Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-1135-A Staff Analysisy March 10, 1981 Item No. 1-A - Z-3633 The West Little Rock Land Company Owner: Applicant: Floyd Fulkerson Location: Hinson Road, west side, just south of Pebble Beach Park Subdivision Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "MF-12" Multifamily Purpose: Condominium Development Size: 37.5 Acres + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" South - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" and "R-4" East - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" West - Vacant Unclassified PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS No adverse comments have been received from any reviewing agency, except the Waste Water Utility, which reminded us of the Maumelle Basin sewer capacity problems, specifically, the density question. With regard to the sewer issues, staff asked for specific details from the applicant regarding any density transfers proposed, and staff received a letter from Jerry Gardner, Manager of the Waste Water Utility, which indicated that the utility would not oppose their request for zoning which would permit the "MF-12" density, rovided the total 380 acres is developed as Projected Eby Mr. Ful erson s consultants). Subsequent to the last meeting, the applicant has provided a letter covering the stipulation of transfer from Longlea and Pebble Beach Park Subdivisions, and a letter detailing the agreement made with Winrock Homes concerning sewer tie--ons in the 55 acres sold to that firm. In addition, Mr. Fulkerson has agreed to the following conditions: 1. Zoning of the north 50' of this property to "O-S" Open Space. 2. Zoning of all property lying above the present 470' elevation to "O-S" Open Space. March 10, 1981 -Item No. 1-A - Continued 3. Inclusion of Lots 905 and 906, Longlea, Phase IX, into the OS zone, which will be along the Hinson Road frontage. 4. Zoning of the remaining north 300' of this property to "MF-6" Multifamily. 5. Zoning of the remainder of the property "MF-12" Multifamily. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval as agreed upon. COMMISSION ACTION This item was deferred from the February 24 Planning Commission meeting at the request of the developer. The applicant was present as were approximately 75 neighboring residents in opposition. i The applicant, represented by John Castin, made a presentation which covered the several points. He stated that they were proposing a condominium development, and that in the course of discussions with staff they had made a number of compromises regarding open space, access to the property and the density of the development. He stated that open space now comprised roughly 25 percent of the total property. He stated that they were willing to covenant to a condominium development, that said development would have approximately 8 to 10 units per acre in density and cited examples of other condominium developments in [nest Little Rock on properties which have been developed at both lower and higher densities so that the Planning Commission and the objectors present would be able to picture in their minds the kind of development intended. There was the discussion of the improvements to be made to Hinson Road which finally included the construction of Hinson Road along this property in its entirety. Mr. Castin went over the concept plan which showed a 50-foot open space buffer along the north boundary of the property, an open space buffer on the east side of the property, a singular access point to Hinson Road, stressing that no access to Pebble Beach Park Subdivision would exist but that a possible future access might take place through an existing condominium development to the south tying those two projects together in some manner, and finally, that the property at the higher elevations on this project would be r' March 10, 1981 Item No. 1-A - Continued zoned open space as well. Phillip Dixon, attorney for the applicant, stated that a written agreement would be prepared which could be entered into by the City of Little Rock and the Homeowners Associations of both Pebble Beach Park and Longlea Subdivisions and the owner which would be recorded at the time the zoning of the property was approved. Several questions of both Mr. Castin, Mr. Dixon and the owner were raised by the Planning Commission involving specifically the price range of the units involved, which was stated to be between $100,000 and $125,000. Further questions on why multifamily development was preferably to single family development, to which the owner said that the terrain made the difference. There was a discussion of the sewer problems in the area. Floyd Fulkerson, the owner of the property, recapped the sewer agreements that had been made at the time the improvement district was formed and filed with the Planning Commission a letter from Jerry Gardner involving these agreements. A question was raised as to whether or not the neighboring property owners had had an opportunity to become involved in the project. Mr. Fulkerson said that an attempt was made to meet with the property owners, but because of pressing business that the property owners had, such a meeting had not been possible. The following people spoke in opposition to the request: Dick