Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4587-A Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: Z -4587-A NAME: HUNTER'S GREEN -- LONG -FORM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - RESIDENTIAL LOCATION: Northwest of the cul-de-sac at the west end of Hunter's Geln Blvd., approximately 1000 feet west of Napa Valley Road DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• Frank Riggins HUNTER'S GREEN DEVELOPMENT CORP. THE MEHLBURGER FIRM 1500 Union National Plaza P. O. Box 3837 Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72203 372-3425 375-5331 AREA: 10 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 58 FT. NEW STREET: 1765 ZONING: PRD PROPOSED USES: Single -Family Residential PLANNING DISTRICT: 19 CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES REOUESTED: 1) A waiver is requested from the requirement that a sidewalk be constructed along at least one side of a standard residential street. 2) Approval is requested of a private street system for the development. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes the development of a 10 acre tract for 58 "zero lot line" single-family homes, with the development including construction of approximately 1765 linear feet of street and the provision of common areas to include a club house, swimming pool, tennis court, a series of ponds, and landscaped areas in 2.93 acres of the site. The project is proposed to be developed as a single phase. The lots on which the homes are to be constructed will range in size of from 4480 square feet to approximately 8508 square feet, with building setbacks from the south and east boundaries of the site being 15 feet and, on the west and north, 25 foot building setbacks being provided. Front building setbacks from the private street access easement are proposed to be 12.5 feet. One side of each of the homes will set FILE NO.: Z -4587-A (Continued) on the side property line; a 10 foot side yard setback is established on the opposing property line. The lots lying around the perimeter of the site are, typically, 80 feet deep and 68 feet wide; the interior lots which back up to the central common area are, typically, -45 feet wide by 90 feet deep. It is anticipated that homes will range in size of from 1550 square feet to over 1850 square feet. The interior street is to be a loop street, with an entrance off the Hunter's Glen Blvd. cul-de- sac, and is proposed to be a private street. A 6 foot high brick fence is to be built at the perimeter of the property, with access to be controlled by an electric gate. The Bill of Assurance will establish a property owners association, and the association will be responsible for maintenance of the street and the private fire protection system, as well as the brick fence and the common areas and facilities. The street is proposed to be built wider than a standard residential street (30 feet in lieu of 27 feet), and the applicant requests that no sidewalk be required to be constructed along this interior private street. The applicant proposes that individual home buyers be permitted to construct covers over patios, and that these covers may be built no closer to property lines than 3 feet. No out -buildings will be permitted. A. PROPOSALZREODEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for a Planned Development - Residential. Approval of a waiver from the requirement to construct a sidewalk along at least one side of a standard residential street is requested. Approval of a private steeet system to serve the development is requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is currently undeveloped and is wooded. The topography slopes downward approximately 16 feet from the entrance at Hunter's Glen Blvd. towards the west, and rises approximately 12 feet from the entrance to the site towards the north. The current zoning of the tract is PRD. There is a developed PRD, Hunter's Cove PRD, immediately to the south of the proposed development. Immediately to the east is a developement in an FM -12 zoning district. To the north and west is R-2 zoned property. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: Public Works comments that: 1) a sketch grading and drainage plan, meeting the requirements of Sec. 29-186, and a grading permit will be required; ADPC&E must be contacted for approval prior to starting work; 2) aprons at the interface between the private street and Hunter's Glenn E FILE No.: Z-4587-A C ntinued Bled. should not extend beyond the extension of the property corners to the center of the 110 foot diameter right-of-way dedication; 3) it is recommended that the corners of the private street layout be modified to 75 foot radii and that common drives be shown for corner lots; 4) sidewalks are required along at least one side of the street; and 5) Pedestrian access points need to be provided to the common area from various points along the loop street. Water Utilities comments that a water main extension will be required and that fire hydrants will be private. Wastewater Utilities comments that a sewer main extension, with easements, will be required. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. approved the submittal without comment. The Fire Department approved the submittal without comment. D. ISSUES/LEGALITECHNICAL/DESIGN: Neighborhoods and Planning Staff comments that: 1) Sec. 31-207 of the Subdivision Regulations provides that the Planning Commission may permit new private streets; that it shall be incumbent on the applicant to demonstrate the appropriateness of a private street; and that the developer is to provide for the permanent maintenance of the street, water lines, fire hydrants, and other utility facilities in the Bill of Assurance. Sec. 31-207 states that private streets are permissible only in the form of culs-de-sac and short loop streets, and where there is no possibility of through traffic. The design meets these tests, and the preliminary Bill of Assurance submitted provides for the required maintenance. 