Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7773-A Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: Z-7773 NAME: Whispering Hills Short -form PD -R Revocation LOCATION: South of Alexander Road, East of Whispering Hills Drive DEVELOPER: P.E. Investments, LLC 2212 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72202 ENGINEER: ETC Engineers 1510 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72202 AREA: 5.09 acres CURRENT ZONING: ALLOWED USES PROPOSED ZONING: PROPOSED USE: NUMBER OF LOTS: 15 PD -R Single-family R-2, Single-family Single-family FT. NEW STREET: 0 L. F. VARIANCESNVAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 19,271 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on February 1, 2005, established Whispering Hills Short -form PD -R. The rezoning was from R-2 to PD -R to allow the development of a residential subdivision. There were several variances requested with the development of the site therefore the planned development process was utilized. The developer intended to develop the subdivision with 15 single-family homes. A. PROPOSAUREQUEST: The applicant submitted a request dated January 9, 2006, requesting the current PD -R zoning be revoked and the previous R-2, Single-family District zoning classification be restored. The applicant has indicated the proposed residential O.: Z-7773 development will not be constructed on the site as proposed. Per Section 36-454(d) the Owner may for cause request repeal of the ordinance establishing the development. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is a vacant tree covered site located south of Alexander Road. Access to the site is from Whispering Drive a substandard street surfaced as a "chip -seal" roadway and open ditches for drainage. There is a pond located to the east of the site on an adjoining parcel. To the west of the site is a single-family neighborhood, Whispering Hills Subdivision Phase I. To the south of the site is vacant R-2, Single-family zoned property. North of the site has developed with single-family homes located on large lots accessed by Alexander Road. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area residents concerning the proposed development. All property owners located within 200 -feet of the site, all residents, who could be identified, located within 300 -feet of the site, Southwest Little Rock United for Progress and the Alexander Road Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing. D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request for the revocation of the current PD -R zoning classification and the restoration of the zoning classification to R-2. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 16, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had failed to notify property owners as required by the Commission's By-laws. Staff presented a recommendation the item be deferred to the March 2, 2006, public hearing. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 2, 2006) The owner's representative was present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. The proposed preliminary plat (Item D — File No. S -1454- A) and the proposed revocation request (Item E — File No. Z-7773) were discussed simultaneously. 4 FILE NO.: Z-7773 !Cont. Staff presented the revocation request with a recommendation of approval. Staff stated per Section 36-454(d) the owner may for cause request the repeal of the ordinance establishing the development. Staff stated the owner had indicated the development would not be constructed on the site as proposed due to economic constraints of the previously approve site plan. Staff presented the preliminary plat request also with a recommendation of approval. Staff stated the proposed preliminary plat fully complied with the minimum requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance for properties zoned R-2, Single-family. Mr. Homer Ellis stated he lived adjacent to the site at 13507 Alexander Road. He stated he was encourage the developer was proposing the construction of ten (10) single- family homes and not the original fourteen (14) homes. He stated the current development was more in keeping with the existing development pattern in the area. He stated his concern was drainage and water run-off from the site. He stated he would prefer a ditch with culvert rather than open drainage. He stated the ditch would overflow and create a lake on the adjoining property. He stated with the placement of coverage drainage this would channel the water and was less likely to create washing and flooding. Mr. Harold Williams addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated the original proposal allow for the placement of a six foot fence along his property line and the applicant's development. He questioned if the developer was willing to commit to the placement of a fence in this area as a part of the current plat approval. He also question if Whispering Drive was damaged who would be responsible for repair. The owner's representative stated there was not a ditch located along the western boundary of the site. He stated the ditch would be placed along the eastern perimeter following the existing drainage pattern in the area. He stated the developer would not utilize Whispering Drive for construction traffic of the infrastructure of the proposed subdivision. He stated all construction traffic would access the site from Alexander Road. He stated once the lots were sold the builders would utilize Whispering Drive for the new home construction. He stated he could not commit to the placement of a fence along the western perimeter of the site. He stated the developer was proposing the development of the site following the City's Subdivision Ordinance which did not require the placement of fencing between single-family subdivisions. There was a general discussion between the Commission and staff concerning the road and who would be responsible if the road was damaged during construction. The Commission also questioned staff as to the proposed drainage and the capability of the proposed drainage system to carry the water. Staff stated the road would be video taped as to the current condition and if the road was damaged by construction traffic the developer would be responsible for repair. Staff stated if the damage could not be linked to the developer then the City would be responsible for repairs. 3 FILE NO.: Z-7773 Staff stated the design of the drainage would be reviewed in detail prior to construction. Staff stated the ditch on the end of the cul-de-sac would require piping if located within the front building setback. Staff stated there were two areas identified as detention on the proposed preliminary plat. Staff stated these detention areas would be flat bottoms with gently sloping sides. Staff stated typically the homeowners were responsible for up -keep of the detention areas. Staff stated in some cases the City would take over detention areas for maintenance. There was no further discussion of the items. The Chair entertained a motion for approval of the revocation request as presented. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 no, 1 absent and 2 recusals (Mizan Rahman and Troy Laha). The Chair entertained a separate motion for approval of the preliminary plat request as presented. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 no, 1 absent and 2 recusals (Mizan Rahman and Troy Laha). 