Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4719 Staff Analysisb. Phase r2 toData not provided. October 14, 1986 / SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A NAME: Pine Shadows Addition LOCATION: East side of Geyer Springs Road immediately north of the Rock Island Railroad DEVELOPER: ARCHITECT: First Consortium, Inc. Eddie Branton 3126 JFK Blvd. 707 Wallace Building N. Little Rock, AR 72116 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: 375-9010 Telephone: 372-4930 AREA: 8.72 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 156 ZONING: "R-2" to PRD PROPOSED USES: Residential/Mobile Home Park VARIANCES REQUESTED: None A. Proposal 1. The construction of 46 mobile home lots on two phases on 8.72 acres. 2. Project Data a. Phase I SYMBOL SIZE QUANTITY 1 14'x45' 1 2 15'x55' 4 3 14'x60' 10 4 14'x68' 15 5 24'x68' 3 b. Phase r2 toData not provided. October 14F 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Its No. A - Continued C. Parkin -60 spaces (two/unit) Park 30,00 square feet and Recreation area - 3. u (900/nit) rage area - 1,650 square feet 4. Outside sto (50/unit) B. Enineerin Comments: 1. 20 maximum radius on private street. 2, Stormwater detention required. Talk with Traffic Engineer, Henk Koornstra, for 3 his comments. C. Ana__?smobile home nest for PUD approval for a This is a req ro arty that the Commission park. It is located on for rezoning and recently considered requestnd to provide for a mobile home subdivision ofthe as were approved by the orted The applicationthe Board. Staff suPPoutside park.but denied by Commisison, le objectives with persons living them, w3 - Principle the applicant the City. In his submittal Letter, expected d that this proposal reflects "a mobile home par state 11eu of the normally this with clustered units in He feels that lots for house trailers-11 rai ides', the tenants with a parking a nt need in concept for development addresses an urgent family home environment, City, and addressed a tsttotlivetin the County rcing at is fO the Y Is residents some of the City against their will. applicant is asked to identify differences between The identify the "Clustered plan and the previous one; whether lot sales will this p and indicate will need to units" referred too, are, this proposal be involved. nIf they comply with `,R-711 requirements. staff is concerned that res nstsreconsideringn Of this plat viol agar violates a Board policy October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No- A - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: brief the Commission on that the City Attorney Attorney Steve Staff asked al opinion, Assistant City the requested leg would be in violation of chose io hear this item, since there Giles felt that the Commission on and it could be Board policy if they application that es in the aPP fle did state, however► but were no changes lication. the item, considered as a reapp precluded from heaingit on the the Commission was not P uired to place unanimous consent would be req agenda. the City Manager that Staff reported that it was infoBoaddbthat the item not be he would recoeing mmend to the City as considered- Staff then stated its item shouldtbenconsbdered against reconsideration since t e with some finality. $e felt that Mr. Randy Frazier represented the developer. cation; but it was a new ' ation as filed was not alreconsideration °f the heard the application nor a reappl original application, He argued that it should be application in PRD form. g laws in Article in "by -right" and that the Commission's an Bylaws is 57(b) only states unanimous COpRDnapPlication is totally reconsidered. He felt thast�ingent controls that can be different because of re placed on the proposal. osition Steve Giles reiterated his p Assistant City Attorney uired. that unanimous consent was req lication of Pine the reapp p ayes, A motion in favor of hearing failed to pass by a vote of Shadows was made, 7 noes and 4 absent. 0, )temper 9', 1986 DIVISIONS ,m No. 5 !E ATION: Pine Shadows Addition East side of Geyer Sprinqs Road immediately north of the Pock Island Railroad rrin rlrmr�m_ First Consortium, Inc. Eddie Branton 3126 JFK Blvd. 707 Wallace Buildinq N. Little Rock, AR 72116 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: 375-9010 Telephone: 372-4930 AREA: 8.72 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 156 ZONING: "P-2" to PRD PROPOSEn USES: Residential/Mobile Rome Park VARIANCES REOUFSTFD: None A. Proposal 1. The construction of 46 mohile home lots on two phases on 8.72 acres. 2. Project Data a. Phase I SYMBOL SIZE QUANTITY 1 14'x45' 1 2 15'x55' 4 3 14'x60' 10 4 14'x68' 15 5 24'x68' 3 b. Phase 2 Data not provided. seotember 9, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - Continued c. Parkinq 60 spaces (two/unit) 3. Park and Recreation area -- 30,00 square feet (900/unit) 4. Outside storage area - 1,650 square feet (50/unit) R. Enqineerinq Comments: 1. 20' maximum radius on private street. 2. Stormwater detention required. 3. Talk with Traffic Enqineer, Henk Koornstr_a, for his comments. I C. Analvsis This is a request for PT1n approval for a mobile home Turk. It is located on property that the Commission recently considered request for r.ezoninq and subdivision of the land to provide for a mobile home park. The applications were approved by the Commisison, but denied by the Board. Staff supported them. Principle objectives with persons livinq outside the Citv. In his submittal letter, the applicant stated that this proposal reflects "a mobile home park with clustered units in -lieu of the normally expected parkinq lots for house trailers." He feels that this concent for development provides the tenants with a family home environment, addresses an urqent need in the Citv, and addressed a situation that is for_cinq some of the City's residents to live in the County against their will. The anolicant is asked to identifv differences between this olan and the previous one; identify the "clustered units" referred to; and indicate whether lot sales will be involved. Tf they are, this proposal will need to comply with "R-7" requirements. Staff is concerned that resubmission of this nlat violates a Board policy against reconsiderinq September 9, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - Continued proposals previously considered. Staff feels that this proposal would provide affordable housinq and supports this use in this area and other areas of the City; however, we ask that the Commission not accept this applications based on Board policy. D. Staff Recommendation Staff supports the land use, but urges that the application not be accented. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The application was discussed. It was decided that further r guidance from the City Attorney was needed regarding the Board's policy. Staff agreed to get an opinion before the Public Hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There was further discussion regarding whether or not acceptance of the application was in violation of Board policy. The City Attorney present stated that he did not receive the request in time to prepare a written opinion. A motion was made to defer the item for 30 days to allow enough time for the City Attorney to prepare a legal opinion and send a copy of the opinion to Mr. Randy Frazier, the applicants attorney. The motion was made and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.