2) Sec. 31-2, the definitions section, provides that a loop street which does not exceed 1,500 feet meets the requirements for a minor residential street. Sec. 31-209 requires sidewalks on standard residential streets, but not on minor residential streets. The loop portion of the street is approx. 1615 feet long. The applicant has asked that the sidewalks be waived; instead of a waiver, however, a variance from the standard for classification of a minor residential street is suggested, permitting the loop street to be classified as a minor residential street, and thus accomplish the desired effect of no sidewalk being required. 3 FILE NO.: Z -4587-A (Continued) The applicant has proposed a 30 foot wide street section in lieu of the 27 foot street section which is required for a standard residential street or 24 foot street section required for a minor residential street, and is providing pedestrian access ways to the common area from various points along the loop street. This is an attempt to provide a viable pedestrian circulation system which does not include sidewalks. 3) Landscape review has no comments on this development. 4) The Planning staff reports that the proposed development is in the Chenal District, where the Plan recommends single-family development. There is, then, no land use issue. E. ANALYSIS• The proposed development is for a single-family use, and is in conformance with the adopted land use plan. The applicant has complied with Public Works design requirements. The remaining issues are minimal and can easily be addressed. The request that no sidewalks be required along the loop street requires a minimal variance of the standard for classification of the loop street as a minor residential street. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the PD -R, and recommends approval of a variance to permit the 1615 foot loop street to be classified as a minor residential street, thus eliminating the requirement that a sidewalk along the street be required. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 2, 1995) Mr. Frank Riggins, with the Mehlburger Firm, was present to represent the applicant. Staff presented the site plan and outlined the proposed development; Mr. Riggins reviewed the printed items in -the discussion outline. The Committee asked for Mr. Riggins comments and response to the discussion outline. Staff discussed with Mr. Riggins and the Committee the various requirements, and Mr. Riggins indicated that the concerns would be addressed. The Committee forwarded the request to the full Commission for the public hearing. 4 FILE NO.: Z -4587-A (Continued) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 21, 1995) Mr. Frank Riggins, representing the applicant was present. Staff outlined the proposal, indicating that the item had been included on the Consent Agenda, with a recombination from staff of approval. (The item had been removed from the Consent Agenda when 2 neighbors had completed registration cards and had expressed opposition to the development.) Mr. Riggins deferred his presentation until the objecting neighbors had expressed the reasons for their position. Ms. Mary Ann Lehman spoke in opposition to the development. She indicated that she lives in Marlow Manor, backing up to the north side of, as she describes it, "the meadow". She reported that the area is a habitat for wildlife, including foxes which come into her back yard, having become "friendly", and which have raised pups. She made an emotional appeal that this meadow not be lost, saying that it is all "very upsetting". She complained that the development would increase traffic in the area, and related that traffic had increased dramatically over the 10 years she has lived in the area; that this increased traffic has caused the addition of traffic signals, has slowed her travel to get to work, and has caused her to have to change her route to work to avoid the traffic and added signals. She pointed out that the site plan proposes a very dense development; that is it substantially more dense than Countrywood, immediately to the east; and that the traffic from such a dense development will significantly affect the area. She recalled that there is supposed to be a 50 foot easement around the perimeter of the 10 -acre site which was imposed at some time in the past. She asked for a comparison of the density and lot sizes of what is being requested versus the density and lot sizes of the surrounding developments. Mr. E. R. "Ray" Gutherie, indicating that he lives in Hunter's Cove, immediately south of the proposed development, reported that the "horseshoe" turn -around at the west end of Hunter's Glen Blvd. is so narrow that it is difficult for trucks to make the turn -around when they get to the west end of the street. He said that the median is torn up when the trucks drive on the grass as they try to make the turn. He asked that the turn -around be widened to provide a greater turning radius. He also asked that any damage to the street and median done during construction of the new development be repaired by the developer. Mr. Riggins responded that he would commit to making any repairs to the road or median caused by construction traffic, but that modification of the median or street is outside the scope of what his client can do without approval by the City Traffic Engineer. He indicated that he would visit with Traffic Engineering regarding this matter. 