Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4163-A Staff AnalysisJune 112, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER: Greenleaf Management & Development Company 2415 Magnum, Suite 105 Houston, TX 77092 ARCHITECT: William Worthen, Jr. Houston, TX AREA: 6.4 acres r St. Croix "PRD" (Z -4163-A) Northwest corner of Rodney Parham and West Capitol ENGINEER/APPLICANT: Edward G. Smith & Associates 401 Victory Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 374-1666 NO. OF LOTS: 1 FT. OF NEW ST.: 0 ZONING: PRD for 158 units PROPOSED USES: Multifamily A. Site History The Yorktowne Apartments "PRD" proposal was very recently approved for this site. B. Developmental Concej2t The applicant is proposing the development of a high qualty project which has a high rent structure, adequate parking, good landscaping, and is compatible with the neighborhood. The units will be housed in 13 two-story buildings. There also is a community building containing an office and large activity room. A large swimming pool with spa and a sports court with basketball and racketball courts round out the recreation package. The exterior of the buildings will be approximately 75% brick with wood siding covering the remaining 25%. Fireplaces will be provided with each two-bedroom unit. Washers, dryers, ice makers, dishwashers, disposals, electric ranges and ovens will be standard in all units. All units are to be fully carpeted, except for kitchen and bath and will have 9' ceilings. June 12, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item -No,.. -5 - Continued C. Proposal 1. The construction of 154 units on a 6.4 acre site. 2. Unit Sq. Ft. Type Number Unit Total A 48 561 26,928 B 24 645 15,840 C 34 1,042 35,428 D 48 1,010 48,480 Total 154 126,316 Boiler, Laundry and Office........... 4,000 3. The provision of 231 parking spaces. 4. Schedule nf Areas Acres Percent Site 6.44 100 Buildings 2.11 32.75% Private Open Space Nil Common Open Space 4.33 Non -Usable Open Space Mill 5. Landspacing includes heavily planted buffer areas and the construction of 6' fences on all property lines, except right-of-way line. D. Engineering Comments 1. Dedicate right-of-way and improve West Capitol to residential street standards. 2. Submit internal drainage plan to City Engineer's Office for approval; special emphasis will be gvien to limiting water flow into the Sunnymeade Subdivision. 3. Close driveways that will not be used on Rodney Parham. E. Analysis Staff is supportive of this project; however, it does not qualify as a short -form PUD as requested by the applicant since it is in excess of five acres. It June 12, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - Continued must be reviewed according to the long -form process. Staff feels that this project is superior to the previous proposal relative to design and density. The number of units proposed is four less than originally proposed. F. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to comments made. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The plan was reviewed by the Commission. It was determined that the layout was superior to the original plan; however, it does not include as much buffer and the concrete wall as was previously approved on the west side. Ms. Cindy Bowers, landscape architect, presented a landscape plan utilizing an inter -weaving concept, which she feels is more advantageous than just a straight buffer. The applicant felt that this landscaping proposal and the orientation of the size of the buildings to the property line on the west side minimized the impact on the neighborhood. The issues were identified as: (1) the submission of an internal drainage plan; (2) closing of driveways on Rodney Parham; (3) buffer issue; (4) Fire Department approval; and (5) orientation of lighting away from the neighborhood. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The developer, engineer and landscape architect for the project were present. Members of the Sunnymeade neighborhood were present. Their spokespersons were a Mr. Smith, Mr. David Ables of 415 Sunnymeade, and a gentleman from 307 Sunnymeade. The major concern expressed regarded the absence of the concrete wall that was proposed at the western property boundary on the previously approved project on the site. It was felt that the wall was necessary to prevent drainage problems, deter pedestrian traffic, and prevent a litter problem. Mr. Smith expressed a desire for security lighting, even though he still preferred that the lights not be directed toward the neighborhood. The developer felt that the concrete wall was not necessary since the concrete swale on the western property line inside the 6' fence would take care of most of the drainage problems. The City Engineering staff agreed with the developer. Mr. Ables tried to convince the June 12, 1984 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 5 - Continued Commission that such a proposal would not contain the water when it actually rained. He felt that the Commission would be convinced also if they could actually see the results of a rainfall. A motion was made for approval of the plan, subject to staff comments. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent.