Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0075 Staff AnalysisMovember 10, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: King A. Crow Estate "PRD"/Site Plan Review North of Hill Road at Ridgeway ENGINEER/APPLICANT: Cromwell, Neyland, Truemper, Levy and Gatchell 1 Spring Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 372-2900 AREA: 2.25 Acres PROPOSED USE: Condominiums REQUEST: To rezone an area that is currently in a zoning district to a "PRD. " DEVELOPMENT PHILSOPHY This issue revolves around property that has been developed over a period of,70 years by two distinguished Arkansas families, the Wrights and Holmans. The existing structure consists of a large two-story residence that was built by the Wrights in 1911. Other construction to the residence, and the addition of a garden was done during the 1930's through 1.960 by the Holmans. As stated by the applicant, the developmental concept for the project is based on plans which will seek to "preserve the architectural character of the house both in exterior and interior, and will assure restoration and maintenance of one of the finest gardens in Arkansas." The explanations offered for the development of the property as multifamily versus that of single family are that: (1) the property has been on the market long enough to determine that no single occupant will come forth who can afford the acquisition and maintenance of the property; (2) to subdivide the property for single family use will destroy the gardens and will not assure its highest and best use. November 10, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - Continued PROPOSAL 1. The construction of 18 new two-story/basement townhouse condominiums and the renovation of the old existing structure into nine, small flats on 2.25 acres. 2. Development will be according to he following: Type No. of Construction Description Parking Units Existing Structure (Apts.) One Bedroom 1 7 Two Bedrooms 1 2 New Structure (Condo) Three Bedrooms 2 18 Total Number of Units 47 27 Density --- 12 units per acres 3. Schedule of uses and areas: (A) Residential: New living units - 32,000 square feet Renovated living units - 8,500 square•feet Carport/Garages - 20,350/7,000 square feet (B) Proposed Building Coverage New - 22,600 square feet Old - 5,100 square feet Total - 27,270 square feet (approximately 27 percent) (C) Open Space Private Yards - 5,400 square feet Parking and drives - 15,500 Gardens, playgrounds, pool and use areas -- 2,730' Trees and other open space - 52,0001 November 10, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - Continued 4. Staging for the project will be as follows: Old Residence New Residence Total PROPOSED USES: Phase I Phase 2 9 0 5 13 14 13 Condominiums with possibility of rental units depending on the market. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS (1) Sites considered under the PUD concept must be 2.0 acres or greater. This plan complies. (2) A minimum of 10 to 15 percent of gross Planned Residential District (PRD) areas shall be designated as common usable open space. This plan complies. (3) Guidelines for Planned Unit Developments advocate the preservance of existing trees whenever possible. The applicant has stated his compliance. (4) Single family, duplex, zero -lot -line and townhouse developments shall have a minimum of 500 square feet of useful open space per unit. (5) Parking requirements for multifamily projects are 1.5 spaces per unit. This plan complies. (6) A detailed landscape plan should be submitted. * See Staff Analysis. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS (a) Improve "HI Street to residential standards for full length of property. (b) Request Engineer to submit initial drainage plan to City Engineering Division for review. November 10, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - Continued STAFF ANALYSIS There are several major concerns relevant to this issue. Of major importance is the requested density. Staff feels that the number of units requested is too intense a usage of the land, due to its location in what is basically a single family area. We are recommending that construction over what is planned for the existing residence be no more than eight or 10 units. Therefore, a reduction in density is requested. In regards to design, staff is recommending the elimination of the proposed two unit building towards Hill Road, and the reduction of physical improvements in this particular area. In lieu of the usable landscaping requirements of a 40' buffer and a 6' opaque fence, a detailed landscaping plan should be submitted for the eastern and western boundaries of the property. Finally, if the applicants are to take access at "H" Street, then it should be improved. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval, subject to Staff and Engineering's recommendation. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION The applicant presented a modified plan, which reduced the density and eliminated the 2-unit building towards Hill Road. A motion to pass to the Commission without recommendation was made and passed by a vote of 2 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Commission voted unanimously to withdraw this item from the agenda. The vote - 9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent. r Movember 10, 1981 41 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 NAME: Estate "PRD"/Site Plan Review LOCATION: North of Hill Road at Ridgeway DEVELOPER: ENGINEER/APPLICANT: King A. Crow Cromwell, Neyland, Truemper, Levy and Gatchell 1 Spring Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 372-2900 AREA: 2.25 Acres PROPOSED USE: Condominiums REQUEST: To rezone an area that is currently in a zoning district to a "PRD. If 4 DEVELOPMENT PHILSOPHY This issue revolves around property that has been developed over a period of 70 years by two distinguished Arkansas families, the Wrights and Holmans. The existing structure consists of a large two-story residence that was built by the Wrights in 1911. Other construction to the residence, and the addition of a garden was done during the 1930's through 1960 by the Holmans. As stated by the applicant, the developmental concept for the project is based on plans which will seek to "preserve the architectural character of the house both in exterior and interior, and will assure restoration and maintenance of one of the finest gardens in Arkansas." The explanations offered for the development of the property as multifamily versus that of single family are that: (1) the property has been on the market long enough to determine that no single occupant will come forth who can afford the acquisition and maintenance of the property; (2) to subdivide the property for single family use will destroy the gardens and will not assure its highest and best use. November 10, 1981 40 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - Continued 1. The construction of 18 new two-story/basement townhouse condominiums and the renovation of the old existing structure into nine, small flats on 2.25 acres. 2. Development will be according to he following: Type No. of Construction Description Parking Units Existing Structure (Apts.) One Bedroom 1 7 Two Bedrooms 1 2 New Structure (Condo) Three Bedrooms 2 18 Total Number of Units 47 27 Density -- 12 units per acres 3. Schedule of uses and areas: (A) Residential: New living units - 32,000 square feet Renovated living units - 8,500 square feet Carport/Garages - 20,350/7,000 square feet (B) Proposed Building Coverage New - 22,600 square feet Old - 5,100 square feet Total - 27,270 square feet (approximately 27 percent) (C) Open Space Private Yards - 5,400 square feet Parking and drives - 15,500 Gardens, playgrounds, pool and use areas - 2,730' Trees and other open space - 52,0001 low n November 10, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - Continued 4. Staging for the project will be as follows: Old Residence New Residence Total PROPOSED USES: Phase I Phase 2 �9 0 5 13 14 13 Condominiums with possibility of rental units depending on the market. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS (1) Sites considered under the PUD concept must be 2.0 acres or greater. This plan complies. (2) A minimum of 10 to 15 percent of gross Planned Residential District (PRD) areas shall be designated as common usable open space. This plan complies. (3) Guidelines for Planned Unit Developments advocate the preservance of existing trees whenever possible. The applicant has stated his compliance. (4) Single family, duplex, zero -lot -line and townhouse developments shall have a minimum of 500 square feet of useful open space per unit. (5) Parking requirements for multifamily projects are 1.5 spaces per unit. This plan complies. (6) A detailed landscape plan should be submitted. * See Staff Analysis. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS (a) Improve "H' Street to residential standards for full length of property. (b) Request Engineer to submit initial drainage plan to City Engineering Division for review. November 10, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - Continued STAFF ANALYSIS There are several major concerns relevant to this issue. Of major importance is the requested density. Staff feels that the number of units requested is too intense a usage of the land, due to its location in what is basically a single family area. We are recommending that construction over what is planned for the existing residence be no more than eight or 10 units. Therefore, a reduction in density is requested. In regards to design, staff is recommending the elimination of the proposed two unit building towards Hill Road, and the reduction of physical improvements in this particular area. In lieu of the usable landscaping requirements of a 40' buffer and a 6' opaque fence, a detailed landscaping plan should be submitted for the eastern and western boundaries of the property. Finally, if the applicants are to take access at "H" Street, then it should be improved. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval, subject to Staff and Engineering's recommendation. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION The applicant presented a modified plan, which reduced the density and eliminated the 2-unit building towards Hill Road. A motion to pass to the Commission without recommendation was made and passed by a vote of 2 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Commission voted unanimously to withdraw this item from the agenda. The vote - 9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent. Movember 10, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: King A. Crow AREA: 2.25 Acres PROPOSED USE: REQUEST: Estate "PRD"/Site Plan Review North of Hill Road at Ridgeway ENGINEER/APPLICANT: Cromwell, Neyland, Truemper, Levy and Gatchell 1 Spring Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 372-2900 Condominiums To rezone an area that is currently in a zoning district to a "PRD." DEVELOPMENT PHILSOPHY This issue revolves around property that has been developed over a period of 70 years by two distinguished Arkansas families, the Wrights and Holmans. The existing structure consists of a large two-story residence that was built by the Wrights in 1911. Other construction to the residence, and the addition of a garden was done during the 1930's through 1960 by the Holmans. As stated by the applicant, the developmental concept for the project is based on plans which will seek to "preserve the architectural character of the house both in exterior and interior, and will assure restoration and maintenance of one of the finest gardens in Arkansas." The explanations offered for the development of the property as multifamily versus that of single family are that: (1) the property has been on the market long enough to determine that no single occupant will come forth who can afford the acquisition and maintenance of the property; (2) to subdivide the property for single family use will destroy the gardens and will not assure its highest and best use. November 10, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - Continued PROPOSAL 1. The construction of 18 new two-story/basement townhouse condominiums and the renovation of the old existing structure into nine, small flats on 2.25 acres. 2. Development will be according to he following: Type Construction Existing Structure (Apts.) New Structure (Condo) Total Number of Units Density -- 12 units per acres No. of Description Parking Units One Bedroom 1 7 Two Bedrooms 1 2 Three Bedrooms 2 18 47 27 3. Schedule of uses and areas: (A) Residential: New living units - 32,000 square feet Renovated living units - 8,500 square feet Carport/Garages - 20,350/7,000 square feet (B) Proposed Building Coverage New - 22,600 square feet Old - 5,100 square feet Total - 27,270 square feet (approximately 27 percent) (C) Open Space Private Yards - 5,400 square feet Parking and drives - 15,500 Gardens, playgrounds, pool and use areas - 2,730' Trees and other open space - 52,0001 I November 10, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - Continued 4. Staging for the project will be as follows: Old Residence New Residence Total PROPOSED USES: Phase I Phase 2 9 0 5 13 14 13 Condominiums with possibility of rental units depending on the market. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS (1) Sites considered under the PUD concept must be 2.0 acres or greater. This plan complies. (2) A minimum of 10 to 15 percent of gross Planned Residential District (PRD) areas shall be designated as common usable open space. This plan complies. (3) Guidelines for Planned Unit Developments advocate the preservance of existing trees whenever possible. The applicant has stated his compliance. (4) Single family, duplex, zero -lot -line and townhouse developments shall have a minimum of 500 square feet of useful open space per unit. (5) Parking requirements for multifamily projects are 1.5 spaces per unit. This plan complies. (6) A detailed landscape plan should be submitted. * See Staff Analysis. ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS (a) Improve "HI Street to residential standards for full length of property. (b) Request Engineer to submit initial drainage plan to City Engineering Division for review. i November 10, 1981 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - Continued STAFF ANALYSIS There are several major concerns relevant to this issue. Of major importance is the requested density. Staff feels that the number of units requested is too intense a usage of the land, due to its location in what is basically a single family area. We are recommending that construction over what is planned for the existing residence be no more than eight or 10 units. Therefore, a reduction in density is requested. In regards to design, staff is recommending the elimination of the proposed two unit building towards Hill Road, and the reduction of physical improvements in this particular area. In lieu of the usable landscaping requirements of a 40' buffer and a 6' opaque fence, a detailed landscaping plan should be submitted for the eastern and western boundaries of the property. Finally, if the applicants are to take access at "H" Street, then it should be improved. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval, subject to Staff and Engineering's recommendation. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE ACTION The applicant presented a modified plan, which reduced the density and eliminated the 2-unit building towards Hill Road. A motion to pass to the Commission without recommendation was made and passed by a vote of 2 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Commission voted unanimously to withdraw this item from the agenda. The vote - 9 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent.