Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4523 Staff AnalysisNovember 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 - File No. 609 NAME: Hunter's Ridge "Long -Form PRD" (Z-4523) LOCATION: North side of State Hwy. 10, approximately one mile west of I-430 DEVELOPER/AGENT: ENGINEER: Louis A. Bunche/Crow- Starnes -Stovall & Daniels, Inc. Western Land Company #12 Edgehill Little Rock, AR 664-0955 or (214) 823-2804 Area: 13.69 acres No. of Lots: 1 Ft. New St.: 0 A. Proposal 1. The construction of 164 units of apartments on a 13.69 acre site at 12 units per acre. 2. Project Data Total Unit Type Unit No. Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft• A-1- 1Br/lB 40 514 20,560 A-2 1Br/lB 40 594 23,760 A-4 1Br/lB 40 •703 28,120 B 1Br/Den/1B 20 864 17,280 B-1 2Br/2B 16 912 14,592 2Br/2B 8 1,017 8,136 3. Parking - 246 spaces. 4. Site usage - building coverage ...... 1.57 acres .......... 11.5% Drive and parking ................... 2.6 acres . . . . . . . . . . 1 9 . 0 % Common open space ................... 9.52 acres . . . . . . . . . . 6 9.5 % 13.69 acres 5. Landscaping will be according to the City Ordinance. November 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 - Continued B. Engineering Comments 1. Recommend middle drive be deleted with access to clubhouse provided internally. 2. Right-of-way of 50 feet required. Boundary street improvements are required to be in -lieu. 3. Show preliminary detention calculation of areas. C. Analysis Staff's major concern involves the proposed drive. We concur with Engineering's suggestion that the middle drive be eliminated. Greenery is preferred in that location. A 24-foot private street should be cleared with the Fire Department. The parking layout should be shown. Use is not a problem at this location since the Highway 10 Plan recommends multifamily. Buffers are not a problem since there is a 75-foot natural green belt along the northern boundary. The closest building to the northern boundary is set back approximately 150 feet. The applicant seems to think that this setback and a grade of 35 percent along the northern border keeps the rooflines of the development below elevations of the Walton Heights residents. D. .Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant clarified this submission as involving a preliminary plat also. The staff informed that a one -lot final would be needed before a building permit is received. The major issue discussed involved the central drive. The applicant felt that it would not coincide with the high traffic use of the other drive since it would only be used for general buisiness and 18 parking spaces. He was asked to meet with Southwestern Bell to resolve their request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff recommended approval, subject to: (1) obtaining authorization from the Sewer Department and (2) submission of a one lot final plat. Mr. Jim Lawson gave staff's views on the proposed use. He felt that a multifamily use was appropriate for the site. November 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 - Continued Staff also offered no objection to the center drive. Mr. David Henry represented the applicant. He felt that the drive was necessary, since it allowed non-residential traffic to be separated from residential. Also, he felt that modifying the drives location may affect building placement since the topography is difficult and may interfere with the buffer between the project and Walton Heights. Mrs. Jannette Straub and Mr. David Groon, from the neighborhood, were in attendance. It was felt that there were enough apartments along Highway 10. A motion for approval, subject to staff's comments was made and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention. November 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 - File No. 609 NAME: Hunter's Ridge "Long -Form PRD" (Z-4523) LOCATION: North side of State Hwy. 10, approximately one mile west of I-430 DEVELOPER/AGENT: ENGINEER: Louis A. Bunche/Crow- Starnes -Stovall & Daniels, Inc. Western Land Company #12 Edgehill Little Rock, AR 664-0955 or (214) 823-2804 A. Pro osal 1. The construction of 164 units of apartments on a 13.69 acre site at 12 units per acre. 2. Proiect Data Area: 13.69 acres No. of Lots: I' Ft. New St.: 0 Total Unit Type Unit No. Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft. A-1- 1Br/lB 40 514 20,560 A-2 1Br/1B 40 594 - 23_, NO A-4 1Br/lB 40 .703 28,120 B 1Br/Den/lB 20 864 17,280 B-1 2Br/2B 16 912 14,592 2Br/2B 8 1,017 8,136 3. Parking - 246 spaces. 4. Site usage - building coverage .... 1.57 acres . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.5 8 Drive and parking 2.6 acres .......... 19.0% Common open space 9.52 acres . . ■ . . . . . . . 6 9 . 