Downing John Plegge Rod Cameron John Peace Tom Oliver Richard Sawrie John Clayton Richard Bruce All spoke in opposition to the request citing a variety of issues including perceived devaluation of neighboring properties, floodplain issues, traffic issues, density and the sewer issue. Three of those spokespersons presented petitions of property owners whom they represented containing 95 owners out of 100 homes in Pebble Beach Subdivision, 264 signatures of opponents from Longlea Subdivision and 109 opponents of Marlowe Manor Subdivision. March 10, 1981 Item No. 1-A - Continued A lengthy discussion ensued on this proposal. Finally, there were agreements by the developer to the full street improvements at arterial standards on Hinson Road, -a 75-foot buffer along the northern boundary line and the covenant to the condominium development. The discussion continued to some degree. Finally, a motion was made as follows: Approval of the application with the "OS" districts as shown. The north 300 feet as "MF-6" and the balance of the property as "MF-12" with the condition that a covenant be filed which would limit the project to owner occupied housing, limit the density to the 200 or so units intended, dedication of the open space areas and Hinson Road improvements within three years or prior to the time the final plat is filed, whichever comes first. The motion was passed: 6 ayes, 1 no, 3 absent, 1 abstention (Robert Wright abstained). 11 March 10, 1981 Item No. 1-A - Z-3633 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: The West Little Rock Land Company Floyd Fulkerson Hinson Road, west side, just south of Pebble Beach Park Subdivision Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to 'IMF-12" Multifamily Condominium Development 37.5 Acres + Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" South - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" and "R-4" East - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" West - Vacant Unclassified PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS No adverse comments have been received from any reviewing agency, except the Waste Water Utility, which reminded us of the Maumelle Basin sewer capacity problems, specifically, the density question. With regard to the sewer issues, staff asked for specific details from the applicant regarding any density transfers proposed, and staff received a letter from Jerry Gardner, Manager of the Waste Water Utility, which indicated that the utility would not oppose their request for zoning which would permit the "MF-12" density, rovided the total 380 acres is developed as projected ( v Mr. gulkersonss consultants). Subsequent to the last meeting, the applicant has provided a letter covering the stipulation of transfer from Longlea and Pebble Beach Park Subdivisions, and a letter detailing the agreement made with Winrock Homes concerning sewer tie-ons in the 55 acres sold to that firm. In addition, Mr. Fulkerson has agreed to the following conditions: 1. Zoning of the north 50' of this property to "O-S" Open Space. 2. Zoning of all property lying above the present 470' elevation to "O-S" Open Space. March 10, 1981 Item No. 1-A - Continued 3. Inclusion of Lots 905 and 906, Longlea, Phase IX, into the OS zone, which will be along the Hinson Road frontage. 4. Zoning of the remaining north 300' of this property to "MF-6" Multifamily. 5. Zoning of the remainder of the property "MF-12" Multifamily. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval as agreed upon. COMMISSION ACTION This item was deferred from the February 24 Planning Commission meeting at the request of the developer. The applicant was present as were approximately 75 neighboring residents in opposition. ' The applicant, represented by John Castin, made a presentation which covered the several points. He stated that they were proposing a condominium development, and that in the course of discussions with staff they had made a number of compromises regarding open space, access to the property and the density of the development. He stated that open space now comprised roughly 25 percent of the total property. He stated that they were willing to covenant to a condominium development, that said development would have approximately 8 to 10 units per acre in density and cited examples of other condominium developments in west Little Rock on properties which have been developed at both lower and higher densities so that the Planning Commission and the objectors present would be able to picture in their minds the kind of development intended. There was the discussion of the improvements to be made to Hinson Road which finally included the construction of Hinson Road along this property in its entirety. Mr. Castin went over the concept plan which showed a 50-foot open space buffer along the north boundary of the property, an open space buffer on the east side of the property, a singular access point to Hinson Road, stressing that no access to Pebble Beach Park Subdivision would exist but that a possible future access might take place through an existing condominium development to the south tying those two projects together in some manner, and finally, that the property at the higher elevations on this project would be lio March 10, 1981 Item No. 1-A - Continued