5 FILE NO.: Z -4587-A (Continued) Mr. Gutherie wanted assurance that the stormwater drainage leaving the Hunter's Cove property would not be blocked by the wall to be built or the site development of the new project. Mr. Riggins assured him that provision for the stormwater had been provided for in the planning for the Hunter's Green project. Chairperson Walker asked for clarification of two issues: one, the status of the existing PRD and Mrs. Lehman's statement regarding the existence of a 50 foot building line around the perimeter of the project; and two, Mrs. Lehman's assertion that the project's density was too great. Staff responded that the current zoning of the site is PRD; that, subsequent to the PRD zoning being approved, there was a rezoning request for apartments to be constructed on the site, and, as part of the Planning Commission approval of the rezoning request, a 50 foot buffer was imposed. The requested rezoning was never finalized, so the buffer was never put in place. The existing PRD zoning did not require the buffer, and the proposed PD -R would not impose such a buffer, since the proposal is for single- family homes abutting single-family homes. Staff pointed out that the density of the proposed development is 58 single-family homes on 10 acres, or 5.8 units per acre. Lots range in size from a minimum of 4,320 square feet to over 8,500 square feet. The Zoning ordinance, staff pointed out, permits lots as small as 4,000 square feet in the R-2 and R-3 zoning districts for "zero - lot -line" developments, with minimum lot widths of 35 feet. MF -6 developments, staff related, permit 6 dwelling units per acre, with a minimum tract size of 7,000 square feet per dwelling. The 58 dwellings proposed would require a tract of 9.32 acres. The development, then, conforms to the MF -6 requirements. Staff pointed out that the development immediately to the east, Countrywood Condominiums, As zoned MF -12, which permits developments with twice the density of the MF -6 district, or 12 units per acre. The PRD to the south, Hunter's Cove, has a similar development to the one proposed. Staff reiterated the recommendation for approval. Commissioner Woods expressed his concern that the development was too dense, and said that, visually, the density would seem greater than the attached dwellings in the apartments, since there would be individual homes. Staff pointed out that, on the area zoning map included in the agenda packet, in Marlow Manor to the north, there are 8 single- family homes shown, and, in the proposed development plan, there are 7 homes which will back up to these 8 Marlow Manor Homes; therefore, visually, there will not be that much difference from the single-family development to the north. Following some additional discussion about the density issue, a motion was made and seconded to approve the PD -R zoning. Since the vote for approval was 5 ayes, 3 nays, 3 absent, and 6 FILE NO.: Z -4587-A Continued 0 abstentions, and since the Bylaws provide for an automatic deferral when at least 6 affirmative votes are not cast, the item was deferred until the April 4, 1995 Commission hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 4, 1995) Staff outlined the request. Mr. David Carl, president of Hunter's Green Development Corp., the applicant, and Mr. Frank Riggins, representing the site engineering firm were present. Mr. Carl indicated that the development would be patio, or courtyard homes, and would be of high quality. He indicated that it would be a "gated community", with a wall surrounding the development and an electronic entrance gate. The average price of the homes would, he said, be around $200,000, with an average square footage of 2,000 square feet. He reported that, since the previous Commission meeting where there was expressed concern by some neighbors and Commission members regarding the density of the development, the density had been reduced from 60 homes to 54 homes, a 10% reduction, he said. Mr. Bob Tyler, a resident of the single-family subdivision abutting the project site, spoke in support of the proposed development. He said that, over the past years, two other developments had been proposed for the site: one was an apartment project, and this was unacceptable to the single-family neighborhood; and the other was a condominium project, and, although more acceptable than apartments, this was not what he wanted to see developed behind his home. The proposed patio home development would, according to his banker, increase the value of the abutting homes. The traffic increase due to the development would, he said, be negligible in relation to the traffic which already uses Hinson Rd. or Napa Valley Rd. He indicated that he deals with traffic studies every day as part of his work, and estimated that the additional homes would increase traffic about 2%, and this 2% would be divided between the two collector streets, or an increase of around 1% on each road. He said that the owner of the property should have the right to develop the property, especially with single-family dwellings, and that the proposed development was very similar to other patio home developments in the area, and he looked forward to having the development behind his home. Mr. Riggins reported that drainage concerns of neighbors would be addressed, and he reviewed with the Commissioners and neighbors the planned detention and stormwater system. He indicated that there would, as provided for in the Detention Ordinance, be no additional net increase of stormwater onto abutting properties. 