Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0548 Staff AnalysisJuly 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - Z-4226 NAME: Candlewood Long Form PRD LOCATION: Approx. 250 acres, located west of Rivercrest Drive, east of Pinnacle Valley Road and north of Highway 10 DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Char -Beck Trust Robert D. Holloway & Assoc. P.O. Box 2317 1350 Woodland Drive Batesville, AR 72503 Maumelle, AR 851-3366 Phone: 793-9813 AREA: 251 acres + NO. OF LOTS: 279 FT. OF NEW ST.: ZONING: PROPOSED USES: A. Site Histor None. Commercial/Residential B. Development Concept This represents an attempt by the applicant to develop a very high quality condominium development to be situated on the major ridgeline that extends west from Little Rock along the Arkansas River. The forested park -like land consists of a main east -west ridge and smaller finger ridges with moderate to steep hillsides sloping down to the Little Maumelle River on the north and Highway 10 on the south. Most of the hillsides are over 20 percent slope. The main ridge and finger ridges are flat, gently sloping and will make ideal development sites, with "spectacular views" of the Arkansas River to the north, Pinnacle Mountain to the northwest and the forested hills of west Little Rock to the south. C. Development Proposal The proposal incorporates several unit types and seeks to mix some conventional products that have been successful in west Little Rock with new residential products that are in demand, yet have not been made available to the local market. A description of units provided includes: July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - Continued (1) Estate Lots - Large single family lots, larger than five acres each, with frontage on Pinnacle Valley Road (not included in parcels over five acres). (2) Cluster Houses - Attached single family patio homes set in the woods along the main ridge. These will be built in separate enclaves or clusters of 6 to 10 units. Size would vary from 1,800 to 2,400 square feet and price would be above $165,000. (3) Hillside Attached - Similar to the cluster houses, but town houses with river or forest views. These will appeal to similar buyers, but will be built at higher densities, with smaller floor plans, 1,400 and 2,,400 square feet and be priced lower, probably from $130,000 to $225,000. (4) Hillside Villages - Each village will be a mix of flats and town houses in a "club" community organized around tennis, a pool and sited out on one of the forested finger ridges overlooking the river. These will be one and two -bedroom units (1,000/1,600 square feet) marketed as condominiums to single buyers, first time buyers, or two or more singles buying together. Prices could range from $90,000 to $140,000. The density per acre of total property is 1.1 units per acre, not including the large estate lots on Pinnacle Valley. The density for the parcels within themselves is a net density of 2 units per acre. The cluster houses will contain an average of three units per building and require about 20 buildings. The hillside attached homes will be the same as cluster houses and will require 25 to 29 buildings. (See Table 1 for further information.) D. Engineering Considerations (1) Dedicate right-of-way and improve Pinnacle Valley Road to minor arterial standards. (2) Residential street curvatures require 150' radius curves. Request intersection be discussed with Traffic at 371-4858. (3) Clarify phasing. July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - Continued E. Analysis The applicant has worked closely with the staff and is to be commended for being very thorough in his submission of materials. He has not, however, totally complied with our wishes relative to the specifics of Phase I. Our agreement was that he would submit a generalized application for the total development scheme with specific unit data to be submitted on Phase I only. He would then come back to the Commission for approval on each subsequent phase. Staff is very favorable to the development of this project and feels that it is a good one. The applicant is proposing to dedicate much common open space to the City. We are asking that he specify or delineate how much open space is to be allocated to each of the five phases. He should also start annexation proceedings immediately on that portion of the project not currently in the City. F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. He was informed by the staff that the Parks Department had requested easements across some portions of the property in order to link areas proposed for dedication; and that whatever boundary streets were created, he would be required to build both sides. He agreed to do both, plus provide more specifics regarding the percentage of open space dedication with each phase. It was agreed that this application would be reviewed as the generalized development scheme with specifics to Phase I to be provided next month. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Mr. Bob Holloway, the engineer, and Mr. Richard Thomas, the applicant, were present. Numerous persons from the neighborhood were present. Several concerns/issues were identified: (1) Lack of proper notification since the applicant had failed to comply with the notice requirement in the ordinance. The neighborhood asked for a 60-day deferral. July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - Continued (2) Aggravation of existing sewer problem. (3) Location of Phase I, a "market place shaping element" of the proposal. -- If the market does not support development of further phases of the project, then the residents will be stuck with the traffic problem caused by only one access to the site through Walton Heights. Neighbors felt that construction should begin at the other end or that the developer should consider constructing an alternate access route in the first phase. (4) The feeling that the developer was attempting