zoned open space as well. Phillip Dixon, attorney for the applicant, stated that a written agreement would be prepared which could be entered into by the City of Little Rock and the Homeowners Associations of both Pebble Beach Park and Longlea Subdivisions and the owner which would be recorded at the time the zoning of the property was approved. Several questions of both Mr. Castin, Mr. Dixon and the owner were raised by the Planning Commission involving specifically the price range of the units involved, which was stated to be between $100,000 and $125,000. Further questions on why multifamily development was preferably to single family development, to which the owner said that the terrain made the difference. There was a discussion of the sewer problems in the area. Floyd Fulkerson, the owner of the property, recapped the sewer agreements that had been made at the time the improvement district was formed and filed with the Planning Commission a letter from Jerry Gardner involving these agreements. A question was raised as to whether or not the neighboring property owners had had an opportunity to become involved in the project. Mr. Fulkerson said that an attempt was made to meet with the property owners, but because of pressing business that the property owners had, such a meeting had not been possible. The following people spoke in opposition to the request: Dick Downing John Plegge Rod Cameron John Peace Tom Oliver Richard Sawrie John Clayton Richard Bruce All spoke in opposition to the request citing a variety of issues including perceived devaluation of neighboring properties, floodplain issues, traffic issues, density and the sewer issue. Three of those spokespersons presented petitions of property owners whom they represented containing 95 owners out of 100 homes in Pebble Beach Subdivision, 264 signatures of opponents from Longlea Subdivision and 109 opponents of Marlowe Manor Subdivision. 4 March 10, 1981 Item No. 1-A - Continued A lengthy discussion ensued on this proposal. Finally, there were agreements by the developer to the full street improvements at arterial standards on Hinson Road, a 75-foot buffer along the northern boundary line and the covenant to the condominium development. The discussion continued to some degree. Finally, a motion was made as follows: Approval of the application with the "OS" districts as shown. The north 300 feet as "MF-6" and the balance of the property as "MF-12" with the condition that a covenant be filed which would limit the project to owner occupied housing, limit the density to the 200 or so units intended, dedication of the open space areas and Hinson Road improvements within three years or prior to the time the final plat is filed, whichever comes first. The motion was passed: 6 ayes, 1 no, 3 absent, 1 abstention (Robert Wright abstained). r"] 11 n May 15; 1997 ITEM NO.: 22A & 22B FILE NO.: S-1135-A & S-1135 NAME: Hinson Road Apartments - Site Plan Review (S-1135-A) - Preliminary Plat (S-1135) LOCATION: On the west side of Hinson Road, south of Pebble Beach Drive DEVELOPER• ENGINEER• MLP Investments Joe White 11780 Manchester Road White-Daters and Associates Des Peres, MO 63131 401 South Victory Street Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 40.0 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 1,180 ZONING: MF-6 PROPOSED USES: Multifamily Residential PLANNING DISTRICT: #19 Chenal CENSUS TRACT: 42.06 VARIANCES/WAIVERS_REQUESTED: None BACKGROUND• This application is for a site plan review and two lot preliminary plat on 40 undeveloped acres. A. PROPOSAL• The developer seeks approval to construct 234 multifamily residential units in one phase. The breakdown of the project unit count is as follows: • 234 units in 10 three-story buildings • 162 two bedrooms • 72 three bedrooms • 519 total parking spaces • 412 open spaces • 23 handicap • 84 garages (14 buildings) • clubhouse and pool May 15, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22A & 22B (Cont.) FILE NO.: S-1135-A & S-1135 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is vacant. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: The Marlow Manor and Hillsborough Neighborhood Association are the two closest to this site. They were both notified of the public hearing. To date they have not responded. Planning Staff has received 26 phone calls in response to the developer required noticing. All comments have been negative. A summary of comments include objection to any type of apartment development, three story units, and location of proposal new collector street. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: (S-1135-A Site Plan Review) 1. A grading permit and development permit for special flood hazard area are required prior to construction. National Pollutant Discharge System (NPDES) and grading permits are required prior to construction, site grading and drainage plan will need to be submitted and approved. 2. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 3. See comments from S-1135. 4. Cul-de-sacs are recommended to be 40 feet diameter pavement as required for residential streets. 