Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0328-1 Staff Analysis• November 9, 1982 f . SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 20 NAME: Faulkerson Property -- Site Plan Review LOCATION: Hinson Road across from Windsor Court Condominiums OWNER: APPLICANT: Little Rock Land Company, Inc. John A. Castin STAFF REPORT This item is related to a rezoning action which was on the Planning Commission agenda on October 12 and again on October 26. The applicant also submitted a site plan for review by the Subdivision Committee. Staff's review of the site plan yielded the following requirements to be fulfilled by the applicant: 1. A cover letter and general statements describing the character of development and the rationale behind the assumptions and choices. 2. For purposes of public record, the project should be provided with a name. 3. Initial work should be accomplished on a preliminary plat, including drainageways and topographic information. 4. A typical cross-section of the site showing the relief and buildings should be provided, the line of this section to be at the applicant's discretion. 5. The statement of development character should include a description of the treatment of the east property line with respect to screening, inasmuch as the ordinance normally requires a 6' board fence. 6. The development statement should also include an outline of the treatment proposal on the two large open space and buffer zones along Hinson Road. .- November 9, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 20 - Continued 7. The cover statement should include a layout of the development scheduling with respect to the time periods for development of the several phases. 8. A statement of lease, sale, and ownership arrangement should be included. 9. Contact should be made with -the Sign Code Enforcement staff for purposes of determining whether the entrance sign proposed will be permitted. 10. The cover statement should deal with the transfer of development rights issue as related to the large hill mass line to the north. Commitment should be made in this statement as to the development density remaining on the balance of the property outside this PUD. 11. A statement from the owner should be included with this statement of commitment to construct Hinson Road in its entirety along the entire west boundary of this PUD with the first phase. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to the stated comments. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10-12-82) The applicant was present, and there were three or four interested neighbors who could to some degree be classified as objectors. The applicant presented a site plan showing the concept for a three-phase development at a proposed density of four or five units per acre, providing for a total of 88 units on this site. There was a lengthy discussion of the proposal, the type of buildings to be constructed and the procedural steps for accomplishing a planned unit development approach to the property. Beverly Rochelle representing the Windsor Court Townhome Property Owners Association, spoke to the Planning Commission about the timing of the Hinson Road improvements and stated that they felt that "MF-12" was too high density for this property since it was across the street from their project, and she presented a petition asking for deferral of the zoning until the Hinson Road improvements are made and to limit the development of the property to the "MF-6" density. Rick English representing Norman Holcomb, who is constructing Windsor Court, stated that in their view Hinson r November 9, 1982 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 20 - Continued Road improvements must precede zoning. Don Reader, President of the Marlowe Manor Property Owners Association, stated that they had no particular problem with the "MF-6" density being discussed, but were also interested in the Hinson Road improvements. Finally, Jan Nicholson, who is building a single family development to the east of this proposed project, stated his concern about the proposal and asked if the PUD process would remove the public from a position to make comments and express interest in the project. He stated that the property owners on the property to the east were opposed to the higher densities being proposed. After a lengthy discussion, the Planning Commission moved to defer action on this project to the October 26 Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed: 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstention (Richard Massie abstained, citing conflict of interest). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (10-26-82) The applicant was present, and there were two or three other interested,parties. There was a brief discussion about the procedural steps for filing of a planned unit development request, and once these matters were cleared up, the Planning Commission deferred the item to the Planning Commission meeting of November 9, with the plans for the project to go to the Subdivision Committee on October 28. The motion passed: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (11-9-82) The applicant was present. There were no objectors. Staff reported that two issues were involved with this request. One involved delinquent required improvements for Windsor Townhomes. The Commission was asked not to authorize further development in the neighborhood until the developer complies with this requirement. The second question revolved around the extent of improvements to be completed in Phase 1. Mr. John Castin, the applicant, stated that 800 linear feet on both sides of Hinson Road would be done. The improvements will be completed prior to issuance of a building permit. A motion was made for approval, subject to this item not being forwarded to the Board of Directors until the improvements are completed as previously agreed. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 abstention, 1 absent and 1 open position. Commission Massie abstained.)