to capitalize on the neighborhood at their expense by developing the part that was cheaper for him due to the availability of immediate access and sewer, but most disastrous to the neighborhood. Spokespersons from the neighborhood included Mr. Robert Gunter of #1 Northwest Court; Mr. Hershaw, a retired engineer, certified in seven states; and Ms. Jannett Straub, a member of the Walton Heights Board of Directors. Ms. Bobbie Gunter, a realtor residing in the neighborhood, presented a very lengthy computer printout to the Commission indicating the amount of condominiums in the City that are currently on the market. Her point was that none of those listed were selling for $100 a square foot, and to propose that these would sell for $100,000 was unrealistic. She expressed fear that the project would eventually turn into a much lower class condominium development than proposed, or even an apartment complex. Commissioner Jones questioned the method of reviewing this item as a general developmental concept with the specifics to be worked out later. He likened this approach to that of a regular and long-term rezoning case. Mr. Holloway responded by stating that this was not an opened application, since he was already committed to a number of units per area and had already worked up quite a bit of specifications. Since the applicant had failed to comply with the notice requirement, the Chairman decided that no action would be taken on the proposal. The applicant, however, was requested to work out and submit to staff details of Phase I and look into the possibility of building Candlewood Drive to Highway 10; consider meeting with the property owners; comply with notice requirements; and go back through Subdivision Committee. Staff was asked to get a clarification on comments from Wastewater Utilities and provide commissioners with the phasing plan. k a July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant and the engineer were present. They submitted data for Phase I. The information included the following: (1) Use .... hillside attached housing (2) Acres .... 7.02 (3) No. of Units .... 18 (4) Floor space (single family) .... 36,744 (5) Building percent coverage .... 1.65/9.3 percent (6) Private open space .... 600 square feet per unit (7) Areas: road/parking .... 1.45/21 percent of area (8) Parking spaces per unit inc. garage .... 6 (9) Unit 1 .... 1624 square feet (exc. garage) (10) Unit 2 .... 2100 square feet (exc. garage) (11) Unit 3 .... 2300 square feet (exc. garage) A significant point of discussion proved to be the provision of an ultimate access point to the site in the future. The applicant agreed to provide another means of access when Phase 2 is built. He was asked to provide the Commission with: (1) letters from Sewer and Water describing the potential problems of service provision, (2) letter from the adjoining property owner relating to his participation in building Candlewood Drive, and (3) phasing plan that delineates park dedication. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-12-84) The applicant was present._ Staff reported that there was a notice problem and that the applicant had submitted written documentation from the Batesville Post Office describing an error in the mail pickup. The Chairman asked Mr. Gunter, the representative for the Walton Heights Property Owners Association, whether or not he wanted to make an issue of the notification problem since there were a large number of residents already present. He replied that he did wish to state an objection to the waiver of any formal notice requirement, but wanted the item heard since postponement would not serve any useful purpose. July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - Continued Mr. Bob Holloway and Mr. Richard Thomas represented the application. A general overview of the project and some specifics pertaining to Phase I were explained by Mr. Holloway. He stressed a minimal proposed density vs. that allowed and extensive dedication to park lands; and an understanding that he would have to provide improvements or a contribution for improvements to obtain both water and sewer service. He did not, however, have a letter of commitment from Wastewater Utility. He also stated that he had talked to an adjacent property owner, Mr. Shaheen, and he had expressed a verbal interest in some type of reimbursement for improvements to Candlewood Drive. The Commission was informed that the developer had sent a letter to the Property Owners Association offering to sell them the portion to be developed as Phase I. They were given 30 days in which to respond. There was some discussion on the phasing plan which was handed out to all the commissioners. Mr. Thomas requested the option of improving either Candlewood Drive or Pinnacle Valley Road first. The Commission questioned the phasing schemes since both streets were shown in Phase II. It was suggested that the applicant may need to divide Phase II into two parts. It was also decided by the Commission to restrict further discussion of the item to just Phase I and not the overall project. The question of the appropriateness of multifamily use on Phase I was raised. Mr. Gunter's concerns related to adequate utility service in light of the 18 additional units and the traffic impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Holloway responded by saying the development would require rebuilding or improvement of an existing pump station serving a neighborhood, and the density would only be about 1.1 units per acre or 18 units on 37 acres. The applicant decided that since only seven commissioners were present, he would request a deferral for 30 days. A motion to this effect was.made and passed by a vote of: 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (6-28-84) Water Works reported that a 12" and/or 16" main will have to be extended from Pleasant Ridge to serve all areas above 450-foot elevation. July 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Mr. Holloway requested that the item be deferred for 30 days so that the developer could finalize negotiations with the abutting property owners. Mr. Donald Snow objected to the repeated delays. Ms. Jeannette Straub reported that the developer had not contacted the property owner since the original offer was sent. Finally, a motion for a 30-day deferral was made and passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. May 15, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. ll Z-4226 NAME: Candlewood Long Form PRD LOCATIO_N: Approx. 