Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4402 Staff AnalysisMay 14, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - File 380 NAME: LOCATION: T F.ATFT.M)PP Troy and Kitty Braswell Troy's "PRD" (Z-4402) Three blocks east of Chicot on Mabelvale Cut -0£f ENGINEER: Robert Richardson 1717 Rebsamen Park Road Little Rock, AR 72202 Phone: 664-0003 AREA: 12.54 acres NO. OF LOTS: 35 FT. NEW STREET: 1800 ZONING: "R-2" to "PRD" PROPOSED USES: Mixed Office/Duplex/Four-flex/Roller Rink A. Site History None. B. Development Objectives 1. To promote a mixed use project of two family and multifamily units with future development of office uses. 2. To allow for reasonable development of this land while not committing the City to the roller rink area (nonconforming) in Tract C to a commercial use past the useful life of the rink. C. Proposal 1. The platting of 12.53 acres into 32 lots for the provision of 96 duplex/fourplex units, two tracts as quiet office use and to allow continued use of a portion'of the site as a roller rink for the continued life of the use. May 14, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - Continued 2. Project data: Parcel Tract A Tract B Tract C Lots 1-16 Lots 17-32 Use Quiet Office Quiet Office Skating Rink c; -7o 1.14 acres 1.1 acres 1.7 acres Duplex 1,080 to 2,160 SF ea. Fourplex 5,672 to 11,352 SF ea. 3. The proposed density is 11.2 units per acre. D. Engineering Comments 1. Improve Mabelvale Cutoff to minor arterial standards. 2. Submit internal drainage and detention plans. E. Analysis This project is bounded by single family on the north and west sides and multifamily on the east. The Suburban Plan recommends residential use for the area. Staff has several major concerns with the project. First of all, we are not willing to endorse the roller rink and office use as a PRD. The applicant has requested that this should be called just a PUD. Staff prefers that Tract C be extracted from this proposal and that Tracts A and B be used for residential use as recommended by the plan. Secondly, staff is not pleased with the physical design of the project. The system of access involves a lot of pavement and creates double frontage lots, and the layout provides lots with only 104 feet of depth for four units/parking. It is requested that the applicant redesign the project in a manner that is suitable for the requested density. This should involve larger lots for the multifamily units, elimination of Lot 16 and pipe stem access and consider making Lots 10 through 16 larger with the access redesigned. May 14, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - Continued The applicant is also reminded that this is a long -form PRD, and he should follow the submission requirements in the ordinance. The PUD process requires specifics as to what will be required. His plan indicates that he may provide one or two story structures. Exactly what will be constructed? Also, landscaping plans will show the building area/open space and a time table for development should be submitted. F. Staff Recommendation Staff reserves comments until the plan is redesigned. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The Committee discussed the application. Staff gave further suggestions for the redesign of the project. They included moving the parking to the rear, extracting Tracts A and B from this application, and location of the dumpsters. The applicant agreed to meet with staff before the 14th for further suggestions. Water Works - Pro -rata charge applies on Mabelvale Cutoff. Water main extension would be required to lot line of Lots 10 through 16. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Mr. Bob Richardson represented the applicant. A revised plan and several alternates were presented shortly before the meeting. Staff's recommendation was for deferral due to an inadequate amount of time for review of the revised plans. Numerous persons from the neighborhood were present and in opposition. Ms. Carla Bruton who resides on the corner of Elmore and Warren objected based on the proposed rental use and a fear of adverse effects on their property values. They submitted a petition with 238 signatures opposing the project. In addition to similar concerns expressed by Ms. Bruton, Ms. Bessie Yount complained about the existing skating rink, drainage problems, existing congestion on roads and in the schools and problems with the existing apartment project in the area. Ms. Jean Lowe added that May 14, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - Continued there was already a crime problem due .to the existing apartments in the area. Mr. Arthur Hengel of 6720 Mabelvale Cutoff objected to office use, complained of drainage and noise from the existing skating rink and the unresponsiveness of the owner to the neighbors' concerns. One Commissioner pointed out that there appeared to be a bad community relations problem. The Commission requested additional information as to how the property had been recently divided and requested that the applicant try to explain the proposal to the neighborhood before the next meeting. A motion for a 30 -day deferral was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. May 14, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - File 380 NAME: T.nrATTr)M TWAIFT.