HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0218 Staff AnalysisSUBDIVISIONS
NAME: Wright Holman Estate "PRD"
LOCATION: North of Ridgeway at Hill Road
DEVELOPER: FNC;TNF.FR :
Tom C. McCrae, IV Witsell and Evans, P.A.
308 E. 8th St. Architects and Planners
Little Rock, AR 1008 Cumberland
Phone: 376-6854 Little Rock, AR
AREA: 2.25 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT —OF NEW ST.: 0
ZONING: "R-2"
PROPOSED USES: Residential
VARIANCES REQUESTED: None.
PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS:
This is a plan by the owner, to develop a low density "PRD"
on a site which currently includes 12 existing lots and
approximately 300' of abandoned right-of-way on Ridgeway
Street for a total of 2.25 acres. Frontage is approximately
335' along both Hill Road and "H" Street.
The proposal reflects the owner's intentions to maintain the
major portion of the house and all the improved grounds for
his own use, to undertake the architectural restoration Of
the significant interior spaces, and to reduce maintenance
and carrying costs by putting the remaining portions of the
property to low density residential use. Specific projects
sought were:
(1) The keeping of new construction and total development
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood;
(2) The protection of the character of the main structure
and its grounds;
(3) Protection of the character along Hill Road and "H"
Street, with no alteration of the existing stone wall
and no new construction in the area of the existing
drive;
(4) Preservation of an adequ.ate landscaped perimeter around
the property;
(5) Restriction of access points to public streets and any
additional traffic so that street improvements will not
be needed on surrounding streets.
SUBDIVISIONS
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL:
1. The existing three -level residence of 12,000 square
feet will be developed accordingly:
(a) First Floor 10,000 Square Feet Single
Main Portion Family
Residence
(b) First Floor Servant's Quarters Residence
Apartment
(c) Second Floor Apartment
b and c = 2,000 Square Feet Combined
2. Plans for new development include three duplex
buildings which will house the following:
Unit Type Unit No. Unit Size
Single Family 6 (Total) 2,300 Sq. Ft/
Dwellings 2 or 2 1/2
Levels
3. Plans for new development include the designation of
the southwest corner of the property, as a single
family home site of approximately 14,600 square feet.
No structure or design has been submitted due to the
applicant's intention to sell.
DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE:
(1) Owner moves into existing house when schedule permits.
(2) Completion of two apartments in existing structure.
(3) Single family lot on southwest corner will be offered
for sale.
(4) Development of six units according to a phasing plan.
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS:
(1) Sites considered under the PUD concept must be 2.0
acres or greater. This plan complies.
(2) A minimum of 10 to 15 percent of gross Planned
Residential District (PRD) areas shall be designated as
common usable open space.
(3) Single family, duplex, zero -lot -line and town house
developments shall have a minimum of 500 square feet of
useful open space per unit.
SUBDIVISIONS
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL:
(4) Parking requirements are 1.5 spaces per dwelling units
for mixed -used developments. The applicant has not
stated specific plans for parking.
(5) A detailed landscape plan should be submitted.
(6) Basic PUD submission requires a topographical cross
section and registered survey. This plan does comply.
(7) PUD submission requires indication of dimensioned
distances between buildings and distance from
structures to property lines. This plan does not
comply.
ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS:
Improve "H" Street to residential standards: 1/2 27'
street, full length of property. ,
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Staff is not opposed to the plan as presented; however,
several modifications are necessary for conformance with
requirements. First of all, the actual plan should further
delineate the lot to be sold by providing building lines and
providing a permanent easement and some permanent right of
access in the BOA. The only access to this area is
designated as "possible location of new drive." Also, PUD
requirements dictate that physical structures should be
shown on the plan. Even though the applicant plans to sell
this lot, he should depict some type of residence on the
site.
There is another area on this plan that indicates a
"possible future new drive and parking for two apartment
units." The applicant should identify the two units the
parking will serve.
Engineering should report at the meeting whether or not
the applicant needs to pull duplex unit back to accomodate
right-of-way on "H" Street.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, subject to staff and Engineering's comments.
SUBDIVISIONS
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION:
Mr. Don Evans, architect for the project, represented the
owner, Mr. Tom McRae. Engineering reported that there was
no problem with the amount of right-of-way on "H" Street;
however, there was some disagreement as to the necessity of
improving the street to City standards. Engineering's
position was that improvements were necessary for safety
reasons.
Staff expressed their approval of the development concept,
but indicated that the application failed to address several
technical requirements (other than those in staff's
comments), such as plans for buffering, screening and
parking, distinctions between private/common space and plans
for maintenance.
The applicant was advised to do two things before the Public
Hearing. (1) Submit plans satisfactory to the Planning
staff; (2) get with Engineering and develop an acceptable
plan for widening "H" Street. A motion 'for approval,
subject to these comments was made and passed by a vote of:
4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent (Betty Turner absent).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, Mr. McCrae, and the architect, Mr. Don Evans,
were in attendance.- There were no objectors; however, a
resident of 2420 Hill Road, Mr. Bud Baldwin, requested that
a "concrete plan" be presented so that the neighborhood and
the developer could agree on something definite. Since both
a revised plan was not submitted and an agreement with
Engineering had not been reached prior to the Public
Hearing, a motion was made and passed to defer this item to
the February 23rd (Zoning) Public Hearing. The vote: S
ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent (Scribner, Sipes, Nicholson).
ti
SUBDIVISIONS
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (2-23-82)
Mr. Tom McRae, the owner, was present in support of the application.
He stated that a plan for improving "H" Street had been worked out
with Engineering. The agreement is as follows:
"H" Street will be widened to approximately 20 ft. from the access to
Tract 3 (three duplexes) toward Oak along "H" Street. The widening
will extend beyond the property line approximately 50 ft. toward Oak
Street. This will be done on a phased basis;
1.) Off-street parking and widening of "H" Street to the property
line will be initiated and completed before or concurrent with
the development of the first two duplexes.
2.) Completion of final 50 ft. beyond property line toward Oak Street
will be completed before the third duplex i-s developed.
Staff reported in Agenda Session that a revised plan had been submitted
that was in conformance with the suggestions of the Subdivision Committee.
Engineering reported that they had received questions from the residents
to the north about possible drainage problems, so they wanted to state
that the PUD procedure allowed them to look into the internal drainage
at this point. The off -site drainage would be studied when drainage
plans are submitted.
Mr. Ron Smith, an abutting property-owner,requested clarification on the
widening of "H" street. He also stated that Mr. McRae had been very co-
operative with the neighborhood. A motion was made and passed for approval,
subject to:
1.) "H" Street agreement
2.) Submission of plans for work in the right-of-way
The vote was 10 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 absent