previous one since it involved some detached structures. He was advised to prepare elevations and typicals for presentation at the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were approximately 17 !} persons present in opposition. Mr. George Wimberly, spokesperson for the group, submitted a petition with 56 signatures opposing the development. The opposers claimed that the proposal was too dense, did not include adequate setbacks and buffering, was detrimental to the single family neighborhood and was suspect since a court order pertaining to the previous proposal described the property as inadequate for PUD development. The Commission's general reaction was that the project was too dense and that staff should request a legal opinion from the City Attorney that would determine if there are any restrictions against considering this proposal, due to the previous court order. A motion was made and passed to defer the item until January 31 based on obtaining the legal opinion. The motion passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. �� v January 31, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - File No. 120-A NAME: LOCATION: nFVFT,nPFR : Wally Green AREA: 1.06 acres Amber Oaks Planned Residential District Short Form West Side of Monroe Street at "B" Street F`MaTNRFR! Robert J. Richardson 1717 Rebsamen Park Road Little Rock, AR NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: "R-2" Single Family PROPOSED USES: Request change to "PRD" Condominiums 12 units at 12 per acre VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. A. Existing Conditions The 1.06 acres in this request are at present developed as a five lot single family subdivision with a cul-de-sac serving the lots off Monroe Street. Lots are buildable as is for single family. The access to this property at "B" Street is not the best, but the only available and should not present serious problems for the density proposed. The lot slopes down grade to the north and west about 25' to a creek running across the northwest corner. This creek drains a large area into Coleman Creek. The adjacent neighborhood is all zoned Single Family with 16 residences backing onto this site. All utilities and public services are available. B. Development Proposal 1. To reclassify the site "PRD" for construction of 12 condominiums. 2. To develop the units in a Williamsburg architecture. s - v January 31, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued 3. Provide 20,168 square feet of living space in four duplexes and one four unit building. 4. Provide 24 off-street parking spaces. 5. Provide 6 -foot opaque perimeter fence. 6. The site will be landscaped to City Ordinance requirements. 7. Closure of the West 165 feet of the access street. 8. The project is proposed for construction beginning March 1984 for Phase I which contains the three buildings at the west end of the site. The remaining units constructed later in Phase II. C. Legal Considerations None evidenced at this writing. D. Engineering Considerations Entrance street is closed. Request that public access easement be established. E. Analysis The project proposed is somewhat similar to the previous proposal on this site titled Avance Square. That project was unsuccessful at all levels of review except the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission approved the plan by a six vote majority. Both the Subdivision Committee and staff recommended approval of that plan with certain modifications. The Board of Directors review resulted in denial on June 17, 1980. That plan as proposed offered two town house structures with six units east, four units east/west with a total of 18 parking spaces. The plan presented here is, in our estimation, an improvement over the concept of Avance Square and should reduce many of the objections offered prior. However, there are several points in addition to the Engineer comment we would like to offer. (1) All rear yard area should be thoroughly landscaped. (2) The four unit building should be reduced to thereby providing a total of 10 units on the site. (3) All landscaping or development in the street should be reviewed for franchise if retained as public thoroughfare. ' v January 31, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued (4) All drainage work effected by this project be reviewed by the City Engineer (5) Upon entering final plan and plat stage, provide all details of elevations sectioned through the site and landscape plans. F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to the comments made in the analysis. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. The Committee reviewed the application. The applicant stated his feelings that this project was an improvement over the previous one since it involved some detached structures. He was advised to prepare elevations and typicals for presentation at the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Fr� The applicant was present. There were approximately 17 persons present in opposition. Mr. George Wimberly, spokesperson for the group, submitted a petition with 56 signatures opposing the development. The opposers claimed that the proposal was too dense, did not include adequate setbacks and buffering, was detrimental to the single family neighborhood and was suspect since a court order pertaining to the previous proposal described the property as inadequate for PUD development. The Commission's general reaction was that the project was too dense and that staff should request a legal opinion from the City Attorney that would determine if there are any restrictions against considering this proposal, due to the previous court order. A motion was made and passed to defer the item until January 31 based on obtaining the legal opinion. The motion passed by a vote of: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1-31-84) The applicant and his engineer were present. Persons from the neighborhood were in attendance. Staff reported that a revised plan had been submitted which reduced the units from 12 to 8, and that the City Attorney's Office had legally interpreted that there were no restrictions prior to consideration of this proposal: (1) since it constituted a separate application than that previously proposed, and (2) if the Zoning Ordinance is ame%ded to "effectuate the interpretation," that there is no minimum size for a short form PUD. January 31, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued Mr. Bob Richardson represented the developer. He propose five amendments to the plan: (1) no opaque fence, right-of-way abandonment, (3) the provision of buildable areas instead of floor plans, (4) name change to Monroe Manor and (5) no redesign of existing lot configuration. Since the result was a lot with no structure eron it, the expressed Commission raised questions about #5. involved the possibility of the applicant selling or pursuing some other type of development on the property at a later date. Staff pointed out that the land would still be zoned PUD and any further attempt at development would necessitate Planning Commission review. Still, the general tone of the Commissioners was apprehensive. Spokespersons from the neighborhood included: (1) Mr. George Wimberly, (2) Mr. Gary Wimberly and (3) Mr. Carl Enhauser, who represented his parents that reside at 225 North Monroe. All speakers recognized that this plan represented a sincere and genuine effort on the part of the developer to reach a compromise with the neighborhood, and that the PUD processwas the appropriate vehicle for developing this site. Mr. Gary Wimberly, however, stili felt that the plan was too dense, not compatible with the area and lacking in proper setbacks. He submitted an alternate proposal which, in his words, "lessened the impact on the neighborhood" by providing a 25 -foot rear yard setback on the south. The Commission felt that a 25 -foot rear yard setback was not necessary since the area in question could be viewed as a side yard. to accept Mr. Enhauser modified his previous opposing the proposal, but expressed his preference for six units (due to increased traffic) rather than the eight proposed. He questioned plans for an unused portion'of right-of-way adjacent to his parents' home. He was informed that the right-of-way would remain public, leaving maintenance to the City. Finally, a motion was made and passed for approval of the plan and the first four amendments, with instructions that Lots 1, 2 and 3 be combined into one lot. The vote: 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. v