7 FILE NO.: Z -4587-A (Continued) Mr. Tom Oliver, identifying himself as the president of the Marlow Manor Property Owners' Association, explained that, initially, when incorrect information regarding the type of development which was being proposed was disseminated, the Association Board of Directors had raised concerns about the development. He said that the Board and a majority of the property owners would not object to the development, as long as some concerns were addressed. He said that the issues regarding drainage and traffic were concerns, and that these had been addressed. Additionally, he related that, because of the proximity of buildings in Hunter's Green to Marlow Manor property owners' property lines, the Association proposed that, to afford privacy to Marlow Manor residents, the homes to be built on lots abutting Marlow Manor be restricted to single story homes, or that a restriction be placed on the development to prohibit windows on the rear of second stories. Mr. "Trip" Vogel, who identified himself as owner of a real estate firm, spoke in support of the proposed project. He said that he was a resident of the Glen Eagle Subdivision, which was the PRD immediately to the south of the proposed development site, and said that the development would add to the value and character of the area. Ms. Mary Ann Lehman, a resident of Marlow Manor who had spoken at the previous Commission meeting in opposition to the proposed development, again spoke in opposition to it. She reiterated that the density was too great and that it would add to an already bad traffic problem. She also lamented that patio home developments are not conducive to raising families, and do not promote long-term home ownership. Mr. Carl responded that, since he had a daughter who is in a wheelchair, he would make all homes wheelchair accessible, and that most of the homes would probably be single story; however, since many of the homes would be custom built for purchasers of lots, he could not restrict buyers of lots abutting Marlow Manor to single -story homes or prohibit windows on the rear of the homes. He explained that the rear building setback on the lots abutting Marlow Manor was set at 25 feet, and that this building setback line is the same as the building setback line for homes in Marlow Manor and other residential areas. Commissioners Chachere and McCarthy asked for clarification on the requested waiver of a sidewalk for the development, Commissioner McCarthy expressing concern for pedestrians and their access to the common areas, and Commissioner Chachere requesting clarification on the requested variance for a private street system. Mr. Carl explained that the proposal is for a loop street, and that in residential areas, short loop streets are permittedto be 8 FILE NO.: Z -45$7-A (Continued built to a "minor residential standard" which does not require a sidewalk. He said that he was requesting that the 1765 foot long loop street be classified as a minor residential street so that the sidewalk could be eliminated. He said that a standard residential street is 27 feet wide, and a minor residential street is permitted to be 24 feet wide, but that he proposed to construct the street 30 feet wide to provide room on the street for pedestrians. He also pointed out that there are access points to the common area at each of the four corners of the interior block, providing points of access in close proximity to all lots. He explained that he was proposing to develop the interior street as a private street which would be maintained by the property owners' association, and that the Bill of Assurance would restrict on -street parking on a permanent basis. He said that sufficient room would be provided off-street for vehicles to park, without having to park on -street, except when a resident had a number of guests in for a special occasion. Staff explained that a loop street of no longer than 1500 feet could be built to "minor residential street" standards; that in order for the 1765 foot long loop street to be classified as a minor residential street, a variance would be required to be approved by the Board of Directors. Commissioner Willis asked if there are sidewalks in the other developments in the area, to which Mr. Vogel responded that, as far as Glen Eagle is concerned, and to his knowledge, other developments, as well, neither Glen Eagle or the other developments have sidewalks. Ms. Sandra Bernet, a resident of Marlow Manor, spoke in opposition to the development. She said that there is a "massive" traffic problem along Hinson Rd., and that she objected to a development which would add more traffic to the area. Ms. Nancy Mellen, a resident of Marlow Manor, reiterated the traffic problem in the area, and expressed opposition to a development which would add to the problem. She questioned whether, when the street system was provided and Hinson Rd. was widened, the dense developments such as the one proposed were anticipated. She said that traditional neighborhoods should be encouraged instead of the planned communities. Commissioner Ball asked for clarification on the existing zoning of the tract, to which staff responded that the existing zoning is PRD; the site being the second half of the Glenn Eagle development which was never developed. Mr. Michael Grey, a resident of Marlow Manor, asked for clarification on the distance of the homes in the proposed development from the Marlow Manor property lines, to which Mr. Carl responded that the rear building line for homes in Hunter's Green would be 25 feet from the property line. 9 FILE NO.: Z -4587-A Continued Chairperson Walker summarized the applicant's proposal: that a PD -R with a private street system was proposed; that a variance was requested to permit omission of the required sidewalk; and, that the Bill of Assurance would restrict permanent on -street parking within the planned development. The question was called, and the proposal was approved by the Commission with the vote of 8 ayes, 2 nays, 0 abstentions, and 1 absent. 10