Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4174 Staff AnalysisApril 24, 1984 Item No. C - Z-4174 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Smith Property Partnership Tom Rystrom Napa Valley at Mara Lynn (west side) Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "MF -18" Multifamily Multifamily Development 10.1 acres + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2" South - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" East - Vacant, Zoned "MF -18" West - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The 10 -acre site in question abuts another 10 -acre tract zoned "MF -18," and the proposal is to combine the two parcels if the rezoning from "R-2" to "MF -18" is completed and develop the entire 20 -acre site for multifamily use. This property has no access to a dedicated public street, so for development to occur, the site must be incorporated into a project that has proper access. The site is located in part of Little Rock where substantial multifamily development has taken place or is under construction. There is also a number of areas zoned for multifamily that have yet to be developed. The primary issue is how much of the 10 acres can be utilized for multifamily development because of the terrain and the western portion of the property being adjacent to a detached single family neighborhood and approximately 1200 feet from Napa Valley Road. 2. The site is heavily wooded with some of the property having slopes in the range of 15 percent to 30 percent. The high point is located on the eastern portion of the site. The southern boundary of the property appears to be unsuitable for development because of the steep slopes. April 24, 1984 Item No. C - Continued 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position or history on this site. The residents of St. Charles have expressed some concern over the proposed density and the type of development. 7. The staff supports multifamily.use on a portion of the 10 acres if a portion of the western one-third of the tract is left undeveloped and zoned "OS." The density for the "OS" area could be transferred to the developable land. A specific land combining the two tracts has not been submitted. A development concept should be undertaken for the total acreage to establish an overall density level and define the open space/buffer area. Because of these concerns, it is recommended that no action be taken on the rezoning until the plan is submitted and reviewed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends a 30 -day deferral to allow the applicant to submit a development plan for purposes of reviewing the proposed density and the amount of developed land versus undeveloped land. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (2-28-84) The applicant, Jim Hathaway, was present. There were approximately 15 persons in attendance objecting to the request. Mr. Hathaway spoke in support of multifamily development on the site and offered a new zoning proposal. The amended request was for a "MF -12" reclassification for seven acres and "OS" for the western three acres adjacent to the St. Charles Subdivision. He also stated that the maximum density on seven acres would be 80 units and the developer would fence the open space area. Kent Brewster of the St. Charles Property Owners Association spoke in opposition to the multifamily development. He expressed concern over the remaining "R-2" parcel to the north and how its future would probably be determined by what occurred on the property in question. He then requested a 30 -day deferral because the property owners had not had an opportunity to view Mr. Hathaway's proposal. Jane Barron and Don Moore spoke against the rezoning of the 11R-2" tract and were very concerned over traffic. Mr. Moore felt that April 24, 1984 Item No. C - Continued there were more than enough multifamily units in the area already. Jim Rhodes also spoke in opposition to the request and offered some conditions if the property was developed. He suggested that a "PRD" be used for the seven acres; restrict the density to eight units per acre; that the units, 56 total, be for sale; limit the height of the buildings; and deed the western three acres to the St. Charles property group. He also requested a 30 -day deferral. Mr. Hathaway then responded to the preceding remarks. The Commission discussed the case at length. A motion was made to recommend approval of the application as amended to rezone seven acres to "MF -12" and three acres to "OS." The motion was not seconded. A second motion was made to defer the item for 30 days. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention (David Jones). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (3-27-84) The applicant requested a 30 -day deferral. A motion to defer the item for 30 days was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention (David Jones). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (4-24-84) The applicant, Joe Ehrler, was present. There were no objectors present. Mr. Ehrler said that he would be the developer of the property and described the proposed project. He explained that he had met with the St. Charles Property Owners Association and reviewed the new proposal which included a 200 -foot buffer left as open space, deed the buffer area to the St. Charles neighborhood and construct a fence in the middle of the buffer. He stated that he had no problems with an "OS" zoning for the buffer if it could be assured that it was left in a natural state. The density on the 20 acres total would be 300 units. Mr. Ehrler explained that on the west 10 acres, the property in question, the project was proposing 122 units which was over the maximum density allowed in "MF -12." He stated that he had no problems with "MF -12" on the west 10 acres if something could be done to accommodate the two additional units. Kent Brewster of the St. Charles Property Owners Association addressed the Commission. He stated that the Property Owners Association supported the "MF -12" rezoning and that the new proposal in principal. The Property Owners Assoication was in agreement that the 200 -foot buffer should be left undisturbed and that the restrictions be placed on it in the deed, and split the buffer in half with the fence. Mr. Brewster felt that the "OS" zoning would be appropriate for the buffer. Don Moore, an adjacent property owner to April 24, 1984 Item No. C - Continued the west, expressed some concerns over the site plan and traffic in the area. Joe White, an engineer, then spoke to the density issue and amended the application to "MF -18" on the east 1001, "OS" on the west 200' and "MF -12" on the remainder of the property. A motion was made to recommend approval of the application as amended. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention (David Jones). February 28, 1984 Item No. 8 - Z-4174 Owner: Smith Property Partnership Applicant: Tom Rystrom Location: Napa Valley at Mara Lynn (west side) Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "MF -18" Multifamily Purpose: Multifamily Development Size: 10.1 acres + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2" South - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" East - Vacant, Zoned "MF -18" West - Vacant and Single Family, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The 10 -acre site in question abuts another 10 -acre tract zoned "MF -18," and the proposal is to combine the two parcels if the rezoning from "R-2" to "MF -18" is completed and develop the entire 20 -acre site for multifamily use. This property has no access to a dedicated public street, so for development to occur, the site must be incorporated into a project that has proper access. The site is located in part of Little Rock where substantial multifamily development has taken place or is under construction. There is also a number of areas zoned for multifamily that have yet to be developed. The primary issue is how much of the 10 acres can be utilized for multifamily development because of the terrain and the western portion of the property being adjacent to a detached single family neighborhood and approximately 1200 feet from Napa Valley Road. 2. The site is heavily wooded with some of the property having slopes in the range of 15 percent to 30 percent. The high point is located on the eastern portion of the site. The southern boundary of the property appears to be unsuitable for development because of the steep slopes. February 28, 1984 Item No. 8 - Continued 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position or history on this site. The residents of St. Charles have expressed some concern over the proposed density and the type of development. 7. The staff supports multifamily use on a portion of the 10 acres if a portion of the western one-third of the tract is left undeveloped and zoned "OS." The density for the "OS" area could be transferred to the developable land. A specific land combining the two tracts has not been submitted. A development concept should be undertaken for the total acreage to establish an overall density level and define the open space/buffer area. Because of these concerns, it is recommended that no action be taken on the rezoning until the plan is submitted and reviewed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends a 30 -day deferral to allow the applicant to submit a development plan for purposes of reviewing the proposed density and the amount of developed land versus undeveloped land. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Jim Hathaway, was present. There were approximately 15 persons in attendance objecting to the request. Mr. Hathaway spoke in support of multifamily development on the site and offered a new zoning proposal. The amended request was for a "MF -12" reclassification for seven acres and "OS" for the western three acres adjacent to the St. Charles Subdivision. He also stated that the maximum density on seven acres would be 80 units and the developer would fence the open space area. Kent Brewster of the St. Charles Property Owners Association spoke in opposition to the multifamily development. He expressed concern over the remaining "R-2" parcel to the north and how its future would probably be determined by what occurred on the property in question. He then requested a 30 -day deferral because the property owners had not had an opportunity to view Mr. Hathaway's proposal. Jane Barron and Don Moore spoke against the rezoning of the "R-2" tract and were very concerned over traffic. Mr. Moore felt that February 28, 1984 Item No. 8 - Continued there were more than enough multifamily units in the area already. Jim Rhodes also spoke in opposition to the request and offered some conditions if the property was developed. He suggested that a "PRD" be used for the seven acres;. restrict the density to eight units per acre; that the units, 56 total, be for sale; limit the height of the buildings; and deed the western three acres to the St. Charles property group. He also requested a 30 -day deferral. Mr. Hathaway then responded to the preceding remarks. The Commission discussed the case at length. A motion was made to recommend approval of the application amended to rezone seven acres to "MF -12" and three acres "OS." The motion was not seconded. A second motion was made to defer the item for 30 days. The motion passed by vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention (David Jones). as to a