(IAF.R Troy and Kitty Braswell Troy's "PRD" (Z-4402) Three blocks east of Chicot on Mabelvale Cut -Off V"fl Y"1_1 r.n . Robert Richardson 1717 Rebsamen Park Road Little Rock, AR 72202 Phone: 664-0003 AREA: 12.54 acres NO. OF LOTS: 35 FT. NEW STREET: 1800 ZONING: "R-2" to "PRD" PROPOSED USES: A. Site Histor None. Mixed Office/Duplex/Four-flex/Roller Rink B. Development Objectives 1. To promote a mixed use project of two family and multifamily units with future development of office uses. 2. To allow for reasonable development of this land while not committing the City to the roller rink area (nonconforming) in Tract C to a commercial use past the useful life of the rink. C. Proposal 1. The platting of 12.53 acres into 32 lots for the provision of 96 duplex/fourplex units, two tracts as quiet office use and to allow continued use of a portion'of the site as a roller rink for the continued life of the use. May 14, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - Continued D. E. 2. Project data: Parcel Tract A Tract B Tract C Lots 1-16 Lots 17-32 Use Quiet Office Quiet Office Skating Rink Size 1.14 acres 1.1 acres 1.7 acres Duplex 1,080 to 2,160 SF ea. Fourplex 5,672 to 11,352 SF ea. 3. The proposed density is 11.2 units per acre. Engineering Comments 1. Improve Mabelvale Cutoff to minor arterial standards. 2. Submit internal drainage and detention plans. Analysis This project is bounded by single family on the north and west sides and multifamily on the east. The Suburban Plan recommends residential use for the area. Staff has several major concerns with the project. First of all, we are not willing to endorse the roller rink and office use as a PRD. The applicant has requested that this should be called just a PUD. Staff prefers that Tract C be extracted from this proposal and that Tracts A and B be used for residential use as recommended by the plan. Secondly, staff is not pleased with the physical design of the project. The system of access involves a lot of pavement and creates double frontage lots, and the layout provides lots with only 104 feet of depth for four units/parking. It is requested that the applicant redesign the project in a manner that is suitable for the requested density. This should involve larger lots for the multifamily units, elimination of Lot 16 and pipe stem access and consider making Lots 10 through 16 larger with the access redesigned. May 14, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - Continued The applicant is also reminded that this is a long -form PRD, and he should follow the submission requirements in the ordinance. The PUD process requires specifics as to what will be required. His plan indicates that he may provide one or two story structures. Exactly what will be constructed? Also, landscaping plans will show the building area/open space and•a time table for development should be submitted. F. Staff Recommendation Staff reserves comments until the plan is redesigned. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The Committee discussed the application. Staff gave further suggestions for the redesign of the project. They included moving the parking to the rear, extracting Tracts A and B from this application, and location of the dumpsters. The applicant agreed to meet with staff before the 14th for further suggestions. Water Works - Pro -rata charge applies on Mabelvale Cutoff. Water main extension would be required to lot line of Lots 10 through 16. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Mr. Bob Richardson represented the applicant. A revised plan and several alternates were presented shortly before the meeting. Staff's recommendation was for deferral due to an inadequate amount of time for review of the revised plans. Numerous persons from the neighborhood were present and in opposition. Ms. Carla Bruton who resides on the corner of Elmore and Warren objected based on the proposed rental use and a fear of adverse effects on their property values. They submitted a petition with 238 signatures opposing the project. In addition to similar concerns expressed by Ms. Bruton, Ms. Bessie Yount complained about the existing skating rink, drainage problems, existing congestion on roads and in the schools and problems with the existing apartment project in the area. Ms. Jean Lowe added that May 14, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - Continued there was already a crime problem due to the existing apartments in the area. Mr. Arthur Hengel of 6720 Mabelvale Cutoff objected to office use, complained of drainage and noise from the existing skating rink and the unresponsiveness of the owner to the neighbors' concerns. One Commissioner pointed out that there appeared to be a bad community relations problem. The Commission requested additional information as to how the property had been recently divided and requested that the applicant try to explain the proposal to the neighborhood before the next meeting. A motion for a 30 -day deferral was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. June 11, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - File 