Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0677-A Staff Analysis)tember 9, 1986 MIVISIOMS !m No. 5 9E : LOCATION: nvIV7nr nnvn . Pine Shadows Addition East side of Geyer Sprinqs Road immediately north of the Rock Island Railroad T �nuTmnrlm . First Consortium, Inc. Eddie Branton 3126 JFK Blvd. 707 Wallace Buildinq N. Little Rock, AR 72116 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: 375-9010 Telephone: 372-4930 AREA: 8.72 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: ZONING: "R-2" to PRD PROPOSED USES: Residential/Mobile Home Park VARIANCES REOUFSTFD: None A. Proposal 1. The construction of 46 mobile home lots on two phases on 8.72 acres. 2. Project Data a. Phase I SYMBOL SIZF QUANTITY 1 14'x45' 1 2 15'x55' 4 3 14'x60' 10 4 14'x68' 15 5 24'x68' 3 b. Phase 2 Data not provided. 156 tember 9, 1986 DIVISIONS m No. 5 - Continued C. Parkinq 60 spaces (two/unit) 3. Park and Recreation area -- 30,00 square feet (900/unit) 4. Outside storage area - 1,650 square feet (50/unit) R. Engineering Comments: 1. 20' maximum radius on private street. 2. Stormwater detention required. 3. Talk with Traffic Fnqineer, Henk Koornstra, for his comments. r C. Analysis This is a request for Piin approval for a mobile home park. It is located on prornerty that the Commission recently considered request for rezoning and subdivision of the land to provide for a mobile home park. The applications were approved by the Commisison, but denied by the Board. Staff supported them. Principle objectives with persons livinq outside the City. In his submittal letter, the applicant stated that this proposal reflects "a mobile home park with clustered units in -lieu of the normally expected parkinq lots for house trailers." He feels that this concept for development provides the tenants with a family home environment, addresses an urgent need in the City, and addressed a situation that is for_cinq some of the City's residents to live in the County against their will. The applicant is asked to identify differences between this plan and the previous one; identify the "clustered units" referred to; and indicate whether lot sales will be involved. Tf they are, this proposal will need to comply with 11R-7" requirements. Staff is concerned that resubmission of this plat violates a Board policv against reconsi_derinq nber 9, 1986 VISIONS Vo. 5 - Continued proposals previously considered. Staff feels that this proposal would provide affordable housing and supports this use in this area and other areas of the City; iowever, we ask that the Commission not accept this applications based on Board policy. Staff Recommendation Staff supports the land use, but urges that the application not be accepted. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The application was discussed. It was decided that further guidance from the City Attorney was needed regarding the Board's policy. Staff agreed to qet an opinion before the Public Hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There was further discussion regarding whether or not acceptance of the application was in violation of Board policy. The City Attorney present stated that he did not receive the request in time to prepare a written opinion. A motion was made to defer the item for 30 days to allow enough time for the City Attorney to prepare a legal opinion and send a copy of the opinion to Mr. Randy Frazier, the applicants attorney. The motion was made and passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. 44 October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A NAME: LOCATION: Pine Shadows Addition East side of Geyer Springs Road immediately north of the Rock Island Railroad wr'-TTYmnnm_ First Consortium, Inc. Eddie Branton 3126 JFK Blvd. 707 Wallace Building N. Little Rock, AR 72116 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: 375-9010 Telephone: 372-4930 AREA: 8.72 Acres NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: ZONING: "R-2" to PRD PROPOSED USES: Residential/Mobile Home Park VARIANCES REQUESTED: None A. Proposal 1. The construction of 46 mobile home lots on two phases on 8.72 acres. 2. Project Data a. Phase I SYMBOL SIZE QUANTITY 1 14'x45' 1 2 15'x55' 4 3 14'x60' 10 4 14'x68' 15 5 24'x68' 3 b. Phase 2 Data not provided. 156 October 14, 1986 SUBDIVISIONS Item N_ . A - Continued ______---- c. Parkin 60 spaces (two/unit) Park and Recreation area - 30,00 square feet 3' (900/ unit) 4. Outside storage area - 1,650 square feet (50/unit) B. En ineering Comments: 1. 201 maximum radius on private street. 2. Stormwater detention required. 3. Talk with Traffic Engineer, Henk Koornstra, for his comments. C , _Analysis a royal for a mobile home This is a request for PUDro er v that the Commission park. It is located onfor rezoning and recently considered request the land to provide for a mobile home subdivision °flications were approved by the supported. The applications b the Board. Staff suppout d. park. but denied Y Commission, le objectives with persons living them. ide Principle the applicant the City. In his submittal letter►„a mobile home park ro osal reflects expected stated that this P P He feels that this with clustered units lntraeleos.the normally with a parking lots for house trailers provides the tenants concept for develop addresses an urgent need in family home environment► situation that is forcing the City, and addressed a some of the City's residents to live in the County against their will. applicant between The is asked to identify d identify the "clustered one; this plan and the Previous d indicate whether lot sales will an units" referred to; are, this proposal will need to be involved. If they comply with "R-7" requirements* staff is concerned that resunssreion of this plat considering '� violates a Board policy agar October 14, 198.6 SUBDIVISIONS Item NO. P' ContinuedY-----------" PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: brief the Commission on Attorney Attorney Steve Staff asked that ale pinion. Assistant City the requested leg since there felt that the Commissionhearlahis item,viola i since o Giles f if they chose to Board policy lication and it coulho ever, that were no changes in the appcat He did stater the item, but considered as a reapplication. recluded from hearing on the the Commission was not P aired to P unanimous consent would be req agenda. the City Manager that Staff reported that it was informed Boad Board that the item not be he would recommend to the City as eing considered. Staff then stated its shouldtbenconsbidered against reconsideration since the with some finality. $e felt that Frazier represented the developer. Mr. Randy was not a reconsiderationonwas the new the application as filed a reapplication; heard " original application, He argued that it should be application in PRD form. Commission's Bylaws in Article in "scat on , and that the application is 57(b) only states unanimous a PRDnapplicatan ois totally reconsidered. He felt that a ent controls that can be different because of string placed on his position Attorney Steve Giles reiterated Assistant City was required, that unanimous consent lication of Pine favor of hearing the reapp vote of p ayes, A motion in but failed to pass by a Shadows was made, 7 noes and 4 absent- 1