5 % 13.69 acres 5. Landscaping will be according to the City Ordinance. November 12, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 7 - Continued B. Engineering Comments 1. Recommend middle drive be deleted with access to clubhouse provided internally. 2. Right-of-way of 50 feet required. Boundary street improvements are required to be in -lieu. 3. Show preliminary detention calculation of areas. C. Analysis Staff's major concern involves the proposed drive. We concur with Engineering's suggestion that the middle drive be eliminated. Greenery is preferred in that location. A 24-foot private street should be cleared with the Fire Department.- The parking layout should be shown. Use is.not a problem at this location since the Highway 10 Plan recommends multifamily. Buffers are not a problem since there is a 75-foot natural green belt along the northern boundary. The closest building to the northern boundary is set back approximately 150 feet.- The applicant seems to think that this setback and a grade of 35 percent along the northern border keeps the rooflines of the development below elevations of the Walton Heights residents. D. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant clarified this submission as involving a preliminary plat also. The staff informed that a one -lot final would be needed before a building permit is received. The major issue discussed involved the central drive. The applicant felt that it would not coincide with the high traffic use of the other drive since it would only be used for general buisiness and 18 parking spaces. He was asked to meet with Southwestern Bell to resolve their request. 1. Name: Hunter's Ridge "Long -Form PRD" (Z-4523) 2. Location: Northside of Highway 10, approximately one mile west of I-430 3. Applicant: Louis A. Bunche/Crow Western Land Company 4. Existing Use: Vacant 5. Proposed Use: Apartments 6. Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to: (1) obtaining authorization from the sewer department and (2) submission of a one -lot final plat. Staff modified its original position to support the proposed middle driveway. Two persons from the neighborhood were in attendance. 7. Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, subject to staff's comments. The vote 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention. 1. Meeting Date: February 16, 1993 2. Case No.: Z-4523 3. Reauest: To extend the term of approval for two years. 4. Location: 11,700 Block of Highway 10 (Cantrell Road) north side of street 5. Owner/Applicaaxt: Winrock Development Company by Ron Tyne 6. Existing Status: Vacant, natural state 7. Proposed Use: Multifamily 8. Staff Recommendation: Approval with the condition that this be the last extension until a complete review is made of the plan through the regular public hearing process. 9. Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval as recommended by staff. 10. Conditions or Issues Remaining to be Resolved: None 11. Right -of -Way Issues: None 12. Recommendation Forwarded With: A vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. 13. objectors: None 14. Neighborhood Plan: River Mountain (1) FILE NO.: Z-452.3_ NAME: Hunter's Ridge - PRD Time Extension LOCATION: North side of State Highway No. 10 (Cantrell Road) immediately west of the entrance to Walton Heights DEVELOPER: WINROCR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 2101 Brookwood Drive Suite 100 Little Rock, AR 72203 663-5340 RE gES : This owner files this request for purposes of asking for a third time extension on this PRD. The application was originally approved by the Planning Commission and the City Board in December of 1985. Subsequent to this, the approval was extended for two years in November of 1987, and again in 1991. STAFF COMMENT/RECOMMENDATION: The Planning staff in reviewing this proposal has only one comment other than our recommendation of approval. It is that the Planning Commission and Board give serious consideration to making this the last extension on this plan without requiring complete conformance to the Highway 10 Design Overlay District, and all other standards in place at the time of this two year expiration. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 7, 1993) Mr. Ron Tyne was present representing the request as well as Mr. Joe White. There was a brief discussion of the proposal and the number of extensions granted previously. The Committee offered some concern about the length of time that this PRD has existed. There were no specific thoughts as to how to deal with the issue relative to the new standards for Highway 10. This project, although a residential project, is multifamily and certain of the standards for the Design Overlay District would apply such as the 100 foot setback. Several of these buildings are setback 50 feet. The Committee offered no specific recommendation as usual, but forwarded the item to the full Commission for resolution. FILE N Z-4 23 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 