380 NAME: LOCATION: Troy and Kitty Braswell Troy's "PRD" (Z-4402) Three blocks east of Chicot on Mabelvale Cut -Off ENGINEER: Robert Richardson 1717 Rebsamen Park Road Little Rock, AR 72202' Phone: 664-0003 AREA: 12.54 acres NO. OF LOTS: 35 FT. NEW STREET: 1800 ZONING: 11R-2" to "PRD" PROPOSED USES: Mixed Office/Duplex/Four-Plex/Roller Rink A. Site History None. IM Development Objectives 1. To promote a mixed use project of two family and multifamily units with future development of office uses. 2. To allow for reasonable development of this land while not committing the City to the roller rink area (nonconforming) in Tract C to a commercial use past the useful life of the rink. C. ProDosal I. The platting of 12.53 acres into 32 lots for the provision of 96 duplex/fourplex units, two tracts as quiet office use and to allow continued use of a portion of the site as a roller rink for the continued life of the use. June 11, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued D. E. 2. Project data: Parcel Tract A Tract B Tract C Lots 1-16 Lots 17-32 Use Quiet Office Quiet Office Skating Rink 1.14 acres 1.1 acres 1.7 acres Duplex 1,080 to 2,160 SF ea. Fourplex 5,672 to 11,352 SF ea. 3. The proposed density is 11.2 units per acre. Engineering Comments 1. Improve Mabelvale Cutoff to minor arterial standards. 2. Submit internal drainage and detention plans. Analysis This project is bounded by single family on the north and west sides and multifamily on the east. The Suburban Plan recommends residential use for the area. Staff has several major concerns with the project. First of all, we are not willing to endorse the roller rink and office use as a PRD. The applicant has requested that this should be called just a PUD. Staff prefers that Tract C be extracted from this proposal and that Tracts A and B be used for residential use as recommended by the plan. Secondly, staff is not pleased with the physical design of the project. The system of access involves a lot of pavement and creates double frontage lots, and the layout provides lots with only 104 feet of depth for four units/parking. It is requested that the applicant redesign the project in a manner that is suitable for the requested density. This should involve larger lots for the multifamily units, elimination of Lot 16 and pipe stem access and consider making Lots 10 through 16 larger with the access redesigned. June 11, 1385 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued there was already a crime problem due to the existing apartments in the area. Mr. Arthur Hengel of 6720 Mabelvale Cutoff objected to office use, complained of drainage and noise from the existing skating rink and the unresponsiveness of the owner to the neighbors' concerns. One Commissioner pointed out that there appeared to be a bad community relations problem. The Commission requested additional information as to how the property had been recently.divided and requested that the applicant try to explain the proposal to the neighborhood before the next meeting. A motion for a 30 -day deferral was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: Several issues were identified: (1) Wastewater Comments - Requested restriction of density to "MF -6" due to sewer problems. (2) Division of Ownership - Roller rink property was illegally subdivided and sold with no dedicated street frontage. (3) Neighborhood Concerns - Included discussion of addressing neighborhood concerns about noise from roller rink during this approval. The applicant was asked to provide a fence around the project. He felt that one was not needed adjacent to the existing multifamily development. (4) Use - Included a discussion of staff's recommendation discouraging support of office and the nonconforming roller rink as a part of this application since office and commercial uses can't be a part of a "PRD" application and the Suburban Plan recommends only residential uses in this area, so a "PCD" designation would also present a conflict. (5) Design - Staff suggested, due to possible maintenance problems of the center area, that it be eliminated, a cul-de-sac be added and that the lots be deepened on both sides. June 11, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued The applicant is also reminded that this is a long -form PRD, and he should follow the submission requirements in the ordinance. The PUD process requires specifics as to what will be required. His plan indicates that he may provide one or two story structures. Exactly what will be constructed? Also, landscaping plans will show the building area/open space and a time table for development should be submitted. F. Staff Recommendation Staff reserves comments until the plan is redesigned. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The Committee discussed the application. Staff gave further suggestions for the redesign of the project. They included moving the parking to the rear, extracting Tracts A and B from this application, and location of the dumpsters. The applicant agreed to meet with staff before the 14th for further suggestions. Water Works - Pro -rata charge applies on Mabelvale Cutoff. water main extension would be required to lot line of Lots 10 through 16. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (5-14-85) Mr. Bob Richardson represented the applicant. A revised plan and several alternates were presented shortly before the meeting. Staff's recommendation was for deferral due to an inadequate amount of time for review of the revised plans. .Numerous persons from the neighborhood were present and in opposition. Ms. Carla Bruton who resides on the corner of Elmore and Warren objected based on the proposed rental use and a fear of adverse effects on their property values. They submitted a petition with 238 signatures opposing the project. In addition to similar concerns expressed by Ms. Bruton, Ms. Bessie Yount complained about the existing skating rink, drainage problems, existing congestion on roads and in the schools and problems with the existing apartment project in the area. Ms. Jean Lowe added that a - June 11, 1945 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued there was already a crime problem due to the existing apartments in the area. Mr. Arthur Hengel of 6720 Mabelvale Cutoff objected to office use, complained of drainage and noise from the existing skating rink and the unresponsiveness of the owner to the neighbors' concerns. One Commissioner pointed out that there appeared to be a bad community relations problem. The Commission requested additional information as to how the property had been recently divided and requested that the applicant try to explain the proposal to the neighborhood before the next meeting. A motion for a 30 -day deferral was made and passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: Several issues were identified: (1) Wastewater Comments - Requested restriction of density to "MF -6" due to sewer problems. (2) Division of Ownershi - Roller rink property was illegally subdivided and sold with no dedicated street frontage. (3) Neighborhood Concerns - Included discussion of acc ressing neig��i�rriiood concerns about noise from roller rink during this approval. The applicant was asked to provide a fence around the project. He felt that one was not needed adjacent to the existing multifamily development. (4) Use - Included a discussion of staff's recommendation discouraging support of office and the nonconforming roller rink as a part of this application since office and commercial uses can't be a part of a "PRD" application and the Suburban Plan recommends only residential uses in this area, so a "PCD" designation would also present a conflict. (5) Design - Staff suggested, due to possible maintenance problems of the center area, that it be eliminated, a cul-de-sac be added and that the lots be deepened on both sides. b June 11, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued (6) Water Works (a) The applicant was asked to get with this utility and discuss recent concerns regarding pipe stem lots and placement of water hydrants. (b) Prorated charges will apply on Mabelvale Cutoff. Water main extension would be required to lot line of Lots 10 and 16. Our policy requires each lot to have frontage on the water main to which it is connected. This would also require the skating rink on Tract "C" to relocate its service to the proposed main adjacent to its east property line. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were numerous persons present in opposition from the neighborhood. Mr. Richardson, the applicant, submitted a revised plan that: (1) showed two lots where there was previously space in the median; (2) restricted roller rink area to duplex in the future; (3) proposed only duplexes on the remainder of the property; 4) proposed Tracts A and B as office use; and (5) rearranged parking to the rear of some units. He also submitted a study as requested by the committee. An additional request for deferral was made by the applicant. Staff opposed the deferral based on there being sufficient evidence to hear the item. The chairman called for a motion to defer. None was made. The applicant then amended his application to withdraw Tracts A and B or rezone them to duplex. The neighborhood's concerns involved: (1) opposition to a change in zoning since there was already an abundance of rental units with a 10 percent vacancy rate in close proximity; (2) fear of increased traffic, noise and crime; and (3) a feeling that the situation with the roller rink was created by the owner. Mr. Victor McKristy of 15 Warren Drive felt that the project would have a very detrimental effect on his property, which is adjacent to Lots 2 and 3. Before he bought his home, he came down to the City and checked the surrounding properties and noted that they were zoned for single family. He felt that he had bought dependent upon the zoning laws protecting his interest. He felt that the Planning Commission should accept its responsibility to protect those laws and exercise its authority to keen the land single family. A petition was submitted with 700 names in opposition. June 11, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A— Continued A motion for approval was made, but failed to pass by a vote of: 0 ayes, 9 noes and 2 absent. The reason for denial was due to a feeling that the developer had created his own problems.