Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0462-A Staff AnalysisMarch 15, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 11 - File No. 321 NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: R.M. Stefka Route 5, Box 496-H Little Rock, AR 72212 Phone: 868-5406 Stefka Preliminary Plat South of Highway 10, Intersection of South Kautillus and Forest Lane ENGINEER: Sam Davis West 8th Street Little Rock, AR APPLICANT: W.D. Stefka Phone: 868-5715 AREA: NO. OF LOTS: 3 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: Outside City VARIANCES REQUESTED: None. STAFF REPORT: This is a proposal to subdivide a parcel of land into three lots for residential use. This originated as a request for water service to Lot 1. The applicant's intent is to deed this lot to his son. The Planning Commission denied the water request since it constituted an illegal. subdivision. It did allow the applicant a temporary water meter provided he filed a final plat in 90 days. The site is in a rural area, which is located outside of the City and outside of the referendum area. It consists of a variety of residential uses. Staff would only like the applicant to submit: (1) Clarification as to why a lot with an existing single family home is left out of the plat; and (2) Submit a final that shows lots which correspond to and accommodate all the existing structures on the property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to comments. 9 March 15, 1.983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 11 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMEMDAT.ION: The applicant reporter that the lot left out of the plat was not in his ownership. Staff commenter) that street improvements were not necessary since this tract was outside of the boundaries for urban dr�welopment as defined by the City's Board. A :motion was made for approval, subject to the submission of a final pplat with lots that correspond to and accommodates all existing structures on the property. The motion passed by a vote of 2 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. Staff reported that the applicant had complied with the Subdivision Committee's request. A motion was made and passed for approval by a vote of ; ayes, 0 noes and 5 absent. March 15, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - File No. 316 NAME: Pleasant Valley Condominiums LOCATION: Pleasant Ridge, approx. 1600' -~� south of Highway 10 DEVELOPER ENGINEER: Seven Hot Springs Corp. Edward G. Smith and Associates P.O. Box 1951 401 Victory Montgomery, Ala 36103 Little Rock, AR Phone: 374-1666 AREA: 39.53 acres NO. OF LOTS: 4 FT. OF NEW ST.: 1700' ZONING: (Existing) "R-2" (Proposed) "PRD" PROPOSED USES: Residential _ Condominiums REQUEST: ----------- For reclassification from "R-2" to "PRD." DEVELOPMENT PHILOSOPHY: This proposal has been submitted for review as a "Planned Residential Development" that will provide a high quality and preferred living environment. The concept for development was based upon three general factors: (1) society's changing life-styles; (2) increasing age of persons in the area; and (3) the advantages of condominium living. It will be geared mainly toward that component of the community which can be described as "empty -nesters," (adults whose children are grown) and toward professionals with no more than one child. The development provides an extensive package of amenities. Recreational facilities will include two tennis courts, swimming pools, whirlpools and cabana. Individual unit features are to be two and three --bedroom flats and three -bedroom town houses with fireplaces, wet bars, washer and dryer connections, vaulted ceilings for living rooms, formal dining rooms, f+ally equipped kitchens with self cleaning ovens, frost free refrigerators/ice makers, wall to wall carpeting, six panel doors, one covered parking space with one or more open spaces. March 15, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - Continued Access to and through Pleasant Valley Condominiums is by Pleasant Ridge Road, a collector street, which will provide immediate access to State Highway 10, I-430 and the local interstate system. The development is geared toward complementing the City's Master Plan for the area; which envisions office park development along this thoroughfare. Residential streets leading from Pleasant Ridge are designed for the maximum of privacy and security, with the preservation of much of the existing mature vegetation. It is hoped that this will help create a plush landscaping scheme and provide one of the "garden spots of Little Rock." Architecture will be formal, traditional exterior with bay windows and high pitched roofs. As for maintenance and ownership, the developer plans to build these as "for sale" units, which exceed the registration for condominium construction. A legal document will be filed establishing each residential unit as a separate condominium. Due to the instability of the economic climate, the units may be leased for awhile. Any resident leasing a unit will be given the first option to purchase their unit. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS: A. Parcel Size - - - - - - - - - - - 39.53 Acres (1,619,900 sq. ft.) B. Unit Construction Phase I - - - - Phase II - -- - - - C. Unit Scheme No. of Units 68 Total Floor Area 272 Total Floor Area Total Area Unit Size 3-Bedroom Town Houses 2-Bedroom Flat 184 units 156 units 340 units total Floor Area 1,500 sq. ft. 102,000 sq. ft. 1,265 sq. ft. 344,080 sq. ft. 446,080 sq. ft. March 15, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - Continued D. Building Coverage: No. of Total Bldg . Type Bldg s : Size Floor Area Type I 34 4,490 sq. ft. 152,660 ft. 86,020 Type II 17 5,060 sq. Total Bldg. Coverage - - - _ - - - - 238,680 sq. ft. E. Common Open Space: (1) Usable - - -- - 23.93 acres - - - 1,042,620 sq. ft. (2) Nonusable (paved) 7.77 acres - - 338,600 sq. ft. Total. 31.7 acres (1,381,220 sq. ft.) Percentage of Site - - -- 80% F. Parking - - - 2 spaces per dwelling unit - - --- 680 G. Development Time Frame Project Start Completion Phase I - - - - July 1, 1983 December 31, 1984 Phase II - - -- - Spring 1985 Summer 1986 SPECIAL GUIDELINES FOR PUD'S: Y 1. Sites considered must be 2.0 acres or greater. This plan complies. 2. A minimum of 10-15% of gross "PRD" areas shall be not to be used for designated as landscaped open space, streets or parking. This plan complies. March 15, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - Continued 3. When the common open space is deeded to a homeowners' association, the developer shall file a declaration of covenants and restrictions in the Bill of Assurance. The applicant has stated his compliance. 4. A detailed landscaping plan must be submitted. This plan complies. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS: (1) Request internal drainage plan. (2) The Post Office has directed a centralized mail delivery location of each driveway off Pleasant Ridge Road. (3) Request a concrete apron be constructed at the entrance of each private street. (4) Construct Pleasant Ridge to collector standards. ANALYSTS: Staff is supportive of this development. There are, however, several issues to be dealt with. The most significant is the proposal's failure to comply with the sewer capacity limit of three units per acre in this area. A plan amendment will be needed relative to density and sewer. A 50' buffer is composed as a protective device for the single family area on the abutting south. Perhaps the applicant would like to lessen the density by providing small, attached single Family homes with small lots in this area of the site. He should also look into the termination of Desoto Forest Street, which abuts this property and runs through the single family neighborhood. Since this development is phased, the applicant should adhere to the construction time frame submitted. Staff has no objections to phasing the construction of Pleasant Ridge Road, provided that it coincides with that indicated on the site plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deferral, until above issues are resolved. March 15, 1983 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The applicant was present. A discussion relative to the sewer and density issues was held. A representative of the developer stated that this plan differed from the original one presentee to the staff in preliminary discussions by a reduction in density and the addition of a buffer and fence. He felt that these measures addressed staff's concern with the single family area to the south. The Committee expressed concern that approval would be taking sewer capacity away from others, since this proposal won't be developed until two years from now, and the current policy is not on a first come, first served" basis. It was decided that perhaps a shift in policy was needed. A motion was made for approval of the plan, subject to a resolution of the issues involved. The motion passed by a vote of: 2 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. Staff reported that the proposal had been reviewed and was considered to be a good development. It was suggested, however, that the density should he lessened in the area adjacent to the single family neighborhood on the south, so as to provide a transition zone, and that Desoto, a residential street abutting the development on the, south, should be terminated. Staff then requested that the proposal he deferred until the existing sewer policy, which limits development in the area to three units Der acre is formally changed by the Board of Directors, or the project is phased to accommodate the sewer capacity. A lengthy discussion ensued, wherein the developer stated objections, based on economic infeasibility, to reducing the number of units. Property owners from both the Pleasant Forest Subdivision on the south and the Piedmont Subdivision on the west requested buffers of 100' or more. The applicant agreed to revise his plan accordingly. A motion for a two -week deferral was made and passed whereby the applicant was directed along with staff to determine from the Planning Commission Retreat and Sewer Committee's decisions, whether or not the sewer policy would be changed. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 1 no, 2 absent. (No vote - Commissioner ,Tones)