26, 1993) The staff presented its recommendation of approval of this time extension subject to this being the last extension without review through the process for conformance with the Design Overlay District and the Highway 10 Plan. The Chairman noted that there were no objectors present. After a brief discussion, it was determined to be appropriate to place this item on the Consent Agenda for approval. The motion to that effect was made incorporating the staff's recommendation that this be the last extension. A vote on that motion was 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 2 APPLICATION REQUIREMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE IX, SECTION 9-101 - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT I. Forms and Other Requirements A. Application Form - see attachment A B. Development Statement - see attachment B C. Legal Description of Site - see attachment C II. Submission Requirements A. Development Statement - see attachment B B. Quantitative Data (1) Parcel size - approximately 13.'69 acres (2) Permitted uses and floor areas F160'Area/Unit'Mix Unit Unit Total Total Type Size (SF Units SF A-1 543 40 20,560 A-2 638 40 23,760 A-4 750 40 28,120 B-3 801 20 17,280 B-1 970 16 14,592 C-2 "1041 8 8,136 Office 0 and Rec. Bldg.. Totals 714 avg. 164 114,908 (3) Proposed building coverage - 11.5% (4) Acrea0e'usA06'description Acres Building Coverage 1.57 Parking, Drives & Walks 2.60 Common Open Space 9.52 Total 13.69 Sq.Ft. Percentage 68,389.2 11.5 113,256.0 19.0 414,691.2 69.5 596,336.4 100.0% Z-4523 Continued B. Engineering Comments 1. Recommend middle drive be deleted with access to clubhouse provided internally. 2. Right-of-way of 50 feet required. Boundary street improvements are required to be in -lieu. 3. Show preliminary detention calculation of areas. C. Analysis Staff's major concern involves the proposed drive. We concur with Engineering's suggestion that the middle drive be eliminated. Greenery is preferred in that location. A 24-foot private street should be cleared with the Fire Department. The parking layout should be shown. Use is not a problem at this location since the Highway 10 Plan recommends multifamily. Buffers are not a problem since there is a 75-foot natural green belt along the northern boundary. The closest building to the northern boundary is set back approximately 150 feet. The applicant seems to think that this setback and a grade of 35 percent along the northern border keeps the rooflines of the development below elevations of the Walton Heights residents. D. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant clarified this submission as involving a preliminary plat also. The staff informed that a one -lot final would be needed before a building permit is received. The major issue discussed involved the central drive. The applicant felt that it would not coincide with the high traffic use of the other drive since it would only be used for general buisiness and 18 parking spaces. He was asked to meet with Southwestern Bell to resolve their request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff recommended approval, subject to: (1) obtaining authorization from the Sewer Department and (2) submission of a one lot final plat. Mr. Jim Lawson gave staff's views on the proposed use. He felt that a multifamily use was appropriate for the site. Z-4523 Continued Staff also offered no objection to the center drive. Mr. David Henry represented the applicant. He felt that the drive was necessary, since it allowed non-residential traffic to be separated from residential. Also, he felt that modifying the drives location may affect building placement since the topography is difficult and may interfere with the buffer between the project and Walton Heights. Mrs. Jannette Straub and Mr. David Groon, from the neighborhood, were in attendance. It was felt that there were enough apartments along Highway 10. A motion for approval, subject to staff's comments was made and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention. i Z-4523 Continued Staff also offered no objection to the center drive. Mr. David Henry represented the applicant. He felt that the drive was necessary, since it allowed non-residential traffic to be separated from residential. Also, he felt that modifying the drives location may affect building placement since the topography is difficult and may interfere with the buffer between the project and Walton Heights. Mrs. Jannette Straub and Mr. David Groon, from the neighborhood, were in attendance. It was felt that there were enough apartments along Highway 10. A motion for approval, subject to staff's comments was made and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention. FILE NO.: Z-4 23 NAME: Hunter's Ridge - PRD Time Extension LOCATION: North side of State Highway No. 10 (Cantrell Road) immediately west of the entrance to Walton Heights DEVELOPER: WINROCR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 2101 Brookwood Drive Suite 100 Little Rock, AR 72203 663-5340 REQUEST: This owner files this request for purposes of asking for a third time extension on this PRD. The application was originally approved by the Planning Commission and the City Board in December of 1985. Subsequent to this, the approval was extended for two years in November of 1987, and again in 1991. STAFF COMMENTIRECOMMENDATION: The Planning staff in reviewing this proposal has only one comment other than our recommendation of approval. It is that the Planning Commission and Board give serious consideration to making this the last extension on this plan without requiring complete conformance to the Highway 10 Design Overlay District, and all other standards in place at the time of this two year expiration. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 7, 1993) Mr. Ron Tyne was present representing the request as well as Mr. Joe White. There was a brief discussion of the proposal and the number of extensions granted previously. The Committee offered some concern about the length of time that this PRD has existed. There were no specific thoughts as to how to deal with the issue relative to the new standards for Highway 10. This project, although a residential project, is multifamily and certain of the standards for the Design Overlay District would apply such as the 100 foot setback. Several of these buildings are setback 50 feet. The Committee offered no specific recommendation as usual, but forwarded the item to the full Commission for resolution. FILE NO.: Z-4523 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 26, 1993) The staff presented its recommendation of approval of this time extension subject to this being the last extension without review through the process for conformance with the Design Overlay District and the Highway 10 Plan. The Chairman noted that there were no objectors present. After a brief discussion, it was determined to be appropriate to place this item on the Consent Agenda for approval. The motion to that effect was made incorporating the staff's recommendation that this be the last extension. A vote on that motion was 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. F, Z-4523 Continued B. Engineering Comments 1. Recommend middle drive be deleted with access to clubhouse provided internally. 2. Right-of-way of 50 feet required. Boundary street improvements are required to be in -lieu. 3. Show preliminary detention calculation of areas. C. Analysis Staff's major concern involves the proposed drive. We concur with Engineering's suggestion that the middle drive be eliminated. Greenery is preferred in that location. A 24-foot private street should be cleared with the Fire Department. The parking layout should be shown. Use is not a problem at this location since the Highway 10 Plan recommends multifamily. Buffers are not a problem since there is a 75-foot natural green belt along the northern boundary. The closest building to the northern boundary is set back approximately 150 feet. The applicant seems to think that this setback and a grade of 35 percent along the northern border keeps the rooflines of the development below elevations of the Walton Heights residents. D. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant clarified this submission as involving a preliminary plat also. The staff informed that a one -lot final would be needed before a building permit is received. The major issue discussed involved the central drive. The applicant felt that it would not coincide with the high traffic use of the other drive since it would only be used for general buisiness and 18 parking spaces. He was asked to meet with Southwestern Bell to resolve their request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff recommended approval, subject to: (1) obtaining authorization from the Sewer Department and (2) submission of a one lot final plat. Mr. Jim Lawson gave staff's views on the proposed use. He felt that a multifamily use was appropriate for the site. December 5, 1996 ITEM NO_: 6A FILE NO.: Z-4523 NAME: HUNTERS RIDGE LONG -FORM PRD (REVOCATION) LOCATION: North side of Hwy. 10 about 11,700 Block CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER: Winrock Development Co. by Ron Tyne 2101 Brookwood Dr. Little Rock, AR 72202 ORIGINAL APPLICANT: Winrock Development Co. by Ron Tyne 2101 Brookwood Dr. Little Rock, AR 72202 AREA: 13.69 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 CURRENT ZONING: PRD ORIGINAL ZONING: R-2 PLANNING DISTRICT: #1 CENSUS TRACT: 42.05 BACKGROUND: This PRD received preliminary approval from the Planning Commission on November 21, 1985 and by the Board of Directors on December 3, 1985. There was some objection to more apartments in