Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0319-A Staff AnalysisMarch 29, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - File No. 319 NAME:' LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Fred Hunt & Co. Point Pleasant "PRD" On Hinson Road lying South of Windsor Ct. Townhomes and North of Hillsborough ENGINEER: Edward G. Smith & Associates 401 Victory Street APPLICANT_/AGENT: Little Rock, AR Phone: 374-1666 John Castin Manes, Castin and Massie 2501 Willow Street P.O. Box 1035 N. L. R., AR 72115 Phone: (501) 758-1360 AREA: 5.1 acres NO. OF LOTS: ZONING: "R-2" (Existing) T^ "PRD" (Proposed) PROPOSED USES: Condominiums 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 REQUEST: 3 To reclassify an area zoned "R-2" to "PRD." I. DEVELOPMENT PHILOSOPHY AND OBJECTIVES (1) To provide a secure enclave for elderly and retired couples with a single entry point off Hinson Road. (2) To provide an entrance into the luxury condominium market for the developer, who has previously developed only single family. (3) To accommodate the life-style of the elderly, affluent home buyer in Little Rock. March 29, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - Continued II. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS A. Parcel Size - - - - - - - 5.1 acres B. Existing Zoning - - - - - 01R-2" C. Density - - - - - - - - -- 4.9 D. Development Scheme (1) No. of Units - - - - 25 (2) Unit Type - - - - - Not Provided (3) Unit Size - - - -- - Not Provided E. Building Coverage - - - Not Provided F. Perimeter Treatment -- - Not Provided G. Parking (Total) - - - - 119 4 Average Spaces/Unit = 100 Front Guest Parking = 19 Parking Unit Ratio - 4.76 spaces/unit .Ti. Design Features: (1) Predominately single level living. (2) Attached garages. (3) Private outdoor enclosed patio spaces. (4) Ample indoor and outdoor storage. (5) Central security system and single entrance road. (6) A maintenance free life-style with a condominium homeowners' association. (7) Elimination of exposed street parking and parking in the front of the residential units. March 29, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 2 - Continued (8) Extensive landscaping throughout. Construction Time Frame: (1) Ten units by summer of 1983, the remainder depends upon market conditions. III. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS (1) Improve Hinson Road to minor arterial standards. (2) Entrance island and mail pickup area appears to prompt traffic conflicts. Request that developer's engineer contact City Engineer prior to preparing final street plans. (3) Internal streets should be a minimum of 20' wide. IV. STAFF ANALYSIS This proposal presents several issues for discussion. The applicant has submitted this as a short form PUD, but it is slightly over the acreage limit for such review. The applicant should consider filing this as a standard "PUB" or rezoning the property to "MF-6" and filing it as a site plan for a multiple building site. The site plan indicates an intrusion of a drive into the 40' buffer that shields a single family area to the south, leaving a 15' setback and a 6' fence. This is allowed by Ordinance if the 15' is left in its natural stated however, the residents in this location were extremely vocal when this property was previously presented for conditional use review for the construction of a church. Technically, the space between Buildings 21 and 22 at their closest point, do not appear to meet the requirement of at least 101 between detached buildings, Finally, the most significant problem with the plan has to do with sewer capacity for the area. Since this Plan Proposes to develop over the allowable density of three units pe. acre for sewer capacity, the applicant will need to resolve this issue with Wastewater Utilities. At the time ❑f this writing, no utility comments have been received. Due to the late submission of these plans, the applicant will be required to distribute copies to the appropriate agencies and utilities. f March 29, 1983 i, SUBDIVISIONS Item No._2 - Continued STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff suggest deferring action on this until the sewer issue is resolved. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The applicant submitted a revised plan which reduced the units to 24 parcels, and includes only a 20' setback on the northeast. Relative to staff's comments, the Committee did not feel that the acreage limit was significant since it was only a fraction over what was required. They also felt that the distance between buildings 21 and 22 was satisfactory since it averaged 101, The applicant stated that he wanted to proceed with 15 units until the sewer issue was resolved. A motion was made and passed to approve this item, suhiect to resolution of the sewer issue. The vote: 2 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION° The applicant was present. There were no objectors. Staff reported that the sewer issue had been settled by the applicant's proposal to phase the development. Staff reported that adequate notification had not been 'given, since notices had not been sent out until the llth. A motion was made and passed to defer the item for two weeks. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent, and 1 abstention. (Abstaining Commissioner Ric''nard Massie) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION° There were several persons present in objection. The neighborhood offered a petition of objection containing 26 owners' signatures. Mr. Joe Robinson and two others offered objection to the proposal. The developer, Mr. Hunt, and his planner, Jack Castin, were present and made a presentation. There followed a lengthy discussion of use, buf_f--�rs, fencing, setbacks and transfer: of density right-,:.. The Commission determined that several items on the )Ian required modification. T11e,e were (1) expansion of the buffer along the south property line to a minimum of 15 feet; (2) provision of a six --foot opaque fence ,along the south property line; (3) movement of all 5uildings to a 40-foot setback from the south property line; (4) extension of variances in the 40-foot building line on Vinson Road i March 29, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item,No. 2 a Continued to accommodate the building adjustments required along the south line; (5) relief from the buffer requirement adjacent to Windsor Town Homes; (6) commitment from the Fellowship Bible Church to permit a nine unit TDR to occur between the church property and the subject property. This will involve a legal description of the offered site and a letter from the church board or legally designated agent making the commitment. The Commission voted unanimously to recommend the Planned Unit Development for approval subject to the six items noted in the above comments. The vote 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent, 1 open position. March 15, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9,- File No. 319 NAME: Point Pleasant "PRD" LOCATION: On Hinson Road lying South of Windsor Ct. Townhomes and North of Hillsborough DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Fred Hunt & Co. Edward G. Smith & Associates 401 Victory Street APPLICANT/AGENT: Little Rock, AR Phone: 374-1666 John Castin Manes, Castin and Massie 2501 Willow Street P.J. Box 1035 N. L. R., AR 72115 Phone: (501) 758-1360 AREA: 5.1 acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 ZONING: "R-2" (Existing) "PRD" (Proposed) FT. OF NEW ST .: 0 PROPOSED USES: Condominiums REQUEST: To reclassify an area zoned "R-2" to "PRD." I. DEVELOPMENT PHILOSOPHY AND OBJECTIVES (1) To provide a secure enclave for elderly and retired couples with a single entry point off Hinson Road. (2) To provide an entrance into the luxury condominium market for the developer, who has previously developed only single family. (3) To accommodate the life-style of the elderly, affluent home 'buyer in Little Rock. March 15, 1983 SU9DIVISIONS Item No. 9 - Continued II. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS A. Parcel Size - - - - - - - 5.1 acres B. Existing Zoning - - - "R-2" C. Density - - - - - - - -- -- 4.9 D. Development Scheme (1) No. of Units - - - - 25 (2) Unit Type - - - - - Not Provided (3) Unit Size - - - - Not Provided E. Building Coverage - -- - Not Provided F. Perimeter_ Treatment - - Not Provided G. Parking (Total) - - - - 119 4 Average Spaces/Unit = 100 Front Guest Parking = 19 Parking Unit Ratio - 4.76 spaces/unit H. Design Features: (1) Predominately single level living. (2) Attached garages. (3) Private outdoor enclosed patio spaces. (4) Ample indoor and outdoor storage. (5) Central security system and single entrance road. (6) A maintenance free life-style with a condominium homeowners' association. (7) Elimination of exposed street parking and parking in the front of the residential units. March 15, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 - Continued (8) Extensive landscaping throughout. Construction Time Frame: (1) Ten units by summer of 1983, the remainder depends upon market conditions. III. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS (1) Improve Hinson Road to minor arterial standards. (2) Entrance island and mail pickup area appears to prompt traffic conflicts. Request that developer's engineer contact City Engineer prior to preparing final street plans. (3) Internal streets should be a minimum of 20' wide. IV. STAFF ANALYSIS This proposal presents several issues for discussion. The applicant has submitted this as a short form PUD, but it is slightly over the acreage limit for such review. The applicant should consider filing this as a standard "PUD" or rezoning the property to "MF-6" and filing it as a site plan for a multiple building site. The site plan indicates an intrusion of a drive into the 40' buffer that shields a single family area to the south, leaving a 15' setback and a 6' fence. This is allowed by Ordinance if the 15' is left in its natural state; however, the residents in this location were extremely vocal when this property was previously presented for conditional use review for the construction of a church. Technically, the space between Buildings 21 and 22 at their closest point, do not appear to meet the requirement of at least 10' between detached buildings. Finally, the most significant problem with the plan has to do with sewer capacity for the area. Since this plan proposes to develop over the allowable density of three units per acre for sewer capacity, the applicant will need to resolve this issue with Wastewater utilities. At the time of this writing, no utility comments have been received. Due to the late submission of these plans, the applicant will be required to distribute copies to the appropriate agencies and utilities. March 15, 1903 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 9 - Continued STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff suggest deferring action on this until the sewer issue is resolved. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The applicant submitted a revised plan which reduced the units to 24 parcels, and includes only a 20' setback on the northeast. Relative to staff's comments, the Committee did not feel that the acreage limit was significant since it was only a fraction over what was required. They also felt that the distance between buildings 21 and 22 was satisfactory since it averaged 10'. The applicant stated that he wanted to proceed with 15 units until the sewer issue was resolved. A motion was made and passed to approve this item, subject to resolution of the sewer issue. The vote: 2 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. Staff reported that the sewer issue had been settled by the applicant's proposal to phase the development. Staff reported that adequate notification had not been given, since notices had not been sent out until the llth. A motion was made and passed to defer the item for two weeks. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent, and 1 abstention. (Abstaining Commissioner Richard Massie)