Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3682 Staff AnalysisApril 28, 1981 Item No. 11 - Z-3682 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Pleasant Valley, Inc. Garver & Garver Engineers (Ronnie Hall) Immediately north of the Water Works, Pleasant Valley Plant Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "MF -12" Multifamily Condominium development 11.27 acres + Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" South - Water Works, Zoned "R-2" East - I-430, Zoned "R-2" West - Single Family and Vacant, Zoned "R-2" and "0-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS No adverse comments have been received from any reviewing agency. However, the Waste Water Utility stated that running a sewer to this property would be difficult because of the necessity of traversing the 72 inch water main which crosses the property on the western end. The proposed use of the land is compatible with the Suburban Development Plan in the sense that it is shown as part of a much larger tract of single family attached use. The plan, when adopted, assumed that this area of single family attached dwellings would be accessed from the north or directly from Rodney Parham Road. This proposal, being limited to the very south and east edges of the tract shown on the plan has only one true point of access and that is through Rocky Valley Road. Neighbors have always opposed using this access, and staff finds that the intersection of Rocky Valley and Rodney Parham Road has some severe sight distance problems which would likely generate additional traffic on Happy Valley Drive, as residents of the proposed condominium project seek other routes of access to avoid the difficulties of the direct access point. April 28, 1981 Item Noy -11 :�(antinued "MF -12" density would permit about 130 units to be constructed on this property; however, staff understands that a much lower density of 54 units is proposed, approximately 4.5 units per acre. The shape of the site and its narrow width serve to produce significant development problems. The site plan will be presented to the Planning Commission at the Public Hearing. Staff believes the best method of developing this property in its present configuration is through the planned unit development process. This process would permit conditioning various elements of the development so as to offset any problems associated with it. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that this application be converted to the planned unit development process. COMMISSION ACTION: Fred Harrison, an attorney for Pleasant Valley, Inc., made a brief opening statement representing the applicant. He introduced Ralph Bozeman, architect, who stated that he had worked on the project having been told that this development should be as good or better than Country Place condominium project to the east. He showed the site plan and some elevations of the proposed dwelling units and described the site plan, talked about the proposed facilities, stated that 54 units were being proposed with two car garages and ranging in size from 1500 square feet to 2300 square feet. A number of questions were asked relative to the site plan, and then Mr. Harrison introduced a planner, Jim Vontungeln who evaluated the site plan from a planning standpoint as an outside consultant and discussed briefly with the Commission the existing land use in the area and the compatibility that he saw with the proposal and the Suburban Development Plan, surrounding land uses and usual planning principles. Mr. Harrison then introduced Ronnie Hall with Garver and Garver who stated that he had prepared a single family development sketch plat of the property which showed that he could produce approximately 40 lots of Ordinance minimum size which could generate some 392 vehicle trips per day as opposed to the 54 condominiums which would, under the officially recognized figures, produce only 7 additional trips per day. He showed the Planning Commission his sketch of the single family subdivision from which he had taken his fugures. April 28, 1981 Item No. 11 - Continued Mr. Harrison then summed up the applicant's argument for the case, amended the application from "MF -12" to "MF -6" and stated that they would covenant to the 54 units. He further stated that the applicant did not wish to follow the planned unit development route indicating that the time and the cost elements were excessive with the probability of a great deal of risk that would be associated with the case. There were 24 people present indicating their opposition to the proposal. Bill Haskell, a Rocky Valley Drive resident, made a lengthy presentation citing what he saw as the disruption of the peace and quietude expected in a single family neighborhood, the lowering of property values, the change in the neighborhood character, traffic factors, etc. Several other individuals spoke following roughly the same lines. They were Mrs. Keyes, Dr. Roy Melvin and Mrs. Tom Brokal. There was a lengthy discussion of all of the issues. Finally, the Planning Commission moved to approve the application as amended for "MF -6." The motion failed on a vote of 0 ayes, 11 noes.