250 acres, west of Rivercrest of Pinnacle Valley north of Highway 10 DEVELOPER: Char -Beck Trust P.O. Box 2317 Batesville, AR 72503 Phone: 793-9813 AREA: 251 acres + ZONING: ENGINEER: located Drive, east Road and Robert D. Holloway & Assoc. 1350 Woodland Drive Maumelle, AR 851-3366 NO. OF LOTS: 279 FT. OF NEW ST.: PROPOSED USES: Commercial/Residential A. Site History None. B. Development Conceit This represents an attempt by the applicant to develop a very high quality condominium development to be situated on the major ridgeline that extends west from Little Rock along the Arkansas River. The forested park -like land consists of a main east -west ridge and smaller finger ridges with moderate to steep hillsides sloping down to the Little Maumelle River on the north and Highway 10 on the south. Most of the hillsides are over 20 percent slope. The main ridge and finger ridges are flat, gently sloping and will make ideal development sites, with "spectacular views" of the Arkansas River to the north, Pinnacle Mountain to the northwest and the forested hills of west Little Rock tc the south. C. Development Proposal The proposal incorporates several unit types and seeks to mix some conventional products that have been successful in west Little Rock with new residential products that are in demand, yet have not been made available to the local market. A description of units provided includes: May 15, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 11 - Continued (1) Estate Lots - Large single family lots, larger than five acres each, with frontage on Pinnacle Valley Road (not included in parcels over five acres). (2) Cluster Houses - Attached single family patio homes set in the woods along the main ridge. These will be built in separate enclaves or clusters of 6 to 10 units. Size would vary from 1,800 to 2,400 square feet and price would be above $165,000. (3) Hillside Attached - Similar to the cluster houses, but town nouses with river or forest views. These will appeal to similar buyers, but will be built at higher densities, with smaller floor plans, 1,400 and 2,400 square feet and be priced lower, probably from $130,000 to $225,000. (4) Hillside Villa es - Each village will be a mix of flats and town houses in a "club" community organized around tennis, a pool and sited out on one of the forested finger ridges overlooking the river. These will be one and two -bedroom units (1,000/1,600 square feet) marketed as condominiums to single buyers, first time buyers, or two or more singles buying together. Prices could range from $90,000 to $140,000. The density per acre of total property is 1.1 units per acre, not including the large estate lots on Pinnacle Valley. The density for the parcels within themselves is a net density of 225 units per acre. The cluster houses will contain an average of three units per building and require about 20 buildings. The hillside attached homes will be the same as cluster houses and will require 25 to 29 buildings. (See Table 1 for further information.) D. Engineering Considerations (1) Dedicate right-of-way and improve Pinnacle Valley Road to minor arterial standards. (2) Residential street curvatures require 150' radius curves. Request intersection be discussed with Traffic at 371-4858. (3) Clarify phasing. May 15, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 11 - Continued E. Analysis The applicant has worked closely with the staff and is to be commended for being very thorough in his submission of materials. He has not, however, totally complied with our wishes relative to the specifics of Phase I. Our agreement was that he would submit a generalized application for the total development scheme with specific unit data to be submitted on Phase I only. He would then come back to the Commission for approval on each subsequent phase. Staff is very favorable to the development of this project and feels that it is a good one. The applicant is proposing to dedicate much common open space to the City. We are asking that he specify or delineate how much open space is to be allocated to each of the five phases. He should also start annexation proceedings immediately on that portion of the project not currently in the City. F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. He was informed by the staff that the Parks Department had requested easements across some portions of the property in order to link areas proposed for dedication; and that whatever boundary streets were created, he would be required to build both sides. He agreed to do both, plus provide more specifics regarding the percentage of open space dedication with each phase. It was agreed that this application would be reviewed as the generalized development scheme with specifics to Phase I to be provided next month. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Mr. Bob Holloway, the engineer, and Mr. Richard Thomas, the applicant, were present. Numerous persons from the neighborhood were present. Several concerns/issues were identified: (1) Lack of proper notification since the applicant had failed to comply with the notice requirement in the ordinance. The neighborhood asked for a 60-day deferral. May 15, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 11 - Continued (2) Aggravation of existing sewer problem. (3) Location of Phase I, a "market place shaping element" of the proposal. -- If the market does not support development of further phases of the project, then the residents will be stuck with the traffic problem caused by only one access to the site through Walton Heights. Neighbors felt that construction should begin at the other end or that the developer should consider constructing an alternate access route in the first phase. (4) The feeling that the developer was attempting to capitalize on the neighborhood at their expense by developing the part that was cheaper for him due to the availability of immediate access and sewer, but most disastrous to the neighborhood. Spokespersons from the neighborhood included Mr. Robert Gunter of #1 Northwest Court; Mr. Hershaw, a retired engineer, certified in seven states; and Ms. Jannett Straub, a member of the Walton Heights Board of Directors. Ms. Bobbie Gunter, a realtor residing in the neighborhood, presented a very lengthy computer printout to the Commission indicating the amount of condominiums in the City that are currently on the market. Her point was that none of those listed were selling for $100 a square foot, and to propose that these would sell for $100,000 was unrealistic. She expressed fear that the project would eventually turn into a much lower class condominium development than proposed, or even an apartment complex. Commissioner Jones questioned the method of reviewing this item as a general developmental concept with the specifics to be worked out later. He likened this approach to that of a regular and long-term rezoning case. Mr. Holloway responded by stating that this was not an opened application, since he was already committed to a number of units per area and had already worked up quite a bit of specifications. Since the applicant had failed to comply with the notice requirement, the Chairman decided that no action would be taken on the proposal. The applicant, however, was requested to work out and submit to staff details of Phase I and look into the possibility of building Candlewood Drive to Highway 10; consider meeting with the property owners; comply with notice requirements; and go back through Subdivision Committee. Staff was asked to get a clarification on comments from Wastewater Utilities and provide commissioners with the phasing plan. Hillside Village C D F C H K Ridge Cluster Housing L Hillside Attatched Housing I J N N Conven. Shop A Quiet Business B Total 4CRES 1 2.901 5.555 2.479 3.829 5.096 21.626 4.628 19.94 7.02 9.936 11.230 7.0 1.341 2.204 104.69 • ALL 2r79 UNITS TABLE I TABULATED DATA FOR CANDLEWOOD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO. OF FLOOR BLDG.% UNITS I SPACE(SF) k COVERAGE 9 10,800 8.9 16 19,200 8.0 6 7,200 6.6 12 14,400 8.7 15 18.000 8.1 63 75,600 8.0 14 16,800 8.4 58 �27,600 17 40,800 24 52,800 27 59,400 18 32,400 `16 10.26 9.4 9.3 12.7 USABLE PRIVATE COMMON OPEN OPEN SPACE SF) SPACE 600 SF Over 751 of per unit lots will be common open space Entry ways r Entry ways • 7 1 10,000 17.3 None 80% lot 2 30,000 31.2 None 65% lot 282 WILL SHME THE 127.4 ACRES t OF NArURAL AREA DEDICATED TO I NON -USABLE OPEN PARKING SPACE 1 SPACES There is no 2/unit "Non -Usable Open space" There is no "Non -Usable Open Space" There is no "Non -Usable Open Space" 2 in garage 2 in drive f 2 in garag( 2 in drive There is no "Non -Usable Open Space" Same as Ci requiremen There is no "Non -Usable Open Space" {CHE LITTLE ROCK SPARKS SYSTEM. June 11, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 24 NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Donald Kirk 1717 Rebsamen Park Road Little Rock, AR ENGINEER: Richardson Engineers 1717 Rebsamen Park Road Little Rock, AR 72202 664-0003 STAFF REPORT: Plantation House "PRD" Extension Markham at Plantation House Apartment APPLICANT: Mr. Willis R. Smith 3602 Doral Little Rock, AR 72212 227-9413 The applicant has asked that he be granted a one year PUD extension for approval of 28 apartment units. Since approval, the property has been sold. The new owners are in the process of working on plans and with investors for development of the property. The project was approved by the Commission on June 12, 1984, and by the Board on July 3, 1984. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: A motion for approval was made and passed by a vote of: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. August 14, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Z-4226 NAME: Candlewood Long Form PRD LOCATION: Approx. 250 acres, located west of Rivercrest Drive, east of Pinnacle Valley Road and north of Highway 10 DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Char -Beck Trust Robert D. Holloway & Assoc. P.O. Box 2317 1350 Woodland Drive Batesville, AR 72503 Maumelle, AR 851-3366 Phone: 793-9813 AREA: 251 acres + NO. OF LOTS: 279 FT. OF NEW ST.: ZONING: PROPOSED USES: Commercial/Residential A. Site History None. B. Develo ment Concept This represents an attempt by the applicant to develop a very high quality condominium development to be situated on the major ridgeline that extends west from Little Rock along the Arkansas River. The forested park -like land consists of a main east -west ridge and smaller finger ridges with moderate to steep hillsides sloping down to the Little Maumelle River on the north and Highway 10 on the south. Most of the hillsides are over 20 percent slope. The main ridge and finger ridges are flat, gently sloping and will make ideal development sites, with "spectacular views" of the Arkansas River to the north, Pinnacle Mountain to the northwest and the forested hills of west Little Rock to the south. C. Development Proposal The proposal incorporates several unit types and seeks to mix some conventional products that have been successful in west Little Rock with new residential products that are in demand, yet have not been made available to the local market. A description of units provided includes: August 14, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued (2) Aggravation of existing sewer problem. (3) Location of Phase I, a "market place shaping element" of the proposal. -- If the market does not support development of further phases of the project, then the residents will be stuck with the traffic problem caused by only one access to the site through Walton Heights. Neighbors felt that construction should begin at the other end or that the developer should consider constructing an alternate access route in the first phase. (4) The feeling that the developer was attempting to capitalize on the neighborhood at their expense by developing the part that was cheaper for him due to the availability of immediate access and sewer, but most disastrous to the neighborhood. Spokespersons from the neighborhood included Mr. Robert Gunter of #1 Northwest Court; Mr. Hershaw, a retired engineer, certified in seven states; and Ms. Jannett Straub, a member of the Walton Heights Board of Directors. Ms. Bobbie Gunter, a realtor residing in the neighborhood, presented a very lengthy computer printout to the Commission indicating the amount of condominiums in the City that are currently on the market. Her point was that none of those listed were selling for $100 a square foot, and to propose that these would sell for $100,000 was unrealistic. She expressed fear that the project would eventually turn into a much lower class condominium development than proposed, or even an apartment complex. Commissioner Jones questioned the method of reviewing this item as a general developmental concept with the specifics to be worked out later. He likened this approach to that of a regular and long-term rezoning case. Mr. Holloway responded by stating that this was not an opened application, since he was already committed to a number of units per area and had already worked up quite a bit of specifications. Since the applicant had failed to comply with the notice requirement, the Chairman decided that no action would be taken on the proposal. The applicant, however, was requested to work out and submit to staff details of Phase I and look into the possibility of building Candlewood Drive to Highway 10; consider meeting with the property owners; comply with notice requirements; and go back through Subdivision Committee. Staff was asked to get a clarification on comments from Wastewater Utilities and provide commissioners with the phasing plan. August 14, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued (1) Estate Lots - Large single family lots, larger than five acres each, with frontage on Pinnacle Valley Road (not included in parcels over five acres). (2) Cluster Houses - Attached single family patio homes set in the woods along the main ridge. These will be built in separate enclaves or clusters of 6 to 10 units. Size would vary from 1,800 to 2,400 square feet and price would be above $165,000. (3) Hillside Attached - Similar to the cluster houses, but town houses with river or forest views. These will appeal to similar buyers, but will be built at higher densities, with smaller floor plans, 1,400 and 2,400 square feet and be priced lower, probably from $130,000 to $225,000. (4) Hillside Villages - Each village will be a mix of flats and town houses in a "club" community organized around tennis, a pool and sited out on one of the forested finger ridges overlooking the river. These will be one and two -bedroom units (1,000/1,600 square feet) marketed as condominiums to single buyers, first time buyers, or two or more singles buying together. Prices could range from $90,000 to $140,000. The density per acre of total property is 1.1 units per acre, not including the large estate lots on Pinnacle Valley. The density for the parcels within themselves is a net density of 2 units per acre. The cluster houses will contain an average of three units per building and require about 20 buildings. The hillside attached homes will be the same as cluster houses and will require 25 to 29 buildings. (See Table 1 for further information.) D. Engineerinq Considerations (1) Dedicate right-of-way and improve Pinnacle Valley Road to minor arterial standards. (2) Residential street curvatures require 150' radius curves. Request intersection be discussed with Traffic at 371-4858. (3) Clarify phasing. August 14,1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued E. Analysis The applicant has worked closely with the staff and is to be commended for being very thorough in his submission of materials. He has not, however, totally complied with our wishes relative to the specifics of Phase I. Our agreement was that he would submit a generalized application for the total development scheme with specific unit data to be submitted on Phase I only. He would then come back to the Commission for approval on each subsequent phase. Staff is very favorable to the development of this project and feels that it is a good one. The applicant is proposing to dedicate much common open space to the City. We are asking that he specify or delineate how much open space is to be allocated to each of the five phases. He should also start annexation proceedings immediately on that portion of the project not currently in the City. F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. He was informed by the staff that the Parks Department had requested easements across some portions of the property in order to link areas proposed for dedication; and that whatever boundary streets were created, he would be required to build both sides. He agreed to do both, plus provide more specifics regarding the percentage of open space dedication with each phase. It was agreed that this application would be reviewed as the generalized development scheme with specifics to Phase I to be provided next month. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Mr. Bob Holloway, the engineer, and Mr. Richard Thomas, the applicant, were present. Numerous persons from the neighborhood were present. Several concerns/issues were identified: (1) Lack of proper notification since the applicant had failed to comply with the notice requirement in the ordinance. The neighborhood asked for a 60-day deferral. August 14, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant and the engineer were present. They submitted data for Phase I. The information included the following: (1) Use .... hillside attached housing (2) Acres .... 7.02 (3) No. of Units .... 18 (4) Floor space (single family) .... 36,744 (5) Building percent coverage .... 1.65/9.3 percent (6) Private open space .... 600 square feet per unit (7) Areas: road/parking .... 1.45/21 percent of area (8) Parking spaces per unit inc. garage .... 6 (9) Unit 1 .... 1624 square feet (exc. garage) (10) Unit 2 .... 2100 square feet (exc. garage) (11) Unit 3 .... 2300 square feet (exc. garage) A significant point of discussion proved to be the provision of an ultimate access point to the site in the future. The applicant agreed to provide another means of access when Phase 2 is built. He was asked to provide the Commission with: (1) letters from Sewer and Water describing the potential problems of service provision, (2) letter from the adjoining property owner relating to his participation in building Candlewood Drive, and (3) phasing plan that delineates park dedication. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-12-84) The applicant was present. Staff reported that there was a notice problem and that the applicant had submitted written documentation from the Batesville Post Office describing an error in the mail pickup. The Chairman asked Mr. Gunter, the representative for the Walton Heights Property Owners Association, whether or not he wanted to make an issue of the notification problem since there were a large number of residents already present. He replied that he did wish to state an objection to the waiver of any formal notice requirement, but wanted the item heard since postponement would not serve any useful purpose. August 14, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued Mr. Bob Holloway and Mr. Richard Thomas represented the application. A general overview of the project and some specifics pertaining to Phase I were explained by Mr. Holloway. He stressed a minimal proposed density vs. that allowed and extensive dedication to park lands; and an understanding that he would have to provide improvements or a contribution for improvements to obtain both water and sewer service. He did not, however, have a letter of commitment from Wastewater Utility. He also stated that he had talked to an adjacent property owner, Mr. Shaheen, and he had expressed a verbal interest in some type of reimbursement for improvements to Candlewood Drive. The Commission was informed that the developer had sent a letter to the Property Owners Association offering to sell them the portion to be developed as Phase I. They were given 30 days in which to respond. There was some discussion on the phasing plan which was handed out to all the commissioners. Mr. Thomas requested the option of improving either Candlewood Drive or Pinnacle Valley Road first. The Commission questioned the phasing schemes since both streets were shown in Phase II. It was suggested that the applicant may need to divide Phase II into two parts. It was also decided by the Commission to restrict further discussion of the item to just Phase I and not the overall project. The question of the appropriateness of multifamily use on Phase I was raised. Mr. Gunter's concerns related to adequate utility service in light of the 18 additional units and the traffic impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Holloway responded by saying the development would require rebuilding or improvement of an existing pump station serving a neighborhood, and the density would only be about 1.1 units per acre or 18 units on 37 acres. The applicant decided that since only seven commissioners were present, he would request a deferral for 30 days. A motion to this effect was made and passed by a vote of: 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (6-28-84) Water Works reported that a 12" and/or 16" main will have to be extended from Pleasant Ridge to serve all areas above 450-foot elevation. August 10, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-10-84) Mr. Holloway requested that the item be deferred for 30 days so that the developer could finalize negotiations with the abutting property owners. Mr. Donald Snow objected to the repeated delays. Ms. Jeannette Straub reported that the developer had not contacted the property owner since the original offer was sent. Finally, a motion for a 30-day deferral was made and passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: (7-26-84) There were no new developments regarding the issue. Water Works Comments: An additional 10' right-of-way dedication recommended on Pinnacle Valley Road. 15' easements, 7.5' either side of lines required outside of the right-of-way to serve housing clusters. The 12' and/or 16' main will have to be extended from Pleasant Ridge to serve all areas about 450' elevation. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8-14-84) The applicant was present. Numerous persons from the neighborhood were in attendance. Mr. Thomas reported that he had received an offer from the 11 property owners immediately adjacent to Tract "M" for the purchase of that tract. He felt that if taken to his Board of Directors, this amount would have been considered unsatisfactory. The question of the suitability of multifamily use on this parcel was raised. The applicant requested amendment of this application to exclude parcel "M" from this application. It was explained to the neighborhood that he had the right to come back with a proposal for this tract at a later date. The Commission decided also that the process for review would include initial approval of the developmental concept, with each subsequent phase brought back to the Commission for "PRD"/site plan review. A motion for approval as amended to eliminate Tract "M" subject to the renumbering of the phases, and the condition that each would require site plan review by the Commission was made. The density would now include 261 units on 244 acres. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 1 no and 0 absent. June 12, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Z-4226 NAME: Candlewood Long Form PRD LOCATION: Approx. 250 acres, located west of Rivercrest Drive, east of Pinnacle Valley Road and north of Highway 10 DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Char -Beck Trust Robert D. Holloway & Assoc. P.O. Box 2317 1350 Woodland Drive Batesville, AR 72503 Maumelle, AR 851-3366 Phone: 793-9813 AREA: 251 acres + NO. OF LOTS: 279 FT. OF NEW ST.: ZONING: PROPOSED USES: Commercial/Residential A. Site Histor None. B. Development Concept This represents an attempt by the applicant to develop a very high quality -condominium development to be situated on the major ridgeline that extends west from Little Rock along the Arkansas River. The forested park -like land consists of a main east -west ridge and smaller finger ridges with moderate to steep hillsides sloping down to the Little Maumelle River on the north and Highway 10 on the south. Most of the hillsides are over 20 percent slope. The main ridge and finger ridges are flat, gently sloping and will make ideal development sites, with "spectacular views" of the Arkansas River to the north, Pinnacle Mountain to the northwest and the forested hills of west Little Rock to the south. C. Development Pro osal The proposal incorporates several unit types and seeks to mix some conventional products that have been successful in west Little Rock with new residential products that are in demand, yet have not been made available to the local market. A description of units provided.includes: June 12, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued (1) Estate Lots - Large single family lots, larger than five acres each, with frontage on Pinnacle Valley Road (not included in parcels over five acres). (2) Cluster Houses - Attached single family patio homes set in the woods along the main ridge. These will be built in separate enclaves or clusters of 6 to 10 units. Size would vary from 1,800 to 2,400 square feet and price would be above $165,000. (3) Hillside Attached - Similar to the cluster houses, but town houses with river or forest views. These will appeal to similar buyers, but will be built at higher densities, with smaller floor plans, 1,400 and 2,400 square feet and be priced lower, probably from $130,000 to $225,000. (4) Hillside Villages - Each village will be a mix of flats and town houses in a "club" community organized around tennis, a pool and sited out on one of the forested finger ridges overlooking the river. These will be one and two -bedroom units (1,000/1,600 square feet) marketed as condominiums to single buyers, first time buyers, or two or more singles buying together. Prices could range from $90,000 to $140,000. The density per acre of total property is 1.1 units per acre, not including the large estate lots on Pinnacle Valley. The density for the parcels within themselves is a net density of 225 units per acre. The cluster houses will contain an average of three units per building and require about 20 buildings. The hillside attached homes will be the same as cluster houses and will require 25 to 29 buildings. (See Table 1 for further information.) D. Engineering Considerations (1) Dedicate right-of-way and improve Pinnacle Valley Road to minor arterial standards. (2) Residential street curvatures require 150' radius curves. Request intersection be discussed with Traffic at 371-4858. (3) Clarify phasing. June 12, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued E. Analysis The applicant has worked closely with the staff and is to be commended for being very thorough in his submission of materials. He has not, however, totally complied with our wishes relative to the specifics of Phase I. Our agreement was that he would submit a generalized application for the total development scheme with specific unit data to be submitted on Phase I only. He would then come back to the Commission for approval on each subsequent phase. Staff is very favorable to the development of this project and feels that it is a good one. The applicant is proposing to dedicate much common open space to the City. We are asking that he specify or delineate how much open space is to be allocated to each of the five phases. He should also start annexation proceedings immediately on that portion of the project not currently in the City. F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. He was informed by the staff that the Parks Department had requested easements across some portions of the property in order to link areas proposed for dedication; and that whatever boundary streets were created, he would be required to build both sides. He agreed to do both, plus provide more specifics regarding the percentage of open space dedication with each phase. It was agreed that this application would be reviewed as the generalized development scheme with specifics to Phase I to be provided next month. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Mr. Bob Holloway, the engineer, and Mr. Richard Thomas, the applicant, were present. Numerous persons from the neighborhood were present. Several concerns/issues were identified: (1) Lack of proper notification since the applicant had failed to comply with the notice requirement in the ordinance. The neighborhood asked for a 60-day deferral. June 12, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued (2) Aggravation of existing sewer problem. (3) Location of Phase I, a "market place shaping element" of the proposal. -- If the market does not support development of further phases of the project, then the residents will-b�e.stuck with the traffic problem caused by only one access to the site through Walton Heights. Neighbors _felt•that•construction should begin at the other end or that the developer should consider constructing an alternate access route in the first phase. (4) The feeling that the developer was attempting to capitalize on the neighborhood at their expense by developing the part that was cheaper for him due to the availability of immediate access and sewer, but most disastrous to the neighborhood. Spokespersons from the neighborhood included Mr. Robert Gunter of #1 Northwest Court; Mr. Hershaw, a retired engineer, certified in seven states; and Ms. Jannett Straub, a member of the Walton Heights Board of Directors. Ms. Bobbie Gunter, a realtor residing in the neighborhood, presented a very lengthy computer printout to the Commission indicating _the amount of condominiums in the City that are cur•rently.bn the market. Her point was that none of those listed,were'selling for $100 a square foot, and to propose that these would sell for $100,000 was unrealistic. She expressed fear that the project would eventually turn into a much lower class condominium development than proposed, or even an apartment complex. Commissioner Jones questioned the method of reviewing this item as a general developmental concept with the specifics to be worked out later. He likened this approach to that of a regular and long-term rezoning case. Mr. Holloway responded by stating that this was not an opened application, since he was, -already committed to a number of units per area and had already worked up quite a bit of specifications. Since the applicant had failed to comply with the notice requirement, the Chairman decided that no action would be taken on the proposal. The -applicant, however, was requested to work out° -and submit to staff details of Phase I and look into the possibility of building Candlewood Drive to Highway 10; consider,meeting with the property owners; comply with notice requirements; and go back through Subdivision Committee. Staff was asked to get a clarification on comments from Wastewater Utilities and provide commissioners with the phasing plan. June 12, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant and the engineer were present. They submitted data for Phase I. The information included the following: (1) Use .... hillside attached housing (2) Acres .... 7.62= (3) No. of Units ,R.%� 18 (4) Floor space (single family) 36,744 (5) Building percent coverage .... 1.65/9.3 percent (6) Private open space .... 600 square feet per unit (7) Areas: road/parking .... 1.45/21 percent of area (8) Parking spaces per unit inc. garage .... 6 (9) Unit 1 .... 1624 square feet (exc. garage) (10) Unit 2 .... 2100 square feet (exc. garage) (11) Unit 3 .... 2300 square feet (exc. garage) A significant point.of_discussion proved to be the provision of an ultimate access point to the site in the future. The applicant agreed td provide another means of access when Phase 2 is built. He was•asked to provide the Commission with: (1) letters from Sewer and Water describing the potential problems of service provision, (2) letter from the adjoining property owner relating to his participation in building Candlewood Drive, and (3) phasing plan that delineates park dedication. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (6-12-84) The applicant was present. Staff reported that there was a notice problem and that the applicant had submitted written documentation from the Batesville Post Office describing an error in the mail pickup. The Chairman asked Mr. Gunter, the representative for the Walton Heights Property Owners Association, whether or not he wanted to make an issue of the notification problem since•there were a large number of residents already present. He replied that he did wish to state an objection to the waiver of any formal notice requirement, but wanted the item heard since postponement would not serve any useful purpose. June 12, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. A - Continued Mr. Bob Holloway and Mr. Richard Thomas represented the application. A general overview of the project and some specifics pertaining to Phase I,,were explained by Mx. Holloway. He stressed a minimal proposed density vs. that allowed and extensive dedication to park lands; and an understanding that. -he would have to provide improvements or a contribution for improvements to obtain both water and sewer service. He did not, however, have a letter of commitment from ;wastewater Utility. He also stated that he had talked to an adjacent property owner, Mr. Shaheen, and he had expressed a verbal interest in some type of reimbursement for improvements to Candlewood Drive. The Commission was informed that the developer had sent a letter to the Property Owners Association offering to sell them the portion to be developed as Phase I. They were given 30 days in which to respond. There was some discussion on the phasing plan which was handed out to all the commissioners. Mr. Thomas requested the option of improving either Candlewood Drive or Pinnacle Valley Road first. The Commission questioned the phasing schemes since both streets were shown in Phase II. It was suggested that the applicant may need to divide Phase II into two parts. It was also decided by the Commission to restrict further discussion of the item to just Phase I and not the overall project. The question of the appropriateness of multifamily use on Phase I was raised. Mr. Gunter's concerns related to adequate utility service in light of the 18 additional units and the traffic impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Holloway responded by saying the development would require rebuilding or improvement of an existing pump station serving a neighborhood, and the density would only be about 1.1 units per acre or 18 units on 37 acres. The applicant decided that since only seven commissioners were present, he would request a deferral for 30 days. A motion to this effect was made and passed by a vote of: 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent.