Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0024-NN Staff AnalysisNovember 15, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A-1 Owner: Kelton Brown Applicant: Robert Lowe/Hodges Firm Location: At the west end of Windsor Court Request: Rezone from Unclassified to 'IMF-6" Multifamily Purpose: Build Multifamily Project Size: 22.0 acres + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "MF-6" South - Residential, Zoned "R-2" East - Multifamily, Zoned 'IMF-6" West - Vacant, Outside City Limits PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. This site has at present no potential for use. This is due to an absence of sanitary sewer connection. The land involved in this request is both outside the City limits and outside Sewer District 222. Annexation to both is a requirement by Ordinance and policy prior to land use commitment. 2. The ownership consists of terrain with grades up to 40 percent +. The lowest elevation at the northeast corner is approximately 515 feet which rises to the center of this ownership at approximately 630 feet. The land forms a cone shaped hill mass with difficult access except at a couple points one of which is the eastern access proposed for this development. 3. The Master Street Plan does not require specific right-of-way dedication for a collector street. However, the street proposed through this project tied to Windsor Court will serve as a collector although being proposed at 27 feet in width. There are no other Master Plan requirements. November 15, 1983 Item No. A-1 - Continued 4. The principal effect of this project is on the sewer limitation within District 222. If this acreage is added to the service area, there will be a resultant diminishing of tie -on capacity for existing properties. 5. The Suburban Development Plan does not clearly delineate the boundary of single family attached in this area which leaves a question as to whether any rezoning is appropriate. Inasmuch as the boundaries on this plan are guides and not described, the Planning Commission and City Board will have to determine whether an expansion of the boundary is appropriate to include this site. 6. The site has no history in City records; however, the neighborhoods to the north and south have opposed all efforts at rezoning to other than single family occupancies such as the Windsor Town Homes Development. 7.' The staff feels that several issues noted above will require a deferral of this issue until answers can be gained. We feel it entirely inappropriate to attempt recommendation based on the case offered to the Commission at this time. The site development proposal is one of large lots with a mixture of two, three and four unit structures on each. This is proposed for construction on standard residential streets. The Wastewater Utility Company has reported to staff that a tie would be permitted with the appropriate facilities design. This tie would be subject to the approval of the District Commissioners. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that this issue be deferred a minimum of 60 days or until the issues associated with sewer, annexation and the land use plan are resolved. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Mr. Robert Lowe was present representing Mr. Kelton Brown. The Commission chairman requested from Mr. Lowe his feelings on the subject of a deferral of this matter as to whether or not he proposed the deferral of both Item 8 and 8A. Mr. Lowe stated that his request would be that both items be deferred for a period of two weeks in order to provide sufficient time to resolve the issues raised at prior meetings. The Commission Chairman then asked if there were November 15, 1983 Item No. A-1 - Continued objectors present. There were several in attendance. Mr. Richard English representing himself and others within the Windsor Town Homes Development, Mr. Neil Donaghey representing Oliver Best an adjacent property and the representative of the Hillsborough Property Owners' Association. These persons each stated their objection to not only deferral of the matter but the rezoning and development of this site in its entirety. They requested that a minimum deferral of 60 days be provided if granted in order to permit the neighborhood sufficient time to deal with appraisals of the effect of this proposal on their neighborhood. The Planning Commission then discussed the issue with the result that a determination was made that a 60-day deferral would be in order. The motion was then made to the effect that a 60-day deferral was granted. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. The Chairman then noted for the record that there were several letters of objection offered and one petition filed with.36 signatures. November 15, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No.A - 24-N NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Kelton Brown Beckenham Drive Little Rock, AR Hillsborough Multifamily Subdivision West End of Windsor Court Off Hinson Road ENGINEER: The Hodges Firm 209 1/2 W. 2nd Street Little Rock, AR Phone: 375-4404 AREA: 21.966 acres NO. OF LOTS: 34 FT. OF NEW ST.: 2,400 ZONING: "MF-6" (Proposed) PROPOSED USES: Duplex - Triplex - Fourplex VARIANCES REQUESTED: Length of cul-de-sac due to terrain and limited access potential on south. A. History of the Site None. B. Existing Conditions This site, which is currently outside the City limits, is located on very rugged terrain, with elevations ranging from approximately 420 feet to 630 feet. It is wooded with vegetation consisting mainly of an abundance of pines. Adjacent to the tract on the north, is an "MF-6" parcel, on the east a multifamily project is being controlled and on the south is an existing single family residential area. C. Development Proposal The applicant is requesting to divide a tract of 21.966 acres into 34 lots for multifamily use as duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes. Twenty-four hundred feet of new street is proposed. A waiver of the cul-de-sac length is requested, due to the terrain and limited access potential on the south. Application will be made for annexation to the City and rezoning to "MF-6" since properties outside the City are brought in as 11R-2" areas. November 15, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued D. Engineering Considerations 1. Provide preliminary street grades and vertical curbs prior to the Commission meeting. The topography indicates there may be street grade problems, especially at the street intersection. Indicate how storm water will be disposed of at the end of the ditch at the southeast corner of Lot 15. Is there an existing or proposed channel running east to the large ditch. E. Staff Analysis Staff has severe reservations about developing the property as requested. It is felt that the proposal, as designed, will not adequately support multifamily development. The street system is insufficient as to size and design. It is felt that the "MF-6" zoning district was intended for development on lots larger than those proposed. The lotting arrangement, also does not meet acceptable criteria for multifamily development, since it appears to be more suitable for a conventional single family type arrangement. Due to a 40 percent slope on some portions of Lots 1-14, they are unbuildable unless an easement is constructed at the rear for access. Staff views this as unnecessary since Section 37.20 of the Subdivision Ordinance prohibits development on lands which are unsuitable for a proposed project. If such measures have to be taken to make these lots accessible, then such land is unsuitable. If this proposal is annexed, the applicant should provide assurances that the appropriate density to accommodate "MF-6" development is transferred from unused lands. Hillside regulations require the provision of a 15-foot building line in those areas with slopes in excess of 18 percent. The applicant should distinguish between these lots which have building lines with 15 feet and 25 feet. F. Staff Recommendation Denial, subject to comments made. November 15, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. Staff reported that there were two additional isues relative to water and sewer service. Water Works has limited service to a maximum floor elevation of 560 feet, which limits service to only Lots 14-34. No sewer is available to this tract since it is not a part of Sewer District 222. The applicant stated that he was in the process of working out acceptable agreements with both agencies, and he has applied for annexation and rezoning of the parcel. There was discussion as to whether or not the plat should be reviewed when the sewer service is certain; and as to the suitability for the proposal for multifamiliy development. Some Committee members felt that a more unified approach would be more appropriate due to the hillside problems. Staff pointed out that if the plat was approved, the creation of such lots would not be a basis for Board of Adjustment approval, since the Planning Commission should refrain from approving those approvals that create hardship. The Committee decided to pass this to the Commission, subject to the applicant submitting letters at the August 16th Planning Commission meeting from Wastewater Utility, Sewer District 222 and Water works, relative to their capacity of service to the parcel. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8-16-83) The applicant was present. He submitted a letter requesting a 2-week deferment which would enable him to furnish research regarding sewer connections and densities on the project as requested by the Sewer Improvement District #222• A motion was made'and passed to defer the item to the August 30 Planning Comission meeting. The vote was: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8-30-83) The applicant was present. Several objectors were present from the surrounding neighborhood. Spokespersons were identified as Mr. Richard English of Windsor Court, an attorney representing Mr. Oliver Best who owns some undeveloped property off Hinson Road and Mr. Carl Fisher, president of the Hillsborough Subdivision Property Owners' Association. Since it had been deferred twice before, the Commission requested that the applicant resolve all of the basic problems including annexation of the property, before it is brought back for review. All of the objectors felt that a 60-day deferral would allow them adequate time to get professional input and study the implications of the proposed development. A motion was made and passed for a 60-day deferral. The vote - 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. November 15, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (10-26-83) Mr. Bob Lowe was present. He submitted a letter from the Water Works that allowed him service below the elevation of 560' (Lots 14-34) with the existing facilities. When a new pump is installed, all lots will be served. Another letter was submitted from the Wastewater Utility which stated service could be provided. As for the density question, he reported that the Sewer District Commission requested assurances that no property owner would be denied his chance to develop at three units per acre. Thus, Mr. Lowe proposed that density be transferred from lots owned and sold in Longlea and Hillsborough. Staff proposed this based on past actions. The applicant then decided that he would not go further in presenting his case. He stated an intent to withdraw the application. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A letter from the developer which requested an indefinite deferral since he was unable to work out an acceptable solution for the sewer problem was read into the recorded minutes by the staff. Attorney D. Hamilton represented property owners from Windsor Court, who questioned an indefinite deferral of the item. Staff reported that a time had to be set for a deferral. A motion was made and passed for withdrawal without prejudice with the condition that the applicant refile within one year, renotify adjacent property owners, and pay no filing fee. It passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 2 noes and 1 absent. (No votes M Clayton and Ketcher) November 15, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A-1 Owner: Kelton Brown Applicant: Robert Lowe/Hodges Firm Location: At the west end of Windsor Court Request: Rezone from Unclassified to "MF-6" Multifamily Purpose: Build Multifamily Project Size: 22.0 acres + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Vacant, Zoned "MF-6" South - Residential, Zoned "R-2" East - Multifamily, Zoned "MF-6" West - Vacant, Outside City Limits PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. This site has at present no potential for use. This is due to an absence of sanitary sewer connection. The land involved in this request is both outside the City limits and outside Sewer District 222. Annexation to both is a requirement by Ordinance and policy prior to land use commitment. 2. The ownership consists of terrain with grades up to 40 percent +. The lowest elevation at the northeast corner is approximately 515 feet which rises to the center of this ownership at approximately 630 feet. The land forms a cone shaped hill mass with difficult access except at a couple points one of which is the eastern access proposed for this development. 3. The Master Street Plan does not require specific right-of-way dedication for a collector street. However, the street proposed through this project tied to Windsor Court will serve as a collector although being proposed at 27 feet in width. There are no other Master Plan requirements. November 15, 1983 Item No. A-1 - Continued 4. The principal effect of this project is on the sewer limitation within District 222. If this acreage is added to the service area, there will be a resultant diminishing of tie -on capacity for existing properties. 5. The Suburban Development Plan does not clearly delineate the boundary of single family attached in this area which leaves a question as to whether any rezoning is appropriate. Inasmuch as the boundaries on this plan are guides and not described, the Planning Commission and City Board will have to determine whether an expansion of the boundary is appropriate to include this site. 6. The site has no history in City records; however, the neighborhoods to the north and south have opposed all efforts at rezoning to other than single family occupancies such as the Windsor Town Homes Development. 7. The staff feels that several issues noted above will require a deferral of this issue until answers can be gained. We feel it entirely inappropriate to attempt recommendation based on the case offered to the Commission at this time. The site development proposal is one of large lots with a mixture of two, three and four unit structures on each. This is proposed for construction on standard residential streets. The Wastewater Utility Company has reported to staff that a tie would be permitted with the appropriate facilities design. This tie would be subject to the approval of the District Commissioners. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that this issue be deferred a minimum of 60 days or until the issues associated with sewer, annexation and the land use plan are resolved. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Mr. Robert Lowe was present representing Mr. Kelton Brown. The Commission chairman requested from Mr. Lowe his feelings on the subject of a deferral of this matter as to whether or not he proposed the deferral of both Item 8 and 8A. Mr. Lowe stated that his request would be that both items be deferred for a period of two weeks in order to provide sufficient time to resolve the issues raised at prior meetings. The Commission Chairman then asked if there were November 15, 1983 Item No. A-1 - Continued objectors present. There were several in attendance. Mr. Richard English representing himself and others within the Windsor Town Homes Development, Mr. Neil Donaghey representing Oliver Best an adjacent property and the representative of the Hillsborough Property Owners' Association. These persons each stated their objection to not only deferral of the matter but the rezoning and development of this site in its entirety. They requested that a minimum deferral of 60 days be provided if granted in order to permit the neighborhood sufficient time to deal with appraisals of the effect of this proposal on their neighborhood. The Planning Commission then discussed the issue with the result that a determination was made that a 60-day deferral would be in order. The motion was then made to the effect that a 60-day deferral was granted. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. The Chairman then noted for the record that there were several letters of objection offered and one petition filed with 36 signatures. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 15, 1983) The Commission voted 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent to accept the applicant's request for withdrawal of the application. The Commission withdrew the item without prejudice. November 15, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - 24-N NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Kelton Brown Beckenham Drive Little Rock, AR AREA: 21.966 acres Hillsborough Multifamily Subdivision West End of Windsor Court Off Hinson Road ENGINEER: The Hodges Firm 209 1/2 W. 2nd Street Little Rock, AR Phone: 375-4404 NO. OF LOTS: 34 FT. OF NEW ST.: 2,400 ZONING: "MF-6" (Proposed) PROPOSED USES: Duplex - Triplex - Fourplex VARIANCES REQUESTED: Length of cul-de-sac due to terrain and limited access potential on south. A. History of the Site None. B. Existing Conditions This site, which is currently outside the City limits, is located on very rugged terrain, with elevations ranging from approximately 420 feet to 630 feet. It is wooded with vegetation consisting mainly of an , abundance of pines. Adjacent to the tract on the north, is an "MF-6" parcel, on the east a multifamily project is being controlled and on the south is an existing single family residential area. C. Development Proposal The applicant is requesting to divide a tract of 21.966 acres into 34 lots for multifamily use as duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes. Twenty-four hundred feet of new street is proposed. A waiver of the cul-de-sac length is requested, due to the terrain and limited access potential on the south. Application will be made for annexation to the City and rezoning to "MF-6" since properties outside the City are brought in as "R-2" areas. November 15, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued D. Engineering Considerations 1. Provide preliminary street grades and vertical curbs prior to the Commission meeting. The topography indicates there may be street grade problems, especially at the street intersection. Indicate how storm water will be disposed of at the end of the ditch at the southeast corner of Lot 15. Is there an existing or proposed channel running east to the large ditch. E. Staff Analysis Staff has severe reservations about developing the property as requested. It is felt that the proposal, as designed, will not adequately support multifamily development. The street system is insufficient as to size and design. It is felt that the "MF-6" zoning district was intended for development on lots larger than those proposed. The lotting arrangement, also does not meet acceptable criteria for multifamily development, since it appears to -'be more suitable for a conventional single family type arrangement. Due to a 40 percent slope on some portions of Lots 1-14, they are unbuildable unless an easement is constructed at the rear for access. Staff views this as unnecessary since Section 37.20 of the Subdivision Ordinance prohibits development on lands which are unsuitable for a proposed project. If such measures have to be taken to make these lots accessible, then such land is unsuitable. If this proposal is annexed, the applicant should provide assurances that the appropriate density to accommodate "MF-6" development is transferred from unused lands. Hillside regulations require the provision of a 15-foot building line in those areas with slopes in excess of 18 percent. The applicant should distinguish between these lots which have building lines with 15 feet and 25 feet. F. Staff Recommendation Denial, subject to comments made. �1, November 15, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. Staff reported that there were two additional isues relative to water and sewer service: Water Works has limited service to a maximum floor elevation of 560 feet, which limits service to only Lots 14-34. No sewer is available to this tract since it is not a part of Sewer District 222. The applicant stated that he was in the process of working out acceptable agreements with both agencies, and he has applied for annexation and rezoning of the parcel. There was discussion as to whether or not the plat should be reviewed when the sewer service is certain; and as to the suitability for the proposal for multifamiliy development. Some Committee members felt that a more unified approach would be more appropriate due to the hillside problems. Staff pointed out that if the plat was approved, the creation of such lots would not be a basis for Board of Adjustment approval, since the Planning Commission should refrain from approving those approvals that create hardship. The Committee decided to pass this to the Commission, subject to the applicant submitting letters at the August 16th Planning Commission meeting from Wastewater Utility, Sewer District 222 and Water works, relative to their capacity of service to the parcel. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8-16-83) The applicant was present. He submitted a letter requesting a 2-week deferment which would enable him to furnish research regarding sewer connections and densities on the project as requested by the Sewer Improvement District #222• A motion was made and passed to defer the item to the August 30 Planning Comission meeting. The vote was: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8-30-83) The applicant was present. Several objectors were present from the surrounding neighborhood. Spokespersons were identified as Mr. Richard English of Windsor Court, an attorney representing Mr. Oliver Best who owns some undeveloped property off Hinson Road and Mr. Carl Fisher, president of the Hillsborough Subdivision Property Owners' Association. Since it had been deferred twice before, the Commission requested that the applicant resolve all of the basic problems including annexation of the property, before it is brought back for review. All of the objectors felt that a 60-day deferral would allow them adequate time to get professional input and study the implications of the proposed development. A motion was made and passed for a 60-day deferral. The vote - 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. November 15, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (10-26-83) Mr. Bob Lowe was present. He submitted a letter from the Water Works that allowed him service below the elevation of 560' (Lots 14-34) with the existing facilities. When a new pump is installed, all lots will be served. Another letter was submitted from the Wastewater Utility which stated service could be provided. As for the density question, he reported that the Sewer District Commission requested assurances that no property owner would be denied his chance to develop at three units per acre. Thus, Mr. Lowe proposed that density be transferred from lots owned and sold in Longlea and Hillsborough. Staff -PEroposed this based on past actions. The applicant then decided that he would not go further in presenting his case. He stated an intent to withdraw the application. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A letter from the developer which requested an indefinite deferral since he was unable to work out an acceptable solution for the sewer problem was read into the recorded minutes by the staff. Attorney D. Hamilton represented property owners from Windsor Court, who questioned an indefinite deferral of the item. Staff reported that a time had to be set for a deferral. A motion was made and passed for withdrawal without prejudice with the condition that the applicant refile within one year, renotify adjacent property owners, and pay no filing fee. It passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 2 noes and 1 absent. (No votes - Clayton and Ketcher)