HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6378 Staff AnalysisSeptember 18, 1997
ITEM NO.: 4 FILE NO.: Z-6378
NAME: Chanridge Short -Form PD -R
LOCATION: North side of Taylor Loop Road at the Holmes Drive
intersection
DEVELOPER: ENGINEER:
Rodney Chandler Joe White, Jr.
Chandler Holmes, Inc. White-Daters Engineering
P. O. Box 22604 401 Victory Street
Little Rock, AR 72221 Little Rock, AR 72201
490-3602 374-1666
AREA: 1.69 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: None
ZONING: R-2 Single Family
Proposed PD -R
VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED:
BACKGROUND•
ALLOWED USES: Single Family
PROPOSED USE: Eleven Multifamily
units in 4 buildings
None
This small parcel has a brief history for platting. A small lot
single family plat with a short cul-de-sac was approved last year
with six lots. The project did not work and Mr. Chandler offered
this proposal for multifamily. The site has been zoned R-2 since
annexation.
A. PROPOSAL RE UEST:
To construct eleven multifamily units on 1.69 acres for a
density of 6.5± units per acre. The project will have
internalized parking using the buildings to shield the
parking. Two drives are proposed to access the property,
one at each front lot corner. The developer proposes to
adhere to Public Works and ordinance standards. Therefore,
no variances are requested.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The site is almost flat with some grade to the northeast.
Taylor Loop Road is without curb, gutter and sidewalk on
this side. There are a few good trees scattered about the
site. All sides of the property abut developed single
September 18, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO • 4 {Cont.} FILE NO.: Z-6378
family subdivisions. The area for many blocks in all
directions is zoned R-2 Single Family.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
At this writing, twelve calls of objectors have been
received; two visits to this office and one petition with
148 signatures. The neighborhood of Westchester was
notified as required, sign posted and notice required within
200 feet.
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS:
1. Construct half street improvements to collector street
standards with 5 foot sidewalks in accordance with
Master Street plan with building construction.
2. Appropriate handicap ramps will be required per current
ADA standards.
3. All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City
Ordinance.
4. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property.
5. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance
16,577, minimum of 25 feet from property line.
6. Prepare letter for street lights as required by Sec.
31-403.
7. Grading permit will be required on this new development
if it disturbs more than one acre.
8. Contact 371-4452 for barricade permit and street cut.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer available, not adversely affected.
Capacity analysis required prior to connection to
existing system. Contact wastewater utility.
AP&L: No Comment.
Arkla: Approval as submitted.
Southwestern Bell: No Comment.
Water: Acreage charge of $150.00 per acre. Review by Fire
Department and Water Works needed to determine need for
additional fire hydrants.
Fire Department: Show fire hydrants on site or note
off-site distance.
County Planning: No Comment.
CATA•
CATA does not currently serve the area; however, we are
working on a plan to serve more of the suburban areas.
2
September 18, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6378
Sidewalks (proposed) will help tremendously if they allow
access from within the development to the street.
F. ISSUESITECHNICAL DESIGN:
Plannina Division:
The site is in the River Mountain District. The Plan
recommends Single Family use. The request is for a PRD,
with a density of 6.5 units per acre. There have not been
any recent amendments to the Plan in this area. The Single
Family definition includes this type of development but a
density of less than 6 units per acre. The surrounding
parcels are all developed as single family homes. From a
Land Use Plan point of view this proposal is too intense.
Staff would not recommend amending the Plan for this minor a
variation, if the Commission believes the design of the PRD
is appropriate.
Landscape:
The full average land use buffer width required along the
eastern and western perimeters of the site is fourteen feet.
At no point should the width drop below six feet. Portions
of the proposed buffers drop to a width of only five feet.
A six foot high opaque screen is required to screen this
site from the single family residential properties to the
north, east and west. This screen may either be a wooden
fence with its face directed outward or dense evergreen
plantings.
The dumpster enclosure is required to be eight feet in
height on three sides.
G. ANALYSIS:
The review of the proposed multifamily reveals nothing that
we can use as basis for support. We recommended the single
family plat previously approved even though some neighbors
opposed the lot sizes. This development intends a density
that exceeds the conventional platted density of Deer Park
or Westchester and exceeds that intended by the Land Use
Plan. To approve this project would be to spot zone a tract
of land incompatible with all its neighbors.
H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Denial of the application.
3
September 18, 1997
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 4 Cont. FILE NO.: Z-5378
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 28, 1997)
The applicant was represented by Mr. Tim Daters of White-Daters
Engineering. Mr. Daters presented the proposal to the Committee
and stated he understood the design issues raised by staff. The
Committee and staff offered design solutions and in closing
comments directed Mr. Daters to work toward a resubmittal of plan
by September 4.
The Committee forwards the matter to the full Commission
conditioned on the resubmittal.
STAFF UPDATE:
The engineer submitted the required revisions by September 4.
These meet information requirements of Planning Staff. Public
Works has not completed review.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 18, 1997)
The staff reported that the applicant submitted a written request
for withdrawal of the PD -R from further consideration. There
were in excess of 30 persons present in objection to the request.
There was no discussion of the application except that the Chair
noted the need to vote on the waiver of bylaws. This due to late
notice of withdrawal and no one representing the application. A
motion was made to waive the bylaws and accept the request for
withdrawal. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and
2 absent. A motion was then offered to place the matter on the
Consent Agenda. The motion on the Consent Agenda for withdrawal
passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
4