Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0116 Staff AnalysisDecember 17, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 NAME: Hunter's Glen "Long -Form PRD" (Z-4566) LOCATION: West end of Hunter's Glen Boulevard DEVELOPER: ARCHITECT/APPLICANT: Napa Valley Venture Brooks Jackson Architect, Inc. #2 Financial Center Cantrell Place Bldg. - Suite 320 Little Rock, AR 2311 Biscayne Drive Little Rock, AR 72207 227-8700 AREA: 20 Acres No. of Lots: 1 Ft. New Street: 0 ZONING/EXISTING ZONING: PRD PROPOSED USES: Apartments A. Development Objectives (1) To provide a high quality multifamily development that will consist of a variety of living units and buildings that are compatible with the surrounding area. (2) To exceed the minimum landscaping requirements. (3) To provide a 50 foot open space area adjacent to single family property. B. Proposal 1. The construction of 298 units on 20 acres. 2. Unit Breakdown: TYPE SIZE NO. OF UNITS TOTAL AREA 1BR/lBA 715 36 25,740 1BR/lBA 810 42 34,020 2BR/1 3/4BA 950 100 95,000 2BR/2BA 1090 48 52,320 2BR/2BA 1190 52 61,880 3BR/2BA 1425 20 28,500 Clubhouse 5,000 Total 298 302,460 December 17, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff's recommendation was stated as approval of the revised plan that included a request for abandonment of the portion of Hunter's Glen Blvd. The applicant had a problem with the notices, but the Commission decided to hear the case after seeing a show of hands of those that had not received formal notice. There were eight people that were not notified. Mr. Steve Cleary represented the developer, Mr. Melvin Bell. He gave an overview of the project and some of the history of the site. A meeting with some of the residents of the neighborhood had been held; however, no final agreement had been reached. He felt that most of his opposers were from Marlowe Manor to the west, even though vehicles would not be funneled into that area. Henk Koornstra, Traffic Engineer, felt there was no problem with traffic. Several persons spoke in support of the neighborhood. Mr. Scott Levinger, an attorney, represented Mr. Bob Wickard, Marlowe Manor and Countrywood. He was opposed to the use of the project and stated existing traffic problems. A petition with 240 signatures was presented. Mr. Garland Benz, a Marlowe Manor resident, felt that a 1981 ordinance (14,122) authorizing a previous PUD on the site was sold to the property owners with several restrictions that should be taken into consideration. They were: (1) no more than 112 single family units, (2) no single unit shall be smaller than 1,250 square feet, (3) average unit size should be smaller than 1,450 square feet and (4) for owner occupants only. Mr. Bob Wickard, developer, contractor and resident of Countrywood, felt that this was spot -zoning and not in keeping with the neighborhood. He felt that the density and three story height of the buildings encroached on the privacy of the residents. Mr. Tom Oliver of 1608 Jennifer Drive felt that this was a radical departure from the previous agreement on density in the area. December 17, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - Continued Mr. Allen Gold of Ridgehaven Road on the south side of the project questioned the Commission on its hearing of the item even though one entire boundary of the project did not receive legal notice. Another resident stated opposition to the project in behalf of the Marlowe Manor Property Owner's Association. The applicant felt that Mr. Wickard had the option of developing this land as condos, but didn't. He also felt that this project was no different in the amount of areas devoted to building and pavement than the Gleneagle project. He asked staff to speak on the density. Staff pointed out that the plan was generally compatible with the area, and the applicant had done an excellent job designing the project so as to protect the abutting single family areas. Mr. Cleary requested deferral of the project because of the notice problem. The neighborhood representatives objected since they felt that the request was a technical maneuver to delay opposition. Several neighborhood residents had a problem with the next meeting date due to an inability to be present. No motion for deferral was made. A motion for approval was made, but failed to pass by a vote of: 0 ayes, 7 noes, 1 absent and 3 abstentions. The reasons for denial were stated as incompatibility with the surrounding areas, density, and type