this area of Highway 10. The PRD ran through its first term of approval and a request for time extension was granted in November of 1987 and in November 1989 and in January of 1991 and last on February 16, 1993. The Board of Directors determined in its review in 1993 that the PUD was not to be extended, time wise, beyond January of 1995 without a detailed review of the plan relative to the Highway 10 Overlay District standards. At this time no action has been requested for further extension and no revised plan has been submitted. Therefore one year beyond the expiration date, staff began the process of requesting revocation and return to R-2 Single Family. STAFF UPDATE: On October 1, 1996, Staff mailed certified notice to Mr. Ron Tyne of Winrock, Inc. advising him of the proposal to request revocation. Return receipt was signed and returned to case file. To this writing on November 30, 1996 no contact has been made by Mr. Tyne. December 5, 1996 ITEM NO.: 6A (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-4523 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the PRD titled "Hunters Ridge Long -Form PRD" be revoked and the R-2 zoning prior to this PUD be restored. 2 December 5, 1996 ITEM NO.: 6A(Cont.)FILE NO.: Z-4523 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the PRD titled "Hunters Ridge Long -Form PRD" be revoked and the R-2 zoning prior to this PUD be restored. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (DECEMBER 5, 1996) Richard Wood, of the Staff, presented a brief explanation of this proposal and an update on conversation held with the applicant and the position requested by Mr. Ron Tyne. Wood stated that it would be appropriate to remove this item of business from the agenda and from the revocation process in as much as the developer indicates a possible development in the near future which will cause a refiling of the application. That application would be filed in accordance with the Highway 10 Overlay Plan which was directed by the City Board on the last occasion for extension of this PRD. A brief discussion followed and it was pointed out that this application whether revoked or remaining at its current status does not accomplish anything for the applicant. A complete new application will be required before construction of anything on this property. A motion was made to remove this item from the revocation process and hold it at abeyance until further contact is received from the applicant. A vote on this motion produced 10 ayes and 1 absent. 2 FILE NO.: Z-4523 Cont. RECOMMENDATION: That the PRD be revoked; that the Ordinance No. 15,004 creating the PRD be repealed and that the land be returned to R-2 Single Family zoning. NOTICE INFORMATION PER ORDINANCE: Little Rock Ordinance No. 16,798 requires that City Staff provide notice to the owner of record, adjacent owners, and neighborhood associations. This has been or will be done. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 11, 1998) There were two letters in support of revocation. The requests was offered for hearing. A brief discussion followed. It was determined to place this matter on the Consent Agenda for approval. A motion was made to approve the Consent Agenda. It passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. F, FILE NO.: Z-4523 NAME: Hunters Ridge PRD REQUEST: Staff proposal to review for revocation, a PRD that expired in January 1, 1995. DEVELOPER: Winrock Development Company by Russell B. McDonough, III AREA: 13.69 Acres ZONING• PRD BACKGROUND: NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ALLOWED USES: Multifamily per the PRD PROPOSED USE: 164 Apartments at 12 units per acre This PRD received preliminary approval from the Planning Commission on November 21, 1985 and by the Board -of Directors on December 3, 1985. There was some objection to more apartments in this area of Highway 10. The PRD ran through its first term of approval and a request for time extension was granted in November of 1987 and in November 1989 and in January of 1991 and last on February 16, 1993. The Board of Directors determined in its review in 1993 that the PUD was not to be extended, time wise, beyond January of 1995 without a detailed review of the plan relative to the Highway 10 Overlay District standards. In 1996 Staff added this item to the revocation list and proceeded to clear the record. Mr. Ron Tyne of Winrock appeared before the Commission and requested that revocation be held in abeyance pending filing of a PZD in the near future. This did not occur. No contact has been made by Winrock and staff feels compelled to follow up on the Board's directive of no more extensions. OWNER'S POSITION• Mr. Russ McDonough of Winrock Development advised staff by phone that the PRD would not be pursued and that a letter to that effect would be forthcoming. At this writing, it has not been received.