5. An internal sidewalk plan should be shown connecting units to sidewalk construction on collector and Hinson Road. 6. This project will generate 2,340 trips per day. 7. Hinson Road has a 1995 average daily traffic count of 14,000. PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: (S-1135 Preliminary Plat) 1. A grading permit and development permit for special flood hazard area are required prior to construction. National Pollutant Discharge System (NPDES) and grading permits are required prior to construction, site grading and drainage plan will need to be submitted and approved. 2. Show turn out deceleration lanes that currently exist on Hinson Road. Reconstruct curb where existing turn -out is not to be utilized. 3. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 4. A dedication of right-of-way will be required to 45 feet from centerline for this 5 lane minor arterial with additional 12 feet of right-of-way behind the curb where 2 May 15, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22A & 22B (Cont.) _ FILE NO.: S-1135-A & S-1135 right -turn lane will be constructed for new collector street. 5. Add left turn lane into Hinson Road for proposed collector. The Master Street Plan calls for Hinson toad to be a 5 lane arterial, however, full widening is not recommended only that required for left and right turn lanes. 6. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 16,577. Provide in -lieu for sidewalk construction on frontage as approved by the Department of Public Works. 7. Sidewalks shall be shown conforming to Sec. 31-175 and the "MSP". 8. Show the following: a. Street cross sections of proposed collector street & Hinson Road at 100, stations. b. Street profiles showing existing and proposed centerlines. c. Direction of flow for water courses leaving the property. d. Drainage area size and runoff coefficient of watercourses entering the tract. e. Proposed ditch sections. f. Description of existing surface features including soil type and vegetation. g. Prepare letter for street lights as required by Sec. 31-403. h. Utility excavation within proposed rights -of -way shall be per Article V of Sec. 30. i. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 9. HEC Study, CORP, and FEMA approvals required for the bridge at Taylor Loop Creek. Dedicate easement for floodway. Provide for maintenance of open tracts. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT: Wastewater: (Site Plan Review) - Capacity contribution analysis required. (Preliminary Plat) - Sewer available, not AP&L: No response. adversely affected. Arkla: OK Southwestern Bell: Easements required. Water: On site fire protection will be required. On site facilities will be private. A public water main adjacent to the proposed collector may be required. Backflow prevention will be required on fire and domestic services. Fire Department: Require 50 foot radius and show fire hydrant. 3 May 15, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22A & 22B Cont. FILE NO.: S-1135-A & S-1135 F. ISSC]ES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Landscape Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet and exceed ordinance requirements. Areas not screened from adjacent single-family properties by existing natural vegetation will be required to have additional screening. This can be with dense evergreen plantings or an opaque wood fence with its face directed outward. Curb and gutter or another approved border will be required to protect landscaped areas from vehicular traffic. Issues• * Place vicinity map on Site Plan Review exhibit. • Provide signage and lighting plan. Planning Division: N/A G. ANALYSIS: The site plan review and preliminary plat conform to the appropriate sections of the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance. No variances, waivers, or deferrals are requested by the developer. The existing MF-6 has predetermined the type of residential uses and density appropriate for this site. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: APPROVAL of the request as submitted and subject to conditions listed in paragraphs D, E and F of this staff report. Approval is based on revised exhibits dated April 30, 1997 by Planning Staff. Separate action is required by the Planning Commission for the Site Plan Review (S-1135-A) and Preliminary Plat (S-1135) requests. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: Joe white represented the development. and information on architectural style. Bob Brown to leave all buffer areas as Planning Staff requested a lighting and (APRIL 24, 1997) Staff request elevations There was a request by "natural open space". signage plan. 4 May 15, 1997 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 22A & 22B Cont. FILE NO.: S-1135-A & S-1135 The items was referred to the Planning Commission meeting on May 15, 1997 for consideration. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 15, 1997) Larry Jones explained that the applicant had requested a withdrawal of the site plan review and preliminary plat at 1:40 p.m. Thursday afternoon. He stated that the Commission would have to suspend their By-laws to accept this request. There was no public hearing. Motion to suspend By-laws. Motion passed with 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. Motion to accept the applicant's request to withdraw the site plan review and preliminary plat. Motion passed with 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 5