of housing units proposed. December 17, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 NAME: Hunter's Glen "Long -Form PRD" (Z-4566) LOCATION: West end of Hunter's Glen Boulevard nFVFr.nDFU. Napa Valley Venture #2 Financial Center Little Rock, AR ARCHITECT/APPLICANT: Brooks Jackson Architect, Inc. Cantrell Place Bldg. - Suite 320 2311 Biscayne Drive Little Rock, AR 72207 227-8700 AREA: 20 Acres No. of Lots: 1 Ft. New Street: 0 ZONING/EXISTING ZONING: Dvn13ncL,n r7cvc . laff Apartments A. Development Objectives (1) To provide a high quality multifamily development that will consist of a variety of living units and buildings that are compatible with the surrounding area. (2) To exceed the minimum landscaping requirements. (3) To provide a 50 foot open space area adjacent to single family property. B. Proposal 1. The construction of 298 units on 20 acres. 2. Unit Breakdown: TYPE SIZE NO. OF UNITS TOTAL AREA 1BR/lBA 715 36 25,740 1BR/lBA 810 42 34,020 2BR/1 3/4BA 950 100 95,000 2BR/2BA 1090 48 52,320 2BR/2BA 1190 52 61,880 3BR/2BA 1425 20 28,500 Clubhouse 5,000 Total 298 302,460 December 17, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff's recommendation was stated as approval of the revised plan that included a request for abandonment of the portion of Hunter's Glen Blvd. The applicant had a problem with the notices, but the Commission decided to hear the case after seeing a show of hands of those that had not received formal notice. There were eight people that were not notified. Mr. Steve Cleary represented the developer, Mr. Melvin Bell. He gave an overview of the project and some of the history of the site. A meeting with some of the residents of the neighborhood had been held; however, no final agreement had been reached. He felt that most of his opposers were from Marlowe Manor to the west, even though vehicles would not be funneled into that area. Henk Koornstra, Traffic Engineer, felt there was no problem with traffic. Several persons spoke in support of the neighborhood. Mr. Scott Levinger, an attorney, represented Mr. Bob Wickard, Marlowe Manor and Countrywood. He was opposed to the use of the project and stated existing traffic problems. A petition with 240 signatures was presented. Mr. Garland Benz, a Marlowe Manor resident, felt that a 1981 ordinance (14,122) authorizing a previous PUD on the site was sold to the property owners with several restrictions that should be taken into consideration. They were: (1) no more than 112 single family units, (2) no single unit shall be smaller than 1,250 square feet, (3) average unit size should be smaller than 1,450 square feet and (4) for owner occupants only. Mr. Bob Wickard, developer, contractor and resident of Countrywood, felt that this was spot -zoning and not in keeping with the neighborhood. He felt that the density and three story height of the buildings encroached on the privacy of the residents. Mr. Tom Oliver of 1608 Jennifer Drive felt that this was a radical departure from the previous agreement on density in the area. December 17, 1985 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 6 - Continued Mr. Allen Gold of Ridgehaven Road on the south side of the project questioned the Commission on its hearing of the item even though one entire boundary of the project did not receive legal notice. Another resident stated opposition to the project in behalf of the Marlowe Manor Property Owner's Association. The applicant felt that Mr. Wickard had the option of developing this land as condos, but didn't. He also felt that this project was no different in the amount of areas devoted to building and pavement than the Gleneagle project. He asked staff to speak on the density. Staff pointed out that the plan was generally compatible with the area, and the applicant had done an excellent job designing the project so as to protect the abutting single family areas. Mr. Cleary requested deferral of the project because of the notice problem. The neighborhood representatives objected since they felt that the request was a technical maneuver to delay opposition. Several neighborhood residents had a problem with the next meeting date due to an inability to be present. No motion for deferral was made. A motion for approval was made, but failed to pass by a vote of: 0 ayes, 7 noes, 1 absent and 3 abstentions. The reasons for denial were stated as incompatibility with the surrounding areas, density, and type of housing units proposed.