Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4374 Staff AnalysisDecember 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Joe N. Depalo #4 River Mountain Road Little Rock, AR 72212 Country Homes Condominiums PRD (Z-4374) Rodney Parham at Highway 10 (#4 River Mountain Road) RWnTWRRR Mehlburger, Tanner & Associates 201 South Izard P.O. Box 3837 Little Rock, AR 72203 AREA: 5.013 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 ZONING: Existing "R-2" PROPOSED USES: Multifamily FT. NEW STREET: 0 A. Site History The site is currently occupied by a single family residence that overlooks the Arkansas River Valley. B. Development Objectives 1. To develop the property with a mixture of residential building types, consisting of (a) a mid -rise not to exceed 65' in height, (b) town house, not to exceed 35' in height, and (c) a flat, not to exceed 18' in height. 2. To incorporate the excellent view of the Arkansas Valley into the design of the project. 3. To remove the existing residence and outbuildings. C. Proposal 1. The construction of a mixed condominium development on 5.013 acres at a density of 8.8 units per acre. 2. The Building/Unit Breakdown (a) 4 flats at 2,400 sq. ft. each - attached garage at 400 sq. ft. (b) 10 town houses at 2,400 square feet each - 1,500 sq. ft., ground floor - 400 sq. ft., 2nd floor - 400 sq. ft., garage December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 - Continued (c) 30 apt. units at 2,400 sq. ft. each - 6 units per floor in a 5 -story inid-rise building - 1 underground parking garage under the apartment building - attached atrium, covered entry, balcony index Total Units 44 (d) Additional buildings and improvements on the site may include: gazebo, cabana, pool and hot tub. 3. Parking - Surface = 59 - Garage = 70 - Total = 129 Parking Ratio = 2.9 spaces per dwelling unit 4. Land Coverage Building Ground Coverage .... 50,500 sq. ft. - floor area ....... 161,600 sq. ft. - site area ........ 218.366 sq. ft. - ground coverage .. 23.2% - floor area ratio 740 5. Other Features (a) Access limited to one entrance from River Mountain Road with a privacy gate. (b) Enclosure by a 6' privacy/security fence and evergreen shrubs. (c) All open space will be held in common by the Country Homes Property Owners' Association. (d) No other auxiliary uses will be permitted besides the development of an exclusive luxury residential property. (e) Two main features of the site include: A breathtaking view from the hilltop. The mid -rise structure is located to maximize- ti. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 - Continued persons enjoying this view. The pine trees surrounding the building are over 80' tall, thus will shield views of the structure from adjacent properties. - Extensive, existing landscaping. Every effort has been made to preserve as much of the landscaping as possible by clustering the development in three areas. 6. Development Timetable (a) Design, approvals, financing ... 6 to 9 mos. (b) Construction of mid -rise bldg. ... 6 to 9 MOS. (c) Construction of flats/town houses ... 9 to 12 MOS. D. Engineering Comments 1. River Mountain Road is an arterial on the Master Street Plan; discuss improvements with the City engineers. 2. Clarify access to property on the east of this development. Will an access easement be provided? 3. Internal roadway should be a minimum of 20' wide. E. Analysis The Fire Department has commented that the interior streets need to be a minimum of 20' wide. The three main issues for resolution include: (1) improvements on River Mountain Road, (2) Master Street Plan issue - relating to a collector along the eastern boundary, and (3) amendment of Highway 10 Plan which designates single family. F. Staff Recommendation Deferral, until the stated issues are resolved. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 - Continued G. Subdivision Committee Review The applicant was present. The Committee felt that more information was needed on the proposal, so the applicant was asked to submit this as a long -form PUD with all of the required data and any other information that will present a clearer indication of what is proposed. Staff was asked to present a land use analysis of the area. Water Works - 6" or 8" on-site fire line and hydrants will be required. Elevations need to be evaluated to determine the availability of water service. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, who was not in attendance, was represented by his architect, Mr. Don Chambers. Mr. Chambers requested a deferral since his applicant was out of town and had not had a chance to discuss the alignment of Southridge Road with all the property owners involved. Since the request for the deferral was not in compliance with the required time frame of five days for notice, the Commission passed a motion to deny the request by a vote of 0 ayes, 9 noes, 1 absent, 1 open. Mr. Jim Lawson of the Planning staff gave a presentation on land use in the area. It was felt that the church to the south of this project did not have a detrimental affect on the surrounding neighborhood. The rezoning of the site to allow multifamily uses, however, would be detrimental to the existing large lot single family developments. It was felt that the area should remain as large lot single family. Mr. Lawson also mentioned that there were requests from the Walton Heights Property Owners' Association for deferral of this project and to place an eastward alignment of Southridge Road to connect with Rodney Parham on the agenda for a public hearing. Staff felt that if the Commission agreed to this request, the proposed alignment would have a significant impact on this applicant. If the Commission agreed to hear the alignment proposal, staff's recommendation would be deferral, if not, the position would be that of denial. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 - Continued Discussion of the proposal for rezoning was then resumed. Mr. Herb Rule introduced several spokespersons. Mr. Tripp of Trinity Assembly Church explained what the church tried to do to appease Mr. DePalo during its review for development. The approval was conditioned on there being no day-care center and a commitment to three acres as open space. He stated that this apartment plan didn't surface until they started building plans, and he felt it interferred with their hillside view. Other speakers, owning property to the east were: (1) Mrs. Joyce Peck, who wanted the application denied and the area to remain single family; (2) Mr. Harvey - property owner for three years, who presented his plan for an elaborate home on Lot 10; and (3) Mr. Fred Darragh - (who bought 17 abutting acres when there was a prior multifamily application) who feared losing privacy and expressed a fear that this would begin a deterioration of the area. He stated that he was willing to commit his undeveloped acreage to none other than single family development. In closing, Mr. Rule stated that the approval of this application by Mr. DePalo would to be creating the same type of clustered development that Mr. DePalo mentioned he was trying to escape from when he left Chicago. A motion was finally made for approval of the application. The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 9 noes, 1 absent and 1 open. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9-A Master Street Plan Amendment - Realignment of Southridge Drive A written request has been made by the Walton Heights/Candlewood Homeowners' Association for the Planning Commission to consider a realignment of Southridge Drive. The realignment will connect Southridge to Rodney Parham Road. The Planning Commission had considered this request at their September 11, 1984, Planning Commission meeting. The neighborhood representatives were not at the meeting. No one spoke in favor of the Master Street Plan amendment. The staff was later informed by the neighborhood representatives that a letter had been written asking for a deferral of the item. The staff never received such letter. The neighborhood wishes that the Master Street Plan amendment item be reheard since it has not had the opportunity to address the Planning Commission on the street plan change. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 NAME: Country Homes Condominiums PRD (Z-4374) LOCATION: Rodney Parham at Highway 10 (#4 River Mountain Road) DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Joe N. Depalo Mehlburger, Tanner & Associates #4 River Mountain Road 201 South Izard Little Rock, AR 72212 P.O. Box 3837 Little Rock, AR 72203 AREA: 5.013 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: Existing "R-2" PROPOSED USES: Multifamily A. Site History The site is currently occupied by a single family residence that overlooks the Arkansas River Valley. B. Development Objectives 1. To develop the property with a mixture of residential building types, consisting of (a) a mid -rise not to exceed 65' in height, (b) town house, not to exceed 35' in height, and (c) a flat, not to exceed 18' in height. 2. To incorporate the excellent view of the Arkansas Valley into the design of the project. 3. To remove the existing residence and outbuildings. C. Proposal 1. The construction of a mixed condominium development on 5.013 acres at a density of 8.8 units per acre. 2. The Building/Unit Breakdown (a) 4 flats at 2,400 sq. ft. each - attached garage at 400 sq. ft. (b) 10 town houses at 2,400 square feet each - 1,500 sq. ft., ground floor - 400 sq. ft., 2nd floor - 400 sq. ft., garage December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 - Continued (c) 30 apt. units at 2,400 sq. ft. each - 6 units per floor in a 5 -story mid -rise building - 1 underground parking garage under the apartment building attached atrium, covered entry, balcony index Total Units ....... 44 (d) Additional buildings and improvements on the site may include: gazebo, cabana, pool and hot tub. 3. Parking - Surface = 59 - Garage = 70 - Total = 129 Parking Ratio = 2.9 spaces per dwelling unit 4. Land Coverage Building Ground Coverage .... 50,500 sq. ft. - floor area ....... 161,600 sq. ft. - site area ........ 218.366 sq. ft. - ground coverage .. 23.2% - floor area ratio 74% 5. Other Features (a) Access limited to one entrance from River Mountain Road with a privacy gate. (b) Enclosure by a 6' privacy/security fence and evergreen shrubs. (c) All open space will be held in common by the Country Homes Property Owners' Association. (d) No other auxiliary uses will be permitted besides the development of an exclusive luxury residential property. (e) Two main features of the site include: A breathtaking view from the hilltop. The mid -rise structure is located to maximize December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 - Continued persons enjoying this view. The pine trees surrounding the building are over 80' tall, thus will shield views of the structure from adjacent properties. - Extensive, existing landscaping. Every effort has been made to preserve as much of the landscaping as possible by clustering the development in three areas. 6. Development Timetable (a) Design, approvals, financing ... 6 to 9 mos. (b) Construction of mid -rise bldg. ... 6 to 9 MOS. (c) Construction of flats/town houses ... 9 to 12 MOS. D. Engineering Comments 1. River Mountain Road is an arterial on the Master Street Plan; discuss improvements with the City engineers. 2. Clarify access to property on the east of this development. Will an access easement be provided? 3. Internal roadway should be a minimum of 20' wide. E. Analysis The Fire Department has commented that the interior streets need to be a minimum of 20' wide. The three main issues for resolution include: (1) improvements on River Mountain Road, (2) Master Street Plan issue - relating to a collector along the eastern boundary, and (3) amendment of Highway 10 Plan which designates single family. F. Staff Recommendation Deferral, until the stated issues are resolved. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 - Continued G. Subdivision Committee Review The applicant was present. The Committee felt that more information was needed on the proposal, so the applicant was asked to submit this as a long -form PUD with all of the required data and any other information that will present a clearer indication of what is proposed. Staff was asked to present a land use analysis of the area. Water Works - 6" or 8" on-site fire line and hydrants will be required. Elevations need to be evaluated to determine the availability of water service. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, who was not in attendance, was represented by his architect, Mr. Don Chambers. Mr. Chambers requested a deferral since his applicant was out of town and had not had a chance to discuss the alignment of Southridge Road with all the property owners involved. Since the request for the deferral was not in compliance with the required time frame of five days for notice, the Commission passed a motion to deny the request by a vote of 0 ayes, 9 noes, 1 absent, 1 open. Mr. Jim Lawson of the Planning staff gave a presentation on land use in the area. It was felt that the church to the south of this project did not have a detrimental affect on the surrounding neighborhood. The rezoning of the site to allow multifamily uses, however, would be detrimental to the existing large lot single family developments. It was felt that the area should remain as large lot single family. Mr. Lawson also mentioned that there were requests from the Walton Heights Property Owners' Association for deferral of this project and to place an eastward alignment of Southridge Road to connect with Rodney Parham on the agenda for a public hearing. Staff felt that if the Commission agreed to this request, the proposed alignment would have a significant impact on this applicant. If the Commission agreed to hear the alignment proposal, staff's recommendation would be deferral, if not, the position would be that of denial. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 - Continued Mr. Herb Rule represented the neighbors to the east who were opposed to the application. He claimed that the street issue was not related to the proposal, and the property owners did not want to give property for the street. Finally, a motion was made and passed to suspend discussion of the "PUD" proposal and discuss the street alignment. Mr. J.D. Crockett•, president of the Walton Heights Property Owners Association, requested deferral of the plan so that all property owners could meet and discuss placing realignment of Southridge to connect with Rodney Parham on the Master Street Plan. He stated that the residents felt that this was the preferred place for the alignment. The alternative entrance/exit point to Walton Heights was severely needed due to current difficulties during icy weather and rush hour traffic. The cost of this alignment would be approximately $65,000, and the cost would be borne by all property owners. Mr. Crockett spoke out against an alternative plan to align the street further to the west with Pleasantridge Road. He felt that this location would encourage more commercial activity in the area. The Commissioners offered several comments relating to this request. Mr. Crockett was told that to comply with his request would mean impacting other property owners to solve a problem that existed and that the Walton Heights property owners were well aware of it when they bought their homes. Commissioner Richard Massie strongly stated his objection to the request. He felt that a newsletter distributed by persons in the subdivision was very unfair and sought to downgrade the efforts of the study committee. He stated that they had worked diligently with persons who said they represented Walton Heights to gain their input. He also said that a lot of effort had been put into obtaining an agreement from private developers to build the western alignment of Southridge at their expense. He stated his reasons for opposition to the eastern alignment and the rezoning as being because of the detriment to the adjacent landowners. A question was raised as to whether or not the Commission should place the issue of the realignment on the agenda. The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 9 noes, 1 absent, 1 open. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 - Continued Discussion of the proposal for rezoning was then resumed. Mr. Herb Rule introduced several spokespersons. Mr. Tripp of Trinity Assembly Church explained what the church tried to do to appease Mr. DePalo during its review for development. The approval was conditioned on there being no day-care center and a commitment to three acres as open space. He stated that this apartment plan didn't surface until they started building plans, and he felt it interferred with their hillside view. Other speakers, owning property to the east were: (1) Mrs. Joyce Peck, who wanted the application denied and the area to remain single family; (2) Mr. Harvey - property owner for three years, who presented his plan for an elaborate home on Lot 10; and (3) Mr. Fred Darragh - (who bought 17 abutting acres when there was a prior multifamily application) who feared losing privacy and expressed a fear that this would begin a deterioration of the area. He stated that he was willing to commit his undeveloped acreage to none other than single family development. In closing, Mr. Rule stated' that the approval of this application by Mr. DePalo would to be creating the same type of clustered development that Mr. DePalo mentioned he was trying to escape from when he left Chicago. A motion was finally made for approval of the application. The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 9 noes, 1 absent and 1 open. December 18, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9-A Master Street Plan Amendment - Realignment of Southridge Drive A written request has been made by the Walton Heights/Candlewood Homeowners' Association for the Planning Commission to consider a realignment of Southridge Drive. The realignment will connect Southridge to Rodney Parham Road. The Planning Commission had considered this request at their September 11, 1984, Planning Commission meeting. The neighborhood representatives were not at the meeting. No one spoke in favor of the Master Street Plan amendment. The staff was later informed by the neighborhood representatives that a letter had been written asking for a deferral of the item. The staff never received such letter. The neighborhood wishes that the Master Street Plan amendment item be reheard since it has not had the opportunity to address the Planning Commission on the street plan change.