4 March 2, 2006 ITEM NO.: E FILE NO.: Z-7773 NAME: Whispering Hills Short -form PD -R Revocation LOCATION: South of Alexander Road, East of Whispering Hills Drive DEVELOPER: P.E. Investments, LLC 2212 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72202 ENGINEER: ETC Engineers 1510 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72202 AREA: 5.09 acres RRENT ZONING: ALLOWED USES: PROPOSED ZONING: PROPOSED USE: NUMBER OF LOTS: 15 PD -R Single-family R-2, Single-family Single-family VARIAN CESMAIVERS REQUESTED: BACKGROUND: FT. NEW STREET: 0 L. F. None requested. Ordinance No. 19;271 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on February 1, 2005, established Whispering Hills Short -form PD -R. The rezoning was from R-2 to PD -R to allow the development of a residential subdivision. There were several variances requested with the development of the site therefore the planned development process was utilized. The developer intended to develop the subdivision with 15 single-family homes. A. PROPOSAUREQUEST: The applicant submitted a request dated January 9, 2006, requesting the current PD -R zoning be revoked and the previous R-2, Single-family District zoning March 2, 2006 fti11=11nue-sm FILE NO.: Z-7773 classification be restored. The applicant has indicated the proposed residential development will not be constructed on the site as proposed. Per Section 36-454(d) the Owner may for cause request repeal of the ordinance establishing the development. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is a vacant tree covered site located south of Alexander Road. Access to the site is from Whispering Drive a substandard street surfaced as a "chip -seal" roadway and open ditches for drainage. There is a pond located to the east of the site on an adjoining parcel. To the west of the site is a single-family neighborhood, Whispering Hills Subdivision Phase I. To the south of the site is vacant R-2, Single-family zoned property. North of the site has developed with single-family homes located on large lots accessed by Alexander Road. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received several informational phone calls from area residents concerning the proposed development. All property owners located within 200 -feet of the site, all residents, who could be identified, located within 300 -feet of the site, Southwest Little Rock United for Progress and the Alexander Road Neighborhood Association were notified of the public hearing. D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request for the revocation of the current PD -R zoning classification and the restoration of the zoning classification to R-2. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 16, 2006) The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered objectors present. Staff stated the applicant had failed to notify property owners as required by the Commission's By-laws. Staff presented a recommendation the item be deferred to the March 2, 2006, public hearing. There was no further discussion of the item. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 2, 2006) The owner's representative was present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. The proposed preliminary plat (Item D — File No. S-1454- 2 March 2, 2006 ITEM NO.. E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7773 A) and the proposed revocation request (Item E — File No. Z-7773) were discussed simultaneously. Staff presented the revocation request with a recommendation of approval. Staff stated per Section 36-454(d) the owner may for cause request the repeal of the ordinance establishing the development. Staff stated the owner had indicated the development would not be constructed on the site as proposed due to economic constraints of the previously approve site plan. Staff presented the preliminary plat request also with a recommendation of approval. Staff stated the proposed preliminary plat fully complied with the minimum requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance for properties zoned R-2, Single-family. Mr. Homer Ellis stated he lived adjacent to the site at 13507 Alexander Road. He stated he was encourage the developer was proposing the construction of ten (10) single-family homes and not the original fourteen (14) homes. He stated the current development was more in keeping with the existing development pattern in the area. He stated his concern was drainage and water run-off from the site. He stated he would prefer a ditch with culvert rather than open drainage. He stated the ditch would overflow and create a lake on the adjoining property. He stated with the placement of coverage drainage this would channel the water and was less likely to create washing and flooding. Mr. Harold Williams addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated the original proposal allow for the placement of a six foot fence along his property line and the applicant's development. He questioned if the developer was willing to commit to the placement of a fence in this area as a part of the current plat approval. He also question if Whispering Drive was damaged who would be responsible for repair. The owner's representative stated there was not a ditch located along the western boundary of the site. He stated the ditch would be placed along the eastern perimeter following the existing drainage pattern in the area. He stated the developer would not utilize Whispering Drive for construction traffic of the infrastructure of the: proposed subdivision. He stated all construction traffic would access the site from Alexander Road. He stated once the lots were sold the builders would utilize Whispering Drive for the new home construction. He stated he could not commit to the placement of a fence along the western perimeter of the site. He stated the developer was proposing the development of the site following the City's Subdivision Ordinance which did not require the placement of fencing between single-family subdivisions. There was a general discussion between the Commission and staff concerning the road and who would be responsible if the road was damaged during construction. The Commission also questioned staff as to the proposed drainage and the capability of the proposed drainage system to carry the water. Staff stated the road would be video taped as to the current condition and if the road was damaged by construction traffic 3 March 2, 2006 ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-7773 the developer would be responsible for repair. Staff stated if the damage could not be linked to the developer then the City would be responsible for repairs. Staff stated the design of the drainage would be reviewed in detail prior to construction. Staff stated the ditch on the end of the cul-de-sac would require piping if located within the front building setback. Staff stated there were two areas identified as detention on the proposed preliminary plat. Staff stated these detention areas would be flat bottoms with gently sloping sides. Staff stated typically the homeowners were responsible for up -keep of the detention areas. Staff stated in some cases the City would take over detention areas for maintenance. There was no further discussion of the items. The Chair entertained a motion for approval of the revocation request as presented. The motion carried by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 no, 1 absent and 2 recusals (Mizan Rahman and Troy Laha). The Chair entertained a separate motion for approval of the preliminary plat request as presented. The motion carried by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 no, 1 absent and 2 recusals (Mizan Rahman and Troy Laha). 4